Login

russian armor

Hannibal's personal gameplay design

15 Oct 2021, 17:58 PM
#21
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Oct 2021, 17:36 PMPip


Other tanks just use the same shell for every target, which is why they're not as good as the shermans' specific-use shells. The ISU-152 has a similar shell switching mechanic, incidentally.


Didn't know Sherman AP shells were so good.
15 Oct 2021, 20:57 PM
#22
avatar of Descolata

Posts: 486

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Oct 2021, 17:36 PMPip


Other tanks just use the same shell for every target, which is why they're not as good as the shermans' specific-use shells. The ISU-152 has a similar shell switching mechanic, incidentally.


Technically, the Sherman has worse shells than the P-4 in both regards. It is not trading shell selection for better shells, it is trading shell selection for repair crew.

This is why the 76 and the E8 have iffy AI cannons. They get repair crews AND a multipurpose shell. So they made the shell less multipurpose.
Pip
16 Oct 2021, 00:39 AM
#23
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594



Technically, the Sherman has worse shells than the P-4 in both regards. It is not trading shell selection for better shells, it is trading shell selection for repair crew.

This is why the 76 and the E8 have iffy AI cannons. They get repair crews AND a multipurpose shell. So they made the shell less multipurpose.


Close up the Sherman's AP round has higher pen than the P4, though obviously its going against generally higher-armour targets, and the mid-long range pen is indeed worse.

The HE shell is extremely good however, to my knowledge.
16 Oct 2021, 02:51 AM
#24
avatar of Descolata

Posts: 486

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Oct 2021, 00:39 AMPip


Close up the Sherman's AP round has higher pen than the P4, though obviously its going against generally higher-armour targets, and the mid-long range pen is indeed worse.

The HE shell is extremely good however, to my knowledge.


Generally, if your Sherman is close enough for the AP to matter, you've made a mistake.

The HE shell IS quite good, with solid AoE and alright scatter, but it lacks something like 25% of the OHK radius of the T-34, KV-1, or P-4.

P-4 has both shells in 1, but no repair crews.
22 Dec 2021, 12:08 PM
#25
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2

Most of this I noted down couple of months to weeks ago, since I had it lying around I thought I'd just follow up on this original post.

Ideas for the Soviet faction

These changes are supposed to be implemented with the proposals in the original post. Where they are contradictory, the “newer” proposals should be considered (e.g. I previously said all engineers should be 3 men squads, here I say Soviets should have 4 etc).
Again, I can’t write a super exhaustive list on ALL changes I can imagine, which features/abilities should be retained on every single unit and how exactly costs etc are going to change. This is already long, no one would bother to read it if it got any longer. When in doubt, please cut me some slack and view these proposals as a general design idea.

General:
Late game techs:
I personally love the UKF hammer/amboss decision, although I’d like to give it a bit of a different twist. Instead of unlocking units and abilities, I’d rather go with some economy boost. Might be dangerous for balance, but I like the idea.
For example, there could be (mutually exclusive) research for +5 max population, discounts on vehicles or infantry etc. These could also be made faction specific to increase asymmetry.

Teching costs:
I don’t know why the main gate for techs fuel is only. I think it would be beneficial to include munitions cost in addition or at least for some tiers. This would prevent fuel rushes in team modes where holding double fuel is basically all you need while you can neglect the specialized munition points.


Redesigned teching:
Soviet tech is now linear, Penals move to T0 to abolish the Soviet infantry duality. I hope both units work better together in more diverse builds if they are also available together. This in turn would potentially open up commander changes for elite infantry, however they are not a concern at the moment.

Restructured Tech:
T0: Conscripts, Penals, CE
T1: M3, Sniper, Maxim (building within 3 min)
T2: ATG, Mortar, M5 (building within 5 min)
T3: SU76, T70, (Katy)
T4: T34, SU85, (Katy)
I hope this gives more proper timing to the M5 (upgrade might need tweaks) which should come at around 5 min. Maxim and mortar might be switched if necessary. Katy goes T3 or T4. All costs changed to fit timing windows.

Combat engineers:
Squad size 4
Get normal mosins

Upgrade paths:
1. Anti-tank -> gets 1 PTRS, sticky satchel, +1 model, light AT mines; MAYBE after T3/4 they could get a second one
2. Sweeper -> increased repair speed and build time

Conscripts:
Aim is to use them as “fill up” troops to fill gaps in the front line. Bad combat stats, short range weapon profile, scale through abilities. Damage scaling will probably be bad at mid-long range and see a steeper increase at very short ranges. Changes:
Start at 7 men, MR does not grant another model (need new usage for MR)
Molotov gets impact damage buff and maybe cost buff
RA nerf (about 10% nerf), maybe MR will be used to remove this nerf
Damage nerf, especially mid-long range

Penals:
Redesign intended to slightly mirror the German Gren-PGren interaction, however with slight twists. Penals are not elite infantry and rather in between line and elite infantry. Although doctrines are not taken into account yet, I think this should also create some room for Guards and Shocks. Mid range profile.
4 men

Upgrade paths:
1. flame thrower
2. 2x DP28 (increases squad size to 5)
The squad size to 4 is a slight band aid because I’d like to move the flame thrower for some asymmetry between the factions. Also, it would fit Penals’ role to do the dangerous jobs. However, 5 men flamers are often not a great idea, especially early on. I hope the merge with Conscripts will create the staying power needed.

M3
Retains its current sight radius, maybe even a slight buff. Potentially slightly lower top speed to nerf cheesy strategies of just running the M3 with a satchel squad into tanks or similar.

Maxim, ATG, mortar
All become 4 men squads with RA buffs as needed. As I said previously, I want them to be more expensive in general but more effective at the job. Especially with the changes to mortars and MGs, they might become too effective, thereby high MP cost should prevent spamming. This should make repairing team weapons more worthwhile as well as create more interesting play around defending them. Issues could come with wipes due to late game arty.

M5
Hopefully improved timing at T2. Changes as needed to fit the new timing. Slightly above average sight (~40 range). Maybe the truck should come with a “medic truck” upgrade that unlocks the reinforcement and healing, potentially healing as AoE.

SU76
No huge changes. I like the unit itself, I hope the changes to the Soviet infantry system will create enough room at this phase to get an SU76 instead of a T70. Sight changes as previously described.

T70
The backbone of the Soviet early-mid transition. No larger changes overall, maybe a tiny penetration nerf mid to long range so that a Luchs has slightly better chances.

T34, SU85, Katy
I’ll sum these up. Again no huge changes apart from the general vehicle proposals since I don’t fully know how those will turn out. If possible, the SU85 might be changed to fit better vs heavier armor, but this will require more changes on the Ostheer side of things.
Katy could go T3 or T4, depending on where it fits best.
22 Dec 2021, 12:42 PM
#26
avatar of rumartinez89

Posts: 599

I like most of your ideas like the Conscript/Penal change. It would promote mix and matching instead of pure conscript spam we have now. The only change I would do is instead of flamethrower make the close range PPSH. As a four man squad it won't hit as hard but would probably be easier to balance around merge while keeping the "elites" as better versions of the Penal squad along with better equipment such as smoke/body armor/abilities. Earlier M5 would be welcome but with improved Con/Penal synergy might be a little too much. They would be able to overrun most players with decent play of sand bags with Penal DP28. Overall I think it would be fun as hell to play.

EDIT: I would also keep DP28 squad size to 4, Airborne would then be a large upgrade on durability/long range DPS. If you went with PPSH I would change that to 5 men instead due to change in play style.
22 Dec 2021, 14:35 PM
#27
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2

I like most of your ideas like the Conscript/Penal change. It would promote mix and matching instead of pure conscript spam we have now. The only change I would do is instead of flamethrower make the close range PPSH. As a four man squad it won't hit as hard but would probably be easier to balance around merge while keeping the "elites" as better versions of the Penal squad along with better equipment such as smoke/body armor/abilities. Earlier M5 would be welcome but with improved Con/Penal synergy might be a little too much. They would be able to overrun most players with decent play of sand bags with Penal DP28. Overall I think it would be fun as hell to play.

EDIT: I would also keep DP28 squad size to 4, Airborne would then be a large upgrade on durability/long range DPS. If you went with PPSH I would change that to 5 men instead due to change in play style.

Soviet infantry is a tough nut since there is so much variety with overlapping function that you'll constantly clash into other units.
That's why I broke it down to the basics and stuck to my own rule: Commanders do not matter, it is fully about the core units:
Soviet need one short range squad and one mid-long range one to mirror the Ostheer setup. Conscripts are, well, Conscripts. They are not well trained, so they can't fill the longer range role. That's why I'd put DP28 on Penals. The flamer is more a flavour thing for added asymmetry with the added benefit of goving CEs a late game role apart from sweeping. Their flamer tends to go down in combat effectiveness quite a bit.
I am not fully sure how well 4 men Penals with DPs would turn out. I personally like the general design of having larger Soviet squads. But maybe the Conscript merge is enough to keep them on the field, although merging into 4 men squads is quite click intensive to not lose the squad...
But to be honest, this goes into specifics that need testing within the game. There is so much more to rework from price, RA, reinforcement, DP28 damage profile etc that all factor into this.
Pip
22 Dec 2021, 18:45 PM
#28
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

Regarding penals;

I'd make the suggestion that they ought to remain six men, and their DP upgrade be changed to provide them with ATV-40s instead. (Which would just be, in gameplay terms, SVTs that fire broadly like STGs, being most effective at the mid-ranges that you're suggesting they prefer to fight at)

I'd also suggest giving CEs the flamethrower still... rather than Penals. Especially if they're a five or six man squad. The only problem here is that CEs have rather too many options to upgrade.

I'm pleased to see that soviet team weapons are reduced to 4-man squads, incidentally. As "Thematic" as the six-man teams are; they really are a headache for balance.
22 Dec 2021, 22:03 PM
#29
avatar of Katukov

Posts: 786 | Subs: 1

horrible ideas


lets not do any of this, except maybe the vehicle vision one
23 Dec 2021, 09:17 AM
#30
avatar of Kasarov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 422 | Subs: 2

I agree with the vehicle vision and mobility changes as well as sniper changes; with a few differences I myself have also included something similar in my own personal mod that I've been developing off and on.

Having a lot of experience playing around with the mod tools and redesigning core mechanics, I can offer you some some ideas if you are open to suggestions.



Recently, I have finished my core Soviet faction revamp and currently working on Ostheer. I don't mean to derail the thread, though I think you may find this insightful or at the very least interesting:

23 Dec 2021, 09:33 AM
#31
avatar of Kasarov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 422 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Dec 2021, 18:45 PMPip
Regarding penals;

I'd make the suggestion that they ought to remain six men, and their DP upgrade be changed to provide them with ATV-40s instead. (Which would just be, in gameplay terms, SVTs that fire broadly like STGs, being most effective at the mid-ranges that you're suggesting they prefer to fight at)

I'd also suggest giving CEs the flamethrower still... rather than Penals. Especially if they're a five or six man squad. The only problem here is that CEs have rather too many options to upgrade.


Unfortunately, there is no way to make SVTs function as AVTs aesthetically. You can't just simply turn a single-shot weapon into a burst weapon, unfortunately. Even on the lowest possible weapon cooldowns supported by the engine, they don't even appear or sound close to being automatic.

You can go the other way (burst weapons to single shot) by having extremely short bursts though. This can be used for StG, FG42, etc, although making the SFX sound right will require lots of fine tuning.

Also Penals have badass now-unused voicelines for flamethrowers
23 Dec 2021, 10:28 AM
#32
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

Remove Penalties from T1, convert them to Osttruppen ability, remove the merge from Conscripts and transfer them new to Conscripts. Remove SVT-40 from Penalties and transfer them to new Conscripts as an upgrade. Rename the new Penalties to Conscripts, and the Conscripts to Strelki (Rifleman's), replace their emblem with a new one.

The design of the USSR is just a mess. We have Conscripts in 1943 uniforms, no weapon upgrades. I understand maybe they wanted to show a quick call in 1941 for which there were not enough light machine guns. But in 1943?
23 Dec 2021, 10:55 AM
#33
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Dec 2021, 09:17 AMKasarov
...

some interesting ideas although things like stock IS-2 and upgrade-able T-70 will need some serious balancing.
23 Dec 2021, 11:46 AM
#34
avatar of gunther09
Donator 22

Posts: 538

I love the idea of vehicle sight being not 360°
That adds a lot of flavour. Very nice.
Has this ever been pitched to the COH3 guys?

The sniper&spotter combo is also a really nice idea.

And I am sure, for both ideas, tons of funny voice lines can be produced :-)
Tanks no seeing shit, spotters without sinper and vice versa....very nice stuff.
23 Dec 2021, 15:28 PM
#35
avatar of Katukov

Posts: 786 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Dec 2021, 10:55 AMVipper

some interesting ideas although things like stock IS-2 and upgrade-able T-70 will need some serious balancing.


que THAT faction that already has their counterparts stock and is very balanced
23 Dec 2021, 16:18 PM
#36
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Dec 2021, 15:28 PMKatukov


que THAT faction that already has their counterparts stock and is very balanced

No other faction has a T-70 or stock IS-2.

Now pls try to stay on topic which are these modes instead of ranting about the game balance.
Pip
23 Dec 2021, 18:14 PM
#37
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Dec 2021, 09:33 AMKasarov


Unfortunately, there is no way to make SVTs function as AVTs aesthetically. You can't just simply turn a single-shot weapon into a burst weapon, unfortunately. Even on the lowest possible weapon cooldowns supported by the engine, they don't even appear or sound close to being automatic.

You can go the other way (burst weapons to single shot) by having extremely short bursts though. This can be used for StG, FG42, etc, although making the SFX sound right will require lots of fine tuning.

Also Penals have badass now-unused voicelines for flamethrowers


Is it impossible to override the model that a weapon uses? If so, one could replace penals' STV-40s with STGs (or some other burst/automatic weapon) that have their models replaced with SVTs. This is the method I was expecting would be used, rather than directly modifying the SVT-40 stats.

Though, of course, this would require that animations and sounds are overridden as well... And having not actually had much experience with CoH2's """""modding tools""""" I don't know whether all of that is easily doable. It does feel like a lot of things that really ought to be trivial are practically impossible when modding this game.
23 Dec 2021, 19:08 PM
#38
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954

AFAIK, tanks only had vision slits to the front. If they had an exposed commander, they should get 360 view, but the exposed commander should be vulnerable to small arms. It should cost around 30 munitions to get the commander, 50 if they get a pintle MG. Open top TD's like the M10 should have 360 view, but b
e vulnerable to small arms fire. One of the models should be the gunner resulting in a main gun crit. It would eliminate the BS of trying to crush with an open top TD.

One vast improvement would be to limit the number of arty pieces to 1 per player, or possibly one rocket and one howitzer.

Also, if both Axis factions have stock Panthers then the Soviets should have T34/85's and the USF have Easy 8's.

The Walking Stuka badly needs to be reworked. The all or nothing works badly in small game modes and much too well in 4v4's. The OHK radius is so large that it routinely wipes full health Soviet squads, including Penals. Spreading the shells out, increasing the AOE range but having a smaller OHK radius would work much better. Units that get hit should be suppressed, as that would help it to be useful in a breakthrough push.
23 Dec 2021, 20:55 PM
#39
avatar of Katukov

Posts: 786 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Dec 2021, 16:18 PMVipper

No other faction has a T-70 or stock IS-2.

Now pls try to stay on topic which are these modes instead of ranting about the game balance.



the panzer 2 is the german COUNTERPART of the t-70

and the king tiger is the german COUNTERPART of the IS-2


They are the closest EQUIVALENT UNITS between the factions

learn to fucking read
23 Dec 2021, 21:40 PM
#40
avatar of Kasarov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 422 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Dec 2021, 18:14 PMPip


Is it impossible to override the model that a weapon uses? If so, one could replace penals' STV-40s with STGs (or some other burst/automatic weapon) that have their models replaced with SVTs. This is the method I was expecting would be used, rather than directly modifying the SVT-40 stats.

Though, of course, this would require that animations and sounds are overridden as well... And having not actually had much experience with CoH2's """""modding tools""""" I don't know whether all of that is easily doable. It does feel like a lot of things that really ought to be trivial are practically impossible when modding this game.


Not possible. Sounds and animations are tied to the model, and you can't swap them.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

690 users are online: 690 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49062
Welcome our newest member, Mclatc16
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM