Heavy Gammon bombs/ smoke

I disagree with the stun.
By all means, the HBG is a normal satchel (just tested it, does the same amount of damage, same fuse, same range). The HGB costs 5 mun more though.

HGB has a range of 12 and can keep vehicles immobile for a very long duration.

A normal satchel does engine damage if the vehicle does not drive away, the HGB only does a stun. So actually you pay more for the HGB and get less, at least AT wise. Don't know about the exact AoE damage profile, but I assume they're very similar too.

You should not use the Penal as the benchmark because their are badly designed.
Show Spoiler

You also seem to underestimate the long immobilization effects and possibility of "stun lock" especially if the weapon becomes homing.

Finally have even less reason to compare it to Penal because my suggestion is either to be moved to Ro.E. or to become a homing "soft snare" for IS.

And the Penal satchel does NOT cause gameplay/balance issues.

Penal do not have access to smoke or to HE grenades.

I don't see why this topic should be an issue at all. The only combination might be smoke + HGB, but that is probably a smaller issue that can go live. Balance team has more important things to sort out at the moment than this, so the time can be used elsewhere way better than on this single combination where at least I am not even sure if it will cause problems at all.

Imo patch team (Relic and MOD) have spend too much time fixing the "important" things (and then having to fix them again and again) and far less fixing smaller thing that could improve the game allot and are "easy" and "safe" fixes.

The change is simple and easy. Simply revert AOE damage changes, keep the munition reduction make the weapon homing and remove the affect that make the vehicles immobile or move its Ro.E and remove the immobilization.

If you are that desperate for a snare go special weapons and get ATIS. they have snares like other factions.

The change is simple and easy. Simply revert AOE damage changes, keep the munition reduction make the weapon homing and remove the affect that make the vehicles immobile.

Simply this, simply that. There is nothing simple about this suggestion, as I've already told you. Turning it into a sticky AT satchel for IS would be a huge gameplay concern for obvious reasons and "in the worst case" having it replace the Sappers AT grenade is not a straightforward solution either as it'd force players into getting low range snares which they might not want (amongst other things).

Having it replace the AT sections' AT grenade doesn't make any sense because it's stock tech that would then only do something for a singular doctrinal ability in 1/9 doctrines. I didn't see any proposed alternative to replace it with.

Furthermore I have no idea why you think Gammon Bombs and smoke are such a huge issue in the first place. Almost all British tanks already have access to smoke anyway (so barely anything changes there with the addition of the Pyro smoke barrage) and using them to kill a Schwerer (which is rare anyway) requires
1) end stage tech
2) a boat load of munitions
3) an enemy that isn't defending it
4) massing all your infantry squads in one location which can have consequences for map control
and 5) a possibly dangerous overextention
which seems like a fair risk/cost & reward situation to me.


Gammon Bombs are currently not an issue and there are many more important things to look into with the limited time and resources that are available.

Install the latest patches, Ro.E have access to snares so there is not need to go Special weapons and I am not desperate at all, I am simply making a suggestion to improve the game.

sorry for being snarky,

Simply this, simply that. There is nothing simple about this suggestion, as I've already told you. Turning it into a sticky AT satchel for IS would be a huge gameplay concern for obvious reasons and "in the worst case" having it replace the Sappers AT grenade is not a straightforward solution either as it'd force players into getting low range snares which they might not want (amongst other things).

This is not what I have suggested.

It is my opinion that weapon should be single purpose and not dual...

If it is "anti garrison/structure tool" remove stun and move it Ro.E. because there is little reason for a smoke and a "anti garrison/structure tool" combo on IS.

If it is AT make homing.
In the worse scenario make it Ro.E. available only, replacing the AT grenade offering extra range or damage.

Having it replace the AT sections' AT grenade doesn't make any sense because it's stock tech that would then only do something for a singular doctrinal ability in 1/9 doctrines. I didn't see any proposed alternative to replace it with.

Again this is not what I have suggested.

Furthermore I have no idea why you think Gammon Bombs and smoke are such a huge issue in the first place. Almost all British tanks already have access to smoke anyway (so barely anything changes there with the addition of the Pyro smoke barrage) and using them to kill a Schwerer (which is rare anyway) requires
1) end stage tech
2) a boat load of munitions
3) an enemy that isn't defending it
4) massing all your infantry squads in one location which can have consequences for map control
and 5) a possibly dangerous overextention
which seems like a fair risk/cost & reward situation to me.

A single Pyro squad can move into any bunker/AA gun frontally smoke it and blow it up even the ones defending the base.

There no reason for IS to have the utility of anti structure weapons.

Now allow to repeat the suggestion:

Route A the weapon has a new designed to become "anti garrison/structure tool".
Changes:
loses immobilize affect
Is moved to Ro.E. a unit far more suite for such role.

Route B the weapon returns to its origin as an AT weapon.
Changes:
Becomes homing
has immobilization swaped for other temporary critical
has AOE damage rolled back to original values

Now if a "soft snare" prove to be to much for IS the following changes can be implement:
Moved to Ro.E. and replaces the AT grenade, work similar to AT grenade but has longer Range (or more damage)

TH. IS. get also access to this weapon depending on how it is designed, if it is a superior AT grenade then they start with it.

None of these changes are complicated or difficult to implement and they will improve the game by removing the cheese and either making gammon bomb used more or making Ro.E. more attractive.

sorry for being snarky,

No problem, I will removed me previous comment.

HGB has a range of 12 and can keep vehicles immobile for a very long duration.

I don't know the exact range of a satchel. 10? But it's about that, there is no huge difference.

You should not use the Penal as the benchmark because their are badly designed.


You also seem to underestimate the long immobilization effects and possibility of "stun lock" especially if the weapon becomes homing.

Finally have even less reason to compare it to Penal because my suggestion is either to be moved to Ro.E. or to become a homing "soft snare" for IS.

I compared the HGB to Penal satchel as they are basically the same abilities. The satchel ability is not OP, so unless the HGB synergizes extremely well with IS or any of their abilities, there will be no problem (I already addressed the smoke twice).
Also I am talking about the HGB in it's current implementation, which should be clear from my post. Please read it carefully, I never suggested that it should be a homing snare with stun lock and everything.

The HGB is basically a normal satchel. Make it a normal satchel then. No stun, just engine damage. If you get stunned/snared by a normal satchel, you very well deserved that because you did not react to the squad closing in, the whole duration of the throwing animation and a >3 seconds fuse.

Penal do not have access to smoke or to HE grenades.

I have stated thrice now that I do not think it will become a huge issue for multiple reasons. You have not addressed anything of this apart from repeating that they can be used together with smoke.

Imo patch team (Relic and MOD) have spend too much time fixing the "important" things (and then having to fix them again and again) and far less fixing smaller thing that could improve the game allot and are "easy" and "safe" fixes.

The change is simple and easy. Simply revert AOE damage changes, keep the munition reduction make the weapon homing and remove the affect that make the vehicles immobile or move its Ro.E and remove the immobilization.

Yes I just completely disagree on that. Balance team should fix the glaring issues and not spent their limited time on minor things unless they are very easy and unlikely to cause issues.

What you are suggesting here is
1. A complete rework of the ability
2. followed up by a change of the unit that has access to it

This is not an easy thing to do and requires a lot of time and testing for honestly little gain. Nothing about is "simple and easy". What makes you so sure about your idea not having to be fixed "again and again" (which is an overexaggeration, many things have been quite fine after the first patch and potentially a small hotfix) as well?

I don't know the exact range of a satchel. 10? But it's about that, there is no huge difference.

Yes satchel has a range of 10. 20% is not huge but considerable.

I compared the HGB to Penal satchel as they are basically the same abilities. The satchel ability is not OP, so unless the HGB synergizes extremely well with IS or any of their abilities, there will be no problem (I already addressed the smoke twice).
Also I am talking about the HGB in it's current implementation, which should be clear from my post. Please read it carefully, I never suggested that it should be a homing snare with stun lock and everything.

As I clearly pointed out comparison with Penal satchel are pointless because of the assumption that Penal satchel are fine. They are not. The questions one should be focusing is what is this weapon designed for, is it useful, is it available to correct unit?

Penal do not have grenade infatry section do. IS have little reason to have Satchel on top of grenades

The HGB is basically a normal satchel. Make it a normal satchel then. No stun, just engine damage. If you get stunned/snared by a normal satchel, you very well deserved that because you did not react to the squad closing in, the whole duration of the throwing animation and a >3 seconds fuse.

Penal satchel should not have engine damage to begin with it should had been removed the moment At satchel become available.

And in addition normal satchel should be removed by penal once they upgrade with PTRS.

(Imo it should not even cause one shot engine damage since this feature has been removed from other weapons and for good reason and it should work more like a soft snare.)

Finally the AOE should be lowered so that one does not drive his vehicle on the Penal to blow them up.

I have stated thrice now that I do not think it will become a huge issue for multiple reasons. You have not addressed anything of this apart from repeating that they can be used together with smoke.

And I have explained many time that weapon in its current form is simply cheesy and not suited for IS and imo it should be changed.

Yes I just completely disagree on that. Balance team should fix the glaring issues and not spent their limited time on minor things unless they are very easy and unlikely to cause issues.

You are assuming that they actually fixing the big glaring issue but for every "major" problem the fix they tent to create a couple more. Take for instance Super Heavy tank changes they tried to "fix" the issue and they created more.

On the other hand persisting issues like XP values, vet bonuses, reinforcement times, costs, doctrinal vehicle spawn options get occasional attention when the fix are simply, straight forward and lasting.

What you are suggesting here is
1. A complete rework of the ability
2. followed up by a change of the unit that has access to it

This is not an easy thing to do and requires a lot of time and testing for honestly little gain. Nothing about is "simple and easy". What makes you so sure about your idea not having to be fixed "again and again" (which is an overexaggeration, many things have been quite fine after the first patch and potentially a small hotfix) as well?

What I am suggesting is revering to original design with minor change since the "solution chosen did not work and will work even worse with coming changes.

None of these changes are complicated or difficult to implement

But they are, we have no idea what the gameplay implications would be, which you seem to acknowledge yourself by the fact that you're already suggesting a radical follow-up or alternative change by moving the ability to another unit entirely;

Now if a "soft snare" prove to be to much for IS the following changes can be implement:

A single Pyro squad can move into any bunker/AA gun frontally smoke it and blow it up even the ones defending the base.

Yes a single Pyro squad, requiring expensive end tier tech to be researched. I'm not sure why you think at 20-25m+ into a match they shouldn't be able to take out a bunker. Bunkers aren't meant to be strongholds, especially not late game.

...

Lets start over because at this point is seem more like arguing for the point of arguing.

In your opinion is the heavy gammon bomb a useful ability currently and in what role?

In your opinion is the heavy gammon bomb a better suited for IS or Ro.E?

(...)

Okay, the root of this is that we disagree on the Penal satchel in the first place. While I'd rather prefer to have a normal grenade, the satchel is mostly fine in my opinion.

I will skip over quite a few other points because I think it would derail too much (like Penal AT satchel exclusive with normal satchel and the whole balance team thing).

Just the last two points:
- IS having both grenade and HGB: Yes, suboptimal from a design point. But it's also in the current live game and does not cause balance problems. One could change it, but this would only lead to more issues that need fixing (for example: Giving the HGB to Sappers only, which is basically a nerf for usability as Sappers are occupied with repairing and there are only 1-2 on the field. This in turn would be a slight nerf for Hammer Tactics, which would require a buff in another domain etc etc.).
- reverting to inital HGB design: I'm not sure from which built the inital design you're talking about stems. But as far as I remember the HGB has not been changed for a long time. So you want to implement an old design into the new build and this is your argument that the implementation will be seamless and balance issues cannot arise? Sorry, but this does not make any sense. Old designs can of course cause issues in the current build.

Okay, the root of this is that we disagree on the Penal satchel in the first place. While I'd rather prefer to have a normal grenade, the satchel is mostly fine in my opinion.

I will skip over quite a few other points because I think it would derail too much (like Penal AT satchel exclusive with normal satchel and the whole balance team thing).

Fine with me. I do not like talking about off topic things either.

Just the last two points:
- IS having both grenade and HGB: Yes, suboptimal from a design point. But it's also in the current live game and does not cause balance problems. One could change it, but this would only lead to more issues that need fixing (for example: Giving the HGB to Sappers only, which is basically a nerf for usability as Sappers are occupied with repairing and there are only 1-2 on the field. This in turn would be a slight nerf for Hammer Tactics, which would require a buff in another domain etc etc.).

Not in my point of view. This would actually give players more reason to produce more Ro.E. instead of spamming IS only. IS already can fight, build sandbags, cashes, sandbags, trenches, spot, call arty, heal and fight they do not need the extra utility of high explosives it can be easily transferred to Ro.E.

- reverting to inital HGB design: I'm not sure from which built the inital design you're talking about stems. But as far as I remember the HGB has not been changed for a long time. So you want to implement an old design into the new build and this is your argument that the implementation will be seamless and balance issues cannot arise? Sorry, but this does not make any sense. Old designs can of course cause issues in the current build.

Heavy gammon was "changed" to be closer to Satchel at DECEMBER 19th 2017.
If I had to guess I would that reason behind this was that the ability was UP and probably Relic was still insisting that UKF should not have access to a normal AT grenade. The satchel approach was more like a band aid fix in making the ability more useful.

The actual "new" design is that now, UKF have access to a normal snare and thus the HGB needs to be incorporated better to the "new" design. The reason why I am talking about original design here is because there is starting point since the original values exist and have been tried.

Fine with me. I do not like talking about off topic things either.


Not in my point of view. This would actually give players more reason to produce more Ro.E. instead of spamming IS only. IS already can fight, build sandbags, cashes, sandbags, trenches, spot, call arty, heal and fight they do not need the extra utility of high explosives it can be easily transferred to Ro.E.



Heavy gammon was "changed" to be closer to Satchel at DECEMBER 19th 2017.
If I had to guess I would that reason behind this was that the ability was UP and probably Relic was still insisting that UKF should not have access to a normal AT grenade. The satchel approach was more like a band aid fix in making the ability more useful.

The actual "new" design is that now, UKF have access to a normal snare and thus the HGB needs to be incorporated better to the "new" design. The reason why I am talking about original design here is because there is starting point since the original values exist and have been tried.

I can agree with the general reasoning. I think there are three options:
- Leave as it: Maybe not as pretty design wise, but also this is almost "tried and tested". Less work, so far no real issues beside it's "not pretty" so to say. After patch potential problems with smoke.
- Give IS an AT focused HGB: New idea, rebalancing/tweaking needed. Would basically give all UKF units a snare (although IS only get it very late game)
- Give RE an AI focused HGB: "New" idea (build from 2 years ago, but at that time it was on IS(?)), rebalancing/tweaking needed; would give all UKF units some form of grenade.

I discarded the double AT thing on REs for already explained reasons.


I'm not against rethinking the HGB. But looking at the current live game, I think balance team should invest their resources elsewhere.

I can agree with the general reasoning. I think there are three options:
....
I'm not against rethinking the HGB. But looking at the current live game, I think balance team should invest their resources elsewhere.

I have to disagree with resources investment as an argument.

When one has limited resources one should focus to problems that are easier to fix. When one gives exams one should first answer all the question that are easy to answer and then move to more complicated issues. One will have secure points even if he does not have time to complete the complicated issues.

I have to disagree with resources investment as an argument.

When one has limited resources one should focus to problems that are easier to fix. When one gives exams one should first answer all the question that are easy to answer and then move to more complicated issues. One will have secure points even if he does not have time to complete the complicated issues.

Nope, you first fix the stuff that is broken and then go for optimization. After that you sort your list to stuff that has the highest gain for low effort.

The current HGB is not a balance issue, just the design is not pretty. It does not harm the gameplay. Still it would take quite some time to do it. Don't take my word for it if you don't want to, take Sander's words. So you have low gain/medium-low effort, it's also part of the optimization branch, so it's quite far down on the list where it honestly should be. Heavy tanks currently harm the gameplay ("broken" in some sense). Fixing them is high gain/high effort and is therefore overall better.

Gammon Bombs are currently not an issue and there are many more important things to look into with the limited time and resources that are available.

/thread really

We should be thankful that we have involved community members still working on patching the game and not pestering them with concerns that are primarily born out of theory crafting. I mean I totally agree that HGB aren't in any way optimally designed and a relic of original Brit design but at this point they aren't a problem and in fact are hardly ever used. The effort to tinker with them and monitor the changes are FAR more time intensive than keeping an eye on theoretical "it's marginally more easy to smoke and nuke things in the late game" concerns. If anything changing them will make them more prevalent and game breaking than they are currently or will be after the patch.

Nope, you first fix the stuff that is broken and then go for optimization. After that you sort your list to stuff that has the highest gain for low effort.

The current HGB is not a balance issue, just the design is not pretty. It does not harm the gameplay. Still it would take quite some time to do it. Don't take my word for it if you don't want to, take Sander's words. So you have low gain/medium-low effort, it's also part of the optimization branch, so it's quite far down on the list where it honestly should be. Heavy tanks currently harm the gameplay ("broken" in some sense). Fixing them is high gain/high effort and is therefore overall better.

"Super Heavy tanks" where not broken to being with, they become broken when they tried to "fix" them.

And this is quite a common pattern on the Coh 2 patches history, units become OP and then UP again and persisting problems being fixed at a very low rate.