I don't get why Brits are still receiving buffs

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 08:26 AMPutinist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pooh-pooh

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 01:54 AMImagelessbean

I find it weird that you quoted me twice and responded differently to each post as if you forgot that you had already made a comment.

In any case, my "dismissive attitude" was because OP had 1 post, had a limited understanding of gameplay and was making large balance suggestions which are unlikely to balance the game.

You happened to post a number of reasons why the Brits are flat out "better" than all other factions, and yet they remain on the low end of 1v1 win percentages in top tier games.

No one is arguing that they need to be adjusted, but suggesting that I am failing to contribute by being dismissive is foolishness.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 14:57 PMRedT3rror

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 15:23 PMsinthe

So, your position is that there is no problem because a new faction that the player base is getting used to has a lower w/l record that the other established factions?

Are you ok with the shooting on the move accuracy and the smaller sizes that the british tanks have?

Are you ok with the 2v2 space that forces a completely different response to emplacemences forcing OH to have specific so-so commanders equiped "just in case"?

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 16:20 PMMr.Smith

I don't think that anybody sane would ever deny that the game suffers from emplacement-play, and that the land mattress is a bit stronger than it should have been.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 16:20 PMMr.Smith

I don't think that anybody sane would ever deny that the game suffers from emplacement-play, and that the land mattress is a bit stronger than it should have been.

However, try to read the OP, and try to play devil's advocate with it.
- Do you believe that the views expressed in the OP are fair and objective? [color=red]inaccurate at times and hyberbolic
- Even when the OP identifies issues. Is the analysis correct? He is correct in identifying disparities, and the point I was trying to make was, that people are getting frustrated with being told that the emplacement play is a L2P issue when the majority of Coh players agree there is a bit of a power issue. The same arguement was used with the Tiger back in the era of the call in meta. It wasn't a L2p issue, the damn thing was way too cost effective. Granted I would have liked to see the cost increased and tied to t4 rather than the nerfing. That also being said, I have been disapointed witht he russians since the games release. I was hoping/expecting that the game would be a balance across expensive equipment and trained soldiers vs less effective equipment/troops in number. Ie. my panzer 4 would have to deal with at least 2 t34s

In order to help guide you to think a bit more objectively, I'm offering some comprehension questions to you:
- Is the main issue with emplacement play the fact that the Bofors is better than the OKW T1 halftrack?/b] (OP's opinion) No
- If we made Bofors a copy-paste of the OKW T4 FlakHQ, do you think that would solve the issues with emplacements? NoOr is it the Mortar Pit? Not specifically the mortar pit
- Is Comet really more accurate on the move than other, similar, tanks? Did you factor in similar tanks' Vet1 abilities? Yes, they have the best accuracy on the move compared to all other tanks except for americans. Yes I did, okw panthers get another -25% reduction at vet 5.
- How does Comet veterancy compared to other tanks' veterancy. Does the Vet1 ability really scale with the amount of Comets fielded? The replacement of smoke with White Phosphorus is a nice addition to prevent handheld at to follow on retreat or smoking out/damaging support weapons
- How relevant is the grenade toss to Comet's performance, really? Vet 3 the gernade toss is automatic to all targets in range. The grenade toss is an open funtional ability.
- How relevant is the Churchill at all without a grenade toss? I haven't seen the churchhill used in awhile but I doubt it has anything to do with the grenade toss. I think it's because players, when faced with an either or tech structure will choose the comet over the churchill.
- If AVRE is such a major issue, how does the Sturmtiger compare to the AVRE? AVRE isn't an issue. It has low range and if you let it get as close as it needs to be..... I mean it's not like it's a surprise.
- Enumerate all indirect fire options for the Brits which are even remotely useful. Mortar, 25 pounder options, land matress, Bofors, and the call in arty is pretty good.
- If land mattress shouldn't exist, then what about Katysha, Panzerwerfer and Calliope? Is it an issue with the stats, instead? The land matress isn't the issue it's when it comes out that is an issue. 5 cps is a bit quick. Also, I believe that it's the only on map arty piece that recieves a damage bonus at vet, which I am indifferent towards.

Advanced reading:
- State at least 3 downsides that Tommies have compared to other mainline infantry. Cost, rof, only effective stationary and muni intensive healing
- How would each of the other 4 factions perform if we substituted their mainline infantry with Tommies? With or w/o access to the weapon racks? Sov = better, American = better if tommies can have bars, oh= worse, okw = better w/o schrecks, but equivilant with if you take hand held AT into account
- How would Brits perform if we substituted Tommies with LMG Grens? Worse

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:20 PMsinthe

- Is Comet really more accurate on the move than other, similar, tanks? Did you factor in similar tanks' Vet1 abilities? Yes, they have the best accuracy on the move compared to all other tanks except for americans. Yes I did, okw panthers get another -25% reduction at vet 5.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:20 PMsinthe

- How relevant is the Churchill at all without a grenade toss? I haven't seen the churchhill used in awhile but I doubt it has anything to do with the grenade toss. I think it's because players, when faced with an either or tech structure will choose the comet over the churchill.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:20 PMsinthe

- If AVRE is such a major issue, how does the Sturmtiger compare to the AVRE? AVRE isn't an issue. It has low range and if you let it get as close as it needs to be..... I mean it's not like it's a surprise.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:20 PMsinthe

- Enumerate all indirect fire options for the Brits which are even remotely useful. Mortar, 25 pounder options, land matress, Bofors, and the call in arty is pretty good.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:20 PMsinthe

- State at least 3 downsides that Tommies have compared to other mainline infantry. Cost, rof, only effective stationary and muni intensive healing

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:20 PMsinthe

- How would each of the other 4 factions perform if we substituted their mainline infantry with Tommies? With or w/o access to the weapon racks? Sov = better, American = better if tommies can have bars, oh= worse, okw = better w/o schrecks, but equivilant with if you take hand held AT into account
- How would Brits perform if we substituted Tommies with LMG Grens? Worse

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:43 PMelchino7

Also: Gren replacing Tommies would be broken. Faust and Rnade alone solves most of UKF weakness. 5th man upgrade, double bren and bunker would make it a real cancer faction to play against.

Jump back to quoted post28 May 2016, 10:21 AMAustralian Magic

Fixed.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:20 PMsinthe

Yes, they have the best accuracy on the move compared to all other tanks except for americans.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:51 PMMr.Smith

Check OKW Panther and the Combat Blitz ability on the ability guide. Now, tell me again. Which tank has the best accuracy on the move?

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:51 PMMr.Smith

If you still have objections, check the MP cost and the teching costs of the OKW panther.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:51 PMMr.Smith

If Churchill didn't have the grenade, it would never-ever-ever-ever worth it to field one. It has the same gun as the Cromwell, but without the ability to flank. Also pricier too.

A crappy tank that can flank (T-34) is occasionally useful (e.g., sacrificing it to kill a Panzerwerfer farm). A crappy tank that can't move or fire is a waste of popcap space and a veterancy-feeder.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:51 PMMr.Smith

The OP mentioned the AVRE. A "balance pls" topic without at least mentioning similar units is either naive or dishonest.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:51 PMMr.Smith

How many of these options are non-doc and suitable for the late-game? What about mobile options?

Have you ever tried standing in the barrage area of a 25 pounder? It does literally nothing 19 times out of 20.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:51 PMMr.Smith

ROF is not relevant by itself. You need to mention how that factors in with their DPS. Do Tommies have superior DPS or do they have inferior DPS to other units? Does this make up for their lack of utility.

You could also add:
- lack of snares
- lack of grenades suitable for their range profile

None of the other units in the UKF arsenal really make up for either in the early game (... unless you spam emplacements)

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 18:51 PMMr.Smith

This is a L2P UKF issue.

The lack of snares, grenades and smoke really stings.
- Soviets, yes (only if they have access to Brens); that's because conscripts scale even worse than Tommies. Lack of snares never hurt any maxim build ever.
- USF, though? Play 10 games as UKF and 10 games as USF. Riflemen are the best infantry in the game. By far.

If UKF had access to Grenadiers (just the LMG upgrade, and no 5-man), they would steamroll over everything. Basically what Elchino said:

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 22:12 PMRedT3rror

Still convinced about your accuracy on the move huh? Just for your information: The Panther has 33% more accuracy on far than the Comet while the Comet has a moving penalty modifier which is 15% higher. The Comet surpasses the Panther at vet2 where both have pretty much the same accuracy on far.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 22:24 PMIntelligence209

But anyways. Just wait till player count goes under 2,000. Then 1,500 and so on when the cancer becomes terminal

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 23:04 PMsinthe

This is the major reason that I'm speaking up about this, that seems to be lost on the higher ranked players that like to player card bully.

The treating it as if it's a L2P issue is a big problem, if this doesn't get addressed, all the new players or players of lower skill levels become discouraged and start leaving the game. The game has to be at least fun for learning players otherwise we are unknowingly killing our beloved games longevity.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 22:54 PMsinthe

Moving penalty MULTIPLIER +15% higher. An accuaracy of .03(f).06(n) would be multiplied by the moving penalty multiplier, which would mean that the larger the moving penalty multiplier the less of an effect it has on accuracy.

The accuaracy buff(30%) also indirectly improves moving accuracy. Ie. .06*1.3*.75 which basically removes any moving penalty.

The panther and cromwell have different strenghts and weaknesses. Power/armour vs speed/accuracy. They are, in my eyes, equivilent in utility and that should be reflected in the price.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 22:44 PMsinthe

Good point. I see your previous comparison between the usefulness of the smoke vs either of the blitz abilities. Yes, the okw Panther can have it's accuracy, speed and received accuracy increased by a durational ability that has a munitions cost. But it's worth noting that at vet 2 the comet gets +30% accuracy and 35% weapons rotation and at vet 3, it's +30% speed, +20% acceleration and an auto nade ability. It also has it's own blitzeque ability that has to be reset after every use. Vett'd up the comet is so fast, it's very easy to crush infantry while your crew members are tossing nades at the survivors. It's also a smaller target which is like getting -9% received accuracy all the time. Honestly, I really like playing with the comet, it's a great tank, definately different than a Panther, it's just a bit light on the cost side. Maybe even mispriced, a bit more fuel and bit less mp. That's all I'm saying.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 22:44 PMsinthe

Yes, I understand the tech cost of okw. All of their vehicles are just priced higher in fuel and there are a lot of either/or decisions made mid game that effect the timing of your panther late game. The british don't have as much of a fuel constraint, they seem to have a manpower constraint, which makes lossing units harder to handle.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 22:44 PMsinthe

Good point, but the arty they do have, barring the 25 pounders, seems to be very effective. The power of the land mattress is fine if it's a bit higher than 5 cp.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 22:44 PMsinthe

I believe it's high damage per shot, longer RoF and slightly lower dps. But this damage profile kills models more evenly, than the low damage higher RoF. It's a disadvantage because losing a model hurts more than a grenedier squad where the dps is consentrated on one gun. But when they get 2 lmgs late game, I feel like the perform more like a mob of rambos.

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 22:44 PMsinthe

Good point. I agree. I think the strenght of the Bofors and the AEC were intended to make up for snares via raw dps to light vehicles. To adjust my opinion slightly, I think the emplacement play is a symptom of bad faction design and the best way to deal with the problem is to remove the either/or teching design. Maybe have them operate as a sub tier like t2.5 and t4.5 by making one upgrade unlock both units. I don't see anything wrong by letting a british player use both AEC and Bofors aswell as both comets and churchhills. The british player needs more options. (Previous position was that Bofors needs a min range)

Jump back to quoted post29 May 2016, 23:20 PMRedT3rror

Taking the side of the weak players for balance now? Well, I´ve got bad news for you. OKW is a much more pressing issue in lower ranks.



I´m not sure what you want to tell me, but the Panther has superior accuracy on long range(which is obviously the favourable combat distance against supported units), no matter wether he`s moving or standing still, until the Comet hits vet2. That's a fact.

Oh and abou the cost. A straight tech to Comet will cost 30+115+50+185=380 while OKW pays 40+135+200=375. Granted you are ignoring any side tech for brits, which is often mandatory.

Jump back to quoted post30 May 2016, 08:29 AMMr.Smith

The Comet gets speed veterancy. Auto-nades could be removed/changed/etc. However, have you ever noticed what Panthers get in return for their Vet? A Comet will lose in 1v1 vs a Panther at Vet0, most of the time. At Vet2 and above, there is no way the Panther can lose to a Comet.

Jump back to quoted post30 May 2016, 08:29 AMMr.Smith

Not only that. As the game drags on, OKW always has the opportunity to tap onto both their resources (MP, Fuel) and pull out something useful. If you are floating fuel, it's time of a (great) new tank. If you have low fuel, it's time for another Volks squad. No other faction possesses a similar advantage.

Jump back to quoted post30 May 2016, 08:29 AMMr.Smith

Land mattress is DLC, and needs a nerf (rocket potency, or at least rate of fire), which it is getting. However, Brits have nothing else available to break a pak-wall:
- Their infantry is completely useless vs entrenched enemy (except for doctrinal commandos)
- Mortar Pits can't just pick up and relocate

Jump back to quoted post30 May 2016, 08:29 AMMr.Smith

This is why Brits have tanks that seem so strong; they need to be autonomous to operate, because they can't get any support from anywhere else.

Jump back to quoted post30 May 2016, 08:29 AMMr.Smith

Now, as long as Brits continue to lack access to indirect fire, their tanks will have to continue to be strong. Otherwise, they would be a lame duck.

Jump back to quoted post30 May 2016, 08:29 AMMr.Smith

It's either more DPS or less DPS, or equal DPS. Infantry fights don't resolve themselves in 5 hits (like tanks do), they drag on much longer.

Jump back to quoted post30 May 2016, 08:29 AMMr.Smith

The AEC is not particularly strong at all. It (really) is just a crappier puma, with a twist:
- The first AEC is more expensive (due to the side-tech cost)
- Treadbreaker is OP, but it's the only thing it has
- Shorter range means you can't kite the enemy (like Puma can)
- Terrible turret traverse means you can't flank the enemy (like Puma also can)

Jump back to quoted post30 May 2016, 08:29 AMMr.Smith

The reason why AEC seems so awesome, while (OKW) Puma seems so meh has to do with the armies they are in. Brits have absolutely nothing that can threaten light armour rushes apart from their 6pounder (no snares, inaccurate handheld, no cloaking gun). Thus, even the AEC alone seems godlike. OKW have so much AT readily available to them, they probably don't need the Puma most of the time; they need the Luchs, to break the enemy's infantry.

Jump back to quoted post30 May 2016, 08:29 AMMr.Smith

Comets and Heavy Sappers would probably be very, very OP.