|
Wipey-ness issue surrounding AVRE and Sturmtiger extends to many other abilities in the game:
- AVRE
- Sturmtiger
- Demo Paks
- Goliath
- Stuka Dive bomb
An idea to make these things less wipey, but at the same time, allow them to bleed enemy blobs is the following:
- Reduce raw AoE damage
- Add a critical chance to kill infantry models instantly, depending on range
Thus:
- Between range 0 and 3, all models die (due to raw damage)
- Between range 3 and 5, each model has a 50% chance to die (otherwise, it just takes damage)
- Between range 5 and 8, each model has 25% chance to die
- Ideally, Sturmtiger/AVRE/Stuka-dive bomb could use a small scatter penalty to avoid the issues surrounding pinpoint accuracy.
Heavy blobbers will still receive a massive amount of MP bleed and, some of their squads even have a chance of getting wiped. However, using any of those units/abilities against lone squads will most likely ending up hurting you more, than the enemy.
Range distances and chance percentages are arbitrary, until somebody implements this into a mod and actually tests it.
|
|
Both units behave like the demo-pack; which means that their design is stupid.
Regardless, the damage of the shell between the two units is worlds apart. This is, literally, like comparing the Puma cannon to the JT cannon.
AVRE:
- 440 damage
- 150 penetration (i.e., has a chance to bounce even on a sherman)
- ~5 lethal radius (kills all infantry within that radius)
Sturmtiger:
- 640 damage (one-shots tanks)
- 1000 penetration (guaranteed penetration)
- 8 lethal radius
- guaranteed wipe on all garrisons within 8 meters
- Inflicts a random critical
iirc (it's been a while, can somebody verify the chances?):
- 10% chance: Main gun destroyed; permanent until repaired
- 20%: heavy engine damage; permanent until repaired
- 30%: immobilize; permanent until repaired
- 40%: crew shock (4 secs)
Thus; the Sturmtiger is actually the game's most preeminent tank-destroyer, and the meta has finally managed to keep up with it:
- Even if you can't oneshoot the tank (say Churchill), the random critical will guarantee that you will score a kill, regardless.
- It is a nightmare to fight against the Sturmtiger in an urban environment (the thing can shoot through buildings, which obstruct your vision)
IMO:
- The AVRE needs a hold fire ability. It's impossible to use this unit in any realistic combat capacity since the turret rotates like a roflcopter. This is long overdue.
- The Sturmtiger could be allowed to retain its alpha damage. However, the permanent criticals are just too much. They need to go; the Sturmtiger has no business killing heavy tanks.
- Prices would have to change to reflect the units' performance. IMO the AVRE is already too cheap fuel-wise, and the ST is way too cheap.
|
|
I think going for an aura effect to improve the synergy between two unit types will be a huge mistake:
- There are already many things in the game that punish non-blobbing
- We don't want to further add more incentives to reward blobbing
A better way to improve the synergy between two unit types is to give them active, pay-to-use abilities that complement each other.
- e.g., if Panzer Tactician would allow Ostheer tanks to fire smoke shells/mortars to a remote location (rather than a cheap get-out-of-jail card), that would help them better cover PGren advances
- Alternatively, if PGrens could repair tanks/detect mines that would help tanks do their role (don't actually do this!)
- .. or give PGrens the ability to permanently disable abandoned AT guns (given that Ost has hard time recrewing things)
Moreover, designing an aura/ability that allows somebody to completely bypass the mechanics of cover will be a massive boost mindless a-move blobbing. Cover mechanics and bonuses are there to reward careful positioning.
Finally, if you give such an aura to PGrens, what chance would anybody have of stopping a PGren blob buffed by a command P4 in open portions of the map (where you have little cover, and they get the aura; just like that, for free)?
|
There is nothing wrong with mill bombs(British based). Id also argue the Churchill is fine as well. The only reason we don't see it is due to the fact comet is miles better.
The problem with Brit nades is that it seems to be tallied up to the total cost for teching. This means that Brit mainline tech costs are comparably lower to other factions.
Brit nade tech is also way too overpriced for what it offers (a short-range grenade for a squad that bleeds like a pig in short-range and can't flank for shit?). This means that nade tech is skipped 100% of the time, and Brits just go for a fast Cromwell.
- Just make nade tech cheaper (to make it a near-no-brainer) and throw the rest of the tech cost back into the mainline tech tree. You -want- to make Brits purchase the side-tech to delay their tanks.
As long as side-tech is so expensive for what it offers, people will skip it in a gamble for getting their actual stronger units out.
Anvil Churchill feels like it's in a near-perfect spot right now (remember; for any unit that seems crappy when you build it, try going for two). It just needs a reduction to smoke projector speed penalty (say from 50% to 25%); it's already the slowest tank in the game.
Popcap could also go slightly down to differentiate it from the other Churchills (all variants are at 18 pop). However, that won't make a big difference unless all heavies get their popcap readjusted to reflect their actual performance.
|
This may have some truth to it in team games. But In 1v1s Wehrmacht T4 is a rarity, unlike russian T4. So the cost doesn't match because you'll invest plenty just to have access to it. Not sure how you match the qualities of PW and Katyusha against one another as they are very different in terms of how they work.
You are right. Teching is an externality we should consider.
Moreover, the performance disparity between the Katyusha and the Panzerwerfer (with the Panzerwerfer being the better of the two) isn't that noticeable to even worth stating.
Nevertheless, the statement "Katyusha > Panzerwerfer" is plainly misinformed. The sole purpose of me pointing this out was to break that illusion.
It's one thing pointing out that the Calliope still hasn't received appropriate nerfs by comparing it to the Panzerwerfer (as the OP has done).
It's a completely different thing trying to, incorrectly, lump the Katyusha on the same sack as the Calliope/Land-mattress to nag for Panzerwerfer buffs.
|
Honda Accord vs BMW 3 series.
One is clearly better
One is clearly more expensive
One is more luxury and powerful
One out numbers the other 10 to 1 on the road.... I'm sure you get my point there...
No, I clearly don't.
Both Katyusha and Panzerwerfer cost the exact same amount of resources (MP/FU/Popcap), and yet Panzerwerfer is still a bit better than the Katyusha.
I am not going to respond to further post of yours in this thread, unless you explicitly state what it is that makes Katyusha better than the Panzerwerfer.
|
Decrease reload time
Increase durability
Increase lethality
... Katusha all out perform werfers, in terms of cost per the unit and kills outcome.
1. Just no..
- Panzerwerfer rockets are (slightly) stronger than Katyusha rockets
- ... they come down almost instantly
- ... they still instapin.
Do you have any stats/first-hand experience/whatever to back your claim up?
2. Alpha-strike long-range one-hit-wipe wonders are cancerous.
We've already been experiencing this from September 2015 to March 2016 (?). There is no need to repeat the mistakes of the recent past... again.
|
|
In my opinion, the Calliope should use the firing pattern of the Land Mattress:
- fire a lot of (weaker) rockets
- force the enemy to evacuate the area
- but don't outright kill them
The problem with the Land Mattress and the Calliope are that they are way too durable. Even if you overextend, the enemy just can't hope to dive in to kill. This is primarily because the Axis factions lack proper flanking units.
If OKW/OST had access to T34/76s, this problem would never exist. Instead they have:
- Stug/JP4, which don't have turrets
- P4, which is non-cost-efficient and, even then, can bounce on the Calliope
- The Panther, which is sub-optimal for engaging soft targets
- The Puma, which lacks the penetration at range
Personally, I don't see why the Calliope should be more durable than the Jackson (perhaps it should be even less durable).
|
Plus, having a 5th model means not losing 25% of the squad's overall firepower if a model dies, which seems to be working for the rest of the mainline infantry squads so far.
Technically, this is incorrect. For LMG grens losing a single model will only degrade their DPS by, about, 16%.
Grenadiers seem to have been designed in a way that their rifles deal decent damage, and LMG42 deals massive damage (and accounts for about 50% of the squad's DPS). That way, even a depleted squad will be able to punch above their weight.
|
I will most likely make it 210/260mp.
With a 210/260 cost it will be cheaper for the player to first amass a group of Sapper squads, and then do the upgrade.
The difference between the two should, probably, not exceed the reinforcement cost. You should be incentivising people to research the 5-man upgrade earlier; not later!
|
0
Romeo
Mr Smith
Luciano
Mr Smith
Relic Entertainment
