Login

russian armor

Soviet General Faction Changes - New cmdr mod 5.0

PAGES (24)down
27 Apr 2019, 07:41 AM
#421
avatar of Bizrock

Posts: 206

Cover bonus is too high IMO, but other than that the conscript buff is balanced. It makes more sense in the context of the unit to increase the squad size than to give them an upgrade, and it also synergizes with their abilities.

Part of the discussion needs to be on what the upgrade is worth/ should provide. Should the upgrade only make cons a better chump unit for capping and recrewing weapons? Then they should probably reinforce faster but not have such a cover bonus. Should they become a very effective squad in green cover but remain shit outside? Then they should retain the cover bonus and beat other baseline squads in cost effectiveness when in cover.


I like the theme of being good at cover and shit outside, since they build long sandbags, have triwire mines and molotovs preventing units from closing in, very good synergy. And oorah can be used to get to a cover faster. This cover bonus is what conscripts needs, even the description of conscripts says "good in cover". I really don't care about the rest, the cover bonus need to stay (maybe decrease to 35%)
27 Apr 2019, 10:47 AM
#422
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

I'd rather er on the side of slightly up than op. Be conservative now and adjust later. Anything will be better than the dumpster fire that cons currently are. Let's see what 35% looks like.
27 Apr 2019, 11:09 AM
#423
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Apr 2019, 12:47 PMKirrik
I think 6 Guard mosins (without other bonuses) should be added as alternative upgrade in commander mod, at very least it's worth testing it to see how it performs compared to 7 man/cover bonuses/mp decrease/shared vet.


I agree, need an alternative upgrade with 6-man and a weapon upgrade in the next version of the mod.
27 Apr 2019, 12:00 PM
#424
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

These 7-man squad and increased damage in cover does not correspond to the general concept of the Soviets - the attack.
For Osttruppen this bonus is appropriate - because the Wehrmacht a defense faction: Osttruppen can build trenches that protect better than sandbags, plus a reinforcement and healing bunker, plus one of the best machine guns.
For Britain, this bonus is appropriate - it is a defense faction.
But not for the Soviets, conscripts with such a bonus have no synergy: Maxim has poor suppression, no machine gun nest, no defensive structures.
Soviets - attack, but in the attack 7 people with a defensive bonus are bad: several units interfere with each other in their cover.
27 Apr 2019, 12:00 PM
#425
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

"I don't want fresh new ideas I want more of the exact same! Hang the conscripts other roles I want straight damage improvements!" if the 7th man an a cover bonus work, why fuck around with an alternative for 6 men? Cons are MEANT to be used to move bodies around and hold ground. The current mod does that. 6 men with improved rifles is still the same boring shit we have now, just with slightly more DPS. yall get so hung up on plain and boring you don't even want to consider that there is a more interesting way. Soviet have boat loads of infantry it's important to make them each stand out and be unique and desirable. I can't for the life of me fathom how people thing "guards, but actually worse by every metric" is the solution to cons. Or "not quite penals!" I applaud the balance crew for trying something and not just listening to the "increase dps by a negligible amount" crew and actually focusing on keeping them with a unique feel and identity.
27 Apr 2019, 14:44 PM
#426
avatar of Bizrock

Posts: 206

These 7-man squad and increased damage in cover does not correspond to the general concept of the Soviets - the attack.
For Osttruppen this bonus is appropriate - because the Wehrmacht a defense faction: Osttruppen can build trenches that protect better than sandbags, plus a reinforcement and healing bunker, plus one of the best machine guns.
For Britain, this bonus is appropriate - it is a defense faction.
But not for the Soviets, conscripts with such a bonus have no synergy: Maxim has poor suppression, no machine gun nest, no defensive structures.
Soviets - attack, but in the attack 7 people with a defensive bonus are bad: several units interfere with each other in their cover.


First of all, general concept of soviets isn't attack, where did you get this idea?
Second, Mobile doesn't mean offensive and static doesn't mean defensive. Assault grenadiers is a high mobile unit and it have great defensive power, it can defend your MGs and mortars of being flanked or rushed very effective, would you better rush vs an MG + Grenadier or a MG + Assault grenadier? Same goes with the fact that Guards are static, but very offensive, Mortars are static, but an ofensive tool.
Conscripts have no synergy with cover? What did you mean by that? unique heavy sandbags/triwire mines/molotovs/merge/PTRS, ourah is a good ability to get in cover faster before model drops, it isn't an assault ability since while being at oorah they can't fire.
27 Apr 2019, 16:22 PM
#427
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Apr 2019, 14:44 PMBizrock


First of all, general concept of soviets isn't attack, where did you get this idea?
Second, Mobile doesn't mean offensive and static doesn't mean defensive. Assault grenadiers is a high mobile unit and it have great defensive power, it can defend your MGs and mortars of being flanked or rushed very effective, would you better rush vs an MG + Grenadier or a MG + Assault grenadier? Same goes with the fact that Guards are static, but very offensive, Mortars are static, but an ofensive tool.
Conscripts have no synergy with cover? What did you mean by that? unique heavy sandbags/triwire mines/molotovs/merge/PTRS, ourah is a good ability to get in cover faster before model drops, it isn't an assault ability since while being at oorah they can't fire.


From the very beginning, the Soviets were designed as an attack faction: attacking Maxim with a narrow shooting cone and fast speed (deployment speed and running with the 1st veteranism). Lack of fortifications, every time when the topic of Soviet fortifications appeared, there was always one and the same answer: Soviet - the attacking faction they do not need fortifications.
27 Apr 2019, 23:50 PM
#428
avatar of WAAAGH2000

Posts: 731

Maybe SU76 should increase damage to 160 in vet2?
30 Apr 2019, 20:30 PM
#429
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

New maxim, finally I feel that this unit is really useful.
30 Apr 2019, 20:53 PM
#430
avatar of murky depths

Posts: 607

M-42 gets double nerfed =(

I'd rather it get the JLI treatment where it's performance is left alone but cost and spammability are addressed.

Oh well, RIP the dream.
30 Apr 2019, 21:02 PM
#431
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

M-42 gets double nerfed =(

I'd rather it get the JLI treatment where it's performance is left alone but cost and spammability are addressed.

Oh well, RIP the dream.


I would prefer to leave the case-shot at 50 meters, but to make it use ammunition, it will not make it excessively strong but leave it unique and useful.
30 Apr 2019, 21:22 PM
#432
avatar of murky depths

Posts: 607

Kind of like activating 'AP' rounds in other cases? If the time-frame it was activate was sufficient, that'd be fine. I think just bumping it's MP cost to 240/250 should have been fine, but oh well.

Eitherway tho, for 240 MP and 35 range, that strategy is gone. I don't think I'd even bother toggling canister shots now tbh since the risk of them being wiped when up close to enemy infantry is just that much higher.

30 Apr 2019, 21:26 PM
#433
avatar of Enkidu

Posts: 351



I would prefer to leave the case-shot at 50 meters, but to make it use ammunition, it will not make it excessively strong but leave it unique and useful.


I like this idea on the surface too, but it seems like it could be a huge liability if you couldn’t cancel it. Maybe small muni cost for short duration activation?
30 Apr 2019, 21:30 PM
#434
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

Version 7.0 changes

Soviets - General faction changes

Conscripts
7 man Cons were too potent, previously beating upgraded Grens at all ranges, especially in cover duels.
- Cover bonus to cooldown and reload from 50% to 30%.
- New DPS at ranges 0/10/20/30/35: 3.91/2.87/2.21/1.54/1.22

M1910 Maxim
In order to increase the general viability of Maxims, without promoting Maxim spam, we are increasing suppression when using the Sustained Fire ability. The following change is intended to allow the Maxim to better suppress tactical control groups when the player is spotting for their Maxim and using the Sustained Fire ability in a strategic fashion.
- Sustained Fire ability now increases suppression by 15%. This will be adjusted as necessary.

M-42 Anti-Tank Gun
Given the recent updates to the M-42, we have adjusted its costs to better reflect its current performance.
- Cost from 200 to 240
- Reverted boost to first-strike bonus.

https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/comment/284693#Comment_284693
30 Apr 2019, 21:43 PM
#435
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3

I can understand the cost increase of the M42. We've all seen the recent KOTH's with Prodi and Nicko where the M42 was strongly overperforming for its cost.
30 Apr 2019, 21:49 PM
#436
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

I've got the feeling that cost increase will simply kill M-42 again.
Why wasn't canister shot reload increased?
Range nerf, first strike removal and now cost increase are complete deal breakers on the unit and frankly, I no longer see a reason to pick it over ZiS-3 in any situation anymore, performance difference between the two is too great to justify that cost.

30 Apr 2019, 22:02 PM
#437
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Apr 2019, 21:49 PMKatitof
first strike removal


First Strike bonus from camouflage was not removed.

In 6.0 its duration was increased from 1 to 2 shots.
Now it's been decreased back to 1 shot again.
30 Apr 2019, 22:03 PM
#438
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1614 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Apr 2019, 21:49 PMKatitof
I've got the feeling that cost increase will simply kill M-42 again.
Why wasn't canister shot reload increased?
Range nerf, first strike removal and now cost increase are complete deal breakers on the unit and frankly, I no longer see a reason to pick it over ZiS-3 in any situation anymore, performance difference between the two is too great to justify that cost.


First strike wasn't removed, the change of first strike lasting for 2 shots as of preview 6.0 was reverted.

Price increase is justified imo. Teching T2 and making a ZIS gun costs 480 manpower (and 20 fuel), the same manpower cost as getting two M42's in 7.0, which sounds about right. The latter surely is a better deal against light vehicles.

Not sure what the best solution is between range decrease and reload debuff. I think the balance team opted for a range decrease, because even with a reload debuff canister would stay too opressive if multiple M42's are grouped at 50 range.
30 Apr 2019, 22:07 PM
#439
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



First Strike bonus from camouflage was not removed.

In 6.0 its duration was increased from 1 to 2 shots.
Now it's been decreased back to 1 shot again.

Ah, misunderstood that then, can agree with it.
30 Apr 2019, 22:09 PM
#440
avatar of Kirrik

Posts: 573

Just a reminder - cost of M-42 is just 30 MP lower than USF AT gun which is considered worst AT gun in game, and M-42 stats make it seem great in comparison, especially if you consider fact that it's doctrinal and sov already has zis-3
Canister is better off being removed than remain in it's current state, just give the damn thing better pen or ability to garrison so it can actually do it's role as AT gun.
PAGES (24)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

793 users are online: 793 guests
0 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49118
Welcome our newest member, Ava Sofia
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM