Balance Preview Update 09/08/2015

Jump back to quoted post9 Sep 2015, 02:34 AMAladdin

Relic,
Really what's your logic in nerfing UC flamer?!!!! and still keeping the UKF's pathetic early g.ame untouched????! plus the miserable manpower situation UKF has which is by far not in line with other factions.
Please do something about this

Jump back to quoted post8 Sep 2015, 17:41 PMnigo

http://community.companyofheroes.com/forum/company-of-heroes-2/company-of-heroes-2-general-discussion/67-coh-2-changelog?p=207570#post207570



Balance Preview Update 09/04/2015


Partisan cost increased from 210 to 250 to bring the unit in line with its cost.
Partisan guns changed from MP44 to MP40s (PPSH for placeholder) they will deal slightly less damage but still be good at dealing with weapon teams
Partisans now have camouflage to gain extra utility after their initial deployment
T34 Population increased from 8 to 10 to prevent overwhelming numbers of the tank

Jump back to quoted post9 Sep 2015, 02:47 AMVonIvan

As if AT partysans were bad enough(reinforce wise). Now this. Someone explain to me why partysans are getting changed for the worse rather than the better. And the t-34/76 changes. Mass producing them vs hordes of panthers/p4s/at-gun/at-inf/etc....yet they decide to do this. For something that can't scale for ****.

Jump back to quoted post9 Sep 2015, 02:47 AMVonIvan

And the t-34/76 changes. Mass producing them vs hordes of panthers/p4s/at-gun/at-inf/etc....yet they decide to do this. For something that can't scale for ****.

Jump back to quoted post8 Sep 2015, 19:37 PMSpeculator

Hm, can't find those numbers on coh2-stats. Where did you find those numbers?

Jump back to quoted post9 Sep 2015, 02:47 AMVonIvan

As if AT partysans were bad enough(reinforce wise). Now this. Someone explain to me why partysans are getting changed for the worse rather than the better. And the t-34/76 changes. Mass producing them vs hordes of panthers/p4s/at-gun/at-inf/etc....yet they decide to do this. For something that can't scale for ****.

Jump back to quoted post8 Sep 2015, 18:25 PMCookiezNcreem

Why do you guys insist on turning heavies into these counter-all vehicles all the sudden. Weren't we working away from a heavy tank meta..

There is no reason give heavy tanks longer ranges to deal with tank destroyers. Tank destroyers are supposed to kite heavy tanks. Is that not obvious?

To deal with this,you support your heavy tank with 50-60 range units...
The KT literally does not need this. Just park a Jp4(which flat out beats SU85s and jacksons) right next to it..

Same with tiger,even though its harder since they lack a 60 range TD(SO BUFF THE STUG TO BE INLINE WITH OTHER FACTIONS 60 RANGE TD's,NOT THE TIGER. #JustRelicBalancing),park double paks,or a couple stugs with a halftrack to reinforce paks that were hit by artillery.

I dont understand. Please dont put this in live. And if youre planning on giving a pershing(when its added) 45-50 range,please reconsider. Its only moving towards taking away from late game combined arms.


The other changes are +1 btw,but why go 4-5 steps forward and 1 step back.

Jump back to quoted post8 Sep 2015, 23:36 PMThe_rEd_bEar

why are they nerfing molotoves? they are fine they way they are, should grenades get nerfed because they do alot of damage and squad wipes?

Jump back to quoted post9 Sep 2015, 05:33 AMLuGer33

+10 or however many people have agreed with this post.

I don't understand how "Tigers die too easily to tank destroyers" is even an issue. The Jackson is the only unit USF has to deal w/ these heavily armored, late-game Axis units, whether they be Tigers or Panthers or whatever. To that end, I thought they were a hard counter. I mean, lawd knows Zooks and 57 mm rounds are just gonna bounce off left and right.

So what's the actual rationale behind this proposed change? Who at the office is saying "USF has too strong of a late game" or "[either Axis faction] needs help killing USF armor." Because I haven't seen anyone say it here.

Jump back to quoted post8 Sep 2015, 18:09 PMbC_

We will have to play around with the numbers through testing, maybe we just increase the fuel and not the manpower? testing will reveal this.

Comet still the fastest tank in the game and deals massive damage still. Although its scatter is increase slightly its accuracy, splash etc makes it way more versatile. Problem was it was able to move fast, kill stuff and tank a lot of damage. so yeah, if the cost needs to be adjusted or numbers need to be adjusted thats what testing will prove or disprove.

Jump back to quoted post9 Sep 2015, 00:37 AMCardboard Tank

Wow? Why even buff the Tiger in the first place when the veterancy is nerfed? So the Tiger stays the way it is. I was hyped before... now I´m just disappointed. That bit of penetration and range on vet0 and 1 is nothing it neeaded. Back to garbage Tiger.

Give it at least some armor or health back.

Jump back to quoted post8 Sep 2015, 18:56 PMbC_

you have to also take into account OKW resource personality as it is harder to accumulate that amount of fuel.