Login

russian armor

Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.4 Update

PAGES (21)down
7 Jan 2017, 13:56 PM
#81
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885



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.


Long range doesn't have to mean LMGs. Pfusis are a good example, even though in case of penals the upgrade would have to be available much later.
7 Jan 2017, 13:59 PM
#82
avatar of gehacktesbrot

Posts: 4

Mostly good changes so far. I appreciate the time you guys spend on improving coh2.

I have some minor additions you could take into consideration (a bit off topic but I didn’t want to start a new thread):
-adding a smoke barrage to the leig
-speeding up the time to wire to a vcoh lvl. Wiring takes a lot of time in comparison to vcoh which feels unfitting for a faster paced game like coh2. This would add more tactical depth to the game.

Maybe I have overlooked it but are the smoke barrage/flare abilities of the mortars fixed?

7 Jan 2017, 14:57 PM
#83
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

Ok.

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


Defeat with maxim?

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.


Or: point maxim. Point next maxim at next OKW unit. Do this until you can tech.



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.



Actually, at the late game it's not exactly about long-range. It's about suppression platforms and being able to keep units at range. All allied infantry are going to be moving into point blank range to kill squads/clear team weapons. The exception is m1919 laden squads.

It doesn't matter what the allied infantry is holding lategame as long as they can get around an mg and/or clear a pak quickly. (Which flames do nicely.)
7 Jan 2017, 15:23 PM
#84
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2



Why the fuck cannot brits start with enginner squad like every other faction ?


+1

Give them RE and increase a bit starting MP.
7 Jan 2017, 15:45 PM
#85
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7



+1

Give them RE and increase a bit starting MP.


By 70 MP actually (280 - 210 = 70)
7 Jan 2017, 17:21 PM
#86
avatar of Captain QQ

Posts: 365

Great now that the flame ht isnt as good at burning units out, we essentially just reward garrisoned units more. This unit is already fragile and risky to start with and was changed simply because some noob started a thread about it. Its 90 munitions. Raise its cost again to 120 if its to good for the noobs stop out right nerfing and buffing shit.


120 muni would be fair considering the more gimped SU equivalent is just as fragile but costs 120 muni.
7 Jan 2017, 17:23 PM
#87
avatar of Captain QQ

Posts: 365

accidental post; please ignore
7 Jan 2017, 17:34 PM
#88
avatar of Oversloth

Posts: 48

Wow.

Takes away Penal's flamethrower, gives the PTRS package and stick satchels.

No wait, nvm.

Gives BACK the flamethrower, gives them PTRS package, makes sticky satchels even better AND more versatile.

Smith, can you and your team PLEASE admit to having absolutely no idea what you are doing?

There is no rhyme or reason for your infantry changes, they are so absolutely stupid and bizarre.
7 Jan 2017, 17:54 PM
#89
avatar of Cultist_kun

Posts: 295 | Subs: 1

Would you like to have PTRS + PPSH penals, or maybe PPSH + PTRS penals?
7 Jan 2017, 18:38 PM
#90
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1

Wow.

Takes away Penal's flamethrower, gives the PTRS package and stick satchels.

No wait, nvm.

Gives BACK the flamethrower, gives them PTRS package, makes sticky satchels even better AND more versatile.

Smith, can you and your team PLEASE admit to having absolutely no idea what you are doing?

There is no rhyme or reason for your infantry changes, they are so absolutely stupid and bizarre.


The reason you are seeing lots of changes back and forth is because of feedback, its exactly why things are changing. And by definition no one knows exactly how to balance the game with a single button click or they would, it is a bit of test, hence the mod.

The problem with penals is that they are an orphan unit from when Soviets got guards or shocks. Now that you are supposed to not need them how do you make them relevant if you do get either? Giving them flames in current patch turns them into a straight upgrade to the engineers and provides them too much utility. Giving them PTRS would make them guards. Instead what they are trying to do is find a niche where the player decides. Do you need a downgraded guards squad? Upgrade PTRS. Do you need potent AI in close in battles? Get flames. Do you like to sit at medium and long range and pick off models? No upgrades. The goal, whether you agree with them or not, is to force the player to make choices.

7 Jan 2017, 18:50 PM
#91
avatar of Budwise
Admin Red  Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2075 | Subs: 2


The goal, whether you agree with them or not, is to force the player to make choices.



Then they have failed, and actually accomplished the opposite with regards to Soviet T1.
7 Jan 2017, 19:09 PM
#92
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

At this point why not just make them guards?

Swap guards and penals. Make penals the call-in. Make em 0 CP like assault grens or ostruppen. Satchels and flamethrowers make them a niche unit anyway.

Though I still think you'd need to keep PTRS a doctrinal choice.
7 Jan 2017, 19:16 PM
#93
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1



The reason you are seeing lots of changes back and forth is because of feedback, its exactly why things are changing. And by definition no one knows exactly how to balance the game with a single button click or they would, it is a bit of test, hence the mod.

The problem with penals is that they are an orphan unit from when Soviets got guards or shocks. Now that you are supposed to not need them how do you make them relevant if you do get either? Giving them flames in current patch turns them into a straight upgrade to the engineers and provides them too much utility. Giving them PTRS would make them guards. Instead what they are trying to do is find a niche where the player decides. Do you need a downgraded guards squad? Upgrade PTRS. Do you need potent AI in close in battles? Get flames. Do you like to sit at medium and long range and pick off models? No upgrades. The goal, whether you agree with them or not, is to force the player to make choices.



There is little choice in that, just adaptability to what your opponent is doing to stay on the field.

When Penals hit the field, they are the best infantry squad in the place, they dominate anything the Axis player can throw at them.
So the moment the Axis player finally manage to stabilize the situation or to go for a hard counter, the Soviet player already have the counter ready, he just needs to upgrade one or two squads with flamers or PTRS.
This has nothing to do with decision making.

Honestly regarding at how Axis light vehicle are squishy, Penals should remain as AI specialist units with some little nerf on their vet and Guards seeing their AI damage going to oblivion. So the Soviet players is forced to
A) Penals + T2 or T3 to sustain its AT capability
B) Penals + Guards but guards are now a fully dedicated AT unit, also the Soviet players knows that guards aren't going to scale super well late game.
C) Mix of A) and B)

This is decision making.
7 Jan 2017, 19:20 PM
#94
avatar of Latch

Posts: 773



Your bias towards the British faction doesn't make you realize if you give snares to the British, it will make them officially the most broken faction in the game and most cancerous to play against (which they currently are anyway).


I have no bias and... For the 50th time...THEY HAVE DOCTRINAL SNARES. That doctrine is hardly ever used, if it was that OP it would be used all the time and its not.

EDIT: Because everyone keeps assuming I have bias. check my post history for my comments, here's one for example:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/58309/wbp-uc-command-vehicle-question/page/1#post_id583480
https://www.coh2.org/topic/55541/panther-both-factions-vs-comet/page/5#post_id567153

Want more, just check my history and stop with your idiotic statements, ta
7 Jan 2017, 19:48 PM
#95
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1



Then they have failed, and actually accomplished the opposite with regards to Soviet T1.



I am not sure I agree. Giving up AI specialists for light AT or giving up garrison clearing for long range rifle DPS is the same as picking up weapons for a weapon rack. Having said that, if T1 is too strong then it will become the obvious pick, at which point I agree with you. However, penal strategies rely heavily on munitions for penals. On the other hand, going T2 allows munitions for numerous other activities. I still see that as a choice. While I agree with a number of people who have said that PTRS on penals is a large change, and would preferably not be done, I am finding it hard to come up with ways to make penals useful if there is no form of AT to support T1 once they get their nerfs from the patch.

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jan 2017, 19:16 PMEsxile


There is little choice in that, just adaptability to what your opponent is doing to stay on the field.

When Penals hit the field, they are the best infantry squad in the place, they dominate anything the Axis player can throw at them.
So the moment the Axis player finally manage to stabilize the situation or to go for a hard counter, the Soviet player already have the counter ready, he just needs to upgrade one or two squads with flamers or PTRS.
This has nothing to do with decision making.

Honestly regarding at how Axis light vehicle are squishy, Penals should remain as AI specialist units with some little nerf on their vet and Guards seeing their AI damage going to oblivion. So the Soviet players is forced to
A) Penals + T2 or T3 to sustain its AT capability
B) Penals + Guards but guards are now a fully dedicated AT unit, also the Soviet players knows that guards aren't going to scale super well late game.
C) Mix of A) and B)

This is decision making.


Incorrect. If you give up other forms of AT for penal AT then you lose your AI power. You are now going to need some way to compensate for his infantry. On the other hand if you want penals doing the close in work you are going to bleed more heavily but you might win most infantry fights. The german player gets a fast vehicle that can attack at the point where penals with PTRS are not. If it finds them there it moves along again. If he upgrades all of them then the grens win the fight now with MG42 upgrades easily. If he ignores the light vehicles the german player can close and deal the highest DPS with the buffed AC.

Penals, right now, do beat an Axis infantry. They are getting nerfed in the patch regardless. The also beat infantry as long as they can exchange fire with them without being hit by MGs or pushed around by Kubels. They are hardly shock troopers at vet 0, too potent right now for sure but not some unstoppable blob. You also are paying for that power by going for a tech option on a unit without any AT right now. The problem is latter when the current overperforming penals merge with the slightly over performing guards into a blob not unlike the volks/obers blobs of old.

Right now when a penal squad arrives at point A it is already outnumbered by any german player. Either he can bring Pio, MG, gren or volks/kubel, Sturms.

I don't see a way to go T2 and get a zis before the German light vehicles arrive, without losing all map control with a penal opening. Build would be such: T1, Penal, Penal, script/penal T2, Zis vs. MG,Gren, Gren, T2up, T2, AC. At this point the soviet player also better get AT nades or they risk losing the Zis. As a german player you should rejoice and get a second MG since he is going to get a late T70 and his infantry have little indirect fire support. If he does use the Zis barrage he won't have mines/upgrades.

Nerfing guards AI would mean their AT needs to be brought up to PG levels. They are currently slightly too good, but nerfing them that much would be crazy.

Mixing A and B is impossible. How do you half tech? I cannot get some T2 and half a guard. Instead if I need AT and go T2 that's it, guards are 5 minutes out because I need the MP for the zis and the tech. If I go guards then I avoid T2.

If picking an upgrade for your troops is not a choice, then American and Brits don't offer the player choices when they go to upgrade their infantry, and we know these are certainly choices.
7 Jan 2017, 20:29 PM
#96
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jan 2017, 19:20 PMLatch


I have no bias and... For the 50th time...THEY HAVE DOCTRINAL SNARES. That doctrine is hardly ever used, if it was that OP it would be used all the time and its not.

EDIT: Because everyone keeps assuming I have bias. check my post history for my comments, here's one for example:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/58309/wbp-uc-command-vehicle-question/page/1#post_id583480
https://www.coh2.org/topic/55541/panther-both-factions-vs-comet/page/5#post_id567153

Want more, just check my history and stop with your idiotic statements, ta


Its snare on one niche unit that is useless apart from snaring/light cars counter.

If that doctrine game snares to all IS and gave them option to became dank hunters, it would be much more used
7 Jan 2017, 20:55 PM
#97
avatar of Svalbard SD

Posts: 327

Readjusting the late-game of early-game vehicles (e.g., SU M3A1) through veterancy, so that even those vehicles have some utility in the late-game; when vetted

Why exclude the 250 halftrack from the list of light vehicles subject to this change?
7 Jan 2017, 21:16 PM
#98
avatar of Nosliw

Posts: 515

Any chance that Dshk and M4C call in will be patched? It's a pretty broken doctrine against okw.
7 Jan 2017, 21:33 PM
#99
avatar of Frost

Posts: 1024 | Subs: 1


Why exclude the 250 halftrack from the list of light vehicles subject to this change?


Because Sdfkz 250 doesn't have any form of vetterancy?
7 Jan 2017, 21:50 PM
#100
avatar of Archont

Posts: 96

Oh, oh, I see...CoH2 is about being to be destroyed.. :'(
PAGES (21)down
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

536 users are online: 536 guests
0 post in the last 24h
13 posts in the last week
32 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50080
Welcome our newest member, hubetchat
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM