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
29
66%
No
15
34%
 
Total votes: 44

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3200
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, 19:22

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?


U want to close it only once or just when it's at ur favor, right??!! :lol:
Interesting to see how Sukin called everyone he knew to participate on it down here though... Since it's something definitely good at the end to see more users participating and not only the active members whom we are used to.
But if u really wanted to close the poll at some point.. then u had to mention since the start when it shall exactly end...
And now; let me repeat it again and for the last time... :)

We can also make a poll about removing the SP as I am pretty sure it would collect a 100% result of approval... However that simply it doesn't have to be considered. Unlike the the poll of the 3rd Zooka removal long time ago, as it was proposed by Wolf himself at that time after hopefully convincing him to do so!

NOTE:- Don't forget that adding the 2nd RL back to the 101st squads was actually included as a primary point through my finial initial list topic after all. But now since that Wolf has also denied it before, I clearly believe it's not a good decision anymore... No matters what.. but to be honest with u, it's still an option that Wolf might change his opinion.

kwok
Posts: 1070
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby kwok » 26 Feb 2016, 19:39

Lol... Close when it is in our favor...

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3200
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, 19:56

I am afraid this topic is actually turning into becoming the forum kindergarten section :D
Newly signed up members coming to participate as well.. interesting! ^^

I could also do the same btw.. I almost haven't yet talked with anyone too... But more likely I even won't; in fact NOT ONLY BECAUSE I am not into wasting my time here on this poll since I believe it doesn't really change that much unless Wolf himself or someone else from the team members has proposed it.. as it's apparently not the only reason so far.
BUT ALSO BECAUSE of that actually I am not so truly opposing the idea of adding the 2nd RL back in the first place.. since I have once before supported it myself as well...

User avatar
crimax
Posts: 107
Joined: 07 Dec 2014, 16:01

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby crimax » 27 Feb 2016, 10:25

As I told you in private .... my only one concern is that you and someone finally get the AB Monster Infantry Blob dicking around the map ...
In past it happened and I don't really want it will happen again ...

Anyway, trying to give more appeal to the less played allied doc .... Let's give it a try ....

-------

lol -..... last year we did exactly the opposite ... and, I'm pretty sure it's not finished yet :) AB doc was Always difficult to balance. .. OR it's OP (but really OP) or it's weak (but really weak) .... the infantry based doctrines are MORE MORE related to the player that play them (expecially since AT guns/shreks/zooks/pak modifications).
Company Of Heroes is the 'water gun version' of Blitzkrieg Mod" (Heinz Wilhelm Guderian, 1939)

User avatar
BffWithDEATH
Posts: 28
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 13:11
Location: New Zealand

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby BffWithDEATH » 27 Feb 2016, 11:05

I've not the interest to type a paragraph to describe the solution to this problem, so have a gander of this recent discussion and derive your own conclusions.

Sukin-kot (SVT): hey
Sukin-kot (SVT): participate in a poll please
Sukin-kot (SVT): viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1002&start=25
Sukin-kot (SVT): its about giving back recoiless rifle to 101s Airborne
BffWithDEATH: 101st had reociless removed?
Sukin-kot (SVT): yes lol
Sukin-kot (SVT): so stupid
BffWithDEATH: Were the cost droped?
Sukin-kot (SVT): now they have 1 only instead of 2
BffWithDEATH: I could support if it is purchasable and they are significantly cheaper
Sukin-kot (SVT): no, cost remained the same
BffWithDEATH: ;-;
Sukin-kot (SVT): it cant be purchasable, no slots
Sukin-kot (SVT): they already have 3 upgrades
Sukin-kot (SVT): so i think it shall be back in a package
BffWithDEATH: I'm surprised they removed what is considered the weakest of the recoiless rifles from them
Sukin-kot (SVT): moreover in next update RS will loose its deflection damage
BffWithDEATH: To be honest i think all tank hunters should have one recoiless rifle and all the varieties of recoiless rifles should no relatively low damage to armour but consistently cause critical damage e.g. regularly disable guns and engines forcing them to retreat
Sukin-kot (SVT): well, thats different story
Sukin-kot (SVT): in tread case i think its incredibly stupid to have 101s with 1 recoiless
Sukin-kot (SVT): they cant even kill scout car with it
BffWithDEATH: It does seem od to have panzerjaegers haveing two schrecks and 101 having one recoiless, only because of how weak it's performance is
BffWithDEATH: I think the issue is more the performance of the recoiless rifle in it's respective role
BffWithDEATH: 101st are meant to be flexible regular infantry
BffWithDEATH: So more vs infantry power is welcome, assuming the recoiless rifles performance was revised
Sukin-kot (SVT): Its simply strange that 101s have a single recoiless which is the worst handled AT weapon regardning penetration, damage, reloading time and accuracy when every axis squad had Panzerschreck
BffWithDEATH: That is what I mean
BffWithDEATH: one recoiless rifle is fine, assuming it's performance is revised first
BffWithDEATH: If it's performance is still piss poor, that should be what is discussed in the forum in my opinion
Sukin-kot (SVT): it historically was much worse than schreck or bazooka
Sukin-kot (SVT): same in game
BffWithDEATH: It should be good at dealing with light vehicles and light armour and be average against medium but worthless against heavies
Sukin-kot (SVT): thus there was 2 of them
Sukin-kot (SVT): Well, thats how it is
Sukin-kot (SVT): Penetration chanve against Panzer 4 is 50%
Sukin-kot (SVT): And needs 3-4 penetrations
Sukin-kot (SVT): zooks and schrecks kill with 2 usually
BffWithDEATH: My main point with all the recoiless rifles is they should be disabling components when they pen rather than destroying the entire vehicle unless the vehicles fail to retreat when disabled
Sukin-kot (SVT): ah man
Sukin-kot (SVT): its different thing as I said
Sukin-kot (SVT): poll is only about returning recoiless
Sukin-kot (SVT): yes\no
Sukin-kot (SVT): AB is unplayble now because 101s which are the main doc force can even kill pumas and shit
Sukin-kot (SVT): not to mention tanks
BffWithDEATH: I'm aware of that, however objectively speaking wouldnt the 101st be more useful if their single recoilless rifle was breaking the guns of attacking armour allowing them to escape the armour and fight the infantry with their one extra small arm
Sukin-kot (SVT): ...
Sukin-kot (SVT): ah, forget
Sukin-kot (SVT): I bet u havent played AB for years
Sukin-kot (SVT): now its unplable because single Panzer 4 fucks the entire doc
Sukin-kot (SVT): when they had 2 recoiless it was so much better
BffWithDEATH: It's difficult to discuss balance when you fail to see the greater scale of the issues
Sukin-kot (SVT): they simply ruined the doc
Sukin-kot (SVT): there is no scale in this case
Sukin-kot (SVT): Its simple as fuck
Sukin-kot (SVT): with 2 RS doc was OK, now its unplayble
Sukin-kot (SVT): pretty much that
BffWithDEATH: Depends upon how you approach it, I do agree it is unreasonable to remove that extra recoiless without adjusting the units cost, it is a significant debuf to an already relatively bad cost>effective unit. However it would be perfectly fine if the rifle was revised to justify the change
Sukin-kot (SVT): lol, but in next patch they nerf recoiless even more, didnt u read?
Sukin-kot (SVT): Thats why of course they need
Sukin-kot (SVT): 2
BffWithDEATH: This is what i'm saying, you dont seem to understand what I am trying to explain to you. Giving them 2 recoilless is an option however it is the lesser ideal of solutions
Sukin-kot (SVT): It's not a discussion about fucking ideal solution man
Sukin-kot (SVT): it's a poll
BffWithDEATH: Yeah, this is why I stopped with the forums. Many are lacking foresight.
Image
Embrace Your Dreams

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) » 27 Feb 2016, 11:35

This suggestions are hardly possible, how do you think it will look like, front penetration with recoiless and engine\gun destroyed everytime or what? Thats kinda dont match with BK mechanics at all, more like stupid chain breaked ability which got removed.
Last edited by Sukin-kot (SVT) on 27 Feb 2016, 12:13, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3200
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 » 27 Feb 2016, 12:05

BffWithDEATH: This is what i'm saying, you dont seem to understand what I am trying to explain to you. Giving them 2 recoilless is an option however it is the lesser ideal of solutions

Indeed, this is exactly what I told him also on Steam.
As I have already suggested to reduce the price of the 101st squads too btw... But anyways!

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1872
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby MarKr » 27 Feb 2016, 12:36

First of all:
Sukin-kot (SVT): it cant be purchasable, no slots
Sukin-kot (SVT): they already have 3 upgrades
I already said that they can get another upgrade while keeping what they have...so not true.

Sukin-kot (SVT): with 2 RS doc was OK, now its unplayble
This sounds as huge exagerration...just because of one less hand-held AT (the weakest AT, to be exact) in a package the doc took a whole 180° turn form OK to unplayable? Doesn't seem right.

Sukin-kot (SVT): lol, but in next patch they nerf recoiless even more, didnt u read?
This statement is misleading...Yes, RLs will lose their deflection damage, but they will get their basic damage boosted from 70-90 to 80-90 this means they will crit more often. Also their damage output vs light vehicles will be practically increased from x2 to x3.
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) » 27 Feb 2016, 13:04

MarKr wrote:I already said that they can get another upgrade while keeping what they have...so not true.


Well, why it havent been done right with removing than? As I remember idea was to reduce squads with multiple recoiless.

MarKr wrote:This sounds as huge exagerration...just because of one less hand-held AT (the weakest AT, to be exact) in a package the doc took a whole 180° turn form OK to unplayable? Doesn't seem right.


Kinda like this, 101s is absolutely core unit for doc, I explained before that with AT removement doc have lost any chances for aproaching on axis heavies. And if nobody plays it ( ok, maybe once in 100 games ) I guess that exactly means that doc is unplayble, who will do it when you have inf doc with super cheap unlimited rangers who all have upgraded zooks, camo and cheaper weapon upgrades and work well right from the start, not after 8 CP and always command unit nearby + add here other cool ass things like cqb with boobys, arty call ins which are way more deadly than Thunderbolts, emplacements. On the brits side there is raf which is kinda like AB but with more abilities, MUCH better AT capabilties, weapons for free etc etc.

Question: Can somebody here tell me what AB can do better than RAF or INF docs?

MarKr wrote:This statement is misleading...Yes, RLs will lose their deflection damage, but they will get their basic damage boosted from 70-90 to 80-90 this means they will crit more often. Also their damage output vs light vehicles will be practically increased from x2 to x3.


Didnt know about that, but from 70-90 to 80-90 seems like nothing to me actually, especially if accuracy stays the same. Output boost vs vehicles is cook though, but, how much does the vehicle stage lasts long in bk, 10-15 min? Sometimes when 101s join the battle there are already panzers and stugs on field.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2517
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Warhawks97 » 27 Feb 2016, 18:47

Ive accidentially found something that makes RL looking even worse than ever before.

Usually hendhalt AT´s (excluding piat) have a damage modifier vs tanks and vehicles of 3 (Panzerfaust 5 but they pay for a shot).

So zooks, Schrecks and also RL have damage modifier vs tanks of 3. That means that max possible damage is 300 for zook, 360 for schreck and 270 for RL.
But the really funny thing is, that RL have only a damage modifier of 2 vs vehicles! Means the max damage vs vehicles (not tanks) is just 180. The lowest 140. That means, in case you trigger both times the lowest damage, even two hits wont kill a damn vehicle! A Puma has 310 HP.

Even if you trigger two times med damage it migt be that the one or the other vehicle has a good chance to survive when those have vets.

Some axis HT´s for instace have a received damage modifier of 0.85, reducing max possible damage of an RL to 153. With vet two they also get health boost.

But only taking Puma as sample with vet 1: two RL hits deal 306 damage and the vehicle has 310. And its really not too hard to get a vet 1 Puma.
That means that a Puma with vet 1 is atm more or less immun to two 101st squads with each one RL.

Taking also into acc the worst accuracy you have to consider one out of two shots as a fail anyway, in case the Puma moves actually 2 out of 3 shots.
Exception here are the PE wheeled vehicles. They are, for reasons i dont know, just as easy to hit while moving as when not moving.


So it might help to add the damage modifier vs vehicles to RL which is used by zooks and schrecks. I mean the RL already has worst damage, why that really horrible low damage vs vehicles?

same btw vs paks and howitzers. RL literally cant kill them.

Wake
Posts: 303
Joined: 07 Dec 2014, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Wake » 27 Feb 2016, 20:13

I think something just needs to be done that increases the viability of Airborne. There's not really a reason to play them right now, because whatever they can do, other doctrines can do better.

Like if I want a 101st squad that does lots of damage at long range with double BARs, well, if I play infantry doc then I can spam 175 MP riflemen with double BARs for only 40 munition, then get them for free each time they die from an ambulance truck.

If I want an 82nd squad that does lots of damage at close range but can also destroy enemy tanks with bazookas, well, if I play infantry doc I can do the exact same thing with Rangers that are nearly half the price and don't have a limit to how many I can build.

If I want "elite" Allied infantry with lots of health, then I can play RAF, which are cheaper to reinforce (38 vs 44), and the doctrine also gets the 17 pounder, achilles, firefly, a field gun, and camouflage. And, after I spend lots of CP in my tech tree, every single one of my RAF squads has vet 2 by default, including snipers, mortars, and MGs. Airborne only gets vet 1 for its 82nd and 101st squads after the upgrade.

If I want planes, well, Airborne usually has a munition shortage because they need to spend money on BARs and Johnsons for 101st, but alternatively I could play RAF, whose air strikes are much, much cheaper. RAF even has the anti-tank rocket strike, which is incredibly deadly to heavy axis tanks.

So I don't know if adding the 2nd recoiless rifle is the solution. Maybe Tiger is right when he suggests reducing the 101st price. Usually, whenever I play Airborne, I am extremely starved of manpower. I spend so much of it on reinforcing my expensive 101st, 82nd, and HQ squad (omg HQ squad costs 46 to reinforce), that I don't have extra manpower to spend on supply drops, airdropped AT guns, or even that stupid "Observation" Squad that costs 180 MP and does nothing else.
Image

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

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Dr. Zhivago » 27 Feb 2016, 20:47

I agree with what kot have said before, cheaper 101s, passive camo for 82s to make them sneaky ambush unit and thunderbolts shall target fortifications.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2517
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Warhawks97 » 27 Feb 2016, 21:27

Dr. Zhivago wrote:I agree with what kot have said before, cheaper 101s, passive camo for 82s to make them sneaky ambush unit and thunderbolts shall target fortifications.


fully agree.

Still fix the rl damage modifier vs vehicles.

User avatar
BffWithDEATH
Posts: 28
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 13:11
Location: New Zealand

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby BffWithDEATH » 27 Feb 2016, 23:48

I remember once sometime ago speaking about how 101st should be:
1)300mp - 320mp 28mp-reinforce
2)Some revised stats to be similar to riflemen but slightly more durable
3)Not spawning with recoiless but upgradable to have one recoiless
4)Recoiless revised performance

Effectively they would be regular infantry with irregular deployment.
Combine them with para support weapons and it would be a very unique and effective doctrine to play.
Image
Embrace Your Dreams

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

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby JimQwilleran » 27 Feb 2016, 23:57

BffWithDEATH wrote:I remember once sometime ago speaking about how 101st should be:
1)300mp - 320mp 28mp-reinforce
2)Some revised stats to be similar to riflemen but slightly more durable
3)Not spawning with recoiless but upgradable to have one recoiless
4)Recoiless revised performance

Effectively they would be regular infantry with irregular deployment.
Combine them with para support weapons and it would be a very unique and effective doctrine to play.
I think that this is a nice vision of 101. And yea RL should be mostly similar to bazooka, maybe with a bit worse penetration stats.

kwok
Posts: 1070
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby kwok » 28 Feb 2016, 01:15

How do crit mechanics work?

Tor
Posts: 167
Joined: 24 Feb 2015, 22:19
Location: Saint-Peterburg

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Tor » 28 Feb 2016, 13:05

Again squads with 6 recoiles? or this fixed?
AIR need buff, but 4-6 recoiles bad buff.
Last edited by Tor on 28 Feb 2016, 16:32, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3200
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 » 28 Feb 2016, 16:14

Btw, despite of the new weapons dropping system that has got implemented on 488 if I am not exactly mistaken... The RL is apparently the only weapon which still keeps randomly dropping somehow!

User avatar
Henny
Posts: 77
Joined: 02 Aug 2016, 04:30

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Henny » 25 Oct 2017, 19:58

Make BK great again! Bring it back!

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 159
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby mofetagalactica » 25 Oct 2017, 20:26

76 % vs 24 % wow

I aprove to fix the rl damage modifier vs vehicles and lower the reinforce cost a little.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3200
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 » 25 Oct 2017, 20:50

@Henny
@Mofeta

Guys, I would like to draw your attention that this topic is now almost 2 years old...

Also, this topic had a deep back-line story on the background as far as I can remember, and definitely not the only topic to argue about the 2nd RL removal back then.. as there were actually A LOT of different topics regarding that subject at that time where this matter was being heavily discussed. It might be also worth mentioning that the arguments used on this subject were all based on the state of the mod back then on the older versions... And even a lot of people who participated here have later already changed their opinions accordingly. Moreover, the votes on this poll were not exactly valid. But that's something I wouldn't speak much about.. since it's part of "history" now!

Lastly, I would like to remind you and also myself on the following forum rule:
Guidelines wrote:2.3 No bumping old threads with inane replies, especially not one-liners like "lol" or "i agree".
Only add to an old thread if your comments are relevant and would be seen as a viable addition to a thread. Continuing on a conversation dropped months ago is not a viable reason.


So, if anyone thinks the 2nd RL should come back.. it would be better to start a new thread I think ;)

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 212
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: 2nd Recoiless Rifle for 101st

Postby Shanks » 28 Oct 2017, 11:03

I vote no, it's stupid to give another rifle without recoil to this unit, you have the hellcat-M10 and the 82nd airborne + planes ...... what else do you want ?, the 101, many times it is not easy to liquidate, and can reinforce in the battlefield, besides the WM, does not have an airborne doctrine .... this would not put you at a disadvantage ??, to my liking, the airborne doctrine of the USA, is fine now.
I wonder ... where did so many people come to vote? ... Are they the same ones who play against the machine? ... they dont know about the destructive power of airplanes? ... the more harmful it would become airbone vs axis tanks? ... they talk about which light vehicles are a problem ... when? ..... they never spam this unit? ... also ... they want that they can no longer use light vehicles? ... omg ... happy ending


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests