UKF in ML so far...

#Panther AI is OP plz nerf.

But you shouldn't forget about Elephant and JT, theirs AI is just insane. Undescovered best AI tanks, trust me.

The rest of the factions are weirdly designed in my opinion and trying to forcefully be "different", as in the reason why we got both British Armies being focused around static defensive emplacement gameplay or both the PE and OKW being the "Elite" more vehicle focused factions.

What should have been done in my opinion was go for a theme and stick to it, for example I think it was well done in the original CoH with the US and Wehr representing their real life 1944 counterparts well while in this game the Ost is some sort of mish-mash 1943/1944 defensive Army while they should be an early war more mobile and aggressive Army with the OKW's trucks instead to represent the "Blitzkrieg" time of most of the Theater of War missions for example.

In CoH1 USF was early game Wermacht were late. It was usually up to the USF player to be offensive and attempt to shut out the game before it was too late. That was the "theme" of the game and I think plenty of people were fine with that.

I completely agree with you in that the base factions are not deprived but have "themes". CoH2 Soviets and Ostheer are pretty closely matched and commander choices allow you to decide what niche you end up wanting to fulfill. Such as Assault Grenadiers if you wanted early offensive power, or T85's if you wanted a heftier tank. Did Ostheer have a better late game? They did, but that doesn't mean Soviets couldn't compete.

In CoH2, USF were similarly designed around shutting out the game on a razors edge. They were on an invisible timer to lose the game. They lack units in their core army because Riflemen were designed to do everything. As you said when they removed smoke on rifles, this core design began compounding on itself until they turned into this weird faction we have now. We have units that constantly compete against itself or just "slight" variants of existing units.

as for OKW I think the idea was they were mimicking their "Battle of the Buldge" concept of striking hard and fast early on, then teetering out to retaliation, but if they COULD hold they finally get their big guns out, the ultimate late game if you will.

I protested a lot of the USF changes that turned into the current iteration we have today and I was not the only USF player to do so. I prefer the theme they were originally presented with, and instead of changing it would prefer reducing the impact of it. If the issue was "Well, USF didn't have a late game" that was a choice you made when you locked the faction. I'm not a fan of factions being slightly different flavors of ice cream.

Remove section cover bonus, make sections 5men regardless of Bolster and balance them around them being 5 men, give sections snares, remove sections trenches, remove sappers snare, put UC in T1, nerf the shit out of the AEC, nerf hunt, put mortar team in T1, put every UKF emplacement in Advanced emplacements doctrine, remove phosphorus rounds from Comet, put land mattress in T2 and make it a useful non cheesy unit.

Anything less than that is not acceptable. Better have a dead Brit faction than an OP Brit faction.

In your opinion, how should brits then be designed? Especially with the idea that a lot of their flavor would have to be removed. I understand if you feel their core design is cancerous but why then, are german factions allowed to dig in and turtle? Though the second an allied faction can do that it is considered bad for the game?

Is the argument that they WAY they turtle makes the game less fun? What makes a unit fun to counter? If my opponent builds a sniper, the counters to the sniper don't even really work against a great player (I've seen your opinion on snipers and I agree). So is the idea that the mortar pits counter is another mortar but that doesn't work, make it not fun or fair?

What role do the british play if they do not rely on cover via a cover bonus? What makes them different? This issue seems to arise in every CoH game that no one likes to play against british and they always find them aids to fight but if axis can turtle, that's seen as fine. If it's just emplacements are impossible to find "fun" in I could understand. Or the issue that they may have unfair utility compared to their counterparts.

PS. Why do you hate the AEC? I think it's basically just a worse stuart against infantry. They have no light vehicle so it's either UC or....AEC (5 fuel or 75 fuel), vs every other faction with inbetween options.

snip

Main issue with Brits is they rely on cheese to win. They have very few options to push and suffer from a lack of indirect fire and LV presence as well as expensive sidetech to make their mainlines viable and no snare on them, so they make up for it with absurd mainline performance, a stock Puma (AEC) that can immobilize anything at vet 1 for some reason and a min0 LV that has no counter for a good 1-2mins vs Ost and forces OKW into a raketen. You can't have a faction that relies on cheese to be competitive to make up for lethal shortcomings. The cheese needs to be nerfed and the horrible issues need to be fixed.

What role do the british play if they do not rely on cover via a cover bonus? What makes them different?

I think as they are now, if you take away the cheese and fix the awful shortcomings, the faction is plenty unique with a very static long range focused mainline backed up by a UC, sniper and specialized assault/camo squads (officer/commandos) into a lategame where they can pick between heavy and medium/heavy tank sidetiers.

Main issue with Brits is they rely on cheese to win...

I can see what you mean. In that way they have to over perform in the things they are good at but have to be kneecapped in order for it to be "fair". If you were to look at USF from back then to now at a basic level USF could always "function". So the end result is both players abuse the things that allows them to win. Such as a 222 or 221(okw) can teabag a british players face for 3-6 minutes until they get an AT gun or an AEC because of their extreme lack of snares.

If you ever played League it reminds me of Darius who is the ultimate lane bully but his weakness is getting ganked because he had no mobility. So the only way to win was to abuse his kneecap which isn't exactly fun for the person laning AGAINST him and I'm sure he doesn't enjoy getting camped.

I could see the idea of toning their stuff down and making the UC their "shock light vehicle" for cheap fuel and making it worth it's value thereby making them play like other factions. That thing has dooky ass pathing though and its stats in general would need to be changed. Or adding some kind of halftrack.

Though in the end your evaluation does make them sound like Ostheer with extra steps. Maybe people would just prefer an allied faction that plays like Ostheer if they wanted to play allies. Such as OKW/USF mirror each others aggression.

I can see what you mean. In that way they have to over perform in the things they are good at but have to be kneecapped in order for it to be "fair". If you were to look at USF from back then to now at a basic level USF could always "function". So the end result is both players abuse the things that allows them to win. Such as a 222 or 221(okw) can teabag a british players face for 3-6 minutes until they get an AT gun or an AEC because of their extreme lack of snares.

Which is why the faction is broken. They bully the shit out of German factions with their UC and Infantry section early on, and the opposite happens when Germans start hammering the no-snare infantry sections with their LVs.

Since people are complaining about the Panther again, the solution is very simple. Remove the MG upgrade, and buff the moving accuracy so it becomes a more consistent TD.

My biggest issue with UKF is always how they are unable to shock-punish unsupported infantry advances.
UKF tanks can only tickle hostile infantry pushes over a long timeframe while ISU, KingTiger and Brummbär can reliably force a squad to retreat with one shot, while being a lot less exposed like an AVRE or Croco. Even a P4 has more utility than a Comet or Churchill.

Which is why the faction is broken. They bully the shit out of German factions with their UC and Infantry section early on, and the opposite happens when Germans start hammering the no-snare infantry sections with their LVs.

but this dynamics seems fine. imo snares missing on IS seems over stated. RE are now buildable on start and AEC is no longer exclusive. you have plenty of snares now.

imo issue with ukf is a bit too pop cap tight. they will easily do better with 1 more IS squad fieldable.

also the commanders are not as fun or versatile, commandos are too costly and the rest of call ins infantry can't cover the gap

but this dynamics seems fine. imo snares missing on IS seems over stated. RE are now buildable on start and AEC is no longer exclusive. you have plenty of snares now.

imo issue with ukf is a bit too pop cap tight. they will easily do better with 1 more IS squad fieldable.

also the commanders are not as fun or versatile, commandos are too costly and the rest of call ins infantry can't cover the gap

No it is not. Imagine OST only can use snare with pio, OkW with sturm. They are also buildable from the start.

At best, engineers from all factions are built upto 2. And they are not at the frontline all the time as a mainline infs are. Meaning they are not there when snares are needed.

I do generally agree with pop cap too.

As I read this I thought never, ever is this true. This really can't be true. It would destroy what I thought this two tanks are balanced around completely. Both are at 18 population. so they have to be somehow compareable in population efficience.

Panther: more range, overall better survivability, higher penetration -> wins vs Comet in 1vs1 situation
Comet: does way more damage to Infantry to be more like an allround premium brawler

I tested it multiple times in CheatMod at different ranges. Vet0 Panther always with Pintle upgrade, Vet0 Comet with Tank Commander Upgrade.

Result: The result was pretty close with Panther having the edge over Comet overall at killing infantry


How is this even possible? Where is the way better AI of Comet?
Throwing grenades? -> situatuional/very short ranged/watch out for snares
Smoke shell? -> versatile, but prevents your maingun from shooting of course
WP shell at Vet1? -> is it all about this munition costing ability?

Oh man, Comet really should have higher AI base damage as a pintled Panther or be able to upgrade a turret mounted MG by itself, this is shocking.

I have to admit that I was a bit puzzled by these vids as well, so I've done a bit of number crunching myself.

Though I wasn't able to recreate the conditions in the first test to 100% (not sure what the exact engagement range was and the formation used in the simulation is slightly different), I think the theoretical results displayed in the graphs below should be quite comparable to what's been shown in the tests.



In the simulated engagement (the graphs show the average over 1,000 repetitions @ 35 m range) against the squad with no bonus to target size (TS = 1.0) the Panther and Comet are quite close with respect to damage dealt (left) and models killed (right) over time, though the Comet has a slight edge despite lower MG DPS (assuming all MGs firing at the target at all time the Panther w/ pintle has 40-60% more combined machine gun DPS at all ranges). However, the Panther relies almost to 100% on its MGs to deal damage, whereas only 60% of the Comet's DPS is dealt by the hull/coax.

Hence, when moving to a more realistic test scenario, i.e. against infantry with a target size of 0.5 (corresponding to mid to late game due to light cover or vet bonus to received accuracy) the Panther's AI falls short behind that of the Comet by quite a lot. In fact, it would take the Panther 34% longer on average to kill the whole squad under these circumstances.

The difference in raw AI may not sound like a lot, especially when compared to other generalist mediums and premium meds, but the Comet's WP shell and crew grenade more than make up for this in my opinion. These would make a huge difference in the AT-gun fight shown in the 2nd video as well, not to mention that in this clip the Panther got extremely lucky.

No it is not. Imagine OST only can use snare with pio, OkW with sturm. They are also buildable from the start.

At best, engineers from all factions are built upto 2. And they are not at the frontline all the time as a mainline infs are. Meaning they are not there when snares are needed.

I do generally agree with pop cap too.

ukf RE are generally the hardiest engineers, they can be at the front line as AT with piat, imo that's the design goal, or has always been

ukf RE are generally the hardiest engineers, they can be at the front line as AT with piat, imo that's the design goal, or has always been

Well that design goal was to 100% separate roll of AI & AT between IS / RE. Now IS has very much less potential to deal AI. So the design goal doesn't matter much.

What you meant by generally the hardiest engineers anyway?

snipp?

Isn't it quite surprising that Panther, despite what people think, actually gives pretty well AI dmg?

Those vids I provided was created almost two years ago for Korean coh2 community to punish axis fanboy who cried for AI buff for panther.

From what I remember, I tested 3~5 for each,(but only posted 1) and all results were similar.
Panther is one of the few base tank(no commander required) that can kill AT in head-to-head.

And comet is not that good in AI without skill such as WP. (hence acquired it's nickname "WP discharger")

Isn't it quite surprising that Panther, despite what people think, actually gives pretty well AI dmg?

Those vids I provided was created almost two years ago for Korean coh2 community to punish axis fanboy who cried for AI buff for panther.

From what I remember, I tested 3~5 for each,(but only posted 1) and all results were similar.
Panther is one of the few base tank(no commander required) that can kill AT in head-to-head.

And comet is not that good in AI without skill such as WP. (hence acquired it's nickname "WP discharger")

Well, as said above I've indeed been quite surprised myself that the Panther performs quite on par with the Comet in the clips you've shared. However, context matters - and I'd wager in the test scenario the conditions were rather favorable for the Panther overall. As pointed out by Miragefla a few posts above the effectiveness of MGs scales pretty badly the longer the game progresses due to abundant crater cover and received accuracy for infantry with vet. Furthermore, against a more clumped squad formation the much greater AoE of the Comet would prove more effective as well, so I'm not really convinced the Panther fares that much better under real game conditions as the test would suggest.

That being said, I'm kind of on the fence towards the clip showing the frontal attack vs the AT-gun. I've never seen this happen on a regular basis ingame, though I have to admit that I haven't bothered to test it thoroughly thus far. So if the Panther is really that effective (possible, as weapon team entities should have an even larger target size than regular infantry after the latest patch) this would be worrisome. Not quite sure how much the stats of the other units involved changed within the 2 years since the videos have been recorded, but at least the Comet's main gun received quite a number of changes to its AoE and scatter, iirc.

snipp.

I have to admit that there has been a few patches since then, but I believe it will still happens. It never failed even vs pak(which I believe is the strongest AT in game) at that time.

vs 6-pounder / zis / 57 all the same. 1 at vs panther. Panther will gonna win I believe.

in my experience, panther AI fair better than jackson and firefly and su85. that's about it.

in my experience, panther AI fair better than jackson and firefly and su85. that's about it.

Jackson & su-85 doesn't have any mg mounted. firefly has one.

OTOH, panther has 3 mg(upgrade included) which deals approximately 1~2 lmg. Which means tank can be used to make 1 inf. taking the territory retreat.

Obviously panther does better AI, which you do not use it wisely I guess?

Jackson & su-85 doesn't have any mg mounted. firefly has one.

OTOH, panther has 3 mg(upgrade included) which deals approximately 1~2 lmg. Which means tank can be used to make 1 inf. taking the territory retreat.

Obviously panther does better AI, which you do not use it wisely I guess?

i think we gone off topic about panther AI.

imo my experience given arbitrary numbers..
panther AI is a 5.5
panther AT is a 8.5
comet AI is a 7.5
comet AT is a 7.5

by comparison
P4 AI is a 7, AT is a 6.5
Firefly AT is a 9 AI is a 3
SU85 AT is 9 (cost to perf) AI is a 1.5
Jackson AT is a 9.5. AI is a 3 (crush, turret)

I have to admit that I was a bit puzzled by these vids as well, so I've done a bit of number crunching myself.

Though I wasn't able to recreate the conditions in the first test to 100% (not sure what the exact engagement range was and the formation used in the simulation is slightly different), I think the theoretical results displayed in the graphs below should be quite comparable to what's been shown in the tests.



In the simulated engagement (the graphs show the average over 1,000 repetitions @ 35 m range) against the squad with no bonus to target size (TS = 1.0) the Panther and Comet are quite close with respect to damage dealt (left) and models killed (right) over time, though the Comet has a slight edge despite lower MG DPS (assuming all MGs firing at the target at all time the Panther w/ pintle has 40-60% more combined machine gun DPS at all ranges). However, the Panther relies almost to 100% on its MGs to deal damage, whereas only 60% of the Comet's DPS is dealt by the hull/coax.

Hence, when moving to a more realistic test scenario, i.e. against infantry with a target size of 0.5 (corresponding to mid to late game due to light cover or vet bonus to received accuracy) the Panther's AI falls short behind that of the Comet by quite a lot. In fact, it would take the Panther 34% longer on average to kill the whole squad under these circumstances.

The difference in raw AI may not sound like a lot, especially when compared to other generalist mediums and premium meds, but the Comet's WP shell and crew grenade more than make up for this in my opinion. These would make a huge difference in the AT-gun fight shown in the 2nd video as well, not to mention that in this clip the Panther got extremely lucky.

Wow that is quite a bit of work you put into there. It is a lot more visual that way. Thanks for doing that!

I personally wouldn't nerf the AI of Panther put I do think Comet could get a small AI buff that is not depended on the use of WP or grenade which cost munition and micro each time you use it. Obviously this gets worse in bigger games with multiple units where the AI value of Comet is bound to your micro skills in the outcome. Something like a MG upgrade for munition (you pay only once of course) or a small AOE buff that brings it main gun AI performance closer to PZIV/T34 for example. This would reflect the 18 population a lot better.