Login

russian armor

[Winter Balance Update] USF Feedback

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (20)down
16 Dec 2020, 01:57 AM
#221
avatar of theekvn

Posts: 307

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Dec 2020, 21:39 PMPip


The unit would likely need a health and armour reduction as well, if this were the case. It's approximately as survivable as a Stuart, an unit that's intended to be on or near the frontlines.


that is NO-NO. I had to pay 260MP/85Fuel for a cute useless auto fire light tank which is hopeless against Pz4 dive ?
50 range autofire is stupidly big nerf because eveyone forget it cant longer loop shell over shotblocker , can be kill everytinme by every AT gun at range ! New 80 dmg barrage cant scare any weapon support what so ever. Not to mention Fucking Stuka get more pen :D
Pip
16 Dec 2020, 02:31 AM
#222
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Dec 2020, 01:57 AMtheekvn


that is NO-NO. I had to pay 260MP/85Fuel for a cute useless auto fire light tank which is hopeless against Pz4 dive ?
50 range autofire is stupidly big nerf because eveyone forget it cant longer loop shell over shotblocker , can be kill everytinme by every AT gun at range ! New 80 dmg barrage cant scare any weapon support what so ever. Not to mention Fucking Stuka get more pen :D


You're advocating for an unit to gain enough range to be untouchable by AT guns,

There's a reason units like the Katyusha, Pwerfer, and Stuka have very low armour, and very low health. If you're forced to dive to deal with them, then it should be expected that you can actually kill the thing when you dive. It takes three shots from either the P4 or Panther to take down a Scott, necessitating a trade in most cases. Coupled with the smoke you'll have a practically unkillable artillery piece, that has a comparatively low cost compared to the vehicles expected to take the risk to trade for it.

The Calliope has the same absurd strength, but is at least toned down due to its cost and the fact that it's doctrinal. (Despite this the Calliope's survivability is a point of contention)

If the Scott got more range, I really can't see why it should keep its 400 HP and 70 armour.
16 Dec 2020, 02:46 AM
#223
avatar of theekvn

Posts: 307

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Dec 2020, 02:31 AMPip


You're advocating for an unit to gain enough range to be untouchable by AT guns,

There's a reason units like the Katyusha, Pwerfer, and Stuka have very low armour, and very low health. If you're forced to dive to deal with them, then it should be expected that you can actually kill the thing when you dive. It takes three shots from either the P4 or Panther to take down a Scott, necessitating a trade in most cases. Coupled with the smoke you'll have a practically unkillable artillery piece, that has a comparatively low cost compared to the vehicles expected to take the risk to trade for it.

The Calliope has the same absurd strength, but is at least toned down due to its cost and the fact that it's doctrinal. (Despite this the Calliope's survivability is a point of contention)

If the Scott got more range, I really can't see why it should keep its 400 HP and 70 armour.

because M8 is Howie on track not Rocket arty. For god sake. You cant compere a subtain indirect fire with Rocket Savlo.
Your Pz4 can make a short dive to force it retreat and keep bleeding USF inf. Of couse Axis players wont have a ball for that anyway.
Thinking about all USF armor can be killed by easy dive from every Axis armor is unaccpetable !
16 Dec 2020, 02:50 AM
#224
avatar of theekvn

Posts: 307

Another problem is MP bleed. A momment Scott on the field, you know USF had to use Rifle as meatshield. Why not kitting and bleed them ?. Axis have more time to fill another tank to battle or tier up for brumdar, rocketwafer etc. This is fuking combine arm game, not ez game for ez dive.
16 Dec 2020, 02:59 AM
#225
avatar of theekvn

Posts: 307

not to mention bought 85 fuel unit to level of M20 is ... Retarded. How the fuck a light tank with 50 range autofire can live against 2 pak/Ratkken ? 80 dmg barrage wouldn't never surpass Rocket barrage !
16 Dec 2020, 03:39 AM
#226
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Dec 2020, 17:33 PMVipper

Not really.

Ostheer have the HMG-42 because gren loose to riflemen. If USF can counter the HMG with cheaper mortar that will leave back into Riflemen beating the Grenadier and one would have to buff the grenadier to compensate.


So OST can get a counter to USF units but USF can't get a counter to their counter? Are we going to go back in time and just say "smoke and flank"? USF mortar is the same MP cost as OST mortar and I'm pretty sure it still has the inferior damage profile of lower near damage AND lower range for both auto fire and barrage. It's literally the definition of still being inferior to the OST mortar despite the barrage being slightly buffed so you get rewarded the same for good micro of barraging support weapons. (while still having to put the mortar at more risk because of it's lower range)
16 Dec 2020, 06:53 AM
#227
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



So OST can get a counter to USF units but USF can't get a counter to their counter? Are we going to go back in time and just say "smoke and flank"? USF mortar is the same MP cost as OST mortar and I'm pretty sure it still has the inferior damage profile of lower near damage AND lower range for both auto fire and barrage. It's literally the definition of still being inferior to the OST mortar despite the barrage being slightly buffed so you get rewarded the same for good micro of barraging support weapons. (while still having to put the mortar at more risk because of it's lower range)

Grenadier do not counter Rifles and no one is building mortars. Keep in mind that the mortar nerf had the biggest impact on Ostheer since they had the advantage and they where the faction that relied to them the most.

You see the a comparison of mortars here.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/106172/indirect-fire-performance-a-comparison

USF mortar (T0) has almost identical performance with Ostheer one (T1) in auto-fire one although it is firing in smaller count units. The Ostheer one has a slight advantage in barrage which is about to lose.

On top of that it provides a counter HMG-42 which hold Ostheer's game. If one check the 2019 stats one will see that USF out produced the Ostheer in support weapons (probably in 2020 but the number are not available).
16 Dec 2020, 22:28 PM
#229
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Dec 2020, 21:56 PMJon2020

...

Welcome.
May I suggested that avoid opening discussion about who is favoring what in the feedback thread, it is rather nonconstructive.
16 Dec 2020, 22:59 PM
#230
avatar of Jon2020

Posts: 15





I'm just now seeing your response here, so I'll take it point by point.

I was trying to give you an oopsie out for trying to compare a barrage only vehicle that delays armour by minutes to an auto fire super mortar that could wipe squads at any time without warning.


As for me introducing the Walking Stuka into the conversation, my point is that it has a huge impact on 4v4 gameplay, especially on maps with chokepoints. There's a reason I use it all the time, even often preferring to field it before the Panzer IV Ausf. J, which is a great unit itself. The Walking Stuka definitely has a more devastating impact upon gameplay on certain maps, some of which I already mentioned (Lanzerath Ambush, Port of Hamburg, Essen Steelworks, etc.). I'm well aware that the Walking Stuka, Scott, and Pack Howitzer are very different, and that the Stuka costs much more fuel to field. My point is that here we are weakening the USF's Pack Howitzer and Scott, which pale in comparison to the Walking Stuka and the domination it brings to a dense battlefield, at a time when the USF's nondoctrinal artillery power is already woefully inadequate by late team-game standards. I think you know where I'm going with this.

the enemy outplaying you or map issues doesn't make the comparison better if you have an issue with the Stuka make a stuka thread, don't try to use it to somehow justify the pak howi being too strong. And for the record, the audio cue is what in part makes the Stuka OK. It's not a wipe out of nowhere like the pak howi


Dropping gargantuan bombs in a small chokepoint where anybody with a brain is virtually guaranteed to inflict heavy damage does not exactly classify as 'outplaying' anyone, in my book. I don't have an issue with the Stuka at all. It's an effective weapon, leave it that way. My issue is that some people come here and complain about the potency of two weapons (the Pack Howitzer and M8A1 Scott) that have far less potential in 4v4s, and now we see the USF's non-doctrinal artillery options further weakened into obsolescence. The audio cue is reasonable for the Walking Stuka, but it still doesn't mean an expert can't get hammered by it. If that were the case, other experts wouldn't use it. They do.

you are missing the point entirely. Fuel cost is not insignificant. The Stuka costs more than regular proper arty, and building it delays proper armour by minutes for a chance to wipe every minute or so. The pak howi costs no fuel and delays nothing while possibly wiping every few seconds.


I never said fuel cost was insignificant, and have acknowledged this multiple times now. You are missing my point when I say that non-doctrinal USF artillery is the worst of all of the factions already, and that weakening it further does absolutely nothing but make the USF less playable at a competitive level in team game matches. If these weapons are going to be weakened, the USF has got to get some other non-doctrinal artillery options, or at least allow all commanders to call in a Pershing, in just the same way that all OKW players can call in a King Tiger. It's that simple.

I know you are pretty new here but I'm well aware of the plight of team games and also that usf does quite well in them despite the lack of rocket arty.


I'm not sure if you're taking a shot at me for being new to the forum, or if you're simply pointing out that I'm unaware of your own awareness of the plight of team games (fair point - I don't know you too well), but I have played this game enough to believe that I can contribute a meaningful perspective to issues with team game balance. I concur with your assessment that the USF can perform well in team games, if you're happy with just making Jacksons every single game (and hiding them from virtually every other unit on the battlefield), or doctrinally fielding a Calliope or Priest from 3 commanders in the late game. Apart from being boring and repetitive, the lack of potent non-doctrinal artillery and heavy tanks discourages the use of all but a few USF commanders. This is simply bad for the game. That's my opinion.

I'm aware how early an okw player can field rocket arty. I've been playing this game since before it released and understand that if you play passively the Stuka will punish that. A properly micro medium will be equally devistating and higher impact however. Not that it's relevant to the discussion outside a reference point as to how expensive the Stuka is.


It's hard to quantitatively measure comparative efficacy between units like these, but, anecdotally, I have deduced that the Walking Stuka's team game infantry-killing power dwarfs that of the M8A1 Scott or the Pack Howitzer, yet the latter two are the target of the most recent AI nerfs. Do you see where I'm going with this? It doesn't make sense for a faction whose non-doctrinal artillery capability is already the worst in the game to have its current abilities beaten down even further. Add to this the long-established issue that the USF has no heavy tanks and you can see why players always choose the same few USF commanders in team games, or simply opt to forgo USF altogether and choose the UKF or the Soviets when playing on the Allied side.

16 Dec 2020, 23:05 PM
#231
avatar of Jon2020

Posts: 15

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Dec 2020, 22:28 PMVipper

Welcome.
May I suggested that avoid opening discussion about who is favoring what in the feedback thread, it is rather nonconstructive.


God forbid I point out the obvious. You had better censor me!
17 Dec 2020, 07:18 AM
#232
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

V3 USF changes

M8 Scott
The rate of fire on the M8 barrage is being increased, improving its ability to pressure stationary targets
- Barrage reload from 2.75/2.9 to 1.75/1.9

M15 AA Half-track
Adjustments have been made to the M15
- Should no longer do strange rotations when given orders to attack ground or engage units on the far left or right of its arc; note machine guns no longer follow attack orders due to engine limitations.
- New ability: M15 Anti-Aircraft Mode. Enables the M15 to have 360 degree rotation, but cannot be ordered to attack ground target. Can only engage aircraft when in this mode. Replaces Prioritize Aircraft
17 Dec 2020, 07:51 AM
#233
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

M8 Scott

An elegant solution that will require more testing.

M15 AA Half-track

Nice to see that my suggestion about the AA mode is being implemented (maybe it would be a good idea to extend to other unit also since it could make easier to balance AA weapons since they could use different properties in AA mode).

I would suggest you check it AA capability thou from the little testing I did the unit was able to shoot down all single pass planes.

I would also suggest to remove the suppression on the move capability and lower the price.
17 Dec 2020, 09:20 AM
#234
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243

Imagine OKW AA HT would get a buff to its disadvantages...like can shoot on the move /maybe for muni cost or time ability or vet-----but nooo)
17 Dec 2020, 09:22 AM
#235
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Imagine OKW AA HT would get a buff to its disadvantages...like can shoot on the move /maybe for muni cost or time ability or vet-----but nooo)

Almost like it works as intended, eh?
I advise you try to use it in its intended role of mechanized weapon team instead of literal plow.

Its unpopular because of its tech.
Its much stronger then Luchs vs infantry.
17 Dec 2020, 17:08 PM
#240
avatar of GiaA

Posts: 713 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post17 Dec 2020, 09:22 AMKatitof

Almost like it works as intended, eh?
I advise you try to use it in its intended role of mechanized weapon team instead of literal plow.

Its unpopular because of its tech.
Its much stronger then Luchs vs infantry.


FlakHT is utterly insane and the most underrated unit in the game imo. Just difficult to use compared to other LVs. No room for fuck ups.

Scott change looks good but the unit will still be obsolete in 1v1.

US still lacks a sniper counter. Give the captain a snipe shot upgrade that locks weapon upgrades and costs ~60 ammo. People need to get the M20 counters sniper idea out of their heads. M20 is good vs sniper opening builds but it's not relevant when fighting a sniper mid-late game.
PAGES (20)down
3 users are browsing this thread: 3 guests

Livestreams

France 16
Sweden 17

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

831 users are online: 1 member and 830 guests
SneakEye
1 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48781
Welcome our newest member, greenwayautorec
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM