CoH2 Early Game

why not just make ostheer sniper also better at emptying buildings, 60 to 75 percent effective versus 40 percent. That would probably make them a more appealing build in the early game.

Why just ost sniper? Doesnt make sense. Still, I dont think that snipers should be the counter to strong buildings, I would rather change coverbonuses for buildings. Also, snipers are viable in ost builds, even 1v1s. Streamers like StephenJF use them frequently. With the vet1 stun they become really great blobstoppers.

The problem with making snipers more effective is that snipers are as passive a unit can get.

Units in a building are supposed to be something you have to dig out. It creates an interesting encounter figuring out how to do that.

The sniper, on the other hand, just sits there and shoots from a long range, and has enough sight to see threats coming to counter it.

While making flamers more resilient would be good for clearing buildings, I fear it would have have an udesirable effect on early to mid-game infantry-battles. Ie. flamer wars.

The solution should be, as I think the OP is saying, to reduce the defensive bonus of house. But for the love of God not by making Buildings easier to destroy.

Btw.: the above mentioned hit rates of sniper versus Buildings claim to be 40 or even 50%. Is that a fact? My impression was more like 10 or 20%.

Less building crits? Hell yeah!
Increased Mortar efficacy vs buildings? Great!
Better flamer capacity? Soungs good (although dont know whether that means vs the structure, the models inside, or the flamer itself)

But I still, and because this is an Early Game thread, that RNade and Molotov relative performance vs garrisons needs some attention.

In the very first minutes of a game, around the time that Molotovs and RNades can be/are teched, Ost has some serious trouble vs garrisons. A Molotov, thrown mor or less wherever on the building, will force the unit out. Nobody sane sits inside waiting to see how effective the Molotov will be. Not to mention it can be thrown so it both burns the units inside, and cooks them on exit, by predicting the doorway the unit will exit through.

But RNade? Until this impending change to building collapse, Sov ran the risk of the roof collapsing from a single Rnade(which ofc needed changing), but that atleast made Sov wary of garrisons. After this, though, he might as well stay in the building and risk/reward possibly taking some dmg, but possibky taking none. In either case, the RNade is not a threat that warrants leaving the building. A Molotov however, is ALWAYS a reason to get out.

Im not saying Molotov should be nerfed in this regard, nir am I saying RNade should unduly be buffed, since it still has the range advantage. But it really is not a sufficient garrison counter, as it stands now. Some Sov players deliberately garrison especially buildings overlooking the opponents native fuel, knowing that they can sit pretty there until Ost either brings some Pio Flamers around, gets FHT (which comes MUCH later than the problem timing I am referring to here) or for a Mortar to be built and startnsystematically pounding it.

In addition to that, they can also camp their own fuel garrisons, knowing full well that if Ost, strategically, chooses to rush Sovs fuel, that there is precious little Ost can do to force the garrison out, until hard counters hit the field and deploy there many minutes later.

It could be argued that "well, thats one less unit elsewhere on the field for Sov, so just cap around it', BUT this is the native fuel we are talking about. Losing that early fuel income has a huge effect on the rest of the match, and seriousky, though its one less unit elsewhere, that is a hell of a good way to use that one unit. Then someone might argue that "well, take your additional unit, and do the same to them. Garrison THEIR fuel point.", but all it takes to force that out, once you get over there, is a single Molotov, and younare forced to vacate the building.

As itnis now, Ost is more or less forced to rush his own fuel garrisons, and camp it, because if even a CE gets into it, hell have some serious trouvke getting them out. He can ofc just cap the point anyways, but even CEs firing from a building overlooking that will cause model losses.

Perhaps some sort of stat adjustment on RNades that would only affect garrisons.
Doesnt need to wipe the unit (ofc), or even force it out defacto as a Molotov would, but atleast consistently cause an MP drain, to offset the fact that basically Ost is quite fucked at that early stage to bring an actual hard counter out.

I have definitely seen in some previous discussion that the sniper hit percentage was 40, but that may have changed?

Well I figured that the russian sniper already gets cried about for being an effective unit against the small ostheer squads, especially when you get 2 of them. I also figured that i've seen a few threads now that suggest that russia has less problems clearing buildings due to the molotovs.

I didn't mean for the ostheer sniper to be a hard counter to building garrisoning either. At 60 or 70 percent, it is merely better at attrition of the bigger russian squads. It should make hanging out in a building more painful for russia, but not less viable, while possibly making the sniper a more common build.

Riflenades did just get an indirect nerf due to the removal of building collapses, and as somebody who is playing much more russian in general...anything that gets an ostheer player to prefer a sniper over 4 grens is a winner to me.

I do agree that the ostheer sniper is pretty decent as it is right now. I don't think its particularly fragile either, save the random mortar kill, so I'm not actually sure that any kind of hp buff is in order. My idea was more of a way to encourage the unit's use.

I'm not good enough to know if ostheer needs this though. They have the riflenades, they have flamer pios, and now the better mortars, and in the relatively early game, should they want, they can get the cheaper and more zippy scout car with the cannon upgrade, which also does a number on garrisoned units, or just get the more expensive fht of course.

Molotovs might be nice. But on the other hand, Rnades are slightly harder to dodge, due to range they get, and give instant damage (even if its a bit too random).

Wheres as molotovs are much easier to dodge, due to the short range of the throw, even if you miss the initial throw its not too bad to get out a second or two late.

Riflenades are less effective at clearing buildings, but can do so at range. Molotovs are more effective, but are short-range (IE risk of model loss) and require teching. It's balanced. Get a flamer pio if you want reliable anti-garrison. Or the new, better mortar once patch hits. Or FHT. All these are available within minutes of the game starting.

IMO, buildings should still become more vulnerable to small arms fire. I don't really like the idea that they need to be hard countered. But it's Relic's philosophy as of now. And it makes playing Semois supremely annoying as both factions.

Riflenades are less effective at clearing buildings, but can do so at range. Molotovs are more effective, but are short-range (IE risk of model loss) and require teching. It's balanced. Get a flamer pio if you want reliable anti-garrison. Or the new, better mortar once patch hits. Or FHT. All these are available within minutes of the game starting.

IMO, buildings should still become more vulnerable to small arms fire. I don't really like the idea that they need to be hard countered. But it's Relic's philosophy as of now. And it makes playing Semois supremely annoying as both factions.

Right, small arms fire should have more of an effect on buildings. The problem is that in the first couple of minutes, I can't very well rush a flamer pio (even if I spend my 1st 60 munis on it, pios are very easy to push back since they are low HP/armor) and I can't rush a mortar either since mortars that early tend to get outflanked and pushed back quickly. My only chance to fight these buildings is getting in one myself, back-capping, or heavily defending area with a lot of squads and ceding map control in the process.

As such, grens/cons, snipers, and MGs need to perform better against buildings or the pioneer/Combat Engineer flamer needs to clear buildings faster. Small arms fire are just too inefficient to try to use against buildings at the moment.

totally agree with OP, good post. COH1 house mechanics were really interesting, building sandbag at a certain distance from the houose to slowly gain the upper hand. sad that this finess hasnt been implemented in COH2. I really hope that small arm fire behind green cover could be another "slow" option to fight against houses.

@Nullist: dont see it as a perosnal attack, but since u show ur stats, my advise, really, try to play some more games before theorycrafting, especially as soviets. Ur ideas and statement arent totally stupid but u are cleary biased and, no offence, but u seem to be quite weak at the game aswell, as ur preoccupations really are far from the priorities to adress in order to improve the game balance. (Ur wall of texts everywhere keeping saying same complain are topics-killers...)

@Nullist: "insert stuff that has nothing to do with topic"

Ad hominem.

If you have an ontopic statement of mine to dispute, do so, rationally and ontopic, and I will respond likewise. Nothing in your post directed at me personally, did that.

Infact I insist that you do so, because as your post stands now, its only veiled insults, provocation, false implications and personal barbs.

Back up your claims by explaining where my views in this post are false by disputing them rationally.

Nope, ur views on balance arent relevant for me or anyone that is slightly above average at the game sadly...too bad, u have a good writing style. (I tried to be polite previously)

Nope, ur views on balance arent relevant for me or anyone that is slightly above average at the game sadly...too bad, u have a good writing style. (I tried to be polite previously)

You wherent polite in the least, and nothing in that post directed at me was on-topic, nor refuted or disputed anything I had said in my previous posts in this thread, which are ALL ontopic.

If you can't show where my ontopic posts have been flawed, your entire ad hominem falls on its face, to your own detriment.

So far you have refuted nothing I have said related to this threads actual topics.
Only ad hominem and intentional derailment on a personal level.

Either address the ontopic issues and show where my position was flawed, or kindly never ever speak to me again. I have no interest whatsoever in your personal jabs, nor does anyone else.

@Nullist: [...] since u show ur stats, my advise, really, try to play some more games before theorycrafting, [...] (Ur wall of texts everywhere keeping saying same complain are topics-killers...)

+1

But there is no reasoning with him. He's our very own FighterBomber.

+1

But there is no reasoning with him. He's our very own FighterBomber.

There can be no reasonal arguing if you get personal.

If you want reasonable argument, then direct it at my post here:
http://www.coh2.org/topic/9838/coh2-early-game/post/92007
and not at me personally.

Otherwise this personal shit has nothing to do with the topic and you are just derailing.

I want link to fighterbomber

There can be no reasonal arguing if you get personal.

[...]

Otherwise this personal shit has nothing to do with the topic and you are just derailing.

Your ego, slighted by this game, is attempting to end or derail any conversation. Hence the "personal shit".

I want link to fighterbomber

He was just a dude on GR. A relevant link. It was mostly an attempt at a nostalgic pariah flashback. Unfortunately, Nully doesn't flame the way FB did

Your ego, slighted by this game, is attempting to end or derail any conversation. Hence the "personal shit".

Funny that. Since actually I have a better W/L than you do as well as more games played, and thats including the drops Ive had when my gfx card has croaked.

http://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198037827360

If you dont want to discuss ontopic, dont talk to me at all. Thanks.

Less building crits? Hell yeah!
Increased Mortar efficacy vs buildings? Great!
Better flamer capacity? Soungs good (although dont know whether that means vs the structure, the models inside, or the flamer itself)

But I still, and because this is an Early Game thread, that RNade and Molotov relative performance vs garrisons needs some attention.

In the very first minutes of a game, around the time that Molotovs and RNades can be/are teched, Ost has some serious trouble vs garrisons. A Molotov, thrown mor or less wherever on the building, will force the unit out. Nobody sane sits inside waiting to see how effective the Molotov will be. Not to mention it can be thrown so it both burns the units inside, and cooks them on exit, by predicting the doorway the unit will exit through.

But RNade? Until this impending change to building collapse, Sov ran the risk of the roof collapsing from a single Rnade(which ofc needed changing), but that atleast made Sov wary of garrisons. After this, though, he might as well stay in the building and risk/reward possibly taking some dmg, but possibky taking none. In either case, the RNade is not a threat that warrants leaving the building. A Molotov however, is ALWAYS a reason to get out.

Im not saying Molotov should be nerfed in this regard, nir am I saying RNade should unduly be buffed, since it still has the range advantage. But it really is not a sufficient garrison counter, as it stands now. Some Sov players deliberately garrison especially buildings overlooking the opponents native fuel, knowing that they can sit pretty there until Ost either brings some Pio Flamers around, gets FHT (which comes MUCH later than the problem timing I am referring to here) or for a Mortar to be built and startnsystematically pounding it.

In addition to that, they can also camp their own fuel garrisons, knowing full well that if Ost, strategically, chooses to rush Sovs fuel, that there is precious little Ost can do to force the garrison out, until hard counters hit the field and deploy there many minutes later.

It could be argued that "well, thats one less unit elsewhere on the field for Sov, so just cap around it', BUT this is the native fuel we are talking about. Losing that early fuel income has a huge effect on the rest of the match, and seriousky, though its one less unit elsewhere, that is a hell of a good way to use that one unit. Then someone might argue that "well, take your additional unit, and do the same to them. Garrison THEIR fuel point.", but all it takes to force that out, once you get over there, is a single Molotov, and younare forced to vacate the building.

As itnis now, Ost is more or less forced to rush his own fuel garrisons, and camp it, because if even a CE gets into it, hell have some serious trouvke getting them out. He can ofc just cap the point anyways, but even CEs firing from a building overlooking that will cause model losses.

Perhaps some sort of stat adjustment on RNades that would only affect garrisons.
Doesnt need to wipe the unit (ofc), or even force it out defacto as a Molotov would, but atleast consistently cause an MP drain, to offset the fact that basically Ost is quite fucked at that early stage to bring an actual hard counter out.

That is all fair and well except one little detail you haven't considered. (or the impact it has on the game, that is)

You can still cap fuel as German, even tho you have Cons in the building camping. Sure you lose 1-2 grens, but you can cap it or at least de-cap it to deny fuel from that point.
You cannot cap fuel or deny it with Cons, that has MG42 sitting in the building next to it, so you absolutely must take out that MG42 to be able to cap it. A lot of players will just sit out 2-3 molotovs just to deny the strategic point and gain early advantage in resources.

Now if you go for Maxims, early game, especially to camp in single building you are left without any field presence.

Not sure how new patch will affect balance, but if its true that there will be more starting MP and quick build time for Soviets, I fear that we will be back to previous problem when MG42 would instantly suppress and players could just camp unchallenged for entire early game. (quick maxim)

Only this would be much worse because, as you pointed, Germans don't have any means of dealing with buildings early game......

Scary thought

I still think fire is excellent at removing units from buildings, and the Germans have two very excellent options of utilizing it, with one available from the get-go. And hey, pioneers aren't two man squads in this game and apparently without blowing up and/or dropping the flamethrower all the time I think it'll (still) be an excellent way to handle buildings early game for the Germans.

Rifle nades works rather well in most cases, (as in, when they're used appropriately, i.e. on infantry anytime they aren't in a building) and I think the main complaint against using them in regards to buildings is that they cost valuable munitions. Munitions that would be more appropriately used for flamers.

Every time a german player uses a rifle nade on a building they might as well be using a panzerfaust on an infantry squad because it's simply using a strong ability in the absolute wrong circumstances. IMO Rifle nades should pretty much always kill 1-3 full-health garrisoned soldiers--depending on the house of course--rather than barely scratching every unit inside equally. But I don't think they should ever be more effective or a replacement for a flamer squad. That and I think small arms fire should be more effective against garrisoned units, but that's neither here nor there right now.

And let's not forget that germans are provided access to mortars from their t1, despite that it's become commonplace for people to just pretend they don't count because they use indirect fire and are support units. A mortar punishes and eliminates the advantages of stationary enemy positions rather than dealing direct damage to a specific unit. They also can provoke an enemy assault upon the mortar that not only by definition breaks the static gameplay of camping, and it can easily be kited and/or intercepted by anticipatory german forces.

I still think fire is excellent at removing units from buildings, and the Germans have two very excellent options of utilizing it, with one available from the get-go. And hey, pioneers aren't two man squads in this game and apparently without blowing up and/or dropping the flamethrower all the time I think it'll (still) be an excellent way to handle buildings early game for the Germans.

Rifle nades works rather well in most cases, (as in, when they're used appropriately, i.e. on infantry anytime they aren't in a building) and I think the main complaint against using them in regards to buildings is that they cost valuable munitions. Munitions that would be more appropriately used for flamers.

Every time a german player uses a rifle nade on a building they might as well be using a panzerfaust on an infantry squad because it's simply using a strong ability in the absolute wrong circumstances. IMO Rifle nades should pretty much always kill 1-3 full-health garrisoned soldiers--depending on the house of course--rather than barely scratching every unit inside equally. But I don't think they should ever be more effective or a replacement for a flamer squad. That and I think small arms fire should be more effective against garrisoned units, but that's neither here nor there right now.

And let's not forget that germans are provided access to mortars from their t1, despite that it's become commonplace for people to just pretend they don't count because they use indirect fire and are support units. A mortar punishes and eliminates the advantages of stationary enemy positions rather than dealing direct damage to a specific unit. They also can provoke an enemy assault upon the mortar that not only by definition breaks the static gameplay of camping, and it can easily be kited and/or intercepted by anticipatory german forces.

This is exactly it. Germans have plenty of ways to clear buildings. It's just that most of the time they rather invest in things like LMGs. Soviets on the other hand can only invest in upgrades or molotovs which are good vs buildings. If there was a soviet upgrade like the lmg then they would most likely have a similar problem.