|
Shanakin posted:You guys are the worst. There. That's everything but mortars and I'm not adding mortars, at least not today. The Monitor 105 is better than the MSTA-S?  Eugen
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
The Monitor 105 is like HE 5. That can't be right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
I just noticed the splash, which is 3x higher than any other 105mm. Also higher than every 155mm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
Well, that's why chart can be misleading. Use them in-game and they are pretty obvious not as destructive as the number suggests (or just that splash doesn't do much without high HE)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
Reminder that it's an average of the HE per square metre, within the dispersion zone. A MSTA will have larger HE peaks
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
So how useful is average HE per square meter as a stat?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So how useful is average HE per square meter as a stat? Moderately useful? It's not perfect. Higher HE density means more killy. But you can throw that out of whack by taking things to an extreme. Like the Monitor 105 does by having lots of low damage explosions that have large coverage. Or by having very small splash, high damage ones. The difference is a direct hit onto infantry from a MSTA will do a lot more damage than a direct hit from a Monitor 105, but all the near misses from the monitor 105 will probably do equivalent damage over time to the near misses from a MSTA. It's basically Density. A block of concrete will have a lot of different density materials inside it, reinforcement materials, gravels etc. But knowing the average density is still very useful. e2: It's not just basically density. It's LITERALLY density, because HE damage is calculated as a volume. Shanakin fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
From being on the recieving end to a swarm of Monitor 105 I can say that they are *plenty* killy over time. I hope all this hard work you guys put in have some influence on Eugen, so we can at least have somewhat balanced infantry squads. That they don't seem to have these charts themselves is pretty 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
I'm alright with NATO artillery being qualitatively superior to PACT, as long as it's balanced for cost--which it certainly is not. Too bad the whole balance is too skewed in favor of NATO right now--far superior tanks point for point, far superior artillery, superior infantry, superior air assault ability outside of Red Dragons, IFVs like Marder 2s that seem to be on a completely different and lower pricing scale from the rest of the game, superior ASFs, etc. I love me some asymmetric balance but this is ridiculous; Soviets especially are far pricier than they should be. High end soviet tanks especially need at least a blanket -10 to -15 point buff so that they can compete on a point-for-point basis with NATO armor; as NATO I feel like I can just Q-move my Abrams/Challengers forwards in a big wall and they can hardly be stopped, as Soviets I have to make extensive use of smoke and fires to maneuver my tanks into a position where they can maybe win against cost-equivalent NATO armor. Most of this could be fixed with some repricing passes, but until then, pretty much every PACT game feels like I'm trying to get the most mileage out of my boondoggles desperately trying to hold the line against the cost-efficient NATO super soldiers. OctaMurk fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Pimpmust posted:From being on the recieving end to a swarm of Monitor 105 I can say that they are *plenty* killy over time. Well I was talking to FLX earlier. They seem pretty interested. The good news is he dug into the arcane game engine and got me the accuracy scaling code. Now things get interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Plus, isn't it almost impossible to counter-battery Monitors since splash doesn't really exist in water so you'd need a direct hit?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Splash exists just fine in water AFAIK, certainly I've seen them receive morale damage from near hits at least. ANYWAY. I would like to present a piece of art that I call Machine guns meet range scaling.  At 175 everything is firing at 100% CTH. Some static MGs  Some CQC MGs 
Shanakin fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
My friend and I are buying this. We are experienced with RTS, but haven't played one of Eugen's games before. Can anyone suggest good standard starter decks that would do well in multiplayer? We'd rather just learn the mechanics with a decent deck before actually committing to deck building ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Honestly you could just start off with one of the decks the game starts you with, then play a few games and see what your playstyle is and what you are missing. Then make changes to that deck, and after a few more games go hog wild and try another coalition or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Haven't really checked out the default decks but Eurocorps and the Soviet decks should be solid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Megasabin posted:My friend and I are buying this. We are experienced with RTS, but haven't played one of Eugen's games before. Can anyone suggest good standard starter decks that would do well in multiplayer? We'd rather just learn the mechanics with a decent deck before actually committing to deck building ourselves. There's a ton of decks in the thread with their export codes. Just hit the import button in the deck menu and paste a code in there. Go hog wild!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
The default ones work well enough to be honest. These are my go-to decks: French deck:  FvAYgDCCyOEA42ltoKReRQgztpEYqaWMMmFzLKZYnWoRVNKmyGyGlDSgRd+u9Hg4vlAogJQFICUNijx3epAMbCsRdKpQ With this deck you want to start with a couple Legions in helicopter covered by a pair of Tiger HAP, recon chopper, and Cassiopes (mainly as meat shield against opposing AA helo). Add a decent follow up ground force consist of AA units, AMX-10RC SB, more infantry and either Leclerc or AMX-40. Remember to have supply trucks on hand at all time to reload the Crotales. Alternatively you can start with a pair of Mirage 2000 and a Rafale if you are going to a safe sector and don't expect much resistant or if you are going to augment someone else' opening). These can be used to dog fight and strafe helicopters during the opening move. Blue Dragon deck:  W/ActoZqbszVmbbpvqkRUQGiogNtnUhnE0GpPRhrU1qaL5ISY+Reopkr5gQmUNEFuizFIajZR4jIFyC5k+xgRLym4UBA This one is fairly standard ground based deck. Start with a pair of Kyu-Maru Shiki and a bunch of M67-HAN in IFV as the backbone of your starting force. US Marine:  BnAkwOwD0Cpnk1TSCZlYZVNMkOaZIc00FgJoJzJO0thUtSapRRvpCEraN5L+rilaGvzNSW0YukMNXpdVTAkYaqKxFmStZdBupRsY+UgKPA== Originally kind of a joke/challenge deck before they even added naval unit back, but I've grown quite fond of it. You can try to contest a helo rush, but it's very risky since this deck has no AA chopper and you have to rely on Harriers to kill enemy AA chopper... (actually just don't do aggressive helo opening with this deck). The main play style of this deck mostly consist of using recon LAV-25s and try to sneak them behind enemy line through aggressive probing attack in the early game. Other units are literally there so you can function well enough in most role in the event that the above plan failed miserably. USSR motorized:  jhAmIcKBYET1PYrKexVTBig0NFBoaKCNcUEwgoMQmISgIOSJaMyKQC6KdlgKxSZYI3EbiCxASgJIdiaiwzLBE4gRLllwxLYkQg8Zmcvg Same concept as the marine deck above, but uses BDRM-3 instead of LAV-25. Worse at plan B, but BDRM-3 is better than LAV-25 at fighting. Red Dragon:  tPAeGC+6G9UyWwvEvRaVFKjJwg9DgqYn0wMlaLqFlkbCZhMwnuURJR0GwiFLeSWUFhy1RqXJLkVESsF0xLqcdOOnJTkIfRJg Fun generalist deck, decent at helo rushing with follow up ground attack. pedro0930 fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
The default decks are awful. US pre-80(5?) Armored.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Since we're doing deckchat I thought I'd post some new and mature decks. Quoting myself because I'm insufferable. All these decks are viable though so if that's what you want it's right here on this page. Megasabin get your friend and come hang out on mumble especially if you are on the west coast or in australium! Pedro's decks are weird and despicable!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Dezztroy posted:The default decks are awful. US pre-80(5?) Armored. You are thinking about the US and Soviet Battlegroup deck. I am talking about literally the Blufor and Redfor starter deck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I took a shot at a US Marines deck myself to see what I could throw at the restrictions you're facing. I like the deck except for a few spots. I had Delta Force before but got rid of it since it's unambiguously worse in terms of anti-armor, MG and survivability for 15% rifle accuracy over Marine 90's. Putting infantry into naval where they lose their XP bonus might be worth it if it adds something they wouldn't be otherwise capable of. LVTP-7s and LVTP-7A1s are already amphibious so 5 points plus less experienced infantry and slightly reduced availability to do that better is a pretty bad trade compared to doubling up in the infantry tab. The Humvee SEALs would probably do better there since they're not getting any XP bonus anyhow and lets them reach places they otherwise wouldn't. In the other direction, the LAV-Ms are less capable than the Monitor 105s. They're available in non-naval maps but this isn't a deck I'd use in those situations anyhow. As an aside, the LVTP-7A1s were actually capable of indirect fire last week which was great for dropping off troops at the rear of a building and then supporting them from defilade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
So that joke motorized deck with all of the specops ever? It's been my primary deck for a while. I just made an enhanced version (hopefully) to mess around with. (If I'm being serious the naval fallschirm '90s are going to get replaced, likely by TRAM intruders in case someone goes hard naval on me, but I couldn't pass up a chance to put Fallschirm '90 in this deck). XhCx5k+EewhtYhXadCu06NmZpxvTm6GcNrnwbXPgWpe45HCBbkzSwYbqE1NxFpDYhsZDsh1S6pdT4zDa/oCSNJ0gw0Q4RuiP0vgq03EMPFpi6TKpj40aQvA= The operational idea is that this is a helo rush deck, no apologies and no remorse, and it's meant to be played with others so I can focus on a point. The Danish Jaegers, Gazelle Celtics and Gazelle AH.1 are the backbone of this, with some SAS mixed in. There is quite simply no heliborne infantry unit as effective at delivering helicopter-based infantry combat power as Jaegers in Lynxes. If I'm facing Red Dragon, I'll go as heavy as four Celtics with my recon and be relatively confident I'll win the helicopter AA shootout because I know they're liable to go helicopters, but a motorized deck isn't a similar tipoff to them about what I'm doing. If I get vision on a rush coming in, I'll usually be able to get my choppers in place and stopped, but if I can tell I won't be able to I'll drop short with my SAS, even settling for just dropping on my side of the halfway line, because in that case my individual helo rush is denying what is probably the helo rush of two or more players. Then I'll try to thin out their rush, and more than once I've turned two player rushes back and gotten to move most of my infantry up to harass their point and prevent them from getting firm control, while my gazelles can watch over the area until their ground AA comes up. Even in a bad case, I'll be able to turn things around to where I've got control over my own point and am contesting theirs because almost everything I've got is very cost-effective and I can get a lot of high capability units. The followup is either consolidation or continued harassment. If it's consolidation, that means mistrals and RBS 56s to watch important terrain with RCL teams for harassment of open spaces and MAW teams if I need to play in a forest, especially against spets. The Cents get use in close areas where armor is likely, mixed up with other firepower as ablative armor. If I'm facing a bunch of planes, NOAHs are likely too. If I'm going for continued harassment, that's going to depend on terrain whether I rely on my ground infantry or more mobile wheeled forces. The mortars are there for smoke, the LARS-2s are there for morale impact. If I can get a feel for enemy positions and isolate one from its support with smoke, I'll be liable to try to cut them out. The Sagaies and Entacs are great for that because they can get into position quickly and pack a pretty solid punch. If something's heavy enough that the Entacs can't deal with it, I've got a lot of TOW-2 and my Kahus. The Panserbils are there because I'm pretty sure targets are prioritized by price, so I can mix weak scouting with my force without my eyes getting gouged out too fast like happens with my VABs. Unless I've got active pressure on an enemy and am actively contesting an area, I'm more likely to consolidate my end and get together a wheeled strike force to use to exploit a breakthrough gained with allies. I've got a bunch of units that are about as fast over open ground as tracked vehicles are fast moving, so with a heavier force to take the initial brunt of the attack while I run artillery support, I'm really well equipped to roll a bunch of cheap and cheerful stuff over the enemy when their morale is in the ground and they can't fight back properly. Better yet if I can use it as a distraction to punch a platoon of spec ops into an important backfield city. I think I've gotten this deck pretty optimized so that I've got a strong answer to any midgame scenario, be it grinding attritional infantry fights, consolidating mixed terrain, or fast exploitation attacks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:Well I was talking to FLX earlier. They seem pretty interested. The good news is he dug into the arcane game engine and got me the accuracy scaling code. I am glad I could in some small way I could contribute to this. Megasabin posted:My friend and I are buying this. We are experienced with RTS, but haven't played one of Eugen's games before. Can anyone suggest good standard starter decks that would do well in multiplayer? We'd rather just learn the mechanics with a decent deck before actually committing to deck building ourselves. Obviously the answer is go random or go home.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:I like the deck except for a few spots. I had Delta Force before but got rid of it since it's unambiguously worse in terms of anti-armor, MG and survivability for 15% rifle accuracy over Marine 90's. Putting infantry into naval where they lose their XP bonus might be worth it if it adds something they wouldn't be otherwise capable of. LVTP-7s and LVTP-7A1s are already amphibious so 5 points plus less experienced infantry and slightly reduced availability to do that better is a pretty bad trade compared to doubling up in the infantry tab. The Humvee SEALs would probably do better there since they're not getting any XP bonus anyhow and lets them reach places they otherwise wouldn't. In the other direction, the LAV-Ms are less capable than the Monitor 105s. They're available in non-naval maps but this isn't a deck I'd use in those situations anyhow. Huh all good points. I haven't really made Marines decks before.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
I want to play some goon matches with the random generator.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Me too that sounds fun as hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
I've been doing that. It's great. Count me in if we want to get a group together...
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
We did some random deck matches! Our first game consisted of a bunch of terrible Redfor decks with no good units and huge reserves of bad ones. It was a grueling game where countless T55's and BRDM Malyutkas died to the guns of Challengers. Our second match was an all-goon affair; the tables were turned on Redfor when Bluefor rolled up multiple armoured and mechanized decks and just rolled over everything. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxL-q9Tcsh-aOFpCdFloNFh1cXM/edit?usp=sharing 
Mukip fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:So that joke motorized deck with all of the specops ever? It's been my primary deck for a while. I just made an enhanced version (hopefully) to mess around with. (If I'm being serious the naval fallschirm '90s are going to get replaced, likely by TRAM intruders in case someone goes hard naval on me, but I couldn't pass up a chance to put Fallschirm '90 in this deck). I call my own version of this deck "raspberry jam." It's going to be like a month before i can really use voice comms and join you guys, hopefully goonfight will get me more into RD.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
DPS of generic infantry weapons at different ranges: DPS of infantry machineguns at different ranges: You now know more about infantry mechanics than many eugen employees do. Shanakin fucked around with this message at 12:14 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
"So let me tell you about how FRG infantry is still bad..." 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
Weird how among other things, shock smgs are the only ones more effective than other types outside cqc. I'm still surprised they didn't start from that chart and work backwards.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 12:34
|
|
|
So how is the single player campaign? Better than airland battle? The game mechanics are fun but I hate playing these games multiplayer, so if the campaign sucks like in Airland Battle I'll just pass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 12:36
|
|
|
I wouldn't say that it's worth getting for the single player campaign, especially if you disliked ALB.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Weird how among other things, shock smgs are the only ones more effective than other types outside cqc. I'm still surprised they didn't start from that chart and work backwards. SMGs get double their baseline accuracy in CQC. ARs have the same, and BRs are halved. This appears to kick in at about 80m based on deadlyshoe's data. Shanakin fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Apr 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
Quite surprising that BR after all might actually be the best small arms outside of CQC. Maximum forest sight range is 350m right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
Shanakin posted:Who'd have thought a twin colt is the fastest? Not sure what that's on, if anything.  47 can pewpew pretty loving fast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
pedro0930 posted:Quite surprising that BR after all might actually be the best small arms outside of CQC. Maximum forest sight range is 350m right? Yup. Very interested in the value of elite weapons at 350 meters, since it's not clear from the chart whether battle, assault or SMG would be superior there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
pedro0930 posted:Quite surprising that BR after all might actually be the best small arms outside of CQC. Maximum forest sight range is 350m right? This might be an easier way to visualise it. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
  Mukip posted:We did some random deck matches! Our first game consisted of a bunch of terrible Redfor decks with no good units and huge reserves of bad ones. It was a grueling game where countless T55's and BRDM Malyutkas died to the guns of Challengers. I question whether RED vs BLU random matches would be anything close to fair for REDFOR, simply because they have such a larger quantity of really lovely units (hello, USSR Tanks/Artillery!) than the average BLU country does. Even with pre-made decks. building a RED deck that doesn't suck is a real matter of expertise as opposed to building a Commonwealth/Eurocorps or even Swedish one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 14:22
|
|
