Login

russian armor

Eastern Front Armies Revamp

PAGES (56)down
22 May 2017, 08:53 AM
#121
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


We are reducing the shock value of AT partisans. At the samet ime, we are fixing many long-standing issues with the unit to make it more sustainable in the long-run.

-Now spawn with no panzerschreck (need to buy the weapon for 70MU)
-Population cap reduced from 8 to 7
-Reinforcement cost reduced from 35 to 27
-Reinforcement time reduced from 7 secs to 5 secs per model
-Spawn with AT grenade on cooldown

AI Partisans
We are fixing multiple long-standing issues with the unit due to the nature of the unit’s ability to infiltrate.

-Spawn with rifles (need to buy PPSH upgrade for 40MU)
-Spawn with grenade on cooldown
-Population cap increased from 4 to 6
-Reinforcement cost increased from 25 to 27

Spawn units:
1) Normalize a premium for using spawn from ambient buildings
2) allow units to built from base for no premium

AT partisan:
1) Remove the penetration buff with veterancy shreck should not be better at the hands of Partisan.

Partisan
2) Remove explosive grenade allow molotov with not tech. Being blown up from units that can move while cloak is not fun.

PPsh upgrade for 4 men squad does not make allot of sense. Either spawn them with 4 but allow to upgrade to 6 or give them lmgs.

Partisan:
Remove moving while cloaked and add a veterancy bonus
22 May 2017, 09:28 AM
#122
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

Lend-Lease Guards
To make lend-lease guards more distinct from shock troops, and also make the doctrine more thematic, we are changing Assault guards loadout.

-Now receive revamped Shocks grenade (equal to pre-nerf Guards)
-Spawn with 2 thompsons
-Can upgrade 2 additional thompsons (45MU) or a bazooka (50MU)
-The squad spawn without capes, to make them easier to distinguish from vanilla Guards

With the changes to M5 lower CP to 4 or 3 (similar to USF) or replace m5 with m3 halftruck similar to mechanized.

Allow Assault guards to be build from base once CP level reached or once the ability has been used once.

Remove trip wire and give sprint (maybe as vet ability) when Thompson has been upgraded.

Alternative have them start with SVT only (or 1 bar) and allow Bar instead of Thompson upgrade. Then you get no overlap: Shock close combat, Guards long range, Lend lease Guards mid range.

Thompson should have its DPS curved fixed as its mid DPS is way to high.
22 May 2017, 09:46 AM
#123
avatar of TheSleep3r

Posts: 670

I like most changes but the wehrmacht T4 access has become a giant, ugly clusterfuck from design's point of view. Please consider other options, battle phases are wehrmacht's unique design since vCoh.
22 May 2017, 10:45 AM
#124
avatar of Imperial Dane
Caster Badge

Posts: 1550 | Subs: 7

I like most changes but the wehrmacht T4 access has become a giant, ugly clusterfuck from design's point of view. Please consider other options, battle phases are wehrmacht's unique design since vCoh.


Problem is it is a bit outdated by now with everyone having much sleeker and efficient methods, the only other way they could make this work i think would be to add a lot of things to the heavy panzer korps to make it viable. Maybe some sort of Knights Cross Holder like unit.

One thing though, the more i think about the mark target change for the Panzergrenadiers, the more i do think it needs to be for infantry not vehicles since you could encourage shreck blobs with this, whereas making it anti-infantry .. well less efficient for that but on the other hand great for working with tanks and for flanks. Meaning it would add more for combined arms, if necessary give it that buff that the Sturm Offiziers version also gives so it isn't just willy nilly used in 1 on 1 engagements.

I'd probably also look at the Tiger Ace and either give it the penalty or the big cost, currently it seems weird with both of them and just makes it completely unplayable. Personal suggestion would still be to replace it with a King Tiger.

But i will probably be giving it a go on my stream tonight, and if anyone gets any good matches for it, feel free to send the replay to me at propagandacaster@gmail.com
22 May 2017, 11:03 AM
#125
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


IS-2
We are experimenting with giving IS-2 higher damage vs vehicles, so that it can keep up with the new Panther.

-Damage increased from 160 to 200

This damage buff actually make very little sense.

VS Tiger IS-2 has better armor better damage and less Tech cost
VS King Tiger Same armor a bit less damage less tech cost

In addition other counter like Pak and stug are nerfed.

If the Panther is meant to counter allied heavies reducing the number shot required each by one heart the Panther more than IS-2 and Panther also received a nerf.

IS-2 is fine just change the Vet 1 ability.
22 May 2017, 11:13 AM
#126
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17



I'd probably also look at the Tiger Ace and either give it the penalty or the big cost, currently it seems weird with both of them and just makes it completely unplayable. Personal suggestion would still be to replace it with a King Tiger.


Note that the penalties of the Tiger ace are no longer permanent. We basically want to make the unit less of a "shoot yourself in the foot"-tool.

The kind of variables we're looking for here are:
- Tiger Ace is, essentially, a Vet3+ Tiger that comes out instantly
- There's a period of time during which your resources are leeched (to pay for higher performance you get upfront)
- There's some initial costs involved to avoid Ace-cheese

I think we should basically just adjust initial cost & penalty duration. Feel free to drop some values.

While KT would feel like a good fit, this means we would lose out on another unit altogether.

jump backJump back to quoted post22 May 2017, 07:42 AMVipper


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.


It's completely fine that SU76 can hit Tigers. The new SU76 has 2 roles and 2 roles only:
- Be an anti-medium tank (especially vs the Stug)
- Occasionally barrage infantry

It's okay if every single shot hits the Tiger. The pre-existing issue with the SU76 was that it would also penetrate every single shot. The SU76 was also hilariously inaccurate vs mediums making it bad for that role.

If SU76 continues to cause issues, we'll just nerf its penetration further. Note that the SU76 now dies to 2 shots from the new Panther.

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.


SU76 deals 120 damage, compared to 160 damage for the Stug; also has lower HP/armour.
22 May 2017, 11:26 AM
#127
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post22 May 2017, 11:03 AMVipper

IS-2 is fine just change the Vet 1 ability.

:rofl: IS-2 fine :rofl:
22 May 2017, 11:51 AM
#128
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


It's completely fine that SU76 can hit Tigers. The new SU76 has 2 roles and 2 roles only:
- Be an anti-medium tank (especially vs the Stug)
- Occasionally barrage infantry

It's okay if every single shot hits the Tiger. The pre-existing issue with the SU76 was that it would also penetrate every single shot. The SU76 was also hilariously inaccurate vs mediums making it bad for that role.

If SU76 continues to cause issues, we'll just nerf its penetration further. Note that the SU76 now dies to 2 shots from the new Panther.

The problem is not just for the Tiger it has 88% to score a "natural hit" at range 60 vs a PZ4 and that is without collision. Even vs 222 at range 60 it has 72%. Why should one invest in light vehicles if they can be hit from max range with high changes?

The whole change to hit targets need to revised and have vehicle class impact the chance to hit.

Tds with range above 50 should not be able to hit targets with such high accuracy.
22 May 2017, 12:17 PM
#129
avatar of Imperial Dane
Caster Badge

Posts: 1550 | Subs: 7

Well if you're sticking with the current cost you've got there i'd probably look at a 25-33% income penalty, if you want the penalty higher i'd probably suggest making the Ace itself cheaper, like somewhere around a Regular Tiger's cost if not a bit lower.

Beyond that i'm not going to say too much until i get a chance to test things out and observe some matches from other people.

Because atm besides the Tiger Ace, the Guardsmen and the Mark Target for Panzergrenadiers, it's a lot harder to call a lot of the other things without actually getting to see them in action since you are implementing a lot of bigger things there.
22 May 2017, 12:44 PM
#130
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


ISU
We are experimenting with giving ISU more reliability for both its HE and its AT role.

-Now has a slow-moving projectile for the HE shots (Stug-E style)
-Popcap increased from 20 to 23
-Concrete piercing no longer collide with terrain (QoL)
-AP rounds deflection modifier increased from 0 to 0.667

The deflection damage is simply to high at 160 damage. Combined with concrete shot the unit can deliver 400 damage with very high chance of hitting and penetrating.

Suggestion:
1) Remove minimum range (or set it to very low 1-5).
2) Change concrete shot to work similarly to Pershing's shot/Tulips (arrow aim)
3) Reduce price of concrete shot to 40-50

Consider increase time to use ability.
22 May 2017, 12:50 PM
#131
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

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.


We could try giving the Elefant an HE shell that goes through a straight line and pierces everything (landscape, buildings etc). The idea for the arc is to make the ability useful in hilly terrain. We can, however, circumvent that the same way Tulips do.

Now, regarding the explosion impact effect, what effects would you use to make it look more realistic?
22 May 2017, 12:58 PM
#132
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



We could try giving the Elefant an HE shell that goes through a straight line and pierces everything (landscape, buildings etc). The idea for the arc is to make the ability useful in hilly terrain. We can, however, circumvent that the same way Tulips do.

Now, regarding the explosion impact effect, what effects would you use to make it look more realistic?

Have a high speed shell that flies diagonally upward with low angle, little arc and explodes on the air like the UKF air-bust shells.

88s where high velocity shell so the arc was far less the conventional howitzers firing low speed high angle shells.
22 May 2017, 14:25 PM
#133
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072




SU76 deals 120 damage, compared to 160 damage for the Stug; also has lower HP/armour.

And further range, self spotting, HE barrage, and is cheaper. I don't think it's fair nerfing the stugs pen so it can't pen heavies and not do the same for the SU76.
22 May 2017, 14:35 PM
#134
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17


And further range, self spotting, HE barrage, and is cheaper. I don't think it's fair nerfing the stugs pen so it can't pen heavies and not do the same for the SU76.


Penetration was already nerfed from 200/190/180 to 200/175/150. I don't understand what you're asking for.

Stug fights vs 160 armour (or less) mediums most of the time.

SU76 fights vs 180 armour(+) stuff, and it already deals reduced damage.

Try both units out in the mod, and let us know how they feel.
22 May 2017, 14:36 PM
#135
avatar of frostbite

Posts: 593

axis have more armor then allies thats why it wont make since to lower su76 pen. cuz if u do it wont pen things like panthers front ever
aaa
22 May 2017, 14:46 PM
#136
avatar of aaa

Posts: 1487

Add Maxim or other support unit to T0. With with more expensive T2.
Since engineers dont offer anything in combat early game = 1 unit type in the opening.
No?
22 May 2017, 14:55 PM
#137
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072



Penetration was already nerfed from 200/190/180 to 200/175/150. I don't understand what you're asking for.

Stug fights vs 160 armour (or less) mediums most of the time.

SU76 fights vs 180 armour(+) stuff, and it already deals reduced damage.

Try both units out in the mod, and let us know how they feel.

It just seems inconsistent that you (the balance team) don't want the stug to scale into the late game but you do seem to want the SU76 to with its barrage and better penetration. Just pointing out this inconsistency.
22 May 2017, 15:05 PM
#138
avatar of Sor Hugh

Posts: 4

My thoughts:

General:
Call-ins - the 25% cost increase seems a great way to nudge players to keep teching, while not removing completely the option for a desperate call-in if you haven't got time to tech up (need a quick counter, and are willing to pay premium for it). One thing though: When this is done it REALLY needs to be done at the same time time for all factions, not just EFA, or else the game will be hugely imbalanced until the WFA patch.

Soviet:
Conscripts - "Increase overall accuracy to allow Conscript performance to match Grenadier performance" I really have an issue with this. Sure, Conscripts are sorta irrelevant late-game, but they shouldn't be equal to Grenadiers. Grenadiers are a more expensive, regular trained unit, while Conscripts are... Conscripts. A cheap, spammable, badly trained unit. An early investment in them should give short-term benefits early-game but have less payoff in the long run. That's what Penals and Guards are there for. Conscripts should remain relevant due to abilities and doctrinal upgrades, not basic fighting strength. That's precisely where their weakness should lie.
Demo charge Don't really like this one. Yes it was OP, yes it was too punishing. But the current nerfs just make it useless. Either lower it's cost or leave it as it is, just allowing it to be spotted at short range (just so that a player who's watching his units will have time to react before entering the kill zone, but a less attentive one will still get the wipe).
M3A1 - Love the changes
Penal Battalion - Didn't feel they were op early game, given their cost. But if that's what GCS is showing ok then.
Guards Troops - I don't really get this one. You say they are underwhelming, but then make them pay for the PTRS plus restrict weapons to 2 slots (making you choose either PTRS or LMGs). How is that a buff? You get less overall! I get that PTRS diminished the AI potential of the base unit, but still that's kind of a silly "buff". If your gonna make us pay for it, either let us have both, or make us choose one but really buff both options!
DSHK - It probably had it coming, but I can't help but fear you might be overdoing it. One thing that worries me in particular is "Armour piercing now requires Vet1". This is a doctrinal call-in. You have to get 2CP, get the unit out, get it to vet-up, and only then you get it to be a good counter to vehicle rush. This may be too much for non-top level players to be able to use properly.
120mm Heavy Mortar - Changes are in a good direction, still feel it's too able to 1-hit wipe full squads.
Zis gun + SU 76 - like the idea of a more generalist feel, but fear the barrage buff might be abused. Will wait and see. Do like the idea though.
M-42 - LOVE what you're doing with it! Keep it up!
M5 - Like the changes
T-34-76 + T-34-85 - Dunno how to feel about this. I understand the reasoning, and more MP is always nice, but I fear the 10FU increase might be a tad too much. 5FU perhaps? I understand the wanting to delay the first tank, but afterwards it takes away from the spammable nature thats core to the T-34s identity. Maybe just a 5FU increase per unit+5FU increase in Mech Armor Company cost?
Partisans - I rarely use them. But if you remove both the shrek and the grenade (PPSH and Shreks needing to be purchased, and grenades starting on cool-down) what's the point of them being infiltration units? The whole point of infiltration units is to surprise your adversary with their sudden appearance. It makes for interesting play! Once again, I don't use these units too much, but I fear this indicates a larger move against infiltration mechanics in general (don't you dare take fallshrimjaeger FG42s away!:D). Also, as has been pointed, if they all start equal with just mosin-nagats and you have to upgrade them anyway, what's the point of having two units instead of one with both upgrades? Doesn't make much sense.
Lend-Lease Guards - Love the changes, much more in line with the doctrine's theme. Congrats!

The rest of the SOV changes I generally concur.

Ostheer:
Sniper incendiary shot - Dunno about this. The counter-snipe game was perfect IMO. GCS showed us that.Still, I feel it's a sort of "if it ain't broken...".
Panzergrenadiers - Makes sense
Bundle grenades - Ok
Panzergrenadier G43s - Nice!
Stormtroopers - Once again, I feel a bias against Infiltration mechanics. It's even being called a cheese. It was working as was by design. The whole point is to "surprise butt-sex from behind" your opponent. Spawning behind enemy lines is already very dangerous for an expensive squad, and you often see them dying quickly when it's mistimed or properly answered. It's a gamble. One that sometimes pays off, sometimes doesn't.
Stormtrooper upgrades - I like it.
Pak40 - Fair enough
222 - Seems interesting. Like the vs Sniper Buff. Will have to see how more armour interacts with other changes (thinking of the DSK's vet1-locked AP rounds). Might be warranted though (it does feel a bit paper thin atm)
251 Flamethrowers - Fair enough
Panzer IV - YES! Finaly a pen buff. Good Job!
Stug G - Not sure about this one. I understand the reasoning, making the Panther the main AT vehicle. But the nerfs seem overdone. Yes it was over-performing a bit, but Jesus that long-range pen nerf! + TWP nerf! I mean it's a turret-less TD. It's supposed to sit back taking shots, not rush forward! It's gonna get flaked and killed 90% of the time. You're just encouraging bad play! I understand the reasoning, but can't help but feel this is too much.
OST Tier 4 - And now we get to the gist of it. I have to say, OST T4 did need a change. But I feel like I disagree with 90% of these changes. Free Battle Phase 3? That just seems a rushed solution. What's it even there for then? T4 requires T3 being built? So we're limiting strategies now? I don't pretend to have perfect solutions, but these feel kinda amateurish. Perhaps decrease the cost of BP3 significantly, but still have it cost something? What about this: BP3 and Heavy Panzer Korps (T4) get a 25% cost reduction, PLUS another 25% if you've built Support Armor Korps (T3)? That way you do make it more accessible, but still allow for a skip T3 rush T4 play-style. Restricting strategic options is rarely a good way to go. Also, I still feel Grenadiers are under-performing late-game, getting wiped too easily with all the heavy stuff running around. Adding a 5th-man upgrade to T4 would fix that, making T4 that much more useful.
Panther - Like the changes overall, one thing that's been pointed though: OST had some consistency: Vet2 were the side-skirts. On every Tank. This changes that, and makes it more confusing to remember which ones had them where. (as for discussing side-skirts, I'd argue for making them an upgrade as in Coh1). Also, "Armour bonus removed from veterancy (health bonus remains)"? So side-skirts give no armour now? That makes little sense. One thing the Panther lacks though is accuracy.
Brummbar - Ok
Panzerwerfer - Seems weird, but I'll wait and see.
Tiger/Tiger ace - Makes sense
Elefant - What? an HE barrage? You know this is a dedicated Tank Destroyer right? Hell, it can be argued that this is THE dedicated tank destroyer, as IRL most of them were killed by not even having a goddamn MG to defend themselves against inf... I get trying to give it more diverse options, but this feels contrary to everything that's core to this unit's identity....
Ostruppen - Thank god that's fixed. Just one thing: If "Accuracy bonus only applies to default rifles" then what's the need for "Receive a permanent -50% penalty on all picked up items"?
250HT Call-Ins - 10FU reduction is nice, but does little to address it's main issue: Paper-thin armour, unarmed, not able to reinforce. If you really want to address the problem and make them viable, you gotta fix at least one of those. My suggestion? Add a tiny bit of armour to increase survivability, and allow it to reinforce on vet1. Or add a low suppression Mg, more armour on vet2, make it more like an Axis M3A1. Something like that.
Spotting Scopes - 3.5sec seems a tad bit excessive. 2sec maybe?
Panzer Tactician (vehicle smoke) - I don't really have a problem with this, as long as you apply it to all smoke abilities in the other factions. Once again, needs WFA's smoke to be altered at the same time or risk having some factions outperform the others while waiting for WFA patch.

The Rest I pretty much approve of. Cheers!
22 May 2017, 15:19 PM
#139
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


KV2
We are experimenting with giving KV2 a bit more autonomy, and some ability to disengage.

-Scatter offset centered around 0 (QoL)
-KV-2 teardown down to 3 seconds
-Capture point vet1 ability removed
-Vet1 now decreases teardown to 1.5 seconds
-Removed sight penalty in siege mode
-0.5 deflection on both attacks
-Population cap from 19 to 22

Deploy times is a bit too low.

Suggested changes:
1) remove penalty while setting up

2) do not give deflection damage or keep it low to like 33% (will have deflection damage similar to Brumbar) (I have used the units allot in live and it does seem to do enough damage even without deflection)

3) Remove minimum range on siege mode or set low (5-10)

4) Changes vet 3 bonuses or add some exclusively for siege mode.

(KV-2 Heavy Assault Tank
Unlocks the 'Secure Mode' ability
+50% weapon rotation speed, +25% direct fire range, +14.3% indirect fire
+20% weapon rotation speed, offer nothing to siege mode=[+20% rotation speed, +20% speed, +20% ac/de-celeration])
22 May 2017, 15:40 PM
#140
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1

Wow, can't wait to test out this mod - a lot of mouthwatering looking changes that should open up commander viability for bot Sovs and OST!

A few thoughts -

I assume the Call-Ins Teching Changes affects only EFA armies? While I endorse this changes due to the stale Call-In Meta this will really throw a wrench into WFA vs. EFA match-ups until WFA is in scope won't it? I feel like all you'll see is USF gaining even more of an advantage of stalling for Pershing or M10 spam or the Current OKW Mechanized into Command Panther meta.

AI Partysons - I can't help but feel this will kill this commander - Partysons already bleed MP after initial pop and now they are going to be borderline useless at pop AND cost more to reinforce. I feel like they'll need some kind of durability buff to let them scale into the late game or they'll be garbage as their shock value is their only redeeming feature.

Mark Target - I agree with others - OKW will make this ability useless unless you fix the RNG of planes being shot down. At the very least make it so that if the plane gets shot down it only lessens the effect not negates it?

PZ Gren Mark Target - Point of clarification - this only affects the chance of a shot connecting, not penetration correct? There seems to be some confusion with this after the Command Panther Coordinated Fire nerf. Seems pretty good - I assume you still need LOS in order to fire on the marked vehicle yes?

Trenches - Can Brit trenches get a cost reduction if they are getting nerfed? I'm not sure if 50 MP is worth being able to build in enemy terrible if they are neutral after you inevitably get pushed off? (Why spend MP on a trench your enemy will use against you?)

T34 Fuel Increase - Is 15 MP worth 10 Fuel? Seems like more of a nerf than anything since I don't think T34 timing is currently much of a problem from what I've seen.

PAGES (56)down
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

Livestreams

unknown 28
unknown 25
unknown 17
Germany 958
Poland 2
Russian Federation 1

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

857 users are online: 1 member and 856 guests
PatFenis
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49113
Welcome our newest member, Dedek545
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM