I think a large problem with the old crit system was that it was perma crit which required a complete withdrawal to repair. It might be less extreme if they are temporary debuff instead of semi permanent critical. More along the lines of wounded crew than destroyed components |
Details are very important, they make the game complete and give pleasure. The Falls originally designed in detail: skins, weapons, voices. All that the Soviet Airborne Forces has only a name - it does not give spirit.
Well then petition relic to open up the full extent of the mod tools otherwise it's not heppening. I find it hard to believe that someone is complaining that free official content made by the community in a 7year old game isn't detailed enough for them. The spirit is there, you just don't want to see it because there's no parachutes. |
What spirit are you talking about? The mere absence of a parachute and skins for Paratroopers kills the spirit of the Airborne Forces. There is nothing in the commander of the Airborne Forces, neither in spirit nor in ability..
When falls didn't Para in their commander was still a fallschirmjäger commander. Just because the Soviet paras don't airdrop in doesn't mean this isn't. It's a video game. Use your imagination. At any rate, like ALL of the Airborne commanders, this one focuses on infantry combat with air support. Not premium armor. You can complain about a detail caused by dev limitations all you want but that spirit is still there |
That's like saying if you buy an mg34 for obers you won't have enough munitions for spec ops flares and a bundled grenade.
Its saying that if it's going to be used they would need to make it count and it certainly isn't spammable. They would be competing with resources with - the DP28s, SVTs, DSHK drop, med crates, Supression strafe, oorah, mines, at nades ect ect. This is a muni heavy commander, which is why the ppshs are attractive when using the guards--no extra munitions cost.
It's one of the Soviets most muni thirsty commanders adding more to it wouldn't make it less thirsty but it would make a MUCH more expensive upgrade more attractive. Yea it would make the strafe stronger, but to do so it would be taking 130mu out of the bank first. |
@SkysTheLimit I really think that the discussion of all tanks having greatly increased short range pen fits in well with this one. I sincerely don't think that a max range shot on the ass of a kv-1 should be a guaranteed pen for a p4, but point blank (or a bit out) should be, like so for say a t34/tiger. It would allow units designed to be durable to be countered with appropriate risk while retaining their decisive traits if used properly. |
I'm not saying its a huge issue, my entire point is that I don't see a reason for ANY unit to deflect shots that hit its rear armor
You can qualify the scenarios however you like, all I'm saying is rear armor shouldn't deflect tank shots, no matter what the scenario. I dont really care whether one is "less of an issue", rear armor simply shouldn't be deflecting shots from anything larger than a t70 imo
Well yes, but also no. You start like that and your still going to have whining because axis rear would have to be lower to accommodate the t34, which means even the T70 would have an alright chance. I think as long as the chance is reasonable considering the role of the tank we will be fine. Tanks designed to soak damage shouldnt be negated entirely considering the way pathing can be already. I'd say as long as it's at least a 75% chance to pen were in a good range of reliability for these specific types of units. I'd be happy to have a panther buff to compensate (pen could afford to go up as it wouldn't effect anything but the high armour units anyways) but I don't feel like a p4 should be guaranteed enough to beat down a meat shield anymore than I feel a t34 would if the axis had a meat shield. The units that should be "exempt" fr the hard ruling on pen, imo, should be the ones who's main job is to be a hard nut and pay for that with a heavy cost increase over their standard gun counterpart. |
For truly airborne abilities, we need new tools to add things to the game like:
- real skins
- other weapons like PPS-43 and DT-29
- T-38 or T-40 tank which were in the airborne tank battalions
- 37 mm airborne gun
- 76 mm mountain cannon
Without new tools, these are just attempts to somehow fit the theme with existing abilities.
We don't necessarily need a "true" airborne commander, but the 85s would take away from the spirit of the commander. Which is decidedly not armour |
I really don't like 85s in the airborne commander. I'd rather see more commanders that make use of the Soviet core rather than replacing as much of it as possible every time. |
I think it's more of a matter how the tank stands to deliver its damage. For example,the brum hits and can fall back, no need to stick around or ability to chase so low rear armour is sort of a balance for its low "in the fray" time so to speak.
Kv-8is supposed to chase OR be up close of using its 45mm so it's higher rear armour makes sense even from a balance perspective. If you can get yer ass poked by a 222 it takes the piss out of a unit that's supposed to be up in the enemies guts.
The KV1 is a boat load more expensive than a t34/76 for the same offensive stats, I'm not terribly concerned that paying like 50% more all for increased durability makes the tank more durable than average...
The KV-2 could probably afford to lose some ass armour but the other 2 are less of an issue imo. Not design wise, balance wise or least of all historically,not that the latter matters so much but as a factor it checks out |
I feel like button with the AT rocket strafe would be too good, you already get good value sacrificing a T-34 ram with it.
40 munitions instead of 300mp and 90fuel would be a complete steal.
Give the DP guards "Fire superiority" since it synergizes better with them, and give the PPSH guards sprint- or a "Reload" ability which would force a reload and readies them for the next engagement. The potential for such an ability is quite good.
40mu ontop of the 90(?) for the upgrade ontop of the at strafe. It's cheaper on paper, but more expensive in the sense it's competing for the same resources in a commander that also has SVTs which are great. All about economy my dude. |