Kodiak becomes redundant in mid-late game |
Kodiak becomes redundant in mid-late game |
8 May 2014, 11:31
Post
#1
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 508 Joined: 1 March 2014 Member No.: 10323 |
Since Golem is almost twice as powerful as Kodiak so Kodiak becomes somewhat redundant in the mid-late game. So as to keep the Kodiak still viable in later part of the game, wouldn't it be pertinent to confer it with missiles that could be launched from the main gun after an upgrade, just like the T-64?
|
|
|
8 May 2014, 12:24
Post
#2
|
|
Group: Project Leader Posts: 5870 Joined: 2 June 2009 Member No.: 10 |
The Golem is still much more expensive than the Kodiak. You wouldn't compose a force purely out of heavy tanks with no support from MBTs, so this really is a non-issue. The Sentinel doesn't make the Kodiak redundant either, does it?
|
|
|
8 May 2014, 12:28
Post
#3
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 2642 Joined: 18 April 2012 From: Southern Brazil. Member No.: 9084 "No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise." |
It would be extremely unbalanced.
-------------------- You already imagined how would be SAP in the ROTR's universe? Check out this fan-fiction: South American Pact Introduction |
|
|
8 May 2014, 12:31
Post
#4
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 392 Joined: 19 May 2013 From: Mountains of Asia Member No.: 9942 |
Since Golem is almost twice as powerful as Kodiak so Kodiak becomes somewhat redundant in the mid-late game. So as to keep the Kodiak still viable in later part of the game, wouldn't it be pertinent to confer it with missiles that could be launched from the main gun after an upgrade, just like the T-64? First of all, why the hell are you comparing Golems to Kodiaks? Golems are going to be exclusive for Aleksandr, and the Kodiak would be for all, unless Aleksi gets a better replacement. Second, saying that the Kodiak is redundant when Golems come into play is like saying that Crusaders become redundant after having Paladins, or Battlemasters being redundant after acquiring Overlords, or Cheetah/Scorpion tanks being redundant after getting Marauders. Third, unless you control all of the supply docks in the map and/or built at least ~20+ Arms Dealers, you can't mass Golems due to their price range, and the loss of one is much more crippling to one's economy than the loss of a single Kodiak. Also, gameplay comes to issue. Are you playing against AI, or human players? Remember, almost everything of everyone is OP against the AI, except Brutal China, which needs a little bit more force than the others. -------------------- |
|
|
8 May 2014, 12:33
Post
#5
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1863 Joined: 17 April 2012 Member No.: 9081 |
Isn't Kodiak best MBT in the game overall ?
Kodiak maybe gets redundant if you are playing against easy AI, since against it you can spawn dozens of Sentinels and Golems... So from that perspective it is redundant,from a perspective of common sense this whole topic is redundant. |
|
|
8 May 2014, 16:56
Post
#6
|
|
Master of Wreckage Group: Leader Posts: 2673 Joined: 31 May 2009 From: Dallas TX, USA Member No.: 2 Projects: SWR Productions |
This problem won't be relevant once we move everything over to their respective Generals.
Besides Golems are still much more expensive and take longer to produce then Kodiaks. I'd rather have more Kodiaks in place before I start using larger vehicles as support. -------------------- SWR Co-Lead | Texture Artist | Modeler | Level Designer | Fan of all things Awesome |
|
|
8 May 2014, 17:20
Post
#7
|
|
Group: Tester Posts: 1833 Joined: 29 May 2012 Member No.: 9155 |
|
|
|
8 May 2014, 17:40
Post
#8
|
|
Guardsman Group: Members Posts: 2077 Joined: 22 October 2012 From: Terra Member No.: 9379 Armageddon is here.............. |
I rather have more Kodiaks than more Golems.
This is SAGE, and the smaller the tank the better. Or use a big one man army tank. If I want to break through a fortress without wasting too much resources, I would rather build Sentinels instead of Golems. It have the size and speed of a Super Heavy Tank, but not much better armor to compensate for that (a Kodiak have 500 hitpoint, a Golem have 800, a Sentinel have 1800) The Kodiak isn't the best MBT ingame, but it is not redundant in late game. At least unlike with the Golem, the Kodiak is fast enough to retreat after a failed attack. This post has been edited by X1Destroy: 8 May 2014, 17:44 -------------------- We Die Standing.
|
|
|
8 May 2014, 17:55
Post
#9
|
|
Group: Tester Posts: 1833 Joined: 29 May 2012 Member No.: 9155 |
I rather have more Kodiaks than more Golems. This is SAGE, and the smaller the tank the better. Or use a big one man army tank. If I want to break through a fortress without wasting too mych resources, I would rather build Sentinels instead of Golems. It have the size and speed of a Super Heavy Tank, but not much better armor to compensate for that (a Kodiak have 500 hitpoint, a Golem have 800, a Sentinel have 1800) Well, might try out the unofficial RotR 1802 Rebalance patch I've been making over last days, gonna upload it today. Our PvP testers generally agreed that it changes a game in a positive way. It also includes fixes for VDV lag, MTP stacking bug, and Gepard bug. It's oriented for PvP balance, not for PvE one, though. This post has been edited by Knjaz.: 8 May 2014, 18:02 |
|
|
8 May 2014, 21:48
Post
#10
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 77 Joined: 17 December 2012 From: Good Ole' USA Member No.: 9536 Call the Ball |
Sadly, the Paladin is a replacement for the Crusader (until the Generals come back). Unless you have a map with a lot of water, there is no reason to build Crusaders when you can build Paladins.
|
|
|
9 May 2014, 1:22
Post
#11
|
|
That person Group: Project Leader Posts: 1425 Joined: 20 September 2009 From: Cyberspace Member No.: 417 C&C ShockWave Co-Leader |
I find myself putting Golems into my forces as MBTs late-game. They behave better than Sentinels, turn any other tank force into scrap-metal, and generally they just cause a bunch of problems for the enemy.
This is late-game though, when I have the cash. |
|
|
9 May 2014, 1:58
Post
#12
|
|
Queen Elizabeth-class Battleship Group: Members Posts: 320 Joined: 26 March 2013 From: With Kongou Member No.: 9874 Hello, Admire-ral! |
Nope. The Kodiak Tank is MEANT to be the backbone of any Russian army. Sure, I replace them with Golems as MBTs (occasionally), but that's because I play PvAI. I know this from the streams.
|
|
|
9 May 2014, 9:15
Post
#13
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1863 Joined: 17 April 2012 Member No.: 9081 |
One of the worst. In 1802, that is. Yes, I mean that quite literally, balance/stat/cost-efficiency wise, for a slow ground-bruteforce oriented faction. Can you give me details,as far as I have saw it is pretty much one of toughest tanks and it posses firepower that can be matched only be Leopard. |
|
|
9 May 2014, 9:20
Post
#14
|
|
Group: Tester Posts: 1833 Joined: 29 May 2012 Member No.: 9155 |
Can you give me details,as far as I have saw it is pretty much one of toughest tanks and it posses firepower that can be matched only be Leopard. Faction supply gather rate is generally similar, if you do proper supply positioning. Simpliest way - get a friend, get same amount of $$$ in Kodiaks for you and Battlemasters for him. Use focus fire, i.e. manually make all your units engage same target at once, killing enemy one by one. Same for him. Like you'd do in actual PvP game. Do tests through various tiers, without upgrades, with tier 1 upgrades, with tier 2 full upgrades. Preferably with no less than ~5000$ worth of tanks for each side. This post has been edited by Knjaz.: 9 May 2014, 9:22 |
|
|
9 May 2014, 10:27
Post
#15
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 508 Joined: 1 March 2014 Member No.: 10323 |
First of all, why the hell are you comparing Golems to Kodiaks? Golems are going to be exclusive for Aleksandr, and the Kodiak would be for all, unless Aleksi gets a better replacement. Second, saying that the Kodiak is redundant when Golems come into play is like saying that Crusaders become redundant after having Paladins, or Battlemasters being redundant after acquiring Overlords, or Cheetah/Scorpion tanks being redundant after getting Marauders. Third, unless you control all of the supply docks in the map and/or built at least ~20+ Arms Dealers, you can't mass Golems due to their price range, and the loss of one is much more crippling to one's economy than the loss of a single Kodiak. Also, gameplay comes to issue. Are you playing against AI, or human players? Remember, almost everything of everyone is OP against the AI, except Brutal China, which needs a little bit more force than the others. Crusaders will not become redundant because they can hover and Paladin can't. Battle master would not become redundant because they are almost 2-3 times faster than an overlord. Scorpion wouldn't become redundant because they have hit and run rockets but Marader doesn't, Leopard wouldn't become redundant as it can kill infantry with it's shot gun and has a rotating turret as opposed to the tank destroyer which is considerably slower. BUT Kodiak on the other hand can not hower, is as slow as Golem (just that the Kodiak is slightly faster in taking turns and rotating it's barrel), neither has missiles and has worse anti infantry weapons when compared to Golem (which will get 2 extra machine guns in 1.85). In other words Kodiak is just a subset of Golem in terms of its attributes whereas MBTs of other factions I mentioned are not the subsets of their superior version, they do have some uniqueness to keep them viable in the late and mid game as well. That is why I said Kodiak becomes redundant and hence should be bolstered with some kind of rocket (after an upgrade) or speed or some countermeasures different than Golem or a more effective anti infantry gun or weapon compared to Golem. With the advent of anti aircraft guns and the Shtora-2 countermeasure, Golem would only steal the show for that 500 extra buck which is much more than worth it! |
|
|
9 May 2014, 11:32
Post
#16
|
|
Orcinius Genocidalus Group: Members Posts: 2428 Joined: 11 July 2012 From: North Vancouver Member No.: 9223 No, you move. |
Smoke
-------------------- |
|
|
9 May 2014, 11:54
Post
#17
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1863 Joined: 17 April 2012 Member No.: 9081 |
Faction supply gather rate is generally similar, if you do proper supply positioning. Simpliest way - get a friend, get same amount of $$$ in Kodiaks for you and Battlemasters for him. Use focus fire, i.e. manually make all your units engage same target at once, killing enemy one by one. Same for him. Like you'd do in actual PvP game. Do tests through various tiers, without upgrades, with tier 1 upgrades, with tier 2 full upgrades. Preferably with no less than ~5000$ worth of tanks for each side. I thought one on one...According to your logic Kodiak is then worthless piece of shit. One on one only Leopard can be even with Kodiak,an that is because it will shoot first due to range of its gun. But I cannot see any other tank winning,I don't know how fully upgraded Bombardment Crusader would do tho, but I am pretty sure how Kodiak would win against most of them.Oh yeah there is also a very useful smoke launcher, which can give Kodiak one more priceless second if properly managed to shot first while enemy tanks is occupied with shooting at decoy. |
|
|
9 May 2014, 12:24
Post
#18
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 125 Joined: 24 November 2013 From: Bangkok, Thailand Member No.: 10201 |
Crusaders will not become redundant because they can hover and Paladin can't. Battle master would not become redundant because they are almost 2-3 times faster than an overlord. Scorpion wouldn't become redundant because they have hit and run rockets but Marader doesn't, Leopard wouldn't become redundant as it can kill infantry with it's shot gun and has a rotating turret as opposed to the tank destroyer which is considerably slower. BUT Kodiak on the other hand can not hower, is as slow as Golem (just that the Kodiak is slightly faster in taking turns and rotating it's barrel), neither has missiles and has worse anti infantry weapons when compared to Golem (which will get 2 extra machine guns in 1.85). In other words Kodiak is just a subset of Golem in terms of its attributes whereas MBTs of other factions I mentioned are not the subsets of their superior version, they do have some uniqueness to keep them viable in the late and mid game as well. That is why I said Kodiak becomes redundant and hence should be bolstered with some kind of rocket (after an upgrade) or speed or some countermeasures different than Golem or a more effective anti infantry gun or weapon compared to Golem. With the advent of anti aircraft guns and the Shtora-2 countermeasure, Golem would only steal the show for that 500 extra buck which is much more than worth it! Kodiak have a lot of firepower. It just comparable as Paladin since both of them are slow and tough for battle tanks. The reason is Paladin seems better is just it have laser point and maybe slightly more firepower than Kodiak. If Kodiak got speed same as Scorpion, It would be somehow Overpowered. |
|
|
9 May 2014, 12:45
Post
#19
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1863 Joined: 17 April 2012 Member No.: 9081 |
Crusaders will not become redundant because they can hover and Paladin can't. Battle master would not become redundant because they are almost 2-3 times faster than an overlord. Scorpion wouldn't become redundant because they have hit and run rockets but Marader doesn't, Leopard wouldn't become redundant as it can kill infantry with it's shot gun and has a rotating turret as opposed to the tank destroyer which is considerably slower. BUT Kodiak on the other hand can not hower, is as slow as Golem (just that the Kodiak is slightly faster in taking turns and rotating it's barrel), neither has missiles and has worse anti infantry weapons when compared to Golem (which will get 2 extra machine guns in 1.85). In other words Kodiak is just a subset of Golem in terms of its attributes whereas MBTs of other factions I mentioned are not the subsets of their superior version, they do have some uniqueness to keep them viable in the late and mid game as well. That is why I said Kodiak becomes redundant and hence should be bolstered with some kind of rocket (after an upgrade) or speed or some countermeasures different than Golem or a more effective anti infantry gun or weapon compared to Golem. With the advent of anti aircraft guns and the Shtora-2 countermeasure, Golem would only steal the show for that 500 extra buck which is much more than worth it! Alexandr gets Golem,other generals get Sentinels,Alexandr gets unique unrevealed MBT,other generals get Kodiaks. version we are playing is still beta and current roster is stacked with all kind of units that will be clustered to each general when final version come out. So this rant of yours pretty much doesn't lead anywhere,I mean who got away with intrusive suggesting of something that actually does't have too much sense in the first place ? |
|
|
9 May 2014, 12:49
Post
#20
|
|
Army - group of people who fix diplomatic mistakes. Group: Tester Posts: 148 Joined: 18 April 2010 Member No.: 944 |
I thought one on one...According to your logic Kodiak is then worthless piece of shit. One on one only Leopard can be even with Kodiak,an that is because it will shoot first due to range of its gun. But I cannot see any other tank winning,I don't know how fully upgraded Bombardment Crusader would do tho, but I am pretty sure how Kodiak would win against most of them.Oh yeah there is also a very useful smoke launcher, which can give Kodiak one more priceless second if properly managed to shot first while enemy tanks is occupied with shooting at decoy. And then what is the cost of the single Kodiak and single Battlemaster? If we're comparing these tanks from 1.802 version, so 5 BMs will beat the crap out of 3 Kodiaks. And the situation is getting worse with tier progression, Mass Production and ERA don't change overall situation. And by the way, Crusaders and much more cost effective than Paladins in 1.802. -------------------- |
|
|
9 May 2014, 12:56
Post
#21
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1863 Joined: 17 April 2012 Member No.: 9081 |
And then what is the cost of the single Kodiak and single Battlemaster? If we're comparing these tanks from 1.802 version, so 5 BMs will beat the crap out of 3 Kodiaks. And the situation is getting worse with tier progression, Mass Production and ERA don't change overall situation. And by the way, Crusaders and much more cost effective than Paladins in 1.802. One on one... |
|
|
9 May 2014, 13:15
Post
#22
|
|
Army - group of people who fix diplomatic mistakes. Group: Tester Posts: 148 Joined: 18 April 2010 Member No.: 944 |
1300 credits tank against 700 credits tanks?
Oh, and by the way, when they both fully upgraded and BM gets propaganda from somewhere, it annihilates Kodiak. Just ONE BM. Cost effective? -------------------- |
|
|
9 May 2014, 13:19
Post
#23
|
|
Group: Tester Posts: 1833 Joined: 29 May 2012 Member No.: 9155 |
I thought one on one...According to your logic Kodiak is then worthless piece of shit. Well...I wouldn't be that harsh, no. It could be used, on a very, very limited scale. As a punching bag at tier 0 against factions like GLA. But yes, Cost-efficiency is the main factor here, because gathering rates are same, and players are forced to operate with same amount of cash. You got 10.000$, he got 10.000$ - but you have Kodiaks and he got Battlemasters. ...otherwise, you'll easily reach a point saying Overlords are better than battlemasters for tank to tank combat, because they kill battlemasters 1 on 1. This post has been edited by Knjaz.: 9 May 2014, 13:29 |
|
|
9 May 2014, 14:25
Post
#24
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 1863 Joined: 17 April 2012 Member No.: 9081 |
1300 credits tank against 700 credits tanks? Oh, and by the way, when they both fully upgraded and BM gets propaganda from somewhere, it annihilates Kodiak. Just ONE BM. Cost effective? Price wise,Kodiak price is absurd,no matter fact that RF is supposed to be expensive,1300 for MBT is too much, Oh, and by the way, when you have fully upgraded Kodiak and get Hind assisting it from somewhere it annihilates Battlemaster.Just one Kodiak. Well...I wouldn't be that harsh, no. It could be used, on a very, very limited scale. As a punching bag at tier 0 against factions like GLA. But yes, Cost-efficiency is the main factor here, because gathering rates are same, and players are forced to operate with same amount of cash. You got 10.000$, he got 10.000$ - but you have Kodiaks and he got Battlemasters. ...otherwise, you'll easily reach a point saying Overlords are better than battlemasters for tank to tank combat, because they kill battlemasters 1 on 1. Seems we have different reasoning of what is better,so if we keep up at this pace then this will be a long day. No,since Overlord is not a MBT. |
|
|
9 May 2014, 14:30
Post
#25
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 508 Joined: 1 March 2014 Member No.: 10323 |
And then what is the cost of the single Kodiak and single Battlemaster? If we're comparing these tanks from 1.802 version, so 5 BMs will beat the crap out of 3 Kodiaks. And the situation is getting worse with tier progression, Mass Production and ERA don't change overall situation. And by the way, Crusaders and much more cost effective than Paladins in 1.802. 1300 credits tank against 700 credits tanks? Oh, and by the way, when they both fully upgraded and BM gets propaganda from somewhere, it annihilates Kodiak. Just ONE BM. Cost effective? It seems the Kodiak is virtually powerful since it defeats 1v1 any other MBT. This might win you a battle or two but you might probably loose the war against other faction, especially China, as the victory depends also on cost of production and that is where Kodiak lacks by far. It is VERY cost inefficient (as flagrantly opposed to reality! Anyways, you guys don't bother about that ). Not to mention the tier upgrades on both sides only further aggravates the situation for Kodiak! And this is another reason why the developers might want to reconsider revamping this thing up a bit. This post has been edited by Kazan: 9 May 2014, 14:31 |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25 April 2024 - 0:49 |