Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.3 Update

Please repeat after me and many of the other veteran COH players that are here in this very thread.

T1 SHOULD NOT HAVE AT!

Thanks.

This is COH2 not COH. Stop living in past.

Soviet T1 is the only tier that has no AT (OKW, WEHR, USF and UKF have somekind of AT)

The m42 is a terrible option and the furthest thing from a 'solution' to a perceived problem that doesn't exist.

If you state opinion, try to elaborate it becasie without it, such opinion has no value so...
Why do you think M-42 is terrible option?

If you state opinion, try to elaborate it becasie without it, such opinion has no value so...
Why do you think M-42 is terrible option?

Must it be restated for every single person every single post every single thread?

The m42 is firstly a doctrinal unit, which necessitates redesigning the commanders its in. That's out of scope.

The m42 is in its own right a particularly terrible AT gun. Like the PTRS is becomes outclassed. T1 doesn't need more units that become obsolete by the midgame.

The m42 has been suggested to have a T70 gun (I've publicly tested that mechanic on my own in the past and found it to be awkward and unnecessary for the faction and tier.) and also to be garrisonned and retreatable like the raketen. The gun looks silly when garrisonned because it wasn't ever meant to be, and a 6 man retreating AT gun squad will likely be as obnoxious as maxims retreating. Hello deathloop.

T1 is not actually suffering from its lack of AT counters. It suffers from redundancy with T0 and T2. (Specifically with conscripts and maxims forming suitable frontline infantry units.) Adding an overlap in the form of an AT gun will only add to that redundancy. All the m42 does is provide another unit to spend manpower on that's detouring a player from building the necessary T2 for ZiS or teching to T3 ASAP. You're still going to need a ZiS against heavier tanks.

T2 has the maxim and ZiS which overshadows T1. Overshadowing T1 doesn't make T1 useless or have no viability. It just means that one option is clearly superior to the other.

It's also worth noting that T1 currently synergizes well with T2. This means a great deal for 2v2. (I think that synergy could be improved, but again, that's another issue and further out of scope.)

I could go on.

Must it be restated for every single person every single post every single thread?

The m42 is firstly a doctrinal unit, which necessitates redesigning the commanders its in. That's out of scope.

The m42 is in its own right a particularly terrible AT gun. Like the PTRS is becomes outclassed. T1 doesn't need more units that become obsolete by the midgame.

The m42 has been suggested to have a T70 gun (I've publicly tested that mechanic on my own in the past and found it to be awkward and unnecessary for the faction and tier.) and also to be garrisonned and retreatable like the raketen. The gun looks silly when garrisonned because it wasn't ever meant to be, and a 6 man retreating AT gun squad will likely be as obnoxious as maxims retreating. Hello deathloop.

T1 is not actually suffering from its lack of AT counters. It suffers from redundancy with T0 and T2. (Specifically with conscripts and maxims forming suitable frontline infantry units.) Adding an overlap in the form of an AT gun will only add to that redundancy. All the m42 does is provide another unit to spend manpower on that's detouring a player from building the necessary T2 for ZiS or teching to T3 ASAP. You're still going to need a ZiS against heavier tanks.

T2 has the maxim and ZiS which overshadows T1. Overshadowing T1 doesn't make T1 useless or have no viability. It just means that one option is clearly superior to the other.

It's also worth noting that T1 currently synergizes well with T2. This means a great deal for 2v2. (I think that synergy could be improved, but again, that's another issue and further out of scope.)

I could go on.

Out of scope means nothing. It's like you want to fix some pipes under your sink but you don't have right glue or tape, so you just wrap it with regular tape - bad fix.

How long does it take to replace one ability in 2 doctrines? 2-3 minutes?

How do you know M-42 is terrible? How often did you play with it? I did whole month in 1v1 / 2v2 with defensive doctrine and M-42 especially.

M-42 and ZiS don't overlap even in slightest. Different units just like PPSH Cons don't overlap with Shocks.

In the end you just theorycrafting without anything to back up. On the other hand I uploaded replays vs top AT where this crappy M-42 dealt 10k damage and more so it's not outclassed in late game like Penals with PTRS.

Please repeat after me and many of the other veteran COH players that are here in this very thread.

T1 SHOULD NOT HAVE AT!

Thanks.

This doesnt make logic in current situation after all. Every faction gets AT of some kind in every tier. USA get at least zooks and every other faction have AT gun tied either from beggining or in linear tier.

If we give soviets M42 to tier3 axis will still have time to field fast vehicle like 222 or flaptrack and further slow down soviets, resulting into faster mediums.

Also its not like M42 alone can hold against light tanks on its own because you lack reliable sort of snare. Their satchel isn´t COH riflemen AT nade.

And if soviet player spent 400 mp for 2 shitty AT guns to counter luchs/222 then axis player can roflstomp him with infantry because he wont have enaugh MP to outfight infantry (because he will have to spend additional 240 MP for getting tier3).

Also M42 is completely shitty lategame and once decrewed dies to 2 tank shots or 1 tiger shot. Its not good AT gun, its last dirt effort option so actually you have chance to stay in game if you screw up without going fixed doctrine.

COH2 should be about punishing and outplaying opponent not about haha I managed to get your cut off before you got your su76 and gg

Must it be restated for every single person every single post every single thread?

The m42 is firstly a doctrinal unit, which necessitates redesigning the commanders its in. That's out of scope.

The m42 is in its own right a particularly terrible AT gun. Like the PTRS is becomes outclassed. T1 doesn't need more units that become obsolete by the midgame.

The m42 has been suggested to have a T70 gun (I've publicly tested that mechanic on my own in the past and found it to be awkward and unnecessary for the faction and tier.) and also to be garrisonned and retreatable like the raketen. The gun looks silly when garrisonned because it wasn't ever meant to be, and a 6 man retreating AT gun squad will likely be as obnoxious as maxims retreating. Hello deathloop.

T1 is not actually suffering from its lack of AT counters. It suffers from redundancy with T0 and T2. (Specifically with conscripts and maxims forming suitable frontline infantry units.) Adding an overlap in the form of an AT gun will only add to that redundancy. All the m42 does is provide another unit to spend manpower on that's detouring a player from building the necessary T2 for ZiS or teching to T3 ASAP. You're still going to need a ZiS against heavier tanks.

T2 has the maxim and ZiS which overshadows T1. Overshadowing T1 doesn't make T1 useless or have no viability. It just means that one option is clearly superior to the other.

It's also worth noting that T1 currently synergizes well with T2. This means a great deal for 2v2. (I think that synergy could be improved, but again, that's another issue and further out of scope.)

I could go on.

Its the point that M42 will be shitty AT gun that will be reduntant against heavy tanks. It should be last ditch efforet against light tank spam, not something you build every game

Please repeat after me and many of the other veteran COH players that are here in this very thread.

T1 SHOULD NOT HAVE AT!

Thanks.

This is not CoH mate. Don't be so 2012

I think most people will agree that this patch is looking great, except for the penal changes. The reason you guys are having trouble finding a good solution is because there isn't one. As it is, there is no satisfying way to solve the penals issue, without a major redesign of the Soviets. Not in the scope of this patch.

At this point I think you should roll-back the ptrs changes and keep the penals in a somewhat nerfed state from the live version, like in WPB 1.0. The patch already has great changes; the light vehicle rework, the spacing changes, the bug fixes.... Just leave it. Finish touching up the patch and be done with it. Have the patch release with all the good changes and let Relic see it is worthwhile and open up the patch scope. It is not worth wasting all this effort trying to save penals right now while you have one hand tied behind your back.

Out of scope means nothing. It's like you want to fix some pipes under your sink but you don't have right glue or tape, so you just wrap it with regular tape - bad fix.

Oh god let's not amnesia this point. Your metaphor is strikingly pertinent. I don't disagree.

How do you know M-42 is terrible? How often did you play with it? I did whole month in 1v1 / 2v2 with defensive doctrine and M-42 especially.

Well first off, it has 60/80/100 penetration. It cannot hurt StuG Es from the front. Second of all, the unit in and of itself is different than using it in the live game (especially in teamgames) and comparing to units in a version of the balance preview.

The commanders that the m42 come in are rather interesting indeed. And I won't dispute that you may or may not be able to utilize a unit or doctrine to a strong effect. I would agree that the current meta of light vehicle rushing is the perfect time to toy around with m42 commanders.

But you're right. I wasn't being fair. It's a terrible AT gun against Ostheer. Ostheer is in a much better position to hold off a bit longer for medium tanks instead of light vehicles, when the first T1 unit is revealed. But it does impact Soviet v OKW a great deal. I mean, against OKW, the m42 is actually a great option. The puma, luchs, kubel and all the halftracks have no chance of bouncing the m42.

I think that disparity alone is reason enough to keep the m42 out of T1, or as a stock unit at all.

Also, I built a test mod that made the m42 use the t70 gun and could be garrisoned. I can tell you how that went. I think you were one of the people that played around with that mod too. But that's aside this topic.

M-42 and ZiS don't overlap even in slightest. Different units just like PPSH Cons don't overlap with Shocks.

Even in the slightest? They don't function as AT guns to handle Axis armor and vehicles? Come on now, against OKW especially they overlap.

Show Spoiler

57mm has a chance to penetrate Stug on average - 57% (hardly useless).
So vs mediums it's kinda similar like regular AT Gun vs the heaviest tools.
___
They don't overlap becasue ZiS is superior and you can't rely on 57mm, you need ZiS or stolen AT Gun at some point.

Okay, the 57mm also deals 80 damage. ZiS deals 160.

There's two ways this goes: It's a unit that is a poor choice for Soviets, which is obviously not a great idea, or it's a unit that is strong enough to hold off axis light vehicle play. Which would mean both Soviet tiers would have the direct counters to Axis light vehicles.

The use of the word 'terrible' was clearly too sensitive an adjective.

Bug: Major FRP doesn't work.

i petition to keep it that way.

I think most people will agree that this patch is looking great, except for the penal changes. The reason you guys are having trouble finding a good solution is because there isn't one. As it is, there is no satisfying way to solve the penals issue, without a major redesign of the Soviets. Not in the scope of this patch.

At this point I think you should roll-back the ptrs changes and keep the penals in a somewhat nerfed state from the live version, like in WPB 1.0. The patch already has great changes; the light vehicle rework, the spacing changes, the bug fixes.... Just leave it. Finish touching up the patch and be done with it. Have the patch release with all the good changes and let Relic see it is worthwhile and open up the patch scope. It is not worth wasting all this effort trying to save penals right now while you have one hand tied behind your back.

+1

Return penals to 1.1 state, remove PTRS give them DP28 return flaptrack change and make it live. Then start experimentating.

Because I dont know even if M42 would do well without rebalancing everything

+1

Return penals to 1.1 state, remove PTRS give them DP28 return flaptrack change and make it live. Then start experimentating.

Because I dont know even if M42 would do well without rebalancing everything

That's why we are during preview but for some reasons people behind it don't wanna try anything else besides PTRS.

This is not CoH mate. Don't be so 2012

His point still stands, T1 doesn't need AT. Countering penals, M3 and snipers require vehicles, giving the Tier any sort of early AT doesn't work.


And people who have been playing this franchise since its creation have a intuitive understanding of core game mechanics, asymmetrical aspects and game balance in general. Nothing to do with elitism or stuff like that, but experience and overall time spent on the games.

Out of scope means nothing. It's like you want to fix some pipes under your sink but you don't have right glue or tape, so you just wrap it with regular tape - bad fix.

How long does it take to replace one ability in 2 doctrines? 2-3 minutes?

How do you know M-42 is terrible? How often did you play with it? I did whole month in 1v1 / 2v2 with defensive doctrine and M-42 especially.

M-42 and ZiS don't overlap even in slightest. Different units just like PPSH Cons don't overlap with Shocks.

In the end you just theorycrafting without anything to back up. On the other hand I uploaded replays vs top AT where this crappy M-42 dealt 10k damage and more so it's not outclassed in late game like Penals with PTRS.

To be more specific, Hard AT should not be in Anti-Infantry tier. That's lame design. Soviets already have hard AT in T2, 3 and 4. To use your plumbing analogy, it is like expecting to fix a leak with a woodworking kit. Just go to the shed to get the plumbing wrench.

I'm not really sure what the role of Penals is supposed to be after reading OP..

I like the idea of units from T1 having use in the late game.

if you just HAVE to give penals access to PTRS use the fucking HT shared veterancy idea to make the M3 Scout car get a purchasable ability at vet 2/3 to dish out PTRS weaponry to infantry. It could get a slow income of vet from fighting alongside Penals and make it useful in the late game.


This would make surviving T1 units really rewarding in the late game.

Please repeat after me and many of the other veteran COH players that are here in this very thread.

T1 SHOULD NOT HAVE AT!

Why should anyone invest in a tier that hurts them more than it helps? Without any AT, the only way T1 would be worth it is if it's so overpowered that you smash your opponent before he can get enough fuel to make a difference.

is it me or thiw winter patch gets more retarded over time?

lol foreal...game turning noob asf now

Give me 1 good arguement why we shouldn´t return to 1.1 penals without PTRS with satchel and give soviets M42 into tier 1 unlocked once you tech tier3.

And if it give tier1 too much untility then we can go to 1.1 penals and give them DP28 either in tier3 or 4.

There isn´t good argument to try it. Or at least I´m missing it

To be more specific, Hard AT should not be in Anti-Infantry tier. That's lame design. Soviets already have hard AT in T2, 3 and 4. To use your plumbing analogy, it is like expecting to fix a leak with a woodworking kit. Just go to the shed to get the plumbing wrench.

Why should anyone invest in a tier that hurts them more than it helps? Without any AT, the only way T1 would be worth it is if it's so overpowered that you smash your opponent before he can get enough fuel to make a difference.

Someguy already replied to you