Posts: 449
Minesweeper upgrade with 120 ammo could be a thing.
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
You're right, but IMO all factions only need 3 AT options - tank destroyer, AT gun, infantry AT. Infantry AT should counter tank destroyer, AT gun should priority counter medium and than heavy, tank destroyer should counter priority counter heavy/medium.
You're right in that unit variety would change, but I don't think it would have to be sacrificed. For example, you could have Axis AT guns fire slower but have higher penetration, making them stronger against heavies and weaker against mediums (the Rak 43/Panzershreck actually had really high penetration). Allied AT guns could have less penetration but higher fire rate. In order to compensate for heavily-armored Axis tanks, they could toggle between standard AP and APDS/HVAP; APDS and HVAP slow down the fire rate of the AT gun, and could cost a small amount of munitions per shot if necessary. Similarly, for tank destroyers you'd be able to differentiate between light TDs and heavy TDs. StuG III, Achilles, and Wolverine fall under this category. If I had developed the game, I would have nerfed the SU85 penetration and made it a light TD, while using the SU100 as a non-doctrinal heavy TD with good frontal armor, extremely high peneration (~211 mm at 500 m with APBC), and fast speed, but slow reload rate like the Firefly. Since SU-76 doesn't do a good job of filling the gap between AT power, either SU85 would be made a stock light TD or T34/85 would be a stock upgrade option on the T34, giving a solid counter to medium tanks (after all, Soviets only have 14 units compared to 15 of the other factions). USF wouldn't really need a major change; IRL the Jackson had better fire rate than the Firefly and SU-100 (but worse penetration, not that it really matters on anything smaller than a King Tiger), and was actually pretty slow (26 mph). If need be, the M18 or M10 could have been made a stock light TD.
Anyway, these are all just ideas that I've been mulling over for some time. Such radical changes aren't needed in the current state of the game, although maybe they could prove useful in a mod or a future CoH, if one ever comes.
Posts: 449
Even on the theoretical level of "what we could do if we had infinite patches coming up" I don't think it is a good idea to specialize ATGs to anti-heavy units. They are the earliest AT unit a faction can field and they need to be generalists to allow for combacks in case one player gets locked out of fuel or looses his tank early. In the current rooster, especially OST relies on them to counter light vehicles, but also OKW T1 builds absolutely rely on them. Similarly, OST's LV's potency would skyrocket until the Allied LV shows up. There must be an MP based counter to basically everything that can be fielded to ensure that the match is not automatically won or lost if one player destroys the other players expensive tank destroyer.
I also don't see the real point of the SU100 apart from flavor. SOV already has the light and heavy TD combination. It's just the design of the SOV early mid game that screws over the SU76 and forces you to buy a T70. Yes, SU100 could take the heavy TD place and SU85 downgrade to the light TD, but in the end this would just be name changes to the existing system (unless I completely misunderstood your point).
This whole chain of ideas was sparked by getting two Shermans and/or the Jackson into a better spot, but here I'd argue that it is better to redesign the Shermans instead of changing the sholw faction setup.
Posts: 219
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Posts: 219
Posts: 1389 | Subs: 1
Posts: 888
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
Arguably it's now the British because of their lack of good infantry, especially at range.
Posts: 5279
?????
Posts: 888
Nothing usf will ever be good enough for cod guy. No point even bothering to try an understand. Keep in mind the Jackson in garbage because it doesn't have as much AI as the elefant.
Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1
?????
Posts: 503 | Subs: 1
USF has been the most difficult faction play in this game.
The problems USF have come from several overpriced/underpreforming units (RETs, Pathfinders, Combat Engineers for example) and a terrible and inflexible tech tree that greatly constrains the player in the early game.
Posts: 219
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Indeed. USF Combat Engineers are so bad, I literally can't even build them.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
He means assault engineers from armour company.
Codguy is right for once, there’s so many garbage tier and overpriced units in the USF roster that it’s ridiculous.
Paths cost 290mp and 30mp reinforce. They should lose one of the two sniper rifles to actually be able to equip weapons and get their vet 3 camo at vet 0 so that they can be an option vs snipers.
Rear Echelons are bad, which is a huge issue in the OKW matchup since they have Spios and can upgrade Volks early without upgrading racks, so ypu’re basically behind 1 combat squad and upgrades right from the get go.
Assault engineers are awful. They need to lose their 5th man and become cheaper and more durable.
The 75mm M4A3 should lose its switchable shells and become a competent medium tank.
Posts: 5279
 |
|
|
19 | ||
 |
|
|
15 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
150 | ||
 |
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
