Profile of Cannonade

first balance forum page.

9 whine threads about allies being op or axis up.
1 actually valid, about katiusha.
1 arguably valid about ost T4 cost.

4 whine threads about axis being op or allies up.
1 valid, about M3.
1 arguably valid about panzerfusiliers overperforming for cost.

Forum tears say you are wrong as its the exact opposite.

No. Actually your analysis of thread counts supports his position.

Retreat an MG42 or mortar. Once the guy who carries the weapon dies, it teleports to other crew members. On the other hand, SU support weapons must be manned again before they are able to continue to retreat.

And i forgot: higher DPS, specially on range, makes decrews easier.

I see what was meant then. Thanks.

Yeah, may have been convenient since Sov Support Teams have the men to spare, and "nice graphically", whereas on the original 3man Ost Support Teams (plus the former "fleeing off the field guy") would have made it very impractical.

Im ok with the "Ost support weapon teleporter" technology being applied to Sov support too, if its techincaly possible with the animations and all, regardless of whether the Support Team crew durability is adjusted or not.

It is indeed unfair. A legacy bug, that has been glossed over.
Retreating units shouldnt have these kinds of handicap, just as they also are (generally) immune to suppression too. Pathing is unpredictable enough as it is without stuff like this in addition.

This thread is getting ridiculous amounts of posts and views btw.

Seriously, think we are breaking records here.

I personally don't see the problem here. The premise seems to be that close range units should have some utility in all situations...

... it's just a matter of knowing the map, using flanking routes to your advantage and knowing when to pick a fight. If you can't do that, that's a map design issue, not a balance one.

I agree completely.

Units need to be used at their optimum range. For units with long range that is, self-explanatorily, at long range.

Its just stupid to try an engage a long ranged unit at, well, long range, with a unit that has a closer ranged optimum.

Having said that, it does not necessarily mean that closer optimum ranged units should do more dps at that closer range (though usually that does happen, to offset the disandvantage of having to maneuver closer, for a better dps output) but in the way CoH2 small arms stats in particular are, that is already answered by a reduced efficacy of long optimum ranged units in closer quarters. Meaning that not only do you have better dps with a close range unit at its optimum, but the long ranged unit you are fighting has less dps in proportion too, at that range, as they are inside of their optimum.

As Cyridius points out, this makes map use, cover use, LOS use and smoke use penultimate for closer optimum units.
Oncenyou get there, the payback is twofold. Not only do your weapins operate at optimum, but the dps you receive is also proportionally reduced as a factor of the opposing long ranged unit being out of its optimum.

BUT, LMG dps (not including the pathetic Guard upgrade (which btw neeeeds a buff and could benefit from the same solution, especially vs lower model units), and rather focusing on the Ost variety) is so high, that it chews individual target models to bits, especially at range, leading to high model attrition. As Cruzz suggested, a generalised DPS across the unit would mitigate this, allowing closer optimum units to close the gap with enough models (and hence dps) to bare inorder to take advantage of the twofold enefit as mentioned above. It is MUCH better to be able to close the gap with a unit that has all its models (and hence weapons) intatct, even with a lower overall hp total, than it is to arrive with 1-2 models dead (and hence their weapons gone) and the remaining models at full health.

Would you rather have a unit arrive with all models intact, but at 50% health, or half the unit arrive with 100% health?
I would choose the former, every goddam time.

Dead guys cannot fire a gun.

In most situation, units that require closer range will lose too many men on approach resulting in a significant drop in offensive performance

Dev concern illustrates this completely. And the primary culprit, is LMGs with their single target DPS chewing the hell out one model in turn, to the result that the opposing closer optimum unit is demicated by model loss to the point where they no longer deliver sufficient DPS on closing the gap to their optimum, due to model losses. Cruzz's generalised LMG dps solution fixes this by allowing time for the approach without losing models (but still keeping the long range impetus of LMG up, in the sense that you cant just sit behind a fence at LONG RANGE waiting to assault, you have to do it now, and preferably through cover/smoke/flank, or the LMG will wear you down to where an assault is no longer viable). And even then, with Cruzz's proposed change, at long range sitting, you wont lose models like now. You can hang there, steadily losing unit hp without model losses if you want to. Costs you no MP, just steadily reduces the assault potential of the unit. Wheras as the system is now, you would have lost 1-2 models and have to reinforce at cost.

I don't understand Peter's desire to just standardize everything per cost, with a huge emphasis on stats./

Where do you have this as fact of Peter's position?

And, whats wrong with standardizing efficiency as a factor of cost?
Whats wrong with a huge emphasis on stats?

Personally I think both of these are excellent design principles.

. I'm talking about making units perform similarly per cost and per number of squad members, and you're talking about 'identical' units. That's unfair, and not what I said nor meant. I chose my words carefully.

Whats wrong with units performing similarly per cost and and as including number of squad members?

Isnt it entirely reasonable and rational, that units perform according to their cost?
Isnt it entirely rational and reasonable that the number of squad members should be considered in that?

I didnt say "identical" units anywhere. Even once. I also chose my words carefully

Incidentally, if you want proof of this apparently invalid slippery slope argument, look at the aforementioned examples; IS-2 / Tiger and T-34 / Panzer IV. There may even be others I've forgotten about. That said, there have been some very positive balance changes, such as making Penals affordable and therefore usable.

It is a slippery slope argument, and in addition, not what the Devs requested feedback on either. You posit that if Sov Support Team durability is reduced, then it will eventually result in Maxim mirroring MG42. I dont see the connection, at all. Maxim has stats unique to it, primarily in the de/setup time. Changing the stated problem of Sov Support Team durability is extraneous and separate to that. One does not logically follow from the other. Maxim, as a weapon, does exactly the same with 1man, 4man or 6man.

You then countermand your own example right afterwards, by recoginising that one necessary change to one element of a given unit(s), does not automatically lead to a "mirroring", in the following sentence. As you point out, one change in balance does not always automatically result in another change, and another, and another, that "along a slippery slope" leads to a mirror solution. Have some faith in the Devs We all want asymmetric factions, and it certainly is a hard balance challenge, but a worthwhile one. Even as 4man (or reduced hp 6man, or 4man+armor, or 4man - the incoming smallarms modifier), a Maxim is still very different from an MG42.

I think I understand why. You seem to be under the impression that Sov Support Teams are UNDERPERFORMING as an actual onfield weapon. Whereas, that is not the case at all, and concretely, not what the Devs are asking for feedback on.

Sov Support Team performance, as related to the actual weapon, is fine.
Devs are asking for feedback on the excess durability factor of the crew size (not on the weapon).
Dev also states that they are considering possible changes to the weapon itself, IF those are necessary as a result of reduced durability.

Do you understand?

Primary problem: Sov Support Teams are too durable. (NOT that Sov Support Weapons are underperforming).
Secondary problem: IF Sov Support Team durability, as above, was corrected one way or another, then would that possibly necessitate a Support Weapon buff.

You seem to have misunderstood what they are asking.

They are asking how to fix Sov Support Team durability, first.
And then state they are also open to possible Support Weapon buffs, if necessary, depending on the solution to the above.

Your post carried two primary arguments:
1) That you dont understand why (as you perceive it), Peter is from your perception trying to "standardize everything per cost".
I dont know why you say this, because A) what makes you think that is Peter's purpose B) Whats wrong with standardizing performance to cost?
2) The slippery slope argument, that apparently, illogically, a reduction in Sov Support Team durability will invariably lead to it becoming the same as its mirror, as was the case in the examples you posted. Which is fallacious to begin with, because neither the IS-2 / Tiger and T-34 / Panzer IV are actual mirrors of each other, AT ALL.

Im sure you will agree, that neither of your two primary points above, actually answers what the Devs asked of us.
Neither is a workable or actual solution to what they asked for feedback on.

My recommendation, instead of the above approach, is focus on what they are actually asking for.

With all due sincerity and respect to you, I understand WHY you reacted as you did, and dont blame you for it.
Feedback is feedback, and though I, as a pedantic argumetative bastard, poke holes in it, I do not for one second believe that your actual intent was not good and you too also want a better game, as you see it.

But I do also think you missed the actual point of the feedback request, a bit.
Sov Support Team durability is a problem. Devs want feedback on how best fo fix it, possibly including Support Weapon buffs if necessary.

Its really no more, or less, than that, on this specific point.What do you think of my analysis here?
http://www.coh2.org/topic/20942/action-items-balance-feedback-required/post/188243

I would welcome your perspective, as I tried my best to explore 4 possible options, some of which I hadnt read before, or thought of before, and hence would love a second opinion on.