Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1355
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby kwok » 29 Dec 2017, 08:04

One of the distinguishing features of BK is its "tactical realism" mechanics. This doesn't mean the values of the units are realistic but that the game encourages and rewards tactics that are often executed in real-life scenarios. For example, extending ranges of weapons to simulate the long range combat of 20th century combat and high death critical chances to simulate the deadliness of combat instead of a basic HP system.

Despite all the changes of BK, there is still an "arcadish feel" to some of the gameplay. This is not always a bad thing, but I want to ask where the line between arcade and simulation is and can we stretch that line. The game has a natural tendency to reward micro-skill over strategy giving it the arcade feel. One such example is the use of vehicles. Have you ever seen an armored car do a complete 180 degree turn, rotating on its center, and speeding away? Use the CW Daimler. That car is one of the most agile ballerinas in the game. Do you recall the story of the tiger tank that skillfully slalomed through a high grade obstacle course? Only in BK.

Vehicles in BK sometimes act as one-man armies because of their ability to micro through situations without tradeoffs. It doesn't resemble the tactics applied in reality where vehicle commanders rely more on planning and positioning rather than practicing for the tank-olympics. Personally, I'd rather see BK reward strategy more than micro. I have a radical suggestion to decrease the deceleration and acceleration of nearly all vehicles in BK. How do the rest of you feel about this idea?

Immediately, I can think of TONS of balance issues coming up from this change. It is essentially a blanket vehicle nerf and indirect offmap support buff plus any other indirect buffs. But, despite these balance issues that can be worked over multiple patches I think this idea is worth pursuing to give the vehicles of BK a refreshing and fun meta that better resembles the stories of armored combat in the WW2 stories.

More analysis on balance impacts to come, but I wanted to throw the idea out for discussion first.
Last edited by kwok on 29 Dec 2017, 09:21, edited 1 time in total.

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 268
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 29 Dec 2017, 08:08

You can take the example from "arcadish" COH2 vanila, where almost every basic infantry unit can use AT tools, to break tank's engine and damage it, making using alone vehicles without a proper support useless.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3796
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration

Postby Tiger1996 » 29 Dec 2017, 09:05

kwok wrote:How do the rest of you feel about this idea

Company of Heroes is not Men of War and can never be.
This is shortly how I feel about the idea...
I do believe that the general vehicles\infantry balance in Bk Mod is currently just too well, and therefore in my humble opinion I don't think any massive changes regarding this matter are any worth it at all or even necessary.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 465
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration

Postby Jalis » 29 Dec 2017, 09:15

It is not changing accelaration or turning rate on vehicles you need.
What you need is switching from coh to a more realistic game.

Just an other exemple tank have a longest range sight than infantry. Really it would be a shortest one and only a narrow cone in front.

Find an other game that can please you in term of realism, because it is something coh cant, even with mod.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1355
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration

Postby kwok » 29 Dec 2017, 09:17

@Tiger
If anything, this is the opposite of "men of war". Men of war allows for extremely fine vehicle controls. Right now, the speedy do everything vehicles are able to pull off ridiculous micro actions like in men of war. By lowering the acceleration of vehicles, more strategy and broad movements are rewarded instead. Instead of greyhounds or pumas zipping around silly popping shots and running around in circles, you'll get well placed AT guns and vehicles scoring side hits from ambush and locations of visual advantage. Instead of a hellcats and cromwells playing ring aroudn the rosy around a tiger, you get a game of will the tiger be in a position where it can pick off the hopelessly, poorly, placed medium tanks without mercy OR will the medium tanks move onto the unsuspected exposed flank of the tiger before it could turn and scoring those "flank shots" that the allegedly spammable 76 shermans with it's 34% penetration can do.

Other mods and games that brought this in are SD44 and Wikingr. Even Wikingr is more progressive in this way that BK! While a game like Spearhead mod still likes to play with its full vcoh accelerated panthers and shermans that run around with its "realistic" mounted mg pretty much killing everything with its spoiled, elitist, exploiting community calling it "skill".

@Jalis
Turn rate and acceleration go hand-in-hjand, I agree turn rate should change too. Both of the values overlap each other in many ways. Thanks for pointing that out.

I think you missed my point about "realism" though. It's the ambiance and feel of rewarding tactics that give it a "feel" of realism vs arcade. It's the immersion of feeling like a commander rather than a player that creates "realism". Not realistic penetration values and speeds. If everything went historical, "realism" could be lost because you end up focusing on other micro things rather than immersing as a military leader.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3796
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby Tiger1996 » 29 Dec 2017, 09:33

It is true that Wikinger Mod has taken into account a much more realistic tank warfare ideology, with very long range for tanks and very narrow sight range.. which is good, but the CoH2 engine has helped them! They have the true-sight feature... So nothing can see behind obstacles. And this leads to a more tactical approach of how and where generally all units are placed, not just tanks.

Bk Mod however, does not have true-sight and can't have it. Nonetheless, as u r already aware... Bk Mod has dynamic sight! Units lose sight range while being on the move and gain full sight range when stationary. There is nothing more Bk can do regarding this.. simply because the engine can't go any further.

So, it is as Jalis said.. maybe Steel Division and Wikinger can heal you :) I also play them myself from time to time.. but Bk just as how it is currently, is still the best.. even with limited game engine.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 465
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby Jalis » 29 Dec 2017, 17:44

I will not risk me in pvp consideration for vehicles vs infantry.

For pve At time Heavy vehicles are available, they rule the world. Light vehicles become useless and infantry is limited to capture role. The game simply become a tanks battle supported by arty. I tried solutions, but with no real success.

@kwok ;if you think and can rally others to your view, tuning acceleration and turning rate can be good for your mod, try it. However I think tanks problem come from lack of vulnerability due to their high and 360 degree sight. Last is something associated to game engine and mod cant do anything against that. Drastically rise tanks cost is not a solution either. Destruction of such units would be too frustrating for solo players, and a too severe blow (I presume) for a pvp one.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1355
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby kwok » 29 Dec 2017, 20:49

I've built it into my own mod from the beginning, so far from my testers they say they enjoy it just because it feels more "real". I actually brought other features in and suggested it to olhausen to bring into Wikingr.
But I see and agree with what you say about it is a HUGE impact to the pvp meta which is why I want to bring it up to the BK community as a discussion and see if we are willing to take the risk in drastically changing the gameplay for a "new" game.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1355
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby kwok » 30 Jan 2018, 20:29

Can all those people who say they agree with me on steam or in game post something so this doesn’t get forgotten?

[passive aggression]
I think it’s bullshit that other agenda pushing suggestions for players who want their formulas to be OP gets talked about but balance suggestions that impact across the board changes and formulas (ahem like playing big maps) get agreed in private but never practiced. Or are we all just loud mouthed cowards with egos and stats to protect?
[/passive aggression]

User avatar
ShadowIchigo
Posts: 330
Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 20:25
Location: Philadelphia Born N Raized, US

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby ShadowIchigo » 31 Jan 2018, 05:11

Obviously, it is not going to be perfect, but I agree kwok. I think it is at least worth trying. Maybe a test patch? However, i fear the biggest issue being brought up about this change is the vehicle movements vs arty. Regardless, i really would love to at least try this, even if it is a short lived test patch.

Walderschmidt
Posts: 117
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby Walderschmidt » 31 Jan 2018, 05:13

I agree that it's worth a try. I think I personally wouldn't like it, but the idea has merit. So I'm willing to try it.

I just worry that it's a broad nerf to vehicles across the board unless you give a little bit somewhere else.

Wald

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3150
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby Warhawks97 » 31 Jan 2018, 19:23

I am fine with it. I would have said something if i didnt like it.

Turning my passive agreement into an active one.

The thing with arty however is still an issue. Esspecially the allied tanks which instantly blow up whenever the slightest ammount of shock wave hits the tank. I wonder what would happen if we would add normal wind to the game. I guess allied tanks would die right away leaving the factory.

This and the fact that pretty much any arty (at least axis) reaching as far as 200 range. Basically there is no place then to make your vehicles stop. They would get hit nonstop before they can accelerate again or turning away. Esspecially Grille and Sturmtiger will become even a lot more dangerous. Despite the short reaction time you wont get your unit out of the dead zone even when reacting immediately.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1355
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby kwok » 31 Jan 2018, 19:37

Thanks Warhawks. That’s something I find a common theme in the forums. A lot of players who are “fine with it” or agree won’t say they will unless someone goes gallavanting on private steam chats to push some agenda. But I’d rather not do that, I’d rather be up front and say that I want people to post. It’s important for devs to see an idea is “popular” to see it’s worth considering.

You’re right about arty though, it would be a huge buff to arty since vehicles will be more vulnerable. The balancing aspect I think would be to lessen the damage arty does to vehicle across the board, while the speed nerf will make them more vulnerable to more direct tactics. I think players on both axis and allied side would prefer this gameplay change. Priests and sturmtigers will stop being anti tank options and fall back more on their intended roles.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2536
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby MarKr » 31 Jan 2018, 21:21

kwok wrote:More analysis on balance impacts to come, but I wanted to throw the idea out for discussion first.
I am still waiting for the analysis, or just more info about what you have in mind because so far what I know is sort of "Let's make vehicles slower, it will be fun but will have ton of balance issues" which, without more details and thus seeing the bigger picture, does not sound very intriguing to try.
Image

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1355
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby kwok » 01 Feb 2018, 07:44

Oookay, buckle up!

I'll break down what I think will be the impact of such a change in two parts: Initial Reaction & Evolving Meta
Each part will be in subsections: Balance Shifts & Behavior Shifts
Lastly, I will give other balance suggestions that I think will be needed to make the long term change playable.
My hope is that as a community we will be able to move past the first few months of initial reaction and learn to play in a new but more satisfying way (at least satisfying in the sense of what I HEAR is satisfying to players in the community AKA less arty, less cheap OP micro tricks, and more maneuver based).

Initial Reaction
Balance Shift: Naturally an across the board nerf to vehicles is an across the board buffs to ALL other units in the game. Vehicles will be much more vulnerable to every other kind of unit, especially if they are used as aggressively as they are used today. Players will of course try their old tricks and formulas and find it won't quite work the same. For example, speeding a sacrificial light vehicle to hunt a backline artillery unit with half the expectation they will return safe but uncaring if it actually survives or not. Light vehicles right now can run around the firing arcs of AT guns freely, but a slow down in turn rate and acceleration will give AT more time to turn, aim, and fire. This change buffs two things: 1. AT units with their veterancy from there additional kills, 2. The survivability AND strength of artillery units.
Not only that but slower vehicles makes them easier for ALL indirect support targeting (artying or airstriking a vehicle), improving the success rate of indirect support, improving the cost effectiveness of indirect support, net granting players more available resources from "savings" to use indirect support EVEN MORE. This at first may seem counter intuitive to my claim earlier, but if we can bear through this stage it will get better (I'll come back to it in the Evolving Meta: Behavior Change section and the required balance changes section).
Infantry will become more viable units because they won't be as easily harassed around the map and will out-compete tanks when it comes to on the spot maneuverability when executing micro tactics.

Behavior Shift: The thing people may feel is the "useless-ness" of tanks which may be difficult for players to grasp at first, especially since I think the majority of the community has this insane infatuation with tanks in history (where the forum is filled with historical stats, stories, and hypocrisy of how tanks SHOULD be). So OF COURSE the first reaction from players will be how BS the change is ESPECIALLY if some players are extremely reliant on those micro tricks with vehicles. For example, hyper aggressive backline unit hunting with speedy tanks or single "flagship" unit micro'ing of some uber vehicle laying destruction while slaloming and dodging dangers. Not saying that those tactics won't be doable anymore, but they will be dramatically less effective. I can see the next shift go in two ways: less vehicles are used all together, or vehicles will predominately be used as stockpiled defensive units. This will be extremely frustrating at first because it doesn't matter which way the shift goes, players will start relying more on defensive turtling and indirect means of "attacking"


Evolving Meta
Balance Shift: The funny thing about BK mod is that the meta is dominated by either really expensive units or really cheap units. It almost seems like mid-tier units lose their place from the fuel driven games. There are a lot of mid-tier units that only have a brief appearance until higher fuel cost units start dominating the game. If a player doesn't have fuel in a fuel driven game, they tend to rely on even cheaper units in attempts to catch up in fuel gap by saving. Vehicles ARE the products of a fuel driven game. The effectiveness curve ranging from cheap to mid to expensive vehicles is a steep and deep valley, where the cheap and expensive are extremely useful while everything in between are barely useful. The speed nerf will flatten this curve and may even invert it. Mid-tier units will be stop being overlooked and start finding moments to shine. This might be hard to see at first, but I can provide an analogy from past patch changes:
One "across the board' change I can remember is generally bumping all the HE shots accuracy. Even though this change was applied to all (applicable) tanks, it was a larger buff for the mid-tier tanks rather than the heavier tanks. We started seeing more panzer 4's, stugs, and sherman 76's because they were natural counters to anti infantry vehicles (like the m8 scott) while still being able to defend themselves from soft target units like infantry.

Behavior Shift: Sometimes when old tricks stop working, older tricks come back into play. Using my earlier example, at first it may seem like indirect units and abilities are getting ultra buffed but they CAN be countered WITHOUT drastic balance adjustments. Yes, a Tiger will be more vulnerable to a Priest, but a Priest can't stop duo breakthrough stugs which are much more hedged and cost effective than a Tiger. Medium tanks can get the "catch" on other tanks; sherman 76's can pull off movie like stunt (*cough* thatoverdramatizedmoveFury *cough*) because the bastard heavy tanks can't just freely rotate their front armors. What happened to the days in vCoH where we actually tried flanking each other instead of just throwing frontal assault counters per counters as a solution? Just because a pershing is defending the calliope sherman doesn't mean I'll have to wait for a KT to get a proper counter. I can get aggressive with my P4's because the pershing won't be able to just suddenly back up at full speed to keep its front armor facing me. That sherman calliope won't just scurry away from my breakthrough.
At first because of any change, players will obviously play more defensively. But over time, aggression will come back with a new face.



Okay, I need to take a break for now, I'll come back to edit and add the "probably need to balance" section later. But I hope at least THIS is enough to think a little bit more about the idea.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3150
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby Warhawks97 » 01 Feb 2018, 15:46

Ok kwok.

This sounds pretty much like me. I play mostly micro intense with often incredible and hilarious runs with my vehicles. Sometimes deep into enemie territory and passing their defenses and sometimes returning my vehicle from there with incredible luck (esspecially my beloved puma).

But what i want to say is:

Indirect firing units are sometimes extremely strong and sometimes not. For example: This change would make normal mortars a lot more usefull. Thats good. But artillery units will become even more powerfull and nasty as they already are.

The main issue will be that you will take away the most important feature to US in countering axis arty. My main arty counter when playing as US are greyhounds and M10´s. I simply try to rush with them (in the way you described) to get rid of wespes, neblers and stuff alike.
As US you just cant sit there and counter axis arty with your own. You are outnumbered, outgunned, outranged. So the most important counter to this when playing as US is to keep going and going and going. Harrass and Harrass and go for their arty with M10 and greyhound as long as its possible. When they have got a fully build up defenses and arty it becomes even harder. As for now i often used M10 and Greyhound (perhaps combined with smoke) rushing towards the enemie simply hopping the enemie wont hit me.

Armor doctrine is probably the one that gets beaten hardest. Trust in luck and microing (slaloming) arround defenses and rushing their arty is a core element when you have no RA mate or simply bad teammates.


Simply put: "The indirect fire unit balance" among factions would have to be reshaped as well. I am simply afraid that i will get bombed and rocket-artied even more than ever before.

Balance Shift: The funny thing about BK mod is that the meta is dominated by either really expensive units or really cheap units. It almost seems like mid-tier units lose their place from the fuel driven games. There are a lot of mid-tier units that only have a brief appearance until higher fuel cost units start dominating the game. If a player doesn't have fuel in a fuel driven game, they tend to rely on even cheaper units in attempts to catch up in fuel gap by saving. Vehicles ARE the products of a fuel driven game. The effectiveness curve ranging from cheap to mid to expensive vehicles is a steep and deep valley, where the cheap and expensive are extremely useful while everything in between are barely useful. The speed nerf will flatten this curve and may even invert it. Mid-tier units will be stop being overlooked and start finding moments to shine. This might be hard to see at first, but I can provide an analogy from past patch changes



Thats true to some extend. But i would reason differently. Most vehicles have no or only short appearences bc higher tier stuff is sometimes even cheaper and better. Only roles that cant be filled by an expensive thing keeps mid tier unit in games. Like Recce and M20 (mobile mg and detecting scouts). Many others like many HT´s with 37 mm or 75 mm stubby are simply not worth getting. They arent really faster than stugs just that they can be countered easier and have less firepower.

You get stugs far cheaper as most HT´s that have some sort of gun. The Shermans in armor doc are cheaper than stuarts just that shermans have more firepower. The brits seem to be the only one currently that make good use of vehicles at any stage simply bc there is no real "cheaper tank version" to the vehicles.

Also there is a disbalance within the vehicles. We have many crapy vehicles at high cost, and others being so hyper cost effective that they occure throughout the entire game. Recce recce and Puma with 20 mm.

So many "shortly occuring" vehicles disappear bc there are better vehicles or tanks that do the same job much better at cheaper cost.


I dont think that "super cheap" or "super expensive" is the reason why people choose their units. They choose their units bc they are cost effective. (Sure, people often estimate the strenght or value of a unit wrong....)

User avatar
sgtToni95
Posts: 503
Joined: 04 May 2016, 09:50
Location: Italy

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby sgtToni95 » 04 Feb 2018, 09:48

ShadowIchigo wrote:Obviously, it is not going to be perfect, but I agree kwok. I think it is at least worth trying. Maybe a test patch? However, i fear the biggest issue being brought up about this change is the vehicle movements vs arty. Regardless, i really would love to at least try this, even if it is a short lived test patch.


**off-topic, just a love demonstration:**

You know.. when i read users' posts, i always imagine their voices (for those i met on ts), but every time i try to read Shadow's posts i only hear a very loud and confusing Nebel's "pppphhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeewwwww pppphhhheeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwww ppppppphhhhheeeeeeeewwwww" and i can't understand anything. There was a time, back in the days, this wasn't happening.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1355
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby kwok » 06 Feb 2018, 05:49

@warhawks

I think we are pretty much saying the same thing but you added one more balance problem. But, I'd say price adjustments on the lighter vehicles can only go so far before they start dwarfing out the early game units. Alternatively, you can up the price of later game units but then BK will lose its feel of scale. But as true as you are in what you say, I think it wouldn't change my ideas and could be talked about separately.

And I wasn't writing directly describing you, almost ALL high level players dick around with pumas, sct cars, daimlers, etc. Pumas are definitely a HUGE culprit and probably one of the biggest reasons why I started such a topic. I think it's stupid the amount of skill not required for a puma to dick around and deal so much damage versus the needed skill in prediction and planning to counter a puma with an AT gun. "High level players" know they can exploit this and it isn't that lower level players don't have access to AT but many times they just don't expect a puma to be able to blitz past their AT gun.


In terms of your concerns about arty, you're totally right. I agree with a lot of what you say regarding arty vs tanks and the hilarious difference between allied versus axis armor resilience to arty. What I was hoping as one of the needed balance adjustments to for this to work is a general nerf of artillery damage to vehicles and a potential buff to modular critical chances (like immobilization).

Other balance chances I think that will be necessary are:
-Adjustment to mobile indirect units like mortar halftracks and arty on wheels. They will get hyper buffed because they would maintain their power in being able to avoid counter arty and durability to counter arty while getting a buff because direct counters to them (like a speedy hellcat) would get nerfed. One thing i introduced in my mod is an ammo cost to mortar's bombard ability. In fact I made ALL mortars cost munitions for 2 reasons. First, to simulate more realistic "tactical decision" making where artillery needs to be pre-planned rather than automatic reactionary shots. Second, it adds cost to riskless decisions. Typically in the real world, safety costs something. So, one suggestion is for mortar halftracks to cost munitions to shoot. This adds a lot of decision making on a player because if they ever decide to back out and scurry their cowardly mortar halftrack away, they have to pay a cost. For other larger units, like wespes and priests, I hope their natural costs, the inability to defend an entire front line with a single superfast tank, and the nerf of artillery effectiveness against vehicles mentioned earlier is enough to make them vulnerable and reasonable to deal with.
-Adjustment to offmap support costs and cooldowns. I don't think nerfing capability of the abilities is the way to go, as certain weapons are intended to destroy tanks. But if vehicles move slower, then it makes "aiming" indirect support much easier. If the indirect support abilities cost more or have longer cooldowns to "longer and more expensive" than it takes for replacement vehicles, then the net gain will favor the use of units and strategy over click-to-kill abilities.
-Adjustment to turret traverse times. Turret traverse in coh is understandably unrealistic. The true traverse times of turrets is so slow... it would make the game almost unbearable. But, a small reduction for turret traverse will generally reward good planning and tank facing. It's also needed to allow certain "tricks" to still be viable in game. For example, lighter tanks moving around heavier tanks at close range.
-Adjustment to AT infantry. This one I'm still thinking through. I don't enjoy the former days where AT squads could just run up silly and spike a vehicle, then scurry away. But at the same time, they've only recently been nerfed to nearly a defensive role only (which I like a lot). They will get a power spike from this nerf... but I wonder if it's as large as we may initially think. The current aim time protects vehicle not because they can run away, but because the infantry are more exposed. So maybe no change is needed? Not sure, but I would bet some people will think SOME adjustment will need to be made. So I'm throwing it out there as a discussion point.
-Still thinking, but I need to leave for some time for work and wanted to post something before this discussion fades away again.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3150
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby Warhawks97 » 06 Feb 2018, 15:29

kwok wrote:@warhawks



And I wasn't writing directly describing you, almost ALL high level players dick around with pumas, sct cars, daimlers, etc. Pumas are definitely a HUGE culprit and probably one of the biggest reasons why I started such a topic. I think it's stupid the amount of skill not required for a puma to dick around and deal so much damage versus the needed skill in prediction and planning to counter a puma with an AT gun. "High level players" know they can exploit this and it isn't that lower level players don't have access to AT but many times they just don't expect a puma to be able to blitz past their AT gun.


agreed

In terms of your concerns about arty, you're totally right. I agree with a lot of what you say regarding arty vs tanks and the hilarious difference between allied versus axis armor resilience to arty. What I was hoping as one of the needed balance adjustments to for this to work is a general nerf of artillery damage to vehicles and a potential buff to modular critical chances (like immobilization).


Funny is that years ago the chance to cirt damage tanks had been reduced. Main reason was: "My Tiger/Elephant (etc) gets always immobilzed". So no we stuck in a hilarious situation where some tanks can absorb abnormal many direct hits from arty without any crit damage.

But i absolutely agree. Less taken damage (just direct hits should deal a fair ammount) and more crits. You know what just came in mind? Random "stunning" in tank crews for close arty hits. Similiar to the smoke shots. But i guess thats not possible engine wise.

But more crits would give a more realistic touch. The ammount of tanks taken out of action by arty was far higher than those completely destroyed by arty. I know from a tiger battallion that had lost all tigers to arty for a day but just one of them a total loss.

Allis tanks currently die much more often to arty as that they get crit damaged.


Other balance chances I think that will be necessary are:
-Adjustment to mobile indirect units like mortar halftracks and arty on wheels. They will get hyper buffed because they would maintain their power in being able to avoid counter arty and durability to counter arty while getting a buff because direct counters to them (like a speedy hellcat) would get nerfed. One thing i introduced in my mod is an ammo cost to mortar's bombard ability. In fact I made ALL mortars cost munitions for 2 reasons. First, to simulate more realistic "tactical decision" making where artillery needs to be pre-planned rather than automatic reactionary shots. Second, it adds cost to riskless decisions. Typically in the real world, safety costs something. So, one suggestion is for mortar halftracks to cost munitions to shoot. This adds a lot of decision making on a player because if they ever decide to back out and scurry their cowardly mortar halftrack away, they have to pay a cost. For other larger units, like wespes and priests, I hope their natural costs, the inability to defend an entire front line with a single superfast tank, and the nerf of artillery effectiveness against vehicles mentioned earlier is enough to make them vulnerable and reasonable to deal with.


Ive always been for that. Mortars have also no real cooldown after making a barrage. Costs scaled in calibre. 15 for the smalles, 25 for medium, 30 for those on vehicles and 35 for the heaviest as we are used to already. But till now got denied by fevs.

-Adjustment to offmap support costs and cooldowns. I don't think nerfing capability of the abilities is the way to go, as certain weapons are intended to destroy tanks. But if vehicles move slower, then it makes "aiming" indirect support much easier. If the indirect support abilities cost more or have longer cooldowns to "longer and more expensive" than it takes for replacement vehicles, then the net gain will favor the use of units and strategy over click-to-kill abilities.


I cant generalise that. I dont want them to be just there for trolling. Eg Sturmtiger. The US 105 already has got cooldown and also cost increase over the versions.


-Adjustment to turret traverse times. Turret traverse in coh is understandably unrealistic. The true traverse times of turrets is so slow... it would make the game almost unbearable. But, a small reduction for turret traverse will generally reward good planning and tank facing. It's also needed to allow certain "tricks" to still be viable in game. For example, lighter tanks moving around heavier tanks at close range.


Also cant say in general about it. Some sort of realism should be in there though. IIrc the Tiger II could traverse the turret faster than tiger I. Dont have to be the exact realistic time. But that tiger II would traverse faster would be nice.

But normal tank traverse on some tanks is extremly fast.

-Adjustment to AT infantry. This one I'm still thinking through. I don't enjoy the former days where AT squads could just run up silly and spike a vehicle, then scurry away. But at the same time, they've only recently been nerfed to nearly a defensive role only (which I like a lot). They will get a power spike from this nerf... but I wonder if it's as large as we may initially think. The current aim time protects vehicle not because they can run away, but because the infantry are more exposed. So maybe no change is needed? Not sure, but I would bet some people will think SOME adjustment will need to be made. So I'm throwing it out there as a discussion point.


I dont think that inf squads would suddenly become too strong. The vehicle just have to start moving and the accuracy of the hendheld is largely reduced. And you can react still fast enough. Tanks have got working HE..so shouldnt be a problem here that much.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 1355
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby kwok » 06 Feb 2018, 15:41

The stun is possible I think. In my mod I’ve made it so that it’s a crit type for all kinds of attacks. For larger caliber weapons like the 88 or artillery, I’ve even made it like 95% chance of stun (assuming no other crits).

I’ve also found while modding that truly “realistic” traverse Times is TERRIBLE for gameplay. I think I’ve even shown tiger my mod and he was complaining how bogus and (ironically) unrealistic the turret traverse time was. But I literally researched and took the historical values. Just another example how historical realism isn’t what players actually want. It’s more about capturing the immersion and “feel” of the game.

I think you make very wise points about not generalizing. I always trust you with knowing the details.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 335
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby mofetagalactica » 07 Feb 2018, 19:02

I like the idea of this having in mind a artillery re-balance off course i would love to try.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 335
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby mofetagalactica » 07 Feb 2018, 22:03

delete this msg

User avatar
ShadowIchigo
Posts: 330
Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 20:25
Location: Philadelphia Born N Raized, US

Re: Suggestion: "Realistic" Vehicle Acceleration and Turn Rate

Postby ShadowIchigo » 31 Mar 2018, 19:46

sgtToni95 wrote:
ShadowIchigo wrote:Obviously, it is not going to be perfect, but I agree kwok. I think it is at least worth trying. Maybe a test patch? However, i fear the biggest issue being brought up about this change is the vehicle movements vs arty. Regardless, i really would love to at least try this, even if it is a short lived test patch.


**off-topic, just a love demonstration:**

You know.. when i read users' posts, i always imagine their voices (for those i met on ts), but every time i try to read Shadow's posts i only hear a very loud and confusing Nebel's "pppphhhhhheeeeeeeeeeeeewwwww pppphhhheeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwww ppppppphhhhheeeeeeeewwwww" and i can't understand anything. There was a time, back in the days, this wasn't happening.


i love you too hunny bunsickles


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests