OpenRA

It looks like the balance discussion for ra stalled for the moment.

Only kyrylo was brave enough to step into the cave of wild developers and proposed OpenRA/OpenRA#10411.
It reduces the view range of the artillery from 5 to 3 cells.

Should we try that for the next playtest and what else should be changed (if something needs changes)?

(IMHO 3 cells are a bit too less, 4 might be better, but kyrylo has good arguments for 3 cells, too.)

I think it's worth trying up-ing the range of V2 by 1. Artie will still have a significant range advantage over it.

Also Mig air to air. Maybe only for one faction.

I don't see many people bother with Migs at the moment. After the improvements made to planes in general, the yaks are now pretty lethal at base destruction as long as you aren't facing AA.

Artie by itself already has a low-ish view range, so why do people want to change it?

I don't think this will have a huge impact. With their current range they are already pretty vulnerable without spotters but making arty a little more dependent on other units isn't a bad thing IMO so +1 to this.

I don't think V2s need a buff ATM as they already damn good. They also have a different use to arty and making them more similar to each other will only serve to make the game less interesting.

That's my opinion and i'm sure there will be others who have contrasting ones which i'd like to hear from.

I don't think reducing the view range would impact the unit much, but it makes sense from a unit use perspective.

I'd go with a slight reduction in range though

Although I'm in agreement with keeping the artillery's vision range small and have no issue with its reduction, I also don't see this change having much impact.

I think the biggest issue regarding artillery right now is the excessive splash damage it has against infantry. The current artillery splash radius is set at 426. Now by comparison the V2 has a splash radius of 341. Why is the artillery splash radius so large? Should each shell really kill 10+ soldiers with a rate of fire of 85?

-In my opinion the primary ability of the artillery should be taking out defense structures & buildings not obliterating blobs of infantry akin to Tanya.

Well, if you think about it, artillery in real life is used to take out large patrols and to soften enemy positions using (generally) HE shells. HE shells are going to be good at taking out large groups of infantry and should have some effectiveness when they directly hit any building or tank. However, the shells themselves are unguided and prone to high amounts of dispersion the farther you shoot them, thus using them on small targets that aren't stationary is rather pointless. Thus, Artillery should have large amounts of splash damage against infantry that are standing up and direct hits on buildings. Conversely, the V2 is a guided tactical ballistic missile, meant to bring down enemy fortifications and reduce buildings to rubble very quickly. The missile likely has a hydrogen based explosive, which deals massive amounts of damage to buildings. However, the V2's missile is easily avoided by smaller groups of infantry and due to needing to house the fuel for the missile cannot contain as much explosive power. This means that the V2 should only be used against large groups of infantry, and buildings. They fill very similar role. However, considering the weapons used, the artillery assumes that there is going to be something moving into the position being bombarded, while the V2 is used to specifically take down structures as fast as possible.

TL;DR: The V2 and artillery, while filling similar roles, do so differently. The Artillery is more of a anti-everything (except tank) and the V2 is much more anti-base focused). The soviets typically leave anti-infantry to their flame-based corp.

Frame_Limiter wrote: ↑Now by comparison the V2 has a splash radius of 341.

Actually that's another change I would like to see-- V2 should be better at taking out troops.

devilslayersbane wrote: ↑real life

Please refrain from making comparisons to real life. The aim is to make the game balanced, not to make it more realistic. For instance, V2s had an operational range of 320KM, but no one would want that included within OpenRA

Well, considering that this is a game based in an alternate history from our own, real life stuff shouldn't be a taboo comparison. It was literally just a look at the 2 units real-world roles versus how they behave in game (which is pretty comparable). Another thing to point out is that Red Alert and TD were all about asymmetrical balance. Removing this asymmetry will remove the best aspect of the game, and also remove any grounding this game still has in real life. Finally, comparisons to real life should be a guidance, something to be considered, not a strict set of rules to follow.

So lets take this on. Let's say that the V2's range was increased to 32 cells. That would mean the arty to have to be increased to 52 cells (if one cell is 1km). The M60 would have 1 cell, etc. That would be rather ridiculous. This isn't wargame, the engine wasn't build with realistic simulation in mind. I was fully aware of this which is why I never mentioned range. I just simply defended how the units behaved in terms of damage and dispersion.

devilslayersbane wrote: ↑-Snip-

I understand that you are just defending the current state of artillery/V2s and i agree that they should stay pretty much the same. I'm just trying to get across that comparing the game to real life is not what an argument about game balance should be based off of, even if it is true.

Was on the fence about this but thinking about it, the effect in game-play would be exclusively negative. Early infantry+artillery moves are being screwed. The artillery is expensive (1800 tech + 800 per unit) and it's made of bubble wrap. Players are expected to mix in rangers with the Radar tech or wait for additional tech before they can move out with their artillery? Eventually this will probably piss off a lot of people, especially casual players.

IMO there's no good rationale for the nerf.