Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Kazan 8 May 2014, 11:31

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?

Posted by: MARS 8 May 2014, 12:24

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?

Posted by: __CrUsHeR 8 May 2014, 12:28

It would be extremely unbalanced.

Posted by: Knossos 8 May 2014, 12:31

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.

Posted by: Re_Simeone 8 May 2014, 12:33

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.

Posted by: Comr4de 8 May 2014, 16:56

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.

Posted by: Knjaz. 8 May 2014, 17:20

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.

Posted by: X1Destroy 8 May 2014, 17:40

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.

Posted by: Knjaz. 8 May 2014, 17:55

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.

Posted by: TornadoADV 8 May 2014, 21:48

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.

Posted by: Generalcamo 9 May 2014, 1:22

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.

Posted by: Karpath 9 May 2014, 1:58

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.

Posted by: Re_Simeone 9 May 2014, 9:15

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.

Posted by: Knjaz. 9 May 2014, 9:20

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.

Posted by: Kazan 9 May 2014, 10:27

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!

Posted by: Serialkillerwhale 9 May 2014, 11:32

Smoke

Posted by: Re_Simeone 9 May 2014, 11:54

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.

Posted by: NeverLose 9 May 2014, 12:24

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.

Posted by: Re_Simeone 9 May 2014, 12:45

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 ?

Posted by: BliTTzZ 9 May 2014, 12:49

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.

Posted by: Re_Simeone 9 May 2014, 12:56

One on one...

Posted by: BliTTzZ 9 May 2014, 13:15

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?

Posted by: Knjaz. 9 May 2014, 13:19

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.

Posted by: Re_Simeone 9 May 2014, 14:25

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.

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.

Posted by: Kazan 9 May 2014, 14:30

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.

Posted by: Knjaz. 9 May 2014, 14:47

It was somewhat revamped back in December or November 2013, if I'm not mistaken. Yes, that balance issue was, mostly, addressed.



Kodiak is an MBT (main battle tank), but it's not a medium tank. It's in Paladin class actually, design wise - it's a Heavy tank.
So, I wouldn't say 1300 is too much for a Heavy. Just, in this particular case Cost-efficiency got screwed.

Posted by: Jam Hacker 9 May 2014, 16:09

And I thought we all agreed that battlemaster is the best basic tank unit in the entire game.
well. kodiak looks pretty impressive on the stats, but has no particular way to exploit its advantage. and it's expensiveness is it's biggest weakness.
I haven't seen much action of a 1.85 golem, I can tell you how I like it in 1.802:neither it's damage nor armour is proportional to it's price, it has this pretty lame amphibious ability which you don't use most of the time. it feels like a basic tank on steroids, but the price is much worse than even a kodiak, in fact. almost 2

Posted by: Kazan 9 May 2014, 16:53

That's so very true, buddy!

Posted by: gsprn 9 May 2014, 21:13

I think kodiak should have a longer range, like leopard.

Posted by: teslashark 9 May 2014, 21:29

I always thought the BMP is the actual basic tank, at least I spammed far more BMPs against AI USAs.
Golem felt like a meatshield for Tunguskas.

Posted by: Jam Hacker 10 May 2014, 10:30

BMP and tunguska are much more capable compare to other faction's tier zero vehicles, but the way golem is in 1.802 leads me to think that golem is an intermediate tank of Jagdmammut's caliber(which probably is the case) except ECA kinda expect Jagdmammut to play part of the Superheavy role by arming it with a twin gun, since there is only one manticore. and Golem to kodiak is kinda like battlemaster to hopper. the difference is Russia is on the higher end, in another word, golem doesn't feel like anything in the sentinel-overlord's superheavy class, i don't know what major change had been made with respect to golem's HP and damage output, but i defintly dislike the shock division general using the one in 1.802 to replace sentinel. because that way you'll get only a superclass basic tank which lack the weight to accomplish anything that you would otherwise call for a sentinel or overlord for.

Posted by: Knjaz. 10 May 2014, 12:07

They got Shtora in 1.85, as you could see in the Streams.
As for their overall combat efficiency to size ratio (Shtora effects excluded), don't expect changes until 2.0.

Posted by: Karpet 10 May 2014, 13:18

Using your logic, I could say that 1 Kodiak can get support from a RPG trooper or 2, and it annihilates Battlemaster. Just ONE Kodiak.

But, yeah, Kodiak is not cost effective at all in 1.802. I find myself lacking funds after Kodiak production kicks in, for a tank that is very easily outnumbered. Only mass production stops that and all of those other relevant upgrades.

Posted by: Jam Hacker 10 May 2014, 15:55

don't think kodiak need a RPG to overpower a battlemaster though. but how much is a battlemaster+ a speaker tower? well it's worth a kodiak + a conscript as in 1.802, assume he doesn't get run over, BM+speaker tower still sounds better to me though.

Posted by: ☯ Dylan 10 May 2014, 15:56

Now what is this Shtora ?

Posted by: Graion Dilach 10 May 2014, 16:42

"LOOK INTO MY EYES" basically.

Posted by: 8igDaddy8lake 10 May 2014, 21:50

The system that makes it untargetable (directly) for a short time. Which can really turn the tide of a battle, like using smoke grenades to distract defenses.

Posted by: Generalcamo 10 May 2014, 23:35

So now survivability is a Russian mechanic now.. just implemented a different way:

USA: Pilot (Veterancy Transfer), Repair Drones, PDLs, Countermeasures
Russian: Shtora, ARENA, Armour

That is a definite change in faction doctrine. Can't wait to see how it is played in our hands.

Posted by: 8igDaddy8lake 11 May 2014, 2:26

To be honest, every faction has some sort of survivability mechanic going on. China has propaganda + ECM, GLA has junk repair, tunnels, + stealth, and ECA has the Engineers and Combat Medics.

Posted by: The General 11 May 2014, 13:58

Now USA does have too many advantages on the ground for a high-tech airforce faction.
I also think that the main problem with curren Kodiak is the price.

Posted by: Composite armour 11 May 2014, 14:03

USA is supposed to be the decent at everything faction.

Posted by: The General 11 May 2014, 15:02

Now that's kinda unfair, don't you think?


Here's my list starting from the faction with biggest advantage to the faction with the less advantage:

USA is a high-teck faction with the most advanced air force and decent at everything.
ECA is a turtle faction with the best defense, but expensive units.
China is a mass production faction, not realy best at anything but with the strenght in numbers.
Russia is a steamroller, but with expensive units that are good only in big numbers.
GLA is a guerrilla faction, not realy best at anything.

Posted by: Generalcamo 11 May 2014, 16:35

No. A Jack of all Trades is a master of none.

USA needs a LOT of micromanagement to be a master balanced faction, which balances them immensely. China doesn't need any Micromanagement at all really unless you want to be sneaky. GLA needs some micromanagement, but not as much as USA. Russia doesn't need micromanagement, but needs a good macromanagement. And the ECA just needs macromanagement with some micromanagement.



There are severe problems with this list.

USA is decent at everything, yes. See above for why this is balanced.
ECA, pretty much right. But Defences can't be moved easily.
China, strength in numbers, AND special weapons, AND a good economy. That is pretty powerful.
Russia, Late game. Once late game is reached, they become excellent. They really do not need Micromanagement either.
GLA, is best in sneaky tactics. In one moment, nothing is going on. However, the next thing, you see entire cloaked armies sneaking past defences, Mob and Rebel ambushes destroying power plants, and a sneak attack sending an entire force behind the base. That is a huge advantage if you ask me.

Posted by: The General 12 May 2014, 13:39

I dissagree, but let's not shift the topic.