Actually, grens have higher EHP then rifles vs small arms. 7% higher I believe?
Vet 0 and Vet 1 (no defensive bonuses)
Grens: 4x80/0.91 = 351.65 ehp
Rifles: 5x80/0.97 = 412.37 ehp
Rifles have 17.26% more ehp
Rifles Vet 2 (-23% RA): 5x80/(0.97/1.23) = 507.22 ehp
Grens Vet 2: same as vet 1, since there's no defensive bonuses = 351.65 ehp
Rifles have 44.2% more ehp
Rifles Vet 3 (-23% and -15% RA): 5x80/((0.97/1.23)/1.15) = 583.3 ehp
Grens vet 3 (-20% DR): 4x80/0.91x1.2 = 421.98 ehp
Rifles have 38.23% more ehp
What's higher? 3 times 30 or 4 times 28?
Take all time you need to do the math. Don't confuse it with meth this time.
Could say the same thing about HP-pool: 4x80 vs. 5x80.
Close the pocket is one of those abilities I think should have never been added to the game, just in principle; but the difficulty of actually using the ability to its full effect almost completely offsets its insane power level.
On one hand, you need to successfully neutralize at least two points at the same time without your opponent stopping you, which that can easily be stopped by caches or other things, and you need to keep those two points neutral (or cap them) for the entire duration of the ability... but on the other hand, it's a 1-click, self-spotting, "arty the entire map" ability.
Realistically, as OP pointed out, it only works against "low skill" players. Case-in-point, I think I've seen the ability used exactly once (successfully) in games where the players were all in the top ~250.
However, without completely changing the ability, I'm not sure how you make this ability fair (to both sides) while keeping its theme. Perhaps lower the cost, but have it only affect the front-line sectors which are cut-off, instead of every cut-off sector? Or maybe change it so that it only work on the neutral sectors themselves, but at a much lower cost?
It's sort of like adding a call-in called the "Turbo Tiger"; It costs 1,000mp and 1,000 fuel, takes 50 pop, and can only be built if you have no other vehicles, but has 70 range, the armor of a JT, and is faster than an M36. It's crazy OP, but you'd never see it.
Removing Vision would solve the problem; Therefore youd still need scouting or the use of another scouting effect.
It only gives a small vision buff to flagpoles and it doesn't target units in the FoW. It mostly relies on either friendly units to spot or sight from the flag poles.
However I figured out that the flag pole sight buff from Anvil Tactics stacks with the flag pole sight buff from PO and can make most of friendly territory visible in smaller maps because flagpoles get like 40 vision in total when PO is active with Anvil researched. Which is a pretty big problem to be honest as it does essentially make the ability mostly self-spotting.
Seems like the issue is resolved, then? Fixing the "stacking" between anvil and the ability would remove the vast majority of the self-spotting, which would bring it inline with most similar abilities.
It would also remove the point of the ability, there would be no reason what so ever over using any other offmap.
Have you checked the name and theme of the commander yet?
A bug/oversight shouldn't be the reason an ability is good or bad. The amount of LOS it provides in optimal situations is absurd.
Also, justifying a doc over-performing because of the name/theme isn't a good idea. Can we replace all the strafes with loiters in OST's "Close Air Support" doc? It would fit the theme/name better.
No it wouldn't, vision is not the point of the ability. Vision is the point of early warning flares, which is on the same commander
All other abilities that do the targeting for you do not spot for themselves
Early Warning Flares are another problematic ability. Massive uncounterable vision, but uncontrollable where it goes. it feels bad for both sides.
Flares, in general, need to be removed. Zero-counterplay vision doesn't fit the game.
There is counterplay due to how the guns operate, they will target the unit barraging closest. So by using a dummy mortar you can shield any howitzer behind it.
One howitzer 30muni barrage even in range will not reliably kill or decrew a lefh. You need two howitzers for good odds to decrew so 60muni + not bring able to build units. Then the axis can return and repair/recrew.
Axis howitzers can already counter barrage at vet1, it's not op
Brit counter battery can already target howitzers on most 1vs1 maps and even small 2vs2 maps. It's not OP
Yet in 4vs4 it can't hit leigs in the middle of some maps like steppes... It needs a range buff
The difference is, UKF's counter-barrage can't be destroyed. If an LeFH is bothering you with its counter-barrage, simply recon+off map it, and its gone - as is the ability. A new LeFH (or crew) would need to get to vet 1 again to use counter-barrage. However, UKF's 25lbs are in the base sector, meaning they can't be off-mapped. They're also part of the base structure itself, so even if you do hit it with on-map, it won't be decrewed or destroyed.
So it's a trade-off; less 'usable' range and a small cost, in exchange for it being indestructible.
As for "baiting" a counter-barrage with a mortar; it wouldn't actually work. There's no indication that the UKF player has selected counter-barrage, until its already firing. That means you'd need to preemptively fire a mortar closer to the UKF's base every single time you wanted to use your LeFH, simply do avoid an uncounterable, cheap, one-click ability. Also, I'm fairly certain the LeFH barrage lasts longer than a mortar barrage, so you'd need to either attack-ground with the mortar the entire time, or have two mortars; otherwise the UKF player could wait for the mortar to stop, before clicking the button.
I'm not sure about the stat/cost changes, but I absolutely agree that no mainline should be able to build sandbags. Voted yes.
I think aura heals are pretty dumb outside base sector. Especially Brit ones which are super spammable. I’d rather see a cost reduction on the gren kits. You don’t ever use them unless you have 4+ models anyways.
The more reinforcement and healing gets moved outside
the base, the less impactful retreating (and so, forcing retreats) becomes.
Not atm, we self are not sure. It all belongs to relic.
Only known fact is, there will be a hotfix coming again and some changes to brit again.
But don't ask me when^^.
That's understandable, and thanks for letting us know.
However, with updates/patches in the future (for example, a summer/fall patch?), knowing the 'scope' beforehand would really help ease communication between the general community, the balance team and Relic. Communication surrounding the last patch was, imo, not that great; and it seems to have caused a lot of frustration in the community (which I think everyone wants to avoid).
Even a relatively small announcement (before the patch started testing) similar to this would go a long way:
"We're working on a new patch, with the goal of addressing (Unit Types). We're not looking to redesign these units entirely, so we're limiting changes to moderate buffs and nerf. This patch also won't be addressing doctrines.
Ram + off map needs to go. Considering off maps are largely fine on their own the balance team really needs to look into ram. Losing heavy tanks to two clicks of a button is retarded and there is nothing that can be done about it. And no you can't reliably keep your tanks from being rammed even though rank 1000 Allied mains think so.
Either the range needs to be decreased on ram, or there needs to be a a 'wind-up' time, or the stun needs to last less time, or it needs to be interruptible (taking damage cancels the ram, for example). Right now, even with absolutely perfect reaction time, there is a good chance that once the opponent clicks "ram", there is nothing the axis player can do, which means that the targeted vehicle is effectively destroyed.
The Ele starts reversing before
the T34 starts its ram. You can't faust the T34 because its at full HP, and once it does take damage (which allows the faust to snare), the T34 has already started the "ram" (which can't be snared). Once it does hit, the Ele starts moving instantly
and still can't escape the off-map.
Basically, in that clip, for any chance of counter-play, the OST player needs to hit the T34 with AT and then also fire off a faust, all BEFORE
the Ram starts. That window There's no opportunity for counter-play.
Land mattress dies in two tank or Pak shots
When the targeting on the LM got changed they should have reduced pack up time now it can be killed so quick. It's kind of lame right now
Yes, but every other rocket-arty is destroyed by a direct hit from on-map arty - the LM is not.
OUT OF SCOPE!
(I agree with most of the wishes btw)
If you know what the size of the 'scope' is, let us know. Its hard to make suggestions when there's no solid understanding of what can and can't be done.
Some really good ideas here. I'd vote "yes to all" except for:
- land mattress reinforce cost from 45 to 22. (De-)Setup time buffed. These last 2 points are to address the brits' atrocious indirect fire situation in teamgames
The land-mattress reinforce cost is a trade-off for it not
being destroyed as easily. All other mobile on-map arty (rocket/regular/etc.) is extremely fragile; and can be completely destroyed with most off-maps, direct hits with on-map, or a dive with a cheap unit. The land-mattress, while it can be easily decrewed, cannot
be easily destroyed - thus, the resource investment is a lot more safe (you're paying for the weapon, not the crew). If the weapon's health itself
was decreased to match a Stuka, for example, then this would be fine. Basically; yes, if a direct hit by on-map arty destroys the crew and
weapon - no, otherwise.
- green flares added to the royal arty recon flares so the enemy can notice it more easily.
- spec ops recon flares now drop 3 green flares in the area so the enemy can notice it more easily.
It would be better to replace both with either a recon pass or recon loiter. Zero-counter recon just doesn't fit the game.
Pack howitzer is fine.
No, it's not. Its currently an inconsistent RNG wiping machine. Its both incredibly frustrating to use, and to play against.
In general, I'd say trucks are fine; but it could be interesting to add a copy of UKF's "brace" to them. Emplacements and trucks are relatively similar in terms of 'damage dealing' and utility, and they're both static structures - might as well even it out a bit.
It'd be better if they removed the ability to place trucks forward and just made the trucks refund on setup. Forward trucks have always been cheesey gimmicks.
The flack truck, maybe; but the rest, no. The only way this could happen is if all
FHQ healing/reinforcing structures/abilities were removed. The Mech-Truck is the only source of non-engineer repairing for the entire Axis side (compared to Sov repair stations and UKF forward assembly), and the med-truck is the only non-muni based healing source for Axis (except the 251 and Vet), compared to USF's Ambulance, Sov's FHQ, and UKF's Forward Assembly + Medics. It's also the only source of 'out-of-base' reinforcement for OKW.
Removing the Med/Mech trucks from the field would severely impact Axis' ability to keep up map pressure, especially in larger team games.