The Artillery Talk

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
Warhawks97
Posts: 2368
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

The Artillery Talk

Postby Warhawks97 » 16 Jul 2017, 21:50

Its my first topic during the last year or two i think.

Much has been changed as i could see. But others have not. And so the discussions about artillery, artillery abuse, adding/removing arty, what docs shall have arty at all are still in place.

In the recent weeks i discoverd one specific "thing" that is in the room since i started playing BK mod.

And thats the Rocket artillery.


Just as it has been years ago, the problem with rocket arty is till the same. It comes very early, is cheaper as a normal mortar unit (not to mention mortar HT) and its kind of abused nonstop with "wildfire" in all directions. Simply straight "in enemie direction", "over there" in the fog of war. You will hit something for sure.

You might think now: Whats the problem, he isnt really killing a unit anway. But this is the worse thing. They just keep coming flying quite deep into your territory and crippling something there, damage something there and whatever. The result is that no unit is lost, but nothing is left combat ready. Means repairs there, reinforce there etc etc.

And after a while there comes the lucky rocket that hits right into your retreat spawn.


And this kind of gameplay is nasty as fuck. Esspecially when there are multiple players doing this.


The next prob is, the only way to avoid it is too keep the enemie busy, forcing him to keep moving and replace losses. But that also puts huge pressure on players. When you take more than 3-4 mins to plan your next assault or step you can smell it "Rockets are coming". There is no brain, no thought, no idea, no tactic behind it. The strategy is: "Keep shooting so he wont ever get ready for an well planned an attack. psychological warfare as well.


So ahead of my suggestion heres some data you can play with.

Firing range of units:

Basic howitzer:
225

Wespe SPG:
200

Wespe SPG with long range rounds:
250

Wespe with airburst:
200

Nebelwerfer:
200

Walking Stuka:
175

Maultier:
150 (if i checked correctly)

Calliope:
150



If you see such data it becomes obvious why rocket arty is used the way it is. It basically a range comparable to howitzers. Just it costs no CP and is much cheaper.

The Maultier and Calliope seem to be a bit more "sane" and serving a more accurate purpose.


However my Suggestion is:

1. Cut the Range of Rocket artillery. Maximun should be 150 range.

2. Add appriopriate cooldowns.


Rocket artillery main purpose is the prepare/support and push assaults, not mindless shooting from afar straight into spawns like howitzers do. In fact they are more devestating in doing so due to the quick strike session.

In order to use them the players should plan well ahead. Sufficient reconassaince and smart unit positioning before using it, always close to frontlines. Furthermore no more spawn shots from far distance. If he wants to, he must take the risk of losing it to a quick counter strike.


So far i would say that all sorts of walking stuka should have a max range of 135. Thus staying close behind assault forces and armor.
Nebelwerfer maximum range to 150. The set up time might be removed in return.


Thx for your attention.

User avatar
Kr0noZ
Global Moderator
Posts: 89
Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 06:20
Location: Germany

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby Kr0noZ » 16 Jul 2017, 21:59

Well, I think nebelwerfers should get limited to terror and SE (if they have them... not sure^^)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fZ_ySyXA4s
This is the definition of terror.

Blitz has the Maultier, Def has all the gun arty; luft as planes, SE has a ton of SPGs and TH has the hotchkiss.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2368
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby Warhawks97 » 16 Jul 2017, 23:19

Sure. But why needs Terror such a long range artillery?

I would try to focus on setting a real max range of rocket arty in general to prevent random crossfire.


Also churchill 95 has 120 range. 75 mm Arty 150 as well.

I think the long range arty warfare should be really restricted on a few docs. Mainly SE and RA. Rocket arty more tactical and not so randomly serving the purpose of punching a certain area rather than "Heavy rain" till enemies spawn.


Also to your definition. When i see it i could suggest that terror would just have arty of all sorts. The powerfull infantry (but also tanks) wouldnt fit then anymore. Still it has them.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 2993
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby Tiger1996 » 17 Jul 2017, 00:35

Personally I don't mind removing 95mm Cromwell from RAF doc as well as 150mm Nebels from Luft doc, even though I might have said in the past that I am against this change.. but after thinking for a little bit; I figured out that I was probably wrong.

Moreover, regarding rocket artillery... Again I personally don't mind at all lowering the range as suggested above! Though, as a result.. I would probably request that the 75mm HT from RA doc would get some range reduction too, being 135 or something.

Also, Sherman 105 from inf doc should therefore have some range reduction too, from 180 to 150.

Then everything would be good :)

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

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby JimQwilleran » 17 Jul 2017, 02:04

Yeah, all this to make camping more appealing. Good job.

kwok
Posts: 969
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby kwok » 17 Jul 2017, 02:23

Or play bigger maps.

I mean don't get me wrong, your ideas are interesting and would probably have good impact on the game but it won't solve problems as much as you think it will. Of all people, the people who have talked on this thread so far should know that devs have pretty much tried everything for arty, raising lowering limiting changing arty for years. But there will always be SOME problem. I'm sort of getting sick at the amount of proposals people have said about fixing arty that was pretty much tried before. If I searched "arty" or "artillery" in the balance forums I'd probably pull up 90% of the posts.

The issue isn't about the arty itself, it's the players and their unwillingness to play big maps.

User avatar
sgtToni95
Posts: 390
Joined: 04 May 2016, 09:50

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby sgtToni95 » 17 Jul 2017, 08:06

Hi Kwok, i like this brand new idea of playing big maps to avoid arty!!++ you're always one step ahead!

User avatar
idliketoplaybetter
Posts: 168
Joined: 26 Feb 2016, 19:55

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby idliketoplaybetter » 17 Jul 2017, 09:08

JimQwilleran wrote:Yeah, all this to make camping more appealing. Good job.


No it wont make game staller, so has not made delaying of MTHT's.

I dont even think Nebels are overused/overcommon for every doc, i think they are overpowerfull.That is different.


Kwok wrote: The issue isn't about the arty itself, it's the players and their unwillingness to play big maps.



Yes and No to me.

I mean, yes, i agree players are mostly post-compstomper who dreamt of all the trophy-uniqe arty to be buildable, and they finally got this at bkmod.

But no, because basic arty concept of bkmod is still favouring compstomper logic to me(maybe less than it used to be, but im fresh noob here so i wont speak of that much).

Basically what im saying, is that each unit is supposed to be a counter for other unit.That is cool, and spreads for arty aspect too, but that doesnt work with logic of Grille 1shotting Callie, when Callie cant even fight it back.Im all for "not everything suppose to be the same", but to me, lots of things in game, are simply past time/concept anachronisms, what are unbalancable.Because PVP is not PVE.
"You can argue only with like-minded people"

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

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby Lionelus » 19 Jul 2017, 12:51

kwok wrote:Or play bigger maps.


This is the smartest statement I've read for quite a long time on the forum

Thanks Kwok for bringing this up

Play bigger map, and most bk issue would be solved : OP planes, arty spam, position spam

Bigger map means more space to manoeuver and flank ; so no more camping. No more Mg / sniper / pak / Mortar lock in.

Airborne, SAS, sabotage squad, all would have a real purpose.
Light and fast vehicules will be very useful to reach any point of the map.

Big and heavy tanks won't be as useful : slow and easely flanked

And people might start using trucks and other transportation, which are never seen in game, for map control.

I'll add my voice to this : PLAY BIGGER MAP

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2368
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby Warhawks97 » 19 Jul 2017, 14:11

So this topic ran off and we are once again in this standard answer with play bigger map thing. Which isnt wrong actually. But it doesnt answer the plain simple question which is:

Why this?:

Nebler 200 range, walking stuka 175, calli 150 and 95 mm churchill 120 range.

Whats the exact reason why neblers need a range almost that of howitzers (225) (that cost cp and cant move).

I want to get the simple logic behind this. Why do they or shall they have this opportunity to "simply shoot whenever and wherever they want without much relocating necessary. And this is a question regardless of map size or anything.


And dont join now with realistic reasons and stuff. The 150 nebler fired max 6000 meters, the 210 slightly above 7000 meters. The axis 105 used here slightly above 12000 meters. The walking stuka 4550 meters with 300 mm rocket (320 even less).



So just give me a simple gameplay reason why such ranges as listed above are necessary for neblers to be usefull. Why they have to exceed 150 range which no other support arty except normal howitzers have.




Kr0noZ wrote:Well, I think nebelwerfers should get limited to terror and SE (if they have them... not sure^^)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fZ_ySyXA4s
This is the definition of terror.

Blitz has the Maultier, Def has all the gun arty; luft as planes, SE has a ton of SPGs and TH has the hotchkiss.



I though about this in particular again and a (i guess unlikely to happen) revamp of terror doc. We could turn the Terror doc into a arsenal of rocket artillery. Basically saying that only this doc has (maybe only maultier stays in BK doc) rocket arty but therefore many types with different ranges, calibre, costs etc etc.

The Ideas ranging from Maultier and Walking stuka that can be choosed as reward and being overworked.
210 and 150 mm nebler as reward. The 210 would be more expensive but more damage and range as the 150 mm.
Maybe also the 210 could fire two salvo types. The 150 mm and 210 mm (it was able to do so).

The doc could also have them all at the same time.... 2 150 mm, 2 210 and 2 walking stuka.

Ive got a whole set of ideas that could make the terror doctrine into a largely rocket artillery focused doctrine with lots of upgrades that could boost them. Including maybe even an upgrade called "increased rocket production" that would lower salvo costs. Also increased rocket artillery production or something.

The docs may lose the biggest tanks then and become a real terror doctrine that barrages the enemies with rockets. The drawback would be the loss of Tanks better than Tank IV and the generally weak AA (it has anyways).

Just an idea i got when i watched the video.

User avatar
sgtToni95
Posts: 390
Joined: 04 May 2016, 09:50

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby sgtToni95 » 19 Jul 2017, 15:13

Adding more arty in terms of quantity? A big no from me.

I think having more arty available wouldn't make the game more strategical than having long range arty.

You yourelf said balance was very broken by units time ago when you used to play.

Now that balance is pretty good ( except for the very next moments after a bad game, and this seems to me the reason why balance discussions have recently moved to the replay section) and there are not exceptionally OP units, you suggest a significant reworking to a doctrine?

I wouldn't mind a range reduction to rockets, but such a big reworking isn't really a nice suggestion in my opinion.
That could be nice in a freshly made mod, but i think trying to learn the game as it is now, together with playing on bigger maps, would be a better solution for the issue you brought up here.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 111
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby Shanks » 19 Jul 2017, 18:35

In particular I think that the artillery is good as it is now, in general, I think the problem is that people think that playing BK is just attacking. Now, they could try to play 4v4 or 3v3, I think in This type of games would not have many problems with the artillery

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2368
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby Warhawks97 » 19 Jul 2017, 19:51

sgtToni95 wrote:Adding more arty in terms of quantity? A big no from me.

I think having more arty available wouldn't make the game more strategical than having long range arty.


More? Where?


Now that balance is pretty good ( except for the very next moments after a bad game, and this seems to me the reason why balance discussions have recently moved to the replay section) and there are not exceptionally OP units, you suggest a significant reworking to a doctrine?


Did i say anyhting about OP. I asked for the current logic and why the range need to be as high as those of howitzers.

I wouldn't mind a range reduction to rockets, but such a big reworking isn't really a nice suggestion in my opinion.
That could be nice in a freshly made mod, but i think trying to learn the game as it is now, together with playing on bigger maps, would be a better solution for the issue you brought up here.


It wasnt a suggestion. It was what came in mind when i watched the video like three times. Sometimes i lose myself in minds. I know it will never happen. It was just a thought about terror. Basically it was an answer to the "definition of terror".


Shanks wrote:In particular I think that the artillery is good as it is now, in general, I think the problem is that people think that playing BK is just attacking. Now, they could try to play 4v4 or 3v3, I think in This type of games would not have many problems with the artillery


Have you ever played 3 vs 3 or 4 vs 4? Its usually a lot more (a hell more) of arty. If we would count "arty projectile" per "unit" that ration is greatly increased in such games.

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 221
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby Redgaarden » 19 Jul 2017, 20:23

Warhawks97 wrote:Ive got a whole set of ideas that could make the terror doctrine into a largely rocket artillery focused doctrine with lots of upgrades that could boost them. Including maybe even an upgrade called "increased rocket production" that would lower salvo costs. Also increased rocket artillery production or something.


I have a big problem with cost reducing unlocks, I would like it much better if it just reduced cooldown of the abilities or something like that.
When there are cost reducing cp unlocks like Mass moblilization and Mass production. It makes the player almost frown on all other purchases since it makes little sense for them to build anything other than their shermans or rangers. I think the Terror doctrine will just become the Rocket Armour doctrine with some occasional op unit to the side.

Warhawks97 wrote:Firing range of units:

Basic howitzer:
225

Wespe SPG:
200

Wespe SPG with long range rounds:
250

Wespe with airburst:
200

Nebelwerfer:
200

Walking Stuka:
175

Maultier:
150 (if i checked correctly)

Calliope:
150


My problem isn't the max range of the unit. My problem comes to the minimum range of the unit. I hate it when my infantry have to die just because they can't do anything else. I feel a little bit cheated when my squad just geets insta wiped by mortars that are 5 feet away, or by walking stuka that just rotated and wiped entire squad in 2 rocekts. And once I killed my own mortar by firing minimum range and ended up mortaring themselves. These indirect fire has such minimum range that they can even kill themselves! I suggest you increase the minimum range instead of decreasing the maximum. I mean. You even said it yourself? Nebel werfer didn't even kill anything, And Walking stuka is bloody inaccurate.
And the 210, you have no idea where it's aiming since it's so fucking bloody inaccurate. And the worst part is you still die to the 1 rocekt that you didn't even know how it came there. My suggestion is decreasing the spread of the m210. Making it less dangerous for infantry and snipers and more dangerous only to the biggest of heavy tanks.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2368
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby Warhawks97 » 19 Jul 2017, 21:40

Thats interesting. Isnt it the case that many hate it when all their tanks get all the time wrecked by the rocket arty?
And now it shall be only a threat exactly to them.

the concept of (these ww2) rocket arty is actually area bombardmend so far. Wouldnt like it actually to see being kind of an accurate howitzer with the small difference that the strike interval is much shorter than those of howitzers.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 111
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby Shanks » 20 Jul 2017, 00:53

Warhawks97 wrote:
Shanks wrote:In particular I think that the artillery is good as it is now, in general, I think the problem is that people think that playing BK is just attacking. Now, they could try to play 4v4 or 3v3, I think in This type of games would not have many problems with the artillery


Have you ever played 3 vs 3 or 4 vs 4? Its usually a lot more (a hell more) of arty. If we would count "arty projectile" per "unit" that ration is greatly increased in such games.


Friend, I have more than 1700 hours of play (only pvp), and I do not think that in a 3v3 or 4v4 there is artillery hell, and if there is one. What is the problem? Your team can also have artillery !!!

Always, at the end of the game the tanks advance and the infantry, although there has been infernal artillery, it is only question of who uses his artillery better and to combine with the doctrine of the companion to win the game; But I see many times that those who complain about the artillery and emplacament are PLAYERS WHO NEVER HAVE IN THEIR TEAM A PARTNER WITH AN ARTILLERY DOCTRIN

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2368
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby Warhawks97 » 20 Jul 2017, 13:22

In all i must have approx 3000 hours spend in BK and pvp (started long before coh went to steam). That means exactly what?

To your second part. Sure the those who use arty smart wins, not those who use most.

That doesnt change the annoyance.
Also, yes i/we can. But only when using a specific artillery doc it is possible to match this range of an arty unit that is placed in non arty doc(s) for 0 CP and cheaper than a mortar.

And in this particular moment it would help that people use their arty a lot more smart if they couldnt reach almost any area of the map with the cheapest and earliest artillery available.

Not a single arty tool that cost less than 400 MP and no CP´s has a range of 200 (and is mobile at the same time). Or am i wrong here?

I am still waiting for a reasonable answer that makes sense regarding that one single plain easy question i made above. Why neblers need 200 range?

User avatar
Kr0noZ
Global Moderator
Posts: 89
Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 06:20
Location: Germany

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby Kr0noZ » 20 Jul 2017, 13:52

Well, its a usability thing.
Too little range would mean its useless because it can get countered easily and its not mobile like the maultier or walking stuka.
However, i dont think there is an easy fix for this. More realism would mean half range compared to the lFh18, but that is sooo shortrange that its not useful.

Id like to try higher range on gun arty, realisticly scaled range for neblers, restricting neblers more (already explained that) and potentially just remove all 1v1 and small 2v2 maps to finally enforce the whole "people should play bigger maps ffs" thing... oh well, here comes the hate ^^

User avatar
sgtToni95
Posts: 390
Joined: 04 May 2016, 09:50

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby sgtToni95 » 20 Jul 2017, 14:10

I think sometimes smaller maps fit quite decently for 1v1s and 2v2s.

Btw, related to brainless use of arty and click to kill abilities, together with maps, i made this suggestion some time ago:

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2074

User avatar
Redgaarden
Posts: 221
Joined: 16 Jan 2015, 03:58

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby Redgaarden » 20 Jul 2017, 17:17

Thats interesting. Isnt it the case that many hate it when all their tanks get all the time wrecked by the rocket arty?
And now it shall be only a threat exactly to them.


I'm speaking on behalf of the more lighter variants like regular shermans and armored cars that get killed by stray rockets. The 210mm usually only needs 1 rocket to kill most thing. It should be easier to dodge if the pattern wasn't so darn random. It only becomes more effective vs things that need more rocets to kill, but that is just barely.
Rifles are not for fighting. They are for building!

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2368
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby Warhawks97 » 20 Jul 2017, 20:25

Kr0noZ wrote:Well, its a usability thing.
Too little range would mean its useless because it can get countered easily and its not mobile like the maultier or walking stuka.
However, i dont think there is an easy fix for this. More realism would mean half range compared to the lFh18, but that is sooo shortrange that its not useful.


I dont want just more realism. I simply belive that a no CP 300 MP arty that can come so early needs a range of howitzers.

I dont think so. At the time the 150 mm comes there is nothing it has to be afraid off in terms of counter arty batteries (except when playing vs RA but in this case it would be fine).

And 150 range is not a cut of half its range.
The 75 mm arty units have 175 range and cost more and they finish their barrage as fast as nebler does.
About churchills we dont even need to talk i would say.


About mobility, the neblers gain speed bost with vet 1 or so. Sometimes it seems to me that they move faster as the mechanized arty units.
Keep in mind their VT cost 35 ammo and the activation range is huge.


Also the 210 (in corsix it says 300 mm) nebelwerfer has apparently also just a range of 175 when using direct fire. And that one comes even later and cost more.

Also its quite interesting here.

The 210 mm nebler has 175 range with direct fire and 200 with that vertical fire.
The 150 mm has for both 200 range.





Id like to try higher range on gun arty, realisticly scaled range for neblers, restricting neblers more (already explained that) and potentially just remove all 1v1 and small 2v2 maps to finally enforce the whole "people should play bigger maps ffs" thing... oh well, here comes the hate ^^




not a bad idea actually :P


But lets get to the main subject and a suggestion (and question)

Would a nebler range cut would make them suddenly completely useless?

Suggesting:
Remove vertical fire from rocket arty. Thats a vcoh remnant where rocket arty fired only like this.
Remove set up and dismantle time on neblers or reduce the time.

150 mm nebler:
150 range.

210 nebler:
170 range (coz it comes later and cost more)


Walking Stuka and hotchkiss: 140 Range

Maultier:
keep it as it is (150 range)



I'm speaking on behalf of the more lighter variants like regular shermans and armored cars that get killed by stray rockets. The 210mm usually only needs 1 rocket to kill most thing. It should be easier to dodge if the pattern wasn't so darn random. It only becomes more effective vs things that need more rocets to kill, but that is just barely.


Thats another quite messy thing


You have to know that so far all allied tanks and vehicles (except the crocc churchill) take way more less damage from arty as Axis tanks and vehicles.

As a sample:

Wespe round deals 335 damage. That damage is in the explosion center (which has a radius of 1) multilied with factor 1.5 (50% boost). Against Shermans but also jumbo, churchill and also Super Pershing the damage is pretty much that one in a direct hit.



The US 105 mm howitzer has same basic damage with same modifiers and area effect.. But it suffers 0.75 damage modifier against Tank IV (but also against sherman in case it got captured).
But even against normal halftracks of 251 type (or the 234 series) the damage is reduced by 0.75 modifier (25% less damage). PE vehicles take the full damage.



The crocc churchill is the only allied tank so far with a arty damage reduction comparable to axis tank IV.
Axis KT takes just half of the artillery damage.

In terms of nebler the 150 mm usually deals the full 100-150 damage but has no additional damage in its explosion center.
The 210 has a reduced damage vs most armor of also 25% (including allied armor). His basic damage is 350. But in a radius of two distance the damage is doubled.

So calculation of a hit against allied armor by 210 nebler is: 350x0.75x2= 525 damage, even if it strikes very close next to it (at which normal howitzer would suffer already a damage loss).


So your problem could be fixed maybe if the 210 wouldnt have doubled damage right in the explosion center (direct hit).


Generally i would greatly vote that all tanks but few exception like Hellcat should have 25% reduced taken damage by arty. That way a direct hit of a 105 mm shell wouldnt deal 502 damage in a direct but instead 376,875.

And since during the war most tanks got damaged (like secondary damages) by arty it would also give a more realistic picture of arty/tank warfare.

In terms of the 210 just dont let it have double damage in the explosion center and instead just the more common 50% more. The damage against a tank would then be 393,75 instead of the 525 damage.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 2993
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby Tiger1996 » 20 Jul 2017, 21:50

Like I said earlier, I am OK with reducing the range of rocket artillery as proposed... Even though I honestly don't really consider it a big deal anyhow. But then the Sherman 105 range has to be significantly reduced as well.. and the RA doc 75mm half-track too, 175 range is way too much. Keeping mind that the barrage is already too cost effective for just 25 ammo! So the range would have to be reduced to around 130 or something. Walking Stuka should always have more range than this 75mm half-track in particular.

However, I can see absolutely no issues how Axis tanks have more damage reduction from arty.. as they are more expensive already. Not to mention that Axis tanks already die quite easily to arty fire as of now. Even though they take less damage currently, so I really wonder what would happen if they take more damage! Furthermore; 210mm Nebel barrage price was already increased recently...

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2368
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby Warhawks97 » 21 Jul 2017, 01:05

Tiger1996 wrote:Like I said earlier, I am OK with reducing the range of rocket artillery as proposed... Even though I honestly don't really consider it a big deal anyhow. But then the Sherman 105 range has to be significantly reduced as well.. and the RA doc 75mm half-track too, 175 range is way too much. Keeping mind that the barrage is already too cost effective for just 25 ammo! So the range would have to be reduced to around 130 or something. Walking Stuka should always have more range than this 75mm half-track in particular.


RA 75 mm has 150 range, not 175.

However.



However, I can see absolutely no issues how Axis tanks have more damage reduction from arty.. as they are more expensive already. Not to mention that Axis tanks already die quite easily to arty fire as of now. Even though they take less damage currently, so I really wonder what would happen if they take more damage! Furthermore; 210mm Nebel barrage price was already increased recently...


Where did i say they shall take more? I would simpy whish that the damage system of arty vs axis tanks would apply to so far all.
besides that its Pershings and jumbos as well that take the ammount of damage.

For that 210. I was just explaining to Redgaarden why such random striking missiles from the 210 nebler ripping of tanks almost instantly and proposed solutions for his issues.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 21 Jul 2017, 14:52, edited 1 time in total.

kwok
Posts: 969
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby kwok » 21 Jul 2017, 03:49

Kr0noZ wrote: potentially just remove all 1v1 and small 2v2 maps to finally enforce the whole "people should play bigger maps ffs" thing... oh well, here comes the hate ^^


I could kiss you. I've even gone and edited some maps removing players from each side to make those small maps playable for games. But they're in a private folder that I shared with few I think. I edited them without permissions

User avatar
crimax
Posts: 105
Joined: 07 Dec 2014, 16:01

Re: The Artillery Talk

Postby crimax » 21 Jul 2017, 11:11

:D

Hello, please don't ask me why I am laughing.

Obviously I will follow the discussion very interested.
"We had the best WWII game but we didn't know where to install it. Then we found Company Of Heroes!"


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Diablo and 1 guest