[UKF] Sticky Gammon bomb

#1
2 years ago

Noticed in the patch notes that the Penals are getting a sticky AT satchel with their PTRS's today.
The purpose of the sticky AT satchel charges is to give late-game Penal squads to thwart enemy tanks manoeuvring to crush them.

As a consequence, the long fuse time of the satchel charge, combined with the short range can cause a high number of fatalities on the assaulting squad.

Gains Sticky AT Satchel ability with PTRS upgrade.
Sticky AT Satchel
Deals 240 Damage
Causes engine criticals on a smaller radius (1.5)
Guaranteed to cause Engine Damage if the charge “sticks” on the enemy tank
Causes Destroyed Engine critical (Heavy engine damage) at 10% HP or below
Friendly fire damage set to 50%
Anti-tank satchel shares cooldown with vanilla satchel
Affected by munitions cost reduction at Vet3 (from 45 munitions to 35 munitions)

Why can't the same be applied to the, historically, sticky Gammon bombs? Given how they are probably the least useful Hammer upgrade.

Comments

  • #2
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    I see no issue with this. My only thought is both this and the sticky satchel may need a damage decrease to 120 for a few reasons.

    One - it's on what can be rather prolific and hard to kill infantry in both cases

    two (in the case of Penals this only applies to team games w/Brits) having the various stuns and snares - in particular the Tulip rockets, would make it far too easy for a regular infantry squad to close in on a heavy vehicle and spam these bombs at it. This in and of itself isn't a problem as long as they don't do too much damage (hence the suggestion to put them to 120). I would assume that when making this change to the Gammon bomb, we would remove the temporary crit tables and replace them with the AT satchels crits.

    Third and this is getting more specific to Brits, the squad can have this weapon and still be an AI specialist with double Brens. Again on their own that's not a huge deal - just don't hug them, BUT if you're able to chain it with a stun from a Tulip or even the new treadbreaker from the AEC, you've got an AI specialist that can also nuke tanks with little counter play.

    I wouldn't explicitly go straight for the 120 damage nerf, I would like to see how tactics and strategies start to cope with this new threat but if we're finding the (changed) Gammon/AT Satchel is too strong that's the first thing I'd try before we abandon the idea.

  • #3
    2 years ago
    Great analysis @lazarus im actually pretty excited to try a combo of ram and AT satchel for the lels of it (take THAT kuble!)

    But yea, i agree with Laz here, the flexibility of brit infantry on top of the various effects they have could be very bad...
  • #4
    2 years ago

    @Lazarus said:
    I see no issue with this. My only thought is both this and the sticky satchel may need a damage decrease to 120 for a few reasons.

    One - it's on what can be rather prolific and hard to kill infantry in both cases

    two (in the case of Penals this only applies to team games w/Brits) having the various stuns and snares - in particular the Tulip rockets, would make it far too easy for a regular infantry squad to close in on a heavy vehicle and spam these bombs at it. This in and of itself isn't a problem as long as they don't do too much damage (hence the suggestion to put them to 120). I would assume that when making this change to the Gammon bomb, we would remove the temporary crit tables and replace them with the AT satchels crits.

    Third and this is getting more specific to Brits, the squad can have this weapon and still be an AI specialist with double Brens. Again on their own that's not a huge deal - just don't hug them, BUT if you're able to chain it with a stun from a Tulip or even the new treadbreaker from the AEC, you've got an AI specialist that can also nuke tanks with little counter play.

    I wouldn't explicitly go straight for the 120 damage nerf, I would like to see how tactics and strategies start to cope with this new threat but if we're finding the (changed) Gammon/AT Satchel is too strong that's the first thing I'd try before we abandon the idea.

    Maybe. Remember that the Gammon as it stands has a pretty hefty price (75 muni), does 200 damage and has an incredibly short range, so short that the squad is probably gonna have to retreat as soon as the Gammon is thrown. Plus the 4 second timer is enough time for the stuck tank to retreat, unless it has already been immobilised.

  • #5
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited December 2016

    @Lazarus
    I see no issue with this. My only thought is both this and the sticky satchel may need a damage decrease to 120 for a few reasons.

    One - it's on what can be rather prolific and hard to kill infantry in both cases

    The fuse combined with the short range leads me to believe 120 is a bit low. Maybe 240 is too much, but I don't think cutting it in half is the solution. Maybe 160 like a standard AT shot. I was messing around with the AT satchel yesterday and it does require some great planning to pull off (keep in mind this was against an expert CPU, which is traditionally far worse at microing single units than your average player).

    There's also the fact that Penals become somewhat un-prolific when upgraded to ptrs. As cool as this AT satchel is, I'm still finding it weird to sacrifice AI on a penal squad. It's a complete flip-flop of their purpose, and unless you get really good at landing successful AT sticky hit, I'd find the upgrade to be a waste of the squad.

  • #6
    2 years ago
    Mr_SmithMr_Smith Posts: 343

    One day, we will add stickiness to heavy gammon bomb.

    However, this day will not come until Tommies and Comet enter the scope. That's mostly because we do not want to make Hammer even more of a no-brainer choice than what it already is.

    Lazarus has summed up all the reasons pretty much.

    The only thing I would venture a guess is that a high-damage for the PTRS Penals will be OKish, since they won't be able to harm anything else much, either way.

  • #7
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    @Mr_Smith said:
    One day, we will add stickiness to heavy gammon bomb.

    However, this day will not come until Tommies and Comet enter the scope. That's mostly because we do not want to make Hammer even more of a no-brainer choice than what it already is.

    Lazarus has summed up all the reasons pretty much.

    The only thing I would venture a guess is that a high-damage for the PTRS Penals will be OKish, since they won't be able to harm anything else much, either way.

    Absolutely. As I say I'd much rather we tough it out at 240 damage and see what happens. There have been a few times in balance history where we've had a decent change thrown out because it was "different" and perceived as OP - only because nobody had yet developed a skill set to fight the change. I'm quite certain none of the volunteers are giving up on it so easily, but I've more voiced the sentiment for the other community members who may be struggling with the satchel and perceiving it as OP to remind them there are options for balancing this feature that don't involve completely removing it.

  • #8
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,592

    @Mr_Smith said:
    One day, we will add stickiness to heavy gammon bomb.

    However, this day will not come until Tommies and Comet enter the scope. That's mostly because we do not want to make Hammer even more of a no-brainer choice than what it already is.

    I just hope that'll mean giving new sneakers to the anvil so you don't trip by going that way instead of breaking legs on the hammer.

  • #9
    2 years ago
    GrittleGrittle Posts: 993

    @Katitof said:

    @Mr_Smith said:
    One day, we will add stickiness to heavy gammon bomb.

    However, this day will not come until Tommies and Comet enter the scope. That's mostly because we do not want to make Hammer even more of a no-brainer choice than what it already is.

    I just hope that'll mean giving new sneakers to the anvil so you don't trip by going that way instead of breaking legs on the hammer.

    I love your puns, I can sense your smug through the internet

    On topic, I disagree.

    Double Bren Double Fun infantry are already a pain to deal with at times. also giving them the potential to also dish out burst AT too would put them over the edge from "Annoying but counterable" to "Actually Overpowered".

    Think of the volk shreck blobs, but with double lmgs and the option to fire a panzershreck at close range.

  • #10
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017
    edited December 2016
    @Grittle supposing the Anvil simply unlocked an upgrade that took up a weapon slot but enabled Gammon bombs? Hell maybe even roll it all in with the pyro upgrade.

    Thoughts? Feelings? Psychological hang ups?
  • #11
    2 years ago
    GrittleGrittle Posts: 993

    @Lazarus said:
    @Grittle supposing the Anvil simply unlocked an upgrade that took up a weapon slot but enabled Gammon bombs? Hell maybe even roll it all in with the pyro upgrade.

    Thoughts? Feelings? Psychological hang ups?

    you know as well as I do that relic won't do that

    even then, I still stand by my decision. IS are currently have no nondoctrinal AT snare for good reason. its a necessary weakness for the faction. Like OKW and lack of generalist tanks

    However, putting it in the pyro upgrade would give incentives to not give medkits to every squad....

  • #12
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,592

    @Grittle said:

    @Katitof said:

    @Mr_Smith said:
    One day, we will add stickiness to heavy gammon bomb.

    However, this day will not come until Tommies and Comet enter the scope. That's mostly because we do not want to make Hammer even more of a no-brainer choice than what it already is.

    I just hope that'll mean giving new sneakers to the anvil so you don't trip by going that way instead of breaking legs on the hammer.

    I love your puns, I can sense your smug through the internet

    On topic, I disagree.

    Double Bren Double Fun infantry are already a pain to deal with at times. also giving them the potential to also dish out burst AT too would put them over the edge from "Annoying but counterable" to "Actually Overpowered".

    Think of the volk shreck blobs, but with double lmgs and the option to fire a panzershreck at close range.

    Just keep in mind that specific burst AT is barely usable and I would go as far as saying that PIATs are incomparably better right now then whatever could be done to that brit overpriced satchel. Even if it was sticky, PIATs are so much more viable in the winter mod it'll easily render all kind of unreliable, gimmicky options irrelevant in comparison.

  • #13
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721

    Gammon bomb also stun vehicles, that will have to be removed it they become "sticky"...

  • #14
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,592

    @Vipper said:
    Gammon bomb also stun vehicles, that will have to be removed it they become "sticky"...

    You don't know that.
    Let me remind you that gammon bomb costs considerably more then riggel/M20 mine which both have far more damage and immobilize.

  • #15
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,982
    Are you seriously comparing a mine, which has a build time and requires the vehicle in question to actually drive over it with a thrown explosive? Wat.
  • #16
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,592

    @Hingie said:
    Are you seriously comparing a mine, which has a build time and requires the vehicle in question to actually drive over it with a thrown explosive? Wat.

    Are we pretend that using gammon bomb doesn't have 3 sec throw time, requires opponent to drive and STAY next to your tommies and has long fuse, pretty much requiring the vehicle in question to drive over that thrown explosive willingly?

  • #17
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,982
    No matter from which cyclopean angle you look at it, the gammon bomb is not comparable to a mine. As hard as it might be to make a vehicle get hit by one, I have yet to see someone drive a half track around the enemy and lay a mine next to a tank and actually pull it off. The Gammon Bomb is NOT a mine, especially if it's made sticky. In that case, as Vipper said, it would have to lose the stun. Because I have yet to see a homing, sticky mine.
  • #18
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,592

    Sure, you're right.
    There is a HUUUUGE difference between mine and gammon bomb.

    That difference is-mines are actually usable and do their job. Gammon bomb is literal throw of 75 muni.

    If it lost stun, it would also have to lose 40 off the muni cost.

  • #19
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,982
    Are you even reading what people are writing? IF it's made STICKY THEN it should lose the stun. For someone who regularly talks about how people have thick skulls you yourself seem to have one made of Osmium.
  • #20
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,592

    Are you?

    If its made sticky and would lose stun, it would have to cost as much as satchel, which it would effectively be(stop screaming like a baby for a second and go read winter balance notes perhaps?).

    I know Tiger tank is your patronus, but its pointless to be equally dense as it is.

  • #21
    2 years ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,982
    edited December 2016
    I can only read what is written. And you in no way mentioned the stickiness before while talking about its price. All you did was whine about how the gammon bomb should get cheaper if it loses the stun, paying 0 mind to the other circumstances. And I for one very much believe that making it sticky is a buff strong enough to warrant it losing its stun while keeping it's price.
  • #22
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @Katitof I have to agree with Hingie, Tommies are already top of the food chain in terms of mainline infantry, especially after the rifle nerfs. That is justified by their lack of utility, and namely AT snare.

    Gammon bombs may be late game, but granting them the ability to not only threaten all but vet 5 obers and then stun tanks would put them over the edge.

    A fair compromise maybe to wound the gunner of the tank so it can't fire for a certain period, but a full on stun would be unfair even with the risks of getting close to a tank.

  • #23
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,592

    @Farra13 said:
    @Katitof I have to agree with Hingie, Tommies are already top of the food chain in terms of mainline infantry, especially after the rifle nerfs. That is justified by their lack of utility, and namely AT snare.

    Gammon bombs may be late game, but granting them the ability to not only threaten all but vet 5 obers and then stun tanks would put them over the edge.

    A fair compromise maybe to wound the gunner of the tank so it can't fire for a certain period, but a full on stun would be unfair even with the risks of getting close to a tank.

    Have you played winter balance mod?
    I strongly suggest you do and try to effectively use penal satchel vs actual human player. KT and super heavies are about the only vehicle you can actually use it against without them already being engine broken. UKF can't engine crit outside of super hipster unit or mine.

    You two are strongly confused between what "sticky" and "homing" means. They are not synonymous.

  • #24
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited December 2016

    i have no idea how many times ive advocated AT capabilities for tier 1.

    the fact its finally here makes me so happy. though, i suggested a 45 mm. AT gun there. or PTRS for conscripts stock.

    so many threads ive made. so many comments.

  • #25
    2 years ago

    i dont think the gammon would need to lose the stun if made sticky, it IS 75mu and DOES have a long throw s well. it IS only a stun, something a couple of vetted axis units can do for cheaper than 75 mu and far more consistently (note, this is NOT an "axis have it why cant the allies!" comment, just commenting that stuns already exist and for cheaper)

  • #26
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited December 2016

    @Beardedragon said:
    i have no idea how many times ive advocated AT capabilities for tier 1.

    the fact its finally here makes me so happy. though, i suggested a 45 mm. AT gun there.

    What I don't get is why it took so long. Months ago they realized it was a good idea to add soft AT to the .50 cal because LT left you lacking in the light-vehicle fighting department (and they already had the flak-halftrack, which can kill just about anything below a luchs). So how'd adding AT to a tier that gives you snipers, scout cars, and penals go overlooked?

    I must say I'm rather disappointed about penals. This sticky charge is cool, but it feels awfully lazy of relic to leave penals useless for years, finally buff them, and then decide they're too much and scrap their flamer entirely.

  • #27
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited December 2016

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @Beardedragon said:
    i have no idea how many times ive advocated AT capabilities for tier 1.

    the fact its finally here makes me so happy. though, i suggested a 45 mm. AT gun there.

    What I don't get is why it took so long. Months ago they realized it was a good idea to add soft AT to the .50 cal because LT left you lacking in the light-vehicle fighting department (and they already had the flak-halftrack, which can kill just about anything below a luchs). So how'd adding AT to a tier that gives you snipers, scout cars, and penals go overlooked?

    I must say I'm rather disappointed about penals. This sticky charge is cool, but it feels awfully lazy of relic to leave penals useless for years, finally buff them, and then decide they're too much and scrap their flamer entirely.

    well the penals still work. if im not wrong i read they buffed their long range combat or so to deal with enemies. so basically they're mirroring panzergrens or the idea behind them. (im sad about the flamers too though, but i havent played the mod, so they better make up for it by being buffed if they havent already).

    you have AI infantry normally, but can turn them into AT infantry if you want.

    but i dont know why it took them long. i do have ideas though.

    they can only work on X amount of things at a time, and early game AT probably werent the first thing on their mind in the previous balance update that came out some months ago. next to that, it took them forever to agree to the fact that having a faction be commander dependant was a shitty ass idea. you could literally not go tier 1 to 3 without having guards troops or the 45 mm AT gun otherwise you would get Luch/flamer HT/222 rushed and would lose.

    soviets have always had a shitty teching structure thats been redone a couple of times, and the penals have been left in the dirt as you said for a long time (then they became good and all and now we're here). i personally still find this structure of teching retarded, because while you get reasonable infantry in tier 1 (basically what you need to even remotely match axis infantry) you are completely left out on vital things, like AT guns, MGs and freaking mortars.

    i think its difficult for relic to figure out, the proper way to make the soviets, both teching structure, and which units needs buffs etc. like, lets take the conscripts for a moment. sure they're even with grens that are unupgraded, but once they are upgraded, they're out matched. they're also out matched by regular volks. they basically stand no chance against anything in the late game, yet what makes them even remotely useful (molotov/AT bomb) still comes in 2 seperate expensive upgrades.

    Relic probably dont want to change too much too drastically in order not to screw up. besides there are several factions they all need some love one way or the other.

    but yes i agree im slight frustrated, or rather i was, that it took this long for them to figure out, that soviet tier 1 was retarded for not having ANY AT at all.

    i dont hope they're done though. lots still needs doing for the soviets.

  • #28
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    i dont think the gammon would need to lose the stun if made sticky, it IS 75mu and DOES have a long throw s well. it IS only a stun, ...

    Actually it is an 8 secs immobilize which is one of the longest duration stuns...

  • #29
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    i dont think the gammon would need to lose the stun if made sticky, it IS 75mu and DOES have a long throw s well. it IS only a stun, something a couple of vetted axis units can do for cheaper than 75 mu and far more consistently (note, this is NOT an "axis have it why cant the allies!" comment, just commenting that stuns already exist and for cheaper)

    The only reason I mentioned gutting the stun is because I'm under the impression it'll do engine damage like the Penal variant.

  • #30
    2 years ago
    GrittleGrittle Posts: 993
    edited December 2016

    @Beardedragon said:
    i have no idea how many times ive advocated AT capabilities for tier 1.

    the fact its finally here makes me so happy. though, i suggested a 45 mm. AT gun there. or PTRS for conscripts stock.

    so many threads ive made. so many comments.

    Trust me

    you have no idea how many ideas I have churned through

    Hit the Dirt as vet, WC51 buffs, command reworks and buffs....

    Heck, I even made an entire faction concept just incase relic did a 3rd axis faction

    @Beardedragon said:
    you have AI infantry normally, but can turn them into AT infantry if you want.

    I know you never said anything about sticky gammons, but I want to add this in

    Penals =/= IS

    Penals are purely offensive anti garrison from the start and, with this possible update, able to transition into dedicated defensive AT.

    IS are essentially Cover-Happy 5-men grenadiers with the flexibility of riflemen and can be further augmented to provide anti-garrison duty and, if idea goes through, able to tackle many different types of targets, both fast and slow, soft or armored.

  • #31
    2 years ago
    BeardedragonBeardedra… Posts: 1,495
    edited December 2016

    @Grittle said:

    @Beardedragon said:
    i have no idea how many times ive advocated AT capabilities for tier 1.

    the fact its finally here makes me so happy. though, i suggested a 45 mm. AT gun there. or PTRS for conscripts stock.

    so many threads ive made. so many comments.

    Trust me

    you have no idea how many ideas I have churned through

    Hit the Dirt as vet, WC51 buffs, command reworks and buffs....

    Heck, I even made an entire faction concept just incase relic did a 3rd axis faction

    @Beardedragon said:
    you have AI infantry normally, but can turn them into AT infantry if you want.

    I know you never said anything about sticky gammons, but I want to add this in

    Penals =/= IS

    Penals are purely offensive anti garrison from the start and, with this possible update, able to transition into dedicated defensive AT.

    IS are essentially Cover-Happy 5-men grenadiers with the flexibility of riflemen and can be further augmented to provide anti-garrison duty and, if idea goes through, able to tackle many different types of targets, both fast and slow, soft or armored.

    well yea thats what i mean.

    Penals with the winter mod are like panzergrenaiders.
    AI infantry with that purpose only, except if you want you now have the chance to turn them in to AT infantry with PTRS, where Panzergrens gets shreks instead.

    before the mod, they were anti infantry/anti garrison. that is true except they now dont have any flamethrowers anymore.

    i havent tried them winter mod yet but the sticky bomb thingie sounds fun. and cool.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.