2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.

Should the 101st Squad Receive a 2nd Recoiless Rifle?

Yes
27
75%
No
9
25%
 
Total votes: 36

Wake
Posts: 301
Joined: 07 Dec 2014, 17:22
Location: USA

2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Wake » 26 Feb 2016, 05:19

The US Airborne 101st squad previously received two recoiless rifles in the package they deployed with. Now they only get one.

It was removed for a variety of reasons, but the biggest reason seemed to be that even when the recoiless rifle was deflected by tank armor, it would still do a small amount of damage. For example, if the recoiless rifle cannot penetrate a Tiger tank from the front, and 20 recoiless rifles were fired at the front of the Tiger, and none of them penetrated, the Tiger would still be destroyed because of the small amount of damage that is applied regardless of the round penetrating.

This severely handicaps the 101st. Now, a simple scout car can kill the entire squad. If the recoiless rifle hits the scout car, sometimes the scout car survives. If that happens, the 101st will die. However, even hitting the scout car is difficult for the 101st. Airborne units in general have some sort of hidden modifier that gives them drastically reduced anti-tank weapon accuracy. It is common to see 101st missing both of their recoiless rifle shots, 82nd missing both of their bazooka shots, and SAS doing the same. Adding the second recoiless rifle back to the 101st would at least give them a better chance against vehicles for a doc that is widely agreed to be the hardest one to play in the game.

There have been a few discussions on this already, and I've quoted them here.

Sukin-kot (SVT) wrote:@Mark

What's up with recoiless rifles? I think that one shall be added back to a package, this change was absolute nonsense and got pushed by tiger only because of crying about this in every single topic. Twice reduce the amount of AT weapon which was already the weakest in game being in a doctrine which has the worst antitank capabilities among all allies doctrines, wtf seriously? I see no reasons behind this, it have always been difficult to play AB, and now if you don't have 2 hellcats when axis heavy is coming it's GG. First of all because it will be still impossible to drop them behind front line because you can't purchase weapon on unfriendly territory, so a single scout car will come and smash your squad ( actually it did even when 101s had 2 rs, accuracy is terrible and every second shot hit the dirt anyway ),why would we remove this possibility when old style was better in all aspects.


__________________________________________________________________________

MarKr wrote:I asked Wolf about this along with the "deflection damage" of RLs - or more specifically if 101st should get RL upgrade option. The answer was something like "no upgrade for 101st, at least there is more use for the 82nd" So about that.


This problem has been expanded to a wide variety of solutions. Some people suggest that the second recoiless rifle should be an upgrade instead of coming for free in the package. Others just want to make the recoiless rifle better as a weapon.

So I made this topic to centralize discussions, and made a simple poll with two possible answers.

Here are the basic arguments behind each opinion:

YES
- One recoiless rifle is not enough to kill enemy vehicles
- The recoiless rifle is worse than a bazooka
- Airborne are very inaccurate with AT weapons

NO
- The recoiless rifle always does damage if it hits
- Keeping only one recoiless rifle in the 101st shifts the burden of anti tank duties to the 82nd
- Airborne got the M18 Hellcat in a recent patch; they can use that against tanks
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3091
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Tiger1996 » 26 Feb 2016, 06:48

Wolf wrote:
Sukin-kot (SVT) wrote:Regarding AB, I don't agree that they are MP starving, it's the opposite actually, I always can afford high casualties playing AB ( though before supply yard is built up and you drop a lot of squads you may feel lack of mp ). As for ammo scarce - absolutely yes, ammo for Fire nades, ammo for weapons, ammo for airstrikes, ammo for Hellcats HVAP shells, it's the most ammunition hungry Alied doc and without ammo it's simply helpless. What can be done?

SC "high" price is tradeoff for having pretty nice advantage (especially against US) early, so its almost as asking CW to have more something like that too, so I wouldn't really drop it to 200, we can talk about 300-275.

AB still has ammo + fuel drop for MP, exactly because they have kind of a lot of MP, so again, its a bit of diversity in the game. Same with recoiless / zooks etc. they got M18 which they did not have, with new system of weapon drop they are not really losing AT weapons here and there and I am pretty satisfied with it. Yes, they have it harder against tanks, so the only thing I can agree with is that they miss a lot from time to time. I wouldn't change 4 limit as AB is not supposed to be that spammy (unlike inf doc) and should consist of more unit types. HQ aura range was increased for that too.

You forgot this important quotation as well... Yes; it has been discussed through the finial initial list topic.. and although that I have even included it as one of the primary points on the list, yet I have already withdrawn it specifically after recently seeing Wolf typing what is apparently against it as I do clearly agree with his text now.

Adding the 2nd RL is not preferable and is rather not a good solution anyhow! If we would like to buff the AB doc.. then it's definitely not through adding the 2nd RL back, as it would be better to just decrease the MP price of the 101st squads.

I have also made a short video a while ago about the RL of which is unlisted (only those with the link can see it) however, that in fact I wasn't up to post it up publicly down here anytime as I only shared it with the devs... But after seeing such a topic, I guess I have then decided to also show this testing video to u guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS9coKU2yew

Summary;
1st scene:-
5 RLs grabbed by a 101st AB squad hitting the Terror Tiger frontally.. the result; all bounced yet while scoring more like -20% damage penalty at the Tiger.
How did I get the 5th RL?!
Well, I intentionally made myself lose a 101st squad then I replaced it.

2nd scene; 00:50
Even I couldn't really understand the second scene :P The 82nd AB unit had 4 upgraded Zookas.. 2 obviously bounced, 1 penetrated and the 4th hit the dirt next to the Tiger but half HP soaked already somehow!

3rd scene; 01:35
Tiger barely survives after an attack with 4 upgraded Zookas and 5 RLs frontally.

4th scene; 01:50
Again, 5 bouncing RLs but still leaving the Tiger 80% HP! Then 4 upgraded Zookas almost got the Tiger as it survived with some critical damage.

5th scene; 02:40
Tiger tank instantly died with 5 upgraded Zookas and 5 RLs altogether from the front.
Also, 1 RL was dropped and I never picked it up until my mate picked it up for himself later.. from now on... This 101st squad has only 4 RLs.

6th scene; 03:10
Panther G left with half health when attacked by 4 RLs.

7th scene; 03:30
5 bouncing RLs leaving the Panther's HP at 80%!

8th scene; 03:45
Same as scene number 6.

9th scene; 03:55
4 upgraded Zookas missed from med range after activating smoke.

10th scene; 04:05
3 Zookas failed to hit again but hitting the ground close the Panther while doing some few damage.. 1 bounced.

11th scene; 04:19
A complete surprise... 90% health Panther G gets killed frontally using just 4 RLs somehow!!

12th scene _ 13th scene; 04:43
KT totally immune.

14th scene (last one); 05:10
Full HP KT left with 5% health after a direct by a bombing run airstrike.


So, it's clearly a 'no' from my side.
As I said... Adding the 2nd RL is not necessary, AB doc isn't lacking any AT capabilities! The 101st squads are just overpriced and that's all.
U have Hellcats, 82nd units with upgraded Zookas.. 76mm AT guns... Regular AT teams + HQ squad with 1 upgraded Zooka as well + RLs.
Not to mention the airplanes too!!

kwok
Posts: 1042
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby kwok » 26 Feb 2016, 07:07

Tiger, that first scenario costs 1200 MP to get to, you could make a Tiger + an MG to cover the tiger and that saves you that precious 20% of tiger health which is easily repairable within moments.

Each scenario you give after shows that for each AB with AT specific role attached, Axis can spend the resources building much harder counters.
On the flip side, Axis handheld AT, which are basically equally as cheap sometimes cheaper, would take out almost any Allied tank (ones that are equivalent to tigers in cost and arguable performance) at the same amount of AT you showed in your "tests". Are they considered OP?
With the same logic you mentioned, shouldn't panzer fausts be nerfed hard because they are 100% damage with higher accuracy and only cost 75 mu with the unit itself costing 265 mp?
In almost every situation you put up, save the Panther, the tank survived a frontal assault picking up some kills to spare, doesn't that mean the tank performed as well as you would want it to? Most situations still let the tank have enough HP to spare to keep pressing forward after the AB sent their wave of rockets.

But the biggest issue I have with this is the same problem I have with everyone else's method of "testing". This game is a heavily reliant on RNG... You gotta do these like hundreds of times for them to REALLY be considered significant. I've had Panthers one shotted by 2 bazookas once. That's just bad luck. But I still think panthers are annoyingly powerful.

kwok
Posts: 1042
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby kwok » 26 Feb 2016, 07:09

Plus AB HQ squad gives mega buffs btw. I honestly expected the tigers to die in most situations. You gave the AB at least 6 chances to penetrate plus buffs in most situations. I'm really upset my airborne couldn't break through... Even with the upgraded zooks.

Wake
Posts: 301
Joined: 07 Dec 2014, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Wake » 26 Feb 2016, 07:11

kwok wrote:Tiger, that first scenario costs 1200 MP


That's 1245 MP if 101st get 2 recoiless rifles per drop.

Currently, with only 1 recoiless rifle per squad, in order to get 6 recoiless rifles, a player needs to spend 2490 MP.

But Tiger does bring up a good point about reducing 101st price. I would support that.
Image

kwok
Posts: 1042
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby kwok » 26 Feb 2016, 07:16

Besides, I thought the deflection damage was removed anyways? So that -20% won't even be a problem anymore. Just give AB another chance to penetrate. The video shows it barely happens anyways. Lol you rolled the die even with upped zooks like 80 times and only maybe 10 went through?

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3091
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Tiger1996 » 26 Feb 2016, 07:26

Tiger, that first scenario costs 1200 MP to get to, you could make a Tiger + an MG to cover the tiger and that saves you that precious 20% of tiger health which is easily repairable within moments.

And how much costs a Tiger as well??!! It's 950MP and 165 fuel with some more CPs, and no.. it's not easily repairable.
On the other hand u can easily reinforce ur troops.. and ur supply yard can already give u unlimited amount of MP!

Each scenario you give after shows that for each AB with AT specific role attached, Axis can spend the resources building much harder counters.

The 101st squads are supposed to be anti infantry focused... And not a heavy AT unit! Maybe lower their price.

On the flip side, Axis handheld AT, which are basically equally as cheap sometimes cheaper, would take out almost any Allied tank (ones that are equivalent to tigers in cost and arguable performance) at the same amount of AT you showed in your "tests". Are they considered OP?

Axis AT is never cheaper... The Axis AT teams are always more expensive!
But are u speaking about the Pershing?! Well, that's another subject then.. maybe buff the Pershing and delay the Jumbo which will be btw more likely considered on the next patch from what I can see. But no, they can't easily take out "every Allie tank" anyhow! Shermans are shredding them too often.

With the same logic you mentioned, shouldn't panzer fausts be nerfed hard because they are 100% damage with higher accuracy and only cost 75 mu with the unit itself costing 265 mp?

Don't divert the subjects, Pzfaust has low range and takes a lot of time to aim before shooting... Speaking about Gebirgs; they cost too damn much already.

In almost every situation you put up, save the Panther, the tank survived a frontal assault picking up some kills to spare, doesn't that mean the tank performed as well as you would want it to? Most situations still let the tank have enough HP to spare to keep pressing forward after the AB sent their wave of rockets.


Just give AB another chance to penetrate. The video shows it barely happens anyways. Lol you rolled the die even with upped zooks like 80 times and only maybe 10 went through?

Have u even watched the video dude??!!
Scene number 11 as an example; 90% HP Panther G died instantly just by 4 RLs from the front somehow! Even Zookas never succeeded to do such a thing.

Note:- Kwok, plz don't double post.

kwok
Posts: 1042
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby kwok » 26 Feb 2016, 08:34

I don't think the supply yard gives as much resources as you think it does... But this really depends on the situation.

If you think 101st are supposed to be anti-inf focus, then fine that's what you think. But I don't know under what authority that was ever mentioned or said. If that's the case, then 101st are REALLY expensive anti-inf. Their carbines don't do anything unless you're close range, in which they are the weakest "close range intended" weapon. Their bar/lmg upgrades max out as far as rifle man max out, so you're basically paying for a 415mp rifle squad. That doesn't seem really anti-inf focused to me. I think 101st are meant to be more flexible squads that can fill any role to a lesser degree.

WH panzerjaeger squads which carry shreks which without a doubt do more damage than any Allied counterpart cost the same as a USA rocket squad. Shreks cost 75mu, bazookas cost 60. Damage wise, shreks cost efficiency is 1.2-1.6, upped bazookas are 1.16-1.66. Their cost to damage efficiencies are pretty similar, but shreks will have a higher chance of eliminating allied tanks because of their damage, giving them more impact in the game. While 2 shreks can one shot most medium tanks pretty consistently, bazookas will take 2-3 to get rid medium tanks. This fact only becomes more prevalent when tanks start to have more HP, shreks will be a much more useful weapon (which is why allied players will sacrifice squads for a shrek).

Maybe shermans are shredding your shreks...

I'm not diverting, I'm point out hypocrisies. Fausts needed that low range and long load time nerf because they are 100% pen. It's called a tradeoff. The trade off of recoiless rifles is that they don't penetrate, why nerf them any more by taking them away completely?

In your video total,
rec rifle was shot at least 50 times, it pen'd at most 5 times. 10%
upped bazooka was shot at least 35 times, it pen'd at most 8 times. 22%
yeah I watched your video.

Like I said, scene 11 is just luck. Praise be RNjesus.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3091
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Tiger1996 » 26 Feb 2016, 08:45

If you think 101st are supposed to be anti-inf focus, then fine that's what you think. But I don't know under what authority that was ever mentioned or said. If that's the case, then 101st are REALLY expensive anti-inf. Their carbines don't do anything unless you're close range, in which they are the weakest "close range intended" weapon. Their bar/lmg upgrades max out as far as rifle man max out, so you're basically paying for a 415mp rifle squad. That doesn't seem really anti-inf focused to me. I think 101st are meant to be more flexible squads that can fill any role to a lesser degree.

The trade off of recoiless rifles is that they don't penetrate, why nerf them any more by taking them away completely?

The M18 RL was a 57mm handheld AT weapon that can't penetrate more than just 75mm of steel anyhow... So, killing a 90% HP Panther just using 4 RLs from the front while also dealing some great amount of damage to it on other occasions is not a low degree.. this way it's a high degree AT unit somehow!
I agree that they are quite expensive, as I have also mentioned that already. But for me they currently seem to be more of an AT unit than to become an anti infantry focused one... Which has to be changed; definitely not through giving them the 2nd RL back!!! But through lowering their price in order to probably become more appealing against inf.

WH panzerjaeger squads which carry shreks which without a doubt do more damage than any Allied counterpart cost the same as a USA rocket squad. Shreks cost 75mu, bazookas cost 60. Damage wise, shreks cost efficiency is 1.2-1.6, upped bazookas are 1.16-1.66. Their cost to damage efficiencies are pretty similar, but shreks will have a higher chance of eliminating allied tanks because of their damage, giving them more impact in the game. While 2 shreks can one shot most medium tanks pretty consistently, bazookas will take 2-3 to get rid medium tanks. This fact only becomes more prevalent when tanks start to have more HP, shreks will be a much more useful weapon (which is why allied players will sacrifice squads for a shrek).

They might deal more damage.. therefore more expensive... Ur Zookas often cost less than 60 ammo, I mean just 40 ammo as Inf doc; and usually u get them only for some MP as they are widely available upon several squads.

Maybe shermans are shredding your shreks...

It's impossible to frontal rush a Sherman Jumbo.

Like I said, scene 11 is just luck.

I have seen it happens quite often already...

User avatar
Sukin-kot (SVT)
Posts: 840
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Sukin-kot (SVT) » 26 Feb 2016, 08:54

I will just copy my words from the PM discussion.

Summarizing all facts and argument:

1) This weapon is already the worst of all AT regarding all aspects: lowest accuracy, lowest penetration, lowest damage, longest reloading time.

2) AB is the weakest doc regarding antitank capabilities, Raf have rocket run, all kind of 17 pounders (pak, tankhunter, firefly) gammon bombs which can instantly immobolize. Inf have unlimited rangers with upgraded zooks (who actually hit something unlike 82s), arty, emplacements, long tom.

3) Squads with 6 recoilesses which was presented as "omg OP" in fact is a problem only for those who cant manage their tanks well, in reality they barely can kill PZ4 J because penetration chance is 50% + 2-3 rockets always hit the dirt, not to mention Tigers or Panthers, for them this rockets are like a tennis ball. Also if player manages to pick up all recoilesses with a single squad it's his choice, because than he risks to loose all AT power at once if squad will get whiped out completely ( 6 RS = almost 1300 MP ), perfomance of 6 recoiless in fact is not higher than double schreck. Multiple RS squads were also the only way for AB to make an offense, because they really have nothing to approach on axis tanks, Hellcat works only from ambush, so, smoke + atack of all your inf + squads with multiple AT for damaging tanks was the best output AB doc could provide. Inf doc have rangers with upgraded zooks and arty call ins for this purpose, Raf can approach with firefly, rocket run or immobolize heavy with gammon, luft generally have huge range of options for offense (can never combine them though, but its a different story).

4) This change killed sense in dropping 101s behind enemy lines, since with single recoiless they cant protect themself even against scout car ( in fact they couldnt even with 2, but at least you had some chances ).

Two patches ago after doc tunning AB doc finally became OK more or less, but got ruined for nothing again.

Afterall this doc requires huge skill in order to be played effectively and they always had 2 recoiless in their package ( even when in old times it could blow up Panthers frontally nobody complained on AB because so few people played it, that was me who asked to tune down RS penetration to an adequte level). Thats why it cant be a balance problem anyhow.

@Tiget

Those tests are stupid and make zero sense, with the same success you could "test" Pershing against two Wehrmacht AT teams and than complain how OP are they ( probably they can kill Persh in a single run without loosing a single man even, this will cost 720 MP, and its ok. But when doc special unit with special weapon which requires 1245 MP to get 6 them ( currently 2490 ) damages Tiger it's OP NO WAY, right? And as mentioned above, sometimes 6 RS fails even to kill PZ4.

Moreover, what are the conditions in your video? I bet there tank stay again on a flat road, without support and without driving backwards beeing atacked by squads with multiple AT weapons. This have nothing to do with real game.

My final word here, after reflection damage removement recoiless MUST be returned into package.

Regarding AB doc buff: 101s shall have limit of 6 and cost 375 MP, passive camo for 82s, Thunderbolt patrool should atack structures as well. But the main issue is still the same - very poor AT capabilitites, single Panther can steamrole the entire doc, with loosing recoiless and deflection damage AB have lost all chances to advance on axis tanks, Hellcat only for ambushes, 82s cant hit shit with their zooks, Thunderbolt is expensive and a pure lotterey.
Last edited by Sukin-kot (SVT) on 26 Feb 2016, 09:10, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3091
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Tiger1996 » 26 Feb 2016, 09:10

Those tests are stupid and make zero sense, with the same success you could "test" Pershing against two Wehrmacht AT teams and than complain how OP are they ( probably they can kill Persh in a single run without loosing a single man even, this will cost 720 MP, and its ok. But when doc special unit with special weapon which requires 1245 MP to get 6 them ( currently 2490 ) damages Tiger it's OP NO WAY, right? And as mentioned above, sometimes 6 RS fails even to kill PZ4.

I have already said that I don't mind buffing the Pershing!
And no... Usually just 4 RLs can never fail killing Pz4s.. and even if; then u would simply retreat and once again come back for rushing it frontally in no time.

My final word here, after reflection damage removement recoiless MUST be returned into package.

As I said, I have once included the point of adding the 2nd RL back to the 101st squads.. but no; even if it's back anytime... Then I highly doubt it would be back in the package anyhow.
Only as an upgrade...
- Tuned Recoiless Rifle, removed second one from 101st drop, additional 1 upgrade will be added if needed in next patch, use 82nd as AT support


Regarding AB doc buff: 101s shall have limit of 6 and cost 375 MP, passive camo for 82s, Thunderbolt patrool should atack structures as well. But the main issue is still the same - very poor AT capabilitites, single Panther can steamrole the entire doc, with loosing recoiless and deflection damage AB have lost all chances to advance on axis tanks, Hellcat only for ambushes, 82s cant hit shit with their zooks, Thunderbolt is expensive and a pure lotterey.

This must be a joke O_O

User avatar
Sukin-kot (SVT)
Posts: 840
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Sukin-kot (SVT) » 26 Feb 2016, 09:49

Funny to hear that from a person who never play AB lolz, sorry to burst the bubble, but 4 recoiless have about 30% chance to kill panzer 4. Moreover I experinced numerous amount of times how Panzers could take up to 12 recoilesses.

Once you played 1v1 with me in order to prove "how OP is AB", can you remind me what time did it take, 20 minutes?

My example was not about Pershing exactly, put on it's place any other allied tank ( except SP ) and 2 AT teams will blow it in a single run, Jumbo may surive with luck... and may not.

Joke is your suggestions which are based on a fake tests and shit, here are the facts:

- 101s in fact are just a rifle squad, they will loose to EVERY axis inf unit, of course they should cost less
- 82s...EVERY elite inf in game has camo (ss, storms, luft, sabotage team, commando, rangers, cqb) why they should not? It's a very poor late game unit since they cant kill anybody with their funny thompsons when every axis squad have MG 34\42 and StG44, with camo they at least will be usefull for making traps.
- the fact that thunderbolts dont atack bunkers, flaks, emplacements is just stupid, their bombs intension is exactly to kill defences.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3091
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Tiger1996 » 26 Feb 2016, 11:06

Moreover I experinced numerous amount of times how Panzers could take up to 12 recoilesses.

Interesting... How the Panther died by only 4 RLs then??!! I am afraid ur claim is actually the fake one.

Funny to hear that from a person who never play AB lolz

I am not an AB doc player, but saying that I never play AB doc is false completely.

Once you played 1v1 with me in order to prove "how OP is AB", can you remind me what time did it take, 20 minutes?

Can't remember this one.. must have been a very long time ago once again...

My example was not about Pershing exactly, put on it's place any other allied tank ( except SP ) and 2 AT teams will blow it in a single run, Jumbo may surive with luck... and may not.

They won't even reach the Jumbo, will be suppressed and killed before they even get the chance to shoot.. and if successfully made it; they would rather bounce or deal some damage at the cost of losing both squads.

- 101s in fact are just a rifle squad, they will loose to EVERY axis inf unit, of course they should cost less
- 82s...EVERY elite inf in game has camo (ss, storms, luft, sabotage team, commando, rangers, cqb) why they should not? It's a very poor late game unit since they cant kill anybody with their funny thompsons when every axis squad have MG 34\42 and StG44, with camo they at least will be usefull for making traps.
- the fact that thunderbolts dont atack bunkers, flaks, emplacements is just stupid, their bombs intension is exactly to kill defences.

6 101st squads +2 82nd with passive camo, vs just 3 Storm squads.. really??!! Not to mention u have a cheap strafing run.
Oh sorry, it was probably not a joke... As it was more likely just BS.

User avatar
Sukin-kot (SVT)
Posts: 840
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Sukin-kot (SVT) » 26 Feb 2016, 11:16

You must be really stupid if you pointing on that panther again, it was just a random case, in 90% Panther will bounce all rs shots.

Ye, I remember how you played AB a couple of times, but you sucked so hard with it that never ever tryed to do it again.

They wont reach Jumbo? Ok, you can spend 40 ammo for supressing, than they will just retreat without loosing a single man and will return in a few moments.

"6 101st squads +2 82nd with passive camo, vs just 3 Storm squads.. really??!! Not to mention u have a cheap strafing run.
Oh sorry, it was probably not a joke... As it was more likely just BS."

Lolz what? What is that comparision even? I wont even comment this coz thats nonsense, maybe somebody here is more patient and will explain to you obvious reasons why this statement is crap.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3091
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Tiger1996 » 26 Feb 2016, 11:22

You must be really stupid if you pointing on that panther again, it was just a random case, in 90% Panther will bounce all rs shots.

Both the scenes number 6 and 8, wondering if they were also just about the luck factor?! Panther G left with half HP just by 4 RLs from the front... Who is neglecting facts right now?


"6 101st squads +2 82nd with passive camo, vs just 3 Storm squads.. really??!! Not to mention u have a cheap strafing run.
Oh sorry, it was probably not a joke... As it was more likely just BS."

Lolz what? What is that comparision even? I wont even comment this coz thats nonsense, maybe somebody here is more patient and will explain to you obvious reasons why this statement is crap.

At least not more stupid than ur suggestion...


EDIT:-
Why this poll is just opened totally forever btw?! It will never end or what??!! :P
The poll of the 3rd Zooka removal long time ago on the other hand for example.. had only a certain period for voting, not to mention that it was proposed by Wolf himself.

User avatar
Butterkeks
Posts: 492
Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 17:42
Location: Germany

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Butterkeks » 26 Feb 2016, 13:59

Second RL is definitely needed.

That's basically all I have to say, I won't even bother to discuss with mod and community destroyer Tiger1996.

If I wanted to "discuss" with someone who bends reality like he needs it, makes stupid tests that prove nothing and will turn around every single word I say so it fits his Agenda best, I'd simply go to my boss' office lol.

User avatar
Sukin-kot (SVT)
Posts: 840
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Sukin-kot (SVT) » 26 Feb 2016, 14:05

"In your video total,
rec rifle was shot at least 50 times, it pen'd at most 5 times. 10%
upped bazooka was shot at least 35 times, it pen'd at most 8 times. 22%
yeah I watched your video.

Like I said, scene 11 is just luck. Praise be RNjesus."


Thats what kwok already said regarding Panther penetrations, why do u keep asking about the same crap?

Killed panther in the video prooves nothing, the entire video prooves nothing, because its tested under the conditions which are far away from what happens in pvp. Your statement about " 4 RS always kill pz4" is also completely wrong simply according to stats, RS have 50% chance to penetrate pz4, tank needs 3 penetrations to be killed, add here the fact that RS are very innacurate, so, in result picture usually looks more like " 2 bounced, 1 missed, 1 penetrated".

And you know what, I think that was my last quote to you on this forum, since every debat with you ends up as silly time wasting, because you are absolutely biased and lacking any simple logic regarding most of the things, that simply looks like trolling or something, a few posts above you recieved the answer why this Panter`s death is not valid and than you again trying to present it as solid proof. I recommend to other forum members to do exactly the same, forum would be much better place than.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3091
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Tiger1996 » 26 Feb 2016, 14:16

Butterkeks wrote:Second RL is definitely needed.

That's basically all I have to say, I won't even bother to discuss with mod and community destroyer Tiger1996.

If I wanted to "discuss" with someone who bends reality like he needs it, makes stupid tests that prove nothing and will turn around every single word I say so it fits his Agenda best, I'd simply go to my boss' office lol.

'Mod community destroyer'... Couldn't find a better title? :mrgreen:
I have already included this point on my final initial list topic before.. but now I have to withdraw it since that Wolf has actually more or less denied it, but if he likes to consider this poll while probably changing his opinion; then I wouldn't mind at all since I already supported such a point before!

But something u have to realize very well down here... Wolf CAN simply discard this poll.. the same way, if I manage to make a poll now about removing the SP.. I am pretty sure everyone would vote for "yes" but does that mean Wolf will have to consider it?? NO!!
I mean that the reason why the 3rd Zooka removal poll had to be considered on the other hand wasn't that because the majority has approved it... But ONLY because I hopefully succeeded convincing Wolf himself to propose it in a poll.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2453
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Warhawks97 » 26 Feb 2016, 14:26

101st Anti inf? Would be cool they would be good in doing so. Atm they dont kill shit untill very late game with several 100 ammo spend for weapons and CP´s for vet 1 and 700 MP HQ squad.
Would be really not so annoying if they wouldnt be beaten by volks and grens all the time throughout early, mid and beginning end game.

I am fine with cost drop.


Supply yard gives not endless res. Its not that you suddenly get "+500 MP per min". The efficency depends on army size. And here again AB has a long time to get an advantage of the supply yard as it is rather hard for AB to get an army size larger than those of axis or other US docs as their unit cost arent that cheap.

And once US is beaten down to like 40 popcap or 30 popcap army or whatever the supply yard wont help anyhow coz as i said, its efficency depends on army size. In fact, assuming axis and US player has left only a 30 or 40 popcap army, the supply yard wont be a help. Then pure unit cost and efficency is what matters actually and especially compared to AB the axis (WH) pay actually less for more powerfull units.

So dont take it too easy with "provides endless res".

With that logic you could just as well argue that the combination of cheap volks build, reinfoce and upkeep cost, cheap Gren reinforce and upkeep cost, cheap spotter upkeep cost and very cost effective sdkfz 234 provides "endless res" to WH players throughout early-mid game untill the first tanks rolling out.

Simply nonsense. The supply yard provides probably the largest boost to inf doc as those are most likely able to really get a huge army size in late game.

JimQwilleran
Posts: 1096
Joined: 07 Jan 2015, 15:05

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby JimQwilleran » 26 Feb 2016, 15:36

Well, all I am gonna say it's that this is going to return some flexibility to AB. When I have been plying it recently I haven't bothered to pick up the RL any single time. It's just completely useless. Voted yes on this proposition!

User avatar
Terence's Mouth
Posts: 133
Joined: 07 Aug 2015, 18:10

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Terence's Mouth » 26 Feb 2016, 18:25

Yea i think too that one Recoiles is realy strange, maybe and extra Airdrop with recoiles and give the 101st airborne rangers drop none?
Or change back to two if its easier.
Btw i dont like how one squad can pick up 6 of the recoiles 4 would be realy enough, you limited bazookas squad from 3 to 2 but a airborne squad can pick 6 Bazookas and Recoiles?

ursus
Posts: 7
Joined: 10 Sep 2015, 22:55

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby ursus » 26 Feb 2016, 19:01

I'm for 2nd RR but would be good idea to limit number of picked AT weapons. Or if they have 6 At weapons then they are usless vs inf (didnt try it tho). You should consider ballancing US airborn inf vs running axis unit with STG44. Terror unit with stg looks like riding cowboys on wild west, run trough bullets. That unit must be strong but its redicoulus how you can let them, without any brain, to run directly toward enemy unit that hold ground and rangers are dead in 2 sec. Maybe a bit less efficent in really close range, I would give ranger advantege in close range but axis unit with stg should have advantage on mid range.

Dr. Zhivago
Posts: 8
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:05

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Dr. Zhivago » 26 Feb 2016, 19:10

Im all for returning the 2d recoiless, it was a dick move to remove it.

Wake
Posts: 301
Joined: 07 Dec 2014, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Wake » 26 Feb 2016, 19:14

Tiger1996 wrote:Why this poll is just opened totally forever btw?! It will never end or what??!! :P
The poll of the 3rd Zooka removal long time ago on the other hand for example.. had only a certain period for voting, not to mention that it was proposed by Wolf himself.


You can guys can see the results, correct? Right now it is 73% yes (19 votes) and 27% no (7 votes).

Do you want me to close the poll?
Image

User avatar
Sukin-kot (SVT)
Posts: 840
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 08:36
Location: Ekaterinburg, Russia

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Sukin-kot (SVT) » 26 Feb 2016, 19:18

Wake wrote:
Tiger1996 wrote:Why this poll is just opened totally forever btw?! It will never end or what??!! :P
The poll of the 3rd Zooka removal long time ago on the other hand for example.. had only a certain period for voting, not to mention that it was proposed by Wolf himself.


You can guys can see the results, correct? Right now it is 73% yes (19 votes) and 27% no (7 votes).

Do you want me to close the poll?


I think it shall stay at least till tomorrow, its not even evening in europe yet and many potential participants are offline.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest