Can we revive Mechanized?

So why you don't called out MMX for posting wrong data about the time a 76mm needs to destroy a Panther? Aren't his diagramms misleading?
Imo they are not and neither is my post if you factor in the coherences and relations of the discussion. my post was clearly pointing to his data, because I took his numbers for Sherman for a direct comparison. In a direct comparison it makes no sense to add another factor which wasn't used to calculate the data you want to compare to. It is only misleading if you take the post for itself and don't take the time to read the post it is related to.

This line of arguing is non constructive, I have no personal issue with you and I it was not my intention to insult you in anyway. If you have been insulted by something I have posted pls point from what and I will take it into consideration.

Having that said MMX has:
1) Pointed out that his graphs do not take accuracy into consideration
2) Has used the graphs to compare the 76mm AP round with HAVP and not draw conclusions about Panther/76mm Fights.
3) he has posted a high quality post stating fact instead of posting an opinion.

As I said I would rather stop here and not continue down this path...

Its not even of any importance if it is just an overlapping issue or a balance one. The outcome is the same. 76mm has no place in USF tank roster. It needs a redesign along with 2-3 other units/abilities in this commander. I proposed some ways it could be done. Noone speaks about creating a balance issue.

You have suggested changes that are buff and can create balance issues. I have already pointed out that WC51 with Cav riflemen passenger can cuase balance issue especially in OKW 1vs1.

Its just you who smells trouble if someone says "Can we revive the last choosen commander in USF commander loadout, please?".

You should be aware that this is again false since I already have made my suggestions on how to redesign the commander pls avoid this line of arguing.

What I have said is that imo WC51 and 76mm are already balanced units that do not require buffs so buffing them is not path in making the commander more attractive.

As I said I would rather stop here and not continue down this path...

Yeah, let us stop here.

You have suggested changes that are buff and can create balance issues. I have already pointed out that WC51 with Cav riflemen passenger can cuase balance issue especially in OKW 1vs1.

I'm not sure about this one. Thompson upgrade would be locked behind tech so they would have their standard weaponary. Grease Guns aren't that bad either, but keep in mind the following:
- WC51 + Cav Rifles costs 480MP
- WC51 gets shredded super fast by small arms, if close up
- OKW has the Raketen as an early counter available
- going for Kubels could work out too

Edit: ...if this really would have the potential to be a problem, WC51 could be set to 1CP instead of Cav Rifles. That way it would make more sense and you could break up the 3x Rifles start.

What I have said is that imo WC51 and 76mm are already balanced units that do not require buffs so buffing them is not path in making the commander more attractive.

- WC51: Got slightly overnerfed in early game performance. Not close to Clown Car as somebody said here.
- 76mm: Even if we assume it is balanced, it still has no place in USF tank lineup because of its nondoctrinal contestors. It needs a redesign which should be balanced around more AI damage while retaining its current AT value. If we would look at it as a more expensive upgrade of M4A3 with higher AT value it would clearly be set apart from E8 while worth taking over M4A3.

Yeah, let us stop here.

Glad that you agree

I'm not sure about this one. Thompson upgrade would be locked behind tech so they would have their standard weaponary. Grease Guns aren't that bad either, but keep in mind the following:
- WC51 + Cav Rifles costs 480MP
- WC51 gets shredded super fast by small arms, if close up
- OKW has the Raketen as an early counter available
- going for Kubels could work out too

WC51 was being exploited by giving to UKF lend lease players with assault section which have similar stats. The combo proved to be OP. You can probably test it yourself in cheat mode.

RW is not a huge risk with low chance to hit and long aim times and investing 290 manpower to counter a cheaper vehicle can leave one in infatry disadvantage even if one manages to kill the WC51.
(Imo RW should be locked behind first truck set up and faust behind truck being build)

- WC51: Got slightly overnerfed in early game performance. Not close to Clown Car as somebody said here.

That is why my suggestions included starting with a HMG and being able to be refitted for m3 so that it would worth the investment.

- 76mm: Even if we assume it is balanced, it still has no place in USF tank lineup because of its nondoctrinal contestors. It needs a redesign which should be balanced around more AI damage while retaining its current AT value. If we would look it as a more expensive upgrade of M4A3 with higher AT value it would clearly be set apart from E8 while worth taking over M4A3.

I can agree with that.

That is why I suggested becoming cheaper or stock.

Imo the main issue here is giving the commander either 155 off map or the ToT (that imo should not be available with Priest), so that the commander becomes more attractive in large modes.

WC51 was being exploited by giving to UKF lend lease players with assault section which have similar stats. The combo proved to be OP. You can probably test it yourself in cheat mode.

RW is not a huge risk with low chance to hit and long aim times and investing 290 manpower to counter a cheaper vehicle can leave one in infatry disadvantage even if one manages to kill the WC51.
(Imo RW should be locked behind first truck set up and faust behind truck being build)

I didn't thought about that team game combo. A possible solution would be to give WC51 a CP requirement and taking back the crew nerf. That would make CP0 Cav Rifles possible and remove the team game exploit.

If the team game combo was the problem, why was it nerfed in such a way? Before nerf it could capture points by disembarking. Repairs were cheap. Now repairs cost 20mun and the unit can't capture points. Seems the nerf did a lot more than the removal of one exploit.

I agree about RW/faust proposal.

That is why my suggestions included starting with a HMG and being able to be refitted for m3.

Would be something to think about. Could be an option having 1 or 2 as a combat unit instead of building further Rifle squads.

I can agree with that.

We have something more to agree about.

Note that these assume every shot hits as I haven't wrapped my head around how to properly add hit chance into the pen binary distribution yet.

As long as there is no deflection damage there is no functional difference between a miss and a bounce. You can just multiply pen chance with hit chance.
Scatter hits are a different topic and depend on what you want to 'simulate'. For standing targets, 50-60% of scatter shots still hit on max range as a rule of thumb.

I didn't thought about that team game combo. A possible solution would be to give WC51 a CP requirement and taking back the crew nerf. That would make CP0 Cav Rifles possible and remove the team game exploit.

If the team game combo was the problem, why was it nerfed in such a way? Before nerf it could capture points by disembarking. Repairs were cheap. Now repairs cost 20mun and the unit can't capture points. Seems the nerf did a lot more than the removal of one exploit.
...

I brought up the exploit just to point out that early Cav passenger are an issue but I do not think that that was the main reason for removing the crew.

Imo some of problems with the crew for such cheap unit was:

One would by both a crew and vehicle and if a player managed to save the crew the loss of vehicles itself was dirty cheap with a cost around 30MP

Crew was able to fight meaning one could disembark both crew and passenger and win number of fight

Repair allowed the vehicle to easily get back to fight even when damaged

Vehicle could be "gifted" to teammates

Crew that gain veterancy could be used for other vehicles.
...

I didn't thought about that team game combo. A possible solution would be to give WC51 a CP requirement and taking back the crew nerf. That would make CP0 Cav Rifles possible and remove the team game exploit.

If the team game combo was the problem, why was it nerfed in such a way? Before nerf it could capture points by disembarking. Repairs were cheap. Now repairs cost 20mun and the unit can't capture points. Seems the nerf did a lot more than the removal of one exploit.

I highly doubt that jeep was nerfed because of one specific teamgame combo.

Repair allowed the vehicle to easily get back to fight even when damaged
...
Crew that gain veterancy could be used for other vehicles.
...

This is somehow the basic spirit of USF vehicles that had to be removed from Pershing, Calliope, Priest already for more urgent reasons. WC51 could have just adjusted in price instead of ripping out its spirit.

I brought up the exploit just to point out that early Cav passenger are an issue but I do not think that that was the main reason for removing the crew.

If we set the reasons apart: Putting WC51 at 1CP as I suggested or turning it into a combat MG unit without transport ability as you suggested would both prevent early abuse with Cav Rifles if they would be available at 0CPs. Both solutions would allow for different openings than always Rifles.

This is somehow the basic spirit of USF vehicles that had to be removed from Pershing, Calliope, Priest already for more urgent reasons. WC51 could have just adjusted in price instead of ripping out its spirit.

Only the benefits of addition crew are much higher the smaller the vehicle and the price would had to be around 260-300...

(Pershing/self propelled artillery had their own reasons for removing crew)

If we set the reasons apart: Putting WC51 at 1CP as I suggested or turning it into a combat MG unit without transport ability as you suggested would both prevent early abuse with Cav Rifles if they would be available at 0CPs. Both solutions would allow for different openings than always Rifles.

Yes.

(I personally would rather have a cheap WC51 at CP0 designed to hunt Kubel/Snipers than a CP1 one.)

As long as there is no deflection damage there is no functional difference between a miss and a bounce. You can just multiply pen chance with hit chance.
Scatter hits are a different topic and depend on what you want to 'simulate'. For standing targets, 50-60% of scatter shots still hit on max range as a rule of thumb.

ah yes that makes sense. i'll try that, thanks!

i've probably asked you before but how did you get to your estimate regarding the percentage of scatter hits again?

ah yes that makes sense. i'll try that, thanks!

i've probably asked you before but how did you get to your estimate regarding the percentage of scatter hits again?

I tested a modded Panther, SU85, I think a StuG and something else to shoot at a T34 or P4, respectively and counted some shots. Can't fully recall the range though, maybe I also tested two distances.
But those 0.5-0.6 is really just a rule of thumb, nothing more. It was not the most thorough testing I have ever done, but I think it is reasonably close to what I have seen so far.

I know it might not be popular here, but I kind of like the increased commander diversity we see now that Mechanized has been dethroned.

I wouldn't mind a buff to the 76, but I really don't want to go back to the 'all Mechanized, all the time' meta we had.

I know it might not be popular here, but I kind of like the increased commander diversity we see now that Mechanized has been dethroned.

I wouldn't mind a buff to the 76, but I really don't want to go back to the 'all Mechanized, all the time' meta we had.

I wonder where do you get that data from...

If I look at the period before commander patch and the period after commander patch Airborne company is always leading pretty obviously in 1vs1. At loadout picks nothing really changed, Mechanized was at 4th place back in that period. There was some movement at the top picks below Airborne put nothing extraordinary in the ratio of numbers. So I can't find anything that leads to the conclusion that it was always mechanized back then and that you have somehow more variety now. Nothing really changed regarding variety.

I wonder where do you get that data from...

If I look at the period before commander patch and the period after commander patch Airborne company is always leading pretty obviously in 1vs1. At loadout picks nothing really changed, Mechanized was at 4th place back in that period. There was some movement at the top picks below Airborne put nothing extraordinary in the ratio of numbers. So I can't find anything that leads to the conclusion that it was always mechanized back then and that you have somehow more variety now. Nothing really changed regarding variety.

Think he is referring to the tournament where the majority of games where Ostruppen vs Mechanized.

Think he is referring to the tournament where the majority of games where Ostruppen vs Mechanized.

Wasn't this AE's Chaos Krieg tournament with 250 VPs? In this case it's not very surprising that players go for strong early game strategies.
Although Osttruppen have dominated at least one other, "normal" tournament iirc.

Wasn't this AE's Chaos Krieg tournament with 250 VPs? In this case it's not very surprising that players go for strong early game strategies.
Although Osttruppen have dominated at least one other, "normal" tournament iirc.

Even at ML5 mechanized was rocking it.
27.7% pick rate with airborne at 21.3% while it was vetoed as high as 70.8%

Even at ML5 mechanized was rocking it.
27.7% pick rate with airborne at 21.3% while it was vetoed as high as 70.8%

Only watched ML5 finals and grand finals, there it wasn't playing any great role. As far as I remeber USF only got picked two times, Mechanized and Airborne. Both games were lost for USF. Soviets were used on all other games for allied side and scored some wins.

https://www.coh2.org/forum/46/coh2-balance

Only watched ML5 finals and grand finals, there it wasn't playing any great role. As far as I remeber USF only got picked two times, Mechanized and Airborne. Both games were lost for USF. Soviets were used on all other games for allied side and scored some wins.

during ML5 and another tournament, people mostly pick USF machanized and airbrone ( one is safe bet, another is sure win ). beside ban-pick commander rule, Final state would be Sov vs Axis.
Back to the topic. I prefer roll back Dozer remove. As least give Mechanized a good P/P solution that benifit late game. M4 76 HVAP RoF nerfed is enough to balance combo M4 Bull dozer + M4 76.
About WC51, I think give it a bigger call in ability radious when it get vet 3 or Major get stay inside it is also fine.

during ML5 and another tournament, people mostly pick USF machanized and airbrone ( one is safe bet, another is sure win ).

Since both USF matches of Airborne/Mechanized in finals with the best players of the tournament were lost I wouldn't back up that statement.

M4 76 HVAP RoF nerfed is enough to balance combo M4 Bull dozer + M4 76.

Maybe just a typo... standard shell RoF got nerfed, not the AP one. But I get your message.

I already thought about giving the dozer upgrade to 76mm instead of 75mm. Would be interesting, because 76mm with Bulldozer Blade is less overlapping with 105mm than the 75mm with Bulldozer Blade. Would be more of an unique unit and a reason to go for doctrinal 76mm. The problem of the dozer blade at the 75mm is that the 76mm gets even less attractive in comparison to the combo of 75mm (with dozer) and M36.

What is everybody's opinion on the Original Mechanized's Withdraw and Refit.