Login

russian armor

Patch Wishlist

11 May 2016, 13:46 PM
#1
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1

Below I list my wishlist for the coming patch, thoughts, ideas, and criticism welcome.

Engineer vet
(Gameplay)
Currently engineer units that upgrade to sweepers have a minimal chance to gain vet, a core concept in COH2. The American and Brit armies can upgrade weapons to relieve this problem, but the Soviets and Wehr cannot. This will bring all engineer units in line with OKW.
-Engineer units can backpack their minesweepers


JagdTiger
(Balance)
The JT has an unfair effect on team games where it becomes a near impossibility to trade with efficiently. It also nullifies non-turreted assault guns too effectively.
-Range reduced to 80 (to normalize with 17pdr)
-Call-in changed to one time (to encourage good use of TD)
-Engine upgrade removed (to encourage good placement and limit ability to influence multiple areas of the battlefield, also allow a good flanking attack to succeed)
-Barrage range normalized with main gun (have the same range to make it obvious to all players its area of effect)


CmdPanther
(Balance)
The CmdPanther is too strong at higher levels of vet. It is still a very attractive tank at vet 0.
-Vet bonuses removed from 3, 4, and 5
-Standard Panther bonuses applied to vet 3, 4 and 5
-MT brought in line with Soviet equivalent (35% increased damage)


Bofors
(Gameplay and balance)
The Bofors completely denies early Wehr play without a FHT. Even with a FHT the Wehr player is very vulnerable to be out teched and must rely heavily on munitions based abilities to attack the Bofors. From the Brit point of view, the Bofors is central to denying the enemy map area while they tech to tanks. The Bofors however generates extremely boring and static play. The changes attempt to please both players.
-Bofors barrage removed (no longer nullifies mortars)
-Bofors gains suppression on its regular fire to deny infantry simply approaching the gun from the front


Schwer HQ
(Gameplay and balance)
Similar to the Bofors the Schwer completely denies interesting flanking from infantry. In teamgames it can be combined with other units too quickly, completely denying whole areas of the map at no additional cost to a team. Indirect fire is far too vulnerable attempting to take it down because of the length of time required.
-Schwer HQ requires upgrade to use gun


On-map static artillery guns
(Balance)
Artillery guns are countered in a binary fashion (access to off-map artillery strikes, then on-map static artillery not useful). In team games especially the idea that a team would not have access to off-maps is unthinkable. The solution applied to AT guns would work well here.
-Guns now survive with 5% health when crew is killed.
11 May 2016, 13:57 PM
#2
avatar of Earth

Posts: 99

Other than the engineer,Bofors and T4 change, these are just stupid changes.
11 May 2016, 14:00 PM
#3
avatar of some one

Posts: 935

My wishlist is
Make t34 usfull
Remove forward retreat points from allfactions
Decrease anti tank options from axis ( stushots, cammo from jpz4, camo on raketten while moving. Remove sreck blob.
Increase antitank options on usf, means accurasy move speed penetration of at gun. Give them anti tank mines.
Rework uslees commaders and abilities. Accuracy , rotation penetration on su85, jackson
11 May 2016, 14:00 PM
#4
avatar of empyriumm

Posts: 51

Terminator rifles?
Command vehicle free recon?
Very cost effective cromwell?
OP Land matress?
11 May 2016, 14:03 PM
#5
avatar of some one

Posts: 935

Terminator rifles?
Command vehicle free recon?
Very cost effective cromwell?
OP Land matress?


2beers that gentelmen
11 May 2016, 14:04 PM
#6
avatar of some one

Posts: 935

Do something with infantry that may pop out of any building
11 May 2016, 14:08 PM
#7
avatar of CartoonVillain

Posts: 474

Why would anyone pick the Jagdtiger over the KT with these changes? You are making it terrible.
11 May 2016, 14:22 PM
#8
avatar of FalseAlarm

Posts: 182

Permanently Banned


JagdTiger
(Balance)
The JT has an unfair effect on team games where it becomes a near impossibility to trade with efficiently. It also nullifies non-turreted assault guns too effectively. AGs aren't the counter to a JT. Medium spam and flanking are the preferred strats
-Range reduced to 80 (to normalize with 17pdr) Different things, it's range is ok
-Call-in changed to one time (to encourage good use of TD) Same thing can be said about Firefly/Jackson
-Engine upgrade removed (to encourage good placement and limit ability to influence multiple areas of the battlefield, also allow a good flanking attack to succeed) Then it shouldn't cost any more 240 fuel


CmdPanther
(Balance)
The CmdPanther is too strong at higher levels of vet. It is still a very attractive tank at vet 0.
-Vet bonuses removed from 3, 4, and 5 How about no? A vetless panther lol
-Standard Panther bonuses applied to vet 3, 4 and 5 Overlapping
-MT brought in line with Soviet equivalent (35% increased damage)
Different designs. It's OK the way it is.


-Guns now survive with 5% health when crew is killed.
That is an awful idea.
there
11 May 2016, 14:29 PM
#9
avatar of mortiferum

Posts: 571

My god some of these ideas are absolutely awful. The only thing that is even close to being acceptable is the Bofors change and MAYBE the engineer change.
11 May 2016, 14:39 PM
#10
avatar of drChengele
Patrion 14

Posts: 640 | Subs: 1

I disagree with Command Panther and Schwerer, other than that solid changes all around. I especially advocated the onmap artillery survivability buffs waaay back.

But my lord, some of the responses in here are not just salty but also downright rude.

11 May 2016, 15:13 PM
#11
avatar of BIH_kirov_QC

Posts: 367

Below I list my wishlist for the coming patch, thoughts, ideas, and criticism welcome.

Engineer vet
(Gameplay)
Currently engineer units that upgrade to sweepers have a minimal chance to gain vet, a core concept in COH2. The American and Brit armies can upgrade weapons to relieve this problem, but the Soviets and Wehr cannot. This will bring all engineer units in line with OKW.
-Engineer units can backpack their minesweepers


JagdTiger
(Balance)
The JT has an unfair effect on team games where it becomes a near impossibility to trade with efficiently. It also nullifies non-turreted assault guns too effectively.
-Range reduced to 80 (to normalize with 17pdr)
-Call-in changed to one time (to encourage good use of TD)
-Engine upgrade removed (to encourage good placement and limit ability to influence multiple areas of the battlefield, also allow a good flanking attack to succeed)
-Barrage range normalized with main gun (have the same range to make it obvious to all players its area of effect)


CmdPanther
(Balance)
The CmdPanther is too strong at higher levels of vet. It is still a very attractive tank at vet 0.
-Vet bonuses removed from 3, 4, and 5
-Standard Panther bonuses applied to vet 3, 4 and 5
-MT brought in line with Soviet equivalent (35% increased damage)


Bofors
(Gameplay and balance)
The Bofors completely denies early Wehr play without a FHT. Even with a FHT the Wehr player is very vulnerable to be out teched and must rely heavily on munitions based abilities to attack the Bofors. From the Brit point of view, the Bofors is central to denying the enemy map area while they tech to tanks. The Bofors however generates extremely boring and static play. The changes attempt to please both players.
-Bofors barrage removed (no longer nullifies mortars)
-Bofors gains suppression on its regular fire to deny infantry simply approaching the gun from the front


Schwer HQ
(Gameplay and balance)
Similar to the Bofors the Schwer completely denies interesting flanking from infantry. In teamgames it can be combined with other units too quickly, completely denying whole areas of the map at no additional cost to a team. Indirect fire is far too vulnerable attempting to take it down because of the length of time required.
-Schwer HQ requires upgrade to use gun


On-map static artillery guns
(Balance)
Artillery guns are countered in a binary fashion (access to off-map artillery strikes, then on-map static artillery not useful). In team games especially the idea that a team would not have access to off-maps is unthinkable. The solution applied to AT guns would work well here.
-Guns now survive with 5% health when crew is killed.


+1 i like this
11 May 2016, 15:27 PM
#12
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

I think I agree with each one of the proposed changes.

On the subject of Bofors:
- It could be a hair more expensive, fuel-wise. (if taking down a Bofors will require tanks, your own tanks should be delayed to give the opponent some time)

On the subject of FlakHQ:
- The cost to unlock the gun should be something substantial (on the order of building a Bofors); it could also cost popcap, too!
- Replacing your T4 should come for free (maybe the cost to field a mobile truck)
- However you need to pay to reactivate the gun for each FlakHQ you deploy.
11 May 2016, 15:29 PM
#13
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post11 May 2016, 13:57 PMEarth
Other than the engineer,Bofors and T4 change, these are just stupid changes.


Please don't post if you don't add to the conversation.

My wishlist is
Make t34 usfull
Remove forward retreat points from allfactions
Decrease anti tank options from axis ( stushots, cammo from jpz4, camo on raketten while moving. Remove sreck blob.
Increase antitank options on usf, means accurasy move speed penetration of at gun. Give them anti tank mines.
Rework uslees commaders and abilities. Accuracy , rotation penetration on su85, jackson


Much of what you have stated here is already in the patch. I don't see the need to include it in this post. You are also too vague about other components. For example, what is meant by "Accuracy...Jackson."

Terminator rifles?
Command vehicle free recon?
Very cost effective cromwell?
OP Land matress?


The Terminator rifles is a more a problem with the ability to get extremely powerful weapons, and multiple of them. The rifles themselves without upgrades are not as nasty. The addition of more AI power on volks will also help to even this out.

The CmdV free recon is good, but I don't think particularly problematic. Maybe a slight munitions cost.

Cromwell is cost effective for sure, but I think the unit is in the right place.

Land mattress is getting heavily nerfed this patch already, why would I continue to punish it?

Do something with infantry that may pop out of any building


I don't like these either, but this suggestion is too vague to work with.

Why would anyone pick the Jagdtiger over the KT with these changes? You are making it terrible.


I am making the JT a mobile 88mm gun, that is in line with its cost. You would pick it if your opponent has invested heavily in assault guns of any kind, or there are multiple fireflies. Currently it operates like a long range tank, which is completely absurd because it hard counters anything with wheels, and can still reliably snipe infantry. If you use it correctly it won't change. You will notice I have not suggested changing a single stat on its vet, gun, accuracy, RoF, etc., only that it require from the player who uses it more forethought, and better micro. Currently it requires little to no care, which is completely in contrast to the effort required to kill it. The upgrade for the engine is especially pointless because now that OKW has munitions you will always have the resources to make it faster. It is not a choice so much as a bit of annoying micro you have to do when you call-in the unit.
11 May 2016, 15:29 PM
#14
avatar of scratchedpaintjob
Donator 11

Posts: 1021 | Subs: 1

Below I list my wishlist for the coming patch, thoughts, ideas, and criticism welcome.

Engineer vet
good change


JagdTiger
in my opinion, the JT is not the problem but a symptom. the problem is that the fuel income is too high in 4v4. change that, JT is fine. if anything, only nerf the range slightly, otherwise it would be 100% useless for 2v2-


CmdPanther
same as JT


Bofors
removing the bofors barrage is good, but if you add supression to the normal attack, at least nerf the penetration and the accuracy. especially the pen is much too high. ahigher fuel cost might be good aswell (currently bofors doesnt really delay your tech much)


Schwer HQ
destroying the schwerer is a really hard a punishment for the okw player, therefore i feel that schwerer is okay


On-map static artillery guns
good change
11 May 2016, 15:29 PM
#15
avatar of Nick Banana

Posts: 96

need new OP axis commanders
11 May 2016, 15:30 PM
#16
avatar of Hans G. Schultz

Posts: 875 | Subs: 2

-snip-

-1 on everything with the exception of the engineer changes.
11 May 2016, 15:37 PM
#17
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1

JagdTiger
(Balance)
The JT has an unfair effect on team games where it becomes a near impossibility to trade with efficiently. It also nullifies non-turreted assault guns too effectively. AGs aren't the counter to a JT. Medium spam and flanking are the preferred strats
-Range reduced to 80 (to normalize with 17pdr) Different things, it's range is ok
-Call-in changed to one time (to encourage good use of TD) Same thing can be said about Firefly/Jackson
-Engine upgrade removed (to encourage good placement and limit ability to influence multiple areas of the battlefield, also allow a good flanking attack to succeed) Then it shouldn't cost any more 240 fuel


CmdPanther
(Balance)
The CmdPanther is too strong at higher levels of vet. It is still a very attractive tank at vet 0.
-Vet bonuses removed from 3, 4, and 5 How about no? A vetless panther lol
-Standard Panther bonuses applied to vet 3, 4 and 5 Overlapping
-MT brought in line with Soviet equivalent (35% increased damage) Different designs. It's OK the way it is.


-Guns now survive with 5% health when crew is killed. That is an awful idea.


On the JT, how do you recommend flanking a tank now that OKW has access to snares and a more powerful rakenten? The idea before was that OKW would have few to no snares, with snares you are going to have no chance to get behind the JT.

On the 17pdr, different ranges are not ok. The JT completely prevents 17pdr use, done 100%. It can even fire through walls to make sure to not even have to expose itself to take out the 17pdr. The 17pdr should be able, assuming it is pointed in the right direction, be able to engage any armored target. It cannot move.

On my call-in comment I have no idea what you are saying. Firefly and Jackson should be one time call-ins? What do you mean?

The fuel cost I am willing to look at but I would first like to see how it performs with these nerfs. It would encourage more use of the JT's abilities to be sure.

On the CmdPanther, you noticed I still give the CmdPanther its vet 0 bonuses, and its vet 2 bonuses for other units, but stop there. From then on it gains vet like a normal panther. This prevents it from buffing units to absurd levels. Especially in team games where it can make KTs near impervious.

On the MT it is not ok. It happens without any warning to the other player, and at such a range that the other player may not even know that the CmdPanther is around. On top of that the MT currently allows some Axis tanks to one shot Allied tanks. This happens far too quickly, and for Allied players attempting to deal with heavies this is far too potent. It should be brought in line, because it is still cheaper than the Soviet version.
aaa
11 May 2016, 15:41 PM
#18
avatar of aaa

Posts: 1487

+1
11 May 2016, 15:46 PM
#19
avatar of CartoonVillain

Posts: 474


I am making the JT a mobile 88mm gun, that is in line with its cost. You would pick it if your opponent has invested heavily in assault guns of any kind, or there are multiple fireflies. Currently it operates like a long range tank, which is completely absurd because it hard counters anything with wheels, and can still reliably snipe infantry. If you use it correctly it won't change. You will notice I have not suggested changing a single stat on its vet, gun, accuracy, RoF, etc., only that it require from the player who uses it more forethought, and better micro. Currently it requires little to no care, which is completely in contrast to the effort required to kill it. The upgrade for the engine is especially pointless because now that OKW has munitions you will always have the resources to make it faster. It is not a choice so much as a bit of annoying micro you have to do when you call-in the unit.


The JT is currently sluggish (even with the engine upgrade), has no turret and is easily flankable. It compensates this with long range and a punchy gun. If you nerf both the mobility considerably and make the gun worse there is no need to ever pick it over the KT. You make it completely obsolete. It's not OP now anyway.
11 May 2016, 15:53 PM
#20
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17



The JT is currently sluggish (even with the engine upgrade), has no turret and is easily flankable. It compensates this with long range and a punchy gun. If you nerf both the mobility considerably and make the gun worse there is no need to ever pick it over the KT. You make it completely obsolete. It's not OP now anyway.


Are you discussing your experiences in 1v1?

What Imagelessbean is describing is the reality in 3v3 and up. Since these modes are more heavy on the armour department, JT scales much better in those modes. Since units should be balanced according to the modes they are the most potent in, I fail to observe an error in Imagelessbean's logic.

JT is both a mobile Pak43 AND an artillery piece (40MU for 125 range). Currently it's just too easy to use. With the addition of MG34 in the faction, this will shut down the currently best avenue of approach to take that unit down; thus it will become even stronger. (The doctrine already has snares, since it contains pfussies).
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

New Zealand 7

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

855 users are online: 855 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48726
Welcome our newest member, vanyaclinic02
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM