Spring:1944 dev and testing

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 23 Oct 2007, 20:23

the panzer IV is stupidly inaccurate, the GER_KwK40L48-75mm HE has an accuracy of 175 but then the AP is 444! it loses a 1v1 with a sherman at distance because it cant actually hit most the time. shouldnt it be around 290 like most other tanks, or less since german tanks were generally more accurate (better optics and rangefinder plus higher velocity guns and better trained crews). also, panzer IV costs more than sherman and has less health so i feel that gun should actually be decent

FLOZi · Post by **FLOZi** » 23 Oct 2007, 20:34

It was probably meant as a Marder nerf. Probably best to split it into two weapons, I agree that the Pzr IV needs more bang for the buck, everyone just skips to Panthers.

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 23 Oct 2007, 22:05

marder nerf

no wonder I was losing marders to t60s in standoffs. can you reduce that nerf a little? I saw about one hit in ten

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 24 Oct 2007, 00:28

Please guys, please report bugs on BountySource...

It's important in order to keep track of the bugs, otherwise many will be forgotten once a new page is made in this thread, or once spring lobby is closed, etc. Come on, it takes 5 seconds!

Anyway, I'll lower the AP's accuracy quite a bit (Dont see why the Marder needs such a nerf...). And the Marder is supposed to target infantry -- otherwise it's 100% defenseless. But the AP shell isn't anything special, and basically needs a direct hit to kill a single infantryman, and doesn't suppress, so it's not like it's very effective.

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 24 Oct 2007, 01:06

no no the problem is it targets an infantryman then a tank comes out and pops it. its pathetic vs infantry but gets distracted by them then owned. it means if you put em on patrol they do noob stuff and try and gun down a rifleman while a AEC is mowing down your infantry. its already defenceless, just make it good at what it does

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 24 Oct 2007, 08:53

Right, we have an issue, Nemo.

PressureLine and I were talking about the United States and looked into the files. Currently they're the slowest to expand and the weakest in overall economics out of any side, even Britain.

Issues with America...
1. They complete logistics stockpiles the slowest
2. They have no HQ based compensation
3. They have the weakest basic engineer
4. They finish their Barracks last in a flat test

This makes playing as an American as hard if not harder early game than it is for the British.

I recommend a boost in workertime to the level of Germany for the constructor and a slight decrease in Barracks production time.

I found some bugs as well!

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 24 Oct 2007, 10:20

I am still working on them, but I would like feedback on this before I start working out the numbers.

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 24 Oct 2007, 10:35

iirc america have the best rifleman of the four sides in terms of cost/HP, damage output vs accuracy and numbers for cost, this generally means that america is at an advantage in the HQ stage of preliminery map control. certainly US seemed one of the two most powerful factions in the tests and completely creamed GBR. Supplies dont mean much atm, the E economy is still pretty safe unless you really cut costs. comparing their equipment to russian equipment is slightly meaningless because having half the health, a russian infantryman functions in a diffrent way; he does not have the HP to move into an attack then halt and go prone when enemies emerge because one salvo will probably kill him before he can get prone; russia attacks either with a complete charge (with low HP means heavy losses) or a complete standoff (where again the low HP of the averae russian means that as the scale of the combat gets bigger and only a limited force can be in the battle at any given time,russia is at a disadvantage. engineers buildspeed counts for little in this mod considering the speed more can be made. considering the US rifleman has somthing like double the damage output of the german rifle, lower costs and buildspeed, its hard to feel that US at are a disadvantage early game.

Pressure Line · Post by **Pressure Line** » 24 Oct 2007, 11:06

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:Supplies dont mean much atm, the E economy is still pretty safe unless you really cut costs.

until you actually need it. then the fact that a US rifleman consumes 2x as much E as a german or british rifleman. and because the lower workertime on the engineers the fact that the US logistics generates 0.75 more E per tick doesnt really mean squat when a british engineer can build 4 brit logistic stockpiles in the time it takes the US eng to build 2.5. thats also disregarding the fact that british logistic stockpiles cost 3/4 the amount that US ones do, take a lot less time to build, and produce only a little less...

also, the barracks thing is a big deal. if you 'waste' time building extra engineers, to make up for them being crap, then you'll be pushed back, even by the british, because you are lagging behind in troop production. then the issue of the russians and brits being able to build MG nests from their t1 constructors, the supression from those can easily stop an early-game assault in its tracks, leaving the riflemen to be slaughtered.

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 24 Oct 2007, 12:16

my experience with MG nests is that they are greatly overpriced for what they generally acheive, they are easily flanked with smgs. there is no possible way a player can MG nest 95% of the routes around the map, meaning the battle will remain fluid and that US's superior rifles will let them own. infantry energy consumption is a joke, as long as you have an engineer building stockies all game there is no possible way infantry combat will E stall you.

Pressure Line · Post by **Pressure Line** » 24 Oct 2007, 12:28

4 us riflemen will estall a log stockpile. compare that to 7 to estall a british one, and 5 for german. (remembering the british ones cost 3/4 what a US one does, and takes a single engineer just over 1/2 as long to build)

set up in the right place, an mg nest can deny huge areas to riflemen and be very difficult to approach. also bear in mind that a russian barracks take half the time to build that a US one does, so that brings support infantry into it as well (mobile MGs, snipers, mortars, as well as russians getting quick and easy access to light vehicles)

pintle · Post by **pintle** » 24 Oct 2007, 14:09

When they make mg nests just force fire mortars on their position. Any game i have made decent headway in, it has been 90% down to my use of spotters and mortars.

SpikedHelmet · Post by **SpikedHelmet** » 24 Oct 2007, 14:24

IMO I agree what the US are disadvantaged economically (which is the opposite of how it should be), and this can be felt in the late infantry game and as vehicles start rolling out. My suggestion is to have all logistics give similar amounts of supplies, and balance them accordingly via buildtime, with the US obviously having the upper hand compared to the other three (and with Germany having the lower hand).

Also perhaps the US infantry need a nerd -- they shouldn't be better than German infantry. They should generally be less accurate and shorter-ranged thanks the semi-automatic rifle they have (but higher ROF)

Nemo · Post by **Nemo** » 24 Oct 2007, 19:21

here's what I did:

Brought GBREngineer and GBRHQEngineer down to 35 workertime

rejigged depot productions slightly so they make sense (GBR came down a bit, GER went down a bit, US stayed the same but with slightly lower BT),

brought US workertime up to 35 for all engineers (from 30).
Knocked down the BT on their logistics a bit (but kept the price).

Lowered range on garand very very slightly.

There. now US doesn't build more slowly than everyone else for weird reasons, and their logistics superiority should be clear (albeit expensive in terms of CP).

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 24 Oct 2007, 19:27

Since you're all distracted by real balance issues, and I crunched the numbers on the theoretical Finnish troops, I'll be ditching the expendable Partisan-Model for full Riflemen and making their personnel about as expensive as Britain.

Also, the Lahti L-39 doubled as an anti-aircraft weapon. Considering some surviving models have mini-skis on their base, and the lightest model was 50kg, I have to say that gun was monolithic win.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 24 Oct 2007, 19:39

I'm off to another quiz, this time on romantic sonnets in English across a eight hundred year period.

If it goes well, I might record a recitation along with the revised voice clips. I'm tossing in some extra responses for each category so we have greater variety.

Also, Finnish uniforms. The majority of their gear was generic and grey, but people are fond of the snow gear. I plan to compromise, where you have some snow gear over standard Finnish uniforms. Now I just need to learn how to model and texture sufficiently well.

yuritch · Post by **yuritch** » 24 Oct 2007, 20:16

neddiedrow wrote:Also, the Lahti L-39 doubled as an anti-aircraft weapon. Considering some surviving models have mini-skis on their base, and the lightest model was 50kg, I have to say that gun was monolithic win.

AFAIK it was based on Lahti aircraft gun mod.1938. Lightest model (m1944) was 48kg w/o ammo, and it had full auto mode (100 rpm).

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 24 Oct 2007, 20:20

And the ammunition was 2 kg. We're on the same page. Isn't it a rather cool weapon?

Mooseral · Post by **Mooseral** » 25 Oct 2007, 01:48

On a side note, this is in public beta stages, right?

If you make that more clear in the title and opening post, you'll probably get more testers, if you need them. Dunno, found it a bit confusing on that point.

The "always new files here" thing is hard to tell whether it's the newest newest file, or that alpha originally released.

Or i'm just being dumb.

1v0ry_k1ng · Post by **1v0ry_k1ng** » 25 Oct 2007, 02:26

ok, maybe this is germany but SMG troopers should not take twice as long to build as rifles, they are about equal in their uses. they should be pretty similar in costs and buildspeed imo

Spring RTS Engine

Spring:1944 dev and testing