Login

russian armor

Another idea for weapon upgrade fix

26 Sep 2016, 18:43 PM
#21
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

It's true that historically there would be always at least 2 men designated to one lmg or handheld AT weapon, just becouse how much ammunition it uses. That's also why squads did never use more than 2 of such weapons. One per each squad was already quite a lot.

On the other hand in the game average squad size is 5, instead of historical 10. That means its ok to designate only one guy for the heavy weapon, but just like in case of real squad they should never have more than 2 weapons per 10 men, so the real solution and good thing to do is just limit all squads to have no more than one special weapon.
26 Sep 2016, 19:00 PM
#22
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

It's true that historically there would be always at least 2 men designated to one lmg or handheld AT weapon, just becouse how much ammunition it uses. That's also why squads did never use more than 2 of such weapons. One per each squad was already quite a lot.

On the other hand in the game average squad size is 5, instead of historical 10. That means its ok to designate only one guy for the heavy weapon, but just like in case of real squad they should never have more than 2 weapons per 10 men, so the real solution and good thing to do is just limit all squads to have no more than one special weapon.

Yeah, I can't see this happening either. If Relic wanted to make two men load and fire a heavy weapon, they'd have implemented it on release - and let's be honest about the obvious alternative, one guy standing around unarmed in a squad is friggin' stupid. People were outraged enough when they had the Scripts do it a bit in the campaign, making everyone do it in multiplayer would be seen as nothing short of ridiculous.
26 Sep 2016, 19:16 PM
#23
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Sep 2016, 19:00 PMVuther

Yeah, I can't see this happening either. If Relic wanted to make two men load and fire a heavy weapon, they'd have implemented it on release - and let's be honest about the obvious alternative, one guy standing around unarmed in a squad is friggin' stupid. People were outraged enough when they had the Scripts do it a bit in the campaign, making everyone do it in multiplayer would be seen as nothing short of ridiculous.


Giving them no weapon at all, in the khrushchev way, would be ridiculous. Any real soldier would have at least a pistol for self defence. But even if they were armed with pistols instead of rifle this would still look stupid as any real squad leader wouldn't spare a man just for ammo carrying when down to 4-5 men.
26 Sep 2016, 20:13 PM
#24
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2



I think that all of what you described is possible, including the schreck/minesweeper idea.

You can even lock out certain upgrades, depending on whether certain slot items are present or not.

For instance, PGrens have access to both a single PSchreck upgrade, and a double schreck upgrade. The requirements are such that, whichever upgrade you buy, you always end up with full slots in the end. (the single shcreck costs 60 MU).

For my mod, I have actually made it possible for guards to rebuy any amount of lost DP-28's/PTRS rifles, but made them unable to ever surpass 2 of each.

However, the only way to restrict access to the item is through the source (upgrade, racks, etc), but not the ground. (ground slot-requirements are equal to player slot requirements).

I think you might be able to do just about anything you want regarding slot requirements. I think that with some trickery (e..g., applying hidden upgrades), you may even manage to change a weapon's slot requirements on the fly, after you've picked it up.


Just to mention it, i don't mind if a squad ends up with 2 LMG if one is been picked up from the ground (and i don't care that we only have 1 commander on UKF which does that).

If AR get "nerf" (starting with BAR) at long range, i wouldn't mind as well letting people have 1919 + BAR or zook.

Problem1: if my previous idea is possible, would this mean that there is no way to make commandos been able to pick 2 LMGs? Roughly thinking i guess this is the "only" unit in conflict (been them "elite) and don't necessarily optimal for this. We could live without it.

Another brainstorm idea : not sure if it's needed or not (in case people see problematic RET x2 zook). Say that Rear echelons have their current cost based on their capabilities of getting 2 weapons. Wouldn't it be better to have their cost reduce but reducing their weapon slots (make sweeper in this case not cost any weapon slot).
Regarding RE/Sappers with Piats, i would start first by seriously nerfing or removing their vet3 reinforce bonus. You could also limit weapons to 1 for RE and making sweepers/salvage 0.

Problem2: RET/RE might not be able to pick up a single LMG if it requires 2 weapon slots.
26 Sep 2016, 21:11 PM
#25
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17



Just to mention it, i don't mind if a squad ends up with 2 LMG if one is been picked up from the ground (and i don't care that we only have 1 commander on UKF which does that).

If AR get "nerf" (starting with BAR) at long range, i wouldn't mind as well letting people have 1919 + BAR or zook.

Problem1: if my previous idea is possible, would this mean that there is no way to make commandos been able to pick 2 LMGs? Roughly thinking i guess this is the "only" unit in conflict (been them "elite) and don't necessarily optimal for this. We could live without it.

Another brainstorm idea : not sure if it's needed or not (in case people see problematic RET x2 zook). Say that Rear echelons have their current cost based on their capabilities of getting 2 weapons. Wouldn't it be better to have their cost reduce but reducing their weapon slots (make sweeper in this case not cost any weapon slot).
Regarding RE/Sappers with Piats, i would start first by seriously nerfing or removing their vet3 reinforce bonus. You could also limit weapons to 1 for RE and making sweepers/salvage 0.

Problem2: RET/RE might not be able to pick up a single LMG if it requires 2 weapon slots.


Commandos can be made to be allowed to pick up double LMGs, etc.

TheMachine actually has everything you mentioned working for his GG mod (can't pick double-guns from racks, elite infantry can have their double LMGs, etc). I"m pretty sure Firesparks' mod uses an identical ruleset for picked-up weapons. I don't know what's the status for Miragefla mod.

You can also nerf REs by limiting them to one weapon per rack (no matter which). As long as the only restriction you want to place is on upgrades/weapon racks, then it's no biggy to do.

The hairy stuff happens when you want to change the rules about what happens to weapons you want to pick up from the ground.
26 Sep 2016, 21:40 PM
#26
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2



Commandos can be made to be allowed to pick up double LMGs, etc.

TheMachine actually has everything you mentioned working for his GG mod (can't pick double-guns from racks, elite infantry can have their double LMGs, etc). I"m pretty sure Firesparks' mod uses an identical ruleset for picked-up weapons. I don't know what's the status for Miragefla mod.

You can also nerf REs by limiting them to one weapon per rack (no matter which). As long as the only restriction you want to place is on upgrades/weapon racks, then it's no biggy to do.

The hairy stuff happens when you want to change the rules about what happens to weapons you want to pick up from the ground.


Good to know, thx for the info.
nee
29 Sep 2016, 13:49 PM
#27
avatar of nee

Posts: 1216

I'd rather just adjust weapon stats and upgrade cost than get rid of double weapon altogether.

Besides if you want it, the simpler way is to just limit every squad to one weapon each, then have extra weapon slots as commander unlocks. There are some rather less useful and un-creative commander configurations that can sure use that advantage.
29 Sep 2016, 14:32 PM
#28
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

Another idea would be to leave the relative balance of vanilla-weapons and slot-items as it is (i.e., they cost a bit to upgrade, but it really increases a squad's passive DPS).

I am of the opinion that, it would be nice to keep double-equiping in the game, if there's a smart way to balance it. Currently, slot items confer no downsides (apart from paying for them, and risking dropping them; RNG). Imo, slot items should confer a passive, always-on disadvantage to the squad.

This will make using slot weapons more of a careful choice, than a no-brainer advantage you should use when you can afford it.

1. Take abilities away, when slot items are used

For instance, slot items should also take something away. E.g.;
- A rifleman squad with no slot weapons has access to the entire range of abilities it currently does
- A rifleman squad with 1 weapon loses access to AT nades
- A rifleman squad with double upgrades loses access to all abilities

2. Give more choice. However, with great power come great responsibilities

Another example, I am actually going to trial in my mod and see how it works like, is Sturmpioneers. (Assuming that we make all minesweepers occupy 1 slot), I would allow Sturmpioneers to pick any 2 upgrades they seem fit:
- If they only go for the minesweepers, they will act as they currently are
- If you go for minesweeper & another item, you lose access to the following:
-- Minesweeper holster
-- Stun nade
-- Minesweeper repair speed upgrade

3. Reduce received experience for handheld AT squads

In addition, I am thinking that handheld AT slot items should reduce experience gain for squads that carry them. For instance:
- Each Panzerschreck reduces received experience by 50%*
- Each Bazooka/PIAT reduces received experience by 30% (so that two of them reduce received experience by 50%
- BARs/LMGs/etc could also reduce received experience by some amount.

* The percentages are arbitrary. However, two zooks should have the same drawback as a panzerschreck, since each operates at half the efficiency of a schreck. IMO, 50% might not be drastic enough, and we should go for something more aggressive. However, 50% is a good start.

29 Sep 2016, 15:39 PM
#29
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

Or we could just change numbers instead of code itself...
Keep double Brens/1919s but lower their price and DPS so they are more in line with DP28, so double 1919 for let's say 90ammo have 120%DPS of LMG42.
29 Sep 2016, 16:54 PM
#30
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

Honestly, I think a major component of this is that USF doesn't have a whole lot of things to dump their munitions into except for weapon racks, especially now that they have the t0 mortar option to save a bundle on throwing grenades.

IMO, the 1919 functions best on Paratroopers. The x4 tommyguns v 1919s choice is probably one of the better ones in the game. I wonder if the 1919 doctrines would be able to function properly if it unlocked an individual squad upgrade. (Or hell, even a global one that gives rifles one by default.)

I've got to say though, I think ultimately all my suggestions will fall into cloning the original vCoH matchup. Not because I want CoH2 to be CoH1, but because the faction design, all WW2 and franchise components removed, works out so well.

It's hard to make any real suggestions or analysis of game balance because of how rickety and restrictive the overall design is to begin with.
29 Sep 2016, 18:03 PM
#31
avatar of steffenbk1

Posts: 139

Honestly, I think a major component of this is that USF doesn't have a whole lot of things to dump their munitions into except for weapon racks, especially now that they have the t0 mortar option to save a bundle on throwing grenades.

What? then you must not utilize your munitions well. As usf you can use munitions after upgrading bars and bazookas, on grenades (that is not replaced by morter), smoke, AT nades, major arty, major flairs, major recon, mines if you pick pershing commander or mech, not to mention the arty options you get from some of the commanders and other munition cost abilitys. So saying usf dosent have much to dump their munis on is silly.
30 Sep 2016, 01:34 AM
#32
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

Uh, yeah just like you said there, there's not a whole lot outside weapon racks if grenades are being saved because of mortars. Mines, flamethrowers, offmap, etc, are all doctrinal and unreliable, like I said. Which leaves the Major abilities. Which is exactly my point. That's not a great deal of options.

It might've been simpler just to say "not having easy access to mines or flamethrowers makes it a lot easier to rifles to be armed to the teeth from weapon racks." I wasn't suggesting that USF isn't capable of spending munis for munis sake at all.

I was also operating under the notion that fully equipping squads of riflemen should result in not having any munitions to dump.
30 Sep 2016, 02:33 AM
#33
avatar of wouren
Senior Social Media Manager Badge

Posts: 1281 | Subs: 3

Uh, yeah just like you said there, there's not a whole lot outside weapon racks if grenades are being saved because of mortars. Mines, flamethrowers, offmap, etc, are all doctrinal and unreliable, like I said. Which leaves the Major abilities. Which is exactly my point. That's not a great deal of options.

It might've been simpler just to say "not having easy access to mines or flamethrowers makes it a lot easier to rifles to be armed to the teeth from weapon racks." I wasn't suggesting that USF isn't capable of spending munis for munis sake at all.

I was also operating under the notion that fully equipping squads of riflemen should result in not having any munitions to dump.

Still false. Mines are usually available through one mean or another, and there are a broad range of abilities with and without doctrines that can be pretty effective. If you are floating munis, grenades can still do a number, even with a mortar already providing fire support. M20 mines are neither doctrinal nor unreliable. Major arty against forward HQs are neither of those things either. I could further dissect your argument, but those points alone should suffice.

One more thing I would add is that munis are hard to manage for sovs as well and the expenditures for those other than mines or light vehicles tend to be based on doctrines. That is why it is my personal opinion that most of the useless doctrines for sovs would be useful if they could be put to some good use. This could be especially easy in doctrines like tank hunter, they could just use a buff.

Just so you know, I'm not entirely convinced that double BARs shouldn't exist, that's just not the reason why they should.
30 Sep 2016, 17:24 PM
#34
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

I don't think you need to dissect my argument since again, I'm not saying that USF doesn't have stuff to spend munitions on. I'm saying that spending munitions on weapon racks is a primary expenditure, and everything else tends to come after or in addition to arming up. M20 mines requires you to tech and show your cards pretty early on, and the Major abilities are on a tech unit themselves, the final one no less. They're not inaccessible at all, but their availability and usage depends heavily on how the actual game plays out, whereas three of the other factions starting units can lay mines.

Before the mortar there was a bit more strain on grenade usage because it delayed weapons. Now grenades aren't as necessary. That has really freed up munition usage for USF, especially early game. That's my argument, if you can call it that. Also, by 'unreliable' I don't mean the abilities themselves are unreliable, but their availability to a player is, depending on their choices. (No flamethrowers if they went calliope doc, LT tier being LT tier, etc.)

And as for the Soviets, well, that's a whole other issue that's entirely unrelated.
30 Sep 2016, 20:44 PM
#35
avatar of wouren
Senior Social Media Manager Badge

Posts: 1281 | Subs: 3

They're not inaccessible at all, but their availability and usage depends heavily on how the actual game plays out.

So when you pick a commander, do you not have to think about how your munitions are used? There isn't just one ability you use to drain munis. It is through a little of this and a little of that. If you don't get frag grenades mines, major recon, AP abilities on support weapons, major barrages, superfast sherman smoke, top gunners, AP rounds on Jacksons or any of the other things from doctrines such as AP round on M10 blobs, special round on Pershing, surprisingly effective arty for recon and mechanised, cheap mine spam from core inf, special weapons on paras, combined arms, recon and AA from calliope commander, then you will have a lot of munis. (all of these abilities are at least 30 muni, most of them higher than that. I left out rifle company because we already talked about it)
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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
2 posts in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49077
Welcome our newest member, juliavargascom
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM