Login

russian armor

GCS Balance Preview

PAGES (20)down
6 Apr 2017, 14:53 PM
#181
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1



and where's the prob?


The problem is that without the mortar pit Brit indirect fire does not arrive until the land mattress. This means that cheese strats, like support weapon only plays would be possible.



Oh you mean like the PAK43 and every other factions emplacements? Seems fair to me... Boost their HP 25% if you have to, but brace needs to go.


The Pak 43 is very niche, and to be fair the 17 pdr is also rare, both suffer from something similar, having a giant AT gun that can't move is always going to become a target for every indirect fire weapon on the map. Now the 17 pdr also costs a fair chunk of fuel so it needs to be better than the pak 43 in someway, although I would be happier if it didn't exist at all.

The only other emplacements I can think of are MG nests and Howies (RIP 20mm flak), both of which are common in the right matchups. While I completely agree that brace requires no skill, it is supposed to be a retreat button for a unit that can't move, and in this way it is trying to be COH. I don't think the brace button is sufficiently COH-like, this should have been a warning to the designer of the unit, and I don't think emplacement play should ever exist because it's lazy.

Brace should be addressed and maybe part of that is reducing flame damage against emplacements but removing brace and maybe forcing some emplacements to be garrisoned to be useful. Don't know, that is something that I need more time to think about.
6 Apr 2017, 14:54 PM
#182
avatar of wandererraven

Posts: 353

SU combat engineer salvage kit should fix cost for upgrade ?
100 mu too high
7 Apr 2017, 00:03 AM
#183
avatar of Nano

Posts: 212


Brace should be addressed and maybe part of that is reducing flame damage against emplacements but removing brace and maybe forcing some emplacements to be garrisoned to be useful. Don't know, that is something that I need more time to think about.


I don't feel that brace itself is the issue with the emplacements. Brace is annoying but it does end and the cool down is long; once you see an emplacement go on brace just wait with your mortars or what ever for a little bit then start to whack it again while brace is on cool down (you just have to bait them into using the ability).

The real problem is when brace is compounded with how stupid fast/easy the cancer commander can fix his buildings. Add brace + passive repair + increased armour means often you can't even do damage faster than they can repair it. Maybe if the passive repair range was reduced lots then it would be easier to target the forward command repair rather than the emplacement making it more fair I guess.
7 Apr 2017, 13:53 PM
#184
avatar of Highfiveeeee

Posts: 1740



Good stuff!
Am I understanding the situation correctly assuming Command Panther will only buff vehicles of allies and no infantry?


If Vet5, it will only give SOME of the buffs to your OWN infantry (because before inf got all the buffs, which was purely OP). Additionally, at Vet5, allied inf won't get any buffs (allied vehicles still receive everything as usual).
7 Apr 2017, 14:11 PM
#185
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17



If Vet5, it will only give SOME of the buffs to your OWN infantry (because before inf got all the buffs, which was purely OP). Additionally, at Vet5, allied inf won't get any buffs (allied vehicles still receive everything as usual).


Note it's not just own infantry. This includes everything under the sun.

It's every single unit under your control. The list also includes AT guns, MG teams, ISG's, etc. The bonuses that were excluded from the non-vehicle list were broken.

7 Apr 2017, 14:20 PM
#186
avatar of mycalliope

Posts: 721

nerfed the command panther to ground...why are we paying for extra fuel and manpower also its so difficult for it to get to vet 5 and yet you are nerfing the reward....why not just revert all the changes except mutual kt/jadg exlcusivity and just tie the command panther to teching to t4
7 Apr 2017, 14:47 PM
#187
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954



The problem is that without the mortar pit Brit indirect fire does not arrive until the land mattress. This means that cheese strats, like support weapon only plays would be possible.



The Pak 43 is very niche, and to be fair the 17 pdr is also rare, both suffer from something similar, having a giant AT gun that can't move is always going to become a target for every indirect fire weapon on the map. Now the 17 pdr also costs a fair chunk of fuel so it needs to be better than the pak 43 in someway, although I would be happier if it didn't exist at all.

The only other emplacements I can think of are MG nests and Howies (RIP 20mm flak), both of which are common in the right matchups. While I completely agree that brace requires no skill, it is supposed to be a retreat button for a unit that can't move, and in this way it is trying to be COH. I don't think the brace button is sufficiently COH-like, this should have been a warning to the designer of the unit, and I don't think emplacement play should ever exist because it's lazy.

Brace should be addressed and maybe part of that is reducing flame damage against emplacements but removing brace and maybe forcing some emplacements to be garrisoned to be useful. Don't know, that is something that I need more time to think about.


Brace could be removed but there would be a couple of other changes that would probably need to be made to keep balance.

1) AT rounds should do, at most, 1/4 of their current damage. Rounds from something like a Brumbar (sp?) should do full damage.
2) Flame should be toned down to about 1/2 their current damage.
3) Small arms fire should affect emplacements, even if very slowly like when attacking a cache.
4) Depending on how much coding would be involved, make the crew separate from the weapon. If a player doesn't support an emplacement, it could be decrewed and used against them.


On a slightly different subject, there is a change that I think would help make UKF trenches more fair and a better game mechanic. Allow an engineer with a hazard removal package to remove them in 30-45 seconds. This way overly aggressive trenches are no longer rewarded, especially in early game where there is no easy way to counter them.
7 Apr 2017, 15:16 PM
#188
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954

nerfed the command panther to ground...why are we paying for extra fuel and manpower also its so difficult for it to get to vet 5 and yet you are nerfing the reward....why not just revert all the changes except mutual kt/jadg exlcusivity and just tie the command panther to teching to t4


It still has marked target and the aura still affects vehicles. I haven't tried it in the GCS but think it's probably still worth it.

I like having the command panther not tied into teching. When playing 3's or 4's and facing two or more UKF, I often go double Stukas which is a lot of fuel. I don't have a good counter to the inevitable Comet until the command panther is out, and no good counter to multiple mortar pits without the Stuka.
7 Apr 2017, 16:07 PM
#189
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1

Er, so does this mean that OKW Thorough Salvage now gives more resources - or just fixing Allied Salvage Values?
7 Apr 2017, 16:15 PM
#190
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1



Brace should be addressed and maybe part of that is reducing flame damage against emplacements but removing brace and maybe forcing some emplacements to be garrisoned to be useful. Don't know, that is something that I need more time to think about.


What if you had to have a Garrisoned Unit in order to have a full effect Brace on multiple emplacements (either Strength or Duration) - this cuts down on Sim City cheese because you need to actually build other units to fullly utilize Brace and adds an actual element of Micro to Sim Cities.
7 Apr 2017, 19:59 PM
#191
avatar of Osinyagov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 1389 | Subs: 1

Version 1.2

https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/comment/267673#Comment_267673

7 Apr 2017, 20:15 PM
#192
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1

Interesting change to the M10, it will be nice when it's used as a TD to plink away at enemy armor and try to flank, instead of running around like a lawn-mower on the Krauts.
7 Apr 2017, 20:17 PM
#193
avatar of miragefla
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13

Do note on the M10, which we might be polling at some point, is to return it to its current stats and instead, just outright remove human crush so it maintains its current mobility while losing the lawnmower effect.
7 Apr 2017, 20:31 PM
#194
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

I have tested it further, for another 4 hours, and the Soviet M4C Sherman call in cooldown is too long at 2:30 minutes. It needs to be 2:00 minutes.

As for the added changes in 1.1 and 1.2: :thumb:
7 Apr 2017, 20:43 PM
#195
avatar of DonnieChan

Posts: 2272 | Subs: 1




M10

Chassis rotation rate reduced from 38 to 32




That's the reason Devm will lose

I guarantee it. mark my words
7 Apr 2017, 20:53 PM
#196
avatar of vasa1719

Posts: 2635 | Subs: 4

Permanently Banned





That's the reason Devm will lose

I guarantee it. mark my words


Why ?
7 Apr 2017, 20:54 PM
#197
avatar of capiqua
Senior Mapmaker Badge

Posts: 985 | Subs: 2

UKF
Air Resupply Operation (Tactical Support Regiment)

We find that the mechanics behind how this ability works are not very clear, and players will often fail to make use of the ability properly.

In the live version, for the supply drop to occur, infantry squads need to be present, or enter the highlighted sector. If no infantry squads enters the highlight sector, the ability will cancel with no refund.

To make the ability more straightforward, we are changing it as follows:

The ability can only target captured territory/fuel/munitions points (not victory points).
The airplanes are dispatched immediately, and the supply drop happens at the capture point.



Already have an idea for fix Supply Drop :clap:


esdit: wehr sov
7 Apr 2017, 23:32 PM
#198
avatar of Doggo

Posts: 148

Wouldn't mind touching up some of the Brit stuff that is under-performing. Such as IS, Valentine, Sexton, and especially Churchills (all variants with base version needing it the most) with these all these nerf's that is happening. Or is that #OutOfScope? I don't feel nerf-only balance strategies work to balance factions.
7 Apr 2017, 23:46 PM
#199
avatar of Retief

Posts: 28

My worry with the m10 changes is the m10's crushing is a major part of it's value. Nerf it or take it away and the m10 becomes a lot weaker. I agree that the m10 really shouldn't be a crushing vehicle first and a td second, but if you take away half of it's value, you should probably compensate it in some way.
8 Apr 2017, 00:17 AM
#200
avatar of Hater

Posts: 493

M10 ... potency to crush squads.

Remove it? :snfPeter: I'm silent about Cromsteamrollwell now, but on dedicated antitank it's just ridiculous.
PAGES (20)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

866 users are online: 866 guests
1 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
36 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48939
Welcome our newest member, Ellmjnhiem
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM