KV1

I disagree entirely. Baseline performance should be balanced by stock units, doctrinal units should balanced off of the stock units that have established the balance as long as the balance has been established between the factions core units, which I believe that tanks, frankly are, then as long as doctrinal tanks are balanced relative to their stock counterpart all is well.

Nope since they are not facing there stock units but the enemy units.
As an extreme example to demonstrate the flaw in the logic I will use the M10.
With that M10 should cost 155 fuel and have range 70 speed 8 and penetration 300 because it balance relatively to M36.

Even at that, look at Ostheer. Doctrinal they can get the okw p4. It costs 145 fuel iirc, which is 25 fuel more than the standard p4. It gets ~55 more armour.

What Ostheer basically get with PzIV J is they pay extra fuel for the frontal armor of vet 2. It even has less rear armor than vet 2 PZIV.

The KV1 costs about double that more than the t34 and *gasp* gets nearly double the armour. It gets other things too (more health and currently a damage modifier) but considering that the cost difference between the t34 and the KV1 is roughly the difference between a P4 and a Panther. And I don't think we need to delve into all the things the Panther gets over the p4 eh?

Panther and PzIV have different roles one At vehicles and the peteris main battle tank, the analogy is simply off mark.

The KV1s performance is balanced in the faction for its price.
The t34 and the p4 are balanced against each other, then slap an extra 50% to the cost of the t34 and its going to be a hell of a lot better...

And that is why is not balanced correctly. It is simply more cost efficient than that Churchill while taking far less pop.

Do that yourself, please. I didn't say you suggested it should get identical durability to the T-34/76, but that you wanted to lower its stock durability which would bring it closer to a T-34/76. Why would someone gamble 140 fuel for a vehicle that isn't as distinctly more durable and then be forced to risk it to get veterancy before it properly achieves its damage sponge role?

By decreasing its stock durability you would decrease the distinction between its role and that of the T-34/76, which is exactly the opposite of what you suggested should happen afterwards.

The argument that it would bring them closer is completely mute since the distance between the durability of the two vehicles is very big.

In addition I can reverse the argument and says that the current implementation is all wrong because vet bonus brings the the vehicles closer.

T-34/76 vs KV-1 vet bonuses
Vet 2 identical at +35% weapon rotation speed/+30% reload speed.
vet 3 identical at +20% reload speed/+20% rotation speed/+20% maximum speed with T-34/76 getting an extra +20% ac/de-celeration

A heavy tank KV-1 should not have this vet bonus it should had durability bonuses instead.

And the unit has a Pop that is simply too low.

It got the damage reduction ages ago, I'm not sure why you are bringing that up. The only buffs it received recently was the MG DPS change (and are you seriously including the meme rear facing turret MG?) and the new vet 1 ability that is situational.



It doesn't matter what the argument was, you specifically said yourself that it was buffed because it

which just isn't true. It got buffed because it was bad. The T-34/85 was never a part of that decision.

It might not have been your decision but the unit was simply not bad and as I said this argument it used commonly: Why should I get commander with KV-1 when I can get commander with T-34/85 especially since most commander with T-34/85 also come with good abilities.

(Even the fact that it got the same MG as the T-34/85/76 says something)

T-34/76 vs KV-1 vet bonuses
Vet 2 identical at +35% weapon rotation speed/+30% reload speed.
vet 3 identical at +20% reload speed/+20% rotation speed/+20% maximum speed with T-34/76 getting an extra +20% ac/de-celeration

A heavy tank KV-1 should not have this vet bonus it should had durability bonuses instead.

A heavy tank still needs to deal some damage. And mobility = durability.
The vet is fine, invisible durability bonuses aren't exactly good design either.

A heavy tank still needs to deal some damage.

KV-1 does deal damage.
It has superb AI MG.
And it has a gun that is superior to that of the main battle tank of it faction.

Churchill has gun that slight inferior to that of the main battle tank of it faction so I do not see the issue.

And mobility = durability.

durability = durability = HP/armor, unless you want to argue that kubel is more durable than the KV-1.

If you want to argue that mobility help unit survive easier that is true but is another story.

The vet is fine, invisible durability bonuses aren't exactly good design either.

No the are not fine.

I am do not know what you mean with "invisible durability bonuses".

I am do not know what you mean with "invisible durability bonuses".

Units which gain armor or HP are generally communicated visually. Ones without it are "bad design".

Units which gain armor or HP are generally communicated visually. Ones without it are "bad design".

You mean like the KV-2/250/221/dozer that the same MOD team decided to give "invisible" HP but suddenly is an issue for KV-1?

Any idea how many units get armor/HP with a visual indicator?

I am sorry but I can not Sander93's argument that we can not give HP/Armor to KV-1 as vet bonus because there is not visual indicator seriously since a number of unit ready get them.

You mean like the KV-2/250/221/dozer that the same MOD team decided to give "invisible" HP but suddenly is an issue for KV-1?

Any idea how many units get armor/HP with a visual indicator?

I am sorry but I can not Sander93's argument that we can not give HP/Armor to KV-1 as vet bonus because there is not visual indicator seriously since a number of unit ready get them.

That doesn't contradict what he said. Target tables are ugly but they are still been used.

Nope since they are not facing there stock units but the enemy units.
As an extreme example to demonstrate the flaw in the logic I will use the M10.
With that M10 should cost 155 fuel and have range 70 speed 8 and penetration 300 because it balance relatively to M36.

What the hell are you talking about? This makes no sense at all. And it doesn't follow from what armadillo said...

I think if you were looking at nerfing/changing the KV1 the best place to start, as has already been suggested several times, would be to merely remove its DR and buff its health accordingly.

Alternatively, Perhaps it could be considered that the KV1 keep its current defensive statistics (Or maybe even have its HP/armour (the former, ideally) increased), and instead have its gun/turret nerfed in some way? Slightly reduced firerate, reduced turret traverse speed, even a small reduction in range. Being very survivable (And being very quick to return to combat even if it is forced away) is a kind of interesting niche.

The KV1 is ostensibly intended to be a "Tanky" vehicle, with the t34/85 being Soviets' "brawling" premium medium in comparison, so it may be worth leaning further in that direction if you want to differentiate the T34/76, t34/85, and KV1 even more from one another.



The only issue i forsee is that the tank's gun needs to have a minimum level of threat, or there's very little reason to target it over a squishier, and more damaging vehicle, which would render its improved survivability rather pointless.

That doesn't contradict what he said. Target tables are ugly but they are still been used.

Will keep this sort since it is irrelevant to KV-1.

1) HP/Armor bonus are not invisible. One can see the vet level and read the description (if only description where a bit more informative). There is little difference between HP/armor vet bonus or other bonus like DPS that also do not have an indicator.

2) No having a visual indicator for HP/armor is not related to "game design" but to player "user friendliness"

3) Target are not "ugly". There are quite useful and COH2 should probably use more of them.

They can become a nightmare (more for the developer than the user) when many different types of units/armor are used like they in COH1.

What is actually bad design is having different unit have almost identical vet bonuses which is actually the case with T-34/76 and KV-1.

The vet bonuses of KV-1 (and of many other units) should be changed and tailor made for the units role and timing. Making KV-1 vet bonuses about HP/Armor would help reduce the unit "shock value" but help it retain good power level.

Making KV-1 vet bonuses about HP/Armor would help reduce the unit "shock value" but help it retain good power level.

That would be a significant nerf to the unit. Requiring a slow tank with a relatively weak main gun to gain vet just so that it can perform it's main role of being a sponge doesn't make any sense at all

That would be a significant nerf to the unit. Requiring a slow tank with a relatively weak main gun to gain vet just so that it can perform it's main role of being a sponge doesn't make any sense at all

Depends on how well it's able to perform its role as a damage sponge when it enters the field, really, and how much XP it requires for each level. I think there's some merit in an unit's Veterancy being tailored a little more to the specific unit/its role.

As other people have mentioned, the fact that there's nothing changing on the unit to imply an increase of health/armour is kind of an issue, though. Axis vehicles' HP/armour increases are generally indicated by them gaining Schürzen (except the panther, for some reason). I wish all bonuses were indicated on an units' model in this way... another thing to hope for in CoH3.

1) HP/Armor bonus are not invisible. One can see the vet level and read the description (if only description where a bit more informative). There is little difference between HP/armor vet bonus or other bonus like DPS that also do not have an indicator

There's a difference between infantry getting more elite and logically becoming more accurate and harder to hit (becoming better at using cover, etc.) or a tank crew decreasing their reload time, and a tank suddenly being able to survive 5 shots instead of 4 or getting more armor. 99% of infantry does not get a health increase with veterancy, Grens being the sole exception.

We didn't invent most of the tank durability buffs, they are mostly leftovers from Relic (at least they gave the German tanks visual clues), and the new direction is that invisible modifiers are something that should be avoided as much as possible unless it's deemed absolutely necessary to balance the unit because they are not communicated clearly with the player. Which is not the case with the KV-1.

There's a difference between infantry getting more elite and logically becoming more accurate and harder to hit (becoming better at using cover, etc.) or a tank crew decreasing their reload time, and a tank suddenly being able to survive 5 shots instead of 4 or getting more armor. 99% of infantry does not get a health increase with veterancy, Grens being the sole exception.

We didn't invent most of the tank durability buffs, they are mostly leftovers from Relic(at least they gave the German tanks visual clues), and the new direction is that invisible modifiers are something that should be avoided as much as possible unless it's deemed absolutely necessary to balance the unit because they are not communicated clearly with the player. Which is not the case with the KV-1.

That is incorrect:
KV-2/250/221/dozer/JT having HP buff is all from the MOD team.

Relic actually removed HP vet bonuses from most units. Mainly Panther used to get 160 HP and JP.

Side skirt indicated armor bonus in most cases and not HP.

The vet level in communicated just fine and there is description of what bonuses provide that can easily and clearly say that the unit got an HP or Armor bonus.

How "absolutely necessary to balance the unit" are the extra HP for the Dozer.

I can accept your opinion that KV-1 should not ger armor or HP as vet bonuses but I can not accept that the reason behind it is because it does not have side skirt or other visual changes to unit itself.

To me that sound like an excuse and not a reason.

There's a difference between infantry getting more elite and logically becoming more accurate and harder to hit (becoming better at using cover, etc.) or a tank crew decreasing their reload time, and a tank suddenly being able to survive 5 shots instead of 4 or getting more armor. 99% of infantry does not get a health increase with veterancy, Grens being the sole exception.

We didn't invent most of the tank durability buffs, they are mostly leftovers from Relic (at least they gave the German tanks visual clues), and the new direction is that invisible modifiers are something that should be avoided as much as possible unless it's deemed absolutely necessary to balance the unit because they are not communicated clearly with the player. Which is not the case with the KV-1.

Would it be possible to have some of the "Dig in" sandbags appear on the KV1's track guards/front glacis upon reaching veterancy? If you DID ever decide to have it become more durable with veterancy, this would be a pretty good indicator of that occurring.

Depends on how well it's able to perform its role as a damage sponge when it enters the field, really,

It doesn't though, because you gain much more Veterancy from doing damage than taking it. Unless that ratio is going to change for KV1 specifically. That's why putting it's durability behind vet when that's it's main role doesn't make much sense

and how much XP it requires for each level.

That is how veterancy works, yes

I think there's some merit in an unit's Veterancy being tailored a little more to the specific unit/its role.

I'm really only talking about the KV1 in coh2. Whether or not the vet system needs an overhaul is for the next game

That is incorrect:
KV-2/250/221/dozer/JT having HP buff is all from the MOD team.

Relic actually removed HP vet bonuses from most units. Mainly Panther used to get 160 HP and JP.

Side skirt indicated armor bonus in most cases and not HP.

He said durability buffs, not just HP..... Stop grasping for straws

That is how veterancy works, yes

I'm aware of how veterancy works, I'm suggesting that the KV-1 veterancy XP requirements be reduced.

The amount of XP required for a particular level of veterancy can be changed on a per-unit basis, what I'm suggesting is that if the KV's anemic gun is what would prohibit it gaining sufficient "tankiness" through Vet gain, then the Balance team might consider reducing the amount of XP it needs to gain (Even if just for the first level, if that's where it would gain health/armour bonuses)

Also, given that the KV is ostensibly supposed to support other units, rather than really provide damage itself, it might be a candidate for receiving shared veterancy.

Alternative options would be to make its "tankiness" an unit upgrade, or delay the unit, if the "imbalanced" aspect of it is the timing.

I'm not suggesting any of these are "required", but they're options to consider if the KV1 is to be rebalanced in some fashion.

I'm aware of how veterancy works, I'm suggesting that the KV-1 veterancy XP requirements be reduced.

Yeah I am too? You were the one who felt the need to explain it

That would be by far the largest and most expensive unit with shared veterancy. Would be quite a change, though I do find it interesting

Yeah I am too? You were the one who felt the need to explain it

You being snarky gave me the impression I was being misunderstood.

That would be by far the largest and most expensive unit with shared veterancy. Would be quite a change, though I do find it interesting

Its ostensibly a "support" unit, so despite the cost/size, I don't think its too unreasonable to consider it for Shared Vet... especially if any changes did reduce its lethality.