RE hull down ability range boost

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Hey all, I think that the Hull down ability of RE should provide slight ranger boost to tanks. The reason is simple, the range advantage that Panthers and Tigers have over British tanks defeats the purpose of this ability.

The other game I tried to use Comets as mobile defensive 17p, but Tigers and Panthers always could stay on the edge of the range and kill comets without any danger.

+5 range will not hurt I suppose.

[Consti255]

+1

[Krieger Blitzer]

I would only agree if this +5 range wouldn't stack with the other +5 range boost by Command Cromwell.

[Warhawks97]

I think it currently adds something like +2.5 range. But i agree with the suggestion. Going hull down is kinda pointless when you cant actually shoot back.

Combined with command tank i would be OK when it stacks. You have a bunch of tanks close together in hull down. It literally asks for artillery and henschel runs. So with command tank the range could be even as high as +7,5 or +10. Keep in mind that firefly, comet and achilles dont have 65 default range despite having a gun with similiar characteristics as the german high velocity guns.

Hence, having up to 70 range with hull down and command tank seems fine to me. KT´s etc have 70 range by default just to keep this in mind.

[kwok]

Wouldn’t this make tanks superior to emplacements in every way? Wherever you wanted to hull down your tank you should put an emplacement. If you can’t put an emplacement there for tactical reasons, why is it justified that you can do that for tanks? I feel like this change encourages hyper mobile camping which is contradictory in philosophy… a very “I want to attack with my shield and for it to work” mentality.

[Consti255]

mhh thats also true.
there is a reason emplacements need time to get build. Comets hull down could just turn into mobile 17 pounders.

On the other hand. Hull down in a fight is also a little bit dumb.

What about making a Hull down ambush ? A non range increasing camoed hull down ?
But i think this would be only viable for TDs and not churchills or Comets.

[tarakancheg]

While we are at the topic of a hull down ability.
Can we adress the issue that hull down and direct fire have the same hotkey (D) which makes this CP upgrade a bit dangerous considering the fact that hull down is higher on a hotkey priority as it seems and it can lead to loss of a tank.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Combined with command tank i would be OK when it stacks.

No, i am not OK if it stacks.. because then the Firefly can reach 80 range with static mode + Command Cromwell + Hull Down range bonus... Achilles will also reach 75 range this way; so it's a big NO from me.

Hulldown already provides very good protection.. i wouldn't even allow hulldown to increase range, but instead it could probably give quicker reload or something.

[Warhawks97]

Wouldn’t this make tanks superior to emplacements in every way? Wherever you wanted to hull down your tank you should put an emplacement. If you can’t put an emplacement there for tactical reasons, why is it justified that you can do that for tanks? I feel like this change encourages hyper mobile camping which is contradictory in philosophy… a very “I want to attack with my shield and for it to work” mentality.

1. They are afterall defensive measures. Being unable to utilze this ability because you cant fire back doesnt make sense since in late game all axis tanks have usually 65 range or so.

2. Emplacments are afterall cheaper and stronger.

3. The Tanks cost a lot and in hull down they are prime targets for planes, arty and schrecks

4. Even a stug can go into static mode and shooting from a save distance at your hull down tanks.

5. 70 Range is only achieved with max vet command tank. Otherwise its 67,5.



And hyper mobil camp is being abused a lot already, esspecially ambush modes. Park in front of an enemie, activate the ability and benefit from it. I think allied camo bonuses on TD are instantly applied when the icon appears above their heads.


Hull down and static mode are not compatible as far as i can tell. Achilles ambush and hulldown is for some reason.

Combined with command tank i would be OK when it stacks.

No, i am not OK if it stacks.. because then the Firefly can reach 80 range with static mode + Command Cromwell + Hull Down range bonus... Achilles will also reach 75 range this way; so it's a big NO from me.

Hulldown already provides very good protection.. i wouldn't even allow hulldown to increase range, but instead it could probably give quicker reload or something.

Hulldown and static mode doesnt work actually together. Hulldown and ambush for some reason do.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Wouldn’t this make tanks superior to emplacements in every way? Wherever you wanted to hull down your tank you should put an emplacement. If you can’t put an emplacement there for tactical reasons, why is it justified that you can do that for tanks? I feel like this change encourages hyper mobile camping which is contradictory in philosophy… a very “I want to attack with my shield and for it to work” mentality.

What is the point of hull down then? Currently it turns any tank into a sitting duck for arty, planes AND Axis tanks that can shoot without receiving the fire back.

In most of my RE games activating hull-down inevitably led to the destruction of the tank, it didn’t matter if it was a Comet, Churchill or Firefly.

Yes, tanks will be sort of like 17p emplacements in that case, but being MUCH more expensive + the Hull Down unlock itself costs a lot of CP. I mean, it sort of perfectly fits to the concept of RE - slowly push the frontline and lock the enemy down. Currently it’s just dumb that your static tanks cannot shoot back at the enemy.

[Consti255]

Even tho they are more expensive, keep in mind tanks are also way more usefull than a 17 pounder emplacement or others.
They can drive away from infantry ( with a delay, but you can do it) and cannot be decrewed. Also churchills get doen with a HE mode so they turn basicly in a 360° anti infantry guns with more range.

[Warhawks97]

Even tho they are more expensive, keep in mind tanks are also way more usefull than a 17 pounder emplacement or others.
They can drive away from infantry ( with a delay, but you can do it) and cannot be decrewed. Also churchills get doen with a HE mode so they turn basicly in a 360° anti infantry guns with more range.

It takes seconds to get into hull down and it takes seconds to get out of it. During that time they cant move. German TD´s like the JP IV/70 can also just look for an crater to go ambush in front of a hull down tank and outrange them with their 75 range.

Ambush and hulldown are two pretty effective defensive abilties. However ambush boosts your range, accuracy, even damage, penetration and rate of fire. I dont see why a hulldown mode shouldnt allow at least a range and perhaps rate of fire boost at least.

And we are not asking for 70 range right away. That would only be achieved with a command tank nearby which by itself doesnt provide anything else.

A 17 pdr pit in RE doc costs your 320 MP and some fuel and has 80 range. A firefly for 550 MP and 80 fuel combined with a cromwell for 300/70 will provide you only with 70 range afterall. So i dont get all the crying here at all. A Jagdpanther will still just walk up to you and have the same range.

[Consti255]

Thats not crying, i am just pointing out facts to be considerd.
Hull downed MKVII are a big dick bunker after all when placed correctly a big area deny unit.
Its not like i dont support the change. I would like to have more range in hull down which ive wrote on the beginning of the thread.

[Warhawks97]

The HE rounds have less range by default so even with range buff in hull down they wont really exceed the range of 60 anyways unless their fire their weak AP rounds.

[Diablo]

What do you guys think if the difference between those "tank stance" abilities were to be more pronounced?
For example, a choice of the following bonuses is what I'm talking about:

Hull down (dug in and fortified with sandbags / barrels)
- reduced received penetration and / or damage
- increased range

Stationary firing position (driver helps with loading)
- increased firerate
- increased range

Ambush (camouflaged with bushes / in trees or craters, time to aim for weakspots)
- untargetable / hidden
- increased accuracy
- increased penetration and / or damage
- increased crit chance (I would love that one, although I believe it has been discussed and sadly isn't possible)

This list is by no means complete or solidified. Not all effects have to be applied and they don't all have to be equally strong either. I'm just saying, maybe it's interesting to have different and clear cut themes in those abilities. Each higher tier tank could be assigned only one type of "tank stance" or none if they are powerful already or very offense oriented.

Feedback appreciated, maybe it's worth it's own thread.

[Warhawks97]

Hull down (dug in and fortified with sandbags / barrels)
- reduced received penetration and / or damage
- increased range

its pretty much what it already does except for the range being insufficient to be a vital defensive measure.

Stationary firing position (driver helps with loading)
- increased firerate
- increased range

I say get rid of stationary fire modes for Tanks. It doesnt make sense that the driver creeps into the crampy turret of units like firefly or KT in order to "help loading".
As for the Elephant, that thing already has two loaders so what the driver helping loading a gun would just be in the way.

Stationary fire modes on tanks should be removed by abilties like "Take aim" that has a duration and which increases range and accuracy in exchange for a longer aim time. The ability gets deactivated when the time is over or when the tank starts to move.

Stationary mode should rathe be on units like Nashorn and SPG artillery units. For the Nashorn even a must have before being able to fire where it transforms into a long range stationary anti tank platform with decent rate of fire. But would need to get back into movment mode when attempting to move.

Ambush (camouflaged with bushes / in trees or craters, time to aim for weakspots)
- untargetable / hidden
- increased accuracy
- increased penetration and / or damage
- increased crit chance (I would love that one, although I believe it has been discussed and sadly isn't possible)

The first three things are true already. The range boost is lost in your suggestion i guess? The crit thing and some sort of shock/stun element should be in there as well in my opinion.

This list is by no means complete or solidified. Not all effects have to be applied and they don't all have to be equally strong either. I'm just saying, maybe it's interesting to have different and clear cut themes in those abilities. Each higher tier tank could be assigned only one type of "tank stance" or none if they are powerful already or very offense oriented.

Feedback appreciated, maybe it's worth it's own thread.

It is worth its own thread for sure.

[Diablo]

Maybe I wasn't very clear with my words. Those are not new suggestions but a list, kind of an overview to get a feeling for what I'm suggesting.

Stationary fire modes on tanks should be removed by abilties like "Take aim" that has a duration and which increases range and accuracy in exchange for a longer aim time. The ability gets deactivated when the time is over or when the tank starts to move.

Nice idea, although I see an immediate problem with the execution: a range increasing ability would most likely be used to combat targets at the edge of firing range. If they move a little bit further before the ability comes into effect (like the delay before AP ammo fires), it's cancelled again, because the tank tries to chase it's target, thus moving by itself. Of course this wouldn't happen if you didn't specify a target, but still - problematic. Same applies if the target leaves the extended range shortly after the ability is activated.

The first three things are true already. The range boost is lost in your suggestion i guess? The crit thing and some sort of shock/stun element should be in there as well in my opinion.

A very short stun sounds great. But stealth doesn't have to be super strong in my opinion, really would prefer a short (concise ) list of boosts for each mode. To know them at a glance.. and bonus points for clean thematic design.
Range is not listed on purpose. I dont think they should overlap too much in their design. Kind of but not quite equal options with different uses. They can also emphasize a role.
E.g. the Elephant (to my understanding) wasn't a sneaky tank hunter, so no ambush mode. Hull-down is very limited in it's usefulness with turretless tanks, additionally the armor is already pretty great. Thus I would assign the Elephant a stationary firing mode. I'm thinking long range tank showdown in eastern plains style.

[Warhawks97]

Maybe I wasn't very clear with my words. Those are not new suggestions but a list, kind of an overview to get a feeling for what I'm suggesting.

sure.

Nice idea, although I see an immediate problem with the execution: a range increasing ability would most likely be used to combat targets at the edge of firing range. If they move a little bit further before the ability comes into effect (like the delay before AP ammo fires), it's cancelled again, because the tank tries to chase it's target, thus moving by itself. Of course this wouldn't happen if you didn't specify a target, but still - problematic. Same applies if the target leaves the extended range shortly after the ability is activated.

The same problem comes with stationary fire modes on units like Jacks or KT. I wouldnt use them to be honest bc it leaves you down vulnerable to arty, planes and everything while your enemie just moves out of range. These modes dont make sense to me on units like Jacks or KT.
Meanwhile on stug III they can become quite strong. They are cheap enough to take the risk (and no one sends a plane on them really), early available and turning into some really nasty long range anti tank weapons in the mid stage that enables them to take on actually way superior targets. Stationary modes should thus be removed from basically all tanks.


As for the "Take aim ability" perhaps it only gets deactivated prematurely when the tank takes some damage or comes under fire. So you can have it active whilst still moving just you your aim time is a bit longer then.

A very short stun sounds great. Stealth doesn't have to be super strong in my opinion.
Range is not listed on purpose. I dont think they should overlap too much in their design. Kind of but not quite equal options with different uses. They can also emphasize a role.
E.g. the Elephant (to my understanding) wasn't a sneaky tank hunter, so no ambush mode. Hull-down is very limited in it's usefulness with turretless tanks, additionally the armor is already pretty great. Thus I would assign the Elephant a stationary firing mode. I'm thinking long range tank showdown in eastern plains style.

I a agree with the ambush part.

The stationary mode for Elephant was once in place instead of the ambush. But got removed for the reasons mentioned above. It did put the tank at high danger for artillery and all this stuff. So instead they added ALRS and a vet lvl and ambush mode. I would remove the ambush mode and ALRS and instead add "Take aim ability".

Other than that, "Take aim" could be a toggle ability when the tank reaches a certain level rather than a timed ability. Adding range and accuracy in exchange for way longer aim times. So the player would always have to be aware when to use it and when not.