[Patch] February

Who said it's 75% reduction?

All grenades have 50% reduction vs heavy cover and NO reduction vs garrison.
This is why riflenades/etc can instakill some garrisoned MG-team members instantly.

If you want to have NO reduction vs heavy cover, there would be no reason to use cover again; ever. The squad formation already punishes you for using cover by making all team-members bunch up (and thus make them a prime target for explosives).

Relic already trialed this between TBF release and the Leigfest patch, and it was a failure for the reasons I outlined.

PS: If you want to insta-gib an MG team that uses cover, you have to flank them first and THEN throw the grenade.

Sorry, I must have misread this comment from Cruzz in his "The More You Know" post.

"Green cover reduces damage from all attacks that aren't flamebased, including grenades and mortars which people tend to consider counters to cover. Whether the -50% damage is applied to a weapon depends on where it was FIRED from rather than on where the attack lands. UPDATE: Except now it only reduces explosive damage by 0 to -25%. "

So is this saying that grenades can do 75 up to 100% damage to a squad in green cover? Because if it is I have nothing to really complain about LOL.

That's where you're wrong - this actually would promote more skilled play. The good players dodge more nades. But the current damage modifier should only apply to other explosions, not infantry grenades. Problem solved.

You are correct in that I wasn't thinking much about infantry play when I posted this. I was thinking more about weapon teams, and how certain of them are already very prone to being yolo-rushed from the front. Grenadier riflenade pops to mind.

Should all weapon teams receive a Maxim pack/unpack times as well to compensate? I don't see any reason why I would ever put an MG team behind cover anymore (if the damage reduction gets affected).

Just to prove my point; try playing a game of Brits vs Ostheer and garrison an MG inside a trench (all models bunched up, No damage modifiers). When you see a grenadier approaching, you have two choices:
- Instantly ungarrison your MG (and thus don't deal any suppression - what was the point of the MG again?)
- Wait until the grenadier becomes suppressed, at which point you have a riflenade inbound at your location (and you're dead)
(That's assuming you have a spotter nearby to allow you to fire from max range)

I still fail to understand what's wrong with the current system that we have:
- If you want your grenade to one-shot squads, you HAVE to flank
- Otherwise, you stick where you are and use the nade to turn the odds to your favour.

Sorry, I must have misread this comment from Cruzz in his "The More You Know" post.

"Green cover reduces damage from all attacks that aren't flamebased, including grenades and mortars which people tend to consider counters to cover. Whether the -50% damage is applied to a weapon depends on where it was FIRED from rather than on where the attack lands. UPDATE: Except now it only reduces explosive damage by 0 to -25%. "

So is this saying that grenades can do 75 up to 100% damage to a squad in green cover? Because if it is I have nothing to really complain about LOL.

I am pretty sure that the current damage modifier is 50% (both from stats files and personal experience on the giving/receiving end)

Cruzz must have been referring to the pre-Leigfest patch I mentioned (the one that annihilated the damage modifiers), and must have forgotten to update his post (Cruzz had taken an extended break around that point).

Just FYI, if you want to make your grenades count, make sure that as many enemies are within 25% of the radius of the targeting reticule. That's the part of the blast radius where the grenade deals maximum damage.

You are correct in that I wasn't thinking much about infantry play when I posted this. I was thinking more about weapon teams, and how certain of them are already very prone to being yolo-rushed from the front. Grenadier riflenade pops to mind.

Should all weapon teams receive a Maxim pack/unpack times as well to compensate? I don't see any reason why I would ever put an MG team behind cover anymore (if the damage reduction gets affected).

Just to prove my point; try playing a game of Brits vs Ostheer and garrison an MG inside a trench (all models bunched up, No damage modifiers). When you see a grenadier approaching, you have two choices:
- Instantly ungarrison your MG (and thus don't deal any suppression - what was the point of the MG again?)
- Wait until the grenadier becomes suppressed, at which point you have a riflenade inbound at your location (and you're dead)
(That's assuming you have a spotter nearby to allow you to fire from max range)

I still fail to understand what's wrong with the current system that we have:
- If you want your grenade to one-shot squads, you HAVE to flank
- Otherwise, you stick where you are and use the nade to turn the odds to your favour.

You definitely have some good points. Grenadiers would definitely end up being a bit op with absolutely no dmg reduction with their longer range for sure. I honestly thought it was a 75% damage reduction and that's what made me worried (I haven't played for a bit and I misinterpreted these changes because of that). I thought it over and I guess 50% is a good balance all things considered and flanking squads still end up dominating which is how it should be, which makes securing your MG's flank with another squad really important. Thanks for clearing everything up for me.

What's new? What was the announcement? i missed it.

What's new? What was the announcement? i missed it.

A few new British commanders including one w/ Land Mattress rocket launcher and the other has more powerful Brace for emplacements (haha Relic, so troll). I don't think they went over patch notes, but I stopped watching after commanders announced.

So no balance update?

So no balance update?

There will be 2 OP as fuck brit commanders so yeah...

So next patch on February 25th with 2 new UKF commanders which can be win if CoH 2 win MWNL 3 and you participated to the event.





Source : http://www.twitch.tv/relicentertainment/v/43243382

So the first commander basically guarantees SimCities, by not only making them stronger, but by making their hard counters vulnerable to counter fire? Fun? Free repair (after tech) just means even less micro required, and even less importance applied to the loss of an engineer unit.

The second commander, seems ok in that it encourages more infantry play, but how are you supposed to kill vet 3 Brits in cover at that point? And do we really want Commandos appearing anywhere and wiping squads willy-nilly? Doesn't that commander basically just scream, if he builds support weapons you can steal them?

The early land mattress seems fine to me as long as the rockets are not too devastating. It provides a mid game (hopefully with useful vet) arty unit to help dislodge stubborn strong points to a faction that literally has no arty on the map to speak of.

New commanders during CoH2 ESL tournaments? Are we crazy?

So, incendiary grenades damage reduced to 25%, too, in heavy cover?

So next patch on February 25th with 2 new UKF commanders which can be win if CoH 2 win MWNL 3 and you participated to the event.

Source : http://www.twitch.tv/relicentertainment/v/43243382

Can someone pls explain what we have to do, when we have to play, etc, to win these P2W commanders?

New commanders during CoH2 ESL tournaments? Are we crazy?

You can have more abuse docs MVGame, not only calliOP .

god damn. that first commander looks strong and also like a total pain in the ass but that second commander just looks flat out OP.

Maybe it is a part of a carefully planned marketing strategy. Next in line should be a dlc that prevents you from getting matched against Brits in automatch; for 20E or so.

And do we really want Commandos appearing anywhere and wiping squads willy-nilly? Doesn't that commander basically just scream, if he builds support weapons you can steal them?

It works for Fallshrimjeagers.

It works for Fallshrimjeagers.

Difference being of course that no Allied faction actually crutches on support weapons and has much less fragile squads in general.

Difference being of course that no Allied faction actually crutches on support weapons and has much less fragile squads in general.

The Soviets don't crutch on support weapons? Really?

The Soviets don't crutch on support weapons? Really?

Yes, really. Of course you can maximspam (and god knows its filthy effective) but you really don't have to. Depending on the map, conscript centric play is entirely viable, as is T1. If you rely on grens in any OH matchup on the other hand you will have a bad day, as you simply cannot secure any map. Trust me, I've tried that alot recently.
Not to mention that by virtue of 6 men crews and faster pack-up/set up ie. the Maxim is harder to flank and to wipe than is ie. the 42.