Artillery of the RAF?

[Krieger Blitzer]

But what if the RAF doc is in need of it???

[Cyberzombie]

I would really like to see the arty cromwell in RAF doc.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Devs, cant we get an answer or something, from my exploration 99% of community would like to have arty cromwell in RAF, cause simply its an only doc in mod which dont have even a single unit which acts like arty.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Yes, of course RAF needs the arty Cromwell.. but this doc is not weak anyhow btw! So I guess I don't have then to repeat again what I have said considering the cost of the Typhoon bombing run aircraft...

Sukin called it over me during just a 30 minutes 1v1 game of which I once had against him maybe more than 5 times actually o.O Which means probably an airstrike every 5 or 6 minutes I succeeded shooting down only a single one if I remember correctly while I surely lost all my troops because of it

[Warhawks97]

Please dont remove the arty cromwell from Arty company. I really like it

the prob is that pretty much 95% of allied arty is in one single doctrine. The ammo income and res generally doesnt allow to use them. If you keep shooting with two priests and a 75 mm you run out of ammo soon.

So on paper allied have just as much arty as axis have, but the allied cant use them all coz this single players ammo income doesnt allows to do so. On axis side arty is stretched well over all docs so they can use their arty more often and more effective as the ammo cost are shared among players. For RA i see actually mostly only priests and maybe later a 75 mm HT. 25 pdrs, arty cromwell, other 75 mm HT´s and the off map spearfire ability cant be used. Meanwhile other allied docs sit on ammo sometimes. RE always has 600 ammo and also armor doc sits on 600 ammo somtimes when the game became extremly static (though one tank fight can eat up the entire ammo store by HVAP use).

In order to preven that i´d really like to see more arty stretch among allied docs (or ammo cost stretch). For example 105 sherman from inf to armor, 75 mm HT to inf doc, Heavy spearfire off map ability from RA to RE doc, cromwell 95 mm from RA to RAF.


Some would say: "but RA doc must have much arty". I dont think so. I mean what sense makes an arty doc when it can use just 20% of its arty? RA doc means for me not simply putting all arty in one doc while leaving all others without. Arty doc means for me to be most advanced in their arty use and this doc would surely still have the most advanced arty use. off maps from spotter and leutnants, long range, accurate guns, long range guns, several abilities (air burst, incendiary), marking arty targets, air reccon etc.

That would simply make more sense for me.... allied arty more effectively and logically stretched over docs, special arty doc not simply unneccessary much arty, but advanced use of arty. Moving at least the off map spearfire ability to RE and cromwell to RAF wouldnt really hurt RA docs arty strength when keeping 75 mm HT, priest, spotters and abilities.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

+1

[Krieger Blitzer]

But that is almost about to be 3 CW docs rework this way, just enough to move the arty Cromwell to the RAF doc! ^^

[Zuasfadas]

So... there will be an arty cromwell for RAF?

[MarKr]

OK guys, we talked about it with Wolf. The thing is that RAF is one of those doctrines that should be able to work WITHOUT arty so at first we were against it. But since you insist on it that RAF needs an arty unit, we will make 95mm Cromwell available for RAF, however since we believe that RAF should work without arty units, the Cromwell will be limited to 1 unit at a time. This is the condition and it is non-negotiable. So if any of you wants to start writing things like "One is not enough I need at least X of them." it won't happen - either you will have to make do with one or none at all.

And one more thing - if the Cromwell was moved from Arty doc to RAF we have no idea what to replace the Arty doc command tree unlock with so it will remain in Arty doctrine and will be added to RAF - at least untill we figure out what could fill the command tree position at Arty doc.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

1 is enough, thx)

[Warhawks97]

OK guys, we talked about it with Wolf. The thing is that RAF is one of those doctrines that should be able to work WITHOUT arty so at first we were against it. But since you insist on it that RAF needs an arty unit, we will make 95mm Cromwell available for RAF, however since we believe that RAF should work without arty units, the Cromwell will be limited to 1 unit at a time. This is the condition and it is non-negotiable. So if any of you wants to start writing things like "One is not enough I need at least X of them." it won't happen - either you will have to make do with one or none at all.

And one more thing - if the Cromwell was moved from Arty doc to RAF we have no idea what to replace the Arty doc command tree unlock with so it will remain in Arty doctrine and will be added to RAF - at least untill we figure out what could fill the command tree position at Arty doc.

Thx.... 1 is enough here. It mainly needs to kill a certain pak or HMG (when airstrikes get shot down by lots of AA). Also its a very mobile one so its really enough.


For RA doc.... maybe the marking target with spotter could require an unlock? But i wouldnt care to have that unit in two docs.....


But i wonder about this then:

OK thanks. As I said (and also Wolf in a topic not that long ago) doc reworks are not planned. I was just curious what would the rework look like according to players.

At least when it comes to 105 sherman and 75 mm Jumbo sherman to armor doc, 105 sherman unlocked with calli and before Jumbo(s). Inf doc instead VT unlock and therefore an effective VT (activation range of at least 90 or 100 like all others and available for captain for effective use during offensives).

I also wonder then about that spearfire ability moving from RA to RE while RA gets an unlock for....


The reason for that is just as easy as the swap of arty cromwell to RAF and lots of players insist on it as well.

[Wolf]

VT ranges will be tuned, shermans will not be moved... why do you even want 75mm jumbo in armor doc, as you already have tons of cheap 75mm M4s? You also have scott, I don't think armor is lacking antiinf that much...

[MarKr]

But i wouldnt care to have that unit in two docs.....

We came to a similar conclusion.

At least when it comes to 105 sherman and 75 mm Jumbo sherman to armor doc, 105 sherman unlocked with calli and before Jumbo(s). Inf doc instead VT unlock and therefore an effective VT (activation range of at least 90 or 100 like all others and available for captain for effective use during offensives).

And here we go again, once more you found a way to squeeze your suggestions, that were mentioned several times already, into another topic...
Anyway this is not the same - with Cromwell and RAF we're just adding one unit. What you ask is moving two units from one doctrine (that also require command tree unlock iirc) to another...it requires more work because you need to replace the unlocks in Infantry doctrine with something and when the tanks would be moved how accesible would they be? With same unlock as another units? If yes, won't they come too soon? Won't the unlock for its price access too many/ too powerful units? In such a case, should the unlock price change? If yes, where do you remove the points which will be added to these unlocks. If the units would be accesible by separate unlock, which unlocks will they replace? Etc.

And I already told you - why can't you work with Infantry VT as it is? Few patches back Infantry doc did not have this VT ability. People kept ranting that Infantry doc should have it. Wolf added it even though he didn't like the idea at all (I mean adding more VT abilities in general) and sudenly it is not enough and it needs more range and iirc your suggestions also more soldiers capable of using VT...For ages Infanry doc had no VT and it was playable anyways and when they get it you ask for more. That is why we are affraid that "now" it is just "one Cromwell is enough" but next patch it will be like "I played a game recently where the Cromwell was not enough I suggest increasing the number to 2. It is absolutely needed!"

[Warhawks97]

VT ranges will be tuned, shermans will not be moved... why do you even want 75mm jumbo in armor doc, as you already have tons of cheap 75mm M4s? You also have scott, I don't think armor is lacking antiinf that much...

No its not. Armor doc is best anti inf doc. Its not about killing inf.... its going through defenses. And later it does not necessarily needs a 76 Jumbo. The tank with big armor that should break a pak wall and weapon crew wall is better with HE. Just like late Churchills get HE rounds. The big armored tank are most usefull with HE rounds when playing allied as they are best used to kill paks and stuff instead of big axis tanks. Also schrecks and stuff are their biggest threat so it makes sense to have better anti Inf weapon whereas for axis the biggest threat comes from enemie tanks like those with 17 pdr and less from zooks and stuff.


So that change is wanted to get a better offense with this doc. Right now you can get like endless shermans for cheap, sure.... but already a smaller defense (pak+TH) and a schreck here and there can quickly knock out entire formations of like 6 easy eights.

Inf doc at the other side would have sufficient defense breaking options later with off map, changed VT, rangers that can be upgraded with vet upgrade without losing sticky (thats why often nobody upgraded ranger vet). To stop enemie infantry i made good experiences by using standard sherman for 400/40 with inf put behind my rangers and pak. To stop inf i dont need jumbo, a normal one is enough when playing inf doc. And as offense i apparently get better VT, ranger vet and having still the off map. Using these offmap and occassionally a howitzers makes you running out of ammo anyway sometimes, so the 105 sherman could really go to armor.

So yeah, i want jumbo and 105 in armor doc for attack, not to kill infantry in first place.

But i wouldnt care to have that unit in two docs.....

We came to a similar conclusion.

At least when it comes to 105 sherman and 75 mm Jumbo sherman to armor doc, 105 sherman unlocked with calli and before Jumbo(s). Inf doc instead VT unlock and therefore an effective VT (activation range of at least 90 or 100 like all others and available for captain for effective use during offensives).

And here we go again, once more you found a way to squeeze your suggestions, that were mentioned several times already, into another topic...
Anyway this is not the same - with Cromwell and RAF we're just adding one unit. What you ask is moving two units from one doctrine (that also require command tree unlock iirc) to another...it requires more work because you need to replace the unlocks in Infantry doctrine with something and when the tanks would be moved how accesible would they be? With same unlock as another units? If yes, won't they come too soon? Won't the unlock for its price access too many/ too powerful units? In such a case, should the unlock price change? If yes, where do you remove the points which will be added to these unlocks. If the units would be accesible by separate unlock, which unlocks will they replace? Etc.

And I already told you - why can't you work with Infantry VT as it is? Few patches back Infantry doc did not have this VT ability. People kept ranting that Infantry doc should have it. Wolf added it even though he didn't like the idea at all (I mean adding more VT abilities in general) and sudenly it is not enough and it needs more range and iirc your suggestions also more soldiers capable of using VT...For ages Infanry doc had no VT and it was playable anyways and when they get it you ask for more. That is why we are affraid that "now" it is just "one Cromwell is enough" but next patch it will be like "I played a game recently where the Cromwell was not enough I suggest increasing the number to 2. It is absolutely needed!"

If the calli/105 get current jumbo unlcok (5 CP´s) and jumbo the calli unlock (8 CP´s) i think everything would be fine so far. Most spgs come with 4 CP´s and are better, calli comes late anyway and at time jumbos can lead an assault against german paks and stuff axis would already have Panthers and the like. So 600/80 doesnt seem wrong... if you want you can go to 100 fuel but i doubt its needed as the tank would require support just like churchills.


As for inf doc..... Once it was always two 105 sherman that effectively barraged non stop enemies, able to counter arty (coz they were two). That got changed.... So inf can/should/could rely more on howitzers which are effective in late game (and due to limit which makes it harder to reach every part of the map) by using VT.

And isnt it strange enough that inf doc can get a Jumbo just with 2 CP? Just as fast as 76 shermans can be build? And at the same time armor doc has one Jumbo type coming later? So it would make sense twice: Inf doc wouldnt have a tank which not even armor doc has and jumbo would come as kind of late game breakthrough units. If it doesnt sound better as the current set up for you, then idk....


But fact is that armor finds itself just as often in the same situation as RAF: There is no more way to get forward and it doesnt even requires such a huge defense. So RAF gets 95 cromwell but armor doc no 105 (although armor cant drop gliders or use bombs).

[Krieger Blitzer]

That's a good thing to hear.. but then just don't forget about the price of the Typhoon bombing run aircraft... We had a long discussion already!
From 135 to 150 ammo

While I would still keep wondering forever really about moving the Combat Engineers to the Armor doc as well but, anyways.

[MarKr]

But fact is that armor finds itself just as often in the same situation as RAF: There is no more way to get forward and it doesnt even requires such a huge defense. So RAF gets 95 cromwell but armor doc no 105 (although armor cant drop gliders or use bombs).

Wasn't one of the main reasons for adding 95mm Cromwell to RAF that "it has no arty what so ever"? US Armor has Calliope...so you cannot say that they can get into the same situation. And people always say that calli is not that effective against tanks but can clear an area from infantry, you say that Armor in some situations cannot advance because of some defense wall so what stops you from barraging that area with Calli (that should take out most weapon crews/ decrew 88s) and then go in with tanks?

While I would still keep wondering forever really about moving the Combat Engineers to the Armor doc as well but, anyways.

And yet again you ask for something that has been denied about 5 times already. So for the 6th time - no, they won't be moved.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Hahaha, but I wasn't asking.. just wondering!

What I was asking on the other hand actually is to slightly increase the price of the Typhoon bombing run airstrike ^^

[Warhawks97]

But fact is that armor finds itself just as often in the same situation as RAF: There is no more way to get forward and it doesnt even requires such a huge defense. So RAF gets 95 cromwell but armor doc no 105 (although armor cant drop gliders or use bombs).

Wasn't one of the main reasons for adding 95mm Cromwell to RAF that "it has no arty what so ever"? US Armor has Calliope...so you cannot say that they can get into the same situation. And people always say that calli is not that effective against tanks but can clear an area from infantry, you say that Armor in some situations cannot advance because of some defense wall so what stops you from barraging that area with Calli (that should take out most weapon crews/ decrew 88s) and then go in with tanks?

While I would still keep wondering forever really about moving the Combat Engineers to the Armor doc as well but, anyways.

And yet again you ask for something that has been denied about 5 times already. So for the 6th time - no, they won't be moved.

let me guess.... the cromwell comes with 0 CP.


I think many here said often enough that calli just comes too late to be effective when defenses are already made by steel, sandbags and concrete. Thats why we wanted that calli/jumbo swap.

And when it comes (when its usless already in most occassions) you are just about to spend res into TD´s and scotts because the axis are then just about to launch their attacks with inf and bigger tanks. And then you want players to invest 800 MP and 95 ammo for a firework? I mean 150 neblers become also obsolete more or less later in the game and are replaced by bigger stuff. A calli is even less effective against emplacments and stuff but comes so much later? Its like adding a 8 CP unlock for the Maultier oO.


So yeah, calli/105 with 5 CP´s and in late game jumbos for leading offense would really be helpfull.

[Zuasfadas]

Well, on second thought, RAF have a field gun which is pretty efective against units, emplacements and light armor. Having as an only weakness its vulnerability against mortars so... how about giving them artillery abilities and a bit more range instead adding cromwell?

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

@Mark
Did you decide anything about normal nades for commando and satchels as replacement of Sas charges. I think there is no any reasons to deny those changes.

[Terence's Mouth]

That SAS realy need satchels or theyre like bred without butter.

[6thAirborneDivision]

What I was asking on the other hand actually is to slightly increase the price of the Typhoon bombing run airstrike ^^

In the past DEV's actually decreased the prices because planes tend to fail really often now. I think thats totally fair like it is implemented. Did you ever play RAF and see yourself wasting tons of ammo for simply nothing because your planes are shot down by base defense??

Adding one Arty Cromwell seems fine! Now arty balancing between docs should be fair.

[Krieger Blitzer]

On 485... AAs got over buffed.
On 486... All airstrikes got cheaper!
On 488... AAs were tuned; and so most of them got a price increase once again.. except only few of them, such as the Typhoon bombing run

[Butterkeks]

On 485... AAs got over buffed.
On 486... All airstrikes got cheaper!
On 488... AAs were tuned; and so most of them got a price increase once again.. except only few of them, such as the Typhoon bombing run

While I would still keep wondering forever really about moving the Combat Engineers to the Armor doc as well but, anyways.

And yet again you ask for something that has been denied about 5 times already. So for the 6th time - no, they won't be moved.

Yep and this is what I mean. Posting your "suggestion" over and over again until somebody denies it 6 times...
Apparently these changes are not wished, so leave it.

Arty cromwell for RAF doc sounds great

Well regarding the Calliope:
I recently had a game in which I built some naked 88s. Armor doc player could do nothing. his calliope decrewed it several times but then i just recrewed it. Everytime he used it I just moved my units 20 meters away, waited for it to be over and then took my positions again.
The inf doc howitzer was a bit more effective vs my 88, but the inf doc player needed it for himself.
So basically one 88 stopped the armor player because he just couldn't kill it with his calliope.
If it had been a pak emplacement from def doc it would have been the same.
Maybe decrewed it, but not killing it.

I think the 105mm Sherman would be a good fit in armor doc

[Krieger Blitzer]

Guess what.. it's not my suggestion... It's Hawks suggestion in the first place!