Why are snipers getting nerfed?

.

All of this still leads to my main point: In order to (effectively) counter (the effects) of a sniper, you need your own sniper.

The whole point of the paragraph you are referencing was explaining that that's not true. You need either SOME unit that trades efficiently to counteract the manpower bleed OR you need an army composition that is oppressive enough to just shut down the sniper players mapcontrol. Most games vs Snipers will result in counterplay based on the latter approach. A sniper is simply a trade off between manpower bleed and stopping power/mapcontrol.

Even if you don't follow any of the specific "counterbuilds" a sniper is far from an autoloss. The problem is that a lot of people think like you and want to kill it because otherwise they have to take the bleed. They immediately start throwing shit at it stupidly. There are very solid players who fall into this trap.

But let's be specific because I genuinely think what you're describing in terms of having to counter the sniper is just not representing the reality of the game at all. I wanna go through each matchup and describe what reaction to a sniper is likely gonna happen and whether it's likely to be succesful. All of this is pretty uncontroversial among competent players I'd say. Most of it also doesn't require a big deviation from the playstyle that is already established for each faction anyways. On a side note: You can't exclude doctrinal abilities/units just because they are doctrinal. Doctrines are essential for most factions and USF immediately becomes trash without their meta doctrines. This is not unique to countering snipers at all.


Ostheer Sniper vs UKF:

Let's start with the one matchup where the sniper is probably overpowered:

1. Tommy blob with quick 5men to continuously overrun the wehrmacht player. Goal is not to give the wehrmacht the time to use the sniper by decisively winning engagements and forcing retreats.

2. Early bren carrier to cause counterbleed early on into quick AEC to counter the inevitable 222. Later on typically commandos to threaten the sniper and get wipes that counteract the bleed. Alternatively Countersniper.

Ostheer early Sniper vs USF

Not much changes here compared to the same matchup without a sniper. USF is bound to bleed to death unless their light vehicles pay off. Ironically the sniper makes it much easier to succesfully play LVs because there are 1.5 fewer fausts and a juicy target.

1. 2 Rifles -> WC51 -> LT -> M20 -> Cav rifles -> Stuart will result in complete and utter destruction of early sniper builds.

2. Standard 3 Rifles -> LT -> M20 -> 50cal -> Stuart will also likely result in a win vs early sniper. You'll have great map control solving your biggest worry as US, namely preventing the P4 to force you into Captain backtech.

Ostheer late Sniper vs USF

Ostheer has 340 mp to spend on a sniper? The game is over because you didn't pressure him enough. This has nothing to do with the sniper. At this point you are bound to be bled to death whether it's by LMG grens or LMG grens + Sniper is irrelevant.

Ostheer early sniper vs Soviets

Build 3-4 cons -> auto win the game

Ostheer late sniper vs soviets

Pretty much non existent in top level games. You literally named the one exception which took place on the map position that is by far the best for sniper builds (south langres). Can be good in lower level games (I see it now and then in my own games vs equal players) but doesn't change the flow of the game that much. It just puts a timer on con sandbag camping which is the main point. But cons aren't very bleedable which is why it's so rarely seen.

Early Soviet Sniper vs Wehr

Just play normally and baselock the soviet -> gg

Late Soviet Sniper vs Wehr

Idk about this one. Literally never happens.

Early Soviet Sniper vs OKW

blob-> absurd map control -> rush any vehicle and keep blobbing -> gg

Late Soviet Sniper vs OKW

Gives you the edge in fighting power you need to overrun the soviets mandatory double ZIS. Never happens either for that reason.

"Early" brit sniper vs OKW

Blob -> Luchs+Puma -> gg

Late Brit Sniper vs OKW

Can be decent on certain open maps. You need to be careful to do focused attacks and overrun the Brit in waves. This is by far the most complicated matchup and I'm not sure how viable the brit sniper is here. However the brit definitely becomes very fragile and vulnerable to well times OKW blobs. In a static game JLI are good because they force your opponent to screen for the sniper and get his in a bad position to uncover the JLI so you can start taking apart his meatshield. Double ISG camp with smoke spam can be good in teamgames. (Smoke is SEVERELY underused especially vs snipers).

Your second point has a lot of claims which I cannot verify or are rather subjective. What stands out however is this sentence: "However once Ostheer gets into a clear winning position Sniper can be the final nail in the coffin."
This is what Kimbo did and is also testimonial to the power of a sniper in a game designed around comebacks: they shut the door completely. Unless you get your own sniper and yada yada yada.

What I said in the 2. paragraph may have sounded like forum warrior blah blah but it's pretty much just a summary of what the vast majority of decent players agree about.

If you're already bleeding to death a sniper can be the final nail in the coffin. If you are already struggling for map control a medium tank or LV (depending on the game stage) can be the final nail in the coffin. If you're fuel starved and turtling with double pak a katyusha can be the final nail in the coffin etc.

Third point: ad hominem. Your statement attacks the character of those who are against snipers and furthermore could easily be turned around (also something I planned to do in my first post) as follows: most people defending snipers are those who abuse them the hardest.
Objectively true? Yes but does it serve any other purpose other than attacking your character (or those defending snipers)? Nope. As such I removed it from my first post and I think your statement should never have been in your post as well.

Ok I accept that. I won't delete it so our conversation doesn't become nonsensical but consider it taken back. Just as an explanation: Imo my statement is relevant to the debate because people who can't use snipers don't actually have the same intuitive sense for the disadvantages that come with it. E.g. how much harder it becomes to resist map pressure. They also fall into the aforementioned trap of "sniper raging" more frequently in my experience.

Your fourth point still misses the mark. Which is that an early LV's is not a counter to (the effects of) the sniper (not to mention said sniper can be build after the LV rush) since the bleed will continue. Early map control is nothing compared to bleeding manpower like a stuffed pig (the entire game, mind you), which is what snipers do.

Mapcontrol is absolutely essential and will eventually be converted into an MP advantage because you will have non bleedable tanks before your opponent which will also give you even more map control etc. CoH2 is a game of snowballing. The sniper enables your opponent to snowball. Tbh I shouldn't even say that LV rush is a specific "counter" to the sniper. It's part of every game. What I'm trying to explain is that the sniper becomes a big disadvantage during the LV stage of the game because 1. It gets threatened by them so it will be much less efficient. 2. Whatever LV is dominating will cause counterbleed. 3. The player dominating in the LV stage will gain superior map control.

Your fifth point acknowledges the indirect fire in teamgames, so there is that. But you missed the part where snipers can "enhance" sandbag+dual MG camping. As such, my point here is as follows: snipers don't fix this issue.

Well they just don't. Nothing else I can say. I'll just have to argue from authority here and say that from playing the game I know that a sniper doesn't lead to more sandbag camping. It's like obviously untrue. Snipers lead to other not so pretty playstyles like blobbing or constantly hiding behind shotblockers or house jumping but they don't facilitate sandbag camping. They prevent it. I just know from playing the game but I guess if I had to explain it theoretically it would look like this: Sandbag camping happens when two sides have roughly the same army size so the side that would benefit from close range can't charge the sandbags without losing the engagement and the other side has no reason to charge. When a sniper is on the field one side can't camp because they will be sniped and the other side can charge sandbag positions because the opponent has less stopping power. Soviet sniper vs OKW is the best example. Usually I wouldn't necessarily wanna fight penals or cons at close range but when there's a sniper on the field I'm suddenly gonna rush every single soviet inf squad I can spot with my volks blob just because I know i have superior numbers.

Your sixth point: my point here is twofold: no other unit forces this dynamic on the opposing player and more importantly, one side has to exert a tremendous amount of micro to mitigate the effects of a singular unit on the battlefield (unless they get their own sniper, is this getting old yet?). Which also comes back to my second point: a sniper on the field forces the entire game into countering (the effects of) that sniper.

Here I'll have to go back to my ad hominem argument but in a different context. Most people can't play snipers. Among high level players a significant percentage still can't play snipers. A lot of people start playing like shit with the rest of their army once they have to use the sniper. On a good day a B-Tier player can reach Top tier levels of play with his army. After all the challenge isn't microing any singular unit but rather the multitasking you have to do to make you army act coherently. Sniper is different. There's people who can play it on a certain level and people who can't. I can play a sniper raesonably well but I won't reach god tier sniper micro by a fluke. I will however occasionally reach top levels of play with my other units. So yea I really think the opposite is true and the bigger micro tax is placed on the sniper player or at the very least that the micro tax is even.

Edit: I wanna add one more thing: There are actually plenty of units that require you to build a specific counter. Aka every light vehicle in the game. T70 quite literally forces the wehrmacht player into a pak. There are also plenty of units that cause unopposed manpower bleed. Have you see how high level 4v4 teams use 120 mm mortars? They just cause raw bleed and there's nothing you can do other than punish them for having invested that much mp into a unit that has no stopping power.

Ostheer early sniper vs Soviets

Build 3-4 cons -> auto win the game

how does this work in teamgames on lane maps. You're gonna kill a sniper backed by 42 and 1-2 grens + sniper by just stacking infantry?

This entire thread is trying to simplify complex issues that vary from game to game with the idea of "just outplay him xd"

No idea how you'd ever beat OST on crossing in the woods 2s either vs sniper with USF.

how does this work in teamgames on lane maps. You're gonna kill a sniper backed by 42 and 1-2 grens + sniper by just stacking infantry?

This entire thread is trying to simplify complex issues that vary from game to game with the idea of "just outplay him xd"

No idea how you'd ever beat OST on crossing in the woods 2s either vs sniper with USF.

I was talking about 1v1.

2v2 as USF vs Ost on Crossing (or most 2v2 maps) is the same story as before: Grens and MG42 are broken. Sniper isn't the issue at all. If anything them using a sniper is just giving you a small chance to maybe overrun them but it's unlikely to happen.

In 3v3 and 4v4 sniper is pretty meh all things considered. If you're playing as a team of 2 or more USF becomes absurdly strong on laney maps like redball and whiteball due to pathfinder abuse. You can just ignore the Ostheer sniper pretty much and auto win the game unless the Stuka gets a knockout barrage early.

- Imagine needing an AT gun to counter an AT gun.

- Imagine that, when said AT gun is build, the entire game (d)evolves into countering said AT gun.
If that fails, it's gg. If that succeeds, it's gg.

Zarok is spot on. People on these forums tend to get way too narrow minded about 'balance'. Something doesn't have to be overpowered for it to be extremely anti-fun and terrible for the game. (E.g., free sandbag spam)

Zarok is spot on. People on these forums tend to get way too narrow minded about 'balance'. Something doesn't have to be overpowered for it to be extremely anti-fun and terrible for the game. (E.g., free sandbag spam)

yea, but then don't pretend that there's an objective reason.

I was talking about 1v1.

2v2 as USF vs Ost on Crossing (or most 2v2 maps) is the same story as before: Grens and MG42 are broken. Sniper isn't the issue at all. If anything them using a sniper is just giving you a small chance to maybe overrun them but it's unlikely to happen.

In 3v3 and 4v4 sniper is pretty meh all things considered. If you're playing as a team of 2 or more USF becomes absurdly strong on laney maps like redball and whiteball due to pathfinder abuse. You can just ignore the Ostheer sniper pretty much and auto win the game unless the Stuka gets a knockout barrage early.

1vs1, we don't see sniper vs USF at high level because nobody play USF on tournament unless they're forced to. And if high level players were forced to play USF vs Ostheer the entire tournament we'll probably see again mechanized every single game.

Ostheer is broken at the moment because of the HMG42+pio vision+4xgren spam vs USF, if you manage to catch a RM squad and force him to retreat on the first minutes of the game that's almost an instant GG, we've seen it specially at high level.
Adding a sniper on top of that is just too much, there is no way you can touch it. The Balance team nerfed hard USF early game and until you get the Lt you're numerically inferior + the fact that RE is beyond trash early game. So no, HMG+Sniper+gren+Pio vs RE+2xRM doesn't give any advantage to USF in term of map control, quite the opposite here. Then once the LT hit the field, Ostheer also get its next unit.

Even if you rush the M20, you get around 30 seconds opportunity to push the sniper before the 222 also enter the field.

Would the balance team have nerfed Ostheer early game instead of sniper for sure that would have been better but probably impact the match-up vs UKF and Soviet. So they do nerf the sniper instead.

Snipers are fine. USF needs rocket arty more than it needs a fucking sniper

Grens and MG42 are broken.

uh

In the end it comes down to personal preference.

Even at rank 400 almost no one loses sniper to an m20 or Stuart.

If you build snipers you lack stopping power? MG42/Vickers/Dshka? Plus the fact that you need to blob because you auto-lose all engagements in 1v1 situations, which make said HMGs LOL even harder.

In 1v1 dynamic fights typically happen all over the map, and taking engagements in the first 10 minutes relies heavily on skill, positioning, and game-sense. But snipers delete all of that and make the infantry game literally unplayable. The non-sniper player is now forced to avoid all fights or bleed 3 models to 0 every single fight.

As OKW you are forced to suicide your volks by running them close range vs sandbagged Cons, vs Penals, or you can just run away from literally every single engagement and give up the whole map anytime red appears. Either that or you can gather all your units and try to run straight at the enemy force.....Which gets shit all over by a dshka if it's the mid game, or simply results in atrocious manpower losses from charging stupidly away from your ideal range and into your enemy's ideal range. Oh, and a retreated sniper which can just continue bleeding the shit out of you 30 seconds later.

As USF you go from winning every 1v1 engagement vs Grens to losing every 1v1 engagement. Instead of having the potential to envelope and overrun Ost before they get a critical mass of Grens and try to snowball into LT and LVs to continue the midgame snowball, you basically have three choices to lose the game.

1) You can charge straight for the sniper with multiple squads and be reminded that mg42 exists
2) You can try to split up your forces and be instantly defeated wherever the sniper shows up, while bleeding horribly from any engagement.
3) You can avoid all engagements and instant retreat every fight until you get m20, and just surrender most of the map, then gamble that Grens are out of position and sniper is slow to retreat. /l if you get fausted or if you can't kill sniper before 222 shows up.

Everything in COH2 is built on the rock-paper-scissors formula. But with snipers there's no counter except a literal counter-sniper or something similar like JLI. Sure, you can still beat your opponent if you're way better than them, but that's not even a reasonable argument.

Snipers are cancer, but UKF is even worse so they should stay imba.

Sure, you can still beat your opponent if you're way better than them, but that's not even a reasonable argument.

Wait. Straw man argument.

There's no realistic situation where two players are exactly equal in skill, so it is not a basis for comparison.

When you're winning thanks to skill, your unit is not OP.

Wait. Straw man argument.

There's no realistic situation where two players are exactly equal in skill, so it is not a basis for comparison.

When you're winning thanks to skill, your unit is not OP.

Zero IQ comment with zero value input on the issue of snipers deserving to be nerfed.

You are literally attacking a throwaway ending comment that isn't even part of the argument.

Zero IQ comment with zero value input on the issue of snipers deserving to be nerfed.

You are literally attacking a throwaway ending comment that isn't even part of the argument.

One of the marks of a good education is the ability to discriminate the data and form views on both the subset and superset of ideas presented.

I.e. it's the one part of your post I felt was worth polishing.

You needn't be sensitive about people doing this to your ideas.

One of the marks of a good education is the ability to discriminate the data and form views on both the subset and superset of ideas presented.

I.e. it's the one part of your post I felt was worth polishing.

You needn't be sensitive about people doing this to your ideas.

He's not wrong. Amazing how someone can write like they're riding a horse while their head is right up it's arse at the same time.

Don't know but i think the nerf is due to playing against snipers with OKW or USF being absolute dog shit(with no light jaegers or pathfinders), since even if you can feel the other guy is bad(sometimes you can tell), nothing you could do about that pesky sniper unless you dive with a light vehicle(most times not worth a try since most likely you just get snared and killed).

Which i feel is not the case anymore after the speed debuff since i can now a least force a retreat without massive manpower bleed with no gain like before.

Agree, even in top 200. You cannot kill a sniper without mindless dive. Not to mention a sniper red hp retreating doesn't get any damage from a full squad in front of him. Even light armor doesn't insta-kill AFK sniper and had a chance to retreat.