This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Joshua9
1
« on: February 19, 2013, 07:54:34 PM »
Yeah, aside from my initial concerns about the infantry halftrack rush, I won't be sad to see this many-tooled anti tank unit go, wich inspite of being the earliest at weapon to pop out, often becomes the mainstay anti vehicle unit, backed up by something heavier like an AT gun or mobile AT units. The fact that there is "something" not yet disclosed(I actually think russia has too many unit options as is, but it still does seem to play out okay), coupled with the fact that light vehicles have been reduced in tech cost, allowing for quick cap and stall tactics until a t-70 against pe(theoretically), alleviates my concerns that Russia will be shut down in the early game against PE.
Nixing tank hunters will probably force you to play "better" as a russian player, rather than just popping out an answer to fast vehicles on the fly, and rather than just mine spamming around the map so that you need to build up a serious anti tank response only after an enemy has failed to gain shock value from his initial oswind or panther.
2
« on: February 16, 2013, 01:17:10 AM »
ah, I see,
cool! look forward to it, thanks
3
« on: February 16, 2013, 12:38:48 AM »
But at 2 command points, that's not a solution against the infantry halftrack rush. You aren't likely to even have 1 cp by that point in the game, so your only bet is to get as fast an at gun as possible. I don't kow that this is bad neccessarily, but it does really seem to lock in your tech choices in this matchup. This will basically be the same and only path against a potential fast armored car. And there's no such thing as stall teching to a t-70 as a counter because it takes longer to get to than the american m-8, by which time the damage should be done.
I know this is all hypothetical because I haven't played this myself, but for those of you who have, you've looked at this in testing and haven't seen a problem with it? If there's not a problem, I won't miss them. My worthy opponent on the other hand, may have quite the hissey fit when he sees the change as they are clearly his favorite unit in the game. Maybe he'll just gravitate to the Ostheer.
4
« on: February 15, 2013, 10:48:10 PM »
Wow,
yeah, tank hunters are absolute beasts against vehicles with the support of...anything really, and as an added bonus have an uncanny ability to assasinate snipers at range from lucky ptrd shots. I will second that they are insanely cheap and produce really fast! They are also an early, multipurpose and scaling, non-doctrinal answer to enemy bunkers.
They get owned by oswinds and acs(PE PIV's absolutely suck against them though), and will do a poor job of advancing on vehicles that aren't overextended(though with the breakthrough sprint boost or the command squad rush they can often put any big tank trying to run home in its grave). Thankfully they get chewed up by infantry, but if you can gain map superiority(which you should do) before the big tanks start appearing, you can place a few good tank mines and deny the enemy any shock value for that vehicle hitting the field. Bring up an at gun, or a doctrinal SU?(the breakthrough AT option) or an upgraded t-34 or two and your opponent will seriously have a hard time pushing back onto the map, until something big pops like a tiger ace in support of a panther or 2(kt is just so slow it isn't going to have the same impact, especially if it hits a mine).
That said, I'm interested in seeing how the game might play out without them. They were at one time my most hated unit. Cut them though and I'm wondering how exactly you expect russia to handle early PE IHT rushes. You going to force the t-2 tech to the mortar/at gun option? Units that have to get close to throw grenades are going to fail, which is why stickies are not a functional deterrent to the infantry half-track rush with americans. Tank hunters do a very effective job of at least keeping the half-tracks back of the army for nothing more than reinforcement(the rush still feels strong inspite of that).
5
« on: July 12, 2012, 01:04:12 AM »
so then, is the radius the same as PE AT mines? If so, I should probably just accept it as is...if its bigger, what is the rationale?
6
« on: July 11, 2012, 07:14:02 PM »
yeah, tank hunters aren't a hard counter to ac's by any means but they are enough of a deterrent. My comments were being used, but I wasn't suggesting that the ac tank hunter dynamic by itself was the particular problem. my beef is more with tank hunters vs PIVs.
As to the at mines, what is the radius on these? I get 3 immobilized tanks to 1 at mine far too frequently. You could argue "play better" and there's some merit to that in regards to bunching or not bunching tanks, but this seems like way too much bang for the buck, no?
7
« on: July 10, 2012, 07:07:03 PM »
Currently my only problem with Tank hunters is that due to the way they function, they are not so good against acs, or at least not too good...they can always use their ambush, their long range, and their mines as deterrents, but harassing them with acs is quite effective
yet they are absolutely monstrous against PIVs, partly because even though they do little from long range, PIV sight range is not so good and they can just continue to peck at it, keeping this high investment unit essentially unused, partly because PIV's only get good when locked down, and against a few PTRD squads, that is a death sentence in seconds.
This gives fast PIV's only one path to pseudo-effectiveness, relying on the enemy to build a double AT-gun anti vehicle deterrent, and then just avoiding that protected area. (although I admit I haven't seen PIVs in action against a light vehicle Russian build...not sure how the fixed gun vehicles stand up.)
I don't like this at all, because I like my PIV's but almost never use them against my russian competitor. That said, I'm not sure what should be done, given that the match-up feels mostly balanced at the moment. I had some complaints about the strength of a Russian outpost + med truck, which is really effing strong, but I think that i've found a solution to dealing with that slightly more effectively lately.
I think other tweaks are coming to balance out the early game since people seem to think that the ht rush is overpowered(I didn't know what you guys were talking about at first but now that I'm not over-investing in half-tracks(2 +mortar half used to get me torched, so now I spam infantry backed by 1 ht) I see its effectiveness. So maybe a little decrease to at-nades damage against skirted PIV's would be in order.
8
« on: March 21, 2012, 06:07:33 PM »
thanks for the responses,
thanks for that detailed breakdown donthateme.
The funny part is I often do get map dominance early, sometimes keeping my enemy off of his fuel for the first 5 minutes of the game.
again the issue for me is that I cannot push on an outpost, which you guys seem to be mercifully addressing, so apparently you agree there is some degree of imbalance here. My thoughts on the capping speed of the tank hunters was just a less aggressive way to deal with the problem I'm having than the approach you are taking, so no, its not a big deal.
As to survivability though, what are the stats on tank hunters? They have infantry armor? These 4 guys definitely seem to take more punishment than most of the other russian troops, excluding guards, so maybe the difference is in hit-points? I can't be crazy, that seems pretty obvious game after game. but let me know if i'm crazy. Also how much of a bonus do these guys and sturmovie get in defense from both defensive vet and passive vet? That vet comes easy, so it should be considered when talking about their survivability...which, let me be clear, I don't think is a problem. I am however shocked that you guys don't think these guys are a good unit. They may be balanced now, but they are not simply a stop-gap.
I'd love to see some replays involving PE and russia, so yes please PM me if you get up to it, thanks.
9
« on: March 21, 2012, 06:57:13 AM »
Right, I actually am not suggesting that tank hunters are good against infantry...they have been nerfed impressively, and fast sturmovie can be handled in isolated situations with both slow and flame grenades...they burn fast, and they are fragile in-spite of their firepower, though I am concerned about their survivability post defensive vet on the command squad...they just seem to stop dying at some point
and yes, acs do a number on tank hunters and sturmmovie though I find myself having to build more than two of them, and at guns do eventually hit the field, protected by the other units, not to mention the risk of hitting at mines.
My primary concern was about the op and the medic truck together and how that affects the hit and run strength of these units which deal damage at a good distance,chewing upa squad in seconds and then running away(though not far), and then rinsing and repeating, owning the attrition war, something that is geatly due to the fact that once an op is put down, its just plain likely to stay there, for want of a good way of dislodging it without greater sacrifice than reward.
I still think that a 90 second cooldown for the retreat to truck for this fast moving infantry is more than they need, and is too effective, so I still advocate a longer delay in the reuse of that ability, though it is very good to hear that you have changed the outpost slightly, and that you may lower the truck heal, as alternative solutions.
my secondary concern stemmed from the first, and simply had to do with russia's ability to force a retreat and then cap up the map, something that can not be dealt with tit-for-tat due to that damn medic truck. The tank hunters are probably just about as resiliant as they should be. Most of the russian army dies really easily so i'm content with tank hunters requiring a little more punishment to kill. I just don't understand their capping rate, given their role and the number of units russia will be fielding. It compounds a problem that i've listed, that their resiliance makes it so that they don't have to be babysat by the rest of the blob. PE infantry has to stay tight because when they get cought out, they get mauled in a split second to the russian wave...a wave that moves fast and can be on two different sides of the map within 10 seconds...its really fucking hard to predict.
Anyway, it seems like something is being addressed that directly impacts my area of complaint, so I'll definitely be looking forward to the next patch.
10
« on: March 20, 2012, 08:57:44 PM »
that feels like a bit of a mixed message... 'ltp" or "we're looking at outposts for a possible solution."
I know that strelky are supposed to be the mainstay of russian infantry. Do you guys get in games against a heavy sturm-ingenery force supported by tank hunters and all other t2 options available very often? If one comes up, I beg of you, post the replay. It would really help. LearingTP is a lot easier when there is some model to follow.
11
« on: March 20, 2012, 07:31:19 PM »
window of ht hitting field before tank hunters is what, 45 seconds, a minute and a half tops? I'd love to see that in practice.
AC's yes, are pretty good against Tank hunters, I'm just not sure how you're getting fast ac if your buying a half track. its a fuel investment. Your enemy should have ample time to have counters, and will because he's certain to be tailoring to anti-vehicle.
I've occasionally been able to cut my friend off with ift, but that window of effectiveness seems very short. If you're building past t2 to fast t3 then you have one less unit on the field trying to choke russia off the map in that critical stage. Are you base rushing with the ht? stalling the building of t2?
Also, fast acs always come up in these conversations about pe vs russia, and I don't think that should be THE viable strategy. Its utility may make the factions technically balanced, but if its a necessary tech path, its going to be a less flexible match-up.
Anyway, I allow that you might be right. You guys are obviously playing some games...I'd love to see some of those PE vs russia replays. It would help alot
12
« on: March 20, 2012, 06:32:34 PM »
I've been having consistent problems as PE versus a specific infantry heavy Russian strategy. It involves as its bread and butter, about 4 upgraded tank hunters, 4 sturm-ingenery squads, and of course the command squad, supported by the jumping off point of an outpost with medic truck combo.
The reason this combo is so difficult for me as PE in my opinion, is first, it is very very hard to take out an outpost that is supported and will eventually have an mg emplacement backing it up. PE's infantry edge on Russia is fairly tenuous even in an all-out brawl once both sides start getting vet, coupled with abilities to disrupt blobs that russia has, like command squad arty and satchel charges. Attacking a protected outpost is a much less ambiguous outcome, and mortar half-tracks don't help enough, and have to get close enough that they don't live long. Against a different faction I might try to sneak in a goliath during a push, but the brutal range on the sturm-ingenery ensures that that isn't going to hit a damn thing, even if it isn't directly targeted in time.
One of the reasons this outpost is so impregnable is that any assault I'm likely to make on it will almost immediately be met with the push back of my enemy's full army, since they can all just be there at the click of a button. I think that that click of the button should be much rarer. I'd prefer a 3 minute cool-down. I doubt this would have far reaching consequences against wehrmacht, and would allow PE, which has almost no standard artillery save the mortar ht, an opportunity to actually hit this hard-point with enough force to remove it.
My other complaint is tank-hunter capping speed. These guys can roam the map in packs of 4 getting behind vehicles, softening base defenses...etc. If they get caught out, they are resilient enough to retreat in-tact unless I slow a squad, and am lucky enough to be in-between it and its retreat route with a sizable force, and this doesn't even take them off the battlefield. It puts them at their outpost where they re-heal and re-man for 28 manpower. The fact that these guys seem to cap so decently seems unnecessary, and only serves to help them play this attrition and pop-cap war that eventually always cripples me, while my infantry is being pushed off by the other tools at my enemy's disposal. I would suggest having tank hunters cap at the speed of un-upgraded assault grens.
So yeah, these would be minor changes. It's possible that the issue is more severe and that something should be done about the fact that sturm-ingenery cease to be glass cannons once the command squad gets vet, or how much less likely to perish tank hunters are after said upgrades. Or its possible that I'm just not using the right tools to get the job done, I just don't know what those tools would be.
13
« on: February 21, 2012, 07:36:52 PM »
so does PE have a hard counter to these? the PE match-up against Russia between me and my friend has felt pretty good...first I had to figure out how to deal with fast sturm-ingenery, but now my friend has started trotting out these fleshless machines that don't bleed and know no fear, at about mid-game. AC's are particularly bad against them, The PE infantry would still have a hard time if the necessary blobs needed to kill guards weren't also trying to dodge grenades...(and likely command squad arty)
I figure I'm left with p4 as a viable counter. maybe a lucky goliath. do incendiaries do more damage to guards? I guess mortars will help, but once I can't hold a line against russia's advance it gets hard to keep these safe against complimentary tank hunter spam
....I missed the comment about using an at halftrack....with the sniper ability on that is it 1 shot 1 kill against guards? if so that might be worth trying.
14
« on: January 06, 2012, 11:32:37 PM »
I'd love to be a part of the balancing team. My play skills aren't remarkable, but I always try to make reasoned posts about the things I find unbalanced, a few of which have been more or less vindicated over time. I would offer my friend up into the mix as well. He's my standard opponent, and an equal one. Neither of us play particularly conventionally, which probably means that some of our tactics are ill-advised against better players, but also showcases different unit make-ups that may be useful in honing balance as it pertains to unlikely(and thus glossed over) engagements.
I'll see if we can't play a few games, and find a good replay out of it to post.
-Josh
15
« on: January 06, 2012, 05:57:06 PM »
I thought it hat 1500 to the KT's 2000 hp, is that not right?
on edit:
I see, the updated version will only have 1300 hp. Am I right in reading that its armor type is higher than the KT? Does tiger armor x .9 mean less than a standard tiger? The armor value is another area where I think this should take a bit of a hit...and I'm really interested in seeing what happens when it also gets its special range shot.
As to the fireflies dealing with it...you mean fireflies plural obviously, which is just hard to have on the ready against a very agressive gren strat, because those puppies are a huge cost sink until that tank hits the field. Is the tiger ace the same cost of 500 upfront and then a drain over time? If that is the way it works, I don't think it reflects it's immediate shock value. The KT is a force of slow domination, and a slow drain makes sense to me. Tiger ace should pay upfront in my opinion.
|
Show Posts