CW - AT boys commando

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1326
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: CW - AT boys commando

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 16 May 2017, 10:28

And you guys keep cool, thx.
Image

User avatar
Lionelus
Posts: 51
Joined: 16 Dec 2015, 10:20
Location: Paris (France)

Re: CW - AT boys commando

Postby Lionelus » 17 May 2017, 21:47

Hello Bk community

idliketoplaybetter wrote:And DUH

idliketoplaybetter wrote:and duh again


i'll explain, if you agree, as I felt you got me wrong

Yes, historically ok. Nothing weird with boys gun. Example : they can't one shot King Tiger. And they struggle at destroying light vehicules. The gun behaviour is realistic. => historic accuracy checked.

Now, concerning gameplay ("yet [...] useless mid game), other early AT guns will still perform well mid game, vs infantry and vs light vehicules. Boys don't.

Versus infantry :
The simple fact of being able to shoot HE shells makes up till mid game : 20 munition, 0.5 chance to hit, grenade radius explosion, ability duration 20 s (= 5 shots), 45 second recharge, and with camo first strike bonus (accuracy buff etc) . One lucky shot and you can one kill an entire squad. Out of 5 shots, this will happen.

JimQwilleran wrote:Also I would pick 2 lee enfields over pak HE. HE costs ammo, very important in early game,

So yes, we agree on that. "Early game", as you said. Later, when munitions start flowing, At gun is way better. What about Mid game then ? boys and AT gun don't play in same category at that moment

=> that was the meaning of "you can"t compare". It's no use to compare these, as we all know HE damage outpout is far better. That was a "way" of saying it. Sorry if that sentence mislead you, Idliketoplaybetter. Ideas are not easy to put through keyboard.


So, now, suggestions :

Considering historic realism and gameplay, here are the constraints :

- We can't buff damage. That would be weird.
- We can't buff ability Lockdown accuracy as it would provide lee-Enfield a buff too.
- We could buff accuraccy, but that would be weird, as this weapon was inaccurate in real life.


Yet, here what would be possible in my opinion

- We can reduce aiming time multiplier, long range and medium range, so it would shoot more. Reduce multiplier from 1.5 to 1.
- We could modify Range layout, so long range is 40 and medium range is 30 (instead of 35 and 25)
- We can add a first strike bonus (camo), with accuracy and critical hits buff.
- We could give lockdown a green small critical bonus vs light vehicules, to represent in game the fact that they aim better at vulnerable part
- For commando, we can add special abilities, such as laying mines ; and making it a 4 man squad available immediatly.

Then, it would be possible to put AT boys back after Lieutenant in truck.
# With camo and lockdown, Boys tommies and boys commando would be effective vs vehicule, as they should be (critical bonus and accuracy bonus)
# Without camo, but with lockdown, they will still struggle at destroying light vehicule, but they will at least get a chance to do critical damage right away, which will require some more effort to finish the kill : team mate help, or use of other weapons.


The CW AT gap is simple. The fuel free AT are just underperforming. And the AT gun is only available in glider, which requires 250 precious MP to unlock.
PIAT was underperforming for so long, as they needed 2 to 3 shots to kill halftrack. And I'm glad the March patch solved this.
Now, Boys seem to need some rework as well.
Last edited by Lionelus on 18 May 2017, 13:18, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Leonida [525]
Posts: 138
Joined: 26 Jun 2016, 09:25

Re: CW - AT boys commando

Postby Leonida [525] » 17 May 2017, 23:10

Mmh u are talking like boys are bad. I think they are great (and really.not underperforming), and in my opinion the fact that they can shoot 360 degrees, can move fast, reatreat and go again can simply eat all their "cons". 2 boys squad are great either vs vehicles and vs first infantry in a match. And 250mp for the glider i think its not much :)
PS. Play some matches as axis against them and then tell me if they are bad or not :D

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 248
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: CW - AT boys commando

Postby Redgaarden » 18 May 2017, 00:37

Mmh u are talking like boys are bad. I think they are great (and really.not underperforming), and in my opinion the fact that they can shoot 360 degrees, can move fast, reatreat and go again can simply eat all their "cons". 2 boys squad are great either vs vehicles and vs first infantry in a match. And 250mp for the glider i think its not much :)
PS. Play some matches as axis against them and then tell me if they are bad or not :D


It's kinda sad their strong points is that they have 2 free rifles instead of 1. And I feel like I need more than 2 just to kill a light vehicle before it kills my stuff. I would love having boys on my sapper squad or infantry section. And I'm a little sad they removed boy from bren since it was kinda nice having in 1v1 vs pe.
And PS. 20mm puma will wreck them. I feel they need a more durable squad to be in. And needing to have a minimum of 2 boys before they are effective and only being able to field 2 at the time feels quite limiting for me. Why are they limited?
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

speeddemon02
Posts: 153
Joined: 20 Jan 2015, 03:11

Re: CW - AT boys commando

Postby speeddemon02 » 18 May 2017, 03:38

Id prefer fighting 2 boys teams vs 1 infantry section, easy kills

User avatar
sgtToni95
Posts: 479
Joined: 04 May 2016, 09:50
Location: Italy

Re: CW - AT boys commando

Postby sgtToni95 » 18 May 2017, 06:56

I don't think boys are that bad at the moment. Just sometimes it seems they miss all their shots, and pumas wreck them, but that's more bad RNG than underperforming unit imo.

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 219
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: CW - AT boys commando

Postby idliketoplaybetter » 18 May 2017, 08:25

Lionelus wrote:
=> that was the meaning of "you can"t compare".


That was sarcastic way of saying that, i know, that's what "duh's" for there too. U never missleaded me in personal, but fact that u are once again(and now even with stats :D) comparing units the way u do, making all this weird.Jim has already explainced all the best counterparts to anything imo.Just really, play as Axis and see urself, that ATsquad is very flexible and much more reliable now.All of the "later" problems coming with their inability to kill mid tier units, are just proving, that they must be shifted with Piat squad in long run game by player.That is it.

Saying that HEability is overperforming them, well, legit argument, unless i didnt know, that CW has very strong infantry(especially early game), decent MP upkeep and all the good things like fast Recce push.So sometimes, HE is the only way of getting ur ground back(since Sappers are always there before u) and dealing any damage to CW player MPbank.

For the game stage, where ATtommies are placed now and in its current condition(after last patch) , they are amazing and uniqe unit.

And remind me, what was the topic again?:P ah, right, making ATcommandos an actual unit..
"You can argue only with like-minded people"

User avatar
Lionelus
Posts: 51
Joined: 16 Dec 2015, 10:20
Location: Paris (France)

Re: CW - AT boys commando

Postby Lionelus » 18 May 2017, 09:56

idliketoplaybetter wrote:All of the "later" problems coming with their inability to kill mid tier units


Not only mid game units. Early vehicules too

idliketoplaybetter wrote: good things like fast Recce push


I do agree with that. On that matter, Recce gunner should be killable more easily
Yet, here is an example, concerning Boys usage : for PE, most common counter vs Recce would be armored car panzerbüchse. Thats the early tier 2, and boys should still have a use here.
In this kind of situation, you need efficient AT to counter act vs that panzerbuschse threat. Well, in this scenario, Boys really underperform here : miss many shots, fires slowly. They are not effective at dealing with vehicules, in such sensitive scenario.

idliketoplaybetter wrote:And remind me, what was the topic again?:P ah, right, making ATcommandos an actual unit..


Reworking the loadout and abilities of AT boys commando is not enough. Boys gun, as a weapon, have to be reworked too.

So my main suggestion was to give camo first strike bonus and give lockdown some critical hits. If camo and lockdown, Boys would become somehow effective, in exchange of their mobility advantage. On the move, they would still struggle vs vehicules. But when stationary and camoed, they should be more effective than they are now, so they can deal with vehicules correctly, commando and tommies.
Last edited by Lionelus on 18 May 2017, 10:14, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 219
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: CW - AT boys commando

Postby idliketoplaybetter » 18 May 2017, 10:56

Ok, this example u gave, illustrates more about gameplay/habbit issue, than a balance itself imo.

First of all, that's PE and CW we are talking about.They are really really special in a way of playing.
Most of players, are getting dobule ATboys for the early game, which is now even more common, after the last patch tier change.Which caused, Scout cars getting more rare and more fragile, instead of simply being unkillable unit, and finishing most of the games in few minutes(counting players tendency on small map and 1tunnel play).
Same however, applies to a CW players, but with Dingo's and Recce apparently.

When ur asking for better ATboys perfomance, im not sure if u, again, understand all the good sides of the unit in a first place, aside of simple comparing to the other ATunits in its flaws.

360 degree fire ability, u simply leave them on a spot and forget.It doesnt require any micro at all.And u want this to be even more effective somewhy.Without a consideration, that most of the time, they are abused not as Defence unit, but helping on Attack.Which with hold ground ability, would make any defence for PE player(im talking about panzerbuche) impossible at all.

Capping points/buildings/firing from Camouflage, price.All what people have already listed here on a thread.

Yes, they miss, sometimes cant finish units, but mostly, its based on RNG but not their stats.

What u described as "sensitive scenario", again, only shows me a players tendency to rush Recce anywhere with no counter expectations(and PE players on the other hand, to rely on something like HE rounds and Panzerbuche being 1shotter).
"You can argue only with like-minded people"

User avatar
Lionelus
Posts: 51
Joined: 16 Dec 2015, 10:20
Location: Paris (France)

Re: CW - AT boys commando

Postby Lionelus » 18 May 2017, 13:05

idliketoplaybetter wrote:Ok, this example u gave, illustrates more about gameplay/habbit issue, than a balance itself imo
idliketoplaybetter wrote:only shows me a players tendency to rush Recce anywhere with no counter expectations


I'm not that kind of player. You saw me in game.



idliketoplaybetter wrote:Yes, they miss, sometimes cant finish units, but mostly, its based on RNG but not their stats.


sgtToni95 wrote:Just sometimes it seems they miss all their shots, and pumas wreck them, but that's more bad RNG than underperforming unit imo.


OK then. If other people say so, maybe i'm the only one struggling with this.


Boys commando is underperforming, they need at least, to be a squad, instead of a single guy. Something has to be done with this unit. As it is now, it's totally crappy.
So no changes on the weapon

but :
- 4 men squad
- available immediatly in first glider
- mines, possibility to build trench and radar
- camo (at the moment camo need to be unlocked in command tree ; Camo should be available right away)

Is that ok for everybody ? what do dev think about all of this ?

User avatar
sgtToni95
Posts: 479
Joined: 04 May 2016, 09:50
Location: Italy

Re: CW - AT boys commando

Postby sgtToni95 » 18 May 2017, 21:18

I would change then to a 3 men squad with passive camo as standard boys squad, and to make them preferable to the standard ones, i'd apply the aim time buff you suggested for normal ones, making them available with first glider as i said in this other post:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1932

I really think tommies ones don't under perform, and, as it has already been said, they received many buffs lately, making them a decent unit.

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 248
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: CW - AT boys commando

Postby Redgaarden » 19 May 2017, 13:58

I think their dps is quite low. Seen halftracks run straight past them. And if they could get run over they would.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

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

Re: CW - AT boys commando

Postby JimQwilleran » 19 May 2017, 14:54

I also think that boys are performing well ;).

User avatar
Lionelus
Posts: 51
Joined: 16 Dec 2015, 10:20
Location: Paris (France)

Re: CW - AT boys commando

Postby Lionelus » 20 May 2017, 10:13

Redgaarden wrote:I think their dps is quite low. Seen halftracks run straight past them. And if they could get run over they would.


Maybe that's RNG. If we are the 2 only person feeling boys are underperforming.

the time between shots is way too long. Try it in game, and count. You'll see you get max 8 second to wait between each shot (except at close range, they fire faster of course)

All in all, it seems Boys is not made to kill vehicules. Am I wrong ? I just did some test again, they are very unreliable, even vs IA. And the 1% HP bug is still up somehow. It happens less, but it still happens.

With the current PvP gameplay, it seems boys are more to prevent light vehicules to get close, and push back halftrack and armored cars. You'll get 1 lucky hit, sometimes, and the vehicule will just have 8 seconds to escape and survive. So very difficult to destroy vehicules with boys.

Boys role early game => move, get into cover, and somehow deny access to axis light vehicules in early game. But not destroy them. If you could move, and destroy light vehicules, that would be too good of a unit in early game. I'm pretty sure this is the gameplay balancing logic behind all of this.

As for the Boys commando, by the time they get available, even in first glider, there is no way their stats allowed them to deal vs Puma and others.
Maybe add a new boys rifle, with buffed stats for commando.

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 248
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: CW - AT boys commando

Postby Redgaarden » 20 May 2017, 12:43

The problem is they get outperformed so heavily by all other at guns that having even 2 boys is stil less dmg than a enemy pak gun. And I am just wondering why they are limited to only 2 boys at the time.
But if they actually killed their target I woulnd't have to worry all the time how fragile they are. And since just wounding enemy vehicles just results in them running away and getting repaired and sent back out makes almost every light vehicle a viable counter to boy pushes or lone boys in anything but heavy cover.

Edit: And I still always build 2 of them pretty much every round.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 219
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: CW - AT boys commando

Postby idliketoplaybetter » 20 May 2017, 17:20

Redgaarden wrote: Edit: And I still always build 2 of them pretty much every round.


Well, i see not much reasons for CW to get extra ATboys against WM, there is simply nothing to fight on early game phase aside of scwhimm.
So when we are talking of "underpowered" Boys, we might first claim, that they "underperform", in games against PE(which faction is based on Trucks and motorised and making ATboys tougher is very fragile to the balance here).And that, extra ATsquad solve any problem, unless PE player is cocky enough or "creative" in a way of tactical usage of his units early.
Also, in its current state of the gameplay, none of ScoutCars or boys are meant to be used as "attackers", but more like counter-attackers/defenders, in which role both work well to me, however, players well known of this units upsides to be "that cocky")

Rest is a role of timing/teching => Piats/ATs.

1% HP bug happens sometimes, but now, it looks less like bug thing we all are used to, but more like due to RNG "restrictions" unit sometimes deal less dmg, then you might expect him to(like chance of crit is lowered or something).
"You can argue only with like-minded people"

User avatar
sgtToni95
Posts: 479
Joined: 04 May 2016, 09:50
Location: Italy

Re: CW - AT boys commando

Postby sgtToni95 » 20 May 2017, 18:44

I usually find it "harder" to counter wehrmacht's pumas, more than PE's scout cars or halftracks. Pumas seem to be faster, or at least more "dodgy", and harder to hit for boys rifles, usually requiring 3 hits to die. To be honest expecially "stubby" 75 mm puma is a real pain for brits unless they have 6pdr, while halftracks based on sdkfz 250/251 are little slower and (seem) easier to hit for both piats and boys.

I think different doctrines have many tools to counter halftracks, expecially vehicles, and i think boys and piats work fine now (they were so much worse not so many patches ago), so i wouldn't touch them at all.

I'd personally just focus on this topic, so on how to give commando boys some kind of use in game.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest