AB Airstrike CP Path

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
Post Reply
kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2090
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

AB Airstrike CP Path

Post by kwok »

Heard quite often that the latest AB changes were too much of a nerf because of the removal of the patrol. First, I personally and heard MANY others say that patrol abilities in general are crippling to the game. Single-click to wipe the map is too game breaking and not fun for the receiving end. It makes airstrikes even easier to use than artillery which was a major complaint by players for years.

That being said, we've done a lot of testing over the past year to make sure the efficiency of the AB airstrikes are appropriate. We want to validate this is true, leave a comment if you think a particular ability in the AB airstrike path needs a performance tweak. Note that the intent and purpose of the airstrikes have changed:

-Strafe Run now comes with AP bullets without needing an upgrade so there is a high chance that they will one shot halftracks and light vehicles on a pass.
-The Bombing Run is a frag/HE bombing run intended for soft targets and emplacements. It does NOT do as much damage to vehicles anymore.
-The AT rocket strike is modeled after the RAF rocket strike. If you think the RAF one is fine, then this one is no different. So before you say it doesn't do anything, maybe consider that you just had bad luck. OR that the RAF strike is equally as bad.


Another idea I personally had was to disconnect the AT strike from the other airstrikes and make it 4 CP (removing 1 CP from the HE bombing run)
We have seen AB struggle against heavy tank rushes. We have heard suggestions of giving AB tanks like the jackson, but this is something we want to avoid to keep the identity of a doctrine. The key to having a "well balanced doctrine" isn't to give a doctrine everything but give them enough tools to deal with anything.
I suspect this will not be extremely balance impacting because a 4CP investment for most players is often expensive in more ways than the obvious CP count. For example, a 2CP cost to panzer 4's then 2CP into panthers is "not as expensive" as a flat 4CP into panthers because you get the panzer 4 in the interim as you path into panthers (with the option to deviate to another CP unlock choice if needed). However with this change, I'd also say that a fuel cost of at least 35 should be added to the AT strike so that it does not synergize too well with sherman based compositions.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3984
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: AB Airstrike CP Path

Post by Warhawks97 »

i would seperate after strafe. You always get the strafe which is basically vs soft but also armored targets. A Multirole strike if you will.
From there you can go either bombs or rockets, depending on what you face more.


Airstrikes should also cost always ammo and fuel in my opinion.


AB could also use some sort of cooldown reducing upgrades/unlocks for airstrikes to make up for the lack of heavy equipment. Some sort of air supremacy.


If flame nades remain a 82nd only thing, they could get it by default and the slot could be taken by such an air supremacy unlock thing.



Finally, fix the strafe. There is something wrong with it. Too often it fails to kill the inf placed in the center of the target location.
I am no saying it must kill to the last men but way too often it kills just one soldier.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3130
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: AB Airstrike CP Path

Post by MarKr »

The main point about separating the AT rocket strike and making it 4CP is that players would have the chance to access an AT strike whenever needed (as long as they have the CPs ofcourse), without the need to unlock several other airstrikes first. If it is placed behind straffe, it is still 6CP. It is surely better than the current 9CP but it still might be coming too late.

So, I think that putting it behind straffe will lead to different results than what the original suggestion is aiming for.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3984
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: AB Airstrike CP Path

Post by Warhawks97 »

so you want it to be fully indepemdent?

I wouldnt do that. If anything put it after recon flight and it can still be 4 cp ion total.
It shouldnt cost 4 CP as stand alone without getting anything prior to it.

Its like paying 4 CP just for an standalone achilles or JP IV/70 or a single arty strike.


Its too much CP saving for just this one thing which does only one single job and this only with good micro skills and the sense for the right moment.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 630
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: AB Airstrike CP Path

Post by mofetagalactica »

Im sorry, but this is a stupid suggestion, current airstrikes are fine as they are. Most of the current problems with AB doc were inf based could be resolved by just reworking the bases of US units, without making huge reworks on the special available units of each doctrine, i would only go as far as making 101's have cammo by default since they have low AT dmg output with Recoiless wouldn't be much a problem to deal with if you ambush vehicles (they barely can kill an armored car after 2 pen shoots), 82nd could we revised as an elite ground unit, with some new upgrades such as BAR, Thompsons and double 'Zook upgrade.

By reworking the bases of US i mean, totally revising teching time, price, upkeep and performance of 75mm chaffe/sherman (wich are default units). All of this without really touching any change of special units or doctrinal changes, since along the Beta WH and PE has received some foundamental revising on teching order and building price, while US/CW still mantain and received one more upgrade for 50.cals(For US) wich adds makes the faction even more thirst for MP/F .

So i would seriously recommend to just revise the Bases and Default unit performances and weapon upgrades againts current problems to deal againts Axis before thinking on doing any special changes on current doctrines or special units.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2090
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: AB Airstrike CP Path

Post by kwok »

One of the complaints some players have are how doctrines are starting to all look the same. The proposal here seems to be make 82nd more like rangers but with parachutes.

Would you make a post around revising tech'ing time if that's how you feel?

User avatar
Krieger Blitzer
Posts: 4061
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, living in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: AB Airstrike CP Path

Post by Krieger Blitzer »

I don't think AB doc needs to have airstrikes earlier, they just need access to a proper tank.. if you think jackson would be too much.. well, at least give them the 76 Jumbo. I would be also for giving AB troops passive camo.. but not the 101st units.. only 82nd squads.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 630
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: AB Airstrike CP Path

Post by mofetagalactica »

kwok wrote:
18 Oct 2020, 19:55
One of the complaints some players have are how doctrines are starting to all look the same. The proposal here seems to be make 82nd more like rangers but with parachutes.

Would you make a post around revising tech'ing time if that's how you feel?
-----------------------------------------------------
-Exactly my proposal is to make 82nd more like rangers but with different stats/habilities/upgrades (since they cost more than rangers) while 101's get changes like default passive cammo and thompsons upgrade so they work as an all around not rambo unit that relays on ambush and flanking.

Having a more defined role for elite their elite inf, will maybe make the cheaper weapon upgrades on the AB WSC more usefull and usable than just getting it to get cheaper garands for 101 or jacksons for them, since you will start using them to upgrade your new 82nd troops.

-82nd in the meantime could be a more sturd infantry that pushes the frontline until they're able to link up with 101's flanking from the back/sides.

-HQ squad could get full garands or at least 1 jackson since i know its a 4 man squad but dosn't justify the price or performance when luft has their 3 man HQ squad with full fg44.

Doctrine will not look the same even if you make 82nd as a ground elite unit, rangers aren't able to drop smoke or flame nades, rangers dosn't have a designated combat captain/HQ squad that is able to buff them even more, rangers cant ask for fast air support while fighting making the 82nd advance way faster and more coordinated by the same player using them.
So no i don't think making such a change will make the doctrine look "all the same".

A lot of doctrines will feel "kind of same" on a GENERAL SCENARIO after making a huge upgrade that remade all of the doctrines to be more all-around (kind of what axis is) and thats kind of the way that the game went, but on a 1v1 SCENARIO having slight differences between doctrines can make the doctrine feel totally different from others.
----------------------------------------------------

About revising base changes/teching prices and time i will maybe make a post about it later i can't just write a huge general change suggestion without having in mind how much could affect the current difficult of playing allies vs axis.

An example of this was CW early beta, when they suddently got way easier to play and step up to axis lvl of teching price/time. Players weren't ready to suddently become better players or change their usual strategies as WH/PE wich came up with a lot of premature "OP CW plz Nerf" before waiting for the final changes on axis.
That was maybe the first time i saw CW as a pushing frontline force role compared to current "support style faction for US".

Krieger Blitzer wrote:
18 Oct 2020, 20:33
I don't think AB doc needs to have airstrikes earlier, they just need access to a proper tank.. if you think jackson would be too much.. well, at least give them the 76 Jumbo. I would be also for giving AB troops passive camo.. but not the 101st units.. only 82nd squads.
I don't think they need a new tank if devs have in mind changing 75mm/76mm performance as one of the base changes that i would suggest later.

About why i didn't suggest 82nd squads have passive cammo:

-They come with powerfull upgraded bazookas, cqb guns ,flame nades that could be trowed while cammo,pretty decent at surviving, adding pasive cammo to them would just be an overbuff for them and will totally deny some zones of the map.

Why i think 101's would be a better more logic fit:

-Has less HP than 82nd wich makes them a little easier to deal after being revealed.

-Recoiless Rifle has more chances to do crits and don't instantly delete any vehicle that past in the zone, encouraging the use of planes when you get a crit dmg on a heavy/medium tank from cammo.

-After my suggestion they would become a more all around unit depending on the player upgrade choice, since they would be able to upgrade with thompsons without having HQ squad deployed (encourages the use of getting the cheaper weapon upgrade) and honestly after getting the final cp unlock for them making them better would just overlap the current role of 82nd if they remain without changes.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3984
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: AB Airstrike CP Path

Post by Warhawks97 »

"The 82nd shouldnt have camo bc of cqb weapons" doesnt makes much sense to me. Commandoa, rangers, storms, SAS. All have powerfull weapons and lots of HP and can ambush.

AB doesnt have any hard hitting gun, cheap tanks or big tanks or heavy defenses and shouldnt have. So having capable inf would just be logical to me



Anyayy, that goes off-topic.


Perhaps we should really wait when US basic weapons get buffs and the non-doc stuff becomes actually usefull-
Then we can speak about adjustments to airstrike unlocks.
But dont make the rockets to be a single unlinked 4 CP airstrike standing in the middle of nowhere.,

As pointed out, airborne And basically all allied struggle with medium tank spam to which i count panthers as well bc they get spammed heavily as well.
A single rocket strike wont change the stuggle, esspecially when the plane gets shot down or when the enemie just dodges the attack.

User avatar
Sukin-kot (SVT)
Posts: 869
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia

Re: AB Airstrike CP Path

Post by Sukin-kot (SVT) »

If bomb run could become as effective as before, this would solve most of the problems. Two effective AT airstrikes would compensate for the absence of the patrol.

Also, Recoiless is so bad that it should not be un upgrade for 65 ammo, just add 1 more back in the weapon crate. I remind you that at the time when it got removed it was able to penetrate any medium tank with almost 100% chance and tanks had neither working HE, nor coaxial mg's.

And certainly, either 10 HP or Flame nades should come back to 101s, now they are basically rifleman with air reinforcement.

F31.58
Posts: 27
Joined: 25 Sep 2020, 15:31

Re: AB Airstrike CP Path

Post by F31.58 »

As I pointed out in other topics, 57mm AT and Bazooka buff, and Figree's proposal to easier teching for US will make it easier to survive medium tanks spamming. You will be in same position as Axis, in terms of AT power and teching costs, meaning changes to anything else would be considered too big

Post Reply