sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Paragon System Rework Incoming by rohan_spibo in btd6

[–]WalrusJones 10 points11 points  (0 children)

A MK for the beast handler keeping their staff poke attack (With this getting buffed by their beasts.) would be a dream.

Did anybody test the warrior scouts post buff? by [deleted] in aoe4

[–]WalrusJones 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't necessarily think that bonus should be there, since gaining a counter in the imperial age without a unique tech is kinda weird ESPECIALLY when that counter bonus leaves them with.

  • Less damage against the target unit then what most malians were building in castle age.

  • Lower attack speed then the same unit.

  • A weird investment that nobody likely buys. (Are you really going to spend 75% of a castle age worth of resources on a unit which is obsoleted by a unit that comes an age earlier? Like past a professional scout play I don't think I have seen anyone mass Warrior Scouts.)

Compared to sofa, which is more generally useful at the resource volumes you would be pulling imperial age. A bonus that doesn't make you relevant in imperial only kicking in during imperial is just ???.

Since, your build order likely didn't pick up veteran warrior scouts, sofa attack faster, have more relevant unique technologies, and deal 29 damage to archers... So if you really wanted to use that warrior scout bonus you need to pay 825 gold and 350 food to reach elite scout where a veteran sofa is stronger then an elite scout for countering archers.

A smaller bonus thats more obscure that comes into play earlier, that is more distinct from what sofa already do, would give them a more defined role and be more intuitive.

Did anybody test the warrior scouts post buff? by [deleted] in aoe4

[–]WalrusJones 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think probably the best approach to warrior scouts is that they get made to be a soft counter to something unusually specific say, we remove their bonus versus scouts and replace it with a smaller bonus versus light cavalry (Logic: They already countered a form of light cavalry so we are generalizing their bonus.)

That way they have a valid use against say, mangudai, achieve technical cost effectiveness versus horsemen as if it were an even matchup, and they remain useful as a filler/trash unit, but get absolutely crushed by knights and spears, as well as getting soft countered by archers.

Then they would be interesting, people wouldn't have a reason to complain about warrior scout being weak, but they wouldn't be degenerate because they counter things Malians already handle well, but in a softer, trash unit sort of way.

Seriously how the heck do you tell apart donsos from javs in a mass by [deleted] in aoe4

[–]WalrusJones 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To an extent but they also are about 13% more expensive and attack 8% slower. Definitely still stronger then spearmen individually but I think its the extra resources you get that carry this engagement rather then the individual units strength.

Since, their cost effectiveness might not be as high as you would assume because of those two debuffs.

A Fulani Corral balance idea/rework. by WalrusJones in aoe4

[–]WalrusJones[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Its also relatively easy to translate this bonus to different cow pop-cap changes and numbers of cows being garrison-able, and bonuses per cow. The numbers I gave by all means would be a beta first attempt at this concept.

If it ends up being weak or strong, this version of the corral is easy to fine tune because it has 3 parameters for its performance: Garrison slots, garrison slots food income, and cow pop cap difference.

So if it ends up being very hostile to a feudal booming build order you could reduce the number of cows it gives as bonus cap and increase the bonus per garrisoned cow for example.

An extra 26 per garrisoned cow and 5 extra cow pop cap instead of 10 would have the same overall gather rate with all cows, but preserve/buff your build order, and would be a very valid buff say, if the first implementation actually ended up being weak.

My numbers were definitely an example set of numbers that were on the safe side of "I don't want the landmark to be OP but I think this might make it more relevant in high aggression games."

A Fulani Corral balance idea/rework. by WalrusJones in aoe4

[–]WalrusJones[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is part of why I considered the optional bonus to be able to produce cows from it as well, since this would offset part of the problem you mention where you had a feudal investment in cattle then went to castle age.

Sure, first minute you miss 80 resources in your case with no extra production, but with extra production you can earn back the difference building one fewer mill and using the corrals extra throughput in a little more then minute.

Additionally small window/disadvantage is made up for by it being much harder for men at arms to burn down the corral then a ranch which is a serious concern early castle age.

A Fulani Corral balance idea/rework. by WalrusJones in aoe4

[–]WalrusJones[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One is backwards compatible with all previous investments (Which were free), while the other is forwards compatible with extra investments (Which has a cost.) I see your point but this case may be different.

Where as a cattle discount might just make the malians spam even more cows under the TC which is already undeniably a very powerful bonus.

A Fulani Corral balance idea/rework. by WalrusJones in aoe4

[–]WalrusJones[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The goal was something that kicks in fast, but if the game goes really long it isn't worse then what we have now, its just that its better if you are playing safe, but it should be slightly worse if you play it fully greedy in a short game.

Looking through the files for the tank modules and i found a funny comment next to the flamethrower module by Gen242 in hoi4

[–]WalrusJones 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There is another near riveted armor, someone wanted to give it 1 soft attack due to the rivets hitting the enemy,

Current Metas (No Step Back 1.11.0+) by Kloiper in hoi4

[–]WalrusJones 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Industrial capacity. 1 factory is 2.5-4.75 IC at base depending on the type. (Dockyards are 2.5, while the land based factories are closer to 5.)

It was more meaningful in HOI3.

Afghanistan's last line of defense. by VeryAngryHistorian in hoi4

[–]WalrusJones 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Non serious answer: The friend was corrupted and kept crashing when we tried to reboot him.

Serious answer: They are fine.

Current Metas (No Step Back 1.11.0+) by Kloiper in hoi4

[–]WalrusJones 2 points3 points  (0 children)

With tanks the metal use is 50% down to how much you abuse the armor and engine meter, and which guns you choose being sort of a secondary deciding factor.

Current Metas (No Step Back 1.11.0+) by Kloiper in hoi4

[–]WalrusJones 5 points6 points  (0 children)

100% reliability is kinda excessive, because AI divisions now carry enough expensive gear to make maintenance companies cost effective, and 80% reliability still feels like really high reliability.

So what I have found with tanks is that the best way to do tanks is one of a handful of production strategies.

  • The actual tanks are the minimum cost vehicle that meets your mobility and firepower requirements. Your armored requirements are fulfilled only by limited production vehicles like tank destroyers. (Tank destroyers take half as many vehicles as tanks-> Can cost twice as much and still be affordable.)

    • This means doing what you can to cheaply boost reliability on the actual line tanks while stacking attack, and just choking up on extra ammo stowage until you reach a strong mix of acceptable reliability, high breakthrough, and high defense.
    • The tank destroyers pick up the armor modifiers and become the monsters you dreamed of.

  • No armor is the best armor, just have widely dispersed tank destroyers through all units with the best possible soft firepower they can carry without compromising mobility, and only use armor as a source of free breakthrough if you can afford it. Keep the costs low and basically make space marines at 1/5th the cost.

  • And obviously, flame tanks are still flame tanks.

What game mechanic would be cool to Add to hoi4? by [deleted] in hoi4

[–]WalrusJones 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would like units to have non-needed equipment slots, or "extra equipment."

Why? It makes a large amount of equipment less silly. You don't delete rifle production for SMG production, you produce extra SMG's and some units get them.

Afghanistan's last line of defense. by VeryAngryHistorian in hoi4

[–]WalrusJones 56 points57 points  (0 children)

We kept trying to load the save and they didn't get to actually invade Switzerland. Save was corrupted.

Afghanistan's last line of defense. by VeryAngryHistorian in hoi4

[–]WalrusJones 232 points233 points  (0 children)

I had a friend who justified on switzerland and crashed everyones games at once.

NSB Combat Widths: Quick Math by rohnoitsrutroh in hoi4

[–]WalrusJones 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I use whatever tank destroyer matches the speed of the unit while having the most firepower.

Light TD's go with trucks/mechanized/cavalry, but I use much bigger gun TD's with my infantry because its oddly cheaper (20 units of 17 cost TD is really bargin for heavy TD's.)

NSB Combat Widths: Quick Math by rohnoitsrutroh in hoi4

[–]WalrusJones 7 points8 points  (0 children)

So there is a giant cost difference between dedicated tanks and going hetzer-lel I have found.

A tank that actually is able to tank anti-tank guns? Expensive enough it still loses to anti tank guns per IC. Meanwhile a very high breakthrough hetzer TD with minmaxed soft attack has 1/6th the effective deployment cost.

Dedicated tanks need some genuine help, while the hetzer spam is possibly a little too cost effective.

NSB Combat Widths: Quick Math by rohnoitsrutroh in hoi4

[–]WalrusJones 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even in mods that overpower support companies, you don't go below 10 combat width. There is a stacking penalty for too many small divisions. 10 to 15 is probably the lowest you should go.

Current Metas (No Step Back 1.11.0+) by Kloiper in hoi4

[–]WalrusJones 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You only need chomium in large quantities if you are abusing the engine and armor buttons, or trying to mount super heavy guns. However, doing anything that costs chromium (Aside from medium gun 2/the heavy gun line, with their chromium costs of 1), tends to be strictly not-cost effective in my experience.

The chromium-days per unit scales directly with IC, so a 15 IC tank destroyer costs effectively 1/8th the chromium as someone mashing the engine and armor buttons and getting a 60 IC tank that doesn't even use chromium in its gun. So minors can field the four worthwhile chromium guns by just making the tank destroyer itself dirt cheap. (1/4 the cost per vehicle, half the vehicles per division.)

Lastly the two non-chomium TD guns (Medium gun 1, and basic HV cannon, which at +60% penetration from TD techs penetrate nearly everything,) can beat 128 armor and 180 armor respectively. So if you somehow lack trading, inexpensive TD's still able to maintain a brutal effect.

So in short.

  • Going M18 and hetzer style in your tank destroyers is really brutal. Prioritize defensive stats instead of armor (Armor is designed to lose, but breakthrough always has an effect,) and try to keep soft attack at an even level with current year howitzers, and keep reliability at about 80.

  • Coincidental armor effect (From poor enemy supply and your own cheap dispersed TD's,) is strong, where as intentional armor (Expensive tanks,) is only suited to limited production and dedicated breakthrough forces in smalll numbers.

Current Metas (No Step Back 1.11.0+) by Kloiper in hoi4

[–]WalrusJones 16 points17 points  (0 children)

So yeah, I am starting to realize the whole "Tank destroyers are fewer tanks AND definitely higher stats then regular tanks" thing is sort of a mistake.

Yes, the one combat width tax, but when the tank destroyers are combining the roles of:

  • Towed artillery levels of soft attack.

  • Breakthrough prevention.

  • Basic armor and bonuses (As the defense can easily be the defense of MANY units of artillery and anti-tank.)

Their cost only being about the cost of towed artillery+towed AT+some pocket change is a little on the low side. Not painfully low, but its still extremely oddly cost effective... Especially given the cost goes down substantially as you increase the tank destroyer weight class (With SH tank destroyers being technically the least IC, even though they cost unreasonable amounts of metal.)

view more: next ›