des1206
-
Posts
337 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4 -
Donations
0.00 USD
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Documentation
Bug Tracker
Downloads
Posts posted by des1206
-
-
Can I lobby for a delayed armor regen for the Mammoth tank similar to infantry health regen? Armor wouldn't regen for 60 seconds since last damage, regen will be slow, and regen stops as soon as the tank takes any damage. This way it wouldn't be OP but would reward mammoth tanks drivers for playing it smart. It adds tactile depth to driving the tank and can make it more fun.
0 -
When there is only a few players, the maps are always restricted to AI-bot maps. It gets boring real quick and then players leave, leaving no one to seed a game. Can we get rid of the automated map selection where if there is less than 4 players it defaults to an AI-bot map?
0 -
I feel restricting map rotation to only maps with bots is not a good idea. Any single or two players come on can play those maps only, and they quickly get bored. They then leave without being able to "seed" a larger game.
0 -
14 hours ago, Pushwall said:
Also people seem to be forgetting that a long reload is not entirely a downside. In any situation where there is enough cover for a tank to hide behind the heavy tank is favoured over the allied tanks because it can spend more time in hiding due to not having to fire as frequently, and any amount of time where a tank is loaded but can't fire back due to the enemy tank being obscured is wasted DPS - less wasted for the heavy since it has longer periods of being unloaded and unable to fire back.
In practice, I find it hard to use that strategy given Heavy's lower maneuverability. Would love to get a second opinion on this though.
14 hours ago, Pushwall said:Don't Soviets dominate T5 maps enough already?
I get the balance argument. Maybe like you said some other units (Volk/Shock) can be nerfed a bit to allow us to beef up the tanks some more. The AT mine layer does a really good job keeping Soviet armor in check.
For the Mammoth, how about we trade 5 hp/second regeneration for 3hp and 2 armor full health regeneration?
0 -
Would it work if we gave the Heavy a higher ROF, but lower damage, keeping DPS the same? A faster, more frequent shot would help missing shots less of a penalty. The med can do the opposite, lower ROF, higher per shot damage. It could make interesting strategy using its mobility to fire/cover-reload/fire. This is how Ra3 balanced its Allied/Soviet tanks.
Side note: Can we give the Mammoth regenerating ARMOR, maybe with a time delay? Not Ralistic I know. It won't make much of a difference in direct battles, but it will help the tank on larger maps have the staying power to get to enemy base.
0 -
Does anyone else feel Heavy is the worse tank here? I know it's got slightly longer range than the med and slightly greater DPS vs buildings (+6% just like its +6% price), but it has the same DPS vs vehicles (edit: vs Mammoth armor, it's actually worse. It takes 2 seconds longer vs the Med to kill a Chronotank).
The real kicker is its slow firing rate makes it misses much more often vs med. That combined with its slower speed, turret turn speed, firing rate, turret limitations, makes this tank all around worse. I really don't see how it's a "heavy" tank at all!
0 -
Can we ever have a version of Lunar with normal units, but Allies having Soviet War Factory and vice versa?
1 -
What if we just had a 10 second respawn delay?
I realize vehicle build times may not be needed, since Soviets with their slower speed is supposed to benefit the most from slower Allied reinforcements, but defending Allies typically rely on cheaper tanks (lights/meds) anyway, so implementing a vehicle delay will hardly make a difference. People will hardly buy a Phase Tank or Chronotank when Soviets are in front of your door steps.
0 -
Wasn't Christmas a pagan holiday co-opted by the Catholic church? Jesus said celebrate my resurrection, he didn't say celebrate my birth.
0 -
Yes, real volcano is a must.
0 -
I just want to ask if this is doable (coding-wise) and worth trying?
I feel C&C mode favors defenders, especially on larger maps with easy to access gem. Since even if attackers skillfully take down the defenders half way to base, the defenders will just respawn right away and buy the best units they can to defend the now half-health attacking force. This type of game play reward skills less. Only surprise and concentrated attacks can succeed since buildings are not easy to take down. While there is nothing wrong with that, this makes larger maps and maps without cover not fun to play.
Would implementing a reasonable respawn time and/or vehicle build time hep solve this problem?
0 -
Shallow grave should include islands for Chronotanks to island hop. If Allies get cruisers on that map Soviets will need to get Migs.
Migs and cruisers will be amazing on A Path Beyond.
1 -
16 hours ago, thedisclaimitory said:
noooo dont ruin it for me I want to have an op mig and mammoth tanks are beefy, and the heavy tank is not very beefy if you put it up against a medium tank but I think its fine and I dont think the mig was fine when it released and when it did the dmg output felt small to me atleast ,so it kinda makes sence to me as to why they increased it
Pound for pound, Longbows should do more damage than Migs. Migs with their better speed is really more about battlefield patrol and rapid reaction to low-hp allied vehicles. If you want to do REAL damage, buy a Hind and stick around.
I lobby for a Mig dmg nerf instead of a boost.
0 -
16 hours ago, Pushwall said:
Red Alert: A Path Beyond Update 
MiGDamage to various targets changed:
- Vs heavy vehicles (75 -> 80)
- Vs mammoth vehicles (60 -> 70)
[thumb]thumb_apb.b.png[/thumb][blurb]More naval combat rebalancings! Also, swimming and less obnoxious gap generators.[/blurb]
Why the damage increase? The previous dmg output seemed to be nicely balanced.
I tested the Mig vs Longbow a bit back on Siege. Assuming they were hitting a target in the center of the map, for every 3 attack runs Longbows do, Migs can do 5 (faster speed). Incidentally, Migs also did 60% of Longbow's damage output, which made them perfectly equal in DPS over the long run.
0 -
I get they have a specialized niche (CQC anti-infantry base defense), but does anyone feel they are a bit too good at their job for the price? Can we tone their health down to 50/50 at least? A weaker shotgunner will encourage more infantry based raids and also give more differentiation to the higher priced CQC units.
0 -
12 minutes ago, VERTi60 said:
Do we really need a spy plane?
GG/MGG bubbles, Phase Tanks, Mines.
0 -
1 hour ago, Pushwall said:
Camo Pillbox.
I think they will be tough enough for the Soviets with the added HP and low body profiles for V2s to target.
1 hour ago, Pushwall said:also hope in the future we can refine the way the Spy, Thief, Mobile Radar Jammer and MAD Tank work, they're all pretty niche in their utility. Maybe a better tactical niche for the Tesla Tank, Grenadier and Flamethrower as well.
Hypothetically MADs should be great for defending against Allied armor rushes. Maybe we just take out the friendly-fire penalty?
Flamethrower is good for support role if burn damage reduces accuracy.
Nader's always tough, maybe just make him a free unit?
0 -
I still can't believe we are at this point, that we have functioning Chronotank, Migs, Yaks, Cruisers! Thanks a million to all the devs whose hard work make it happen.
So what else is left? Chronosphere, Iron Curtain, dogs, Badger Bomber, spy planes, para-troopers. That's all right? Are we finally close to the finish line as far as full unit implementation is concerned?
0 -
How about Ridgewar? Migs will be good for that map.
0 -
On 9/23/2018 at 6:00 PM, Pushwall said:
I don't have one that works with the current public release. Once the next release comes out I can hook you up with it though.
Let me know when you have the time to send one, thanks!
0 -
If I can be frank, I also don't like the Cruiser model. The details and models are good, don't get me wrong. But the problem is the model is essentially a shrunk down version of a real life old battleship, with tiny doors and tiny windows on there as well. I know APB isn't going for 100% realism, but a Ralistic cruiser model with an alternative look that doesn't look like it shrunk on-purpose would have been better. All this is not to say I don't appreicate the work that's been done by the dev team. Thank you so much for making the cruiser happen.
I also noticed one cruiser turret equals the DPS of an artillery. Having a fully-manned cruiser is essentially equivalent of having 2 artillery attacking you from the ocean.
Lastly, on Mig targeting issues. Has the dev team considered slowing down the Mig (50m/s -> 45m/s) and the Yak (40m/s -> 35m/s) a bit? I feel the slower speeds will help players to aim better while still making them the fastest units in the game.
1 -
- For the APC availability, just let it replace the medium tank or supply truck after War Factory is dead. Allies with full bar and forced to use APC will come up with some pretty interesting teamwork that make the gameplay more fun.
- Does burn damage still mess up your aim? Also is there a way we can let flamer's naplam stick to the ground and burn for a few more seconds?
- Did Hind's gatling gun used to rotate? It's a really nice animation.
0 -
How come the destroyer looks like it's made of lego? Especially the chimney.
Can we make the Mig missiles disappear after it fires them?
On rangers: rangers/mechanic combo is excellent mid/late game to drive around repairing allied tanks while staying out of harm's way.
On maps with both Hind and Migs, I wonder if people will use Yaks at all?
0 -
How do we think about the difference between the Mig, Yak and the Hind in terms of when is the most optimal scenario to use each?
0
Mammoth/Apocalypse Tank in real life
in Command & Conquer
Posted
From my understanding, something similar was pitched during WWII, but it was quickly dismissed. The reason is that the bigger (and therefore slower) you are, the more vulnerable you are to artillery, who can definitely punch through your armor. Remember you would want thick armor on all sides, but the thicker it is, the heavier you get, and it only takes a shell to penetrate you at one point to destroy what's on the inside. The armor-mobility trade-off is just not worth it after a certain point.