The swapping T70 and SU76 suggestion thread

.

This has been suggested before in the past and recently discussed in this thread so I want to make a dedicated post.

It's simple:

T70 is outclassed by the T34/76 as a mobile scouting vehicle and by the M15 AA halftrack as anti-infantry.

SU76 is redundant in the same tier as a long-range assault gun with the SU85 and AI barrage platform with the Katushya.

Affording each of the tiers one assault gun and one turreted vehicle that can actually synergize with each other will reduce the Soviets reliance on their commander call-in vehicles and the cheesy play that is a result of such a strategy while increasing the viability of the less played commanders.

This would also give each tier a vehicle that can capture territory at veterancy one.

What do you think?

Absolutely, this change has been avoided for so long.

Its a great idea, but I don't think relic will implement it because they will hold the position: "if you pick one tier, you can't have units from the other tier, that's how soviet is designed". Lets just hope I am wrong, but experience tell me not.

The downside that immediately comes to mind is the T-70 recon mode + SU-85 combo.

Somebody also made a great suggestion about shifting the fuel cost of Wehr tier 3 to the building, which was ignored by Relic.

Suggestions like this are fantastic, and would really shake up the meta and make the game far more interesting and give soviets a really nice variety, but there is no response or back and fourth. It's painful to see.

EDIT: It's no worse than infantry + Viewpoint mode of the SU-85.

I don't think this will ever going to happened and I don't think it will be good idea. T-70 + SU-85 combo would be devastating.

I get how "cool" it would be, for Sov tier synergy. But if you think about it for a bit, one will realise it would also break the Sov tier system, as compared to other factions.

The resulting kind of tier combos possible, would be gamebreaking for Sov, which is already is consider as one of the more competetive factions. Especially in combinatiin with how Sov Commanders are designed and the callin/ability structre they have.

Tier structure and mechanics is different for every faction, and although it is considered "frustrating" by Sov, in that they cant build everything they want out of a linear tier progression (except at greater expense), that is nonetheless how asymmetric faction design works in this game.

As a relative comparison, consider how Ostwind and PWerfer where swapped around. It was a very difficult change,but a necessary one, primarily because Ost AA was otherwise placed too late in the tier structure, especially for Osts linear design. Necessary, but to this day, Ost T4 remains an elusive problem. Iro ically, a similar kind of problem is also presented in Sovs split tier design.

TLDR: As it sort of turns out in Relics asymmetric design, you cant "have it all". Tier structure seems to carry hard and deliberate restrictions, imo, so as to differentiate the factions with different tiering mechanics, and more importantly, a complex interbalance of the handicaps resulting from that, so that, for example, we never have another Brits.

If anything, I would prefer changes to T70 and Su76 instead, rather than swapping them.
T70 went through a very problematic period. As a light tank, it was always wierdly aligned to begin with. SU76 is also a wierd unit to begin with.

Primarily, imo, SU76 barrage combination with ZiS barrage, at that stage, would be absolutely devastating to infantry/support, as a result of the sum total of indirect fire. But, in addition to that, both of these units also function as native AT, again, at a relatively early tier. This combined AT/AI potential frankly scares the hell out of me.

SU85/T70 combo I find less concerning, but I defer to the judgement of those here who see that also as extremely problematic. My rrsistance to that part of the change, is a different one. I think it squeezes T70 out of its already marginal optimum. T70 balance is hairline thin, as it is. I, for one, think T70 and SU85 combo is not something I would want, and which weakens Sovs T4 substantially, especially in favor of a Support/SU76 lineup.

I foresee very problematic unit combinations coming out of a T70/SU76 swap.

The downside that immediately comes to mind is the T-70 recon mode + SU-85 combo.

Because SU-85 have problems to spot for itself, right?

It wouldn't change a thing for SU-85, except giving it some armored protection from infantry.

The thing is, SU-76 have absolutely no place in T4. For arty, Katiusha is infinitely better, for AT SU-85 is infinitely better.

SU-76 wants to be good at both and fails miserably.

The downside that immediately comes to mind is the T-70 recon mode + SU-85 combo.

The recon mode bonus could be toned down when the T70 is in T4. Currently it has to give a huge sight bonus to give it at least something the T34/76 does not do better. The impact of the recon ability + SU85 is estimated a lot better than it would actually be. The SU85 already has focused sight to give it more spotting range and that can be disabled the moment enemy tanks come to close.

About the pure killing power of the T70 + SU85: this is not a problem. It's comparable to Jagdpanzer IV + panzer II. Not gamebreaking by any stretch, and certainly not as powerful as other combinations that can just as easily be acquired such as Sherman+Jackson.

SU76+T34/76 would also be a nice combo, comparable to something like a PIV and a StugG combo. Hardly something that the other faction can't deal with.

Half the soviet commanders don't have call in tanks. All these commanders are restricted to spamming T34/76s every 1v1 game simply because of the impractical positions of the units in the tech structures.

Somebody also made a great suggestion about shifting the fuel cost of Wehr tier 3 to the building, which was ignored by Relic.

Suggestions like this are fantastic, and would really shake up the meta and make the game far more interesting and give soviets a really nice variety, but there is no response or back and fourth. It's painful to see.

EDIT: It's no worse than infantry + Viewpoint mode of the SU-85.

Who says Relic ignores them? Just because something does not get implemented does not mean it never gets tested. I'd love if Relic would communicate on those things more, but as you can see with the 4 men Soviet squads such things get tested / evaluated.

On topic:

I personally do not think this is a good idea, but I'd be up for testing it. Su-76 might be slightly useful in T3, but only slightly. It's barrage is neat, but it's AT is by far not good enough to make you forego a ZiS-3. So you got a barrage tool anyways. The only thing it does is give you a free barrage at a high initial cost and mediocre popcap drain.
The T70 on the other hand would greatly supplement T4. It can spot, which is a huge bonus for the SU-85 (flank protection) and the Katyusha (higher accuracy / protection / better target finding) as well as protect both of those from infantry attacks. SU-76 and SU-85 both are weak to Panzerschreck PGrens as well as flanks. The T70 fills that gap really well.

These combined make me think it might switch T3 and T4s prominence and make T4 the new go-to one since you have the good early harasser (T70) and the great lategame scaling of Katyushas and SU-85, while at the same time not being forced to get T2 for anti tank. Compared to that T3 suddenly seems less interesting. Since I always prefer a mobile and flexible gameplay over static one (that's also why I don't like playing Ostheer ) I personally would dislike that change.

Should have been done ages ago.

I think the major problem is that the SU-76 is useless.

Like really, not QQ exaggerating useless.

I have never seen one built in competitive play since the host of nerfs it received a while ago.

If it's going to come out in T4 it would be nice if it at least had a cost increase and functioned as a mobile Zis. But then again what is the point of having the SU-85?

Giving it a price decrease and putting it in T3 would at least give you a reason to consider building it. Right now the arty feature on it is gimped and it can only survive 1 - 2 shots from armor which is can't penetrate anyways. It's slow, clunky, and just awful.

I like the idea of having the T70 in T4 and hardly see how it would be game breaking when it gets obliterated by paks and jagpanthers in 1 -2 shots. An early T4 however would actually give you some options with an early shock T70 transitioned into an SU-85.

Primarily, imo, SU76 barrage combination with ZiS barrage, at that stage, would be absolutely devastating to infantry/support, as a result of the sum total of indirect fire. But, in addition to that, both of these units also function as native AT, again, at a relatively early tier. This combined AT/AI potential frankly scares the hell out of me.

I disagree with the rest, but this one is especially puzzling. There would be no cost change at all. The ''dreaded'' (by absolutely no one) ZiS/SU-76 combo is already possible in the game. It's even apparently so feared, even Soviet players avoid like like the plague. Because if you want indirect fire, you're way better off getting a Katyusha or a 120mm mortar than either a ZiS or SU-76 in the first place.

Two things need to happen; either the swap, or a role change for both units. The t-70 could go the way of the Stuart and become a light vehicle more specialized to fight other vehicles. SU-76, I don't know, sort of a direct fire unit like the OKW support gun? Mostly effective against infantry, maybe with a vet 1 ability useful vs vehicles. At this point, anything is better than the silly amount of overlap between Soviet units. Other factions do not suffer from this problem in their tiers.

It would be nice to get a response from relic, but sadly, I doubt they check the forums enough to notice these ideas.

It would be nice to get a response from relic, but sadly, I doubt they check the forums enough to notice these ideas.

I know it is annoying, but please do not equate "not noticing" with "not replying". Trust me, those ideas get read and if there are good ones that Relic misses they tend to get forwarded to them. If there is an idea you think that could work you need to test it first. If they write they are going to test it people usually then want to know about the outcomes of the tests, meaning they need to put a lot of time into these interactions in which they could also test other things.
I know how bad it is that there is so little interaction and I talked to them about it quite often, but I can also see the other side and how stressed they often are. Imagine besides testing changes, making sure those get added correctly and skimming the forums you would need to actually read every single post and reply. Especially a forum like the balance ones on CoH.com or CoH2.org. There is such a climate of rather insulting / blaming others instead of participating in a constructive criticism that if you are forced to read them, you probably couldn't stay sane for a long time. I actually know few people that enjoy reading these forums and it saddens me. I hope the new mods will change this. Strict and harsh punishment in the balance forums, discussions / spam in the general forums. PlzThx.

The downside that immediately comes to mind is the T-70 recon mode + SU-85 combo.

Don't actually see a downside there. It encourages good microing!

Who says Relic ignores them? Just because something does not get implemented does not mean it never gets tested. I'd love if Relic would communicate on those things more, but as you can see with the 4 men Soviet squads such things get tested / evaluated.

On topic:

I personally do not think this is a good idea, but I'd be up for testing it. Su-76 might be slightly useful in T3, but only slightly. It's barrage is neat, but it's AT is by far not good enough to make you forego a ZiS-3. So you got a barrage tool anyways. The only thing it does is give you a free barrage at a high initial cost and mediocre popcap drain.
The T70 on the other hand would greatly supplement T4. It can spot, which is a huge bonus for the SU-85 (flank protection) and the Katyusha (higher accuracy / protection / better target finding) as well as protect both of those from infantry attacks. SU-76 and SU-85 both are weak to Panzerschreck PGrens as well as flanks. The T70 fills that gap really well.

These combined make me think it might switch T3 and T4s prominence and make T4 the new go-to one since you have the good early harasser (T70) and the great lategame scaling of Katyushas and SU-85, while at the same time not being forced to get T2 for anti tank. Compared to that T3 suddenly seems less interesting. Since I always prefer a mobile and flexible gameplay over static one (that's also why I don't like playing Ostheer ) I personally would dislike that change.

word on this (especially su76 in t3 part) even though i would like to see the change.

sure t70 + su85 would be great but i also suspect there will be almost no place for su76 in t3. sure 60 range would be great and barrage would be a neat feature but it only goes that far imo. 120 damage is lackluster, barrage cool down is long, gets two shotted and having absolutely 0 turret makes pathing, chasing (even with great speed) and targeting unnecessarily harder. i rather have another t34/76 for mere 30fu more just like how i feel about t70 v. t34/76 right now.

something's gotta change for su76.

I disagree with the rest, but this one is especially puzzling. There would be no cost change at all.

First of all, I never mentioned a cost differential. Anywhere. So dunno where you got that from.

Second of all, t2-3 build would result in ZiS/SU76/T34.

Third of all, a doubled potential for indirect fire, and who even cares about T34, when you instead just callin T34/85s, as usual, and as is the case now. The ZiS/SU76 combination is far more versatile than a ZiS/T34 combination.

You aren't thinking hard enough about the meta repercussions.
The change has enormous repercussions. Its not a small simple change. Its a huge difference.

SU76 should just be removed and replaced with something else. I'm having difficulty finding a role for this unit when taking into account the timing of the T3 or T4 building.