Notes for v07

Just balance issues which I’m reasonably sure haven’t been addressed yet in SVN:

feel free to edit and claim tasks as done (make them green with a note on how the problem was solved) or as something you’re working on (yellow)

  • Katy cost/availability (shows up too soon/tends to dominate)
  • TD cost (excessive)
  • Nebel cost (excessive?)
  • Armor costs (probably borked, hard to say exactly how (ie, zerg’s thread on costs). game rarely progresses beyond mediums).
  • Ship costs/everything (doh…)
  • Other stuff?

Minor: prisoner values need tweaking so it shows up more often.

TD/armor costs: I decreased several of their costs a while back, but then I changed the armor formula so it’s probably all fucked again :stuck_out_tongue:

Nebel: The natural mobile analog is the Katy; after I nerfed the AoE, they are more similar in terms of area covered per time; the Nebel also does more damage and is a bit more accurate. However, rocket artillery benefits more from mobility than conventional since the Katy can dump 45s worth of explosive then run, and the shorter range compared to conventional hurts the stationary Nebel more.

Ships: We need to add them to damagedefs for one. I’m worried that the large boatyard boats will be too expensive to show up in most games; a balanced price for the larger ones could run into the tens of thousands, to say nothing of the not-as-yet buildable destroyer-level ships.

I’m a bit skeptical about the close-support tanks. Consider how much explosive area they deliver per time per command:

Cromwell or M4A2 Sherman , HE: 1.82 square elmos / command-second
Cromwell, CS: 1.02 square elmos / command-second
M4A3 (105) Sherman: 0.83 square elmos / command-second
M8 Scott: 2.02 square elmos / command-second

(I did set AoE proportional to the cube root of the damage, but I doubt that changed things too much. Also, divide these by 4 since AoE is diameter, not radius.)

Thus, the standard medium tanks actually deliver a greater area of explosive coverage per second per cost compared to the CS versions, and they are of course more durable per cost. It can be argued that the CS do more damage and have a greater range… however, the standard mediums have AP shells whereas the CS do not.

well, we can always make them cheaper! Also, reload times/ranges were set pretty arbitrarily, so those can be tweaked as well.

Katyusha imbalance: make it truely immobile while shooting (via quick deploy maybe)? As it is now, I order retreat immediately after the first rocket going off, and the vehicle starts to turn and move while still shooting (and the rockets go in the direction of the initial attack order, not where the veh is facing currently which looks odd). Also, in v06 game (yestedray) I made like 2 volleys at the same location in an enemy base and nearly half structures in the spread area were still alive. Not that good a base killer imo.
As for the CS tanks, there is a simple explanation why they look worse than conventional medium tanks. We have none of the things they were designed to destroy! No trenches, no light field fortification (foxholes), no bunkers (except one at the heart of german base). All of those things do not take much damage from AP rounds and ignore smaller HE, that’s why large-caliber direct-fire HE was needed. Without them, those vehicles are a waste, it’s like making Jagdpanzers to counter T-60 spam.

well the HE tanks arent good at countering infantry, and that the only thing they really have to counter in s44.

other than i guess howitzers? the US HE tank is very long range compared to the british version on the cromwell.

The HE tanks are just too expensive, actually ive said this for a long time (probably 3 months or more) i never build them really. actually infantry killing is just for medium tanks and mortars behind the tanks.

Its all about support in 1944 for efficient infantry killing.

Early on its vehicles / light arty supporting infantry, then 5 minutes later its vehicles, then 10 minutes later or less its tanks.

I did put basic prices for ships in, they seem scaled right in regards to one another but you may want to double/triple them as is. If you want, I’ll do that, but I won’t claim it prematurely.

On the subject of the fortifications and wide-aoe HE shells, we can make more of those units, Yuri. I believe both you and Spiked have a few, if you make more, you can kick them to me for texturing as soon as I finish one of the skins I have before me. Reinforced structures could be handy for hard points, even factories… you can still kill the people being trained inside, but the structure might yet stand, etcetera.

I agree on the Katy.

It is fine, Zerg, I’m sure you and Nemo will hash out the TD costs. :stuck_out_tongue:

The other potential upshot of those close assault tanks is how resilient buildings are to damage - if infantry in garrisoned buildings are particularly hard to root out, these units might be the end-all solution (in that a few rounds will just collapse the building). That said, its a pretty limited role, so we should look at how we can help these units out (or cut them).

Options include: larger fear radius/greater fear effect. More powerful base demolition (although 75mm guns tend to do just fine on this front), mine/wreck/general feature clearing…

Two items I’ve noted:

-Snipers take potshots at halftracks, which doesn’t do anything more than tick them off and elicit sprays of MG fire at best. At worst the halftrack takes off and charges towards the source of the shooting, often resulting in the deaths of the spotter, sniper, or both.

-Katyushas tend to fratricide themselves when firing in close proximity to each other. I assembled 50 for a late-game mass-bombardment and 25 of them blew up. Then again, this is probably realistic - I imagine you wouldn’t really want anything behind one when it’s firing.