(may preview) bofor and mortar emplacement and artillery

made a small mod with the changes I purposed.

also included an addition to the mortar emplacement, it will now respond to the artillery flare from infantry section and sniper. this means the mortar emplacement can still be useful outside of its barrage range.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=692260338

It is.

I miss shell switching.

the victor barrages uses the old heavy HE shell from the alpha.

Bofors getting ready to counter its own counters

made a small mod with the changes I purposed.

also included an addition to the mortar emplacement, it will now respond to the artillery flare from infantry section and sniper. this means the mortar emplacement can still be useful outside of its barrage range.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=692260338

Your changes to the Mortar Pit are interesting and I like the Bofors nerf and Churchill health/armour rebalance but I'm not a fan of several of your other changes.

The penetration changes for the Churchill and Cromwell aren't necessary. Reducing their penetration (to T34/76 levels) by 15-25 reduces their scaling significantly. It's especially egregious on the Churchill as the Cromwell can, at least, flank. Against the Panzer IV, this becomes a 8.33-13.89% decrease in their ability to penetrate its frontal armour (which was already a 75% chance in the best possible conditions). In addition, the USF Sherman has exactly the same penetration and costs the same amount as the Cromwell.

The fix to Tommy vet 3 is simply uninteresting. I'd prefer another solution.

The weapon rack change doesn't address the big picture. Tommies already receive worse veterancy and a worse LMG. They need both Brens to have the same percentage scaling as an LMG42 Grenadier squad, especially with veterancy.

On emplacements, balance and mods:

Here's the mod.

Changes:

- Mortar Pit armour reduced from 5 to 1

- Mortar Pit weapons removed

- Mortar Pit target priority reduced from 0 to -20

- Mortar Pit garrisonable slots increased from 6/1 to 8/2

- Mortar Pit cost reduced from 400 manpower to 120 manpower

- Mortars garrisoned in the Mortar Pit have 20% reduced scatter

- UKF and Soviet mortars garrisoned in the Mortar Pit have the range and cooldown time of their barrages multiplied by 1.5 and 0.6 respectively

- 3-Inch Mortar squad added to UKF T2 (copy of the Soviet mortar)

- 3-Inch Mortar squad now uses the Recon Tommy icon in the building menu

- Sappers moved from T2 to T1

- Brace armour bonus reduced from 5 to 0

- Bofors damage reduced from 30 to 20

- Bofors barrage range changed from 40/80 to 20/50

- Bofors range changed from 0/45 to 10/45

- Bofors health reduced from 1000 to 640

- Bofors armour increased from 5 to 30

- Bofors N/M/F accuracy changed from 0.775/0.46/0.36 to 0.56/0.46/0.36

- Bofors now has half accuracy against retreating squads

- Bofors attack ground ability removed

- Bofors cost increased from 280/30 to 340/45

I haven't got around to the 17-Pounder yet.

The penetration changes for the Churchill and Cromwell aren't necessary. Reducing their penetration (to T34/76 levels) by 15-25 reduces their scaling significantly. It's especially egregious on the Churchill as the Cromwell can, at least, flank. Against the Panzer IV, this becomes a 8.33-13.89% decrease in their ability to penetrate its frontal armour (which was already a 75% chance in the best possible conditions). In addition, the USF Sherman has exactly the same penetration and costs the same amount as the Cromwell.

The fix to Tommy vet 3 is simply uninteresting. I'd prefer another solution.

The weapon rack change doesn't address the big picture. Tommies already receive worse veterancy and a worse LMG. They need both Brens to have the same percentage scaling as an LMG42 Grenadier squad, especially with veterancy.

1)churchill with 105-135 penetration, 1280 hp and 320 armor will reliably beat a panther one on one. However, if the penetration was lowered to 80-120 then the panther will win. Durability and HP are more important for the churchill so I nerf the pen instead. The new churchill will still reliably beat the panzer4.

similar case with the cromwell. I prefer the cromwell to keep its small size in exchange for lower penetration. As you said the cromwell can flank to get around a lower penetration, and the small size help it survive against the axis late game. the 23 size cromwell and sherman are just too easy to kill. I doubt a size 20 cromwell will fare much better.

2) the scoped lee enfield is nice to look at, I don't think it's worth the problem of keeping the look.

Your solution would need to make "exception" for every pick up weapon in the entire game. It's not enough to just account for the british pick up weapon. There's also an additional fact that every tommies except for the gunner will be using a scoped lee enfield at vet3. That's just gawky.

3)the tommy doesn't need the same percentage increase in dps as the grenadier. The tommies are probably the most durable squad once they've gotten their fifth man. The grenadier are well known to be fragile. The tommies are the stonewall to the grenadier's glass cannon.

1)churchill with 105-135 penetration, 1280 hp and 320 armor will reliably beat a panther one on one. However, if the penetration was lowered to 80-120 then the panther will win. Durability and HP are more important for the churchill so I nerf the pen instead. The new churchill will still reliably beat the panzer4.

similar case with the cromwell. I prefer the cromwell to keep its small size in exchange for lower penetration. As you said the cromwell can flank to get around a lower penetration, and the small size help it survive against the axis late game. the 23 size cromwell and sherman are just too easy to kill. I doubt a size 20 cromwell will fare much better.

I'm mostly concerned about the long-range penetration. Taking the T34/76's penetration profile instead of the Panzer IV's (100/110/120) means that the Cromwell and Churchill are only good in a flank, which isn't always possible.

2) the scoped lee enfield is nice to look at, I don't think it's worth the problem of keeping the look.

Your solution would need to make "exception" for every pick up weapon in the entire game. It's not enough to just account for the british pick up weapon. There's also an additional fact that every tommies except for the gunner will be using a scoped lee enfield at vet3. That's just gawky.

If you have a look at that part of the solution, you'll realise I was over-thinking it. Instead of a list of exceptions, you just require a model be using the Tommy Lee-Enfield for the change_weapon action.

I'd prefer to keep the SLEs as a flavour mechanic. Homogenising the factions is only good if the issue affects gameplay.

3)the tommy doesn't need the same percentage increase in dps as the grenadier. The tommies are probably the most durable squad once they've gotten their fifth man. The grenadier are well known to be fragile. The tommies are the stonewall to the grenadier's glass cannon.

Fair point.

I'm mostly concerned about the long-range penetration. Taking the T34/76's penetration profile instead of the Panzer IV's (100/110/120) means that the Cromwell and Churchill are only good in a flank, which isn't always possible.

It's not a bad idea if the Churchill is only good in a flank.
- If the frontal armour is large enough, the Churchill will not be easy to pick off from a distance (like it currently is)

Thus, the enemy, will have to choose between:
- Closing in to flank the Churchill (and expose themselves to the support weapons that accompany the Churchill)
- Attempt to ignore the Churchill and jump straight for the glasscannons

In the latter case, the enemy will have to be careful about not exposing their rear armour to the Churchill gun. That is when flanking has been accomplished.

+ 1 to OP's suggestions

I'm mostly concerned about the long-range penetration. Taking the T34/76's penetration profile instead of the Panzer IV's (100/110/120) means that the Cromwell and Churchill are only good in a flank, which isn't always possible.


If you have a look at that part of the solution, you'll realise I was over-thinking it. Instead of a list of exceptions, you just require a model be using the Tommy Lee-Enfield for the change_weapon action.

I'd prefer to keep the SLEs as a flavour mechanic. Homogenising the factions is only good if the issue affects gameplay.


Fair point.

1)the point with the cromwell is that relic already nerfed its survivability in the preview, and I'm proposing the penetration nerf as an alternative nerf. As youself noted: https://www.coh2.org/topic/52983/may-preview-cromwell-s-size-nerf, the size nerf affect its ability to kite and make hit and run attack. Even with a penetration nerf, the cromwell can still kite and hit and run in addition to flank, because peeking your heads out is less risky.

the cromwell are ridiculously easy to kill with the 23 size. axis at weapon just never seems to miss.

This is the exact same problem the sherman have. USF is infamous for their lack of durability in the late game. All their stuff except for the terminator rifle just die too quickly. I personally think the sherman would benefit from a hp boost in exchange for the penetration. the penetration buff on the sherman hasn't really help the USF late game.

Mr. Smith summarize my intent with the churchill pretty well.

2)the difference between your solution and my solution is having the entire squad use the normal lee enfield model or the scoped lee enfield. Call this a matter of taste, but the idea of a entire squad of scope rifle doesn't sit right with me

the bofor suppression barrage need its range lowered to 60 meters from 80 meter. The suppression barrage basically allow the emplacement to counter its own counter, the mortar. As the ostheer you're basically locked into the mortar HT in order to counter the emplacement.

It have long cooldown and require unit / forward hq to use. you can simply move mortar once you hear it coming , reposition and then destroy that bofors.

Then if it get brace just move in some pak, shrecks and destroy it that second it get unbraced. Counters exist, but people rather get easy nerfs. If you want to counter those easy emplacements, just look at tip of the week where hans talked about emplacements

Always be happy if brit player build emplacement / sim city. He just give up his ield presence in 66% of map. Also you can now just contest that territory and when you get in streng destroy emplacemets in seconds.

In multiplayer it can be problem but in 1v1 against competent opponent emplacements are one of the worst strategiest brits have.

NOTE: im not defending emplacements, just sayin counter are here and dont nerf everything into okw base aa flak (not flak hq , just that lil one) only because you dont want to leanr how to counter thinks. Emplacemets got nerfed few times and if it continue soon they will be complete trash.

Also he wont have AC car if he get bofors so you can get double 222 or luchs and push him out of map (everywhere except borfors, because he cant hav as big army as you, bofors and at guns)

IMO all small artillery (Mortas, LeIG) need some tweaks.

Currently it's just spamming LeIGs as OKW, Mortar HTs as Ost and Mortar Pits as Brits.
Mortars simply bleed the hell out of everyone. Sure it's some kind of fair because Axis and Allies both can do it but the fun is leaving the game because of this.

It just feels like micro is absolutely not being rewarded anymore. You place all your Grens/Rifles/IS/Cons in perfect green cover to stand your ground for the upcoming enemy ambush? Fuck it, the hostile mortar will fuck all of them with an amazing accuracy and wipes the hell out of your army. Even Vet5 / Vet3 squads can be wiped full health in a blink of an eye. Your units are on the front for 30 seconds and then 2 minuts back in the base to heal and recover.

I know that Mortars are meant to take on units in cover, but currently mortars are overperforming. You build an LeIG, or a Mortar Pit somewhere behind the front where it is perfectly safe and you can watch it getting > 30 to 50 kills at the end of the game. The only counter against it is doing the same with your batshit mortar piece. Ostheer and Soviet mortars fall behind.

The range is too big (except for the Ost mortar IMO, Ostheer really needs it in order not to lose every game). A single Brit mortar pit covers at least 2 VPs on almost every 1v1 and 2v2 map. That is my personal fun killer when playing against Brits. The LeIG also has that huge range while not being as lethal because of the double shells but it has 5 Vets and gets amazingly strong over time. I never thought I'm going to say that but the Sov 120mm mortar feels the least cancerous right now.

2v2 games against Brits/OKW feel like Scheldt on every map. And now good luck finding a game against neither of those two.

It have long cooldown and require unit / forward hq to use. you can simply move mortar once you hear it coming , reposition and then destroy that bofors.

Then if it get brace just move in some pak, shrecks and destroy it that second it get unbraced. Counters exist, but people rather get easy nerfs. If you want to counter those easy emplacements, just look at tip of the week where hans talked about emplacements

Always be happy if brit player build emplacement / sim city. He just give up his ield presence in 66% of map. Also you can now just contest that territory and when you get in streng destroy emplacemets in seconds.

In multiplayer it can be problem but in 1v1 against competent opponent emplacements are one of the worst strategiest brits have.

NOTE: im not defending emplacements, just sayin counter are here and dont nerf everything into okw base aa flak (not flak hq , just that lil one) only because you dont want to leanr how to counter thinks. Emplacemets got nerfed few times and if it continue soon they will be complete trash.

Also he wont have AC car if he get bofors so you can get double 222 or luchs and push him out of map (everywhere except borfors, because he cant hav as big army as you, bofors and at guns)

if it was that simple to counter emplacement then british wouldn't have dominated the preview 2v2 tourney.

mortar vs bofor is an insanely hard defense for the ost to crack. the ost infantry just die to easily against the combination of suppression barrage + mortar.

on most 2v2 map the mortar can also cover a significant portion of the map. on moscow one mortar emplacement can cover both munition and the middle vp.

if it was that simple to counter emplacement then british wouldn't have dominated the preview 2v2 tourney.

mortar vs bofor is an insanely hard defense for the ost to crack. the ost infantry just die to easily against the combination of suppression barrage + mortar.

on most 2v2 map the mortar can also cover a significant portion of the map. on moscow one mortar emplacement can cover both munition and the middle vp.

I was talking about 1v1 sorry then. In higher gamemodes it may be problem if both players are going to do this strat perfecty and one can cover weakness of other (eg maxims + emplacements, us rifles + emplacements) and other opponents are not prepared for this strat.

But if we nerf it even more it will be complete trash in any 1v1 match

I was talking about 1v1 sorry then. In higher gamemodes it may be problem if both players are going to do this strat perfecty and one can cover weakness of other (eg maxims + emplacements, us rifles + emplacements) and other opponents are not prepared for this strat.

But if we nerf it even more it will be complete trash in any 1v1 match

It is always better to sacrifice a unit's presence in some gamemode (e.g., mortar in 1v1), than to throw entire other gamemodes under the bus.

If an extreme-long-range unit is THE 1v1 meta -- or part of it (e.g., pre-nerf Elefant, ISU, Calliope), then it's a good indication that the unit completely breaks other modes.

For instance. The OST Sniper requires a tremendous amount of effort to make him pay off in a 4v4 setting (artillery, shorter delay until tanks start rolling out). Would it ever make sense to oppose the upcoming survivability nerf of the sniper, just so that it remains relevant in bigger gamemodes?

It is always better to sacrifice a unit's presence in some gamemode (e.g., mortar in 1v1), than to throw entire other gamemodes under the bus.

If an extreme-long-range unit is THE 1v1 meta -- or part of it (e.g., pre-nerf Elefant, ISU, Calliope), then it's a good indication that the unit completely breaks other modes.

For instance. The OST Sniper requires a tremendous amount of effort to make him pay off in a 4v4 setting (artillery, shorter delay until tanks start rolling out). Would it ever make sense to oppose the upcoming survivability nerf of the sniper, just so that it remains relevant in bigger gamemodes?

Im sorry, but balance was never made for anything bigger than 2v2. Just look at relic interests in turnaments per gamemod and competitivity in different gamemodes

Im sorry, but balance was never made for anything bigger than 2v2. Just look at relic interests in turnaments per gamemod and competitivity in different gamemodes

emplacement is a problem in 2v2. the brits basically dominated relic's own 2v2 preview tourny. You could blame it on the map choice, but it's relic who picked it.