kwok wrote:fun facts that i discovered
sas have 95 base hp, with upgrade of -25% received damage after 10 CP unlock giving it effective base health of 126
fallsj have 80 base hp * -5% received damage * +10% health * -5% received accuracy giving it an effective 97 base health, with upgrade of -25% received damage after 7 CP unlock giving it effective base health of 129.333 and don't even GET me started on the fuckin gebirgs.
I havent gone into it soo deeplyin this particular matter and dont want right now. Just -25% received damage from all sources?
I would reccommend to check their tp´s. Gebirgs used to have the same as fallis. Tp_ heroic or what it was/is. For fallis it got changed into tp_AB. That change was done in order to make fallis better in closing in maneuvers. Most small arms have reduced accuracy against this target type when its moving by 25%. The downside for fallis now is that they got more vulnerable to HE than Gebirgs bc most HE based weapons -if not all- suffer a damage loss against them . This includes RAF cluster bombs as well iirc. So Fallis can move better under small arms fire, Gebirgs can take more punishment form all the HE stuff. Personally i found it to be a bad change for fallis since fallis are usually countered by snipers or HE units (dedicated anti inf vehicles) rather than by regular small arms. Right now it was perhaps not such a bad move since US can use their small arms more effectively at range. Esspecially Rangers.
So perhaps we have to be carefull with such general statments. There is a lot to calculate and obvious things arent as they perhaps seem to be. Best example currently: 90 mm with ambush and AP vs Achilles with 17 pdr, ambush and AP.
Devilfish wrote:Kwok, I didn't make it more than 20 min into the video, was too boring. If you and other participants enjoy this kind of stuff, by all means go for it. But it's hardly a "developer-independent" solution to whatever.
I actually liked it simply bc it is often less crowded and less arty spam.
However general things that bug me are the same afterall. And i mean particluar combat situations. No matter how much better you run arround with your shermans, at the end you have to face some enemies. And that Tank IV/sherman 76 discrepancy (pen, rof, damage with AP and thus crit and onehshot kill chances for Tank IV against sherman) makes me mad everytime. I have plenty of such examples.
Or that unmobile howitzers quickly find their masters. Esspecially that any shitty rocket artillery can reach them quite easily.
In this special regard i found something very interesting:
In comparision to vcoh the range of nebler and walking stuka has got increased by 50 range (or more). Neblers went from 150 to 200 and thus became a long reaching arty tool. Howitzers on the other hand have lost range. It went from 250 in vcoh to 225 in bk. Sure, cost got lowered but how does lower cost help when you can fire just a salvo before being shot?
In fact, howitzers have been the only units in entire BK universe which range got decreased while short ranged artillery pieces have suddenly tunred into some sort of intercontinental missiles.
In this regard playing vcoh makes a lot more fun. Howitzer close to sherman cost (people might think its "just a gun" but a nebelwerfer takes already 3 months of production. Howitzers were fine pieces of high labour intensity and quality) but that isnt really wrong actually.
So, these things do not change. No matter what map you play.
