Requesting poll

[Warhawks97]

I could do the poll by my own, i know, still i want to ask wolf if he is willing to do changes here as well.



The poll would be about scott, stuh, stupa, and AVRE


as you know ive always been against super range units stuh and stupa which just sit there out of enemie gun range and bombing for free while covered by a wall of paks and mgs. This offensive camping, force enemie to attack, arty for free.


So i wanna ask for poll introducing the following changes. Current tanks range of most tanks is 60.

Stuh:
- Range from 85 to 60
- Cost from 480/60 to 350/45
- Abilities added:
-Fire smoke (like stug III)
-Assault ability (like stug III)
-Hollow charge rounds (Like stubby Tank IV)
-Suppressive fire
- Unlock of stuh - 1 CP (4 in total), one CP added to ammo-fuel res trade or to Blitzkrieg ability or 1 CP to suppression squad unlock.


Stupa:
- Range from 80 to 60
-Cost reduced maybe by 100 mp and some fuel (still cant imagine correct cost for it after change)
- Moved from def to bk doc as stuh reward
-Abilities added:
-Hollow charge round added
-Assault ability (like stug III)
-Suppressive fire ability



Scott:
- Range from 70 to 60
- Cost decrease from 400/50 to 350/35


AVRE:
-Range from 100 to 50
-Cost drop from 720 to 500 or 450.
-Armor effective enough to stand most defensive fire from normal paks. Inf can reinforce nearby like next to normal churchills
-Heal ability for nearby inf with vet 2 like other churchills.




Purpose:
- Less offensive camping. Many players play BK doc only for stuhs. They have several paks and stuff arround and just keep bombing with stuhs. Its one reason that creates big arty use and is also ruining fun of many many games.
- BK doc would have a late game close range support unit for its inf. Tiger1996 already told me his concerns that the doc wont be able to crack inf and RE doc effectivly. But thing is it would be a veeery big defense that would stop stormtoopers and maultiers. Also, in case defense is really tooo thick, just ask for arty support from SE/def/Terror doc, just like allied docs request arty support when a defense is too big.
- Tanks, esspecially big and expensive tanks with big guns just wouldnt get outranged all the time. Currently its often like: stuh/scott drives towards tank, shoots from save range and escapes. And repeating that untill tank is destroyed or immobilized. Kinda sucks in my opinion.
- stuh would become cheap tank that can prepare assault by using smoke to cover the advance and later boosting nearby inf by using the assault ability like stug III. Smoke would help to avoid taking too many losses by mg and pak fire and would allow to outflank and overrun enemie defense with grenade bundles supported by the 105 gun from stuh. In case of a loss of a stuh the tank would easily replaced
- The stupa would count on its thick armor which should be capable to stand most fire from defensive weapons.

- Game would become more dynamical.
- Offense would require more smart planning and combined forces, not only one unit for offense and 10 for defense.
- More fun to play
- Finally, more realistic.


So i am placing that subject again and would beg wolf to start a poll about it.

[Wolf]

No, simply because I dont believe that "Many players play BK doc only for stuhs. They have several paks and stuff arround and just keep bombing with stuhs. Its one reason that creates big arty use and is also ruining fun of many many games.". I have yet to see games like this, where I wouldn't be able to do anything and I played a looot against Blitzkrieg, even if it was problem, its definitely not that big problem, especially when they miss, so you can get inf / tanks forward. And that paks/mgs are there? They would be anyway, so you need to get them out still.

One thing that is not in changelog yet is that stuh/scott will not do crit often to tanks, so it will not be that easy to immobilize them by it.

I would even say its maybe totally otherwise, when I got stuh used against me or somebody used stuh, I just drove out = I couldn't "camp" effectively, and I have to deal with that situation. Even if stuh wasn't there, I would have to break through at / mg.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I must say, I really like how Hawks described his view point considering it this time.. yet; I honestly can't tell about if it's purely perfect suggestions whether not... Need some more time to think more deeply about it!

However that I do seriously agree with Wolf here on this point that they aren't anyhow problematic; they aren't harming the game balance!! And they are still cool and easy to kill too.

[Warhawks97]

No, simply because I dont believe that "Many players play BK doc only for stuhs. They have several paks and stuff arround and just keep bombing with stuhs. Its one reason that creates big arty use and is also ruining fun of many many games.". I have yet to see games like this, where I wouldn't be able to do anything and I played a looot against Blitzkrieg, even if it was problem, its definitely not that big problem, especially when they miss, so you can get inf / tanks forward. And that paks/mgs are there? They would be anyway, so you need to get them out still.

One thing that is not in changelog yet is that stuh/scott will not do crit often to tanks, so it will not be that easy to immobilize them by it.

i did see a lot.... like Buco, also maeglin and loki etc.


Just think about the funfactor.. i mean whats an offense, how it makes fun to play? definatly not by putting a unit on a map and bombing, bombing and bombing..... and bombing while keeping ALL other units simply arround that one to protect it. Instead you would have this units as support.... the stuh would be cheap to replace like stug III, would provide lots of usefull stuff to boost the attack by creating a smoke wall, buffing nearby inf and protecting own inf by being overruned by enemie inf by suppressing them. Additionally BK ability that increase speed and rof would boost it further...

BK is about speed, combined forces and well planned offense and surprise..... and not by putting a unit somewhere that keeps bombing. I mean BK doc is surely by fac doc and i currently dont use stuh coz its 0 fun, expensive, no usefull abilties and the range makes things worse fun wise. I am not seldomly using stubby tank IV with HE rounds to do sometimes a more realistically "Blitzkrieg", esspecially in mid game.


I gave many reasons.... the campy/bombing is just one of out of many and idk why you respond only to this one. And how would it hurt to ask the players? I would even say that you have no problems with suggestion but also not with current set up. I might be wrong and it would badly hurt your way you play bk doc but i dont think so as i cant remember a single time that you used stuh in a game.



so pls, give it a chance... pls


Its not about balance.... neither for axis nor allis..... none unit is OP currently.... its purely to improve fun of the game, tactical thinking, more interesting assaults and unit combinations and units that simply support each other in well played actions.

[Wolf]

Who from good players have a problem with stuh or stupa? As from what I can see, that is your biggest problem, its not about anything else, you think that these units = camping, I think otherwise. You think its a problem for players, I don't think so. You want to move stupa from def doc, thats other thing you want and I don't, yes I get that its assault tank, it still doesn't mean, that it for gameplay reasons can't be in def doc.

[Warhawks97]

Who from good players have a problem with stuh or stupa? As from what I can see, that is your biggest problem, its not about anything else, you think that these units = camping, I think otherwise. You think its a problem for players, I don't think so. You want to move stupa from def doc, thats other thing you want and I don't, yes I get that its assault tank, it still doesn't mean, that it for gameplay reasons can't be in def doc.

yeah, ok about def doc etc i dont care that much actually.


Make a poll and you will see what players think

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Its bullshit about "all bk players are going for stuhs" nobody do that lol.

Personally i dont think that those units have any problems.

[Tor]

I play 2vs2 and don't see stuh, stuh don't have armor, and die all times realy fast, PZ-4 and nebel spam much better.
How antiemplacements machine can be campy??

[MarKr]

...still i want to ask wolf if he is willing to do changes here as well.

Obviously Wolf is not willing to do the changes so what is the point of:

Make a poll and you will see what players think

Especially when you say

I could do the poll by my own, i know,

as you said, you can make the poll so why do you insist on Wolf making it?

[Butterkeks]

as you said, you can make the poll so why do you insist on Wolf making it?

I would too^^
Because what's the point of making a poll when Wolf doesn't "support" the idea? Why should I make my own poll when I don't know if anything get's changed, even if it's a 100 - 0 poll

Personally I have no problems with StuHs. I actually never see them around anymore after their accuracy got reduced.

[Warhawks97]

Its bullshit about "all bk players are going for stuhs" nobody do that lol.

Personally i dont think that those units have any problems.

no skilled bk player, thats true. I never use stuhs as well and i rarely see them.

Its not about the unit being OP or anything, its just how the unit is being used IF used. IF the unit is used then usually only that way. It becomes really silly when a team combines 88´s, mgs/AA tanks and other tanks and this stuhs.. then there is no chance to get close except with arty abuse and the axis offense is made only by stuhs while all other units are just staying arround that stuh. I mean look how loki uses stupa... Jagpanzer IV/A behind and two AT squads in front of stupa and stupa bombs down all defense etc alone.


So its NOT about the unit being OP..... Its only about how they are CURRENTLY USED, IF they are used. And that nobody of the experienced players uses them and generally being fielded relatively rarely also supports that these units need a drastically change and rethinking. But you can leave them as they are.... silly, for many usless, unfunny and absolutely annoying and only used by players which have no idea how to do an attack with other units.

So i was just somehow trying to rework the units to make the units more funny and interesting to be used.

[ShadowIchigo]

I can understand where you are coming from, but would have to disagree bc the accuracy reductions have really rebalanced these units. And imo i think bigger maps with less players completely solve this problem

[Warhawks97]

I can understand where you are coming from, but would have to disagree bc the accuracy reductions have really rebalanced these units. And imo i think bigger maps with less players completely solve this problem

i am not talking about balance in first place.....

So its NOT about the unit being OP..... Its only about how they are CURRENTLY USED, IF they are used. And that nobody of the experienced players uses them and generally being fielded relatively rarely also supports that these units need a drastically change and rethinking. But you can leave them as they are.... silly, for many usless, unfunny and absolutely annoying and only used by players which have no idea how to do an attack with other units.

So i was just somehow trying to rework the units to make the units more funny and interesting to be used.

[ShadowIchigo]

Ahh well it was hard to understand the difference between the two concepts at first but when i did further thought i can see the difference now hahah. I jist overlooked that i guess i was thinking balance and use were one and the same

[kwok]

Hm. I don't think these are as big as a problem on larger maps, as Shadow says, even gameplay-wise (not just balance).

What you're saying is these tanks are used as army center pieces and foster a camping game. Many times they are used as long-range powerful harass/assault, which is true. But, is there really anything wrong with that? No except that they do not work as well.

"Use the expected to engage, use the unexpected to secure victory." (can you guess who said that?)
The players who only use the common and single use will forever be limited to using that method and lack adaptability. Adaptability becomes much more crucial on large maps because single gimmicks will not win the game; larger maps prolong games because players are able to relocate and avoid fights, thus mitigating "cheeses", gimmicks, and single moment turning points (unless the players intentionally set up these situations). If a player does not adapt and use the stuh/stupa/avre/scott in any other way but the expected way, the good player will win in the long run with counters to the expectations.

Personal annecdote. Not stuh but another pesky aspect of the game. I can't believe it but I actually "worked around" sd2's on a 1v1 on Goodwood. I hate them with a passion, and almost lost my head thus losing the game. But, I calmed myself, reworked my tactics, and came back winning. Once I expected the sd2's I knew how to avoid and play through/around them. If it were a tiny map, my tactics and overall strategy would not have worked at all. There wouldn't be enough space to execute. So many more options are available to play around these "annoyances" that you mention on larger maps.

Move the game into a larger map, you'll see that the common methods become less effective forcing players to be more creative.

[kwok]

But still... screw those sd2's. Even on large maps they are quite a problem in my opinion. I had the fortune of not getting 88 spammed along with the sd2's. I would been dead. I don't want to make balance complaints yet... but if I did.... I know where I'd start..........