single non doc zooks on rifleman

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[XIIcorps]

Sounds a lot like you want to add realism to a non realistic persistency mod.

[Shabtajus]

more like i want a little bit more infantry focused game play with rare but cool tanks with epic abilities which will make game more strategic and more chalenging.

[tank130]

more like i want a little bit more infantry focused game play with rare but cool tanks with epic abilities which will make game more strategic and more chalenging.

+1

Why does it have to be shab to see the correct way we should be doing this..........

Anyway, Shab is correct - for the most part. I disagree with the OMG mechanic of wear & tear, but I totally agree that repair needs to be put on repair units, not just a purchasable add on.

We need to make it more strategic from both the users side and the opponents side. By putting repairs on the a repair unit we open up the ability to eliminate enemy vehicles by eliminating their repair unit or the vehicle.
The user must decide between more vehicles on the field, or less pop for vehicles to increase the usability of the vehicle. If your focus is not on vehicles, then you do not need to use up pop on repair units.

I don't need 10 ATG in my company to take out that Tiger with dual repairs. I only need to take it out once and focus on taking out his repair units to eliminate it from being repaired.

[Dauntless07]

I vote yes.

As a less than superior player, and a fan of the US faction, I need Zooks badly. Sticky Bombs are a complete waste if you lack the skill to use them effectively. Not to mention, they cost more munitions than INF doctrinal Zooks on Rifles, (60 vs 55.) I can't micro my rifles to throw their grenades effectively in the chaos of battle. It would be nice for them to be able to fight on their own.

Vehicles are so powerful, because most can't be damaged by ordinary small arms fire. They laugh as I awkwardly attempt to swivel an ATG into position, and easily kite me when I attempt to close in with Stickies. Don't even get me started on US TDs, those worthless vehicles not only die to any Axis tank easily, but they take up an enormous amount of pop. Zooks might not be the end-all answer to tanks, but they can serve as a discouragement to tank spam.

I'm really not asking for much, just make Zooks the default Rifles AT option, and make Stickies INF doctrine specific. This makes way more sense than the current situation. Rifles would barely be more powerful individually, but the US faction would benefit greatly.

[tank130]

What this topic has clearly shown is there is a problem with vehicles and tanks. That will need to be addressed first before a decision on whether there should be more AT options or not is determined.

[Tachibana]

I'm not sure if that is the conclusion you can draw from this thread alone. Categorically

Brit: able to deal with axis tanks and axis vehicles
PE: able to deal with allied tanks and vehicles
Wehr: able to deal with allied tanks and vehicles
US: able to deal with axis tanks. Not so much vehicles.

That seems to be the jist of this thread.

[TheVolskinator]

In what way is there a problem with tanks/vehicles, tank? Are there too many? Are the vehicles themselves individually too powerful/overpowered? Are they too capable against too wide a range of targets?

[chefarzt]

Or did u just remove Rangers/Airborne ? Why not just unlock them again and have a look?
What you recenttly did is not "Vanilla"

[tank130]

In what way is there a problem with tanks/vehicles, tank? Are there too many? Are the vehicles themselves individually too powerful/overpowered? Are they too capable against too wide a range of targets?

Great question. I don't know if it is one specific item or perhaps a combination.
There is certainly a need to have a ridiculous amount of AT in a company to stand a chance in this mod.

Over the last few years we have continued to add more AT and/or AT options. I think Tachibana  makes a good point about Brits handling armor/vehicles, but did we not just add Boyz AT in the last 1.5 to 2 years? We also added the newer AT gun ( fucked if I can remember what it's called )

The point is we have continued to add more AT. At the same time we also added more repairs to vehicles. BY the way, I get really tired of writing both the vehicles and tanks. For the simplicity of argument in regards to AT, they are all vehicles - meaning they don't have legs!

Anyway, adding back in Rangers & airborne just masks the underlying problem.  There are a large number of vehicles available on the field with basically the ability to field them all twice with repairs.

I don't think adding more AT is the solution. I think reducing the amount of vehicles is the solution. Once we realize the problem is more about vehicles then it is about AT, then we can start finding the correct solution to reducing them.

[TheVolskinator]

Wouldn't we be able to do the same thing with repairs moved to engineering units (as you and others have suggested)? In fact, without wear and tear, you might be able to keep doctrinal heavies (excluding the Churchill, as it's too slow and easy to kill to really escape from anything) such as the KT and Pershing alive and fielded almost indefinitely, especially when you consider that you can just stop by your repair unit and "top off" your HP after every engagement.

This is part of the reason I so vehemently oppose the move away from repair kits--with the kits, you can limit the duration of the presence of any armored unit based on skill level and repair kit usage--a person with average micro who uses his repair kit with 50% or more of his HP remaining won't have his tank on the field nearly as long as someone with decent micro who waits until he's sitting on ~25% of his HP. Double repair kits will double this effect.

[TheVolskinator]

Why don't we look at the resource bonuses, and have them change your resource counts by larger increments? We get, what, 8000 MP, 2000 MU, 1200 FU (1600 max iirc) by default, yes? What if, instead of by increments of 400, ?160, and ?80 (without full resources on the warmap I can't recall what the current max is), we had increments of 2000, 500, and 300 (1/4th of the base resource count of your company, at least in original resource-count terms)?

This would necessitate changes to the original resource count (in this case, manpower and fuel) in order to prevent ridiculous spam counts, so we'd end up with

9000 MP (with 3x starting MP advantage; 5000 w. 1x, 7000 w. 2x, 9000 w. 3x)
2000 MU (with 2x starting MU advantage; 1500 w. 1x, 2000 w. 2x, 2500 w. 3x)
900 FU (with 1x starting FU advantage; 900 w. 1x, 1200 w. 2x, 1500 w. 3x)

Now you really need to choose the right resource advantage for your current build. Do you want to field a metric fuck ton of tanks? Great, but that's going to hamstring your force of supporting infantry and ATGs.

Ooh, you want to field a massive horde of infantry; max MP advantage? Whelp, you won't be able to really upgrade a great deal of them with fancy upgrades, nor field massive amounts of AT (or, with massive amounts of AT, no shiny upgrades). And, of course, not much fuel for any sort of vehicular support force. An added side effect is that this would prevent (upgraded) elite infantry spam, since you couldn't slap upgrades on each and every elite squad, opening yourself up to an attrition battle that they might not be able to win vs. a massive horde of cheap units (Volks, Rifles).

What about maximum MU? AK-47s for everyone! Too bad 'everyone' doesn't really count for much; again, it prevents elite infantry spam companies (or severely reduces their size) since you won't have the raw manpower to field a huge mass of elite infantry and supporting AT/healing/vehicles/recrew infantry. Sure, everyone might get a big fancy upgrade, but you won't have a ton of bodies, and if you suck, well, with most of your eggs in very few baskets your supply of call-ins will dwindle very quickly (the same as an all-fuel company).

Thoughts?

[tank130]

Wouldn't we be able to do the same thing with repairs moved to engineering units (as you and others have suggested)? In fact, without wear and tear, you might be able to keep doctrinal heavies (excluding the Churchill, as it's too slow and easy to kill to really escape from anything) such as the KT and Pershing alive and fielded almost indefinitely, especially when you consider that you can just stop by your repair unit and "top off" your HP after every engagement.

I think you may have missed part of the design on that. The repair units will not have infinite repairs. You will still have to purchase repairs kits on the repair unit.
That said, you could possibly spend all your munitions on repair kits on a few repair units, but then that would basically render the rest of your company useless. The balance in the design is applying a hefty enough muni cost to repairs to discourage that.

I think the question we would need to ask then is if repairs should be fuel or muni. If the fuel was high enough, you wouldn't be able to afford a bunch of repairs and a heavy tank. Or, if they are munis you have a great heavy tank, but nothing to support it with.


The flip side is we go back to repair engies without kits. But they would need to be specific repair engies with much weaker stats so they can be wiped out easily.

[tank130]

Why don't we look at the resource bonuses, and have them change your resource counts by larger increments?

There are some very detailed and accurate reports created by Unknown in the Dev lobby that show why this does not work well. I will try to find them for you. He really did the research and thought it out.

I actually agreed with the concept of increases until he shot me down in great detail.

[Dauntless07]

SNIP

Tank, have you considered simply halving the health regeneration of repair kits? This way, (except 2x repair,) you no longer have to fight the same vehicle twice, but 1.5 times. That's already a 25% decrease in vehicle staying power. No more "yolo rush" because you know you can't repair back to full health if you take a lot of damage. It's a small change that could have a big impact. It makes sense that a seriously damaged vehicle couldn't be repaired to prime condition on a battlefield.

My only concern is light vehicles could get the shaft considering 1 ATG round takes them to half-health already.

[Hicks58]

You're right, there could be a dozen reasons why mucking about with the resources could cause some knock on effects.

BUT,

It's also a piss easy change to make and revert, and we happen to be in a non-doctrinal environment. A week of enhanced resources could provide some practical research data to play with, instead of theory.

[XIIcorps]

Unless we go for a Rock Paper Scissors type of build we will never achieve balance.

[TheVolskinator]

There are some very detailed and accurate reports created by Unknown in the Dev lobby that show why this does not work well. I will try to find them for you. He really did the research and thought it out.

I actually agreed with the concept of increases until he shot me down in great detail.

I would very much like to see this data ASAP.

[GrayWolf]

Unless we go for a Rock Paper Scissors type of build we will never achieve balance.

+1.

[AlphaTIG]

Unless we go for a Rock Paper Scissors type of build we will never achieve balance.

Unless we go for mirror balance with rock paper scissors build and no more random damage output we will never achieve real balance.

but does anyone really want that?

[tank130]

We may never be able to achieve "Balance" but that doesn't mean we just ignore what we can work with.