Su-76

let's do the same with blitzkrieg kappa

ok

I always thought permant bans are permant

Snip

60 range, 160 damage at vet 2 and tracking at vet 1.

60 range is the key here, allowing one far more room when facing atg's.

Barrage being free is just silly at this point.

Also:

60 range, 160 damage at vet 2 and tracking at vet 1.

60 range is the key here, allowing one far more room when facing atg's.

Barrage being free is just silly at this point.

Also:

*140 dmg at vet2 lowering ttk from 6 to 5 shots.
If it got dmg to 160, it truly would be op.

Tracking does cost a hefty amount and provides little bonuses(you're not going to self spot and you don't need it for infantry, not on TD).

Also:

I always thought permant bans are permant

I am not sure why people insist on comparing the SU-76 to Stug to prove it is fine.

Stug is an OP unit and SU-76 is cheaper unit fighting more expensive tanks adequately and have AI utility. If its performance is anywhere near Stug it is simply OP.

The idea of doing patches with scope simply does not work.

I don't like it, but it's how things are done. If people had voted for Su76, it would had been added on the last patch.

I'm gonna repeat myself one more time and bail out from this thread cause people are more interested on nitpicking each other than discussing the real issue here. Stug has this, Su76 has this other, wa wa wa...

1- Reduce pen. Enough to still be a threat and 90% to medium tanks but failing to do so against PV and the like. Basically an avg 10/20 pen across the board.
2- 400HP. If we had more 200dmg dealers on the game cof Panthercof, there would be more reason to tech up to Su85 both due to pen and survivability.
3- Reduce cost of tracking, give a cost to barrage. Limited time 50± sight range and 70 minimap is way too far from the power level of other abilities in the game. You could also make tracking for Su76 a little bit different by increasing sight even more but disabling offensive abilities during the duration. Whatever this is just me here brainstorming.
4- Increase Xp values to Puma levels.
5- Move vet2 +20dmg to vet 3 swapping it with barrage range.

Did you try scooching a couple yards to the left?

I always thought permant bans are permant

The demands of the people will not be silenced

I don't like it, but it's how things are done. If people had voted for Su76, it would had been added on the last patch.

Only thing do not actually work like that.

I doubt enough people actually voted to nerf OKW crews yet they where nerfed. On the other hand the 120mm mortar can still survive with 1 crew member although allot of people have actually point it out.

In addition not even voting means that much when one's options on voting are both bad option likes Penal to have Flamer or PTRS.

That also lead to even more bad option like buffing AT conscripts to OP levels just to make them more attractive the Penals.

Latest Patch really look as if Relic is destroying the concept of simple rules "easy to learn hard to master" and faction design.

Gradually build time, reinforcement cost and time rules go out the window different solution for the problem are adopted (osttruppen penalty on weapon picked up weapons-conscripts slot to 1) or unique solution (KV-1 damage reductions) are adopted.

Scope should be there to limit the number of issues the patch is focusing on not the number of solutions.

For instance increasing Su-76 XP value is a nobrainer that should be implement with or without scope.

Its high time Relic reconsiders what it is doing and why.

Latest Patch really look as if Relic is destroying the concept of simple rules "easy to learn hard to master" and faction design.

CoH is by far one of the games which is hardest to learn, ez to master. There is so much hidden knowledge and concepts which can't be learn unless you play extensively, visit the forums for guides, check pros and/or knowledge wizards.

I doubt enough people actually voted to nerf OKW crews yet they where nerfed. On the other hand the 120mm mortar can still survive with 1 crew member although allot of people have actually point it out.

Nerf =/= Fix. All original support crews in game have increase RA and lesser damage for a reduced cost. OKW basically had Volks.

120mm has been a 1 man crew weapon by design for 5 years. It's been shit for cost and rof for too long and now some people complain about it again. By design of most indirect fire losing AA range, it should be brought equally to the ISG but the other aspects of it are still bad compared to vanilla 240mp mortars.

Its high time Relic reconsiders what it is doing and why.

We have been saying this for 5 years.

60 range, 160 damage at vet 2 and tracking at vet 1.

60 range is the key here, allowing one far more room when facing atg's.

Barrage being free is just silly at this point.

Also:

it's not really the damage,

it's the penetration and reload. The su-76 now basically have a better gun than the old su-85.

•  
  

  0

  VS

  插头 Connie Dachs

  CrissCross Friendly5 <3

  1

  PPSH Cons/SU-76/S K I L L P L A N E S

  by: Clockblocked map: Rails and Metal

  1

  -

Just got out of a really hard game against this strategy. Its not often I feel like I get legitimately cheesed out, but this is one of them. Excuse the salt, it felt like I would've had to play ten times better then my opponent (and 100x better than I played, so many obvious mistakes x_x) to have even had a chance at keeping it close.

I felt like I took good engagements until about the 8 minute mark, then the PPSHs came out and infantry engagements were in the toilet. I made a huge midtake trying to push the MG in the house with my volks, stupidly thinking theyd be spread wide enough to not all get suppressed, but they did.

With such a large amount of cons and how well I felt id been fighting for fuel I assumed a forward Schwer would put a stop to that low skill blob. Nope. 76s rained death on it and I barely got out a P4. From there on the game was pretty much the same, id try to sneak a raketen into range of the 76s, and cons would eat them. Try to push left side, cons get in behind and rape everything in sight. Thought id cut off the approach with my mg 34 but the cons just wrapped around and ate it. I decided not to bother with another. Any armor I brought out simply evaporated to the 76s, and any time id work my way into a position where I wasnt being absolutely shit on, out come the skillplanes. GG.

Any tips on what I should have done? MG34 always feels lacking when trying to deal with blob play and my first time facing several SU76s has left me traumatized.

CoH is by far one of the games which is hardest to learn, ez to master. There is so much hidden knowledge and concepts which can't be learn unless you play extensively, visit the forums for guides, check pros and/or knowledge wizards.

Think we are simply using the term differently.

Relic had made an effort to make things simple by introduction a set of "rules" so that one did actually need to know all the stat to play the game.

This rules included:
Build time linearly linked to cost value
Reinforcement cost linearly linked to cost value
Reinforcement linearly linked to cost value
Starting weapon following weapon profiles
Relative positioning
Similar cover penalties
and so on.

There where a few exception but the tried to keep these "rules". The latest patch do not seem to even make an effort to follow any rules and are based in "balancing" units individually and in comparison with a benchmark unit.

For instance (apart from all the examples I have already given) there is little reason for the Centaur to completely ignore yellow cover and have low penalties vs heavy and for the luch to have the highest penalties vs heavy cover but benefit from the point blank mechanism.

Nerf =/= Fix. All original support crews in game have increase RA and lesser damage for a reduced cost. OKW basically had Volks.

120mm has been a 1 man crew weapon by design for 5 years. It's been shit for cost and rof for too long and now some people complain about it again. By design of most indirect fire losing AA range, it should be brought equally to the ISG but the other aspects of it are still bad compared to vanilla 240mp mortars.

Saying that the Case 120mm is design and the case of OKW is bug that need to be fixed is completely arbitrary. I could make the exact opposite claim.

If the 120mm ability to survive with 1 crew member is design decision it is actually a very bad one since it has the longest auto attack range and if it comes under fire the player is doing something wrong.

If patch was trying to fix "bugs" in the performance of team weapons it should be fixing other issues also like the reinforcement cost of HMG since the cost of HMG34/HMG42 is too high compared to the 0.50/vickers, the reinforcement cost of the Dshk is too low compared to maxim, the Dshk and 0.50 should not have access the sprint ability and the AP round of the 0.50 should work like Dshk and not like the HMG34/HMG42 while being a vet 0 ability.

Think we are simply using the term differently.

Relic had made an effort to make things simple by introduction a set of "rules" so that one did actually need to know all the stat to play the game.

This rules included:
Build time linearly linked to cost value
Reinforcement cost linearly linked to cost value
Reinforcement linearly linked to cost value
Starting weapon following weapon profiles
Relative positioning
Similar cover penalties
and so on.

There where a few exception but the tried to keep these "rules". The latest patch do not seem to even make an effort to follow any rules and are based in "balancing" units individually and in comparison with a benchmark unit.

For instance (apart from all the examples I have already given) there is little reason for the Centaur to completely ignore yellow cover and have low penalties vs heavy and for the luch to have the highest penalties vs heavy cover but benefit from the point blank mechanism.

Those rules had exceptions since beta or at least since the first batch of DLC commanders for EFA (4-5 years ago). There's no such thing as "easy to learn" in CoH2, when there is no place for knowing something as simple as how much damage a unit does, what are the benefits of cover, veterancy or retreat, or how much health a unit has.

Build time didn't apply to vehicles, even more if we take Relic's relative value of fuel:mp. Neither it applied to buildings/defenses or support weapons. Also IIRC Riflemans had their build time adjust right after WFA was released (due to chaos with OH matchup). Same with MG42 when it was put down into T0.
You are saying that the last patch broke this rules, as if this wasn't a Relic own design direction from like 3/4 years ago. All infantry call ins got adjusted with different reinforce time and cost. Same with most elite units such as PG, Falls, Obers or Sturmpios.

Weapon profiles were thrown from the board when they released WFA and even worst with UKF. What are BARs, FG42, IR STG44 or special snowflake UKF flamers. This was a mess with vehicles as well.
But they were even thrown out of the way before, with the adjustments to G43. Or why is it that Pios have a different weapon profile against cover for ex.

Fixed positioning applied when you wanted to balance SU vs OH. Ranges were changed to be able to adjust to all other match ups.

Saying that the Case 120mm is design and the case of OKW is bug that need to be fixed is completely arbitrary. I could make the exact opposite claim.

If the 120mm ability to survive with 1 crew member is design decision it is actually a very bad one since it has the longest auto attack range and if it comes under fire the player is doing something wrong.

If patch was trying to fix "bugs" in the performance of team weapons it should be fixing other issues also like the reinforcement cost of HMG since the cost of HMG34/HMG42 is too high compared to the 0.50/vickers, the reinforcement cost of the Dshk is too low compared to maxim, the Dshk and 0.50 should not have access the sprint ability and the AP round of the 0.50 should work like Dshk and not like the HMG34/HMG42 while being a vet 0 ability.

120mm has a 1 man animation working crew n suffers from the same death loop as maxims. Why is it that USF Pack Howie requires a 3 man crew? Whether you like it or not, good or bad it's by design.
Spawning basically Volks models as opposed to "crew models", after a certain patch when all other factions support weapons have crew models which do shit against infantry... I think that's a bug. You can say certain bugs are "healthy" for the game, but if that's the case, why not just adjust it later on. This is what happened for example with original T34-76 RoF bug. The unit was crap, it got fixed and it was even worst.

I've already said that AA range should be reduced to 80 while adjusting other things.

Isn't MG34/42/0.50/Vickers reinforce cost practically equal? The difference been that the support weapon itself having a different cost.

Doesnt some artillery have deflection damage though (iirc katyusha), making it able to actually kill off damaged vehicles.

Or I'm just going senile

I believe you need a penetration roll to trigger the death critical.

A) guess you don't know what satire is
B) no contadiction in AT/arty ability because there's different types of munitions that certain large caliber weapons can use i.e. flak 88. Just because a weapon uses the same size round doesn't mean its the same size. Not many people outside the military know of this so its easy to see why you'd think I was contradicting myself.

A) guess you don't know what satire is
B) no contadiction in AT/arty ability because there's different types of munitions that certain large caliber weapons can use i.e. flak 88. Just because a weapon uses the same size round doesn't mean its the same size. Not many people outside the military know of this so its easy to see why you'd think I was contradicting myself.

i was talking about how u are arguing that su 76 is a TD and deserve good reload range and pen but at the same time it needs to have AI like all the other TD like....... oh wait a sec other TD dont have good AI , u get the point now ?

Isn't MG34/42/0.50/Vickers reinforce cost practically equal? The difference been that the support weapon itself having a different cost.

Having a 280 hmg reinforce at same price with a 250 is with same logic a "bug".

Let me return to my original point.

Helping player take good decision without having to know that exact stat of every unit in the game
is helpful and is something Relic attempted to achieved with a number of rules.

Moving away from this approach and individually balancing units without even taking into account a benchmark unit as latest patches seem to be doing is a WRONG direction.

Having a 280 hmg reinforce at same price with a 250 is with same logic a "bug".

No? Because, again, you are paying a reinforce cost based on the weapon crew performance and not on the weapon support performance.
Then your end goal should be, is OH paying too much on support weapon reinforce compared to other factions or not ?

Ex: why would the USF AT gun (270mp) be paying more/equal on reinforce than the OH/UK paks (320mp).

Helping player take good decision without having to know that exact stat of every unit in the game
is helpful and is something Relic attempted to achieved with a number of rules.

That's fine, but you are overestimating how much impact things like perfectly knowing reinforce time or cost have on the performance or decisions a player can take. If you look at the average player or heck any player, you'll realise that they all have quite a lot of down/idle time cause no one here is a korean with 300+ APM.
You have an 1 man Conscript return to base and think: oh, i need 100mp and 20s to reinforce or just spam reinforce hotkey and check that you have a decent amount of mp banked ?

Those kind of things don't take away from good decision making.

You are trying to impose a message saying as Relic "tried" to globally take into account all unit and having a faction as a benchmark, or that they haven't been doing flip-flops when they tune individual units performance.

Go here, take a look at changes and you might as go as well to Cruzz ninja changes thread.
https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/67/coh-2-changelog

We WOULD LOVE having a 1/2 per month balance adjustment altering as little as possible units so it doesn't make units go from totally OP to never be seen again units. But this is Relic, a company having internal problems, with a 5 years old game.
You don't like scope, i don't like scope, everyone here doesn't like it. Guess what. This is how the game works, this is how it's gonna be done. Why? Because there is not enough resources to make developers waste time on a 5 year old game, administrating and doing QA tests on basically the whole roster of units, if we were to do a proper re balance.
"But X unit only need a small adjustment here and there". That small adjustment might not be as ez to implement or even if it's ez, it might be breaking something totally unrelated which you might not know. This is otato: engine on which we fix +50 bugs per patch but introduce +20 more and 10 which are hidden and will only be discovered 3 patches later so you won't even have a clue on why or when it started.

No? Because, again, you are paying a reinforce cost based on the weapon crew performance and not on the weapon support performance.
Then your end goal should be, is OH paying too much on support weapon reinforce compared to other factions or not ?

Ex: why would the USF AT gun (270mp) be paying more/equal on reinforce than the OH/UK paks (320mp).

It seems we are having some trouble communicating. I am using examples to make a point and you are focusing on the examples and not the points. So let me try another approach.

It is my opinion that "rules" that apply to most unit with few acceptation (only if need) of the same type improve the game. Do you agree?

Imo balancing units compared to benchmark instead of individually improves the game. Do you agree?


Response on support weapon arguments.
Show Spoiler

On benchmark
Show Spoiler

on magnitude of changes.
Show Spoiler