You are severely overestimating the impact of this change. The SU76 is not that great of a unit, it fails utterly against heavy armor because it can't flank, it's easily killed by AT guns that share its range. As said, the barrage isn't that great either.
.
Ok. Thanks. Since its so crap in ypur opinion, there is not point in swapping it with T70.
Or, maybe reveal your true motive for wanting it moved, and what true use you actually see in it, despite the above. |
How is that different from sov snipers being killed in a single LMG burst?
Why would a Sov Sniper ever decloak within range of a setup LMG?
Also, how does one burst kill both models?
How is that different, eh?`Its not different, its just stupid. |
I disagree with the rest, but this one is especially puzzling. There would be no cost change at all.
First of all, I never mentioned a cost differential. Anywhere. So dunno where you got that from.
Second of all, t2-3 build would result in ZiS/SU76/T34.
Third of all, a doubled potential for indirect fire, and who even cares about T34, when you instead just callin T34/85s, as usual, and as is the case now. The ZiS/SU76 combination is far more versatile than a ZiS/T34 combination.
You aren't thinking hard enough about the meta repercussions.
The change has enormous repercussions. Its not a small simple change. Its a huge difference. |
Well, no. Historically speaking here, most of the belligerents had different approaches to dedicated tank destroyers - and sometimes no approach at all, depending on the timeframe.
The Su 85 for example had comparatively weak frontal armor, 45mm at 60degrees. At the time of its introduction, the most common German vehicles (PIV, StuG III) could penetrate it from upwards of a 1000 meters. US TDs (Wolverine, Hellcat, etc.) were even worse off in that regard and were not reliably protected against even the more common German autocannons. At least in theory, the SU-85s strong suit was its low silhouette and therefore its easy concealability...which is exactly what makes a Pak dangerous to a tank. It was most certainly ill suited to any straight up fight, and neither were its US counterparts. With the Germans, the picture is more complicated and oscillates all the way from the very poorly armoured Marder to platforms like the Ferdinand.
Well said.
And hence, in the interests and following from the games restrictions on historical realism, I think TDs (and ATGs for that matter, althoug to a lesser degree) need to excercise range and sight first, and, in support of that, the few shots they do get off before pursuit/flank, need to count, especially against turreted tanks.
Increase in armor would be bad, because, as I said, due to the relatively low scaling of penetratiin at ragne on turreted tanks, they would be propoatiinately less effective on a successful approach (which is their job, really). You shouldnt be sitting taking facepnches from turreted tanks anyways. Get your few shots in, and reverse. Especially in SU85, thanks to Scope.
Also, as they somewhat parallel ATGs in function and practice (with a mobility advantage and thanks to armor, an relative immunity to AI effects which ATGs reicprocally are vulnerable to) I would like to see all TDs perform better than ATGs, as befitting of their tier cost so that they can make those shots count. Hence, better penetration and better damage, than their ATG equivalents. SU85 needs to hit harder and with more penetratiin, as befitting its T4 status. (And frankly, Stug also needs a buff in this department, but that is not the topic here). Sov can indeed "skip" tiers, but that is answered by a bit higher cost, and more importantly, a rather significant split in what each tier offers. Inlight of that, I dont think SU85 needs a cost increase for the relatively small buff of penetration and damage I proposed, to just above ATGs.
Mobility was already dealt with, at great length, and for very good reason. I dont want to see necessary changes redacted on those, and basically step back 6months in the balance process. If TDs are to be fixed now, lets please try an alternative solution that doesnt break what has already once been fixed. |
Really? That seems like the exact purpose tank destroyers were built for.
As we all discuss this it's starting to become obvious to me the problem with turretless tanks in CoH2, because it's not just the SU-85. These weapons were designed with super hard front armor to sit in the face of armor and win. The buffs these units need are not mobility buffs, they are going to always going to have terrible mobility. They need stronger front armor (only front) and in the case of SU-85 it needs a higher penetration value. I get the most rng lol moments with the SU-85, when I have to fire 20 shots to blow a tiger or 10-15 to blow a panther (sorry I don't always count, but they are this bad or worse). It performs well against the PIV. I think the scatter is a little off too, it misses a lot at max range. It could use just a small reduction so it occasionally misses, that way people who actually pay attention can back up, but the careless are destroyed.
IRL, TDs, and ATGs got only a few shots off before they are positioned and had to GTFO.
Armor was not their defence. A prepared ambush position (hull down, for TDs), was.
But, also, thats all they needed. If you wherent certain ypu couldnt kill it the armor in 1- shots, you stayed quiet or repositoned. IRL vehicles didnt have HP pools. If there was a good hit from a weapon that could penetrate. You died.
TDs and ATGs where all about ambush, cover and getting that 1-2 crucial shots in to kill thr vehicle, before they located you and hell began.
So unfortunately, the comparison of IRL and a game, ends there already.
It just doesnt work that way in CoH2. ATGs and TDs dont one shot most medium armor, no matter how well you ambush or how good your accuracy, let alone heavier armored vehicles.
So a compromise, that acknowledges and follows the realities of the game, is necessay.
To that end, I support primarily making those shots they do get off, count.
And hence, for SU85 as is the topic of this thread, primarily a focus in range and sight (sight it has), and on ensuring those shots penetrate and count (as as the two others I would like to see raised above ATG levels, to justify the T4 cost).
But as to surviving in the face of returning AT fire, for TDs, they need to withdraw and use range. In the scale of map and the internal systems of the game, TDs just cannot be buffed in armor to resist return fire except by a small margin above now. This is, ironivally, represented in the linear, but also quite marginal penetration and accuracy efficacy of tanks in relation to RANGE (especially turreted ones, and even moreso, when on the move) in response. If the armor is increased, turreted tanks will struggle to have effect on approach and even more importantly, on a successful flank. Primarily, because they have to move to approach, meaning a accuracy reduction, and secondarily, because they are generally outranged in the first place (as well as penetratiin and dmg stats).
TLRD: TDs are like a rook or bishop in chess, and are very vlunerable once exposed, and must remain so. Positioning dor the kill, is everything, and yes, especially for TDs and ATGs, that means flanking support. This is represented in cost however, with turreted tanks generally costing more, though they have less effect, than almost equally armored TDs, which also generally have better maingun stats.
As Ive said, in CoH2, a TD basically amounts to a mobile ATG on a vehicle, rather than infantry weaknesses.
Elephant is an exception, but at its cost and Commander specificity, if carries its own penalties to match those.
|
|
I get how "cool" it would be, for Sov tier synergy. But if you think about it for a bit, one will realise it would also break the Sov tier system, as compared to other factions.
The resulting kind of tier combos possible, would be gamebreaking for Sov, which is already is consider as one of the more competetive factions. Especially in combinatiin with how Sov Commanders are designed and the callin/ability structre they have.
Tier structure and mechanics is different for every faction, and although it is considered "frustrating" by Sov, in that they cant build everything they want out of a linear tier progression (except at greater expense), that is nonetheless how asymmetric faction design works in this game.
As a relative comparison, consider how Ostwind and PWerfer where swapped around. It was a very difficult change,but a necessary one, primarily because Ost AA was otherwise placed too late in the tier structure, especially for Osts linear design. Necessary, but to this day, Ost T4 remains an elusive problem. Iro ically, a similar kind of problem is also presented in Sovs split tier design.
TLDR: As it sort of turns out in Relics asymmetric design, you cant "have it all". Tier structure seems to carry hard and deliberate restrictions, imo, so as to differentiate the factions with different tiering mechanics, and more importantly, a complex interbalance of the handicaps resulting from that, so that, for example, we never have another Brits.
If anything, I would prefer changes to T70 and Su76 instead, rather than swapping them.
T70 went through a very problematic period. As a light tank, it was always wierdly aligned to begin with. SU76 is also a wierd unit to begin with.
Primarily, imo, SU76 barrage combination with ZiS barrage, at that stage, would be absolutely devastating to infantry/support, as a result of the sum total of indirect fire. But, in addition to that, both of these units also function as native AT, again, at a relatively early tier. This combined AT/AI potential frankly scares the hell out of me.
SU85/T70 combo I find less concerning, but I defer to the judgement of those here who see that also as extremely problematic. My rrsistance to that part of the change, is a different one. I think it squeezes T70 out of its already marginal optimum. T70 balance is hairline thin, as it is. I, for one, think T70 and SU85 combo is not something I would want, and which weakens Sovs T4 substantially, especially in favor of a Support/SU76 lineup.
I foresee very problematic unit combinations coming out of a T70/SU76 swap. |
|
Imo range and sight should be where SU85s main strength should lie (especially as a half-step as compared to such true "elite" units like PaK 43 and Elephant) Scope is sort of the defining feature, especially as compared to its weaker cousin, the Stug, ehich unfortunately has failed completely in regards to what I perceive as one of their core mechanic features as on many Commanders, of Hull Down, which we all know just doesnt work in the scale and design of CoH2 maps.
Dont leave it exposed to frontal fire, pull it directly back in reverse when enemy armor starts bringing their guns to bear at their range, and continue to maintain range and sight.
TDs a are a peculiar kind of unit in the intermix of turreted tanks and ATGs. The entirety of how to use these properly is very different than either of its AT alternatives, and unfortunately CoH2 maps are not kind to what TDs would need to shine in a more historically accurate representation. For all intents and purposes, they are essentially a more mobile ATG without an AI weakness, and should be regarded and played as such.
As to stat changes, having reviewed how it compares to its half-step, the Stug, and especially to ATGs, I think it could use an intermix small buff in range, penetration and damage of about 10-40 points per stat. Its maingun currently operates pretty much like a ATG, but considering its T4 status, I think it should have a bit more oomph of the 3 stats I listed, than ATGs. (And for that matter, Stugs also need a reviewing, for a long time now, but that is not the topic of this thread).
Im against mobility and rotation rate changes though. Weve already been there and we dont want old previously corrected imbalances re-occuring. Im also against armor increases, because really you shouldnt be sitting there against even medium tanks taking it in the face at their range, and even less so vs dedicated tank hunters the approach of which can and shpuld be screened by mines and ATNades. |
You do understand that a german sniper kills soviet 6 men teams as fast as a soviet sniper kills a 4 man team?
If soviets are to get 4 man weapon teams, axis should get 2.75 man weapon teams, because ALL axis units have proportionally higher DPS, so for example, a gren squad kills a 6 man maxim team just as fast as a conscript squad kills a 4 man weapon team.
Yes, reaolving this issue is more difficult now than it once was, back when there was infantry armor, no incoming small arms +%modifier and before small arms was scaled to match those. But its too late to cry about that now. Relic made the decisiins they made, based on whatever "feedback" they received at the time, and this is the situation we are left to deal with on an old problem.
The challenge is to somehow keep the current small arms balance as intact as possible, but reduce durability vs non-small arms weaponry.
You are right to point out Sniper as a particular element that makes this difficult, because even if Sov Support teams are changed to have less men, or any other of the 4 suggestions I considered pros and cons on, (and because Sniper doesnt care about hp, infantry armor or small arms modifiers), its not directly feasible to reduce Ost Sniper rate of fire, because then they will suffer against Sovs 6man infantry units. Having said that though, it should be remembered that Maxims have a fast de/setup, and are therefore somewhat less vulnerable to Snipers than their equivalents, even cobsidering the difference in squad size and the Snipers relative rates of fire. And also that Sovs Sniper will still carry the 2man advantage.
Of the options I have considered (and unfortunately a lot ofpeople arent really brainstorming all that many into this thread), Itend to prefer the one that is keeping them as a 6man unit, but reducing their HP to equal, overall, that of a normal 4man Support Team. Its a compromise solution, not ideal, but the one I think comes closest to dealing with this issue, with the least associated problems.
The other two options, are reducing Sov Support to 4man, but also reintroducing infantry armor onto them and/or removing the small-arms +% modifier against them. Sniper and RNade, inparticular, however present a problem in those ( but it must also be said that both of these are counters to Support Teams anyways, by design, so its more a questiin of whether they become too effectivr, rather than of them becoming an "extra" counter, because they already are a designed counter). |
But as Sviet, you're not supposed to get both T3 and T4. So it makes sense if the units in either tier synergize.
Thats my point exactly. Would result in individual tiers that are complete in all they could need, in AT or AI, mixed into one package, but without having to go through the tech structures of other factions from which Sov is free to choose.
|
|
Aerohank, my reply to that is already answered in my "second of all" part.
I understand your desire for the units to synergise, but it just ends up creating a too powerful tier, without needing the other. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
