Login

russian armor

Fall Balance Preview

PAGES (17)down
19 Jul 2017, 12:08 PM
#201
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17



the bulldozer is actually pretty good at the moment as long as you use attack ground to manually target where you want the shell to go. the main problem with the autoattack is that squads are usually moving around and the shell has a long flight time.

i also dont really understand why you want to "eliminate" call in doctrines that let you skip tech. thats the whole purpose of those doctrines, to give you an alternate way to play rather than always forcing you to tech the same way.



You can still use those doctrines call-in doctrines. However, you won't be able to shit out call-in tanks endlessly until the game ends. At best you will be able to get 1 tank out before you tech. However, you would only really do that if you are desperate/have to make a comeback.

This will make it so that the player will eventually be forced to tech, letting some pressure off the opponent so that the opponent can tech (if they so desire). That way, not every game will have to be call-in vs call-in, like 100% of the games we saw at the GCS tournament*.

The units that were part of the call-in meta and are now tied to tech have received a performance adjustment. That way you can use call-in doctrines either if you're really desperate, or if you actually want to augment your builds with those tanks.

*inb4 Pfussiliers; they are stupid-OP, and that's the reason everybody is picking the doctrine
19 Jul 2017, 12:10 PM
#202
avatar of skyshark

Posts: 239

For teamgame purpose imho we need 3rd axis faction which must be somewhat defensive like brits with emplacements etc.


please no. emplacements are the single worst part of this game.
19 Jul 2017, 12:14 PM
#203
avatar of kingdun3284

Posts: 392

Stuka shouldn't arrive even faster. It has already arrived faster than any mobile rocket artillery before. It should be locked behind T4 or even full tech !! There is no room for ally team weapon anymore in team game. The average arrival time of ally team weapons are too late, but fuel gains much quicker. Just imagine you finally reach CP2 and call in a 120mm to finally have something to respond to the ost crazy double mortar mg bunker camping position protected by reketens and volks blob, then your 120mm get wiped by a brain dead stuka A click without any skill after firing the first barrage! Serious? Not just the S.U., the team weapon of USF also arrive extremely late and there is no room for them in this stupid patch now!!!(There is nearly no room now, please fix it)

Also, Priest has been already overpriced for many years .Its performance is worst than stuka a lot while arrive later and being more expensive than stuka. The MP cost should be reduced to 400 and the arrival time should be CP6-7. It usually can't do anything until there are 3 to 4.
19 Jul 2017, 12:21 PM
#204
avatar of skyshark

Posts: 239

With respect to how to choose the scope. I think that we can have more interesting results if we are allowed to focus on one faction at a time, fixing the most pressing issues of that faction, and also addressing the immediate knock-on effects in other factions.


going for one faction at a time doesn't seem like a great idea... sounds like a great way to create imbalance.

that said, trying to adjust ALL the problems in a single patch also leads to unpredictable results. maybe focus on a single issue and go from there? also, some of this "no-brainer" stuff like infiltration should be doable in a single patch before all the crazy balance work.
19 Jul 2017, 12:54 PM
#205
avatar of Sturmmaus

Posts: 25



please no. emplacements are the single worst part of this game.
Imagine flak 88 emplacement!
19 Jul 2017, 13:03 PM
#206
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17



going for one faction at a time doesn't seem like a great idea... sounds like a great way to create imbalance.

that said, trying to adjust ALL the problems in a single patch also leads to unpredictable results. maybe focus on a single issue and go from there? also, some of this "no-brainer" stuff like infiltration should be doable in a single patch before all the crazy balance work.


I disagree.

1. The amount of changes needed for Soviets/OST/USF to reach from FBP-level to revamp-level is depressingly small.

Low-priority doctrinal changes are entirely skippable (except for Mother Russia which will need a nerf). You can also completely skip Conscript changes for the time being, and rely on synergy from the rest of the faction.

Conscripts have been completely useless for 6 months now; they can afford remain useless for another 6 months. With Guards/Shocks mini-changes you can at least start to see Soviet infantry that's not Penals.

Really, the core of revamp changes that are different from FBP are:
- USF: Lieutenant bar, M20 changes from WBP, Howitzer/Scott barrage cooldown
- Soviets: mini-changes to T2 units, Shocks/Guards grenades changes, SU76 changes, T34 cost
- OST: Grenadier/Pak popcap, T3-T4 changes.

2. Sure, OKW and UKF will require an actual overhaul to get right, each. But by just improving the other 3 factions you already have a solid baseline, and it's not making the game any worse than it currently is.

For the revamp mod, OKW early game is identical to live-version early game. The matchup seemed more interesting as a result of Soviet/USF changes, because there were more strategies that could put in use.

Sure, in the late-game OKW was face-rolling as usual, but that's already the case in live-version, and that's also going to be the case (or even more pronounced) after the call-in clutches are removed from the game; so we aren't breaking anything there.

We haven't really touched OST early game either, so the patchup vs UKF will proceed as it usually goes.

In all cases, when we've tested the changed version of Soviets/OST vs unchanged OKW/UKF the game seemed better.

3. If you're going for an all-or-nothing approach, you will most likely end up with nothing.

4. There's no other overarching change that needs to happen across factions for it to work.

If AT partisans are brought in-line and Fallschirmaegers are not, nobody will really care. Sure, it's going to be unfair, and it will be stupid if we can't change both at the same time, but that won't create a misbalance.

That's because neither AT partisans no Fallschirmaegers depend upon each other to get right. You can just change them individually; both are no-brainer changes.

That's the same for all gammon bomb/bundle nade changes, etc, etc. The only constraint that needs to be respected is that the changes in the affected faction make sense collectively. The best way to guarantee that such changes make sense collectively is focus on one faction at a time, but have the entire faction core in-scope.
19 Jul 2017, 13:07 PM
#207
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1


Conscripts have been completely useless for 6 months now; they can afford remain useless for another 6 months. With Guards/Shocks mini-changes you can at least start to see Soviet infantry that's not Penals.

Conscripts don't forgive. Conscripts don't forget.
19 Jul 2017, 13:25 PM
#208
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 951

Thought I would post on something nobody else has: anti-aircraft.

From my testing experience, heavy AA weapons (Ostwind, Bofors, Schwerer) are reliable against aircraft.

On the other hand, light AA weapons (222, Flak HT, Flak Emplacement, pintle MGs, M15A1, M17 Quad, Centaur) are pretty inadequate.

Seems to me that there is an imbalance; the Allied factions have access to less powerful AA assets, and only the Brits get an "effective" AA weapon.

To adjust this, I suggest that the armor on aircraft is reduced to give MG-based AA a better chance of damaging aircraft.
19 Jul 2017, 13:37 PM
#210
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


On the other hand, light AA weapons (222, Flak HT, Flak Emplacement, pintle MGs, M15A1, M17 Quad, Centaur) are pretty inadequate.


The quad in live is extremely effective, it shoots down planes in their first pass sometime before they even start shooting. From the little testing I did in mod it seem very capable there also.
19 Jul 2017, 13:39 PM
#211
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

Thought I would post on something nobody else has: anti-aircraft.

From my testing experience, heavy AA weapons (Ostwind, Bofors, Schwerer) are reliable against aircraft.

On the other hand, light AA weapons (222, Flak HT, Flak Emplacement, pintle MGs, M15A1, M17 Quad, Centaur) are pretty inadequate.

Seems to me that there is an imbalance; the Allied factions have access to less powerful AA assets, and only the Brits get an "effective" AA weapon.

To adjust this, I suggest that the armor on aircraft is reduced to give MG-based AA a better chance of damaging aircraft.


Anti-air is, at any rate, implemented on a target-table basis. Therefore, we can simply make adjustments to damage as necessary.

We will look into this. However, how much difference in % (very roughly) would you say there is between the Ostwind, the pintle MG and the Quad?
19 Jul 2017, 14:22 PM
#212
avatar of RedT3rror

Posts: 747 | Subs: 2




The ISG feels good, but it's too spammable.

The Calliope is just overnerfed. It should remain a bit of its fast rof. No AoE changes and lower pop cap than 15.

We haven't tested out the JT and Elefant because axis would win anyways before they would arrive.

The Centaur is pathetic against units in yellow cover - that's very problematic on a battlfield with craters. I propose an AoE buff to allow it to counter blobs instead of single models.

The Maxim is a bit better, but still sucks hard.

The Stuka just got better. Just keep the normal costs, lower it's lethal AoE a bit more (rockes are still mininukes). Reduce the range to 120. Hp to 200/240 and pop cap to 14.

Jackson is garbage. It gets countered by JP4 and has a hard time against any tanks with 50+ range (which includes all the units he's supposed to counter). Meanwhile he murders all the medium and light vehicles. The changes went into the complete wrong direction. Just put it's HP to 640 so he can survive and gain vet. Nothing else is required. Keep in mind, the long aim time due to the small firing arc plays an important role when engaging units.

And please dont come up with that flanking thing.....
19 Jul 2017, 14:45 PM
#213
avatar of Swift

Posts: 2723 | Subs: 1

Invissed an offtopic post.
19 Jul 2017, 14:53 PM
#214
avatar of Bulgakov

Posts: 987

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Jul 2017, 07:35 AMStark
Wow, those changes. Did expect that coming :D

Guys, as much as i'm against mortar pit spams and abusement i wonder if the pit is able to fight vs leigs after that reduce range changes. This emplacement will be kinda useless if it's gonna be simply outrange by other units this type (mortar vet2 or meansioned leig)


I wouldn't say "useless" it'll still have brace and the Brit player can send out their tommies to push back the Leig while engies repair the mortar pit. Combined arms, etc.

Currently the mortar is countering its own counters. Let's make Brit players work for their right to have semi-indestructible indirect fire?




OP - WHY NO CHANGES TO SOVIET CLOWN CAR!? C'mon, if you can stop the Kubel bleeding manpower, surely you can stop cheesemongers from splurging all over the map with flamers, wiping harrassing units and flanking MGS...
19 Jul 2017, 15:16 PM
#216
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Jul 2017, 10:09 AMFul4n0




and now, they ask reasons why you buffed dozer and you anwser about why you tied dozer call-in to tech.....lol again.


Maybe try reading his response and thinking about it instead of instantly bashing him? He clearly explained that they had to tie Bulldozer to tech as part of the Call-In unit fix - as part of that fix they have to buff the Bulldozer to make it worth its increased cost (you now need an additional 120 fuel to Tech Major).

Ergo Bulldozer now needs to perform closer to the Brummbar or else it would never be worth the investment to build it. Right now Bulldozers are almost never built after Major tech and their value lies more on their call-in ability than their raw performance. That's why he asked for a replay - because the mod team needs to see that Bulldozer can be useful under the new Major Teching scheme.
19 Jul 2017, 15:32 PM
#217
avatar of Brassatko

Posts: 175


251 Walking Stuka

The AOE and scatter have been adjusted to make the unit less devastating, particularly against team weapons that it could generally wipe out in one barrage. In return the cost has been reduced and the population made to match the other rocket launchers.
....


Noticed, using either incendiary or regular barage triggers a cool down for both barrages now. No one will use the incendiary if it costs a hundred munis and denies the regular barrage, no?
19 Jul 2017, 15:48 PM
#218
avatar of Nosliw

Posts: 515

As nice as it may be that these community members give up their time to improve the game (albeit, as they see fit), I feel like trying to fix CoH2 with these patches is like beating a dead horse. The game doesn't need tweaking, rather, it requires an overhaul, and with Relic at the helm, this will never happen.
19 Jul 2017, 16:43 PM
#219
avatar of voltardark

Posts: 976



create a new topic in official forums, is better.


I will

See also : Your text..
19 Jul 2017, 16:48 PM
#220
avatar of skyshark

Posts: 239



Noticed, using either incendiary or regular barage triggers a cool down for both barrages now. No one will use the incendiary if it costs a hundred munis and denies the regular barrage, no?


i get this, because OKW can float munis late game and just start double-tapping with stuka barrages... but if they're gonna make incendiary cost 100 munis it should at least hit close to where it's aimed.
PAGES (17)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

749 users are online: 749 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49851
Welcome our newest member, Eovaldis
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM