Login

russian armor

Let's Test! 45mm ATG, Sd.Kfz 222, andISG performance

9 Aug 2016, 22:17 PM
#1
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

So after some rather good discussions about various topics, I decided to take a morning on my day off to throw together some of the suggestions people have made that they've felt would improve, or at least change the game in favorable ways.

Discussion only goes so far and eventually things need to be put to the test, and so here is:
Let's Test!
Grab a friend or some friends and see what you think of these changes and additions. Or mess around with the AI. See how these changes would impact the game for yourselves!

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=740802716

There is no intent for building an actual rebalanced game, but rather insert people's suggestions into the game environment so that they could actually be put to the test.

Current version:

M1937 45mm ATG:

Gun adjusted to match the T70.
Priorities, reload times, cooldowns, and animation-based stats were retained.
Can now be garrisoned, (but cannot retreat).
Cost to 240mp from 200mp.

Sd.Kfz. 222 Scout Car:

MG tracking on coaxial MG fixed:
Tracking left to -5 from 0
Tracking right to 5 from 0
Tracking up to 90 from 0 (to match down traverse)
Damage to 3 from 4. (The 222 really had been balanced around the coaxial MG being broken, so now that it fires, its damage output was quite formidable alongside the 2cm. The unupgraded 222 MG is not the same as the coax, so it was never bugged.)

Cost from 210mp 15f to 220mp 20f
Reverted 2cm gun upgrade
2cm upgrade cost from 55 munitions to 40 munitions

Added a second version of the 222 that comes with the 2cm already upgraded.
Cost of 2cm 222 set at 240mp 30f.

The intention of this is not to see how (im)balanced having the two options would be, but just a quick and simple way to be able to test two changes in one mod. I mean, go nuts if you want, but having that choice isn't the goal; Testing them individually is.

Le.ig Infantry Support Gun:

Added a Smoke Barrage ability which is a clone of the M8A1 HMC Smoke Barrage.
Weapon Building Damage profile changed to Mortar.
Auto attack range from 100 to 80.

Added a second version of the Le.ig Infantry Support Gun that has no auto attack, but fires 8(12) salvos instead of 4(8). (Vet barrage). Similarly to the 222, this is just another idea that is meant to be tested individually. But again, go nuts.

This version will not auto attack, auto face, or auto setup, but it will respond to attack individual units commands and attack without utilizing barrage.


Unfortunately the way tuning packs work you can't test these out with Cheat Mod without doing some mod surgery yourself.

My first impressions after testing to see if these things actually worked: ;)

The 45mm ATG is actually a lot of fun to use this way, especially having it poke out of buildings. It gives me the impression this kind of role would be an interesting addition for Soviet T1.

222s with their coaxial MG are much more threatening. Even 222s without the 2cm are strong with that health pool. (I know I'm pretty alone in thinking the 222 needs armor instead of health, so I left that change out of this.)

The smoke barrage on Le.iG animation is a little wonky and the UI ranges are a little off. My Le.iG alterations are the most crudely slapped together. The ISG without auto attack I renamed 'Infantry Support Artillery' to help differentiate the two.

Also, keep in mind this is a very simple mod, so I am quite open to making tweaks and adjustments to further along the process. But also keep in mind I work pretty long hours so any such adjustments or updates will probably be slow, but steady. I'll aim to beat the Relic standard though. :lol:
9 Aug 2016, 22:24 PM
#2
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

did you change aa range for brit mortar too if not it will be unplayable
9 Aug 2016, 22:29 PM
#3
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

I could easily do that, so I guess the answer is 'not yet'. :p

I'm trying to base things off community discussions and such, rather than making arbitrary changes, though.

If people start a healthy discussion on it I'd be down to do so.
9 Aug 2016, 23:18 PM
#4
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4

I couldn't get the AT-gun to do anything useful, it is too inaccurate. Never ever hits any infantry unless they are against cover. Is the accuracy different from the t-70 in the mod? Or is the low profile of the gun causing problems. I made 7 of the AT guns and had them fire at one gren squad. Took like 30 seconds to force them off. It's not anywhere near reliable enough to count on, adding in the ai shots and having them be this ineffective just makes the unit super rng and frustrating.


222 is also too good now. ai dps is just too strong. This bug fix needs to happen for consistency sake, but the machine gun stats need to be toned down a bit. There is a logistic car version of the 221 in the game in Ardennes Assault with the radio antenna, like in VCoH. Maybe have the car come in as a 221, give the option to upgrade to a radio 221 or a 222. Make the radio car better at ai and the 222 better at at?

Just an idea.
10 Aug 2016, 01:08 AM
#5
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

after a few games against tobis in a 1v1:

the 45mm feels awkwards. It's trying to be too many thing at once.

the 222 feels too spammy. making the 222 decent against infantry escalate the light vehicle war. the soviet is going to be shoehorned into guards against the 222. The british can also ask their ass goodbye. It's a repeat of the old wehr flame HT meta.

the current 222 work because it's only decent against light vehicle. It's a baby puma.
10 Aug 2016, 01:10 AM
#6
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Aug 2016, 23:18 PMTobis
I couldn't get the AT-gun to do anything useful, it is too inaccurate. Never ever hits any infantry unless they are against cover. Is the accuracy different from the t-70 in the mod? Or is the low profile of the gun causing problems.


It might suffer from the same issues as the Raketen. D:

I had some good results with it while garrisoned against infantry. But good catch, I'd left the scatter values the same.

The angle scatter on the ATG was 3.5, and the T70s is 7.5... But the max scatter was 10 on the ATG instead of 1.7 for the T70.

However, it appears my version of the mod has glitched and it doesn't recognize any of the changes, so I can't reupload the fix without apparently completely rebuilding the mod from scratch.

Unless there's a way I can extract the file from Workshop since my version is now broken... WTF.:sibHyena:

Ugh I'll try and see if I can fix it this evening... Everything else should remain intact.

(Nonetheless, you guys taking the time to test these things out is greatly appreciated!)
10 Aug 2016, 01:13 AM
#7
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930



It might suffer from the same issues as the Raketen. D:

I had some good results with it while garrisoned against infantry. But good catch, I'd left the scatter values the same.

The angle scatter on the ATG was 3.5, and the T70s is 7.5... But the max scatter was 10 on the ATG instead of 1.7 for the T70.

However, it appears my version of the mod has glitched and it doesn't recognize any of the changes, so I can't reupload the fix without apparently completely rebuilding the mod from scratch.

Unless there's a way I can extract the file from Workshop since my version is now broken... WTF.:sibHyena:

Ugh I'll try and see if I can fix it this evening... Everything else should remain intact.

a 60 m range atg sniping infantry is going to be a problem. wehr already have enough issue with their flimsy infantry.
10 Aug 2016, 01:15 AM
#8
avatar of Tobis
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4



It might suffer from the same issues as the Raketen. D:

I had some good results with it while garrisoned against infantry. But good catch, I'd left the scatter values the same.

The angle scatter on the ATG was 3.5, and the T70s is 7.5... But the max scatter was 10 on the ATG instead of 1.7 for the T70.

However, it appears my version of the mod has glitched and it doesn't recognize any of the changes, so I can't reupload the fix without apparently completely rebuilding the mod from scratch.

Unless there's a way I can extract the file from Workshop since my version is now broken... WTF.:sibHyena:

Ugh I'll try and see if I can fix it this evening... Everything else should remain intact.

(Nonetheless, you guys taking the time to test these things out is greatly appreciated!)


Another thing I forgot to mention, it gets the MG firing arc inside buildings, plus has huge range. Covers a massive are of the map like this. Personally I think if the gun is turned into something useful the garrisoning will be too strong and not worth trying to bugfix. Also 200 mp is crazy cheap if the AT-gun becomes useful.
10 Aug 2016, 02:35 AM
#9
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

OMFG CoH2.org and you logging me out every time I make a post. I cannot tell you how many times I've lost an in-depth from this infernal site's machinations. :p

Anyway, I managed to fix the mod for myself so I've made a few adjustments.

The 45mm now has the same range and scatter as the T70. I also bumped up the cost to 240mp, since it might actually serve a purpose.

The 222's coax damage is now 3 from 4 because the unit really was balanced around the MG being broken. That should suffice to start.
10 Aug 2016, 03:10 AM
#10
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Aug 2016, 01:15 AMTobis


Another thing I forgot to mention, it gets the MG firing arc inside buildings, plus has huge range. Covers a massive are of the map like this. Personally I think if the gun is turned into something useful the garrisoning will be too strong and not worth trying to bugfix. Also 200 mp is crazy cheap if the AT-gun becomes useful.


I'll see about trying to change that. I mimicked the raketenwerfer, which gets the same kind of arc, to get the 45mm to garrison. Hopefully the reduction of range to 40 from 60 should work to eliminate the issue there, since I don't know how to edit the arc when garrisoned. (Yet.)
10 Aug 2016, 08:14 AM
#11
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2

How did you give the ability to the 45mm to garrison and please consider giving the Brits a mobile mortar while making the emplacement a garrisonable one.

Also please consider making the MG34 Tier 0.

If you're having trouble with the emplacement I can forward what Svanh told me to make it.
10 Aug 2016, 12:57 PM
#12
avatar of Grittle

Posts: 179

why not add canister shot to the M42 and buffing the scatter by a bit?
10 Aug 2016, 14:26 PM
#13
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

How did you give the ability to the 45mm to garrison and please consider giving the Brits a mobile mortar while making the emplacement a garrisonable one.

Also please consider making the MG34 Tier 0.

If you're having trouble with the emplacement I can forward what Svanh told me to make it.


To make the 45mm able to garrison I had to change the ebps file extension 'holdable' from 'hold_large_gun' to 'hold_heavy_machine_gun'. The raketenwerfer shares this value and is what makes it capable of both being garrisoned and retreating. It's also why I'm not sure if I can change the kind of arc the 45mm (or raketenwerfer) has while inside buildings either. Essentially the engine thinks the entity is an MG, but it is still using the ATG weapon.

(I had another weird issue where the 45mm was unrecrewable, but I think that was a glitch in the mod more than anything since I had to repopulate the capture_squad_blueprint value for each faction.)

The MG issues for both WFA factions is, in my opinion, a greater design issue. I think the problem that lies in there is that OKW and USF have one less tier than EFA. When you have Infantry, Support Weapons, Light Vehicles and Tanks, Medium Tanks and Tank Destroyers, and finally Artillery and Heavies, all crammed into three tiers and an HQ there's always going to be a block of units that just are ill-timed.

I have explored this issue multiple times in different mods and such, and making the MG34 t0 (it kind of already is) just gives OKW such a stacked arsenal from their HQ. Cramming more units into faction HQs I don't think is the best answer. I'd want to see some good discussion on the matter.

As far as the Brit mortar and emplacement change... Hasn't that Svanh already built a fantastic rendition of exactly what you're describing?

My goal here isn't to completely revamp the game, but rather give a few of the more well argued and discussed points a chance to be seen ingame. There's a lot of design implications and overall faction functionality that would be messed with by those changes.

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Aug 2016, 12:57 PMGrittle
why not add canister shot to the M42 and buffing the scatter by a bit?


Hm, that would be interesting. That ability used to be ridiculous, but I've hardly used it since it was nerfed to hell and back. I wonder how that would function on something like the 45mm.

I did end up buffing the scatter though, or rather, I realized I hadn't matched all the scatter values from the T70 originally. The 45mm should be much more reliable in hitting its target now.
10 Aug 2016, 14:27 PM
#14
avatar of Fino

Posts: 191

How did you give the ability to the 45mm to garrison


He probably changed the hold_type from big_gun or whatever the AT guns are called,to HMG.
10 Aug 2016, 19:53 PM
#15
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2



To make the 45mm able to garrison I had to change the ebps file extension 'holdable' from 'hold_large_gun' to 'hold_heavy_machine_gun'. The raketenwerfer shares this value and is what makes it capable of both being garrisoned and retreating. It's also why I'm not sure if I can change the kind of arc the 45mm (or raketenwerfer) has while inside buildings either. Essentially the engine thinks the entity is an MG, but it is still using the ATG weapon.

(I had another weird issue where the 45mm was unrecrewable, but I think that was a glitch in the mod more than anything since I had to repopulate the capture_squad_blueprint value for each faction.)

The MG issues for both WFA factions is, in my opinion, a greater design issue. I think the problem that lies in there is that OKW and USF have one less tier than EFA. When you have Infantry, Support Weapons, Light Vehicles and Tanks, Medium Tanks and Tank Destroyers, and finally Artillery and Heavies, all crammed into three tiers and an HQ there's always going to be a block of units that just are ill-timed.

I have explored this issue multiple times in different mods and such, and making the MG34 t0 (it kind of already is) just gives OKW such a stacked arsenal from their HQ. Cramming more units into faction HQs I don't think is the best answer. I'd want to see some good discussion on the matter.

As far as the Brit mortar and emplacement change... Hasn't that Svanh already built a fantastic rendition of exactly what you're describing?

My goal here isn't to completely revamp the game, but rather give a few of the more well argued and discussed points a chance to be seen ingame. There's a lot of design implications and overall faction functionality that would be messed with by those changes.



Hm, that would be interesting. That ability used to be ridiculous, but I've hardly used it since it was nerfed to hell and back. I wonder how that would function on something like the 45mm.

I did end up buffing the scatter though, or rather, I realized I hadn't matched all the scatter values from the T70 originally. The 45mm should be much more reliable in hitting its target now.


Alright cause I think (I'm not sure but I can check) I did the same thing in the first few days of modding and this is the result I got: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=341287726

I still think that a .30 would have been better than the useless until the buff .50 but ok, whatever.

As for the MG34, I won't repeat myself for the 5th or 6th time but alright, I respect your opinion as it's your mod, not mine.

As far as the Brit mortar goes, yes, that's why I said I can give you the way he gave me to make it if you're having trouble making it yourself, I think it's one of the highly debated topics you were talking about here and that's why I suggested it. I believe that the more mods have it and the more people try it out, the better chance we'd get of Relic actually looking into it and fixing as it stands now if they buff the LeiG, having this big ass static 400 man power emplacement that needs to be either garrisoned or near a FA in order to be fully effective is going to become a huge problem as with the nerf to the Bofors suppression barrage and if Relic so decide to add smoke to the LeiG that would mean 2 LeiGs could cover a whole infantry assault on a/the Bofors emplacement and/or the vickers in the house/trench covering the Mortar pit, so a mobile variant that has to option to be garrisoned either in a trench or the emplacement is better to both more mobile orientated British players like me most of the time and the Axis Armies which are still complaining that it's a pain to deal with albeit a little less now due to unknown reasons, maybe they got fed up and stopped posting/playing, maybe they adapted as they should finally, I don't know.

But still, having a static in-direct fire unit is bad for both the receiving and ordering end and in general game design, while I can argue that as far as their 2 other emplacements go, the Bofors locks out the AEC MKIII and has now a nerfed suppression barrage as I already mentioned and can easily be dealt with while it has an alternative in the form of the Centaur AA tank while the 17 pounder which nobody is using right now because of it's huge size, resource dump and pop cap, has an alternative which you can find in the Firefly, a more mobile one in the Achilles IF they ever add that to the game, while the poor mortar pit has no alternative, I don't really consider the land mattress being a suitable alternative, coming mid to late game, costing fuel and generally being slower than a mortar, not to mention being doctrinal and costing much more than a mortar which is some cases would be wayyy more effective.
10 Aug 2016, 22:28 PM
#16
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

did you change aa range for brit mortar too if not it will be unplayable


I could easily do that, so I guess the answer is 'not yet'. :p

I'm trying to base things off community discussions and such, rather than making arbitrary changes, though.

If people start a healthy discussion on it I'd be down to do so.


https://www.coh2.org/topic/53074/may-preview-bofor-and-mortar-emplacement-and-artillery



How did you give the ability to the 45mm to garrison and please consider giving the Brits a mobile mortar while making the emplacement a garrisonable one.

Also please consider making the MG34 Tier 0.

If you're having trouble with the emplacement I can forward what Svanh told me to make it.


homogenizing the faction should be considered the last option. Adding the mortar to the USF just created more problems.


The 222's coax damage is now 3 from 4 because the unit really was balanced around the MG being broken. That should suffice to start.

I think you're losing sight on what the 222 should be.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/55548/t70-nerf

people are getting tired of the light vehicle power creep. "fixing" the 222 mg is just going to add to it. the vanilla 222 "works" because it's mostly a defensive vehicle. It keep the wehr alive by killing other vehicle but doesn't dominate infantry (except the brits).

in addition, if you look at the 222 coaxial dps (chart below), you would notice that the 222 have ~20 dps at close range. that's a lot of dps.
11 Aug 2016, 01:04 AM
#17
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

It's kind of interesting how much the game has changed since even May.


I think you're losing sight on what the 222 should be.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/55548/t70-nerf

people are getting tired of the light vehicle power creep. "fixing" the 222 mg is just going to add to it. the vanilla 222 "works" because it's mostly a defensive vehicle. It keep the wehr alive by killing other vehicle but doesn't dominate infantry (except the brits).


I'm not entirely sure the 222 is what is 'should be' or is intended to be. I find that it is a particularly inelegant kludge in its current state, especially given that its MG has been effectively broken.

in addition, if you look at the 222 coaxial dps (chart below), you would notice that the 222 have ~20 dps at close range. that's a lot of dps.


No doubt. I'm not exactly arguing that these are changes that should be made, or that they are balanced and game-ready. I'm merely attempting to implement them in a testable format so that people can actually see, instead of theorizing, how they would impact the game.

I just get tired of endless spreadsheet calculations on the forums when there is little to no testing in an ingame environment. I'd rather adjust from here than be perpetually at the drawing board.

But I'll be back at work and out to sea for another week or so if I decide to add or alter this any more, I'll get to it then. Until then, I still invite people to test things out as an alternative to debate.
11 Aug 2016, 08:56 AM
#18
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2





https://www.coh2.org/topic/53074/may-preview-bofor-and-mortar-emplacement-and-artillery





homogenizing the faction should be considered the last option. Adding the mortar to the USF just created more problems.


I think you're losing sight on what the 222 should be.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/55548/t70-nerf

people are getting tired of the light vehicle power creep. "fixing" the 222 mg is just going to add to it. the vanilla 222 "works" because it's mostly a defensive vehicle. It keep the wehr alive by killing other vehicle but doesn't dominate infantry (except the brits).

in addition, if you look at the 222 coaxial dps (chart below), you would notice that the 222 have ~20 dps at close range. that's a lot of dps.


Listen bud, I don't need any specialist's far fetched opinion, if assymetrical balanced worked the mortar wouldn't have been added at all, just like the MG34.

Plus it's not the mortar itself it was Relic's shitty implementation of it, I should know as it worked fine and didn't have anything near these problems in the preview.
11 Aug 2016, 09:15 AM
#19
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930



Listen bud, I don't need any specialist's far fetched opinion, if assymetrical balanced worked the mortar wouldn't have been added at all, just like the MG34.

Plus it's not the mortar itself it was Relic's shitty implementation of it, I should know as it worked fine and didn't have anything near these problems in the preview.


a mortar would be problematic for the british. They have easy access to scout. their tommies get cover sight bonus at vet 1 and the bonus stack with spotter upgrade.

The cromwell and comet also get sight upgrade as well.
11 Aug 2016, 09:40 AM
#20
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2



a mortar would be problematic for the british. They have easy access to scout. their tommies get cover sight bonus at vet 1 and the bonus stack with spotter upgrade.

The cromwell and comet also get sight upgrade as well.


You mean to tell me a clone of the German GranatWerfer 34 would break the balance more than the 115 range double mortar pit? You've got to be kidding me, you are aware that mobile mortar crews die like flies to anything that touches them, right?

Like fucking seriously ask any Wehr, Soviet or now USF player on how easy mortar crews die.

No sorry I'm not going to take you seriously on this one, I'm done.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

Canada 3
unknown 1
unknown 1

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

242 users are online: 242 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49162
Welcome our newest member, Losxdrelli
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM