Future Balance Items by Relic

I too was absolutely surprised by the reluctance of both players to build:
-222s
-Mines

I think it can be universally said that people do not have confidence in 222s, at all.

Shreks where attempted, somewhat poorly implemented, but really, frankly, underperformed.

I found OMGPops m3 spam to be outright ridiculous. Especially since m3/flamer spam has been an issue of discussion ever since launch, and here, months later, it is again.

I literally prayed to the gaming gods that one of them would build 222s, just so we can see them perform in this specific matchup.

However, had Ivan built 222s, OMGPop consistently chose the same Commander for Guard as a fallback to either stick in the m3s, or buildings. He had that angle covered.

I also found that the Mark Vehicle, though was never used, was a persistant imminent threat. Even if Ivan had more consistenly faced off against the M3s with, frankly, actual counters instead of Mortars or MGs, OMGPop was still ready for armor thanks to this Commander also carrying Mark Vehicle, which combined with some Gaurd Button, can seriously put hurt on a Ost armor that manages to squeeze past the fuel Pop had spent on M3s.

Overall, I think OMGPops m3 spam to be more effective than Ivans famous T70s.
Its earlier, hilariously old, and yet still obviously extremely effective.

Ivans T70 strat predates the 500Mp/buildtime change, and has mostly been a forte in 2v2.
I think OMGPop has better leveraged the 500MP and buildtime change, especially when skipping either/or Molotovs/ATNades, to bring M3s out, earlier, than was possible before.

M3 Spam was one of my personal concerns when I saw the recent change, and now, here it is, in living color as demonstrated by OMGPop. Ivans response was indeed not optimal (like late MGs... which m3/flamers are practicallyndesigned to oblitrate) and I really wish he had tried a 222 or some mining and luring, so unfortunately we didnt see a more specific response to this kind of build, but I think its effectiveness was apparent to all.

I didnt say it was conclusive evidence.
I said it was strong evidence.
Why? Because of these players respective skill levels and objective ranking in these factions.
One could argue that Ost play was underwhelming, but since there was 5 matches which yielded Sov win everytime, it would be more accurate to argue Sov play was overwhelming.

As to a larger pool, if you actually read my post, youd see I eagerly await the overall win ratio of factions from the entire tournament. Would that not be a large enough pool for you or something?

I 'actually' read your post and asked a question based on what you had written
I believe there was no conflict between your post and mine; nor was there much room for interpretation for that matter

I did not deliberately disregard your curiosity for the overall win ratios of the tourney - after all you claimed strong evidence based on those 5 matches

Nowhere did I mention you would have said anything about 'conclusive evidence' so I do not know where that expression came from

I also did not express my opinion about how large the pool should actually be. Let's not put words into other people's mouths

Good. Then we are in agreement and there is no officer, problems.

Nullist - 222s suck on Semoskiy. Mines could have been very useful though against both M3s and T-70s. Bad map is bad.

Indeed, mines.

As to the map, I used to hate it, utterly, primarily due to to Molotovs priviledge over RNades in terms of garrisons (which I think still needs some attention, possiblt in terms of a better AoE effect of RNades on infantry but not to cause bulding collapse, to offset the systematic effect of flame vs armored units vs RNades crucial AoE vs unarmored larger squads in buildings).

However, I think in many ways this is going to be the primary CoH2 competetive map.
I think design wise, its "flat " middle ground (in terms of the objectives being aligned horizontally, rsther than diagonally" and cover/building oriented central play is the real true test.

I stilla absolutely hate the south fuel building. Reduce it to a shack please with less windows overlookinf the duel, atleast, please. The N fuel point is intriguing, due to the hedges flanking it, and the building to the south just outside the only entry.

Related to both these fuel points I do though like the remote objective and VPs situated at the extreme edges of the map. Makes for intersting mini-skirmishes due to it not being advantageous to send large forces that far out,. N side still being notably easier to return to the main bridgehead. In S, its more convoluted.

I also like the strong bridge locations leading from each base. Possibly cover is too strong for an aggressor who manages to form a front there though. Commensurately though, they are also very strong defensive points to spring forward from.

As to 222, it sucks on every map. Its just simply a POS unit. Whereas 222 superficially benefits from open maps for mobility, it is the general principle that all omnidirectional vehicles actually benefit from cramped quarters where they can maneuver behind buildings for cover while still firing laterally. Its actualy fixed turrets that shine more in open maps, not omnidirectional vehicles and suffer terribly in cramped maps.

Semois Winter somewhat mitigates this by allowing firing into thr center island off the ice as well as infantry advance across it. This map is probably the one most affected by Ice changing its design, but imo, in a good way.

Mining is also extremely easy due to vert predictable approaches, but then so is sweeping.

Overall, I think this map has a lot going for it. Very challenging, but imo the one most conducive to really engaged micro, whereas more open maps degenerate into indirect fire, and standoffish fights, such as Langreskaya.

As to 222, it sucks on every map. Its just simply a POS unit. Whereas 222 superficially benefits from open maps for mobility, it is the general principle that all omnidirectional vehicles actually benefit from cramped quarters where they can maneuver behind buildings for cover while still firing laterally. Its actualy fixed turrets that shine more in open maps, not omnidirectional vehicles and suffer terribly in cramped maps.

absolutely no. 222 sucks on semios because with no LoS you will get AT naded immediately. not to mention guards in buildings.

Nully fanclub disbanded 4vah.

On the contrary mate, you are welcome to join us!

@Tuvok: Thats exactly what I meant, dude. You have misread me.

222 gets utterly owned in cramped maps, even though its turret should be at an advantage there.
Tbh 222 gets utterly owned anyways, in any case. Hence also why OMGPop and Ivan both steadfastly refused to field even a single one in any of the 5 matches.

Its frankly, outright, a POS.

@Tuvok: Thats exactly what I meant, dude. You have misread me.

222 gets utterly owned in cramped maps, even though its turret should be at an advantage there.
Tbh 222 gets utterly owned anyways, in any case. Hence also why OMGPop and Ivan both steadfastly refused to field even a single one in any of the 5 matches.

Its frankly, outright, a POS.

At the moment it can be used effectively to chase down snipers and kill M3s, and it does that pretty damn well

At the moment it can be used effectively to chase down snipers and kill M3s, and it does that pretty damn well

Nope.

Nope.

well they do for me, how do you usally counter m3s and snipers?
(can you stop this attitude? it's really irritating.)
explain how it doesn't counter them

well they do for me, how do you usally counter m3s and snipers?
(can you stop this attitude? it's really irritating.)
explain how it doesn't counter them

M3s: The 50cal on the M3 will KILL an un-upgunned 222. No shit.
-Its even more hilarious vs HT.
-Add a Garrison and it will kill it even faster.
-Guards in M3 will outright obliterate an un-upgunned 222, and will outrange and do almost equivalent dmg to a upgunned 222 to the result that the Ost player loses his entire 222 investment, whereas you retain your Guard, at worst. Infact even better is to degarrison the Guard and screen the M3 with them.

Snipers: My lols. You have no Cons with ATNade supporting your Sniper or something?
Nice vacuum argument.

222 is the current laughing stock of the Coh2 rosters.
Nobody will touch/field it even with a 10ft pole.

Nah 222 is pretty good on maps like Moscow outskirts, Minsk pocket, Langres (as long as you don't succumb to the awful vehicle pathing on this map), the southern part of Karkhov, prip winter to name a few.

I'm not sure if you mis-spoke but you said that "open" maps tend to degenerate into indirect fire? I feel like that couldn't be further from the truth. Open maps (Moscow, Langres, Prip winter) tend to allow for a lot more flanking potential and the ability to spread out your units more, which directly counters indirect fire. It is always the narrow maps that degenerate into artillery fests (Minsk pocket, kharkov, semos summer, prip summer)

M3s: The 50cal on the M3 will KILL an un-upgunned 222

I stopped reading here.

nobody fielded 222s recently because nobody fielded M3s
I find it quite hilarious that everyone complains about OP cons/gren spam and then, when someone deviates from that, that other unit is called OP because it can't be countered with cons/gren spam

I stopped reading here.

nobody fielded 222s recently because nobody fielded M3s
I find it quite hilarious that everyone complains about OP cons/gren spam and then, when someone deviates from that, that other unit is called OP because it can't be countered with cons/gren spam

Uhhh... OMGPOP makes M3s pretty much every single game, it is pretty central to his play style. He made at least two every single game he played Soviets against Ivan...

M3s: The 50cal on the M3 will KILL an un-upgunned 222. No shit.

I'm quite sure that this statement is extremely wrong. Assuming M3 50 cal versus a normal 222. The 222 has more DPS and more front armor and more rear armor while having the same HP. I can't see a scenario in which just the M3 beats the 222. I'm also pretty sure that a 251 HT beats an M3 1vs1. The only time the M3 is effective against either the 222 or the 251 is with guards inside, but that is guards being strong against light vehicles (as they should be) not M3s...

Uhhh... OMGPOP makes M3s pretty much every single game, it is pretty central to his play style. He made at least two every single game he played Soviets against Ivan...

I'm talking about my daily games prior to the manpower increase. Now it's much more fieldable and one of the reasons the meta favours soviets.
I've seen Andy use them in some games as well. In the first snf quali tourney when Andy played OMG there was a game where M3s weren't countered and dominated, while in another they were countered by a 222 and got shredded.

CieZ: An ungarrisoned M3 will KILL an un-upgunned 221.
Test it, Mr. Betaboy. See for yourself.

A garrisoned M3 will positively violate an un-upgunned 221.
A Guard M3 laughs absolutely at an upgunned 222, especially if they simply dismount and shield the M3.

You are on Beta, get to work and test/see for yourself instead of crying at me about it.

(Also, the correct parlance, is 221 is un-upgunned Armored Car. The 222 is the upgunned version. Helps make communication more accurate and is historically accurate mostly)

CieZ: An ungarrisoned M3 will KILL an un-upgunned 221.
Test it, Mr. Betaboy. See for yourself.

A garrisoned M3 will positively violate an un-upgunned 221.
A Guard M3 laughs absolutely at an upgunned 222, especially if they simply dismount and shield the M3.

You are on Beta, get to work and test/see for yourself instead of crying at me about it.

So the guy that constantly whines about ad hominem is now throwing names at me? Cool story bro.

I've played plenty of games (unlike you) and I can pretty safely say that an empty M3 will lose to an un-upgunned scout car. My experience tells me this, my intuition tells me this, and the statistics of the vehicles tell me this. I have personally tested 251 versus empty M3 and the 251 wins.

And yes, Guards in an M3 beat 221/222/251... but that has nothing to do with the M3. They're guards and a good part of their usefulness is countering light vehicles and providing AT support. If they didn't counter light vehicle, there'd be a major problem.

Edit: I was never crying at you, I was providing empirical evidence as to why your claim was wrong.

I can pretty safely say that an empty M3 will lose to an un-upgunned scout car.

False. The M3 beats a 221. The Forward MG is close. The Rear MG outright beats it.
Which in and of itself already evidences the ridiculous relation between these two units. Why the hell does M3 have TWO MG Arcs AND a Garrison?
The 50cal is absolutely brutal! TEST IT. Go ahead. I dare you.

I have personally tested 251 versus empty M3 and the 251 wins.

Even more false. This one is really just outrageous.
The M3 barely beats 221 without garrison.
But it utterly obliterates the 251.
The 251s MG is literally a peashooter. It cant even kill CE, let alone an armored M3.

The 250 doesnt even HAVE a weapon lol.

And yes, Guards in an M3 beat 221/222/251... but that has nothing to do with the M3.

How does it have nothing to do with the M3, when Ost fields a 222 to counter it, yet gets owned by Guards either in it, or next to it?

Edit: I was never crying at you, I was providing empirical evidence as to why your claim was wrong.

Where is the empirical evidence? All I see is anecdotal evicence that is, unfortunately, false. Go test em. See for yourself. You clearly haven't though you claim you have.