Broken Stuff that Needs Fixing ASAP

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1383
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: Broken Stuff that Needs Fixing ASAP

Postby FrangibleCover » Sat 16 Sep 2017 18:49

Mike wrote:
Markenzwieback wrote:
I mean, who would be crazy enough to give 24 AP to the swedish RR ?

16AP would have been neat though.

The pen was 800mm, right?

Yup, it's a tandem charge. Either the same round or a round very similar to it fitted in the Ikv 91, which also had quite a good FCS.

Sweden should have absolutely god-tier tank killing potential at 1750m, although admittedly you'd need to create a new Ikv m/84 so that the current cat C one doesn't get moved up a category.
[Non-included Nation] Belgium - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Hungary - Spreadsheet
[Non-included Nation] Pakistan

User avatar
Bougnas
Major-General
Posts: 3648
Joined: Sat 26 Apr 2014 18:24
Contact:

Re: Broken Stuff that Needs Fixing ASAP

Postby Bougnas » Sat 16 Sep 2017 20:38

FrangibleCover wrote:Yup, it's a tandem charge. Either the same round or a round very similar to it fitted in the Ikv 91, which also had quite a good FCS.

Sweden should have absolutely god-tier tank killing potential at 1750m, although admittedly you'd need to create a new Ikv m/84 so that the current cat C one doesn't get moved up a category.



The m/77 ammo had 500mm of pen which translates to 17AP so the IKV 91 would still be decent.
Image

User avatar
Shika
Corporal
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri 28 Mar 2014 02:25
Contact:

Re: Broken Stuff that Needs Fixing ASAP

Postby Shika » Sat 16 Sep 2017 20:54

urogard wrote:
Razzmann wrote:<img>

Of the 13 or so comparisons he posted, at least 10 of them I have no friggin clue what he means to compare or what the problem is.

Thanks for posting this so I didn't have to

Really pointless to try to use comparisons when you defeat yourself in the process.

Never did I claim Finland did not have units better than anyone else(I discussed them in prior posts.) Rather I highlighted the ones that are and already explained these poor comparisons

You're showing me a 5 point difference unit where the unit that is 5(5 points dude, reality check) points higher has advantages over the 10 point unit and vice versa basically down the entire line of spammed images that are for the most part self explanatory.

It seems like the true underlying issue here is Razzmann and the other guy's idea of balance and mine.

I don't think true balance is achieved by copypasting units across the board and having an issue with very minor details changed across units. It's also dishonest to cherry pick units on crappy, outdated nations(Yes, the Nordic countries are outdated besides support) and compare them, that's not to say every unit exampled was from a crappy our outdated nation. Nor does that mean every single example was flawed. I could easily make these pictures with Eurocorps, Israel, Yugo, even Nordic countries, the US, and USSR in reference to support pieces for the latter and almost all unit types for the former 3.

We've been over it ad nauseum, but honestly there is no point in me arguing any further with you 2 as it seems like our very definition of game balance is almost polar opposite. I'm not one for CoH style of asymmetrical, but I also think your guys' idea of balance is just as terrible for gameplay
IGN: Suojeluskunta

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7427
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: Broken Stuff that Needs Fixing ASAP

Postby Razzmann » Sat 16 Sep 2017 21:17

Shika wrote:I don't think true balance is achieved by copypasting units across the board

Who suggested or implied that?

Many units can be balanced by price changes alone and those who cannot (mostly infantry) can get changes in their stats without being a clone of anything.

Asymmetric balance should not be having a red (blue) unit be better than their blue (red) "counterpart" for the same price (or just as effective while being cheaper).

but I also think your guys' idea of balance is just as terrible for gameplay

Which idea is that?

User avatar
Shika
Corporal
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri 28 Mar 2014 02:25
Contact:

Re: Broken Stuff that Needs Fixing ASAP

Postby Shika » Sat 16 Sep 2017 21:45

Razzmann wrote:
Shika wrote:I don't think true balance is achieved by copypasting units across the board

Who suggested or implied that?

Many units can be balanced by price changes alone and those who cannot (mostly infantry) can get changes in their stats without being a clone of anything.

Asymmetric balance should not be having a red (blue) unit be better than their blue (red) "counterpart" for the same price (or just as effective while being cheaper).

but I also think your guys' idea of balance is just as terrible for gameplay

Which idea is that?

I'm looking at units with a higher price tag but higher range and accuracy. I'm looking at units with worse range/ammo but higher RoF. on and on and on

Go ahead and show me how OP Finland is as a nation, and not how garbage old forgotten nations are, and don't worry about Israel/Yugo they're just fine. Nitpicking 5 point differences with those 2 nations in the game. It's really just a greedy grab, you're trying to take things that simply don't matter out while we're talking about units that are an issue.

If there's a unit that is literally copy pasted and cheaper, sure in theory adjust it, but what you're failing to do is look at the bigger picture, not every nation is a jack of all trades and not every nation should be just as efficient as the other in every aspect. As I said earlier, I don't think every example you guys say is bad, there are definitely units that have issues even the cheaper ones just do not make sense, however you're overreaching and posting units you're saying are OP when if you look at it from a balanced perspective, you see differences and advantages/disadvantages on both side. Which one comes out ahead, it's still a very minor comeout and can vary in the situation in most cases you are posting.

What the end goal of your ideas here is
Change unit prices to maintain 100% per-unit basis in terms of cost/efficiency. What this does is make it so no nation has any edge over another in terms of efficiency, it balances the game from a small scale perspective and not a total picture perspective. Obviously this should be done with most units, but what happens here is you now have an argument over many smaller, cheaper units and even more expensive ones as to what is truly more efficient. We're not talking units with a 1:1 copy, you're complaining about units that have tradeoffs on both sides and now someone has to argue what is more 'meta' and should be more expensive than others..

The alternative is copy pasting, and since you say you don't want that I won't say you do. The problem with you saying that is okay, you don't want copypasted units, but you're complaining about so many units simply because they aren't copypasted or have minor differences for the same pricetag. I have no problem with your model of balance for the blatantly out-of-line units such as the MiG-29 and the Mi-8KT, it also applies to other units currently in the game that are not on Finland. However, my problem is when you start naming units that are non-issues
IGN: Suojeluskunta

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7427
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: Broken Stuff that Needs Fixing ASAP

Postby Razzmann » Sat 16 Sep 2017 22:09

Shika wrote:Go ahead and show me how OP Finland is as a nation

I never said that.

Shika wrote:and don't worry about Israel/Yugo they're just fine.

You bring that up again, but barely anyone says that. Unless you can prove that more people complain about Finnish units than Israeli ( Yugoslav ones.

Shika wrote:Nitpicking 5 point differences with those 2 nations in the game

5 points can be a lot when it is 50% of the units price - or 33%.

Shika wrote:not every nation is a jack of all trades and not every nation should be just as efficient as the other in every aspect

That is what coalitions are for.

Shika wrote:Change unit prices to maintain 100% per-unit basis in terms of cost/efficiency. What this does is make it so no nation has any edge over another in terms of efficiency, it balances the game from a small scale perspective and not a total picture perspective.Obviously this should be done with most units, but what happens here is you now have an argument over many smaller, cheaper units and even more expensive ones as to what is truly more efficient. We're not talking units with a 1:1 copy, you're complaining about units that have tradeoffs on both sides and now someone has to argue what is more 'meta' and should be more expensive than others..

That is not exactly how it works. What you said would be true if every tank in the game could substitute another tank. Just because the Strv 121's and the M1A2's prices are both perfectly fine (whether they are or are not in the game right now is irrelevant), does not mean they are equally good. The pure existence (or absence) of one of them is already a characteristic of a nation / coalition. Just like the distribution of stats.
100% perfect balance will never be achievable, nobody said that. But prior to the Israel DLC, I'd personally consider Commonwealth and Eastern Block for example pretty balanced compared to each other. A powerlevel all coalitions should be. Yet they have completely different units. If that was possible back then, I don't know why it should not be right now.

Also I like you talking about the bigger picture, when you talk about Finland but apparently ignore Baltic Front is a thing.

Shika wrote:However, my problem is when you start naming units that are non-issues

Maybe you should take a deeper look into stats and do some actual tests then.

But what am I talking about it is not like

Spoiler : :
Image


Spoiler : :
Image


I actually did tests.

User avatar
Shika
Corporal
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri 28 Mar 2014 02:25
Contact:

Re: Broken Stuff that Needs Fixing ASAP

Postby Shika » Sat 16 Sep 2017 22:31

Razzmann wrote:
Shika wrote:Go ahead and show me how OP Finland is as a nation

I never said that.

Shika wrote:and don't worry about Israel/Yugo they're just fine.

You bring that up again, but barely anyone says that. Unless you can prove that more people complain about Finnish units than Israeli ( Yugoslav ones.

Shika wrote:Nitpicking 5 point differences with those 2 nations in the game

5 points can be a lot when it is 50% of the units price - or 33%.

Shika wrote:not every nation is a jack of all trades and not every nation should be just as efficient as the other in every aspect

That is what coalitions are for.

Shika wrote:Change unit prices to maintain 100% per-unit basis in terms of cost/efficiency. What this does is make it so no nation has any edge over another in terms of efficiency, it balances the game from a small scale perspective and not a total picture perspective.Obviously this should be done with most units, but what happens here is you now have an argument over many smaller, cheaper units and even more expensive ones as to what is truly more efficient. We're not talking units with a 1:1 copy, you're complaining about units that have tradeoffs on both sides and now someone has to argue what is more 'meta' and should be more expensive than others..

That is not exactly how it works. What you said would be true if every tank in the game could substitute another tank. Just because the Strv 121's and the M1A2's prices are both perfectly fine (whether they are or are not in the game right now is irrelevant), does not mean they are equally good. The pure existence (or absence) of one of them is already a characteristic of a nation / coalition. Just like the distribution of stats.
100% perfect balance will never be achievable, nobody said that. But prior to the Israel DLC, I'd personally consider Commonwealth and Eastern Block for example pretty balanced compared to each other. A powerlevel all coalitions should be. Yet they have completely different units. If that was possible back then, I don't know why it should not be right now.

Also I like you talking about the bigger picture, when you talk about Finland but apparently ignore Baltic Front is a thing.

Shika wrote:However, my problem is when you start naming units that are non-issues

Maybe you should take a deeper look into stats and do some actual tests then.

But what am I talking about it is not like

Spoiler : :
Image


Spoiler : :
Image


I actually did tests.

Honestly I don't know how to procede when I've countered points you say in earlier posts that you either do not read or don't understand what I'm saying. Your last point is the exact problem I have with communicating with you, and I'm going to say something I said earlier multiple times with regards to these 2 units.

I'm not trying to be mean, it just seems like you don't understand how units differ. I know you'll respond with something to the effect of "well now I'm right" but the problem here is you don't seem to read or comprehend what I'm explaining to you, your idea of balance is so static and one-sided and I've explained to you multiple times how that's bad.

If you idea of a units worth is fighting point blank in a forest when one is geared for longer range combat in terms of AT and anti infantry, and one is geared towards close range, then why should I bother? I've told you this like 3 times now and every time it is completely ignored. I'll at least explain your fault here in one post highlighting it.

One unit is made with a superior AT capability and MG range for longer fights, one is made for a close in infantry vs infantry situation. I never once said Jääkäri will lose to jäger in a forest, I have told you that they are made for seperate purposes, and youäre showing them used in 1 way and saying the entire unit is superior which is completely dishonest because it highlights their advantage and not the other unitäs advantage. As for the upcoming retort of 1 being more meta, refer to my previous post.

So, no point talking further. Oh and every time I mention Finland I basically mean BF, I just keep forgetting to say BF because the only units anyone has a problem with are Finnish
IGN: Suojeluskunta

User avatar
Razzmann
General
Posts: 7427
Joined: Fri 7 Mar 2014 15:29
Location: The land of flowing beer and Sauerkraut.
Contact:

Re: Broken Stuff that Needs Fixing ASAP

Postby Razzmann » Sat 16 Sep 2017 22:39

So you are telling me that infantry fights outside of towns and forests are relevant.

K.

Besides, Jäger have literally the same stats against infantry as Gevaermenn '85, which also have the same AT weapon as Jääkäri '90.

User avatar
Shika
Corporal
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri 28 Mar 2014 02:25
Contact:

Re: Broken Stuff that Needs Fixing ASAP

Postby Shika » Sat 16 Sep 2017 22:45

Razzmann wrote:So you are telling me that infantry fights outside of towns and forests are relevant.

K.

Besides, Jäger have literally the same stats against infantry as Gevaermenn '85, which also have the same AT weapon as Jääkäri '90.

Sheer ignorance. Have fun bud, because not a word I say gets through to you

I spelled it out in the shortest, straight to the point way I could. You're either delusional or so egotistical you just don't care to read what I have to say

Either way talking to you is pointless further.
IGN: Suojeluskunta

XanderTuron
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu 10 Mar 2016 23:17
Contact:

Re: Broken Stuff that Needs Fixing ASAP

Postby XanderTuron » Sun 17 Sep 2017 02:26

Shika wrote:Sheer ignorance. Have fun bud, because not a word I say gets through to you

I spelled it out in the shortest, straight to the point way I could. You're either delusional or so egotistical you just don't care to read what I have to say

Either way talking to you is pointless further.

Wew Lad, I was wondering when you would show up again.
I am going to have to ask you to provide evidence for your assertions, especially since you are arguing that line infantry should not be compared in their forest and city fighting capabilities (because line infantry never face each other in those situations (this is sarcasm by the way, in case your observational abilities are so lacking that you do not notice it)).
My mouth is moving, but nothing relevant is coming out. Also I cannot guarantee that my research is perfect or even remotely accurate.

I have low quality Wargame Red Dragon casts on my youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/XanderTuron

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests