Login

russian armor

State of Heavies

PAGES (7)down
14 Jan 2020, 17:55 PM
#81
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Jan 2020, 17:47 PMLago


Can you CP lock a buildable unit? If not, that's one explanation.


I think Sanders explained this already. It's not possible to have buildable units come at a certain CP. But I am not 100% sure if I remember correctly. It would certainly explain why all the tech-locked buildable vehicles come with 0 CP requirement.
14 Jan 2020, 18:04 PM
#82
avatar of Mazianni

Posts: 785

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Jan 2020, 17:47 PMLago


Can you CP lock a buildable unit? If not, that's one explanation.


I'm pretty sure I've seen mods do it. Otherwise it could always be unlocked by a passive ability that unlocks and activates at the CP.
14 Jan 2020, 18:26 PM
#83
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Jan 2020, 10:38 AMVipper
The problem is complex for a number of reason:
1) Commanders
Suggestion: one has to balance commanders so that if they have a good ability like a Super heavy tank the rest of their abilities should be UP so that the total power level of all commander abilities could be brought to about the same power level.


Somehow missed that entire page so I didn't see this post. Couldn't agree more with this idea. I think cmrds like lightning war, Heavy Cav, Shock Rifle etc. are too loaded with good abilities

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Jan 2020, 10:38 AMVipper

2) Timing
Their timing is simply too early since the arrive slightly later than mediums tank while completely nullifying them.


Suggestion:
Delay arrival. That can be achieved by:
Increasing the CP and adjusting passive CP gain in bigger MOD so that all doctrinal abilities become available around the same time.

Add a research "tech" similar to BP for them (requiring resources or not) with a long research timer acting more as delay than an actual tech restriction. The same "tech" could be used to delay the replacement of the unit once it was lost so that player would need to research it again.


Like this idea a lot

The other points I think are directly related to these two. I'm more okay with the all-around performance of heavies right now.

Imo the problem is they just happen to be on commanders that have other great stuff, AND they arrive too early. Both of your above suggestions address exactly that, Id like to see where heavies are at if those two things are looked at first
14 Jan 2020, 18:58 PM
#84
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474



Somehow missed that entire page so I didn't see this post. Couldn't agree more with this idea. I think cmrds like lightning war, Heavy Cav, Shock Rifle etc. are too loaded with good abilities

guess why, I give u an hint, they did not came with the factions
14 Jan 2020, 19:25 PM
#85
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1217

Not going to read 5 pages of text, so I don't know whether it has been brought up.

But let's not forget that Osth is dependant on the Tiger crutch to even be able to compete lategame. A heavy nerf would have to be combined with a T4 buff for Ost.

In general I feel like allied heavies are way more survivable than the German ones. That is due to allied heavies having more rear armor through the bank and allied tds having more pen. This issue shouldn't be ignored.
14 Jan 2020, 19:29 PM
#86
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

guess why, I give u an hint, they did not came with the factions


Did I ask why? Pretty sure it has more to do with their roster. The new commanders they just added don't see much use besides Grand offensive...

Most commanders that are OP on arrival are dealt with, see Windustry, Elite Troops, CAS doctrine, etc. The newer

Shock Rifle, lightning war, heavy Cav have been in the game for some time now and no serious nerfs. There's clearly more than that going on
14 Jan 2020, 19:32 PM
#87
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Jan 2020, 19:25 PMButcher
Not going to read 5 pages of text, so I don't know whether it has been brought up.

But let's not forget that Osth is dependant on the Tiger crutch to even be able to compete lategame. A heavy nerf would have to be combined with a T4 buff for Ost.

In general I feel like allied heavies are way more survivable than the German ones. That is due to allied heavies having more rear armor through the bank and allied tds having more pen. This issue shouldn't be ignored.

Ah yes the incredibly OP heavy rear armor.
14 Jan 2020, 19:33 PM
#88
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

Heavy cav was ways picked after its introduction, I don't remember a tournament without it

Lighting a bit less , but then they reworked everything in the doc
14 Jan 2020, 19:35 PM
#89
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

Heavy cav was ways picked after its introduction, I don't remember a tournament without it


I don't disagree, I said there's more going on than just not being in the game originally

The new commanders they just added weren't in the original game, most of them got barely used in the tournament except Grand offensive
14 Jan 2020, 19:42 PM
#90
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1217


Ah yes the incredibly OP heavy rear armor.
Panzer IV shots bouncing while flanking IS-2s, KVs, ISUs or Churchills is a common thing.
14 Jan 2020, 19:54 PM
#91
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Jan 2020, 19:42 PMButcher
Panzer IV shots bouncing while flanking IS-2s, KVs, ISUs or Churchills is a common thing.


Agree, that should have been patched a while ago. Not sure why some Allied heavies still have such high rear armour values. But I guess it wasn't considered important enough to warrant attention.
14 Jan 2020, 20:26 PM
#92
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

No matter what the balance team do for heavy tanks nobody will be satisfied. At first, the heavy tanks came in very late due to high CP requirements which impacted 1 v 1 and 2 v 2 players. Then we changed the CP requirement again and now they come super early along with fast tech.
14 Jan 2020, 20:33 PM
#93
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

No matter what the balance team do for heavy tanks nobody will be satisfied. At first, the heavy tanks came in very late due to high CP requirements which impacted 1 v 1 and 2 v 2 players. Then we changed the CP requirement again and now they come super early along with fast tech.

Agreed, but thats why balance its not a matter of taste but rather tight designs.
Heavies in CoH are a doctrinal exclusivity, roughly speaking, there are some that replace mediums, others are specialized tanks hunters and others are meat shields. Its a big diversity of roles to be fullfiled by heavies. All of them have an elite version of a specific role.

People will be satisfied if the heavy tank design is coherent, balanced and pruposeful, regardless of those people that dont understand it or want it their way. This is a harsh statement but a solution to a endless debate about tanks, heavies and TDs.
14 Jan 2020, 20:47 PM
#94
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Jan 2020, 19:42 PMButcher
Panzer IV shots bouncing while flanking IS-2s, KVs, ISUs or Churchills is a common thing.
Agree, that should have been patched a while ago. Not sure why some Allied heavies still have such high rear armour values. But I guess it wasn't considered important enough to warrant attention.



The IS-2 has 140 rear armor;
The KV-2 has 120 rear armor;
The Pershing has 110 rear armor;
The Churchills all have 180 rear armor.

The Tiger I has 140 rear armor;
The Tiger II has 150 rear armor.

All stock mediums, both Axis and Allies, have 100-150 pen (except the T-34-76 which has only 80 far range pen). Allied mediums generally have slightly more close range pen while the Panzer IVs have better long range pen. There is no real discrepancy in rear armor protection between Axis and Allied heavies here, with the exception of the Churchills, but they are somewhat subpar heavies for whom all-round durability (a trade-off for being god awful slow) is one of their perks.


There is a noticeable difference between the ISU-152 (155 rear armor) and the Elefant/Jagdtiger (both 110 rear armor), but that isn't really that odd considering their roles and because of the heavy TDs' much higher frontal protection. And the ISU-152 hasn't been a real problem for years.
14 Jan 2020, 21:10 PM
#95
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1




The IS-2 has 140 rear armor;
The KV-2 has 120 rear armor;
The Pershing has 110 rear armor;
The Churchills all have 180 rear armor.

The Tiger I has 140 rear armor;
The Tiger II has 150 rear armor.



The KV2 has 180 rear armour too, not sure why you wrote 120. Was it nerfed recently?
You also forgot the KV1 at 165 which is also pretty high and KV8 at 145.
Also that makes the AVRE, regular Churchill and Crocodile all have 180 rear armor.

Seems a bit too much IMO. 155 rear armour on the ISU isn't really needed either considering you will have to flank it unless you have Elefant on the field. I don't really think a flanking P4 should bounce point blank shots against the rear armour of an ISU when the whole point of the unit is to flank it in order to get it killed.
14 Jan 2020, 21:21 PM
#97
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

The KV2 has 180 rear armour too, not sure why you wrote 120. Was it nerfed recently?

You also forgot the KV1 at 165 which is also pretty high and KV8 at 145.


The KV-2's rear armor was changed to 120 in the Commanders Revamp Patch when the unit received a small overhaul.

I didn't mention the KV-1 and the KV-8 because they have vastly different roles. The KV-1 is literally nothing more than a damage sponge, it's supposed to be well protected. The KV-8 can't damage other tanks. I don't think they are very comparable to the mainline heavies that need to have lower rear armor as a weakness because their firepower is easily able to deal with other tanks in a common engagement. And all mainline heavies have comparable rear armor versing mediums with comparable penetration.
14 Jan 2020, 22:03 PM
#98
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Agree, that should have been patched a while ago. Not sure why some Allied heavies still have such high rear armour values. But I guess it wasn't considered important enough to warrant attention.

I brought this issue up a couple of year back

https://www.coh2.org/topic/68044/rear-armor-of-some-vehicles-needs-to-be-reduced

only to have to waste my time responding to the usual suspect.

The hood new is that it seem it get the attention eventually so some of the value have been lowered.
15 Jan 2020, 05:51 AM
#99
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Jan 2020, 19:42 PMButcher
Panzer IV shots bouncing while flanking IS-2s, KVs, ISUs or Churchills is a common thing.

Yeah that actually is true.
15 Jan 2020, 06:24 AM
#100
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Jan 2020, 19:42 PMButcher
Panzer IV shots bouncing while flanking IS-2s, KVs, ISUs or Churchills is a common thing.


T-34-76 shots bounce off Brummbar rear armor.
PAGES (7)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

453 users are online: 453 guests
1 post in the last 24h
13 posts in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49972
Welcome our newest member, rockytiki
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM