2.401: UK 25lb Barrage Reload Times...Increased!?

[Keithustus]

There seemed to be a lot of screaming on the forums regarding Relic's message "Changed some modifiers on the Royal Artillery Command Tree from multipliers to addition. The more command tree items that are researched, the faster the barrage abilities recharge on 25pounders," so I just did some testing comparing the 25lb gun barrage reload times in 2.3 and 2.401 :

---2.3---
with no doctrine: 90s
with RCA doctrine: 90s
with supercharged rounds: 90s
with overwatch: 74s
with counter-battery: 74s
with observation officers: 74s
with creeping barrage: 62s
with priest: 62s

---2.401---
with no doctrine: 90s - no change
with RCA doctrine: 90s - no change
with supercharged rounds: 90s - no change
with overwatch: 83s - 9s LONGER
with counter-battery: 74s - no change
with observation officers: 74s - no change
with creeping barrage: 68s - 6s LONGER
with priest: 62s - no change

As you can see, the ambiguous release notes seem to give the opposite impression. They ADDED (slightly, less than probably necessary in team games) time in a couple of instances rather than making the barrage reload faster. Now, someone might go through the tree in a different order, such as skipping overwatch or counterbattery, in which case it's possible the numbers may be significantly different, but I doubt it.

I also tested Priests in 2.3 with a level-three-rank command tank. Whether the command tank was there or not, the priest took 90s to reload from a barrage. I did not try this in 2.401.

[someboy]

LOL do you seriously think 9 seconds and 6 seconds delay on artillery actually gives the axis a significant advantage? sounds like nothing to me

[Catastrofizum]

62sec cooldowns...GREAT~! So priest/15pdrs for Artillery command can fire almost 4 times per 180sec, accounting for Victor Barrage, whereas the Hummel will fire twice without any vet...Relic - wake up and have a think. Before making such a drastic change there must be some justification of imbalance.

[someboy]

i would like the artillery to go almost completely exile and only can be used once a while.

[mardal]

Make it that arty cooldowns increase with every arty piece your team has on the map, across the board for axis and allies alike.

[Muad'Dib]

^^Best idea so far! An increase by how much would kill arty spam in team games but not make arty obsolete?

[hashinshin]

If it was 10 seconds 6 arty in 4v4 would act like 3 arty do right now. (for the most part)

[Tseng_Fox]

Thats a much better idea than what they've already done.

[someboy]

i agree thats a very good idea. however,3 artillery can still wipe out most of the infantries axis can have.

[Thinking42Man]

Make it that arty cooldowns increase with every arty piece your team has on the map, across the board for axis and allies alike.

Good idea, but it has to ignore long range weapons and effects which are not arty (mortars, unit skills/tree abilities - nades, officer barrage, call-in arty). I think the Brits may be in for another 10-20sec of overall cool down on two their arty pieces to keep RCA from becoming an obvious choice esp. in teamgames. I was surprised that all the other arty units were changed when 25# and Priest remain without nerfs. Wehr suffers the most, because they can rarely afford to spam arty, and when they do it will only be useful with bought veterancy as well.

[Jeopardia_Ferdy]

I would like to see a Munition Upkeep for every Artypiece u field...the more arty you have on the field the less munition u get to spend on abilities =)

[whatsleft]

I would like to see a Munition Upkeep for every Artypiece u field...the more arty you have on the field the less munition u get to spend on abilities =)

thats a pretty decent idea there. i agree with u too.

[Felipe_Panzer]

I´ll like to see a cool down penalty for arty for every aditional gun you build

[zzSleeper]

I'd like to see a fuel penalty for every vehicle you field.

[Tseng_Fox]

Veichles aren't as bad a problem as artillery though, so the fuel penelty is unwarranted.

[hashinshin]

Vehicle spam is pretty avoidable with the hard counters like fireflys, panthers, MarderIIIs, and 57mms with AP rounds.

What can you do against artillery spam ?

[ARMYguy]

Get splattered. Thats what you are supposed to do against artillery.

[zzSleeper]

Vehicle spam is pretty avoidable with the hard counters like fireflys, panthers, MarderIIIs, and 57mms with AP rounds.

What can you do against artillery spam

You mean the counter that dont exist yet when the said vehicles are being spammed?

Arty spam is easy to deal with, stukas/hummel, or just smoke and charge in.


Veichles aren't as bad a problem as artillery though, so the fuel penelty is unwarranted.

Artillery is not a problem at all, because artillery spam is a crappy and weak strat.

[Ghostly_Gecko]

Artillery is not a problem at all, because artillery spam is a crappy and weak strat.

Not in a 2v2 it isn't.

[zzSleeper]

Yes it is, I've had 2v2 games where the British player dug in with like 4 25 lbrs, its quite easy to defeat them.

[Melonplant]

Artillery spam is not a problem. 2v2s should never be considered for balance.

[Harry]

arty sucks 1 v 1, an agresive player will destroy harass the crap out of you with all the tricks axis have to counter empalcements. The mortar is being made weaker- and with the buffs pe has gotten i think its even. Everyone is screaming about how brit arty buffs suck but say yay to axis buffs. Ive yet to see 80% of the people in here say "axis sure as hell didnt need that buff" or "man what about the allies".

[whatsleft]

sigh the bullshit people give when they get protective.

this is the beta, stukas and hummels are nerfed. british arty piece reign supreme now. stukas and hummels will not be enough to take out british arty pieces. all is left now is, schrecking them artys, flaming them artys or get the fuck away from it.

smoke works, but ur ally can help OMA in the smoke, smoke nullified. while axis do a mass retreat and have arty start smashing their base and probably some squads.

then everytime there is an engagement, be sure for some arty falling over ur troops. mass retreat, rinse repeat.

2v2 should be considered for balance in its OWN aspect. because people do play competitively in it, hence the arranged teams.

allied arty should never be buffed. however OTHER ASPECTS of allied army should be buffed. namely US ANTI TANK, Armoured Company, Rifle rein-costs . thats certainly not the case here, isnt it.

[Harry]

2v2 should be considered for balance in its OWN aspect. because people do play competitively in it, hence the arranged teams.
very good point. But can we focus on 1 v 1, then maybe slight nerf and buffs can be applied for 2 v 2's?


sigh the bullshit people give when they get protective. this is the beta, stukas and hummels are nerfed. british arty piece reign supreme now.
I dont know what to say to this, it completely makes me want to stop posting because no matter what one says it will be imediately counterd as an overzealous defence of a faction. Arty doctrine revolves around arty, if arty is like how people make it to be here - it will be one of the hardest doctrines to play with because the arty peice will effectively become a fuel and mp sink becuase it will fire so slowly.

[whatsleft]

i wasnt referring to u. read the rest of the thread, for everything someone comes out with, it will be immediately countered with a nonsense post. check out the vehicle arguements.

urs was just a coincidence, i couldnt have posted that large paragraph minutes after u.

[Harry]

LOL do you seriously think 9 seconds and 6 seconds delay on artillery actually gives the axis a significant advantage? sounds like nothing to me a step foward goes backwards, people dont even factor the amount of time it takes to get cps to get tree abilities.


OTHER ASPECTS of allied army should be buffed. namely US ANTI TANK, Armoured Company, Rifle rein-costs . very true, i tottally agree - the problem is what should happen to a doctrine that has focus entirely on arty? To sum it up, I dont want arty spam to overtake 2 v 2's but I dont want crappy arty for 1 v 1. I have mixed feelings on the arty issue, consdering most people think it got buffed when according to the poster it got nerfed.

[Thinking42Man]

I have to say, I do get bored of mixed allied team games. Very monotonous. WSC Support -> Rangers/Paras w/ over repaired Sherman support later. I think it has a lot to do with free Truck OP fuel and a runaway Overrepair mechanic. It's not cool that the Brits slow, campy design is causing American strategy to devolve in team games.

[hashinshin]

Harry:

Hummel was nerfed.

Stuka was nerfed.

Brit artillery was not nerfed.

Brit artillery is already very VERY powerful.

[zzSleeper]

British artillery is NOT very powerful. Only overwatch is good, rest sucks.

None of you have come up with a good reason why British arty is good beyond "because I say so".

[ServerToni]

Too much artillery ruins the game. I'm happy relic incresed the reload times. But it's not too much for Brits. Some seconds are ok, could be more, but still ok. Stukas are hard hit in this case but can be upgraded with vet (like nebelwerfers). That's ok.
The hardest nerf got PE with Hummels. 90s is too much. 75 seconds would be fine, because it's harder to micro a Hummel than stukas.

[Tseng_Fox]

The mortar is being made weaker- and with the buffs pe has gotten i think its even.

What buffs? Only the Wirblewind got buffed (then nerfed) while the Funkwagon got a boost to acceleration (wtf?)

Hummel nerf was still uncalled for. Its the only artillery unit Panzer Elite has.

[Thinking42Man]

British artillery is NOT very powerful. Only overwatch is good, rest sucks.

None of you have come up with a good reason why British arty is good beyond "because I say so".

That's a weak argument. However, I agree that if Brit Arty is on the chopping block, overwatch should be first to meet the cleaver. I would start with a reduction of damage vs armored targets and a careful look at how rear armor hits are being calculated. It may also need to be looked at for its cost effectiveness vs infantry. It's possible all that would be needed is a higher scatter range or a raw damage/shell change.

Overall the base Brit Arty cooldowns are maybe 15-20sec too fast. All they are strictly needed for is for smashing Flaks bunkers and low mobility defenses. Only Brit Arty needs a fast cooldown, the other Supports should get by on limited arty like most non arty oriented doctrines do. Increasing the AOE on rifle grenade smoke effects might help in an indirect way.

[Keithustus]

I agree that if Brit Arty is on the chopping block, overwatch should be first to meet the cleaver. I would start with a reduction of damage vs armored targets and a careful look at how rear armor hits are being calculated. It may also need to be looked at for its cost effectiveness vs infantry. It's possible all that would be needed is a higher scatter range or a raw damage/shell change.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying about overwatch, that it's too powerful? It's awesome destructiveness is probably why it needs to be observed and also only overwatches a very limited area. It seems pretty realistic as is. In fact, it would be nice to have the option on regular barrages to use air-explosive timers.

[Harry]

Harry:

Hummel was nerfed.

Stuka was nerfed.

Brit artillery was not nerfed.

Brit artillery is already very VERY powerful. Youre right i misread the main topic.

alot of other things were changed though its unfair to just look at this one aspect and start complaining. brens can be killed faster, penetration vs howitzers increased. stug got buffed. i mean all things should be taken into consideration.

[Tseng_Fox]

alot of other things were changed though its unfair to just look at this one aspect and start complaining

Name some. No drastic changes have been made. The buffs that have been given to axis side are argueable, and the majority are just bugfixes like the StuG.

[nunya]

^^Best idea so far! An increase by how much would kill arty spam in team games but not make arty obsolete?

http://forums.relicnews.com/showpost.php?p=3041000&postcount=39

^^Thanks^^

[Keithustus]

http://forums.relicnews.com/showpost.php?p=3041000&postcount=39

^^Thanks^^

I'm not sure what sort of backward logic could be used to make artillery fire slower when there are more guns--the Fire-Direction Center is too busy? What were those like in WWII?--so that approach does not seem very sensible. I'm in favor of the munitions upkeep idea, though. Something like -5 for each 25lb a player has operating.

[nunya]

The Fire Direction Center is extremely busy these days having to contend with all the 25lbers, the mortar pits everywhere and the Priests rolling up without any advanced noticed. They need to check in with the Fire Direction Center Duty Officer which then has to clear it with the FDC Chief of Artillery Emplacements to find out exactly where they need them. When do find the right spot they still have to coordinate with the FDC Sector Commander for a given area to ensure it is what he needs, if not, they have to pack it up and send it back to the FDC CAE so he can then relocate it.

Oh and if you try and coordinate this during lunch, forget it, nothing gets done......

So yes, it does take more time to manage more Arty emplacements.

[Heroin]

Arty reload timer incrase the more arty you get is a very reasonable and good idea. Take a look at it relic!

[nunya]

I have nothing against decreasing the amount of ammo either, mine was just a suggestion for balance reasons nothing more.......but I've noticed ppl getting uptight about things lately.

As for ammo drain, someone will have to guesstimate the math as to that even being viable or not....I think it would be easier to adjust the times based on the number of emplacements and while some may think it's a dumb idea it's not much better than lowering the time based on CP's and doesn't account for spam.


I don't remember, does the cooldown timer start after the arty is finished or as soon as it starts?

[Monkeypoop]

cooldown starts as soon as the arty starts, meaning theres no bonus in cutting short your arty if the target is already dead

[someboy]

why not add a cost to artillery fire?? lets say like 20 ammunition everytime? that should limit the artillery spam pretty good.

[nunya]

why not add a cost to artillery fire?? lets say like 20 ammunition everytime? that should limit the artillery spam pretty good.

Then by all rights, they'd probably do the same to axis/pe as well. Maybe if they keep the muni cost inside of the RCA doctrine, it may be justified, i.e. normal arty no muni cost, RCA doc arty would have a muni cost.

[La Head]

a direct cost for each barrage would make it really worthless to make then considering u can save it up for some form of off map arty and u don't need to babysit your investments. I do like that idea for the british of each additional arty piece adds a decrease to the amount of munitions input as well as some sort of a very small slowdown for each arty piece according to that command centre mess idea. Not like a hard 10 addition or anything, but just a tad of a increase in time.

[Cobra5]

I would be fine with a muni cost for artillery. ALL artillery.

WM should be a little lower since (35-40), you have to pay muni up front to get Stuka, nebel is not super strong, AND in competative games, you're strapped for muni. EVERY squad needs a muni upgrade or its almost worthless.

Brits should have a decent muni cost because there isn't too many other things to spend muni on, and they are the worst offenders as far as rediculous arty spam goes (50-60 or so muni), not to mention their barrages are rather strong....

Americans and PE should have low muni cost (25 or less). Their artillery is end-tree doctrine-specific, thats the major cost right there.

IN ADDITION this would help because cutting off munitions early would actually help deter the arty... you would need Muni AND fuel if you wanted to arty spam.

[La Head]

the penalty for the british artillery in terms of munitions certainly should be more steep in comparison to that of all other factions based on the fact that they can just put their fat ass on a high munitions point and they can milk ridiculous amounts of resources while the enemy would take a long time to eradicate them from their positions.

[zzSleeper]

I would be fine with a muni cost for artillery. ALL artillery.

WM should be a little lower since (35-40), you have to pay muni up front to get Stuka, nebel is not super strong, AND in competative games, you're strapped for muni. EVERY squad needs a muni upgrade or its almost worthless.

Brits should have a decent muni cost because there isn't too many other things to spend muni on, and they are the worst offenders as far as rediculous arty spam goes (50-60 or so muni), not to mention their barrages are rather strong....

If you had to pay 50 munitions every time to fire a 25lbr, no one would ever build one without RCA.

Also, its funny that you think Brits float munitions when they are the most munitions intensive faction in the game.

[hashinshin]

Yes. BRITS are the most muni intensive.

Not Wehr who are always dropping shreks or LMG42s as squads are retreating or right before they retreat. Nooooo. Not wehr who has to buy stukas. Nope. Not wehr who has medic bunkers to pay for, med packs to pay for. Nah.

However, artillery for muni would be somewhat workable.

However, I would prefer it if offmap abilities shredded artillery so you could actually kill them. The vet nerf might mean something then.

[zzSleeper]

Yes. BRITS are the most muni intensive.

Not Wehr who are always dropping shreks or LMG42s as squads are retreating or right before they retreat. Nooooo. Not wehr who has to buy stukas. Nope. Not wehr who has medic bunkers to pay for, med packs to pay for. Nah.

However, artillery for muni would be somewhat workable.

However, I would prefer it if offmap abilities shredded artillery so you could actually kill them. The vet nerf might mean something then.

Yes, Brits are the most munitions intensive at higher levels of play. Not wehr whose basic infantry needs no upgrades to deal with other infantry, not wehr who can use a pak for most things, not wehr who only needs LMG42s to deal with rangers and commandos.

Brits need a gun upgrade for their basic infantry just to compete, because their basic infantry's damage output is terrible even with a lt. The Bren carrier is a massive munitions sink with the upgrade it requres and cost to repair it every time. All their tanks have a munitions cost to work efficiently, things like canister just eats up your munitions, their basic engineer needs a munitions upgrade.

In fact pretty much all their units except the lt/captain needs a munitions upgrade.

But what do I know right, I'm a wehr player whos actually playing British because apparently I cant tell the difference between tommys and grenadiers.

Oh and stukas? Please, if I build a stuka its because my opponent has dug in and therefore automatically lost the game. Ya I'm strapped for munitions when my opponent just conceeded the game to me(even if he doesnt realize it yet), so it takes an extra 5 minutes to kill him with the stuka nerf, big deal.

[Thinking42Man]

Brits need a gun upgrade for their basic infantry just to compete
Surely, you jest.

[Falaris]

To get back on track:



The more command tree items that are researched, the faster the barrage abilities recharge on 25pounders.


What they did was change it so that instead of having the reload decrease tied to two abilities, creeping barrage and overwatch - the same modifiers are now spread over four abilities but gives the same total modifier. (All the non-first tier ones.).

I guess this can be viewed as a nerf, if you feel like it, but what it does do is make things more consistent. WHY should overwatch but not counter-battery reduce artillery rate of fire? Now both does, but the sum is the same. Jay, says I, fan of consistency.

[sgb]

2v2s should never be considered for balance.
And this is why AT games are complete shit right now. Because Relic thought like you did for too long. I don't care if they don't take 3v3 or larger into serious consideration, but 2v2 AT should be a legitimate competitive game type. If something isn't done about the Brit/US resource imbalance this round of changes, it's probably uninstall time for this terrible, terrible expansion pack.

On topic, they haven't nerfed artillery enough. They need to go after the off-map abilities next. Allies don't even need on-map artillery when they have the munitions income to call an OMA and commando strike every 2-2 1/2 minutes. There should be a global cooldown increase on these abilities the more players that are in the game. Maybe like a 25% increase in 2v2, 50% in 3v3, etc.

[AntiCommie]

SGB: Thats actually a good idea. A scaling system that made all call in/arty/offmap cooldowns longer. I wouldnt be against a 200% increase in 4v4s, since it would slow down everything. Right now, both sides can basically spam the crap out of things that are normally limited in 1v1 due to popcap/cost.

Another nice tweak would be to do away with high mun sectors on 4v4s. Make Low 3, medium 7, and high 10. That way, locking down a high point is still more important, but it will help make up for the fact that its a high mun/fuel times 4.

[ofdarkss1]

hmmm all arty should have much much longer cool down or cost ammo to fire ( arty is killing this beautiful game)

make arty more devastating and also give it:

much much longer cool down

or

25-45 ammo cost for each fire

or

add limits to arty units etc.

[Harry]

hmmm all arty should have much much longer cool down or cost ammo to fire ( arty is killing this beautiful game)

make arty more devastating and also give it:

much much longer cool down

or

25-45 ammo cost for each fire

or

add limits to arty units etc. What If I like arty? I dont think its killing the game.

I do like how you say make arty more devastating, youre trying to meet the brit players half way.