Profile of Serrith

The unit does pay for itself.

No one uses it, because its not in overpowered meta doctrine.

I disagree. The unit is underwhelming. Its hard to fit it into army compositions 1v1 or otherwise. If it were a standard P4 with an aura it might be used.

In the last part about ammo racks exploding, if your not trolling, what the hell?
A main gun crit, wich does not destroy the tank is the same as getting one shotted with ammo rack explosions how?
Again how is getting your commander wrecked for the duration of the game in any way simaler to a gun getting destroyed on a tank wich can be repaired?

Ammo rack detonations exist in wargames. If you've played warthunder or any of wargamings titles you'll be familiar with them. Its a good example as the more competitive or performance based players dislike them as a mechanic while more casual players prefer the "realism".

The point was that if RNG like main gun destroyed or planes crashing into and destroying your troops is ok, at what point does it not become ok. Because its been said that RNG is what sets apart CoH from other strategy games, if this is the case why wouldn't relic double down on this strength?
I mean the bigger the RNG "payout" the bigger the impact, the more interesting to experience it. For that matter, why not have commander selection be random? It would force the players to adapt, and that would be good wouldnt it?




For me, rng like main gun crits or planes crashing is something entirely out of the player's ability to influence. That aspect of the RNG is something I have an issue with. But I dont have an inherent issue with rng in its entirety.
For example, its true that when you fire a katyusha, the shots are going to be randomly dispersed within the barrage indicator. But you can reduce the maximum shot deviation by moving the katyusha closer. This creates a risk vs reward scenario that adds depth and rewards player skill. This is an example of how rng can be implemented well.

The bit about the unit preservation i messed up. What i meant was (i disagree with @sander93 here) that it and rng including all the extra rng are the stapels of the series, no other series has the extra rng, that is why it defines coh, you cant name any other game that has them to this extent.

A lot has already been toned down or put into custom games etc. and more seem to like it (to an extent) then dislike it. you are not asking other rng to be removed but you also said: its unfortunatly to late to remove accuracy from the game, it shoudnt even have been put in in the first place.... its no wonder me and some others question if this is the right game for you.

you also need to look up what a compromise is "my way or the highway" is no compromise, not even close.

i am not against toning down rng crits such as main gun crits they, just dont remove them, air plane crash damage shoud be reverted so it actualy hurts btw. I also do like compremises such as sander has made, that certain threshhold need to be met for it to happen in most engagements.

One thing I'm not sure about is whether or not people like just having an RNG chance for something(anything) to occur, or if its just specifically main gun crits are cool.

Because If its just that you want rng of any type, couldn't you just swap out "main gun crit" for "chance to lock turret for 2 seconds" or "chance to knock out pintle gunner"-something that will be less impactful.
Or if its the semi realistic concept of Main guns being damaged that you like, why does it have to be attached to rng? Wouldnt a predictable but complex set of conditions to replace the rng actually increase the depth of the game, not water it down?



If main gun crits were replaced with a less punishing rng effect, It would be a fair compromise to me.
And if the main gun crits stayed but became a conditional and exploitable but predictable mechanic, I would also be ok with this as a compromise.

....

There is RNG who's chances can be directly influenced and RNG that can't.

Accuracy is going to be RNG almost no matter what(unless your "chance to hit" is at least 100%), but you can control HOW accurate your unit is by changing the distance between it and its target, by ordering it to stop moving, by applying ability buffs such as For Mother Russia.

Main gun crits currently cannot be controlled or effected by the attacking player. There is no way to increase your chance to crit ON ATTACKS if you are attacking, or decrease the chance to crit if you are defending.



A similar situation exists in world of warships and world of tanks. Ammunition detonations have a very low chance to simply one shot the player when struck. Both WoT and WoWS are full of RNG, but its RNG that has many instances in a single battle which means a player will usually end up with an average of sorts.
Nobody is really bothered if a panzergrenadier misses 10 shots in a row because he may well fire 5,000 rounds a match. It's going to even out eventually.

Main gun crits are at an unpredictable percentage with no way for the players to really govern the frequency they occur, but worse is that they are often game changing when they do occur.



My proposal is a compromise, leaving main gun crits as a concept in game, but restricting the RNG aspect, to dealing damage to the unit before being able to apply the crit.


"Deal at least 76% damage to a unit(which has an RNG aspect to it), if the unit has an engine critical, any further damage dealing abilities that apply a mobility impeding effect will also(or instead) apply a main gun crit."

How are you all so consistently wrong about things?

Time to kill 1 conscript squad at 60 range. Barrage followed by autofire.

I ran tests as well. I tested ONLY the mortar teams. I tested once with barrage only, once with autofire only and once with a single barrage then autofire.

Time to kill a full hp penal squad at 60 range, Barrage/Autofire/Barrage+Autofire

120mm: 0:32/1:52/1:24
GrW34: 0:47/2:04/2:14
PM41: 0:57/1:02/1:04
M1: 1:03/1:22/1:41



Some things to take away. Both the AOE and range characteristics of the GrW34 are superior to the M1 as well as the barrage scatter. Yet the M1 Outperformed the GrW34 in 2 of the 3 tests.

The 120mm was really lucky in the barrage only and landed 2 immediate direct hits, the second one killing 5 models. It failed to repeat this feat.

The PM41 appears very consistent here, perhaps due to its superior scatter characteristics despite a lower overall rate of fire allowing it to more easily single out straggler models.



As MMX put, you cannot just take a single test and say "Yes, this is representative of the relative performance of these units."
Look at how my results different from yours, and how they differed from each other even within my own testing.




Edit:
Just to show I was actually running the tests and not just making numbers up.