Login

russian armor

USF radical design changes ideas

24 Oct 2018, 00:24 AM
#21
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Oct 2018, 10:52 AMVipper

Simply add the ability to promote infantry to LT and Captain.

It could work a bit like refit, the ability is activated by the corresponding tent in the base removing the infantry and returning an officer for the cost difference.

(mechanism can also be used to train doctrinal infantry)

Shared veterancy and passive sprint should be removed from fighting officers.

Why not make it a timed upgrade for a rifle squad? Maybe even have it just add another model along with the requisite weapons/abilities instead of changing the entire squad. As long as you could only have one, I think a 6 man squad would be cool.

I like the idea in general but sadly it’ll probably never be implemented.

I do think that usf is not at all well designed to be skipping tech. Case in point: the bonkers decision to give lieutenant tier no reliable at options but two suppression platforms and captain tier no suppression platforms but two reliable at platforms. It’s definitely the worst designed tech system overall and the most expensive to backtech at the same time. It’d be nice to see a well thought out linear system make it into live like this, as even with all its vanilla units, usf still lacks some pretty core elements of an army (flamers, normal mines, heavier armor, snipers, early ultralight vehicles, variety of nondoctrinal combat infantry, etc.), some of which is made up for and some of which is sorely missed in usf’s lineup, more so than any other faction except maybe brits.
24 Oct 2018, 07:01 AM
#22
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


Why not make it a timed upgrade for a rifle squad?
...
I do think that usf is not at all well designed to be skipping tech...

The refit idea can also be implemented to other infantry besides refilemen like USF crew that have lost their vehicles.

The idea behind the USF faction was that they will have the best mainline infantry and very good light vehicles but less access to support weapons. The whole idea went to scrap when USF got a mortar, Penals become equally strong, VG got a ST44 upgrade and USF light vehicles where nerfed.

The where designed to skip tech and they worked when they early game was strong, now not so much.
24 Oct 2018, 08:41 AM
#23
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

Sorry but why would you refit your riflemen squad for an officer's one?
24 Oct 2018, 08:44 AM
#24
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2018, 08:41 AMEsxile
Sorry but why would you refit your riflemen squad for an officer's one?

To get no tech bazookas, free bar, free Thompson, smoke grenades, "on me" ,passive sprint, etch...

And it would be an option to replace existing infantry like RE, vesicles crews and so on instead of getting an officer that you might or might not want.
24 Oct 2018, 10:39 AM
#25
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

I do think that usf is not at all well designed to be skipping tech. Case in point: the bonkers decision to give lieutenant tier no reliable at options but two suppression platforms and captain tier no suppression platforms but two reliable at platforms.


Lieutenant Tier does have AT: bazookas.

USF's current tier holes are a result of patches, not the original design.
EDIT: corrected by elchino below

When USF came out, Bazookas could snipe infantry models, meaning a bazooka blob was fully capable of AT. Lieutenant Tier could zook up all their infantry and suffer little for it.

Captain Tier had an anti-infantry powerhouse in the form of the old Stuart and a suppression platform in the form of the old Pack Howitzer.
24 Oct 2018, 13:59 PM
#26
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2018, 10:39 AMLago
USF's current tier holes are a result of patches, not the original design.

When USF came out, Bazookas could snipe infantry models, meaning a bazooka blob was fully capable of AT. Lieutenant Tier could zook up all their infantry and suffer little for it.

Captain Tier had an anti-infantry powerhouse in the form of the old Stuart and a suppression platform in the form of the old Pack Howitzer.


What are you talking about?
-Comment abouts zook is true but the rest is simple false.
-No one bothered with Cpt tier and USF play was basically Rifles>LT>Major>Sherman. Mix up either M20 against OH or AAHT to counter either Flak HT or for more heavy early pressure.
-Most if not all USF support weapons had been bugged from release. Even if the USF .50 cal was stronger (someone swap the 25% RA for +25% accuracy lul) it was a 4man MG with deathloop. The USF AT gun had crap penetration and a bugged paper crew.
-ORIGINAL Stuart was a completely crap unit. It took several buffs and patches (most important was HP) before it was a relevant unit. I'll couple up the reasons with the OKW rework which put the P2 into the spotlight.
-Pack Howitzer suppression was added several patches down the road.

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2018, 07:01 AMVipper
The idea behind the USF faction was that they will have the best mainline infantry and very good light vehicles but less access to support weapons. The whole idea went to scrap when USF got a mortar, Penals become equally strong, VG got a ST44 upgrade and USF light vehicles where nerfed.

The where designed to skip tech and they worked when they early game was strong, now not so much.


It all started when they realised they had released 2 gimmickies factions which would never be able to accomplish any sort of state of balance without polarising results which were either unfun to play with/against.

USF/OKW were completely opposite. Unless you were playing against OH (lel who played OH at that time besides been backbone support player for OKW), USF wanted to end the game at 10 mins and OKW just wanted to survive for the late game. OKW would steamroll outside of 1v1 (where they could get bullied by say maxim spam) if they didn't lose the game in the first 5-10 mins.


The whole idea went to scrap, when they realised they also had 2 more factions in the game called Soviets and Ostheer. It's not just mortar, Penals, STG44 and USF light nerfs.
-OH received a hefty buff to early game (mp-pios) and a T0 MG42. Because there was no way they could handle USF stock. Rework OKW also received stock MG34. Guess why they end up adding a mortar to USF.
-Penals needed to become strong unless you wanted a complete dead tier for SU. We could discuss for eons by beating that dead horse. T1 worked as long as USF and OKW were not part of the game. Other changes were required (as buffing 222) which made T1 irrelevant for a long time.
-Volks STG was part of a bigger rework so i wouldn't isolate it.
24 Oct 2018, 14:14 PM
#27
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

Pack Howitzer suppression was added several patches down the road.


Wait, they patched that in? relic whhhhyyy
24 Oct 2018, 14:29 PM
#28
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Oct 2018, 10:27 AMEsxile


Sadly, yes I know. :gimpy:


I think there's still chance to make some changes, but not in the same scale as say the OKW rework. I think you need to maintain the same "framework" while adjusting small bits which can give you different timings and accessibility of the units.

1-Swapping units from tiers.
This one i think is the most tame one and the one most likely to be used. That been said, the only combination i could see be done is:

Cpt: 50cal, Pack Howi, Stuart
LT: M20, AT gun, AA HT


From here on out, i think the free officer system needs to be adjusted. Which makes things more complicated.

2-Making tech cheaper, while removing free officers. This would be mostly a mp based thing.

3-Same as point 2, but locking down certain shock units behind a further tech upgrade.
For example: in the current roster, locking down AA HT/Stuart and later on Sherman/Jackson. In the case of the major, this is for improving the timing of certain call in vehicles.

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2018, 14:14 PMLago


Wait, they patched that in? relic whhhhyyy


Same patch they added suppression to ISG. Triple ISG meta, nevah forget.
24 Oct 2018, 14:42 PM
#29
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



...

The thing went out of hand because they attempted to rebalance 3 faction in 1 patch (JUNE 21).

The only point I was making was that USF where designed to use 2 officers not all 3, a point that as far I can tell from your post you agree.
24 Oct 2018, 15:03 PM
#30
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1



I think there's still chance to make some changes, but not in the same scale as say the OKW rework. I think you need to maintain the same "framework" while adjusting small bits which can give you different timings and accessibility of the units.

1-Swapping units from tiers.
This one i think is the most tame one and the one most likely to be used. That been said, the only combination i could see be done is:

Cpt: 50cal, Pack Howi, Stuart
LT: M20, AT gun, AA HT


From here on out, i think the free officer system needs to be adjusted. Which makes things more complicated.

2-Making tech cheaper, while removing free officers. This would be mostly a mp based thing.

3-Same as point 2, but locking down certain shock units behind a further tech upgrade.
For example: in the current roster, locking down AA HT/Stuart and later on Sherman/Jackson. In the case of the major, this is for improving the timing of certain call in vehicles.


I don't see this working to be honest, I thought a lot about how swapping units and it simply doesn't work.
Combo HMG.50 + Stuart is always going to be a better choice than AAHT + M1Atg. AATH and ATG a pure support units you can't really expose unlike the stuart and HMG.50.
Atgun can't support well the AAHT because the first threat for your AAHT isn't infantry, isn't Lv's but Atguns. Pak40 or raketen only need two hits to wreak it.
On the opposite, the only significant danger for the Stuart is the PUMA, which can be handled with good micro, then the HMG.50 can deal with infantry and retreat if needed.

Above that, HMG.50 + pak howitzer + Stuart, that's a great combo! The AAHT would need a serious buff to make it appealing vs it, and a kind of buff no one is going to accept.

Second point, removing officer and adding tech layers to unlock faster certain units is a possibility to explore I agree with that.


24 Oct 2018, 15:25 PM
#31
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

I think the M10 could be made a stock unit and put in with the Captain, serving a similar role as the SU-76. This way both tiers would have access to reliable AT.

Then suffle the other units around to make both tiers attractive with the choice for which one coming down mostly to player preference, like OKW's teching.
24 Oct 2018, 15:44 PM
#32
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2018, 15:03 PMEsxile


I don't see this working to be honest, I thought a lot about how swapping units and it simply doesn't work.
Combo HMG.50 + Stuart is always going to be a better choice than AAHT + M1Atg. AATH and ATG a pure support units you can't really expose unlike the stuart and HMG.50.
Atgun can't support well the AAHT because the first threat for your AAHT isn't infantry, isn't Lv's but Atguns. Pak40 or raketen only need two hits to wreak it.
On the opposite, the only significant danger for the Stuart is the PUMA, which can be handled with good micro, then the HMG.50 can deal with infantry and retreat if needed.

Above that, HMG.50 + pak howitzer + Stuart, that's a great combo! The AAHT would need a serious buff to make it appealing vs it, and a kind of buff no one is going to accept.

Second point, removing officer and adding tech layers to unlock faster certain units is a possibility to explore I agree with that.




That's why i also swap the LT for the Cpt. I'll go a step even further and reduce the Cpt to 4 models if the tier is still too strong. Mind that Stuart AI has also been reduced and no longer as worth to rush as a shock unit. Problem comes from what kind of changes are available to be done.


jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2018, 14:42 PMVipper

The thing went out of hand because they attempted to rebalance 3 faction in 1 patch (JUNE 21).

The only point I was making was that USF where designed to use 2 officers not all 3, a point that as far I can tell from your post you agree.


The thing is you should stop bringing "faction design" as a point, when it has been retconned through out the life of the COH cycle again and again. You bring the point that USF Riflemans in conjunction with their support weapons are so strong, that if they were able to get both, that either would had to be nerfed. Airborne gave USF the possibility since day 1 and it's not been picked for that reason.

USF use of 2 officers included using LT + Cpt and forgetting about Mayor. That's why call in tanks were nerfed as well.
24 Oct 2018, 15:57 PM
#33
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


The thing is you should stop bringing "faction design" as a point, when it has been retconned through out the life of the COH cycle again and again. You bring the point that USF Riflemans in conjunction with their support weapons are so strong, that if they were able to get both, that either would had to be nerfed. Airborne gave USF the possibility since day 1 and it's not been picked for that reason.

USF use of 2 officers included using LT + Cpt and forgetting about Mayor. That's why call in tanks were nerfed as well.

I am not sure why in your opinion "faction design" is not a "point". Each faction is design to have different strengths and weakness, that does not mean that this should be set in stone and not change. But if one want to change the strengths or weakness of faction, one should redesign the faction for optimum results.

Airborne drop able weapons were very (and still are) expensive and took up 2 commander slots since day 1 exactly because they allowed access to support weapon regardless of officer choice.

I am glad that you agree that USF were designed to be played with two officers.
24 Oct 2018, 16:54 PM
#34
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1



That's why i also swap the LT for the Cpt. I'll go a step even further and reduce the Cpt to 4 models if the tier is still too strong. Mind that Stuart AI has also been reduced and no longer as worth to rush as a shock unit. Problem comes from what kind of changes are available to be done.




Too strong? that's not what I was thinking, you'll have whatever other factions get at the same time. AAHT + ATgun would simply not worse it and need a serious revamp.
M20 and AAHT aren't good combo neither, building a M20 would lock you without suppression unless investing 50 more fuel on a light vehicle that die in two shots.
24 Oct 2018, 18:42 PM
#35
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2018, 15:57 PMVipper

I am not sure why in your opinion "faction design" is not a "point". Each faction is design to have different strengths and weakness, that does not mean that this should be set in stone and not change. But if one want to change the strengths or weakness of faction, one should redesign the faction for optimum results.

Airborne drop able weapons were very (and still are) expensive and took up 2 commander slots since day 1 exactly because they allowed access to support weapon regardless of officer choice.

I am glad that you agree that USF were designed to be played with two officers.


IS not a point when you are talking about "design" that no longer holds true. All the strengths that made USF held together with a limited roster of units, is no longer strong enough to carry it through the game.
-Cpt doesn't come with zooks.
-M20 doesn't work as a mini T70 against OH nor longer bullies 200HP 222s
-AAHT is not an iwin unit.
-Stuart AI has been cut down.
-Pack Howi with it's clunky 3 man crew, doesn't have insane scaling (vet 2 affecting AA) nor suppression (thx god).

I'm just refuting this point.
"That would mean that USF get access to everything and the faction would have to be redesign so that either their infantry or the support weapon would need to be toned down."

Is USF combined arms too strong?

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2018, 16:54 PMEsxile


Too strong? that's not what I was thinking, you'll have whatever other factions get at the same time. AAHT + ATgun would simply not worse it and need a serious revamp.
M20 and AAHT aren't good combo neither, building a M20 would lock you without suppression unless investing 50 more fuel on a light vehicle that die in two shots.


Considering that getting an OKW like rework is impossible, you think that shuffling units from tiers wouldn't work at all because one would be the defacto tier to choose from?
If i'm not missing the point, i think we are just gonna discuss whether keeping the current model with "stand alone" officers but with an easier access to both versus a straight linear tech is better.
24 Oct 2018, 20:37 PM
#36
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


...
Is USF combined arms too strong?
...

USF mortar is about equal to Wer mortar
USF HMG is about equal to HMG-42
Riflemen are superior to Grenadiers

if USF gets access to everything as suggest yes its combined arm will be too strong.
24 Oct 2018, 20:54 PM
#37
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2018, 20:37 PMVipper

USF mortar is about equal to Wer mortar

Why are you mentioning wehr, but not soviets here, which the mortar is identical too?
Are you trying to invoke bias point of view for people who still have memories of turbomortar deleting everything in range?

USF HMG is about equal to HMG-42

Still weaker, vet1 doesn't stand up to incendiary rounds at all, isn't accessible when it would have most impact, first minutes, where you do not have many squads on field.

Riflemen are superior to Grenadiers

True, but rifles can't have sniper behind their backs, they also do not have equal cost to grens and that menpower can't be ignored.

if USF gets access to everything as suggest yes its combined arm will be too strong.

I'm with elchino7 and I also can't see how.

ATG is incredibly inferior to the point its not even fun.
HMG arrives very late and axis counters to it are equally if not more effective and varied as USFs counter to 42.
Mortar exists to have a single fuel free counter to HMGs and garrisons and outside of that role it doesn't play well into USF aggressive, mobile playstyle at all.

Ost still has superior options through sniper, flank delaying/denying s-mines, tech free nades, on field reinforcement and lights that actually matter and are capable of inflicting losses rapidly.

So yeah, rifles are superior to grens, but also cost more and USF doesn't start with any extra MP contrary to OST, USF isn't going to be getting a lot of team weapons, because pop cap and upkeep will butcher their mid and late game on the long run.

There is also the argument of paratrooper doctrine, which gave them both, ATG and HMG and yet, to amazement of no one but you, it wasn't used/abused at all in the ways you have described even when all 3 were at its strongest.
24 Oct 2018, 21:04 PM
#38
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2018, 20:54 PMKatitof

Why are you mentioning wehr, but not soviets here, which the mortar is identical too?
Are you trying to invoke bias point of view for people who still have memories of turbomortar deleting everything in range?

This is thread about USF and not Soviets, in addition the Soviet mortar is inferior to Wer mortar and it is not identical. PLS check your facts before starting to spread misinformation. (same goes for the rest of your post)

I am not trying to invoke anything so pls stop trying to put words in my mouth, your obsession of trying to prove me wrong only end up with you derailing threads.
24 Oct 2018, 22:56 PM
#39
avatar of insaneHoshi

Posts: 911

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Oct 2018, 20:54 PMKatitof

Why are you mentioning wehr, but not soviets here, which the mortar is identical too.


Does 6 = 4?
25 Oct 2018, 00:51 AM
#40
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053



IS not a point when you are talking about "design" that no longer holds true. All the strengths that made USF held together with a limited roster of units, is no longer strong enough to carry it through the game.
-Cpt doesn't come with zooks.
-M20 doesn't work as a mini T70 against OH nor longer bullies 200HP 222s
-AAHT is not an iwin unit.
-Stuart AI has been cut down.
-Pack Howi with it's clunky 3 man crew, doesn't have insane scaling (vet 2 affecting AA) nor suppression (thx god).

I'm just refuting this point.
"That would mean that USF get access to everything and the faction would have to be redesign so that either their infantry or the support weapon would need to be toned down."

Is USF combined arms too strong?



Considering that getting an OKW like rework is impossible, you think that shuffling units from tiers wouldn't work at all because one would be the defacto tier to choose from?
If i'm not missing the point, i think we are just gonna discuss whether keeping the current model with "stand alone" officers but with an easier access to both versus a straight linear tech is better.

I agree with the first portion. My two cents on it are that I really don’t think that usf combined arms is overly strong and giving them the ability to actually properly use combined arms would not make it so either. If that was the case people would use airborne a lot more than it already is even given its horrible design (4/5 of its abilities are manpower callins? Really?) and you would notice the difference. USF also doesn’t get access to anything to cut manpower bleed until about 4-5 mins when an officer comes out, at which point a lot of bleed has already been inflicted. They still have the second most expensive mainline infantry that, again, doesn’t have much support until 4-5 minutes, unlike literally any other infantry in the game. Ost have early hmgs and snipers, soviets have early hmgs, snipers, and the clown car, brits have early hmg and the UC, OKW has sturms (they trade very well sometimes) and the kubel. USF has ambulance. I didn’t mention any mortars at all because they’re more of a team weapon counter than bleed cutting tool IMO. Then there’s the fact that grens and volks both get access to nades and weapon upgrades much quicker than usf tends to get BARs, and even then lmg42s can definitely stand up to single BAR rifles with ease and (IIRC) the volks’ 2 stgs combined have slightly greater dps than a single BAR at all ranges, but are on a cheaper squad with better support at almost all stages of the game. Double BAR rifles are superior but those don’t come till much later and at much greater cost. So usf infantry superiority is much less total in most stages of the game than original design would have necessitated and no longer really justifies shitty tech structure.

Sidenote: how come you say USF getting an okw-like rework is impossible?

Somewhat unrelated to the other points: the free officers are nice but IMO should be replaced by much cheaper weapon rack and grenade sidetechs because it would allow for a much more “normal” army composition instead of so much riflespam. It’s already necessary to have at the very least 3 riflemen in the early game before you even get an officer and then you get essentially a 4th rifle squad (yes, for free), which is nice, but then you have to turn around and spend around 300mp and 40 fuel for nades and weapon racks for your riflemen, meaning that you are forced to have a lot of rifles without being able to easily afford other things like support weapons, light vehicles, or elite infantry. This is especially a problem with commanders like airborne and recon support that are designed to use non-rifle infantry as a core feature of the commander (3 rifles + lt/cpt + echelon + pathfinders + paras is way too much infantry to be getting early on without much team weapon or vehicle support). IMO this somewhat forced over abundance of combat infantry and lack of support weapons drags the faction down more than it should and also makes it less enjoyable to play against. I don’t think that people necessarily like playing against metric tons of infantry (the infamous freedom blob says hello).
4 users are browsing this thread: 4 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

363 users are online: 363 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
4 posts in the last week
35 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49210
Welcome our newest member, Shunnarah
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM