Design: Ballistic weapons

Imo there some issue that could redesign.

One of the characteristic of COH2 is that the majority of ballistic weapons have rather linear DPS having mostly penetration/accuracy bonus with no ROF with range.

A) Imo it would be more interesting if ballistic weapon where designed in similar way to small arm and thus "classes" of vehicles where created like:
All around vehicle (all around)
long range vehicle (sniper)
"Flanker" (SMG)
that benefited differently with range.

B) One could also add different Type of shells:
One could add new type of shell with different properties:
APBC/Sabot/APCR (AT round)
HE (AI)
HEAT (AT round with reduced performance vs spaced armored vehicles and opened vehicles)
HESH/HEP (AT rounds with reduced penetration but with deflection damage)

C) Target tables
Although COH2 avoids target tables as much as possible after the lesson from COH1 imo it is a very good tool and if it used wisely it can be very helpful.

For instance:
The damage of ballistic weapon could be set to 80 and have the extra damage done vs vehicles only. That would allow smoother AOE profiles vs soft target.

In a similar way this can be used to balance medium vehicles and Super heavy separately by adding extra damage vs super heavies on certain vehicles or munition.

D) Target size. Imo the range of target size of vehicles could be increased to further allow balancing super heavies and medium/light tank separately.

A) Don't we have this already? Implementation is a bit sub par at points, but overall this scheme already exists, mostly scaled by penetration for AT vehicles and scatter/MGs for AI vehicles.

B) Also exists, just not as extensively used. I personally like switchable rounds, however they should come with longer reload times in my eyes. It would mean that the game must focus on small engagements though (as it currently does), because this system will get overwhelming should CoH3 aim for larger battles than CoH2.

C) I am happy with the minimal use of target tables in CoH2. Target tables will make actual calculations and cause-effect relations obscure unless someone really remembers most of them. Which basically means that developers at Relic need to 100% remember their special modifiers and have very good understanding of what changing a base value means for basically every unit.

They should only be used when absolutely necessary. It makes the game very hard to read for normal players, since damage modifiers against certain units only do not make sense from a logical POV.

D) This part is not necessary on a technical level. Both target size and accuracy can already be chosen as a decimal in CoH2. For some reason, everyone stuck with full numbers for the target size and "uncomplicated" numbers for accuracy. I agree though that there should be more variance in target sizes.



Regarding ballistic weapons, Relic should implement a smarter way how tanks fire at infantry. I think it is more likely that a gunner would try to fire into the middle of the formation instead of one particular dude. This should be implemented as well and would remove some unnecessary micro management.

To be honest I'd like to try a system where everything is solved by scatter shots and the actual size of the hit box determines if a shot hits or not.

A) Don't we have this already? Implementation is a bit sub par at points, but overall this scheme already exists, mostly scaled by penetration for AT vehicles and scatter/MGs for AI vehicles.

Not really most ballistic weapon have rather linear DPS curve with a few exception mainly Puma and M10 if I remember correctly. Even those units do not get ROF thou.

Now imagine if a unit like the Elephant got longer reload the close one got (LMG profile) and unit like M10 got faster ROF when closing in.

B) Also exists, just not as extensively used. I personally like switchable rounds, however they should come with longer reload times in my eyes. It would mean that the game must focus on small engagements though (as it currently does), because this system will get overwhelming should CoH3 aim for larger battles than CoH2.

There is room for more diversity.

Currently there is little difference the behavior AP and HAVP for M36 only better accuracy/penetration. There are many thing one could do with the different types of munition while adding a layer of realism.

C) I am happy with the minimal use of target tables in CoH2. Target tables will make actual calculations and cause-effect relations obscure unless someone really remembers most of them. Which basically means that developers at Relic need to 100% remember their special modifiers and have very good understanding of what changing a base value means for basically every unit.

They should only be used when absolutely necessary. It makes the game very hard to read for normal players, since damage modifiers against certain units only do not make sense from a logical POV.

As I said the use should be kept to minimum and in categories but on the other hand it is great way add utility to units. One could create different categories with certain bonuses.

For instance indirect fire weapon could do extra damage to building or "heavy TDs" could do extra damage to Super heavies.

I do not think that it would really complicated if most ballistic AT weapon did 80+80 damage vs vehicles

D) This part is not necessary on a technical level. Both target size and accuracy can already be chosen as a decimal in CoH2. For some reason, everyone stuck with full numbers for the target size and "uncomplicated" numbers for accuracy. I agree though that there should be more variance in target sizes.

Regarding ballistic weapons, Relic should implement a smarter way how tanks fire at infantry. I think it is more likely that a gunner would try to fire into the middle of the formation instead of one particular dude. This should be implemented as well and would remove some unnecessary micro management.

To be honest I'd like to try a system where everything is solved by scatter shots and the actual size of the hit box determines if a shot hits or not.

Not really most ballistic weapon have rather linear DPS curve with a few exception mainly Puma and M10 if I remember correctly. Even those units do not get ROF thou.

Now imagine if a unit like the Elephant got longer reload the close one got (LMG profile) and unit like M10 got faster ROF when closing in.

The only thing that would make intuitively sense to alter the ROF would be aim time, but then the question comes up if this difference should really be THAT large. Logically all vehicles would aim longer the farther away the target is. "LMG profiles" on ballistic weapons do not make sense. The reason why this works for current CoH2 LMGs is to simulate the "clunkyness" of the weapon, which for vehicles is already captured in speed, acceleration and turn rate.

There is room for more diversity.

Currently there is little difference the behavior AP and HAVP for M36 only better accuracy/penetration. There are many thing one could do with the different types of munition while adding a layer of realism.

Yes, to this one I agree. Some of these abilities need larger differences to tell them apart.

As I said the use should be kept to minimum and in categories but on the other hand it is great way add utility to units. One could create different categories with certain bonuses.

For instance indirect fire weapon could do extra damage to building or "heavy TDs" could do extra damage to Super heavies.

I do not think that it would really complicated if most ballistic AT weapon did 80+80 damage vs vehicles

This part was a general agreement with you. However I'd like to get rid of target tables in most of the tank and infantry combat. I assume most issues could be solved by either switchable rounds or some other type of ability.
Only specialized weapons like flame throwers or explosive charges could get some modifiers for example against emplacements. In these cases it also makes more intuitive sense since e.g. explosives work differently in rather enclosed areas than in open field. The engine can't simulate that unless there will be special modifiers added.

The round of a heavy TD does not suddenly get stronger because it hits a heavier target. I'd rather not have stuff like this in there.

I also see no big benefit in the 80+80 suggestion. The AoE against infantry would only be smoother in few cases where the base damage of the weapon is super high. But even explosives like the satchel or the ISU152 don't have huge issues that could not be fixed by normal tweaking of the current AoE values. The current system is fully capable of doing all of this already, in some cases already better. If you want an AoE profile with OHK radius but steep drop off after OHK and low but long range far AoE, you actually have more freedom with the current system. The near AoE distance stat can both define your OHK radius as well as the next starting point below 80 HP if you want that, from which you can define better steps for mid and long range AoE. Your 80+80 would already define the near AoE distance (=killing radius), everything just outside of the OHK radius gets close to 80 damage. If you want a steeper AoE curve, you're already forces to have a mid AoE distance that is fairly close to the near AoE distance, just to get that quick damage drop off. Which leaves you only with two further distances to define the rest of your curve instead of 3.

But even if you still want that 80+80 so much, there is no need for target tables. Just set near AoE damage modifier to 0.5 and you effectively have you 80+80 already.

The only thing that would make intuitively sense to alter the ROF would be aim time, but then the question comes up if this difference should really be THAT large. Logically all vehicles would aim longer the farther away the target is. "LMG profiles" on ballistic weapons do not make sense. The reason why this works for current CoH2 LMGs is to simulate the "clunkyness" of the weapon, which for vehicles is already captured in speed, acceleration and turn rate.

The proposed change is to create more dynamic play between vehicles. The current system where unit like M36 can kite from max range without very down sides vs most vehicles is rather boring.

Yes, to this one I agree. Some of these abilities need larger differences to tell them apart.


This part was a general agreement with you. However I'd like to get rid of target tables in most of the tank and infantry combat. I assume most issues could be solved by either switchable rounds or some other type of ability.
Only specialized weapons like flame throwers or explosive charges could get some modifiers for example against emplacements. In these cases it also makes more intuitive sense since e.g. explosives work differently in rather enclosed areas than in open field. The engine can't simulate that unless there will be special modifiers added.

The round of a heavy TD does not suddenly get stronger because it hits a heavier target. I'd rather not have stuff like this in there.

In real life some time it does.

For instance a hollow shaped charge will do less damage to open top vehicle while a SABOT can do less damage to this armored vehicle since it can go in and out on the other side instead of bouncing inside the vehicle.

But again this has to the interaction of units:
As an extreme example if one doubles the damage and the ROF of the SU-85 vs Super and keep the damage the same vs all other vehicles the SU-85 remains as effective as it currently is vs Super heavies but half as effective vs medium and that creates room for the SU-76.

I one is facing medium one uses the SU-76, is one faces super heavies one uses the SU-85.

I also see no big benefit in the 80+80 suggestion. The AoE against infantry would only be smoother in few cases where the base damage of the weapon is super high. But even explosives like the satchel or the ISU152 don't have huge issues that could not be fixed by normal tweaking of the current AoE values. The current system is fully capable of doing all of this already, in some cases already better. If you want an AoE profile with OHK radius but steep drop off after OHK and low but long range far AoE, you actually have more freedom with the current system. The near AoE distance stat can both define your OHK radius as well as the next starting point below 80 HP if you want that, from which you can define better steps for mid and long range AoE. Your 80+80 would already define the near AoE distance (=killing radius), everything just outside of the OHK radius gets close to 80 damage. If you want a steeper AoE curve, you're already forces to have a mid AoE distance that is fairly close to the near AoE distance, just to get that quick damage drop off. Which leaves you only with two further distances to define the rest of your curve instead of 3.

But even if you still want that 80+80 so much, there is no need for target tables. Just set near AoE damage modifier to 0.5 and you effectively have you 80+80 already.

There are some reason:

ballistic weapon damage vs infatry is "balance" by scatter but there are cases that shot do "scatter" normally but collide with world object and that make these shots have very high wipe potential.

From a realism point of view there is very little reason that 75mm tank shell would do more damage that 83mm mortar (or even 120mm) round.

And there are also other target like buildings there is very little reason why a ATG should do double damage to building than a mortar and making indirect fire weapon better than ballistic weapon vs certain target can create reason to build them without having to be OP vs infantry.

The proposed change is to create more dynamic play between vehicles. The current system where unit like M36 can kite from max range without very down sides vs most vehicles is rather boring.

Yes, the issue is there are not that many variables to achieve that that intuitively make sense.
Reloading always takes a similar amount of time, the only thing is aiming, which increases for all vehicles the farther away the target is.

In real life some time it does.

For instance a hollow shaped charge will do less damage to open top vehicle while a SABOT can do less damage to this armored vehicle since it can go in and out on the other side instead of bouncing inside the vehicle.

But again this has to the interaction of units:
As an extreme example if one doubles the damage and the ROF of the SU-85 vs Super and keep the damage the same vs all other vehicles the SU-85 remains as effective as it currently is vs Super heavies but half as effective vs medium and that creates room for the SU-76.

I one is facing medium one uses the SU-76, is one faces super heavies one uses the SU-85.

Again, this should be addressed by properly adjusting target sizes and accuracy values. On top of that I'd like to have a modifier for moving targets, since those are harder to hit than a static one. I think both of these could already do a great step towards making LVs viable late game.

I also assume that the side armor of CoH3 will help quite a lot towards that, since it will create more room for flanking without needing to often over-commit like in CoH2.

There are some reason:

ballistic weapon damage vs infatry is "balance" by scatter but there are cases that shot do "scatter" normally but collide with world object and that make these shots have very high wipe potential.

From a realism point of view there is very little reason that 75mm tank shell would do more damage that 83mm mortar (or even 120mm) round.

And there are also other target like buildings there is very little reason why a ATG should do double damage to building than a mortar and making indirect fire weapon better than ballistic weapon vs certain target can create reason to build them without having to be OP vs infantry.

What does this have to do with your 80+80 suggestion?

Yes, the issue is there are not that many variables to achieve that that intuitively make sense.
Reloading always takes a similar amount of time, the only thing is aiming, which increases for all vehicles the farther away the target is.



Again, this should be addressed by properly adjusting target sizes and accuracy values. On top of that I'd like to have a modifier for moving targets, since those are harder to hit than a static one. I think both of these could already do a great step towards making LVs viable late game.

I also assume that the side armor of CoH3 will help quite a lot towards that, since it will create more room for flanking without needing to often over-commit like in CoH2.


What does this have to do with your 80+80 suggestion?

ATGs 160 when firing on building and mortar does 80.

ATGs 160 when firing on building and mortar does 80.

For emplacements I already agreed to modifiers since the engine is not made to handle how some weapons might behave in enclosed spaces, making special modifiers a good way to simulate that. However in your OP, your were talking about extra damage to vehicles.

The damage of ballistic weapon could be set to 80 and have the extra damage done vs vehicles only. That would allow smoother AOE profiles vs soft target.

And your suggestion does not help here. Especially since this could already be done by the current system without any target tables.

For emplacements I already agreed to modifiers since the engine is not made to handle how some weapons might behave in enclosed spaces, making special modifiers a good way to simulate that. However in your OP, your were talking about extra damage to vehicles.



And your suggestion does not help here. Especially since this could already be done by the current system without any target tables.

Let me try to clarify somethings because i am not sure with understand each other:

The suggestion about target tables involves a number of things:

For instance if ballistic weapons damage is set to 80 than the will be directly comparable and work similar to indirect fire weapon like the mortar.

Adding another 80 damage vs vehicle will bring the system back to current implementation.

One can take thing even further by creating "heavy TD" (units designed to counter super heavies) and adding extra damage vs Super heavies either on the normal rounds or in switchable rounds. This change (combined with other change line in target size for instance) will allow a separate balance between medium and super heavy tanks.

One can also keep the extra damage some vehicles do vs buildings and expand this to other indirect unit also.

In sort the prudent use of target tables allows the better implementation and balancing the rock/paper/scissors design.
Weapon can be designed as AT/AI/Anti building better and it is easier to change the performance in certain role with less impact in other roles.

My point was and is that it is generally better to use already existing systems. Changing normal stats, abilities like switchable shells and abilities in general that for stat reasons work better on certain targets. These are all logically and intuitively clear to the player.

While target tables can work on a gameplay level, they are often forgotten down the line during balance. Although you want to use them rarely, the way put it makes me think they will be used more frequently than you probably think. Heavy TDs get bonusses vs heavies, a logical extension will be AI specialists getting negative modifiers for vehicles or positive ones for infantry. Basically most specialists could get a modifier to reinforce their role. That might be a decent chunk of the units in the game getting modifiers.

This can make it quite obscure how some units function. Why does my heavy TD a lot of damage to heavies, but not so much to mediums? Gameplay wise this might be quite desirable, but it does not communicate well to someone not digging stats. It is easier to understand if either the unit itself is designed for a slow ROF with high penetration or if I can force this via abilities. The former makes it consistent vs all targets, the latter gives the player a logical reason why the unit suddenly behaves differently: Because - simply put - he pressed a button to make the unit do that. But target tables don't. They just force different outcomes for the same event. That's why my whole point so far is to not use them unless there is no other option or an actual logical and obvious reason for it, such as damage vs buildings/emplacements.

My point was and is that it is generally better to use already existing systems.

Target tables are already an existing system even in COH2:
Brumbar
ST
AVRE
Luch
PTRS
Bazooka
Shreck
Piat
Satchel
AT satchel
Land mattress
Tullip

all use target table just to name few.

Changing normal stats, abilities like switchable shells and abilities in general that for stat reasons work better on certain targets. These are all logically and intuitively clear to the player.

The problem with current implementation of HVAP M93 Shells or HEAT shell is that they are better shell regardless of target and not against specific targets.

One can combine the target tables with abilities explaining that the specific round is specifically design vs super heavy tank.

While target tables can work on a gameplay level, they are often forgotten down the line during balance. Although you want to use them rarely, the way put it makes me think they will be used more frequently than you probably think. Heavy TDs get bonusses vs heavies, a logical extension will be AI specialists getting negative modifiers for vehicles or positive ones for infantry. Basically most specialists could get a modifier to reinforce their role. That might be a decent chunk of the units in the game getting modifiers.

Target tables got a bad name due to COH1 where units of the same type like infatry used different types of "armor" and thus where extremely durable vs certain weapons and very weak vs others. The system was confusing and made little sense and one had to know what work against what.

We are talking about something completely different. Grouping weapon and targets in a way that makes sense will help player and developers. In the end of the day it does not matter how many units have modifiers as long as the system has clear rules that are easy to understand and make sense.

This can make it quite obscure how some units function. Why does my heavy TD a lot of damage to heavies, but not so much to mediums? Gameplay wise this might be quite desirable, but it does not communicate well to someone not digging stats. It is easier to understand if either the unit itself is designed for a slow ROF with high penetration or if I can force this via abilities.

Because it designed as a hard counter to Super heavies. The system of lower ROF was tested in COH2 and was partially removed for units like the M36.

Imo it is pretty easy to explain to player that a certain unit is designed specifically to counter super heavies and it much more disable than a unit that counter everything from kubel to KT with the same ease.

The former makes it consistent vs all targets, the latter gives the player a logical reason why the unit suddenly behaves differently: Because - simply put - he pressed a button to make the unit do that. But target tables don't. They just force different outcomes for the same event. That's why my whole point so far is to not use them unless there is no other option or an actual logical and obvious reason for it, such as damage vs buildings/emplacements.

Only it's performance should not be consistent against all target because that make other units obsolete.

Why would one bother to build a SU-76 that can not fight heavily armored target when a SU-85 can fight both medium and heavily armored units better?

Imo target tables is not the cause of a problem but the solution in better designing rock/paper/scissor units and it is being implemented in number of other games.

Problem starts when one uses target tables but creates that is inconstant and "illogical" and creates unique solution for similar issues. Actually this happens also to be the case in CoH2 but thankfully in small degree (and same uses of target tables do not make sense).

The problem with current implementation of HVAP M93 Shells or HEAT shell is that they are better shell regardless of target and not against specific targets

On the majority of OKW units, HEAT shells are only useful against specific targets.
The Jackson's HVAP shells are only useful against 640+ hp targets, and even against 800 hp targets like the Brummbar they generally won't be worth it over the regular shells due to the increased reload time. Jackson HVAP is a perfect example of an ability done right, using the damage vs ROF system, where it has pros and cons that the player needs to weigh before using as it will only be advantageous in specific situations.

The system of lower ROF was tested in COH2 and was partially removed for units like the M36.

Low ROF high damage units that are better against heavies than mediums is a concept that's fine in itself. The Firefly is a perfect example. The M36 was changed because the faction needed an AT generalist, not because the mechanic itself didn't work.

Target tables are already an existing system even in COH2:
Brumbar
ST
AVRE
Luch
PTRS
Bazooka
Shreck
Piat
Satchel
AT satchel
Land mattress
Tullip

all use target table just to name few.

Most of the current target tables are either regarding snipers or emplacements. Or, in the case of handheld AT, infantry because the span of target sizes has not been used properly. As you mention, they are mostly there to solve specific issues, but often do not make sense.

The problem with current implementation of HVAP M93 Shells or HEAT shell is that they are better shell regardless of target and not against specific targets.

One can combine the target tables with abilities explaining that the specific round is specifically design vs super heavy tank.

I am not talking about any specific ability in CoH2. It was a very general point it is possible to give both shells a proper role.

Target tables got a bad name due to COH1 where units of the same type like infatry used different types of "armor" and thus where extremely durable vs certain weapons and very weak vs others. The system was confusing and made little sense and one had to know what work against what.

We are talking about something completely different. Grouping weapon and targets in a way that makes sense will help player and developers. In the end of the day it does not matter how many units have modifiers as long as the system has clear rules that are easy to understand and make sense.

Again: grouping units and using target tables can work for gameplay. It will not explain why the same shell performs differently against two targets when it should logically do the same.

Because it designed as a hard counter to Super heavies. The system of lower ROF was tested in COH2 and was partially removed for units like the M36.

Imo it is pretty easy to explain to player that a certain unit is designed specifically to counter super heavies and it much more disable than a unit that counter everything from kubel to KT with the same ease.

And why should this be impossible with properly designing unit stats?
We get a new game with CoH3, it is not like we would need to build on some of the rubble that CoH2 is at times. CoH3 can get fresh start.

Only it's performance should not be consistent against all target because that make other units obsolete.

Why would one bother to build a SU-76 that can not fight heavily armored target when a SU-85 can fight both medium and heavily armored units better?

Imo target tables is not the cause of a problem but the solution in better designing rock/paper/scissor units and it is being implemented in number of other games.

Problem starts when one uses target tables but creates that is inconstant and "illogical" and creates unique solution for similar issues. Actually this happens also to be the case in CoH2 but thankfully in small degree (and same uses of target tables do not make sense).

Again, I am not talking about 'same performance against all units'. I am talking about getting a consistent outcome for the same actions. It is not consistent at all if both my medium/light TD and heavy TD need 3 shots to kill a LV, but the medium/light TD needs 6 for a heavy while the heavy TD also only needs 3 for a heavy (numbers made up obviously). It is much more logical to give the light TD a lower pen chance.

I won't go into details regarding the SUs since I made general points. But you mention another important topic: LVs in CoH2 don't scale. At all. This is something that Relic will hopefully solve as they promised, as this created the need to make the last tier units jack of all trades.


Overall I am slightly concerned about Relics new unit diversity in general. They introduce so many more different units, yet the scope of the game does not become larger. This forces units into becoming good against everything, because otherwise it is too easy to 'mis-tech' or counter certain builds if the units are too specialized.

On the majority of OKW units, HEAT shells are only useful against specific targets.
The Jackson's HVAP shells are only useful against 640+ hp targets, and even against 800 hp targets like the Brummbar they generally won't be worth it over the regular shells due to the increased reload time. Jackson HVAP is a perfect example of an ability done right, using the damage vs ROF system, where it has pros and cons that the player needs to weigh before using as it will only be advantageous in specific situations.

Was referring to M10's shell not the M36'2 "T30E16 HVAP-T Armor Piercing Rounds".

OKW HEAT rounds are good vs soft and hard targets on the PzIV.

They are good for Puma vs most target

They are are useful for some target mostly for JP/Panther but that has to do with the fact that those units have 100% to penetrate mediums and bellow.

Low ROF high damage units that are better against heavies than mediums is a concept that's fine in itself. The Firefly is a perfect example. The M36 was changed because the faction needed an AT generalist, not because the mechanic itself didn't work.

I did not claim that there was something wrong with concept on the contrary I suggested in combination with target tables as solution of balancing medium and super heavies separately.

I personally do not like the current implementation of the M36 and I think it can easily be improved.

...

As I pointed out from realism point of view certain munition being more effective vs better armored vehicles makes sense.

For instance modern tank crew are instructed to use the 0.50 HMG vs APC's instead of SABOT rounds from the main gun since the round might not be very effective and simply go thru and thru.

If you are talking about consistency I am all for it.

My point is target tables should be implemented from start for of the same category, where it is needed, so that the behavior is consistent instead off adding bandaids later and creating unique solution for individual unit.

Another change that could be tested is the following:

When a ballistic shot is being fired it goes thought penetration check as normal.

If it penetrates it does a second check for damage, if it succeeds it does full damage but if it fails it does damage depending on the penetration to armor value.

If it fails again simply bounces off harmlessly.

The change would reduce the RNG effects and add value to penetration and armor values.

Another issue of ballistic weapon that could seem improvement is collision world objects.

In COH2 certain ballistic weapon seem more prone of exploding even when hitting minor world object like bushes and wire fences.

Maybe one could create different level of "world piercing" properties for this weapons to better adjust collision.