Here is a video showing just how aweful the nebelwerfer is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuRwf3RqnkQ
|
|
|
Here is a video showing just how aweful the nebelwerfer is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuRwf3RqnkQ
You won two internets with this.
/signed.
Works just fine for me. I don't use it to annihilate, I use it to harrass.
Hehe, priceless.
Models: King Tiger, Maus - show me
It's hard to tell w/o fog of war... did you have a LoS on that AT gun?
I just was trying out nebels, and two of them killed an AT gun in one shot, tight cluster, slightly longer distance, just on the edge of a scout units LoS.
tru dat, nebels are pretty bad..
things a nebelwerfer needs:
1. los
2. range
3. more than one
half the rockets from the nebelwerfer didn't even hit the dam AT gun. just tough luck in your part. get it further back [nebels are support units] and then use the nebels. four nebels vet 3 pack a powerful punch. use them to support the tanks/infantry that you're sending in.
and what has puzzled me for a long time is why nebels can level a bridge [ie vire] but can barely do damage to anything more than infantry [ie tanks].
luck of the draw
you're forgetting the biggest advantage of nebbles: they supress. They're a cheap mg. You soak an entire area, can usually get at least 2 squads suppressed, then force retreat. You move in and cap. THis ia ll I use them for. It gives you infantry dominance.
i was under the impression that an mg could defend itself, costed less mp and pop, and could supress more than 2 squads...
That're more expensive than an MG, can only be created AFTER you can build MGs, only work when you tell them to fire at a specific area, and only leave units supressed for about, what, 2 seconds.They're a cheap mg
/signed
Queue in a hundred people who will tell you that Nebel is fine because it does a hundred things with exception of damage.
Like it or not in order for a unit to be useful in this game it needs to be able to kill. I've played with nebel being extremely deadly in BT and guess what? The sheer audible warning it makes can still be used to make it useless.
They're like a MG, except more expensive, take up more pop cap, move more slowly, cannot defend themselves, cannot kill as well, rewards the enemy with more EXP, cannot supress, needs higher tech to obtain, but can kill bridges and have a long range.
no, they're more expensive, and more useless too.They're a cheap mg
1. don't knowthings a nebelwerfer needs:
1. los
2. range
3. more than one
2. check
3. check
i can understand if 1 nebel might miss by accident or bad luck, but 4 should not. why would anyone waste so much money on 4 units that can't even kill an at gun?
damn i hate the nebels. when they claimed that they 'fixed' it in 1.5, it was merely reducing damage (and price), but increasing suppression. that isn't good enough. maybe if they also buffed the damage a little.
this way the nebel will be destructive AND suppresive, while the stuka is just pure destructive. after all, i don't think the nebel will replace the stuka simply because the nebel can't harm vehicles much.
the nebel's role should be like firestorm, great vs infantry (suppression and damage) but not so good vs armored vehicles (ok vs light vehicles).
while the stuka should be like rocket barrage, good vs everything (tho nebel will be better vs infantry).
Well of course the nebelwerfers failed to kill the AT gun. Trying to use a wide area rocket artillery unit designed for saturation fire on masses of infantry for precision strikes against a single target is just stupid.
"Throughout your life advance daily, becoming more skillful than yesterday, more skillful than today." - Yamamoto Tsunetomo
Would it really be so bad if the Nebelwefer slaughtered and suppressed Infantry? As tuffy! suggests, making it like Firestorm but with a smaller AOE and duration, would give it some valid use.
lol well shit though, i counted 5 direct hits, and 2 hits that were close enough
did like 25% damage. thats still piss sad
Nebels are ok, i find them quite annoying when used by decent axis players, always harrasing the area where my troops are stationed. Meaning i constantly have to keep remanning at guns and what not.
Oh, the damage should be upped, there's no question about that but complaining about not being able to hit single units with WW2 rocket artillery is a bad example of the nebelwerfers deficiency.
I think you are right to criticize this unit but I wish you wouldn't do it in such a vitriolic way. Show the video and ask for a buff no need for the huff and puff. Relic serves us all pretty well compared to other gaming Co. I am sure that with the compelling evidence that you have provided that something will be done about it.
My biggest issue with the nebel is it's lack of abillity to take out buildings. I had three units firing at the church in the centre of Semois for about 10 minutes and they failed to either destroy the building or even kill one member of the MG squad garrisioned in it. They are too expensive for what they do. Walking Stukas are 10x more effective and well worth the extra cost.
just the fact that allies dont have a counterpart to a nebelwerfer doesnt make it useless, especialy since its not doctrine specific.
comprehensive guide how to install the Zoom-Out-Mod
this mod works online and in ranked games [2.602]
Originally Posted by Devil2575
Text from: http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/medi...le=NebelwerferThe following statements have been made by a high-ranking German Army officer, and may be accepted as an authoritative expression of German ideas concerning the employment of this weapon.
Units of Nebeltruppen (smoke-laying troops) are organized as rocket-projector regiments (Werferregimenter), which are fully motorized and therefore extremely mobile. A rocket-projector regiment is divided into battalions and batteries, like those of the artillery. Since rocket-projector regiments are capable of playing a decisive part in battle, they may be concentrated at strategically important points along a front. ... The organization of a rocket-projector regiment is much like that of a motorized artillery regiment; organizationally, the motor vehicles and signal equipment of both are also much the same. Since the projector units usually are kept close behind the forward infantry line, their batteries may also be equipped with antitank guns. Because of the light construction of the projectors, a 3-ton prime mover is sufficient for traction purposes, and can also carry the gun crew and some of the ammunition...
The Nebelwerfer 41 can fire three different types of projectiles: high-explosive shells, incendiary projectiles, and smoke projectiles.
The high-explosive shells include those with supersensitive fuzes and those with delayed-action fuzes. The latter can penetrate reinforced cover. Because of their fragmentation and concussion effect, high-explosive shells are used primarily against personnel. It has been found that the concussion has not only been great enough to kill personnel, but occasionally has caused field fortifications and bunkers to collapse.
The incendiary projectiles are psychologically effective, and under favorable conditions can start field and forest fires.
The smoke projectiles are used to form smoke screens or smoke zones.
Rocket-projector troops are employed as battalion and regimental units, in keeping with their task of destroying hostile forces by concentrated fire. One of the advantages of the Nebelwerfer 41 is that it can mass its projectiles on a very small target area. By means of a shrewd disposition of the batteries, a carefully planned communication system, and a large number of observation posts with advanced observers, the infantry can assure for itself maneuverability and a concentration of its fire power upon the most important points. Projectors are placed well toward the front—almost without exception, at points forward of the artillery—so that they will be able to eliminate hostile command posts, destroy hostile positions, and even repulse sudden attacks effectively. The firing positions of the projectors are always carefully built up so that the weapons can give strong support to the infantry.
Note the use of the word occasionally and only with delayed-action fuzes. The nebelwerfer was not generally used to attack buildings. So you're complaining about the nebelwerfer not fullfilling the role you want it to rather than using it for what it's intended to do.
So what?
hasn't it already been established many times that the units in CoH are not always true to life for the purposes of balance. I just don't see the use in a T3 unit that is only any good against allied T1 & T2 units in the open.
make it cost 280 ( 10 more then a mortar) and do more damage and poof it'll work fine. I use nebels sometimes to clear out building and stuff - they infact do the most damage against buildings i've ever seen.
The nebelwerfer kills things in buildings, all allied doctrines have a counter to the nebel. Airborne has strafing or bombing or even paradrop, Armor has cali, and infantry has howitzer.
Tell me, whats the historical basis for the browning automatic rifle to suppress infantry better than the lmg42?snip a bunch of historical accuracy crap.
Note the use of the word occasionally and only with delayed-action fuzes. The nebelwerfer was not generally used to attack buildings. So you're complaining about the nebelwerfer not fullfilling the role you want it to rather than using it for what it's intended to do.
#27
It's not that horrible now. People just don't use it for what it is - a long range harassment unit. It works best on maps like Semois and Sturz (god I hate Sturz), where you can form a fairly solid defensive line and then suppress any rifles that attempt to flank. It suppresses for a decent period of time, which gives you time to adjust.
That said, it's not that great either. Kind of like a mortar, except with even more limited use cases. If it did more damage its role would be expanded and it'd be fine.
[qoute]People just don't use it for what it is - a long range harassment unit.[/qoute]
Exactly what I use it for. (If I build any) I usually try to hit concentrations of infantry, or hotspots around the map. Such as the centers of VRV or Lyon. The nebel isn't too good at hitting any one target, it should be used on groups of units.
I don't understand why Relic made it so useless while in reality the Nebelwerfer was responsable for 80% of the Western Allied infantry deaths after D-day.
Can we relegate allied artillery to "annoying," too? That would be pretty cool. I'd be OK with calliope/howitzer/p57 runs/allied mortar which I found "annoying" rather than "devastating." I mean, I know the Stuka is ok (T4, 150 ammo, 20 fuel, 220MP, much better in groups!), and the defensive rocket barrage is on par with allied arty, but the firestorm, V1, registered (axis mortar), and nebel are all merely expensive annoyances to the allied player. Why is every allied form of artillery very useful when used right (and decent when used somewhat wrong), whereas axis artillery has to have the moons aligned to manage anything.
Nebels are ok, i find them quite annoying when used by decent axis players
The nebbie sits there and fires once a minute or so -- doing nothing but making the allied player sigh when its fired. He reinforces his troops if they happen to die, and repairs any minor damage done to anything else. The kicker is that you will claim that the point of the nebbie is to suppress to allow axis to sweep in (in the 2-3 second window from barrage end to engagement allowed in order to maintain this 'huge suppression advantage.' (SF anyone?) Well, since the nebbie does a)nothing to garrisoned troops, b)nothing to HMG nests, c) nothing to AT guns, your sweep into this allied strongpoint you have so carefully 'softened and disrupted' with your nebbies turns into a rout -- because:
a)garrisoned HMGs suppress and quickly kill your infantry
b)HMG nests do the same
c)ATGs are still there to kill your tanks.
Meanwhile, the poor rifles become unsuppressed because, while really scary they realize that the nebbie barrage didn't actually hurt them. No, not even this time.
They get back up, dust themselves off, look around a bit sheepishly, and go mop up the axis units that the essentially unaffected weapons platforms have managed quite nicely.
It's a free, non-doctrine arty available at T3 for 300-something MP. You don't use it to wipe out enemy positions, you use it to soften them up. I buy one and use it for the entire game. Did I mention it fires for free, and available before any other on-map arty is? It's like the price of 2 bikes and is an indirect support unit, what do you expect? It's not going to kill as well as a mortar, which has to expose itself to a certain extent to fire. You just sit it in a safe area and select it whenever it refreshes, then use on an enemy strongpoint. Even if it might not kill, it will wear down - a mortar round hitting something doesn't exactly kill everytime, either.
And if your enemy makes a point to try and kill it, then it's obviously being effective to some extent. That's when you deploy it around your own defensive position, and if your enemy kills it he probably wasted more to do so than what you lost in the effort to defend it. Moreso if he uses a doctrine ability to kill it... Either way, there's a good chance you'll be able to simply reman it and repair the piece itself.
I know it's not a Walking Stuka, and that they're better. But they also cost fuel and a large chunk of munitions, something which the Nebelwerfer does not. That's an endgame unit though at T4, and I find that my manpower better spent on defensive barrages. And what's with everyone likening it to the other arty barrages in the game? It's obviously not as good, but it's obviously cheaper than anything else.
Maybe it's just that the Nebel doesn't fit well with Blitz strategies, the doctrine that 9 out of 10 people are playing right now. Since they tend to not be fighting a static battle, I can see why. But it does fill a nice niche in my Defensive doctrine play.
In my defensive doctine play, which I use 95% of the time, it fills no niche whatsoever. It requires building T3 (which if you build T2, as def is wont to do, the enemy will have pershings around the same time).
I could use it, to annoy the allies, but is it worth the risk? If they cap it, and turn it around, it is WAY more lethal against the axis than the allies (bugged damage table). Of course not, because all it does is annoy. If the allied player doesn't panic over it and doesn't clump all of his troops, it has no use!
All I've ever found it useful for was forcing skittish allied players' hands... when they had the hill on 331, and all they had were ATGs and riflemen. The moons aligned. Wonderful.
It "softens up" (and I use the term very loosely) INFANTRY, not positions, and if the allied player has a brain they can move their INFANTRY away from their positions in the time that the arty takes screaming to warn of its impending spatter.
This is what I'm banking on if I build nebbies (unless I see riflespam from hell, but not moving, AND I have T3 up -- not often, that is). The allied player will waste his time and resources killing MY waste of time and resources, and I will come out ahead. Works against bad players.That's when you deploy it around your own defensive position, and if your enemy kills it he probably wasted more to do so than what you lost in the effort to defend it.
If I see massed nebbies, they have the potential to do enough damage over time that I feel like I have to deal with them.
Well, if they're massed, theyve blown 1200 or so MP that I've spent on useful units. So, I go kill them, and take a couple if its convenient.
And it DOES NOTHING unless the allied player gets so annoyed by the noise that he just HAS to walk into your ambush. Who cares if its manpower only and fires free, who cares if its available early, IT BLOWS and is only cost justified one in a thousand times, and thats IF you go T3 anyhow.I buy one and use it for the entire game.
Yes, I had line of sight to them, I do have the enemy unit selected don't I? If it were in my fow I would not be able to select it even though I can see it. And there are no obstructions between the Nebelwerfers and the AT gun.
It was just a question, don't expect I can see every detail in that small ass video my friend.
I'm just really suprised is all. I was using just one, and then eventually 2 nebels in a test just before you posted this, and they did considerably more damage to an AT gun. Luck of the draw I guess, but I was wondering if it was because I had LoS.
I don't think they are perfect the way they are, but they certainly shouldn't be turned into killing machines. A muuuuuuuch longer suppression effect, quicker firing/landing so they can't be dodged, more effective damage against buildings, all of those would be cool things to add to nebels. Raw killing power wouldn't.
I for one don't want to have to play as Allies constantly being forced to run into cloaked storm/AT traps over and over each game to kill the nebels. It would turn every game into a mini 105 hunt nightmare. It's annoying enough as Axis when I have to deal w/ it, I don't want a 105 jr to come out of every tier 3 building each game....
So there are many upgrades the nebel could be given, but I think the damage is at the right point right now. Realistic? No. But I think I've made clear how I feel about the realism arguement.
Very sorry, I was not trying to be mean, reading it now it does seem that way. My apologies.
And why can't they be killing machines? All the other artillery in the game is. I am just baffled why this one can't be. If its because of the cost, INCREASE IT! I just want it to do something other than waste my resources.
I completely hate useless units. It is just a waste of space on my hard drive to have things in the game that are only useful everyone once in a blue moon repeated two months in a row.
Actually, I got an idea just now. Remove the Nebelwerfer from the game, make it a lot stronger, then add it to terror in place of firestorm. Have it be a powerful off map call in.
Too hard to think thru all the balance issues that might cause, but it does SOUND pretty cool. I know firestorm is useful, I'm just not a big fan. Nebel Ace call in would be better.
I think it just has a different intended use than what you want... moderate damage and wide-are suppression vs. raw damage. It just doesn't do what it is 'supposed' to do very well. So it needs a buff to that ability... increasing the suppression time, making it faster so it hits moving troops better, etc.
They are very easy to field, and giving them increased raw damage would turn many games into ppl building a defensive bubble, filling it with long range rape machines, and then sending out prowling storms to forward spot and assinate weakened armor and troops.
Other artillery examples within the game are either A ) Have a larger volume of fire, or B ) Are bigger guns. The Nebelwerfer is the weakest arty in the game because it is the cheapest. Increasing its cost would make it completely redundant with the Walking Stuka, only available a tier before. Right now, it is useful as an early-mid game unit that can shoot halfway across the map. If you don't like its damage potential, then upgrade to T4 and get a Walking Stuka. Problem solved.And why can't they be killing machines? All the other artillery in the game is. I am just baffled why this one can't be. If its because of the cost, INCREASE IT! I just want it to do something other than waste my resources.
The only reason I *can* buy the Nebelwerfer is because it's relatively cheap. I don't buy the Walking Stuka because I'm spending my munitions on registered arty and PSchrecks, and it's available more mid-to-late game. Logically, if the Nebelwerfer becomes as effective as the Walking Stuka, then it will have the same cost; perhaps more, because it is available at an earlier tier.
Nebel should be delivering 60s of mortar fire in a single burst. Right now it delivers 2-3 mortar hits worth of damage every 60s. In the game you have a choice: You can build Kriegs and have a mortar and later a walking stuka, or you can build Nebel and usually not have a mortar or the stuka. It's only fair that a T3 indirect fire weapon be somewhat BETTER then a T2 indirect fire weapon. Nebel cannot retreat like the mortar so if it is overrun you lose.
Nebel delivering large amounts of damage will not make stuka obsolete for two reasons:
1) If you look at the tooltips for both weapons Nebel is meant to be killer to infantry and useless against structures/vehicles. Stuka is meant to be opposite. Destructive against buildings/vehicles, less effective against infantry.
2) No one sane should be going Kriegs+Sturm+T4. In 1v1 games you will either go Kriegs+T4 or Sturm+T4 rarely both.
The audible warning belive it or not is enough for you to move any infantry and AT guns out of impact area, so there is absolutly nothing wrong with Nebel killing 4-5 riflemen per volley as it would still take some 3-4 volleys for it to break even for cost.
Relic needs to fix the Axis mortar and nebel damage tables and make these things actually useful, it would certainly serve to make allied 57mm a bit more managable.
Logically, if the nebelwerfer is slower than the halftrack, vulnerable to small arms fire, has huge inaccuracy despite and exacerbated by a longer range, and can be captured, it already has significant disadvantages compared to the stuka justifying a lower cost (anyway, it's higher in manpower, which is important mid-game). With all that AND next to no damage, its USELESS. It costs 20 less fuel and more manpower to build T3 rather than tech to T4. A unit ability *unlocked* at the next tier is arguably the same tier as a unit built from a building in the tier below... especially when T3 is such a tough choice.
But still 2-3 nebels can do better against buildings and close enemy troops.
currently in discrete status...
As much as I hate nebels I used two last night to great effect, they pinned and killed a bunch of rifles attacking our defensive position on St Hillaire, while my ally moved in with LMg42 Grens to mow them down. I even got to use the officer to firebomb 3 AT gunz, and two rifle squads, it was funny.
Still, nebels need a damage buff because they would make t3 even more viable since at gun positions would no longer be hard to crack.
Uh? What?Nebelwerfer was responsable for 80% of the Western Allied infantry deaths after D-day.
My vote would be rifle rounds. But, uh hey, that's just me.
If you fire them every 60 seconds like clock work they are effective. Quite anoying too. If you fire them in spaced apart, they can make holding ground be quite hard.
They are very nice against buildings as well. They take them down pretty quickly.
by cheap I meant indirect. You guys really jumped on that one. Nebbles are one of the more obnoxious units in the game if used correctly. They do supress.
The point is you can't use them as a super weapon to bomb the enemy into submission or even reliably take out at guns. They're a decent counter to bars though in tandem with some tier 1 or tier 2 infantry.
#44
So essentially you are complaining that the classification as a long range supression artillery unit doesn't have the long range arty sniper attack you want it to have. Historically speaking, the Nebelwerfer was never meant to be a precision artillery piece, but more towards the usage of a area-effect suppression device firing high-explosives, incendiary or smoke. It was effective against troop concentrations and buildings, not arty sniping tanks from 3 miles away. Implementation-wise, in the game it fits that roll.
I find that the nebels do work well in groups, but not fired as a group. Rather than having the group attack a point/location, i have the individual ones do it, for me it centers where I want to attack/direct fire, rather than aimlessly just point and click and hope for a kill or two. And as for the video, its just mathematically unfortunate that it happened, not an indication of imbalance or lack of usefulness in the game.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
The Neb is a free flight rocket, it's the carpet bombing of the artillery world... Be happy you get to drop it in the vicinity of where you want them.
I find it's a great way to build up command points and move up fast in the docturines.
It seems to be the luck of the draw. I once shot at a PAK with 2 calliopies and only knocked it down 45%.
My vote is to
A- Leave it as is, it is totally worthless but hey, it dosen't really effect anything because it isn't nessicary to any strategy.
or
B- Increase its cost, and great increase its damage AND accuracy. It shouldn't be a wide-angle weapon, but a pinpoint attack. My reasoning: 1) T3 is too weak to AT guns, and this would even a bit 2) germans already have a TON of wide-angle artillery attacks, with no pinpoint strikes.
You have the officer, the StuG, the Puma, and the Nebelwaffle. Make the Nebelwaffle useful against AT guns, and EVEN THEN I bet it wouldn't be used at all, but I think that's what its role should be.
I never use the damn thing.
Although if the enemy has one, i make it my personal objective to capture it and use it to piss them off.
An interesting note, whenever I use nebels and win the game I get called a noob, its funny
the only use ive found for nebels is for screwing over a rifle spammer, after they are pinned you can have fun with the flammenwerfer halftrack if he doesnt run back to his base he is losing all his squads.
Nebls are fine (although maybe a small price decrease might be good). I think the cost should be decreased a tad, but they're great otherwise. Sure, they don't do nearly as much damage as other onmap artillery...but this is mitigated by their massive range (not all artillery has it), and suppression effect.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
