Hector´s way of fixing light vehicles and call ins

I think CP requirement should be the right tool for limiting the medium call ins. I would get rid of 0CP T34/85 for sure. Its obviously a bad design..

If someone has the fuel to unlock T4 and build a T34/85 why shouldn't they? If they do it early that means they've skipped all other fuel investments. If the enemy does not take advantage of that then it makes no difference when the 85 comes as the game is already won:/

Hi - I'm not sure everybody defines the problem the same way. To me, the problem with light vehicles is that they are often like snipers with armor immune to small arms fire. They wipe squads too easily without any way to stop them unless the player is not careful (with stuart that may not even help as it will repair itself). Biggest problem are Brit armored car, stuart, t70. The problem is because both puma and 222 are voulnerable to small arms and at snares + rifles can have both snares and bazookas. So no balance - allied fractions have powerful mediums while ost/axis don't. It leads to another problem - to counter them reliably you must build a pak and invest 320 manpower. Then ost must position it well and wait until your opponent overextends an armored car. Good players won't do that. They will push with infantry because ost spent 320 manpower on a pak and has fewer frontline infantry squads to counter allied inf. This is lack of balance again. If US player is of equal skill, US wins too easily and possibly decrews the pak. Generally the game is really broken here (unless somebody really wants to have skirmishes with better players losing to newbies - maybe that's not a bad idea after all - new players can play and win against veterans). Anyway, I like the intial suggestion with manpower cost for mediums - they should be more expensive manpowerwise than a pak - they're better than elite inf - why shouldn't they cost similar amout of manpower when a counter to them is so expensive, fragile and requires so much positioning?

Really i can undeastand ppl, thay whine that light tanks wipe so its need nerf but in antoher side lets add wipe for ostheer , i can undestand where logic there ?

I meant that there are 2 options: Give a similar vehicle to axis OR make armored mediums more expensive in manpower terms to refect how powerful they are.

If someone has the fuel to unlock T4 and build a T34/85 why shouldn't they? If they do it early that means they've skipped all other fuel investments. If the enemy does not take advantage of that then it makes no difference when the 85 comes as the game is already won:/

I agree with this. It is better to tie call-ins vehicles and tanks to buildings than to tie them to CPs, because then you can't skip the buildings. For example tier 3 building for Stug-E and tier 4 building for Tiger, and major for Calliope and Pershing. Maybe tier 2 building for Ostheer Puma and captain for M10.

I also think that Hectors idea is good, that is, nerfing light vehicles by increasing the MP cost for each light vehicle.

I agree with this. It is better to tie call-ins vehicles and tanks to buildings than to tie them to CPs, because then you can't skip the buildings. For example tier 3 building for Stug-E and tier 4 building for Tiger, and major for Calliope and Pershing. Maybe tier 2 building for Ostheer Puma and captain for M10.

I also think that Hectors idea is good, that is, nerfing light vehicles by increasing the MP cost for each light vehicle.

Would also like to see Light Vehicles get a price nerf when a faction has fully teched, so they may still be of some use in the late game for scouting, laying mines, reinforcing etc.

If someone has the fuel to unlock T4 and build a T34/85 why shouldn't they? If they do it early that means they've skipped all other fuel investments. If the enemy does not take advantage of that then it makes no difference when the 85 comes as the game is already won:/

The CP locks the tank itself after a certain level, but if you increase its price you also increase the time between two T34. In other words CP determine when the first tank hit the field, while price determine the frequency you can pump out another one.

In case of the T34/85, you can skip the T70 light tank and the whole T3 to go for the T34 immediately. Its effective against both infantry and tanks, its somewhere above a P4 but i can reach it just as fast. Its too easy to get your first T34/85, i think it should be also locked behind CP8, where OKW ostwind is btw.

Skipping the T70 means nothing... all it require from you is to handle axis light tanks. 222 in case of OST, and Luchs in case of OKW... Guards can deal both, and T34/85 is in the very same doctrine. Guards Motor doctrine is easy mode imo. Because of Penals w/ flamethrower, because of Guards, because of the multirole T34/85 and its price, and because of the mark vehicle ability.

If you would make Tiger a 0 CP ability, and put it in OST T4, you would see it more frequently than now.

Yet another approach could be to reduce the DPS of light vehicles and the effectiveness of their abilities but offer upgrades once a certain tech level is reached of stat and ability effectiveness.

The upgrade could be for each vehicles or a global one.

The CP locks the tank itself after a certain level, but if you increase its price you also increase the time between two T34. In other words CP determine when the first tank hit the field, while price determine the frequency you can pump out another one.

In case of the T34/85, you can skip the T70 light tank and the whole T3 to go for the T34 immediately. Its effective against both infantry and tanks, its somewhere above a P4 but i can reach it just as fast. Its too easy to get your first T34/85, i think it should be also locked behind CP8, where OKW ostwind is btw.

Skipping the T70 means nothing... all it require from you is to handle axis light tanks. 222 in case of OST, and Luchs in case of OKW... Guards can deal both, and T34/85 is in the very same doctrine. Guards Motor doctrine is easy mode imo. Because of Penals w/ flamethrower, because of Guards, because of the multirole T34/85 and its price, and because of the mark vehicle ability.

If you would make Tiger a 0 CP ability, and put it in OST T4, you would see it more frequently than now.

The problem comes mostly from the guards that are simply too good to fill the gap before T4, even more with the Penal buff. Weaker the guards and suddenly you're not going to see t34/85 rush as much as today.

Everytime im on the forum im reminded that I have the only copy of coh2 that has mine laying enabled. When I play axis I prepare for the inevitable t70/Stuart/aec with mines. The enemy IS spending alot on their light vehcles and it WILL rape you if you let it. Its supposed to be a tactical game, use tactics. Bait, snare, ambush. Ost has mines that 1 Shot lights and the okw can couple their mines with a cloaked AT gun. Aside from the Stuart who has literally no weak point (400 health, self heal, insta engine repair, maximum AT for light tanks, shut down any enemy light armour play with 2 clicks and the ability to model snipe) lights are balanced imo. Taking one out prematurely is a huge set back. For tge Soviet the t70 is nearly as much as a t34, the aec is expensive as well AND requires a side tech. Again the Stuart has an advantage here as teching for it is advantageous (no need to actually BUILD the tier like the Soviet, as it builds itself, no additional costs like the Brits, hell you actually GAIN map presence..)

Everytime im on the forum im reminded that I have the only copy of coh2 that has mine laying enabled. When I play axis I prepare for the inevitable t70/Stuart/aec with mines. The enemy IS spending alot on their light vehcles and it WILL rape you if you let it. Its supposed to be a tactical game, use tactics. Bait, snare, ambush. Ost has mines that 1 Shot lights and the okw can couple their mines with a cloaked AT gun. Aside from the Stuart who has literally no weak point (400 health, self heal, insta engine repair, maximum AT for light tanks, shut down any enemy light armour play with 2 clicks and the ability to model snipe) lights are balanced imo. Taking one out prematurely is a huge set back. For tge Soviet the t70 is nearly as much as a t34, the aec is expensive as well AND requires a side tech. Again the Stuart has an advantage here as teching for it is advantageous (no need to actually BUILD the tier like the Soviet, as it builds itself, no additional costs like the Brits, hell you actually GAIN map presence..)

50 muni teller can only be in so many places. Need that 50 muni or more to upgrade my grens with lmgs to even stand a chance againt riflemen and tommies with and without upgrades.

Lelic

Yet another approach could be to reduce the DPS of light vehicles and the effectiveness of their abilities but offer upgrades once a certain tech level is reached of stat and ability effectiveness.

The upgrade could be for each vehicles or a global one.

This is also an excellent idea. Many of the special abilities, like stuns (Stuart, AEC) could be gated behind Vet1 OR tech-tier (since it's difficult to make those vehicles even get to Vet1 in the late-game). The abilities themselves would have to get toned down, since some of them are beyond ridiculous (I am looking at you, 15-second AEC immobilize).

Currently, out of the fleet of available vehicles in the game, I would only ever consider rebuilding the following, in a late-game situation:
- The Stuart (for its stun)
- The AEC, for the treadbreaker ability, and it's sight-range that goes well with high mobility (if I can somehow guarantee it gets to vet1)
- The T-70 for its infantry killing-power and the sight-range

Some near-miss light vehicles for the late-game:
- 222; I would only build it for spotting scopes cheese. With a manpower cost reduction it could stand on its own though, screening for your tank-force (222 damage late-game is laughable, but that's all that 222 offers)
- Puma. With a self-spotting 50-yard range, this is a potent vehicle. However, it lacks medium-crush. This means it will get easily cornered and killed

Some vehicles that could really need help:
- M20. The manpower cost (340) is way too high. I know that the MP cost is there to prevent free officer + LV rush. However, for USF that could be fixed by offsetting some of the MP cost to the LT/Cpt upgrade. The m20 needs to be viable to build in the lategame due to sight utility/mines that no other stock unit can offer.

Some vehicles that could really need help:
- M20. The manpower cost (340) is way too high. I know that the MP cost is there to prevent free officer + LV rush. However, for USF that could be fixed by offsetting some of the MP cost to the LT/Cpt upgrade. The m20 needs to be viable to build in the lategame due to sight utility/mines that no other stock unit can offer.

Let the manpower cost as it is and remove the munition cost for the M20 side skirts. He should be better spawn with the skirts imo.

I don't think it'll take much to fix them. Honestly, just making the Stuart deal 60 damage to infantry and only AOEing 1-2 models maximum means the vehicle will be a less powerful generalist and also less no-brainer.

Okay, I'm confused as to when this idea became such a golden calf of balancing. What's the point of having AoE? It seems clumsy as hell and makes even less sense in terms of gameplay and visuals.

T-70 just needs its AOE to no longer hit the entire squad by limiting it to 2 models. Still decent AI and can chase wounded squads down, but no sudden drive-bys that wipe out entire squads in 2-3 hits. The reason for only this change is that the T-70 arrives the latest of the light tank units and counters generally are on the field unless the Soviets have bled the enemy with minimal in return. If we're talking the combination of Penal and Guards, then just adjust Penal veterancy at vet 3 and the rate they gain veterancy.

I'm not sure how changing it's AoE is going to affect it's accuracy against retreating units. Limiting damage to 2 entities at a time means that it still takes 2 to 3 shots to wipe a squad? The 2-models-only damage only is an approach that probably makes more sense when you're looking at 5 and 6 man squads, I'll give you that. But isn't that clearly looking at an incomplete picture of the problem?

222 needs a price increase, that's a given with its dirt cheap cost and the bug with its MG fixed. 250-300 manpower and 30-35 fuel with a working MG. Still would like to see the unit reworked to a skrimishers and less of the dirt cheap scouting generalist once changed.

I feel like the kubelwagen goes what a 222 should actually do and the 222 is just pretending to be a 234/1 and hoping no one notices.

Okay, I'm confused as to when this idea became such a golden calf of balancing. What's the point of having AoE? It seems clumsy as hell and makes even less sense in terms of gameplay and visuals.



I'm not sure how changing it's AoE is going to affect it's accuracy against retreating units. Limiting damage to 2 entities at a time means that it still takes 2 to 3 shots to wipe a squad? The 2-models-only damage only is an approach that probably makes more sense when you're looking at 5 and 6 man squads, I'll give you that. But isn't that clearly looking at an incomplete picture of the problem?



I feel like the kubelwagen goes what a 222 should actually do and the 222 is just pretending to be a 234/1 and hoping no one notices.

If you have a full health squad and you stay long enough for any of this units (with decreased damage and AOE) to cheap down your models and health so they have to retreat without having any support units to stop the chaser, then that's your problem.
The whole point is avoiding "lucky" shots which suddenly drops down the health of the whole squad to 50% or even just wipe its (in case of Stuart). This also helps when infantry squads are moving through cover or actually using heavy cover.

Doesn't that have more to do with infantry squad spacing though?

That's what I'm getting at.

Anyway, the overperformance of "light vehicles" is always about how the allied light tanks wipe axis infantry squads, and how 222s destroy allied light vehicles too cost effectively. That's two very different things being lumped together as one. I rarely see the Luchs being called OP outside of its vet. (Which, again, is more to do with OKW vet than the Luchs itself.)

Also, simply reducing the gun's damage and/or the damage spread of the AoE will go a great length to accomplishing the intended goal without creating hard caps to the amount of models in a squad that can be damaged.

Doesn't that have more to do with infantry squad spacing though?

That's what I'm getting at.

Anyway, the overperformance of "light vehicles" is always about how the allied light tanks wipe axis infantry squads, and how 222s destroy allied light vehicles too cost effectively. That's two very different things being lumped together as one. I rarely see the Luchs being called OP outside of its vet. (Which, again, is more to do with OKW vet than the Luchs itself.)

Also, simply reducing the gun's damage and/or the damage spread of the AoE will go a great length to accomplishing the intended goal without creating hard caps to the amount of models in a squad that can be damaged.

The point is, they don't have great AoE to start off. Both the T70 and the Stuart. Notice that i'm not against a nerf to damage but having a damage cap is just a safety measure as to how squads move around (which doesn't go against improving squad spacing as well).

Regarding aesthetics, it's not like you are limiting damage of something like Bulldozer, grenades, mortars, etc. It's weirder having units phasing through (infantry n tanks) or units surviving grenades to the face (heavy cover) than having either the T70 or Stuart hitting 2 models at a time.

By raising their cost, you are making sure that no one ever builds them anymore and instead go for medium spam.


A more sensible solution is reducing their damage by half.

By raising their cost, you are making sure that no one ever builds them anymore and instead go for medium spam.


A more sensible solution is reducing their damage by half.

By raising their cost, you are making sure that no one ever builds them anymore and instead go for medium spam.


A more sensible solution is reducing their damage by half.

and why the hell would I ever build one then?

222 needs a price increase, that's a given with its dirt cheap cost and the bug with its MG fixed. 250-300 manpower and 30-35 fuel with a working MG. Still would like to see the unit reworked to a skrimishers and less of the dirt cheap scouting generalist once changed.

The MG on the 222 never was fixed, despite Relic claiming otherwise for more than three years (post #11 on the official changelog thread).



The problem with the 222 is, that Relic manoeuvred it into a corner when raising its health ridiculously. What it needed instead was a simple armour buff instead, which Relic didn't want to do, because the 222 (for some arbitrary reason known only to Relic) needs to be the only light vehicle susceptible to small-arms fire.

If we were to lower the health of the 222, the double 222 vs. Stuart strategy would stop working (because the Stuart could then overcome both vehicles or at least cripple them enough for the other player to get cold feet, when used properly). It would also make the 222 significantly less powerful against the AEC and T-70. In return, increasing its armour would mean that the 222 suddenly can fulfil its role: fighting against infantry and counter capture harassment.
Of course handheld AT weaponry would still work, so infantry facing the 222 wouldn't be totally fucked when properly equipped.
Let's also assume that Relic fixes the MG through some miracle, thus making the 222 the strongest infantry killer out there. That would suddenly mean, that the MG needed to be nerfed, while the pricing could stay the same. Combined with a proper adjustment of Ostheer teching (another thing Relic refuses to do, because why the fuck should everyone have a fair teching system with fair costs and timings in an "e-sports" game?) the 222 would then be even faster in the field, improving the early Ostheer situation during a time when the first BARs start hitting the field, previously allowing especially Riflemen to run amok. And in return, the 222 would be much more easily countered by light vehicles, necessitating a certain foresight into how to use it. Giving the 222 a proper vet1 ability like "overdrive" would also give it the necessary mobility to survive later on despite vehicles like the Stuart or the T-70.

If it were up to me, both the 222 and the 251 should become significantly more resilient against infantry (the Universal Carrier has more armour than the 251 for fucks sake! that thing is outgunned by a single Rifleman squad), with the 222 becoming more vulnerable against vehicles instead. The 251 is already a fucking joke, that gets blown to smithereens by anything, so no additional nerf to health or mobility is required.