Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.4 Update

M3: check
Kubel: check
WC51 ?? super high fuel price, high mp price and no buff. survivability down with earlier pfaust.

Good to see they fixed penals

Well, staying in green cover against a flamer is like staying in red cover against small arms... Now place both in red cover and try again.

M3: check
Kubel: check
WC51 ?? super high fuel price, high mp price and no buff. survivability down with earlier pfaust.

I belive that is the unit they forgot of, that Mr.Smith was talking about earlier in this thread.

Wouldn't an engi with flamethrower lead to the same or similar result?

No since engines aren't as tough, plus you can safely move into negative cover or open cover without being murdered.

Good to see they fixed penals

The Volks in this video would rightly earn the Darwin award.

This would be like throwing a Tommy grenade at a piece of wood, and then taking your vet5 Obersquad to hug that grenade and get wiped.

.. and then used that video as a proof to claim that Tommies are OP.

The counterplay to flamer Penals is simple.

When you see them approaching:
- You can either turn the other way. Since their range has been shortened, they can't damage you. Now you can rendezvous with a supporting squad
- Or step out of cover. Flamers are AoE weapons and do a ton of damage to clumped up squad. They also do extra damage to squads behind Green cover

Finally, note that all weapons ignore cover at short ranges, which is the range the PPSh has to be in order to operate. Thus, by stepping out of cover you aren't exposing yourself in danger to the squad.

Different Question: What is the state of the Raketenwerfer?

Does it actually hit things now or still fire into the ground?

It should fire heat-seeking missiles as often as the other anti-tank guns now.

However, missed shots (and attack ground) still have a higher chance to collide with terrain, since the barrel of the gun is closer to the ground.

We could try whatever value Cruzz used in his Kappatch to raise the projectile a bit, while still making it look like it legitimately exits the barrel. I wouldn't be hopeful that we can do this for WBP though, since we have already modified far too many files, and Relic wants to keep things tidy for when they have to reimplement stuff for the main game.

if you are looking in to abnormal vetting speeds, flame halftrack vets up super quick for reasons obvious.

The good-thing about super-vetting halftracks/vehicles/etc is that they cannot get to vet3, then pick up an LMG34 and wipe everything with it. Thus, if a vehicle vets too good, we can mess however much we want with its bonuses with 0 repercussions.

AoE weapons tend to have higher vet speeds, I'm not sure if this is linked to the fact that they damage all models at once, or there's something extra. For instance, Penals with the AT satchel do get a ton of veterancy off if you manage to land it.

Unfortunately the workaround I used for pschrecks/zooks won't work that well on AoE weapons.

Moreover, the workaround looks super-messy, and I'd rather we contained that to only the weapons that really need it (i.e., the ones we changed). I would consider expanding the same rules to AT snares as well, but they are buggy enough as it is for now.

M3: check
Kubel: check
WC51 ?? super high fuel price, high mp price and no buff. survivability down with earlier pfaust.

Apparently The Scope does not include underperforming doctrinal vehicles. Note that we can't give WC51 shared veterancy for technical reasons:
- Every time you jump out of the vehicle, the crew (and the vehicle) loses all experience gained through the shared-vet mechanic

I belive that is the unit they forgot of, that Mr.Smith was talking about earlier in this thread.

Nope! There's another one!

Hint: Think of a light vehicle that becomes completely obsolete even when it reaches max vet.

Nope! There's another one!

Hint: Think of a light vehicle that becomes completely obsolete even when it reaches max vet.

The carrier would be my next shot, even though it is far from obsolete in the live version with right doctrine.

The Volks in this video would rightly earn the Darwin award.

This would be like throwing a Tommy grenade at a piece of wood, and then taking your vet5 Obersquad to hug that grenade and get wiped.

.. and then used that video as a proof to claim that Tommies are OP.

The counterplay to flamer Penals is simple.

When you see them approaching:
- You can either turn the other way. Since their range has been shortened, they can't damage you. Now you can rendezvous with a supporting squad
- Or step out of cover. Flamers are AoE weapons and do a ton of damage to clumped up squad. They also do extra damage to squads behind Green cover

Finally, note that all weapons ignore cover at short ranges, which is the range the PPSh has to be in order to operate. Thus, by stepping out of cover you aren't exposing yourself in danger to the squad.



It should fire heat-seeking missiles as often as the other anti-tank guns now.

However, missed shots (and attack ground) still have a higher chance to collide with terrain, since the barrel of the gun is closer to the ground.

We could try whatever value Cruzz used in his Kappatch to raise the projectile a bit, while still making it look like it legitimately exits the barrel. I wouldn't be hopeful that we can do this for WBP though, since we have already modified far too many files, and Relic wants to keep things tidy for when they have to reimplement stuff for the main game.



The good-thing about super-vetting halftracks/vehicles/etc is that they cannot get to vet3, then pick up an LMG34 and wipe everything with it. Thus, if a vehicle vets too good, we can mess however much we want with its bonuses with 0 repercussions.

AoE weapons tend to have higher vet speeds, I'm not sure if this is linked to the fact that they damage all models at once, or there's something extra. For instance, Penals with the AT satchel do get a ton of veterancy off if you manage to land it.

Unfortunately the workaround I used for pschrecks/zooks won't work that well on AoE weapons.

Moreover, the workaround looks super-messy, and I'd rather we contained that to only the weapons that really need it (i.e., the ones we changed). I would consider expanding the same rules to AT snares as well, but they are buggy enough as it is for now.



Apparently The Scope does not include underperforming doctrinal vehicles. Note that we can't give WC51 shared veterancy for technical reasons:
- Every time you jump out of the vehicle, the crew (and the vehicle) loses all experience gained through the shared-vet mechanic



Nope! There's another one!

Hint: Think of a light vehicle that becomes completely obsolete even when it reaches max vet.

Wait what? No, it isn't the same, you can dodge a grenade and then return to cover.

You seem to not understand the fundamental problem here, a mobile, durable flamer thrower unit is the problem, it still denies cover too easily since there is none to little micro to be done.

Well, staying in green cover against a flamer is like staying in red cover against small arms... Now place both in red cover and try again.



I belive that is the unit they forgot of, that Mr.Smith was talking about earlier in this thread.

You fail to understand the issue if you think it is just about standing still in cover.

Wait what? No, it isn't the same, you can dodge a grenade and then return to cover.

You seem to not understand the fundamental problem here, a mobile, durable flamer thrower unit is the problem, it still denies cover too easily since there is none to little micro to be done.

At close range, cover is already irrelevant. It gets ignored by all weapons at ranges 10 and below. By clumping up in cover, you are throwing yourself to the AoE. Precisely like the Tommy Grenade example.

Next time a flamer Penal squad comes for you, step out of cover, chin up, and murder them as they approach.

Nope! There's another one!

Hint: Think of a light vehicle that becomes completely obsolete even when it reaches max vet.

UKF weapon carrier resupply halftrack ?

I don´t know, give us at least faction

At close range, cover is already irrelevant. It gets ignored by all weapons at ranges 10 and below. By clumping up in cover, you are throwing yourself to the AoE. Precisely like the Tommy Grenade example.

Next time a flamer Penal squad comes for you, step out of cover, chin up, and murder them as they approach.

You can dodge grenades and return to cover, the aoe in flamers can constantly deny cover.

That doesn't happen, you will end up like live with 3 penals all with flamers just pushing units out of cover constantly and forcing to move and fire with rifles... while they fall to the ground because of the fire effect.

Penals with flamers are not fun to play vs, it breaks one of core gameplay designs of using cover feel redundant.

You can dodge grenades and return to cover, the aoe in flamers can constantly deny cover.

That doesn't happen, you will end up like live with 3 penals all with flamers just pushing units out of cover constantly and forcing to move and fire with rifles... while they fall to the ground because of the fire effect.

Penals with flamers are not fun to play vs, it breaks one of core gameplay designs of using cover feel redundant.

What rifles?

What rifles?

Grenadiers / volks etc

Ok.

To think of the counterplay to flamer-Penals, try to think of how you counter Sturms in the early game.

If Sturms push, and they are at full health, you fall back to a supporting squad and gun them down. If Sturms take the cover, you harass them from far. Sturms will either have to move out, or be bled.

You do the same thing vs Flamer Penals, only that it's easier (they drop models faster).

In the lategame, when everything revolves around long-range, Flamer Penals will be terribly outscaled. Thus, your enemy will not want to upgrade more than 1 (2 max) Flamer Penals.

Ok.

To think of the counterplay to flamer-Penals, try to think of how you counter Sturms in the early game.

If Sturms push, and they are at full health, you fall back to a supporting squad and gun them down. If Sturms take the cover, you harass them from far. Sturms will either have to move out, or be bled.

You do the same thing vs Flamer Penals, only that it's easier (they drop models faster).

In the lategame, when everything revolves around long-range, Flamer Penals will be terribly outscaled. Thus, your enemy will not want to upgrade more than 1 (2 max) Flamer Penals.

If Sturms rush a green covered squad from distance, they will likely lose since their small squad size and power range.

Penals can push a axis infantry out of cover, then push forward and gun them down, moving units backwards means they don't return fire.

Penals will beat axis infantry in the open so axis infantry lose either way.

I'm concerned that you don't play enough to understand how engagements actually work in game and rely too heavily on stats.

Ok.

To think of the counterplay to flamer-Penals, try to think of how you counter Sturms in the early game.

If Sturms push, and they are at full health, you fall back to a supporting squad and gun them down. If Sturms take the cover, you harass them from far. Sturms will either have to move out, or be bled.

You do the same thing vs Flamer Penals, only that it's easier (they drop models faster).

In the lategame, when everything revolves around long-range, Flamer Penals will be terribly outscaled. Thus, your enemy will not want to upgrade more than 1 (2 max) Flamer Penals.

I'm not a native english speaker so correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be beneficial for community and sportmanship if we always called the player we play against an "opponent" as opposed to an "enemy". We are fellow players, not enemies. Unless he is a fanboy, then he well and truly is the the public enemy of peoples republic of coh community

so many awesome changes
and i espacially love the ptrs penals. with 3 ptrs they really pack a punch early game on and the sticky satchel is awesome - and it still can be used to clear out positions, bunkers, buildings. also the availabilty to use molotov upgrade for cons and (ptrs) penals gives this update much more utility. good job!

and some short rant about penals in general without ptrs:
making them long range anti inf would help soviets the most imo, since non doc soviets are really bad at long range, and it would also make shocktroops a great option again!

edit:
the 251 flamer damage is still ridiculous. why doesnt the damage get toned down, but survivability increased? it would be more fun to use, also get more balanced..

so many awesome changes
and i espacially love the ptrs penals. with 3 ptrs they really pack a punch early game on and the sticky satchel is awesome - and it still can be used to clear out positions, bunkers, buildings. also the availabilty to use molotov upgrade for cons and (ptrs) penals gives this update much more utility. good job!

and some short rant about penals in general without ptrs:
making them long range anti inf would help soviets the most imo, since non doc soviets are really bad at long range, and it would also make shocktroops a great option again!

Yep, the long range penal is the idea to support. Sadly it had no place for itself in the surveymonkey survey. But I hope that Mr.Smith telling about trying a PTRS free variant in next iterations ment that this idea is also going to be tested.

Yep, the long range penal is the idea to support. Sadly it had no place for itself in the surveymonkey survey. But I hope that Mr.Smith telling about trying a PTRS free variant in next iterations ment that this idea is also going to be tested.

When I voted in the survey there was a checkbox about which upgrades/utility penals should have. If you leave it blank, I think it counts for no-upgrade Penals.

When I voted in the survey there was a checkbox about which upgrades/utility penals should have. If you leave it blank, I think it counts for no-upgrade Penals.

There was, and I of course used it. But my experience with polls tells me that the options that are included in the poll are usually used much more just becouse people are either too lazy to fill open answer field or just don't remember all the options and choose from the ones that are supplied.

As you could see in my poll here on .org, this option was dominant for a long time and is still on the strong second place, even though there were not many posts discussing it anywhere on the forums. That is why I feel it's bad it didn't make it to the official poll.

There was, and I of course used it. But my experience with polls tells me that the options that are included in the poll are usually used much more just becouse people are either too lazy to fill open answer field or just don't remember all the options and choose from the ones that are supplied.

As you could see in my poll here on .org, this option was dominant for a long time and is still on the strong second place, even though there were not many posts discussing it anywhere on the forums. That is why I feel it's bad it didn't make it to the official poll.

Oh that.

I don't think any of us 3 has any good ideas about how to introduce another LMG blob into the game, keep it unique and balanced. Now, that would require far too much effort.

We also have to save some ideas for Tommy LMG blobs too.