Eastern Front Armies Revamp
Posts: 1217
Currently the meta is 90% of Allied vehicles lategame are medium tanks (US Sherman, T-34/76, Cromwells, Lend lease Shermans).
- StuG penetration nerf which ultimately also nerfs performance vs mediums
- Panther Vet nerf with a slight gun buff that doesn't improve performance versus mediums
- Target weakpoint nerf on Paks
- Brummbär penetration nerf
- Elefant nerf versus medium tanks
How is that supposed to fix Ostheers terrible state?
Add to that that you are now forced to go Tier 3 for Tier 4 and that the Tiger at leaast recieved a small buff and you will end up with Panzer IV meta into Tiger as only viable option. Still the lategame will be even more tilted towards medium tank abuse of the Allies. GG EZ.
My prediciton: More and more Lend lease Sherman and Cromwell spam.
Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13
Ostheer already can't compete lategame. This patch will make it worse:
Currently the meta is 90% of Allied vehicles lategame are medium tanks (US Sherman, T-34/76, Cromwells, Lend lease Shermans).
- StuG penetration nerf which ultimately also nerfs performance vs mediums
- Panther Vet nerf with a slight gun buff that doesn't improve performance versus mediums
- Target weakpoint nerf on Paks
- Brummbär penetration nerf
- Elefant nerf versus medium tanks
How is that supposed to fix Ostheers terrible state?
Add to that that you are now forced to go Tier 3 for Tier 4 and that the Tiger at leaast recieved a small buff and you will end up with Panzer IV meta into Tiger as only viable option. Still the lategame will be even more tilted towards medium tank abuse of the Allies. GG EZ.
My prediciton: More and more Lend lease Sherman and Cromwell spam.
Have you looked at the later patch notes where T4 has gone down significantly in price and you no longer need T3 or the fact we're focusing on EFA at this point, not WFA or Brits?
Note the Panther will also vet up faster with the damage increase and will hit mediums more easily in standard tank engagement ranges.
Brummbar still deals deflection on hit. PIV now has the pen advantage at range which is coupled with its stronger armour (180 vs 160 of most Allied mediums), the Stug G will pen Allied tanks 87.5% of the time at max range which quickly goes to auto-penetration the closer you get to the Stug G.
Edit:
We're releasing 1.5 early to help with some performance bugs that have been experienced.
V1.5 Notes
Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4
It also makes it even more punishing to damage tanks without fully destroying them, which I think unnecessarily buffs the aggressor.
Better to make engineers get extra xp from sweeping mines. Impossible to exploit that, and gives your opponent some counterplay.
Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17
Allowing engineers to get vet by repairing is incredibly exploitable, just park a tank in base and shoot it a few times, rinse, and repeat. Either the extra xp will be so low that nobody gives a shit, or you will 100% get farming.
You gain about half a level worth of XP for repairing a T-34 to full. Maybe it's too little, maybe it's enough; we will see.
By doing what you describe, you're tying down an engineer (that could be spending that time planting/sweeping mines) and a tank, that could be bleeding your opponent, for a potential +60% repair speed bonus at Vet2.
A better approach would be just buy a 2nd engineer, and now you have more pairs of hands to do more sweeping/planting.
It also makes it even more punishing to damage tanks without fully destroying them, which I think unnecessarily buffs the aggressor.
Maybe. However, I don't think it's a bad thing to reward aggression and promote risk-taking.
Better to make engineers get extra xp from sweeping mines. Impossible to exploit that, and gives your opponent some counterplay.
This is way too situational. There is also no way that you will ever be able to gain veterancy when playing vs USF (I know this is an EFA-only mod; but I don't think we will be adding stuff that's not there, when we go to other factions).
Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4
This is way too situational. There is also no way that you will ever be able to gain veterancy when playing vs USF (I know this is an EFA-only mod; but I don't think we will be adding stuff that's not there, when we go to other factions).
Thing is, if they don't plant mines you don't need to buy a sweeper. pios without sweepers are decent enough in a fight to get to vet 2 normally, and especially with flamethrower. I thought the point of the change was to help sweeper engis?
If not that, I really don't see the point in making the change. Without sweepers they vet up fast enough where this is unnecessary, and with sweepers clearing mines is much more simple and less exploitable.
Posts: 3053
Allowing engineers to get vet by repairing is incredibly exploitable, just park a tank in base and shoot it a few times, rinse, and repeat. Either the extra xp will be so low that nobody gives a shit, or you will 100% get farming.
It also makes it even more punishing to damage tanks without fully destroying them, which I think unnecessarily buffs the aggressor.
Better to make engineers get extra xp from sweeping mines. Impossible to exploit that, and gives your opponent some counterplay.
What if sturmpios had this too? Kubelspam would create unstoppable SS nazi death commando monsters (vet3-5 sturms in early game) in about 5 minutes of near-death kubels being repaired by a single sturm squad.
Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17
Thing is, if they don't plant mines you don't need to buy a sweeper. pios without sweepers are decent enough in a fight to get to vet 2 normally, and especially with flamethrower. I thought the point of the change was to help sweeper engis?
If not that, I really don't see the point in making the change. Without sweepers they vet up fast enough where this is unnecessary, and with sweepers clearing mines is much more simple and less exploitable.
With that change, an unprotected mine will not only result in loss of munitions to you, but also a gain in strength for your opponent (given that successful minesweeping doesn't happen very frequently, the bonus should be significant).
This might completely change the mineplanting metagame. Since there's nothing wrong about the mineplanting game currently, I don't find any good reason to penalise this.
Repairing, on the other hand, happens very regularly (unless tank preservation is potato-level). If the bonuses are too high or too low, we can always adjust them.
Plus, I have no idea if it is even possible to make it so that sweeping awards XP.
The primary purpose of this change is to allow late-comer engineer squads to have a snowball's chance in hell to catch up. That way, if you've somehow lost your vet2 flamer squad, you won't be left too far behind by your enemy (which could be an EFA faction or a WFA faction).
Posts: 593
Posts: 3053
penals cooldown are u kidding me? and things like grenadier with g42 wipe the hell out of things and pgrens are wiping machines? penals dont need another nerf they already are manpower sinks. all these ppl complaining about penals like they are op theres nothing wrong with them. i dont like this change at all. then u change grens to 6 pop on top of that to make it even worse. if it was only the gren pop decrease fine but added with penal chase nerf thats horrible. do the same to grenadiers then if u going to do it to penals its not fair. buying penals makes u go inf killing only not like the sticky satchel ever work or anyone wants to get ptrs...
Penals are ok, they're mostly just boring to me. They're like riflemen with practically no utility in my mind. The thing about grens is that their veterancy is kind of wonky though. No combat bonuses at vet1, +40% accuracy at vet2, but no survivability buffs, then they get all around better at vet3. Their vet does skyrocket once they get lmg42s though, so it's not a huge issue. The pop decrease only really matters in the very late game though, and by that time grens are less powerful than, say, rifles or tommies (double upgrades) and are also more to reinforce and a smaller squad size.
Posts: 94
-Addressed several issues that may have been causing performance degradation in the mod
What sort of things cause performance degradation? Anything that other modders should worry about?
Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17
What sort of things cause performance degradation? Anything that other modders should worry about?
We were experiencing some high CPU utilization for some reason. Although we haven't figured out what exactly it was, we've started reimplementing things in a sane way, and see if that smacks it.
There were a ton of unneeded requirement actions (which we eliminated by working around the issues in other ways).
There is also another sub-feature which adjusts the popcap of captured MGs/AT guns etc, depending on whether it's Soviets (6-men) operating the weapon, or if it's somebody else.
For the latter, to work, the affected weapon-team squad spawns an invisible entity that adjusts the popcap. For v1.5 I've removed all extensions from the entity except for popcap.
Although the popcap-adjustment feature can be implemented in a more efficient way (e.g., recrew_ext in the ebps), we still feel we want to trial the system this way. This is because we will have to reuse this when it's time to fix USF popcap.
Posts: 593
Posts: 930
what about giving exp to mine kills, tank dmg trip flares ect for engis?
I don't know if it is possible to do that. At least I heard this was impossible on vCoH.
and giving xp for sweeping mines would be good against the S-mines spam cheese.
Posts: 593
Posts: 424 | Subs: 2
snip
Being able to gain EXP from repairing is against what veterancy is suppose meant to be, a way to reward people who use tactics, strategy, and skill to earn it. There should be no reward to repair a vehicle as there's no risk or thought as it really does take quite a bit not to lose a tank unless it's a light vehicle that can be two shotted. Losing any squad and it's vet should be punishing and I understand you want to try and give the player who lost their engineers a chance to earn back again. However, CoH2 is all about unit preservation and wiping a vetted up engineer unit should be rewarding against a player who has any armor force in not just manpower lost but the veterancy associated with that engineer unit.
On the matter of the mining, if and only if it's possible and the team decides to pursue the idea of minesweeping rewarding EXP, it could work and add more depth to it mines. It's good someone is laying down mines but if someone over commits to it then not just they lose munitions but giving the enemy squad EXP which is good for RE, Pio, and Combat Engies who posses weak combat power. After all against a competent player who lays down frequent mines, it already slows down the opposing player who has to not only send a mine sweeping squad over lest he lose manpower, a engine damage, or even a squad. This is more toward OKW, Soviets, and the Brits as these factions seem to float more munitions then Osteer and USF.
Posts: 424 | Subs: 2
This is way too situational. There is also no way that you will ever be able to gain veterancy when playing vs USF (I know this is an EFA-only mod; but I don't think we will be adding stuff that's not there, when we go to other factions).
What about me
Posts: 6
Posts: 299
OST call-ins:
We have removed several units from call-in tech as they no longer have drastic impact on the game while the Ostheer heavy tanks have been moved to BP 3 as for their call-in reduction bonus, rather than T4 to make them more accessible.
-Command Panzer IV cost reduction now requires either T3 built OR BP 3 researched
-Tiger/Tiger Ace/Elefant cost reduction now only requires BP 3 researched
-All other call-ins decoupled from tech
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE CALL IN META MUST DIE!
Having units like the stug-e not covered under the 25% more cost is bad. Call-ins are picked because they are more cost effective. the reason units like the stug-e and puma aren't seen as much anymore is because of the allies call-ins outclassing them (particularly they lend-lease Shermans), you take those away and that is no longer the case. I can understand units like the mortar half-track not being under this and in general light vehicle call-ins should be exempt or have super low requirements like buildings you're going to build anyway or start the game with.
Stug-e's aren't that far out of the meta and with these changes would easily make its way back in.
With the 25% more cost players have a choice, they can still do call-ins but they will no longer be as cost-effective compared to tech. The problem right now is call-ins are almost always the better choice, you save money and often get a better unit too.
If the problem is a unit isn't that good otherwise then make changes to the unit to make it viable, but plz don't start taking vehicles likes the stug-e out of the 25% cost. Make the player have to make a decision. (Do I tech or do I spend 325mp and 94 fuel for a stug-e?) If a player needs a unit to make a comeback and can't afford 65 mp 24 fuel more then they deserve to lose, making mistakes should mean something... far too often it doesn't with call-ins...
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
1- USF will take no benefice from it.
2- OKW and their Sturmpio and KT will take 500% benefice from it. It is already a pain to take down a TK but now if it can escape with 10% of life, you'll see two ST vet5 pop in no time thanks to their repair ability and holster their sweepers to be 100% effective on the BF.
On a general view, even exluding WFA armies I don't see any good reasons to promote XP on repairing. Another idea would be to give all Engineers the holster so we can sweep and repair faster and also be effective on the BF when you need it.
Call-in meta. Removing units from the call-in tech means you'll also need to remove their counter from it. You can just spam 2 or 3 Stug-e and get your opponent spending all his economy just to have the appropriate counter which is, in most cases, a call-in as well.
Posts: 345
You gain about half a level worth of XP for repairing a T-34 to full. Maybe it's too little, maybe it's enough; we will see.
By doing what you describe, you're tying down an engineer (that could be spending that time planting/sweeping mines) and a tank, that could be bleeding your opponent, for a potential +60% repair speed bonus at Vet2.
A better approach would be just buy a 2nd engineer, and now you have more pairs of hands to do more sweeping/planting.
yeah, and now that you got two engies, why not farm them to vet 3???? you know...always is better 4 vet3 hands that 4 vet0 hands....
Maybe. However, I don't think it's a bad thing to reward aggression and promote risk-taking.
How is risking retreating a half damaged tank that never was overstended and that it takas some damage that will reward his own repair unit with some extra XP when repairing the damaged tank??? Because you want to reward risking, you give XP to the player risking his units to finish a damaged tank, and that is what the game actually does, not the other way around.....
This is way too situational. There is also no way that you will ever be able to gain veterancy when playing vs USF (I know this is an EFA-only mod; but I don't think we will be adding stuff that's not there, when we go to other factions).
Problem being here USF not having infantry squads able to plant mines as other factions...so you want to fix the problem, not the side effect...
Livestreams
69 | |||||
21 | |||||
2 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.483190.718-1
- 4.587233.716+3
- 5.1095612.641+19
- 6.891399.691+1
- 7.280162.633+8
- 8.1004649.607+5
- 9.304113.729+4
- 10.379114.769+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
7 posts in the last week
25 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, CozyThemes
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM