Login

russian armor

COH2 winter balance mod - discussion

PAGES (44)down
4 Feb 2020, 12:45 PM
#641
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1563


Ummm, 800 health at 230 fuel rings a bell?
Then it got panther treatment and cost increase now.

So... Nerf all heavies to 800-960 why not, nerf Panther and Comets HP too. If that in your opinion made Pershing tolerable it would useful for all heavies right.
4 Feb 2020, 12:47 PM
#642
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1794


Ummm, 800 health at 230 fuel rings a bell?
Then it got panther treatment and cost increase now.


I believe Pershing has same health as panther now.

It is criminally under estimated heavy
4 Feb 2020, 12:48 PM
#643
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1563



I believe Pershing has same health as panther now.

It is criminally under estimated heavy

I know m8 i know.
Then Panther, Comet, Pershing all have 960.
4 Feb 2020, 12:51 PM
#644
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1794

Our friend katitof was making stealth edit about pershing health
4 Feb 2020, 12:56 PM
#645
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1563

Our friend katitof was making stealth edit about pershing health

i thought he was talking about the past.
4 Feb 2020, 13:04 PM
#646
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


Its not supposed to go against them, so there is no issue here.
You might have missed it, but no matter how much vipper will argue against it, its anti infantry unit and armor helps against handheld AT tremendously.

Allow me to explain some basic to you because you seem oblivious.

All hand held AT weapons have deflection damage so the armor buff does "helps tremendously". Let me break this down in number so that you understand:

Pre patch/post patch chance to penetrate at range 35:
Ptrs 29%/27%
Bazooka 46%/42%
Piat 46%/42%

Those changes are anything but "tremendous." The impact for these weapons is very small since most of the damage they deal comes from deflection hits and not penetration hits.


Finally stop twisting my posts (in case you simply are incapable of understating stop making comment about them).

I never said that Brumbar is not an anti-infantry unit, I simply correct you description of it as "a pure AI vehicle", a description which fits the hezter better.

I also point out to you that there in rule that says "pure AI vehicle" need to have slow moving projectiles contrary to your claim.
4 Feb 2020, 13:04 PM
#647
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1563

Mod Team think about this
Non doc ELE. Now Let's not loose our marbles. First Listen.

The non-doc ELE start off with Whatever hp the Mod team thinks it's right.
But,
Armor reduced to 270
Pen to 290/265/240
Range to 60
Damage to 240 or 200 whatever seems fair

When Jager Armor or Fortified Armor(or Festung?? both mean the same) is selected the ELE gets a 150 muni upgrade called "Enhanced engineering" or something that gives it,

+50% armor, pen (maybe damage is you think 200 dmg is fair)
+25% damage (if 240 dmg is ok)
+10 Range
+what ever HP makes to current levels.

P.S. When T4 is up acts like the KT call in.
4 Feb 2020, 13:18 PM
#648
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1220

Mod Team think about this
Non doc ELE. Now Let's not loose our marbles. First Listen.

The non-doc ELE start off with Whatever hp the Mod team thinks it's right.
But,
Armor reduced to 270
Pen to 290/265/240
Range to 60
Damage to 240 or 200 whatever seems fair

When Jager Armor or Fortified Armor(or Festung?? both mean the same) is selected the ELE gets a 150 muni upgrade called "Enhanced engineering" or something that gives it,

+50% armor, pen (maybe damage is you think 200 dmg is fair)
+25% damage (if 240 dmg is ok)
+10 Range
+what ever HP makes to current levels.

P.S. When T4 is up acts like the KT call in.
Sounds great
4 Feb 2020, 13:21 PM
#649
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3



A year or so ago, brumbar vet 2 have 320 armor.
What made brumbar viable that period was the aoe change doing more damage.

Of course relic than quickly nerfed it before the anniversary 2v2, by reducing its range 40 to 35. And reduce armor to 240 and armor vet2 to 288.

This change only revert the armor nerf, not fully even.

The loss of its range was and is still making it a tough choice. At least against something like 60td Jackson with vet pen/rof



Except the Brummbar is fine in terms of damage. The main issue is the bad trio of bad range, bad armour and bad mobility, so the armour buff should be enough to allow it to do its job, especially vs enemy army comps that don’t have enough AT power.
4 Feb 2020, 13:35 PM
#650
avatar of Alphrum

Posts: 808

Looking at the changes, the mod team clearly knows ost needs help but are hesitant to buff them, but they dont show these same precautions when buffing allied factions and lack consistency across all factions. I would be happy with these small changes, if it follows with nerfs to certain units like Jackson, so fingers crossed they are looking to nerf some units.

Regarding heavy tanks, they are easily countered in team games, but OP in 1v1's. PPl saying heavies AI needs to be nerfed, if u do that no one is going to build them. CP Delay should be enough, to give the opponent time to prepare.
4 Feb 2020, 13:47 PM
#651
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 1794

Looking at the changes, the mod team clearly knows ost needs help but are hesitant to buff them, but they dont show these same precautions when buffing allied factions and lack consistency across all factions. I would be happy with these small changes, if it follows with nerfs to certain units like Jackson, so fingers crossed they are looking to nerf some units.

Regarding heavy tanks, they are easily countered in team games, but OP in 1v1's. PPl saying heavies AI needs to be nerfed, if u do that no one is going to build them. CP Delay should be enough, to give the opponent time to prepare.


Tigers will be the first to disappear from losing AI.

Late cp = slow vet
No AI = slow vet

60td will return to eat it before AI changes.
4 Feb 2020, 13:52 PM
#652
avatar of Leo251

Posts: 311

Looking at the changes, the mod team clearly knows ost needs help but are hesitant to buff them, but they dont show these same precautions when buffing allied factions and lack consistency across all factions. I would be happy with these small changes, if it follows with nerfs to certain units like Jackson, so fingers crossed they are looking to nerf some units

+1
4 Feb 2020, 13:53 PM
#653
avatar of CreativeName

Posts: 281

Overall i like most of the changes, i dont agree with everything but i wouldnt complain either. Very curious how the Brit changes will play out.

Few notes tho: The patch doesnt adress most of the broken stuff and/or cheese.
WC51 is still way too strong, cheaper than uc and kübel and better in every single aspect possible... crazy long range damage (even more dps than m20), capping and self repair on top of abilities like arty call in and mark target. and why does it survive okw mines (same as the uc btw)
pls explain balance team

svt cost increase seems fine even tho id prefer a cp increase (from 1 to 2) en par with the ostheer G43 upgrade and the rocket strafe needs a change imo. ram + strafe is too cheesy, maybe make it a copy paste from the usf airborne p47 loiter. atleast youd be able to counter it with aa.

And personally i still would like to see a change to ostheers mobi def, the new tech changes delay the puma even further :(
I know it has been obnoxious the last time it was meta but last time i suggested a change there was the argument of "do you want to see the same doc played every single game?"
Guess what, we have seen the same meta doc (grand offensive) pretty much every single fucking game. same with is-2... and before that with command panther, pls just make the commander somewhat viable again
4 Feb 2020, 14:09 PM
#654
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

I’d halve the BP2 cost and I’d make that half the cost of an HQ upgrade for Ostheer (something like a Panzer authorization) which would then allow you to call in the Stugie and build a Puma without having to pay the whole BP2 cost in advance.
4 Feb 2020, 14:11 PM
#655
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 1563

I’d halve the BP2 cost and I’d make that half the cost of an HQ upgrade for Ostheer (something like a Panzer authorization) which would then allow you to call in the Stugie and build a Puma without having to pay the whole BP2 cost in advance.

Isn't osts battle phases already like panzer authorization???
4 Feb 2020, 14:42 PM
#656
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1



Except the Brummbar is fine in terms of damage. The main issue is the bad trio of bad range, bad armour and bad mobility, so the armour buff should be enough to allow it to do its job, especially vs enemy army comps that don’t have enough AT power.


Funny enough it will force even more USF into Jackson.
4 Feb 2020, 16:58 PM
#657
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3

And personally i still would like to see a change to ostheers mobi def, the new tech changes delay the puma even further :(


And the Stug E ! :foreveralone:
4 Feb 2020, 18:38 PM
#658
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1

Overall i like most of the changes, i dont agree with everything but i wouldnt complain either. Very curious how the Brit changes will play out.

Few notes tho: The patch doesnt adress most of the broken stuff and/or cheese.
WC51 is still way too strong, cheaper than uc and kübel and better in every single aspect possible... crazy long range damage (even more dps than m20), capping and self repair on top of abilities like arty call in and mark target. and why does it survive okw mines (same as the uc btw)
pls explain balance team

svt cost increase seems fine even tho id prefer a cp increase (from 1 to 2) en par with the ostheer G43 upgrade and the rocket strafe needs a change imo. ram + strafe is too cheesy, maybe make it a copy paste from the usf airborne p47 loiter. atleast youd be able to counter it with aa.

And personally i still would like to see a change to ostheers mobi def, the new tech changes delay the puma even further :(
I know it has been obnoxious the last time it was meta but last time i suggested a change there was the argument of "do you want to see the same doc played every single game?"
Guess what, we have seen the same meta doc (grand offensive) pretty much every single fucking game. same with is-2... and before that with command panther, pls just make the commander somewhat viable again


+1
4 Feb 2020, 19:38 PM
#659
avatar of Stark

Posts: 626 | Subs: 1

Brits

HQ Glider

Cost from 450 to 390
Forward HQ Retreat Point and Medics must now be researched for 150 manpower.


I really like the idea of making a airlanding officer a basic infantry unit, it fills the necessary gap in UKF tech tree and therefore i understand why we need to make an ajustment to a HQ Glider. BUT few things in balancing it:

1. Glider cannot cost the same as Commando Regiment Glider. Why? Becouse this one allow you also to recruit a commando squad, give healing and FRP.

2. Glider has to be more diversed compare to Commando Regiment version. If not i see even less arguments to pick Commando Regiment - commander that not long ago was revamped. Vanguard with a glider has also Crocodile and call-in strafe (so heavy tank and elite infantry and off map - combo that should be avoided). That's gonna be an autopick in 90% of games.

3. Free Commando squad has to go or need to be replace by a diffrent squad. I would say there are 2 options: a) recon infantry section which would work like jeagers/pathfinders (already in gamefiles with scope Lee–Enfield rifle upgrade) or b) AT commando squad so commando squad with more powerfull edition of piats c) allow to make an buildable mortar team with commando crew. - which still brits really lack. Anyway i don't get the argument why regular commando squad should stay expect it's just easy and lazy solution.

4. Glider HQ has to be repairable to make a side upgrades (healing and FRP) worthwhile. Especially in certain situations when you can't really land a Glider without wounding it.
4 Feb 2020, 19:47 PM
#660
avatar of Aarotron

Posts: 563

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Feb 2020, 19:38 PMStark


I really like the idea of making a airlanding officer a basic infantry unit, it fills the necessary gap in UKF tech tree and therefore i understand why we need to make an ajustment to a HQ Glider. BUT few things in balancing it:

1. Glider cannot cost the same as Commando Regiment Glider. Why? Becouse this one allow you also to recruit a commando squad, give healing and FRP.

2. Glider has to be more diversed compare to Commando Regiment version. If not i see even less arguments to pick Commando Regiment - commander that not long ago was revamped. Vanguard with a glider has also Crocodile and call-in strafe (so heavy tank and elite infantry and off map - combo that should be avoided). That's gonna be an autopick in 90% of games.

3. Free Commando squad has to go or need to be replace by a diffrent squad. I would say there are 2 options: a) recon infantry section which would work like jeagers/pathfinders (already in gamefiles with scope Lee–Enfield rifle upgrade) or b) AT commando squad so commando squad with more powerfull edition of piats c) allow to make an buildable mortar team with commando crew. - which still brits really lack. Anyway i don't get the argument why regular commando squad should stay expect it's just easy and lazy solution.

4. Glider HQ has to be repairable to make a side upgrades (healing and FRP) worthwhile. Especially in certain situations when you can't really land a Glider without wounding it.


I actually suggested commando weapon teams to hq glider week back. I think they could fill the void officer made and make it diffirent of commando regi glider. You cold make as mentioned commando recon squad or mortar, possibly commando vickers with camo or ap rounds, maybe even tank hunter squad.
PAGES (44)down
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

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

562 users are online: 562 guests
0 post in the last 24h
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48733
Welcome our newest member, service
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM