Login

russian armor

Sander's personal balance changes

PAGES (24)down
7 Jul 2020, 01:41 AM
#81
avatar of KoRneY

Posts: 682

These are just a lot of quasi intelligent changes. Too many of them and too extensive. Went through all of them. Buffs on Axis, nerfs on Allies. Ally changes are negligible and on units that are niche and seldom used. Ally mains will protest while Axis mains will welcome the changes wholeheartedly. This is cookie cutting balance thread. I just hope most of these changes never see light of day. Some are good like artillery flares overhaul and Pak Howi change. Open Blitz truck, Assault Package for Sturms, SU76 and ISU 152 rear armor nerf are also good.
Valentine and Medic squad on UKF also good.
These changes are good, rest should be in the class of "really really experimental". Some of this changes would require even more micro input on USF (like also nerfing scott as a mobile anti blob unit since the barrage on it is near useless due to the low angle of approach). Also M20 doesn't need a buff, it's in an OK place.


Dunno if it matters much but in the latest tourney, out of eight games in the finals not a single player picked okw. Balanced or not I think it says something if two of the best players in the world didn't bother to pick them a single time. Most of the tech changes are somewhat reminiscent of the streamlining in tech that USF got.
7 Jul 2020, 01:50 AM
#82
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1515

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jul 2020, 01:41 AMKoRneY


Dunno if it matters much but in the latest tourney, out of eight games in the finals not a single player picked okw. Balanced or not I think it says something if two of the best players in the world didn't bother to pick them a single time. Most of the tech changes are somewhat reminiscent of the streamlining in tech that USF got.


Two of the competitive players, not the best. Best only in the sense that they are "pros". Also, it doesn't say anything. It's 10 games. What would say something if the same pattern was spotted on at least 100 tourney games. And that's still the "pros" playing. Last I checked, most of the people playing this game are not in the pro scene. Picking or not picking OKW has nothing to do with it being OP or UP. I will pick Axis in standard custom games against other people but you will never see me pick Axis in ranked automatch. That doesn't mean that Axis is OP or UP, it's just that I don't like playing as Nazis. 8 out of 10 games is a super negligible sample.

The more "...in line with..." you see in the balance threads/update logs, the more you'll see the uniqueness of each faction disappear. And the OP's post, no matter how thorough and thoughtful it might be, it's still going hard against uniqueness of factions. Some overhauls are great. Like flares. Neither Axis or Allies should have some "reveal the map" button they can then use to call in arty. The bonus vision is a great modification. Truth be told, one of the best proposals in this cesspit of balance threads (OP this OP that).
Kudos on Sander on that one.
7 Jul 2020, 01:55 AM
#83
avatar of KoRneY

Posts: 682



Two of the competitive players, not the best. Best only in the sense that they are "pros". Also, it doesn't say anything. It's 10 games. What would say something if the same pattern was spotted on at least 100 tourney games. And that's still the "pros" playing. Last I checked, most of the people playing this game are not in the pro scene. Picking or not picking OKW has nothing to do with it being OP or UP. I will pick Axis in standard custom games against other people but you will never see me pick Axis in ranked automatch. That doesn't mean that Axis is OP or UP, it's just that I don't like playing as Nazis. 8 out of 10 games is a super negligible sample.

The more "...in line with..." you see in the balance threads/update logs, the more you'll see the uniqueness of each faction disappear. And the OP's post, no matter how thorough and thoughtful it might be, it's still going hard against uniqueness of factions. Some overhauls are great. Like flares. Neither Axis or Allies should have some "reveal the map" button they can then use to call in arty. The bonus vision is a great modification. Truth be told, one of the best proposals in this cesspit of balance threads (OP this OP that).
Kudos on Sander on that one.


Yeah, I prefaced it with 'dunno if it matters much' so I don't really need you to try and beat it into my skull.

7 Jul 2020, 07:11 AM
#85
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

https://clips.twitch.tv/FriendlyDeafMagpieSoBayed


Gren G43s are really not that good. Grens with 3x G43 and 1 Kar 98K would have barely more close range DPS than standard Riflemen and have similar mid range. Gren G43s are basically just Kar 98Ks beyond range 20. How they would murder everything is a question only Bao could answer I guess. And he thinks the upgrade taking 1 weapon slot would be a buff? His rants are always amusing.
7 Jul 2020, 08:25 AM
#86
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3

Well if the G43 upgrade was to be made better for Grenadiers, you could safely increase the price to 60 munitions.

Currently I only ever get G43's for Panzergrenadiers once they get out DPS'd too hard at long range (think allot of Bren Sections). Their G43's do about 25% more damage, they get 3 instead of 2 and their RA is allot better. Drawbacks are the much higher initial cost and no faust, but it quite easily pays itself back because their reinforcement cost is only 4mp higher.


With Jaeger Infantry I either skip T1 or get Grens but with LMG's and camo (not very viable because of cost, but fun because of the huge burst damage).
7 Jul 2020, 08:37 AM
#87
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Battlegroup HQ


These faction where designed to be played without all building but I as pointed out when USF revamp took place if one changed the USF tech system one would eventually have to change the OKW tech system also.

I personally find the changes the suggested changes complicated and in my opinion the cost to set up a first truck should be the same so that the timing of faust should be the same (alternatively one could lock RW to truck set up and faust to track being build).

My suggestion would be that medic truck now comes with medics but without reinforcement and one would have to unlock reinforcement. That would make things simpler and make the HQ cheaper when set up in base where the reinforcement is redundant.


Schwerer Panzer HQ (experimental change)

When it comes to OKW doctrinal vehicles I would rather have them either become build-able from HQ (this could apply to KT also) the same way Ostheer PzIV J is or as call-ins.

Making main battle tank that can engage any target build-able was a good change but specialized units like Hezter/Ostwind and even KV-8 can use other mechanism since they can not tackle all targets. That would increase build order for these commander.



Sturmpioneers


Imo stun grenades should be redesigned to be more inline with the "offensive" type grenades doing extra damage vs garrison and green cover.

I would like to see medic crates being able to be loaded in transports. UHU could also carry them for OWK.


Flak HT 251/17


Imo one could try switchable round for FHT. One that does damage but does not suppress and one that does less damage but suppresses.




Stuka (experimental change)


I am happy to see that my suggestions to increase penetration and decreases AOE penetration that met with so much resistance when pointed out is been adopted. Although the change would also mean that the extra damage to UKF emplacements should be removed.

Imo incendiary barrage is simply not worth its munition cost.

I would suggest thou another route. Make an incendiary barrage the default barrage. The HE barrage would require an upgrade locked behind T4.

The change would make OKW have better anti-garrison tools if choosing T2 while the Stuka HE barrage would come at timing closer to other rocket artillery.
7 Jul 2020, 08:55 AM
#88
avatar of Aarotron

Posts: 563

I really like idea of stug e with barrage. Could make it nice addition to counter mg spam. Also jäger armour nerf change would be welcome.
7 Jul 2020, 11:49 AM
#89
avatar of thekingsown10

Posts: 232

Nearly all changes here are good . The only one I have a major issue with is the penals getting a cost reduction . They are an elite unit that can be deployed super early game and the teller mine (it should kill light vehicles as its high risk high reward) along with wehr light vehicles being very bad in comparison to units like the t70.

I really like the flame burning buildings faster idea really good one and finally bringing US pak howitzer in line with everything else.
7 Jul 2020, 12:28 PM
#90
avatar of Smartie

Posts: 857 | Subs: 2



@Sander93:
You made a suggestion to improve Lend Lease Assault. I would like to see some changes to Wehrmacht commanders too, and not only to Festung Armor.
You made good suggestion in one Wehr commander thread that I created:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/101020/6-changes-to-improve-wehrmacht-commanders-thematically/post/790046

I know that its unrealistic to see a high number of changes but at least some changes should be done.
Festung Support would really dont need a lot of changes for example. Same for German Mechanized.
7 Jul 2020, 12:58 PM
#91
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1351

Nearly all changes here are good . The only one I have a major issue with is the penals getting a cost reduction . They are an elite unit that can be deployed super early game and the teller mine (it should kill light vehicles as its high risk high reward) along with wehr light vehicles being very bad in comparison to units like the t70.

I really like the flame burning buildings faster idea really good one and finally bringing US pak howitzer in line with everything else.


+1 basically same opinions.

If regular mines were also changed to work like snares (wouldn't cripple engine of a full health medim/heavy) then the teller change would be ok imo.

But generally the proposed changes are so good imo that I'd apply them anyway.
7 Jul 2020, 13:08 PM
#92
avatar of KoRneY

Posts: 682



+1 basically same opinions.

If regular mines were also changed to work like snares (wouldn't cripple engine of a full health medim/heavy) then the teller change would be ok imo.

But generally the proposed changes are so good imo that I'd apply them anyway.


That's way too big of a nerf for allies imo
7 Jul 2020, 13:15 PM
#93
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


Panzer IV ausf.J (experimental change)
OKW can struggle because it has the most expensive generalist medium tank in the game, which means the initial timing or the time it takes to replace one can be significantly higher than it is for other factions. By splitting the cost of the Panzer IV, it should give the faction a slightly better time getting their medium armor out.


The reason the Panzer IV struggles is because allied TD have changes to do damage close to 100% even from range 60.

In addition further homogenization of axis units is unnecessary and ill advisable. Many problem start when Ostheer Panther become similar to OKW and more expensive.

Common units across faction do not need to be identical and should be balanced separately for each faction.

Imo changes for OKW PzIV should include:
higher rear armor

If one one want to "redesign" the unit one could try make it cheaper but less lethal (Panzer J actually had only manual turret traverse) since OKW seem to have trouble fighting vs multiple vehicles.

Any other changes have to do with more with performance of allied TDs (high accuracy/ROF and high penetration)vs mediums and less with the PzIV itself.


Jagdpanzer IV



Lowering pop is step in the right direction but one need to rethink what role this unit fills. The unit come at similar price from when it was available from T1 while it has been hit by a number of nerfs. One should consider lowering the power level of the unit and giving it a more specific role.


Panther

A step in the right direction but again the unit does not seem to have a specific role.


Tiger II


Imo the unit should become buildable from HQ.



Fallschirmjäger (highly experimental change)


Simply redesign the unit as 4 men infiltration unit with K98 able to upgrade with either 5 MP40+1 entity or one FG42 using lmg profile. That would give OKW access to an infiltration unit.
alternatively
Create 2 fire modes for FG42, 1 mode similar closer to BAR and a timed ability using the scopes working more like a LMG.

Para-dropped Fallj can returned be move to an Ostheer commander as 6 men squad modeled after USF paras (2FG42 LMG or MP40s).


Opel Blitz truck

The unit is simply badly designed and the design should be scraped especially if the changes on the medic truck goes ahead since it will not be used.

Redesign the unit to work similar to Ostheer truck but on enemy territory able "siphon" enemy resources. The ability is already in the game but imo it should become timed one.


Assault Package (Feuersturm)

Merge the ability with incendiary rounds instead of MP-40, even if one replaced the incendiary rounds with a mortar able to fire incendiary barrages. MP-40 upgrade should then be replaced by a separate unit similar to assault IS.


Artillery Flares (Special Operations)

The change is unnecessary or it should apply to other abilities that also provide vision (mostly UKF)

What the ability definitively need is an increase to CD. If the issue the range make it cheaper and allow vehicle to fire the flares.


Command Panther


As I mentioned before make all OKW doctrinal vehicle and KT buildable from HQ, there is little reason for different mechanism with in the faction.


Command Tiger I

I see little reason for the "command" design of the unit. Either make it a simple Tiger or redesigned more as command vehicle lowering it base performance and increasing its synergy.


105mm Howitzer Barrage (Scavenge)

An improvement on the ability.


Tiger, Jagdtiger & Tiger II cooldown

Simply make all doctrinal vehicles builable form HQ.
7 Jul 2020, 13:25 PM
#94
avatar of Selvy289

Posts: 366

For OKW, I like most of the changes but I feel I share the same opinnion of others about the panzer 4 and also do worry about a quicker ostwind more than the hetzer, jagpanzer I can understand to have some quicker AT if the hq goes down. Teching as a whole seems okay.

The halftruck I would find interesting how it compares to the us one now as it also would have the benefit of smoke.

Soviets, I find the penals infantry upgrade adding 2 svts and smoke for 50 muni dosnt look advertising at all.

The Hm 120mm mortar main problems still exist and will still be in-practical to a standard mortar.

Ost, stug E I have a bad feeling about it honestly think the unit is fine as it is. The barrage range is at-lease too far that's being suggested. Teams weapons, okay see how that goes but the panzer wefer change is huge and would need quite alot of testing.

Command panzer 4 change is a welcomed one (40% dr grenadiers anyone?). Not sure about the healing option in Hq, why is its price differently to the soviets while being the same but is practically superior due to healing 4 man squads. Ost have a fair few healing options compared to other factions as well.

Panther (okw 2) I would prefer being able to hit things when stationary (Not hard to hit stop) but iver one im fine with.

Most of the USF and UK changes are decent.





7 Jul 2020, 13:40 PM
#95
avatar of Alphrum

Posts: 808

tbh, was hoping for Infantry sections to be nerfed a little more, they currently dominate axis inf both in and out of cover
7 Jul 2020, 13:48 PM
#96
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1351

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jul 2020, 13:08 PMKoRneY


That's way too big of a nerf for allies imo

For OKW as well. They would have to snare a vehicle on top of it hitting a mine. Or snare and then wait for a mine, or place two mines. I'd like that tbh, even being mostly allied player. I know how game changing it would be, though. I feel that the mine cost and the vehicle cost discrepancy is so big that those expensive tanks should not be crippled and lost due to a random mine when they are full health. Since they often need to dive, the mine damage would be enough. This would make the game more dynamic. You would have to protect your mines and follow up with a snare.

Of course, I understand that many people may be against it :) Let's just make it my own risky opinion :)
7 Jul 2020, 14:33 PM
#97
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1

Thinking about the changes for a while now some things came to mind.

Rocket Arty



-> Good change, I do think vetted rocket arty fires a bit too often. Many 2v2s get ruined by it. What I would do is not remove the cool down bonuses but cut them in half. I think that would be a risk-free change that most people agree on.

Panzerschreck



The Panzerschreck changes make sense to me. I think the accuracy on mid range should get s slight buff too so they become overall more reliable against light-vehicles. Just improving far accuracy seems a bit too small as a trade-off for lowering the damage. Generally though more accuracy and slightly less damage is a good idea.

Flamethrower



This is a great change and a no-brainer. Should have been implemented a long time ago.

Sandbags



You and Miragela want to nerf sandbags for mainline infantry. I am personally not a fan of it because I think sandbags are fine. If they get nerfed/changed then all factions should be impacted by it and excluding Conscripts from this change does not make that much sense to me. Miragefla also wanted to exclude Conscripts from the sandbag nerfs, I guess it's because you both think Conscripts are too reliant on them but I don't really agree with this sentiment. It would cause issues if Conscripts could build sandbags but Volks can't and would impact the early game too much IMO.
7 Jul 2020, 15:02 PM
#98
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1

Regarding the OKW changes

Battlegroup HQ Tech change

- Makes back-teching for healing cheaper which is very good because as it is now OKW is either forced to constantly buy 45 muni med kits or pay a ridiculous 370 MP and 55 fuel just for healing.

Schweres Panzer HQ Tech change

- This is what I sugested a few days ago. Also a very good change. Buffing Scavange and Feuerstorm makes sense and slightly faster LMG Obers is good too. The last change to promote earlier Obers was pointless because Vet 0 Obers without LMG just bleed MP with their 40MP per model reinforce cost against vetted and upgraded Allied infantry. The changes will still not make the Ostwind come earlier than the Ostheer variant for example. UKF will still be able to rush out a Centaur faster than the new OKW Ostwind timing too.

Sturmpioniers

- I would probably still not get double shreck Sturms because of their durability and paying another 300MP just to get a minesweeper unit is a pretty bad deal. But that's just a OKW thing and should just stay the way it is. The grenade change to 20 muni is good. I don't understand why the same grenade would cost 30 muni on Sturms but 20 muni on all Ostheer units for no reason. 20 Muni is a fair price for them. 30 was overpriced IMO.

Flak HT

- This has to be tested. Firing on the move seems OP to a lot of people but I don't really think it's actually that great for a number of reasons. First of all the Flak HT has pretty bad AOE and scatter and relies more on direct hits than for example the USF AA HT. Giving it 0.3-0.5 accuracy on the move will probably make it pretty bad against infantry on the move while at the same time still allow it to self-defend against diving Stuarts, AECs and T70s. Obviously it would also not suppress infantry on the move which again makes it pretty weak against PTRS, zooks and snares. Somehow people also forget that the Soviet M5 AA HT also fires on the move without suppression and the USF AAHT has the MGs firing on the move dealing suppression. Obviously the OKW Flak has more firepower than the M5 but it also costs a lot more. I think Vipper suggested giving the Flak some sort of alternative munitions type, that also seems like an interesting idea if the firing on the move turns out to be too strong.

Stuka

Not sure how I feel about this. I guess this needs to be tested with a mod to see how the Stuka would perform. I think the Stuka as it is currently is already fine as it acts as the only hope OKW has against support weapons on certain maps. If you play against heavy Soviet T2 builds on a map like Minsk your only chance to win is to wipe support weapons. If the Stuka gets worse at this job then OKW will be struggeling even harder.

Fallschirmjäger

Needs testing, impossible to say how good/bad it would be. Giving the Fallschirmjäger more of a ambush role instead of elite infantry with cloak seems like a good idea. Will be hard to balance it right. Overall I understand the idea behind it but it's questionable how well this can be implemented without breaking the infantry balance again with doctrinal OKW infantry. The current Fallschirmjäger design is pretty bad and I don't like it.

Panzer IV ausf.J

I don't like this. It's fine as it is currently.

JP4, Panther and KT

Excellent changes.

Opel Blitz

I asked for this plenty of times. I am glad you agree that the Opel Blitz should not be so much more durable than the ambulance. I really don't want to play against people spamming 5 Volks and a-moving them across the map with the Opel Blitz infinitely reinforcing and buffing their cool down. This was IMO a very bad idea.

Either nerf the durability as you suggested or (maybe even better IMO) turn the Opel Blitz to a mobile cache that is limited to one but otherwise acts like the Ostheer variant buffing a single players ressource income.

Assault Package (Feuersturm)

Should have been implemented a long time ago. 100% agree

Artillery Flares (Special Operations)

I agree Spec Ops flares are very OP and badly designed. Not sure if your change is the way to go. It seems one of these changes that promote blobbing which I don't like. I would prefer to have the current version as it is replaced with a Recon Plane. IMO a copy paste of the Ostheer variant would be fine.

Command Panther

Agree with allowing it to operate alongside a KT.

Command Tiger I

Excellent, a tiny bit of AI firepower is all the Tiger needs as it is.

7 Jul 2020, 15:46 PM
#99
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1

Ostheer changes

Pioneers, Stug E, Arty Officer, Teller mines, Panzer Tactician, Tiger, Jäger Armour, Hull Down, Stuka Smoke Bomb, VSL upgrade, Panzerwerfer,

Good changes.

Recrewing with 2 models

I understand Ostheer has a hard time capturing team weapons because of having only 4 man squads but making them capture with 2 models only is very questionable because what if I want to capture a Pak40 with a full health Grenadier squad and keep it on the frontline instead of bringing it back to base for reinforcement? Or what if I want to steal a 50cal but there is a Riflemen on retreat and the 2 man 50cal dies while a 3man 50cal would have survived the retreat?

The ideal solution would be crewing a team weapon with 2 man for a 3 man squad and crewing it with 3 man for a 4 man squad. But I feel like this should then be a thing for all factions.

Healing option at HQ

Giving the player a chance to chose which healing he wants either the muni-based bunker or the fuel-based HQ healing seems like a good idea. It would buff Ostheer access to Teller mines and LMGs at the cost of slightly delaying LVs. I don't see how this would be a bad option.

Grenadiers

Doesn't the v-formation make the first model more vulnerable to being focus-fired? You used this argument for the Infantry Section "nerf" so I am confused?

222

Not a good change. Keep it as it is.

G43 upgrade on Grenadiers

I do think G43 Grens are a bit underwhelming and this change could make them slightly better but it needs testing and I am worried this would turn them into the next VSL Grens and dominate meta too much. Generally I understand the idea behind it but it's questionable how balanced this would be.

Command P4

I don't like this. Again promotes blobbing. Maybe reduce the cost on the current Command P4 or give it something else but not 20% DR.

Missing

The Miragefla change to T1 and T2 is sadly missing. I think it would be good to make BP1/T2 slightly delayed because as it is the Osttruppen into T2 rush is too strong vs Soviets. Panzergrenadiers come too early against Soviets, same for 222 and Flame HT.


7 Jul 2020, 17:21 PM
#100
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Soviets

CE, Su76, Katyusha, T70, Su85, ISU152
Easy yes.

ISU commanders
Remove the IL2 bombing from both.

120mm

Vet requirements should also go down.

Penals

You are nerfing them at the only moment they are good and still don't fixing the issue with map control. 20mp and -10s won't make them better when all other stats remain the same (vet + reinforce) and you just nerf their DPS (longer to vet) and force them to get a 50muni upgrade to be as now. Not sure if getting access to smoke justify it.

If at any point you buff them further, giving main line access to smoke has been deem a generally bad idea, though it's not with normal grenade or heavier AI weapon upgrades.

M5 HT
AA seems fair but the medic drop seems pointless. If you want to give them heal, just make it equal to OH HT heal.
The heal drop seems more practical for the M3.

T-34
Bad direction for the change.
You are incentivizing the interaction to be towards ram + offmap by removing the enginge damage component and going for prolonged stun and also increasing the penetration.

Mirage's proposal seems more straightforward.

For more complicated options.

Idea1:
-Reduce damage dealt and received from ram from 160 to 80
-Removed immobilisation crit. Main gun destroy and heavy engine damage requires the enemy tank to be lower than 25% HP. Engine dmg always occurs on penetration.
-Reduce penetration to 120.
-Self crits on T34s depending on HP pool. Always start with engine damage + turret lock. 65% heavy engine dmg, 50% main gun destroy, 25% immobilise. This would also theoretically make the T85 version better as it has a bigger HP pool.

Reduce the penalties and the benefits from ramming. Penetration value is low enough that ramming from behind will still proc but worst from the front. Crits on both tanks dependant on HP pool.

Idea2:
-Remove main gun destroy and immobilisation from possible crits.
-Heavy engine dmg requires a 25% HP remaining on the rammed tank.
-Self stun duration increased to 10s.
-Main gun destroy and immobilise at 25%. Heavy engine damage at 50%.
-RAM CAN BE INTERRUPTED if it takes 160dmg or more from a single source or if it get's snared.

Less effective if ramming from the front or if the tank is supported.

___________________________________

While there are mostly nerfs, i would add the following buffs.

1- Make T1/T2 be slightly faster to built.

2- Reduce cost of medics to 200mp.



UKF

Surprisingly all changes seems fine and even the experimental ones worth to take a shot. Though the med crate drop seems pointless for the faction. Would rather make it an AoE so it would be teamgame support oriented.
PAGES (24)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

973 users are online: 973 guests
1 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49081
Welcome our newest member, kavyashide
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM