Login

russian armor

Balance Preview Patchnotes

PAGES (58)down
21 Nov 2015, 16:52 PM
#601
avatar of F1sh

Posts: 521

Now that the Mobile Defense ostruppen don't come with any veterency, the commander kind of sucks.
21 Nov 2015, 18:19 PM
#602
avatar of atouba

Posts: 482

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Nov 2015, 16:52 PMF1sh
Now that the Mobile Defense ostruppen don't come with any veterency, the commander kind of sucks.

Also, dunno why they come out at 3 CP as same as Cavalry ranger. :foreveralone:
21 Nov 2015, 18:26 PM
#603
avatar of Rollo

Posts: 738

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Nov 2015, 15:36 PMKatitof


Relic pretty much made them 280mp grens now, except with even worse close range dps and only tad better long range one.


it's worse than that, grens don't need to stick to cover or spend 400mp+45fuel in upgrades just to have basic things like grenades and lmg's
21 Nov 2015, 18:28 PM
#604
avatar of Doggo

Posts: 148

If they are nerfing the damage potential of Infantry Sections to enforce them as Defensive Troops, then the British Empire Forces need a non-doctrinal Infantry unit that is capable of being used as an offensive troop in order to capture territory.

Especially since base artillery, emplacements, UC, etc etc are all needing a dire fix.
21 Nov 2015, 18:42 PM
#605
avatar of Quercus

Posts: 47

Magpie842 made some good points in his video about the proposed changes, namely:
- Removing suppression from the Kubel and the Lieg leaves OKW with no native suppression ability which is a bad thing.
- Having the Luchs in T3 is bad because it is very powerful and can appear too early
- Having the P4, JP4 and Panther all in T4 is a mistake because it renders at least one of them immediately useless. Why would anyone get the JP4 when for a bit more cost then could get the Panther?


On the British Infantry Sections, how about restoring their damage but making the additional penalties while moving and bonuses for being in cover varied based upon the Hammer/Anvil tactics?
So for instance:
Vanilla IS: +50% extra combat penalty while moving, 50% of the original offensive bonus in cover
Hammer IS: +25% extra combat penalty while moving, 25% of the original offensive bonus in cover
Anvil IS: +full extra combat penalty while moving, full original offensive bonus in cover
21 Nov 2015, 19:39 PM
#606
avatar of Fluffi

Posts: 211

many of the commander abilities that replace old ones are thematically failing and pretty lame.
There is nothing 'Rifle' about rifle company anymore.

Relic only did this because everyone hated the balance of the corresponding abilities. But can't they keep their original, more interesting ideas and still balance it?
21 Nov 2015, 19:48 PM
#607
avatar of Illenia

Posts: 19

On the topic of Rifle Company changes, I really think that moving the flamers to Rear Echelons was a necessary and good change, but I don't really like fire-up replacing elite rifles. I'm not saying that instant-vet 1 rifles was a good idea, but one of the big draws for Rifle Company (to me anyway) was being able to have an instant rifleman call-in for 300 manpower. The earlier pressure that USF can apply with just a slightly earlier 3rd rifle seems to win me as many games as the OP flamer/bar spam does. Instead of Fire-up, I think i'd rather just remove the built-in veterancy from the elite rifle call-in and just rename the ability "rapid deployment" or something.
21 Nov 2015, 21:48 PM
#608
avatar of utmost
Patrion 14

Posts: 182

I have been playing both sides of this new patch, and this has to be the most balanced patch to date, brad you are fast becoming a god, please marry me, i think i love you,and i want to have your babys:wub::bananadance:
21 Nov 2015, 21:49 PM
#609
avatar of ZeaviS

Posts: 160

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Nov 2015, 18:42 PMQuercus

- Having the P4, JP4 and Panther all in T4 is a mistake because it renders at least one of them immediately useless. Why would anyone get the JP4 when for a bit more cost then could get the Panther?


Depends on your needs. JP4 has longer range and more DPS. If you're playing a more defensive style, the JP4 might be better. I don't this makes the JP4 useless, it's really good.
21 Nov 2015, 21:59 PM
#610
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

They could have replace Rifle vet1 call-in by Rifle + 1 BAR call-in CP2 or thompson upgrade CP2, so you still get something useful from it. The drawback of sprint make it quite useless for anything else than sprint in a house.
Hat
21 Nov 2015, 22:08 PM
#611
avatar of Hat

Posts: 166

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Nov 2015, 18:42 PMQuercus
Magpie842 made some good points in his video about the proposed changes, namely:
- Removing suppression from the Kubel and the Lieg leaves OKW with no native suppression ability which is a bad thing.


OKW has flak and forward bases.
21 Nov 2015, 22:57 PM
#612
avatar of cr4wler

Posts: 1164



going from .80 to .90 is a pretty huge nerf and a big part of the reason why the tommies are getting their butt kicked in.

While I agree with the sentiment that unit should be killable in a reasonable amount of time, that toughness is part of the tommies' characteristic. Removing that toughness will require a significant overhaul.


the damage nerf seems to be over the top, just mathematically speaking. still, with 0.8 base size and the vet 2 received accuracy bonuses, infantry sections are too resilient. nerfing just the vet 3 acc bonus is not quite enough imho. if they were to keep their base size, i think a vet 2 received accuracy nerf would be in order (and thinking about it, might be better than just nerfing their base values... vet 0 IS are pretty strong, but the real problem with the IS was trying to fight (several) vetted 5 man squads, potentially with LMGs).
21 Nov 2015, 23:05 PM
#613
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Nov 2015, 18:42 PMQuercus
Magpie842 made some good points in his video about the proposed changes, namely:
- Removing suppression from the Kubel and the Lieg leaves OKW with no native suppression ability which is a bad thing.
- Having the Luchs in T3 is bad because it is very powerful and can appear too early
- Having the P4, JP4 and Panther all in T4 is a mistake because it renders at least one of them immediately useless. Why would anyone get the JP4 when for a bit more cost then could get the Panther?


USF have to live without suppression all the time (when was the last time you saw HMG?)
With 0F at start, Luchs comes the same time as Stuart, which is fine. Maybe just reduce RoF or something like that so it's not that deadly.
JP4, P4 and P5 is perfect combination for 1 tier. JP4 - pure 60range AT, P5 - it does not have the range nor rof like JP4, it does not have AI od P4, but it's somewhere between bein able to engage tanks and infantry at some point, P4 - Great AI unit with not bad AT. You need pure AT? JP4. You need something agasint infantry? P4. You are not sure what you want? P5.
21 Nov 2015, 23:30 PM
#614
avatar of drChengele
Patrion 14

Posts: 640 | Subs: 1

Tommies were just fine with their in-cover shtick, after some initial shock and l2p issues people learned to live with that. I have no idea why Relic saw fit to change them, or why they thought removing some of their in-cover damage compensated for buffing their out-of-cover damage. You remove their one strong feature, cover play, while they are still largely useless out of cover? You nerf them in their 80%-of-the-time used mode, but buff slightly their 20%-got-caught-out-of-position mode (and they STILL can't go 1v1 versus any enemy infantry, let alone cost for cost)? So now they will take 50% of Grenadier squad health instead of 40% in an ideal out of cover shootout before being forced to retreat? What does it fix, exactly?

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Nov 2015, 18:42 PMQuercus
(snip)
Varying bonuses based on hammer / anvil is a neat idea on paper but modifying their hammer/anvil bonuses does not really address Tommie issues. Vet3, 5-man dual-bren Tommies are not solely a late-game issue anyway.
21 Nov 2015, 23:51 PM
#615
avatar of TehPowahOfWub

Posts: 100

Tommies were just fine with their in-cover shtick, after some initial shock and l2p issues people learned to live with that. I have no idea why Relic saw fit to change them, or why they thought removing some of their in-cover damage compensated for buffing their out-of-cover damage. You remove their one strong feature, cover play, while they are still largely useless out of cover? You nerf them in their 80%-of-the-time used mode, but buff slightly their 20%-got-caught-out-of-position mode (and they STILL can't go 1v1 versus any enemy infantry, let alone cost for cost)? So now they will take 50% of Grenadier squad health instead of 40% in an ideal out of cover shootout before being forced to retreat? What does it fix, exactly?

Varying bonuses based on hammer / anvil is a neat idea on paper but modifying their hammer/anvil bonuses does not really address Tommie issues. Vet3, 5-man dual-bren Tommies are not solely a late-game issue anyway.


+1
22 Nov 2015, 00:09 AM
#616
22 Nov 2015, 00:33 AM
#617
avatar of Bulgakov

Posts: 987

Is this the April Fool patch??? Volks plus 2 range, and 100% OKW ammo rate again with 70! shrecks????


Your stats tell a story. A story of rifle blobs and flame throwers.


Blance is good, even if it means it's a bit harder to win as US.
22 Nov 2015, 01:17 AM
#618
avatar of broodwarjc

Posts: 824



USF have to live without suppression all the time (when was the last time you saw HMG?)
With 0F at start, Luchs comes the same time as Stuart, which is fine. Maybe just reduce RoF or something like that so it's not that deadly.
JP4, P4 and P5 is perfect combination for 1 tier. JP4 - pure 60range AT, P5 - it does not have the range nor rof like JP4, it does not have AI od P4, but it's somewhere between bein able to engage tanks and infantry at some point, P4 - Great AI unit with not bad AT. You need pure AT? JP4. You need something agasint infantry? P4. You are not sure what you want? P5.


I have to agree after playing the patch some OKW felt okasy(I still want shreks moved to Sturms and Volks to have fausts and separate weapon upgrade). Luchs could be a tad higher in fuel to delay it sligtly rather than pushing tech back further(units in trucks changes were to make Mech more viable to compete with healin, any further fuel increase could make it too expensive over healing truck). I like JP4, P4 and P5 in the same truck, they all offer good tank options for different scenarios.
22 Nov 2015, 01:36 AM
#619
avatar of Quercus

Posts: 47


Varying bonuses based on hammer / anvil is a neat idea on paper but modifying their hammer/anvil bonuses does not really address Tommie issues. Vet3, 5-man dual-bren Tommies are not solely a late-game issue anyway.


It isn't supposed to fix any other issues (and certainly not the problems this patch is introducing), it was just an idea to tie in the whole cover bonus vs movement penalties to the hammer/anvil choices.
22 Nov 2015, 02:19 AM
#620
avatar of drChengele
Patrion 14

Posts: 640 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Nov 2015, 01:36 AMQuercus
It isn't supposed to fix any other issues (and certainly not the problems this patch is introducing), it was just an idea to tie in the whole cover bonus vs movement penalties to the hammer/anvil choices.
Ah, gotcha. Sorry :) Don't I remember you from the relicnews forums? CoH1 era? Lots of good Brit suggestions?
PAGES (58)down
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

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

1052 users are online: 1052 guests
0 post in the last 24h
10 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50000
Welcome our newest member, qq801
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM