Login

russian armor

Eastern Front Armies Revamp

PAGES (56)down
21 May 2017, 20:40 PM
#101
avatar of spajn
Donator 11

Posts: 927

In lategame noone cares about medium tanks, its all about killing Heavy tanks and with stugs being worthless against heavy tanks and are supposed to be used as a kamikaze vehichle if you even want to do damage then you will kill stug-g forever... why waste fuel in a vehicle that becomes useless as the game goes on?

The problem with wehrmacht is their squishy 4 man squads gets wiped to explosive damage, either put a buff on them that they recieve less explosive damge or give them a fifth man researchable upgrade in T4.
21 May 2017, 21:18 PM
#102
avatar of Kasarov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 422 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2017, 14:07 PMVipper


This more a historical than a balance comment. The elephant was using a high velocity gun and luck the elevation to fire barrages, thus a HE explosive barrage seems very unrealistic.

On the other hand the 88s (not sure if anyone tried with Elephant)where used in an AI Role but differently. Since the where AA munition with a timer to create AA barrage walls the same munition was used versus soft targets. The trick was to aim above the intended target and have the shell explode above it.

So one could implement a version of the UKF air-bust shells for the Elephant and it will a bit more realistic and unique.


IIRC The Flak used a shell with a much shorter casing compared to the Pak. Pak43s were indeed capable of firing HE shells although I agree that they should function much like the Jagdtiger barrage's linear ballistic path for consistency's sake. However, knowing that WFA rework is planned, they will likely change Jagdtiger's barrage to an arcing path too.
21 May 2017, 21:34 PM
#103
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2017, 21:18 PMKasarov


IIRC The Flak used a shell with a much shorter casing compared to the Pak. Pak43s were indeed capable of firing HE shells although I agree that they should function much like the Jagdtiger barrage's linear ballistic path for consistency's sake. However, knowing that WFA rework is planned, they will likely change Jagdtiger's barrage to an arcing path too.

The timer was on the fuse not shell and it was used on HE shells for both air and ground targets.

I have no info is Elephant where equipped with HE rounds but it seem probable since they where used against soft targets also.

Anyway replacing the barrage shell with air-bust shell seem rather cool imo.
21 May 2017, 22:56 PM
#104
avatar of rush

Posts: 341

Trying to balance EFA seperatly is not the way to go .
Ostheer vs Soviets is currently the most balanced matchup there is .
All factions should be reworked at the same time.
21 May 2017, 23:13 PM
#105
avatar of Array
Donator 11

Posts: 609

jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2017, 22:56 PMrush
Trying to balance EFA seperatly is not the way to go .
Ostheer vs Soviets is currently the most balanced matchup there is .
All factions should be reworked at the same time.



The fact that they are the most balanced makes them the easiest to re-work. They then become the reference to balance the other factions. Of course it's not just about balance it's about cheese and promoting skillful fun gameplay.
21 May 2017, 23:42 PM
#106
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072



I understand your concerns about changes making OST Doctrinal smoke worse than other factions' smoke. However:
- Soviets don't have any similar ability
- Similar smoke abilities will be nerfed to OST Smoke level once we know where OST Smoke should be (otherwise it's a pain keeping everything updated with each other)

Here, we're trying to establish what the baseline should be. Once we have the baseline we will adjust the other factions around it.

Do note that the majority of OST tanks received either minor or major buffs. You don't need an OP ability on top of that.

We could make OST smoke a targeted ability (to be used offensively). However that would require time to implement.

For the PWerfer we'll have to see. My gut feeling is that people won't bother with it in 1v1s unless it can wipe. Even though the Katyusha is balanced for Soviets, OST would never have a use for a Katyusha.

My gut feeling is that getting rid of insta-suppression will allow a squad to dodge to the side of a barrage, if the player reacts fast enough. Current barrage means you lose control over the squad altogether.

At the same time, suppression isn't that useful in 1v1's either. You just wasted a long barrage just to potentially scare a squad back to base? I wouldn't build a PWerfer for that.

If the barrage remains problematic, sure, we can add a tiny delay between groups of rockets. e.g., making the PWerfer unload in 2 volleys separated by 0.5 secs each

I could be wrong, however. That's why we're testing that idea.


For panzer Tactician I just think the delay is much to long for a doctrinal defensive ability. Just because soviets don't have smoke doesn't mean you should nerf ostheer doctrinal smoke. That's like saying you should nerf hit the dirt because Ostheer doesn't have it. I understand it's still in development and can be tweaked. Just giving my input.

You saying the majority of ostheer tanks got a minor or major buff?
-ostwind buff
-p4 buff
-stug nerf
-panther changes but not really a big buff. It's vet 2 is what made it viable and now it's been nerfed and made more inaccessible
-brummbar nerf/change (haven't been able to test it yet)
It's pretty accross the board here

The biggest change I disagree with here is the stug nerf. It's already a very squishy unit with its lower health and turret. I can't come to a conclusion yet since I haven't tried it but it's already a squishy unit that relys on either smoke for preserving (now you want it nerfed) or scopes to use its full 50 range (also nerfed). I think stug is gonna be taking a wrong turn with this patch. Stug has a number of unique problems which I think justifies it's performance.

On the other hand, I like the concept of transitioning from medium to late game armor, I just think it's a bit too forced now. Perhaps giving it a bit more pen that you propose? After this patch ost will get wrecked by Croc :( although you wanna change that too I hear.

Again, I think the Pwerfer changes are just going in the wrong direction. Glad you're open to discussing it though :)
22 May 2017, 02:00 AM
#107
avatar of ClassyDavid

Posts: 424 | Subs: 2

Like all these changes presented. It's about time both OST doctrinal smoke and Mark Target have got some nerfs. Looking forward to further changes.
22 May 2017, 02:05 AM
#108
avatar of miragefla
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13

jump backJump back to quoted post21 May 2017, 13:33 PMButcher
That won´t fix the Panther. Currently for most medium tanks it needs 4 shots (4 x 160 = 640).

Now it will still require the same amount of shots (3 x 200 = 600 = Not enough to finish mediums). I know you want to keep it performing the same as it currently is versus medium tanks... but its horrible performance versus mediums is what makes it currently shit in the first place.

Thus the 40 more damage are a pseudo buff without real effect in most cases.

The nerfed veterancy is a huge nerf. Vet2 was the only savign grace the Panther had. Now even weaker.

Still useless versus infantry.


The intention for the damage was to point the Panther towards killing heavier vehicles and anything not 640-based, not its counters such as tank destroyers unless it's flanking or slugging it out at shorter-range. Units like the T-34/85, Comet and E8 will now get killed in 4 shots vs 5. IS-2s require 6 from 7.

Furthermore, its upped damage makes it more lethal to light tanks which it now two shots, and units like M10s will get 3 shotted from 4. So facing multiple SU-76s, you can send a Panther in to clear them out, especially with the changes.

We're likely going to up its accurate further down to line to ensure the Panther won't miss targets except at extreme ranges when stationary to help offset its long reload. Additional Ostheer tech changes could also be inbound which would indirectly help the tank.

If you're fighting standard bog-stock mediums, use the Stug G whose health is the same as mediums if shot at by 160 damage sources while being able to quickly DPS them down as it still maintains its high rate of fire. It's only when other damage models come it does it go down faster. When dealing with heavies you either need to transition or you can go with numbers and hope to kill them with raw ROF. There's also getting the Stug G in closer to pen heavier vehicles at short-ranges. Dangerous, but it has that ability.
22 May 2017, 03:06 AM
#109
avatar of Ramps

Posts: 99

Just my 2 cents, but why don't you "nerf" all tank destroyers visibility on the move and give it a full sight when stationary, that way when you try and counter stugs with spotting scopes, fireflies with extra vision, the recently m36 jackson, etc, they have a risk when over extending and you leave that job to the t34's, sherman easy eights and all medium tanks. In this sense tank destroyers function as a sniping unit not a flanker or a tanker, that way you are more exposed to an infantry flank, and so on. I just think that this way you promote "combined armored assaults".
22 May 2017, 03:33 AM
#110
avatar of Waegukin

Posts: 609

Okay, so I've got two more concerns with the Soviets so far.

1) AI Partisans feel really meh right now. While I do like that they're good ambush troops rather than quick-click wipers, they really struggle after that first engagement. Maybe have them spawn with the current four men and allow them to reinforce up to six?

2) The FHQ is pretty meh as well. Personally, I heavily prefer the M5 over this thing now. I don't think it needs anything crazy to be worthwhile, probably just some minor Accuracy and/or RA for the owner's infantry would be enough to give it some use over a reinforce halftrack. While its a bit of a stretch, having is as a produced building rather than an upgrade for ambient buildings would also be a nice way to make it less map dependent and give some counter-play as the engineers are assembling it. Same could theoretically apply to the British Arty HQ down the line.

I haven't really tested Ost thoroughly yet, but playing Storm doc without feeling like I just shot myself in the foot is the most fun I've had in CoH2 for a long time.
22 May 2017, 04:55 AM
#111
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072



The intention for the damage was to point the Panther towards killing heavier vehicles and anything not 640-based, not its counters such as tank destroyers unless it's flanking or slugging it out at shorter-range. Units like the T-34/85, Comet and E8 will now get killed in 4 shots vs 5. IS-2s require 6 from 7.

Furthermore, its upped damage makes it more lethal to light tanks which it now two shots, and units like M10s will get 3 shotted from 4. So facing multiple SU-76s, you can send a Panther in to clear them out, especially with the changes.

We're likely going to up its accurate further down to line to ensure the Panther won't miss targets except at extreme ranges when stationary to help offset its long reload. Additional Ostheer tech changes could also be inbound which would indirectly help the tank.

If you're fighting standard bog-stock mediums, use the Stug G whose health is the same as mediums if shot at by 160 damage sources while being able to quickly DPS them down as it still maintains its high rate of fire. It's only when other damage models come it does it go down faster. When dealing with heavies you either need to transition or you can go with numbers and hope to kill them with raw ROF. There's also getting the Stug G in closer to pen heavier vehicles at short-ranges. Dangerous, but it has that ability.


I think your reasoning is spot on. Relic even emphasized the transition from medium to late game armor and this certainly promotes that. I think the reason people don't like the pen nerf is because it's been ostheers only hope vs heavy tanks in the past since the panther was so lackluster and p4 couldn't pen. The stug nerf only fits because you buffed the Panthers DPS. Great change imo. The other problem that ostheer has is mostly a team game problem and that being a lack of a long range TD with 60 range. The reason you see elephants a lot in team games is because the stug gets killed to fast by enemy TDs for its ROF to have any effect.

The only problem I still think exists regarding the stug is how fast it goes down to allied TDs. 3 hits from Jackson or FF and it's gone. Combine that with the range difference and you it just becomes too squishy. Perhaps the change to the panther will offset this but we'll see.
22 May 2017, 04:56 AM
#112
avatar of miragefla
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13

Okay, so I've got two more concerns with the Soviets so far.

1) AI Partisans feel really meh right now. While I do like that they're good ambush troops rather than quick-click wipers, they really struggle after that first engagement. Maybe have them spawn with the current four men and allow them to reinforce up to six?

2) The FHQ is pretty meh as well. Personally, I heavily prefer the M5 over this thing now. I don't think it needs anything crazy to be worthwhile, probably just some minor Accuracy and/or RA for the owner's infantry would be enough to give it some use over a reinforce halftrack. While its a bit of a stretch, having is as a produced building rather than an upgrade for ambient buildings would also be a nice way to make it less map dependent and give some counter-play as the engineers are assembling it. Same could theoretically apply to the British Arty HQ down the line.

I haven't really tested Ost thoroughly yet, but playing Storm doc without feeling like I just shot myself in the foot is the most fun I've had in CoH2 for a long time.


1. Likely that more focus will be put on their infiltration, scout and harassment role such as LOS or additional goodies to their bag of tricks. It'll make them a unit that can fight, but generally is best left doing other things while real soldiers do the fighting.

2. I have thought about a building that would be added, not sure on the others, the question is, what model would suit a FHQ? Not a lot of selection without looking like an ambient building. Maybe someone would like to toss a building out there that engineers could assemble? I do want this commander to be less map dependant rather than reliant on there being a house on the map.

22 May 2017, 05:03 AM
#113
avatar of Waegukin

Posts: 609


-Snip-


1) More utility sounds like a good idea, definitely suits them.

2) Are there limitations to the flag animators for the HQ? Because if not, maybe you could use concrete bunkers or the Coh1 mortar bunker (I think its still in the files?) with the animator flags attached to it?
22 May 2017, 06:56 AM
#114
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


120mm Heavy Mortar
We are reducing the survivability of the 120mm due to its role as a heavy support mortar while reducing its high population to match its performance.

-Popcap to from 10 to 8
-Crew size from 6 men to 5 men

Increase the number of minimum crew to 2 as all other mortars.
22 May 2017, 07:17 AM
#115
avatar of Selvy289

Posts: 366

After playing around with the elefant and panther a little longer, why would you go tier 4 and just get a panther rather than the elefant? Its strange to me because your making the panther a advance medium/heavy hunter when its the elefants (while being more of a area denial) mainly due to the mobility the panther has.

What seals the deal is the 'premium' price for call-ins, with the new panther just seems more practical than the elefant once you hit tier 4.

And again, the elefant pop is also 20.

Edit: until you reach tier 4, the elefant cost 900 manpower and 306 fuel.

22 May 2017, 07:42 AM
#116
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


SU 76

We find the SU76 overperforming vs late-game axis armour. To give SU-85 and SU-76 more clearly-defined roles, the SU-76 now receives accuracy improvements (to help it vs medium tanks, where SU-85 is lacklustre), and penetration reduction to reduce its performance vs heavy tanks (where the SU-85 excels).

To keep SU-76 relevant for the late-game we are improving the performance of its HE barrage.

-Accuracy from 0.05/0.035/0.025 to 0.06/0.05/0.04
-Penetration to 200/175/150(140?)
-Barrage mid distance to 3
-Barrage mid AOE from 0.15 to 0.2


Accuracy 0.04 at range 60 is too high for a TD. It gives them 104% chance to score a "clear hit" at Tiger at that range. Chance to score a hit at that range without collision should be down to around 90%.

I would further more suggest greatly lowering or completely removing the moving accuracy penalties from turretless TDs (and flanking TDS or even all) since they have to move in most cases to avoid being flanked and readjust accuracy.
22 May 2017, 07:50 AM
#117
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Ram (bugfix)
-Now shocks the enemy crew also if it penetrates (i.e., not just on deflection)

Changes to Ram imo should include:
1) Remove engine overheat or make it consistently happen at the max range of ability

2) Heavy crush during ability to avoid random cancel of ability

3) Ability now is skill shot instead of having to aim at target

4) ability now scales with veterancy
22 May 2017, 08:01 AM
#118
avatar of spajn
Donator 11

Posts: 927

I also think Heavy tanks especially the Tiger is too weak to be used as a Heavy tank, nearly every AT gun constantly pen it and it doesn't have HP enough to be breakthrough tank, I suggest increasing its health and lowering its speed slightly and lower its acceleration even more. All Heavy tanks accelerates way too quickly which means they would be OP with more health.
22 May 2017, 08:37 AM
#119
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 951

First of all, great work! I enjoy seeing balance patches like this, and I agree with the majority of the changes.

A side note, I'd rather see multiple patches working on specific areas. For example, Infantry Balance 1st and 2nd patch, Vehicle Balance 3rd and 4th patch, Commander Balance 5th and 6th patch, wrap-up 7th patch, all distributed over the course of 7 weeks. What I'm saying is, I'd like to see smaller, incremental changes to the game rather than one massive patch that moves the game to CoH 2.5.

On another note, here is a long list of issues I have with this revamp:

SU

- Conscripts. Completely over-engineered in my opinion. Simply giving them a weapon upgrade when T4 is built, and toning down their received accuracy at Vet 3 (more damage, less survivability) would help them reach the same effect: better scaling into late game.
- M3A1 Scout Car. I agree with the mobility and survivability buffs that help it scale into late game, but the health and armor increase will make it terrifying to deal with as OKW.
- Guards. Also an over-engineered revamp. Keep the 360MP cost and the new grenade, revert everything else (PTRS damage, veterancy scaling) state.
- Partisans. Infiltration units were cheesy because of their grenades that could instantly wipe a team weapon/squad or snare a light vehicle. Just the popcap/reinforcement cost adjustments and the grenade cooldown on spawn is enough.
- Mark Target. I welcome counterplay, but both nerfs combined make it too weak. Keep one or the other; personally I'd just give it a 5-second delay until activation (because of the abundant AA capabilities OKW gets).
- B4. Howitzers are mainly used to destroy static positions (OKW HQs, PaKs and leFHs) so counter-play by allowing your enemies to move is odd from my point of view.
- Forward Headquarters. Now this is far too underwhelming. It was fine before because it had clear counter-play (indirect fire to bring the HQ down), I don't quite understand the need to alter it.

WM

-Panzergrenadier Mark Target. Medkits were fine and allowed a player to play aggressively: reinforce via halftracks and heal without needing to run back to base. The new Vet 1 ability only works as an anti-vehicle tool, but often times Panzergrenadiers are used for their anti-infantry power. An unnecessary change from my point of view.
- WM Tier 4. I disagree with the change to WM teching, because it forces players into a fixed tech route. To make T4 accessible after building T3, AND keeping the option of skipping T3 for T4 open, make it so WM Tier 4 requires EITHER T3 Built or BP3 researched. (Also make it so BP3 is automatically researched when T4 is built).
- Tiger Ace. This unit was cheesy because it had no fuel requirement and no tech penalty. Now that it has both, I don't see a need to keep the resource penalty; it's now a one-off, very powerful (and very expensive) unit. Perhaps increase the fuel cost to 260 as well.
- Spotting Scopes. Could you elaborate on how it might create issues for revamped-WM late game? I'm interested in how a 3.5 second activation delay is necessary.
- Panzer Tactician. This ability already requires a munitions cost, and can be easily counter-played through the use of attack ground. I don't see the need to add a 2.5 second activation delay.
22 May 2017, 08:38 AM
#120
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072

Is there a reason why the SU 76 has higher penetration than the stug with these changes? It already has more range and AI capabilities and the stugs vet1 ability is useless now.
PAGES (56)down
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

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

384 users are online: 384 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49062
Welcome our newest member, Mclatc16
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM