Login

russian armor

Adjustments for the Brits

29 Apr 2020, 13:11 PM
#41
avatar of Applejack

Posts: 359

I like the idea of a timed ability on the Vickers like the maxim. Currently, its the only MG without an activated ability.

I just checked all the MGs in game.

MG34
Incindiary rounds 15 muni, 30s. Requires vet 1.
Wide arc, slower setup time.

MG42
Incindiary rounds 15 muni, 30s. Requires vet 1.
Wide arc, slower setup time.

Maxim
Sustained fire 15 muni, 30s. Requires vet 1.
No tear down time.
Smaller arc, faster setup time.

Dushka
AP rounds 15 muni, 30s. (vet 0)
Sprint 10 muni, 10s. Requires Vet 1.
No tear down time.
Smaller arc, faster setup time.

M2HB .50 Cal
AP rounds 15 muni, 30s. (vet 0)
No tear down time.
Smaller arc, faster setup time.
Vet 1: +10% suppression

Vickers
Wide arc, slower setup time.
Vet 1: +15% range and sight in buildings

Vet 1 is pretty useless outside of a trench and no timed ability makes it even worse.
29 Apr 2020, 14:33 PM
#42
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 951

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Apr 2020, 10:28 AMVipper

My suggestions would be:
IS cost down to 260, bolster now per squad upgrade taking 1 weapon slots.

Available option:
1 medic entity that give the heal option
1 entity with a scoped enfield gives the pyro upgrade now has a timed ability similar to pathfinder critical shots, take all weapon slots.
1 entity


As mentioned before, I do favor similar changes (see my response to maahowl, for instance). However, I stand by my previous statement: "the Bolster to T3 is probably the simplest change."


Vickers simply get a timed ability similar to maxim they are both water cooled weapon anyway. Some adjument to damage might be needed.


This would also be an interesting option, perhaps similar to the Maxim's (unlocked at Vet 1).


The AOE profile will need allot of adjustment since it was designed for 80 damage. (it already needs).

Imo the unit should be redesigned as an infatry support tank with less penetration and damage output (currently has the same penetration as AEC) but higher durability. Armor could go up and also have the ability to fire smoke rounds.


I looked at the AOE profile of the gun previously, and it is nearly identical to the Churchill Mk. VII's. Thus, we have a clear benchmark of its anti-infantry performance, which should be adequate.


Bofors already gets sight with veterancy.

Emplacement simply need a redesign that includes bleed and some sort crew or interaction.

For instance their performance is lower if they do not have garrison, the get a ability to auto-repair costing manpower or munition and so on.


I'm in favor of emplacement redesigns that turns them into units you actually need to invest micro in. However, as with the Bolster change, I'm going for simple changes.


The valentine can be simply replaced by a artillery commander upgrade providing the abilities of valentine currently has to any vehicle above UC.


Valentine abilities would be Sexton Concentration barrage, which is practically useless unless you have Sextons. Combining the ability with the regular Concentration barrage (that already exists in the commander) would probably be the easiest solution to keep its usefullness in team games.

Additionally, a decent indirect fire unit in an indirect-focused commander is not only thematic, but as Stormjager said, "fits UKF like a glove".
29 Apr 2020, 17:34 PM
#43
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1220

29 Apr 2020, 18:27 PM
#44
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

Reworked non doc land matress pls


Why do the Brits need it nondoc? Base howies are actually really good now

If it became stock you'd have to make it worse i think, and the LM is already not that good
29 Apr 2020, 23:25 PM
#45
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1515



Your words are true. Thank God I'm not in charge of balance, because I miss things (see Katitof's post on how the original Valentine proposition was unusable). But one thing I do pretty well is listen. So, would you care to elaborate on your accusations?


I would like to but this thread is big with a lot of recommendations being thrown here and there and I really don't want to be bothered to type it all out. I'm sure you understand. Good on you for being a good listener though.
30 Apr 2020, 08:02 AM
#46
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


The problem is that UKF do not need band-aids but serious design changes.

The problem with band aids is that once they stick they tend to stay even when solution are applied.

For instance sniper still have 82 HP although the mortar one shot potential has been eliminated.
30 Apr 2020, 09:39 AM
#47
avatar of blancat

Posts: 810

Valentine should not be stock unit

But other opinions are good, i agree

Bolster upgrade should be in Company CP but bren gun need some buff

And revert the tommy's moving accuracy
30 Apr 2020, 17:08 PM
#48
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 951

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Apr 2020, 08:02 AMVipper

The problem is that UKF do not need band-aids but serious design changes.

The problem with band aids is that once they stick they tend to stay even when solution are applied.

For instance sniper still have 82 HP although the mortar one shot potential has been eliminated.


This is where I say we should agree to disagree. I believe in small, incremental changes that push faction balance towards the right place. Massive changes are extraordinarily hard to balance properly, just see the mess that happened after OKW got normal resources and proper tech options.

I'm not saying that I perferred the version of OKW with only 66% resource income, but it's a prime example of why sweeping changes are not my preferred way of balancing the game.
30 Apr 2020, 20:39 PM
#49
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



This is where I say we should agree to disagree. I believe in small, incremental changes that push faction balance towards the right place. Massive changes are extraordinarily hard to balance properly, just see the mess that happened after OKW got normal resources and proper tech options.

I'm not saying that I perferred the version of OKW with only 66% resource income, but it's a prime example of why sweeping changes are not my preferred way of balancing the game.

It depends. I pointed four year ago that balance should be made with small changes
https://www.coh2.org/topic/52735/balance-mod-trying-to-kill-a-fly-with-sledgehammer

https://www.coh2.org/topic/57771/why-patch-should-not-overbuff-overnerf-units-anymore

but the case of UKF faction is different. The faction has serious design issues that need to be dealt with instead of adding band aid after band aid.
1 May 2020, 08:26 AM
#50
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1220



Why do the Brits need it nondoc? Base howies are actually really good now

If it became stock you'd have to make it worse i think, and the LM is already not that good

To be honest for me even mortar halftruck in last tier would be great and about base howies i really like them but they are more like satchel charge good only against buldings and afk players
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

869 users are online: 869 guests
0 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49117
Welcome our newest member, topcsnvncom
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM