Profile of FunPolice

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 133

General Information


Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback30 Dec 2020, 03:02 AM Jump back to quoted post30 Dec 2020, 01:47 AMProtos Angelus Somebody is putting zooks on rifles? Is that some sort of "I want to lose" tactics? Rifles are pretty munitions greedy for BARs to be effective late game. Zooks are only ever suited for echelons and rangers (Seldom paras). Who would in their right mind blob rifle zooks. That would be a huge munitions bleed that would lead to MP bleed without actually killing any tanks (unless the enemy is not paying attention) It was a rebuttal to the argument that penals getting snares makes them to powerful if you blob PTRS penals and regular penals. Which I disagree with because it would essentially be the same as blobbing rifleman expect for the fact you are ruining one of you mainline infantry with AT weapons compared to like rifle blobs where you get echelons to have the AT. With how severely limited Penal options are for most things they need to be capable at holding their own unless some change makes it easier for them to get something like a Zis out. Like imagine Riflemen don't have snares and the only AT they can get is zooks on riflemen until they get a medium out. Doesn't sound good does it? Yet Penals are actually dealing with that and yet it's an issue for them to get a snare that isn't tied to PTRS. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback30 Dec 2020, 00:47 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Dec 2020, 16:05 PMVipper Actually you are missing. A blob with a single unit type that has both AI and AT is worse than blob of different type of units. That is the reason VGs lost their shrecks. There no reason to allow Penals to operate on the own and counter both infatry and vehicles. The idea that a mainline infatry should dominate all enemy infatry of it time, blow things up then shut down light vehicles and help vs mediums is simply bad design. Current T1 design is bad and expecting Penals to pull all the weight of the flawed design is an even solution. So should we look to nerf riflemen because they can be AI and AT in a blob? Is putting zooks on a riflemen squad and blobbing with normal riflemen really that much of an issue? Because it would preform in a similar manner to Penals being blobbed with only really difference that the riflemen would be backed up by AT guns/MGs while Penals get squat. I'm all for toning down the AT satchel to be less of a hard counter to LVs if it means Penals could have a snare without the need for PTRS. With how lacking Penal builds are in terms of support weapons or just AT in general it's something that needs to be addressed. I honestly could care less how it gets solved. Make the SU76 easier to get/use, make it easier to backtech to T2, gives penals snares, or whatever else. The bottom line is that unless something else is done Penals will need to be very flexible in what they do as it's the primary reason you go T1. Otherwise Penal builds are still gonna be niche options only used with commanders that have the 45mm because that gives them some actual form of AT to make it till later on. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback29 Dec 2020, 15:42 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Dec 2020, 08:11 AMVipper On the contrary Penal have more number (3) you said than AT Paras/AT PG/AT PF/AT ST/AT SP who one will probably have 1 or 2. They can also easily have snare support from conscripts AT grenade, to "button", to mines and Ram You are presuming that Penal should be able to operate alone which is actually bad design. If that was the case Soviet strategy would revolve around creating a Penal blob and run around counter both infatry and vehicles with it. That is simply bad design. You're missing the point. All those other squads come alongside 3 mainline infantry. So like 3 Grens and 1 PzGren or 3 Riflemen and 1 Para. Penals often end up 2 normal Penals and the 1 PTRS Penal. They often have 1 less squad to fight with comapared to the other AT squads because you turn a frontline infantry into that AT unit. Imagine putting 2 zooks on a riflemen squad, 2 piats on a IS, or even imgaine having to put 2 shrecks on your Grens. That's the same thing penals deal with atm. Jump back to quoted post29 Dec 2020, 08:11 AMVipper Yes they do have AT support. They do not need AT support vs lights and by the mediums are build can have from ATG to SU-76. So penals have to skip the T70 and pay an extra 15 fuel to get their 1st AT gun which in turn slows down their tech to T4 even more? Like honestly the SU76 shouldn't even be considered because of how badly it messes with the Soviet midgame and even ignoring that there isn't exactly much to stop a Pz4 or whatever from diving the SU76 and killing it. You essentially gotta have the PTRS penal squad glued to it in order to prevent a dice. It's just so bad. Jump back to quoted post29 Dec 2020, 08:11 AMVipper They can also easily have snare support from conscripts AT grenade, to "button", to mines and Ram You are presuming that Penal should be able to operate alone which is actually bad design. If that was the case Soviet strategy would revolve around creating a Penal blob and run around counter both infatry and vehicles with it. That is simply bad design. As I already stated that conscript squad with AT is stupidly expensive since you 390 manpower and 15 fuel (which is even worse if your also planning on paying for 75 fuel for the SU76). And if you go for more than 1 conscript then is there even really a point to go Penals? If penals aren't allowed to be flexible and have a snare than give them more actual AT and the tools to better deal with vehicles. Right now they rely entirely on a single PTRS squad to handle their AT until T4. It just isn't enough and the only way they can currently fix that is either ungodly expensive to get or is doctrinal. Otherwise just let penals be able to get a snare without tying it to the PTRS so they can have a better chance to keep vehicles from having a field day. Locking it behind a 150 manpower and 15 fuel tech should be a big enough cost seeing how expensive penals already are. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback29 Dec 2020, 02:09 AM Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 20:22 PMVipper The AT Paras/AT PG/AT PF/AT ST/AT SP do not have snares at all. With the recent buff there is not reason for Penal to have snare (especially 1 shot ones) either. That has a couple flaws in the reasoning due to what environment Penals exist in compared to those other units. 1. Penals lack numbers. It's common to only get 3 penals due to their cost and trying to get a 4th is so expensive it isn't really an option. You could get a conscript squad but if you want snares with them it's even more expensive than a 4th penal. So in the end you end up with in general 2 AI penals, a conscript squad, and the PTRS penal. This essentially means you have 2 frontline fighting squads and an AT squad. This is in stark contrast to the examples given who all get at least 3 main line combat squads on top of the AT unit. For example with PzGrens you're already gonna have 3 grens/ostruppen/assgrens to keep battling infantry even if the PzGrens get the AT tools. This is true for the majority of the units listed outside of possibly the PzFus. The PzFus get away with it since it's very common for OKW to get 4 infantry squads starting off so they can get shrecks and still have 3 mainline infantry. If you want a more fair comparison for Penals and what giving them PTRS are like, it's similar to having 3 Rifleman and giving one of them zooks or 3 IS and giving one of them Piats. 2. Penals don't have AT support. All of those examples have the option to also back up their infantry AT with an AT gun. This does not exist for penals without a massive investment to backtech for the zis or the use of commanders with the 45mm. Seemingly Penals shouldn't need to only exist with commanders that have the 45mm right? Well even with the buffs it's still largely going to be that as you can't just have a PTRS squad carry your entire AT capacity until late game. If you tried to use just a single squad of PzGrens with shrecks and use them to carry AT until a Pz4 it wouldn't go very well. Those other examples exist in a position where they have other means to stop armor and so the AT infantry is complementary. Penals don't have this luxury. 3. Other AT infantry have support to snare. Even if the AT infantry itself doesn't have a snare you often have 3ish squads that do have a snare to use together with the AT infantry to help kill vehicles. Penals get the single AT squad with a snare and to get a second snare have to get a conscripts and then get the grenade package which does currently nothing for the Penals themselves. In total that second snare comes out to 390 manpower and 15 fuel just so penals can have a snare. Compare this to like Riflemen which just have a snare after naturally teching up or things like Grens who literally just have a snare right from the start. These 3 points in conjunction should show why Penals do need better AT capacity than their peers as they lack a lot of the tools those other examples have to support them. Imo making the AT satchel something any penal could get and lowering the damage to not one shot things would be a big improvement for them. It would give the Penals more of an actual chance to scare off enemy vehicles and keep them from diving/walking over the penals when the PTRS ones aren't around. The surrounding events of soviets going T1 just make it so Penals need stuff like a snare while also being able to get AT because they have so few tools otherwise. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback28 Dec 2020, 20:13 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Dec 2020, 16:52 PMKatitof That's called AT nade and they already are available for stock squad + AT satchel is not offensive weapon, its a deterrent to pushing them. Why? You are adding an extra cost here, what is the point of that? Regular satchel can not be used against infantry anyway if your opponent isn't browsing xvids while playing anyway. Penals are not supposed to have snare without PTRS. The whole point of AT satchel is to keep vehicles away from them as they lack alpha damage to scare away med armor from engaging up close. Also, if you need this much snares, don't spam penals, build cons. At least from what I gather from the current changes is that there is a push to make penal openings more viable. With penals still only having a single squad that could snare (which is extremely short range) and the fact that penal openings pretty much only have PTRS rifles to contest armor leaves a lot to be desired for them. Giving them better access to snares would be something to help that. The main issue with just building conscripts is that if your getting more than like 1 then the question becomes why even go penals in the first place? And even if you do get conscripts you still would have to tech into AT nades for snares with them so I don't see much of an issue with locking the AT satchel behind that tech also if "just get conscripts" is the argument against them getting snares. How about T1 makes it easier for easier to get T2? Something like making T2 cheaper if T1 is built could be something? Or another idea I think people were kicking around would be to move some of cost from T3 into T2 so anyone going into T1 gets a faster T3? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback28 Dec 2020, 16:41 PM I don't know how exactly to do this but I think a good buff to Penals would be to do 2 things. 1. Make the AT satchel deal less damage but have more range. 2. Lock the normal satchel and AT satchel behind the Grenade Package in the HQ. The increased range doesn't need to be much but it being a little easier to get a snare off would be nice to see. Plus the biggest change is that penals can have a snare without needing to get PTRS rifles which means there is a better threat of snares being something the enemy has to watch out for. Currently with only 1 penal getting PTRS (you can only afford one realistically) the amount of snare Penal starts have is laughable. If any penal could snare it would make the job of the PTRS a lot easier overall. Another idea is to do a bigger set of changes to the SU76. Currently there is just little reason to get one compared to the T70 and after that point they just don't preform well in any way. What if you made the SU76 like 60 fuel and toned it down to mainly make it effective against LVs and even handle (with vet ofc) mediums? It could essentially become the mid game of a penal start and be the core AT of that build that helps against infantry thanks to it's barrage ability. So maybe the change could be something along the lines of: Fuel cost reduced to 60 fuel (from 75) Penetration values decreased (practically a Pz4 would bounce a good amount of shots from an unvetted SU76) Vet changes (things like Vet 2 granting more Pen) Any changes to Barrage to balance out the cheaper cost (I would assume this takes a smaller nerf to help prevent spam being to strong) I have no clue if the above changes would be enough nor would I know the exact values they should be made to but it could be another way to improve penals by giving them serious AT to shut down LVs in a more serious way and also has the added benefit of making the SU76 more appealing to get in a build. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] OKW Feedback27 Dec 2020, 06:08 AM Jump back to quoted post27 Dec 2020, 04:53 AMDescolata 2 sturm is interesting, but a TON of OKWs tools exist to enable and incentivize 1 Sturm play, from the 0 pop engineers of the Mechanized truck, to their sheathable minesweeper, their 8 pop (the elite inf standard), upgrade for better healing (on a unit that can consistently get vet 2) and their miserable late game. Not enabling Sturm spam allows OKW to start with the highest value starting unit. Strums would very likely need more nerfs to have their costs reduced further but the upsides to making a second strum actually worthwhile could outweigh those nerfs. Some issues with OKW actually lie within how they only ever really have a single engineer unit kicking around for the entire game and how if you lose that starting one it sets you back in a pretty massive way. Making 2 strums starts viable would make it a lot more forgiving in general if a strum gets wiped. Probably the 2 biggest things is that a second strum means you actually have 2 squads to repair no matter how you tech up. Currently if you go BGHQ you pretty much only have a single repair unit for the entire game and even with mechanized you end up with 2 squads but 1 of them is immobile leading to less flexible repairs overall (and not to mention they cost 15 fuel and I think it's 200 manpower to get). Then the other big upside as before is a greater build diversity in the early game. Right now the meta is mostly based around 4 volks and the only variation is the occasional kubel which doesn't offer much diversity in how you can open. If it was viable to get a second strums suddenly you could consider replacing a volks squad with a strum which could lead to different ways the OKW player has to play. If it's done correctly you could open potentially a lot of doors for the OKW by making it easier to get a second strum as tools that might be otherwise be a bit lackluster suddenly become more appealing when you can have 2 strum. Like for example maybe more aggressive vehicle plays since repairs are more likely to be close to them or things like maybe skipping an AT gun for a faster tech up and using double shreck to deter LV (not great examples but those things do become better with double strums among the bigger benefits listed above). In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] OKW Feedback27 Dec 2020, 03:35 AM So I think this was previously talked about a little bit but is there any merit to maybe doing a different change to Strumpioneers? Namely changes that would encourage building a second one early game. Double Strum could be a possible way to diversify early okw builds beyond 4 volks. Something like reducing the manpower cost by like 20 (so to 280) and making them 6 pop (from 7) could possibly be something. Making the shreck and sweeper mutually exclusive would need to come back for sure and it even kinda encourages double strums early game while not making the upgrades just auto pick (which the strums now just always get the shreck and sweeper). Beyond that it also makes losing a strum less punishing which would be nice to see later in the game where they are some of the only repair you have. Idk probably some issues with this idea but thought it could be interesting to just throw the idea out there. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW Spec Ops Doctrine (especially Radio Silence)22 Dec 2020, 16:52 PM Jump back to quoted post22 Dec 2020, 14:51 PMVermillion_Hawk IR StG44 Obersoldaten camouflaged with Officer buffs and alpha strike buffs don't need to appear on the minimap because they will shred whatever unit is unlucky enough to stumble upon them. Terrible idea. If the alpha strike thing is to strong you could rework the ability to be something else. Drop the camouflage and sprint effects and have it do whatever ends up balanced. You’re probably right in it being to strong for Stug obers to be able to close the distance but without that they should preform in a more balanced form right? Even with the Officer them having to approach to maximize their power should keep them in line. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW Spec Ops Doctrine (especially Radio Silence)22 Dec 2020, 14:35 PM So my suggestion for a rework to the commander Radio Silence - 0 CP - 60 munitions, long cool down - Infantry can camouflage in cover, gain increased speed, and are hidden in the tact map until they attack. After they start attacking these effects are disabled. Meant to make this an alpha strike style ability but the effects quickly wear off once units are actively engaged in combat hopefully keeping it more balanced. Strum Officer (Replaces Flares) - 2 CP - Same as from Breakthrough doctrine This I think fits well with Spec Ops and his abilities work quite well with other doctrine based stuff. For example him getting close with Radio Silence could let a sneaky forced retreat happen. Infiltration Grenades - 3CP - Unchanged barring any cost changes IR STG44 - 3CP - Unchanged Command Panther - 12 CP - Gains “Flare” ability. Cost 60 munitions and launches a flare to a specified area that is somewhat close to the command Panther. Sight range reduced from 50 to 45. (Maybe not needed?) Overall this is more so an attempt to nerf flares while not removing them outright. This should make the command Panther more worthwhile and better at supporting your army while now requiring high risk to get sight lines on enemy artillery units. Another possibility could be giving a passive aura to nearby infantry increasing their defense or attack capabilities. In the end I kinda see spec ops as a doctrine that is meant to overall empower your infantry units with various abilities. It also aims to at least try to remove the more annoying aspects of the current doctrine while keeping some of it intact. Just my thoughts on if spec ops were to get changed. In: COH2 Balance