Profile of Jon2020

This is my opinion about the Winter Balance Patch update for the Soviets, with a team-game (mostly 4v4) perspective in mind:

Combat Engineers:

I have no problem with reducing the accuracy of the combat engineers, since they are rarely useful in battle anyway, with the exception of when they are equipped with flamethrowers, which shouldn't be affected by the reduction in accuracy (the accuracy change only affects their rifles, right?).

M3 Scout:

The intention of these changes seems pretty good, since the M3 almost never survives very long in a 4v4 team game environment, even with careful attention. I suppose that if an infantry squad can kill the 240 hp, 3.8-armored M3 in approximately the same amount of time as it would take that same infantry squad to kill the 200 hp, 5.4-armored M3, this change will be a success.

Maxim:

These changes seem reasonable. The extra suppression is probably a good idea, considering how hard the Maxim struggles to suppress 2-3 infantry squads, one of which always seems to be able to get up to the front and throw a devastating grenade, no matter how well you micro the gun to suppress each squad. I'm not sure about the retreat speed, though, but we'll see.

ZiS-3 Field Gun:

Let's be honest about this nerf: In addition to giving team weapons more time to react, it will also give every infantry squad 50% more time to react when being barraged. Since this ability will be much less effective vs. team weapon and infantry squads alike, its cost should be correspondingly reduced.

Special Rifle Command:

This build-time reduction is definitely appropriate to offset the map control issue which seems to plague every T1 build in a 4v4.

Penal Battalion:

I'm all for the faster reinforcement and increased survivability, but what's the point in helping this underperforming unit out only to reduce it's accuracy by 50% at Vet 3? I might as well just play with conscripts for the late game. It becomes too expensive to reinforce Penal Battalions in the late game anyway, especially considering that they don't fare much better against elite infantry than Vet 3 conscripts do. This is still an expensive, lackluster AI unit in the late game.

M5 Half-Track:

This appears to be a gigantic anti-air nerf to the M5. I'm ok with this if it brings the anti-air capabilities closer to the Sd.Kfz.251/17 Flak HT, but something should then be done to improve the survivability of the cargo planes which deliver the fuel drops given to the Soviet Lend-Lease and Industry Tactics commanders.

SU-76:

This change is interesting. I usually just go for SU-85's in 4v4 team games, considering how fragile the SU-76 tends to be, but I'm not opposed to this change.

T70:

If the AI ability is being weakened, why isn't the penetration being increased? The T70 is already worse vs. armor than the Luchs. If you want to take away the Soviets' light tank anti-infantry capability, its ability to damage vehicles should be improved. An alternative balancing option that I saw someone introduce here would be to give the Conscripts the 7 man upgrade ability at T3 instead of T4, so that the Soviets don't fall too far behind against superior Axis infantry (it's a real struggle to keep up with Panzergrens, Grenadiers with LMG's, Volks, Fallschirmjagers, Obersoldaten, etc.). I think this is a reasonable way to compensate for the weakening of the T70 as a strong anti-infantry option for the Soviets.

T34/76 and T34/85 Ram Ability:

Why would you ever want to incentivize players to sacrifice their vetted tank crews to do the job of ramming enemy vehicles? There is a reason that generals aren't typically on the front lines; they are too valuable to be in that position. So why would you want to send your vetted (and therefore more-valuable) T34's in to ram and likely be destroyed? Axis tanks generally have more hit points and armor than their Allied counterparts. While I rarely use ramming anyway, I still find this to be a puzzling change.

Katyusha:

As I mentioned in my post regarding the changes to the USF faction, I'm ok with the rocket artillery nerf, so long as it is equally applied to all factions. On an individual level, my problem with weakening the Katyusha is that it is already incredibly fragile and unagile to begin with. I usually do not make more than one Katyusha in 4v4 matches, because they routinely get knocked out by random LEFH shots (even despite constantly moving them to avoid counterbattery follow-up shots), tank intrusions, and even Fallschirmjager drops.

SU-85:

This makes no sense at all to me. Regardless of the justification for this nerf being the reduction of armor on Axis tanks, the armor on Axis tanks is still incredible. Good luck penetrating a Tiger, Elefant, Jagdtiger, or King Tiger, or even Panther head-on. You might reply, "just flank them!", but this is obviously not always doable against skilled opponents who cover their flanks with mines and/or AT guns. Furthermore, SU-85's are absolutely not great for flanking, as the maneuverability of their case-mate design leaves them horribly vulnerable during such attacks. I think whoever came up with this change needs to take a good hard look at 4v4 late-game matches which are chock full of Panthers, Tigers, King Tigers, Jagdtigers, Elefants, etc. For most non IS-2, non-ISU commanders (all but four of the Soviet commanders), your primary option for taking on these behemoth Axis tanks is the SU-85. This brings me to another point: Why aren't SU-100's a late game option for the Soviets? They were certainly used in the war against the heaviest Axis vehicles, but they have not been given as an armor-tackling option in COH2. I don't get it.

ISU-152:

This is the one single Soviet tank, given to only two commanders, which can be used to fight back against the strongest of the superior Axis infantry and armor. It highly vulnerable to flanking attacks already. Is it really necessary to reduce its rear armor to 110?! The ISU Piercing Shot modifications (including the bug fix) are welcome changes, and I'm alright with the HE round shortening, but I simply do not understand the need to reduce the armor on this super expensive, super late-entry tank down to 110. The tank should be available at an earlier CP and/or have its cost reduced to reflect these nerfs. It's bad enough it has to deal with Elefants, Jagdtigers, and King Tigers, which have more hit points/armor than the ISU already.

Again, to touch upon the rear armor reduction, I've asked other players what they think about the ISU's nerf. They made comments along the lines of 'well, what difference does it make if the rear armor is reduced. It was getting penetrated reliably by Panthers from the rear anyway.' If the ISU was getting reliably penetrated by Panthers from the rear anyway, then what was the point of making this tank even more vulnerable to weaker Axis vehicles?! It's as if the engineers of this balance patch don't take 4v4 matches into consideration at all for the Allied factions, which already struggle late-game against superior German infantry, armor, and artillery...

Conclusion:


I'm ok with some of the changes, and certainly remain open-minded about them, but I just can't understand the nerfs to the tank destroyers and ISU-152. Every single OKW commander can call-in a King Tiger in the late game. It is not uncommon to see multiple Elefants fielded by multiple Wehrmacht players in the late game. What's the point of making it harder for most Soviet commanders to deal with Axis armor? You are pushing more players to go for the IS-2 and ISU-152 commanders and neglect the commanders who aren't equipped with heavy tanks (which is most of the them!). KV-1 and KV-8 tanks, though "heavy," don't count here because they are not very good solutions at destroying heavy Axis armor.

As for changes not addressed in this patch, leaving Soviets without access to counterbattery on their ML-20's is a questionable imbalance, in my opinion, which is also of historical inaccuracy. Furthermore, why does the T34-85 get 800 hp but the KV-1 only get 675 hp? If the health of a tank is related to its weight, the KV-1 should surely have more than the T34-85, not less. The KV-1, despite the addition of the hull-down mode, is still not in a great place. It is hard to justify getting one of these in a 4v4 team game over an SU-85 or KV-8, because it is just not very good at dealing with enemy armor and isn't particularly stellar against infantry, either. A boost to at least 800 hp would make this unit more usable, even if the price has to go up a little bit. 675 hp is just too low for a heavy tank. The armor on it is great, but it's still getting reliably penetrated by Panthers, so it's not always the best way to spend fuel in a 4v4.

As for the B-4, it needs some help. There is a reason people only use it for the memes. If you don't get lucky with it, you've wasted a lot of manpower and population. It performs consistently worse than the ML-20's. I'm not saying that there is no value to it, as the front-loaded damage and ability to finish off armor pieces is an intangible that isn't always reflected in total-damage-done values and comparisons. I just think that something needs to be improved about it or it doesn't always make sense to employ it in a serious game. Aside from being knocked out even more easily than before the last bug was fixed (regarding its hit box), it's too easy for Axis players to take it out with LEFH counterbattery fire or a recon/flare and direct-strike. One idea I had is the introduction of a tractor or towing vehicle which can slowly move it from place to place. While this would leave the piece just as vulnerable to bombing runs and counterbattery fire, it would at least make the B-4 less of a giant, sitting-duck target during idle times. Furthermore, it would be historically accurate - it was indeed towed and moved around during WWII. It was not a stationary, immovable piece as it is in COH2.

As for the Soviet heavy mortar, I have played against it recently and have definitely felt it when it hits my squads, but I have to say I am damaged much more heavily on the whole by the smaller Soviet mortars. When I am playing as the Soviets, I notice the same thing; I generally get more kills with the smaller mortars, which arrive on the battlefield earlier, are cheaper, and have a faster fire rate. I think that the heavy mortar is underperforming, and some of the expert players I have discussed this with feel the same way. I've also noticed that elite Soviet infantry, such as the Airbourne Guards and the Assault Guards, don't seem to be performing all that well considering how late they become available (CP3 or so). Fallschirmjager come at CP 2 and fare much better in combat. Perhaps some changes are in order for these units, which rarely seem to be worth making. For example, it usually makes more sense to just use SVT Conscripts with the Airbourne commander instead of paying the higher price for the Airbourne Guards. I like the Airbourne Guards, but feel that their strafe call-in is not the most useful ability, and their high price and late entry into the game just doesn't encourage me to use them very often. The Assault Guards don't seem to be particularly good at any given range against other elite infantry, and the high cost associated with their half-track pairing and late-entry doesn't bode so well for them. I'm sure I'll think of more issues with the Soviets over time, but these are the issues salient in my mind for the time being.

My thoughts about the proposed changes to the USF, as they apply to team games:

Ambulance:

This makes sense, considering the high manpower expense of the ambulance. The fact that this -20% damage received only applies when in the HQ sector is more than fair. If you want to reinforce forward, the risk is on you.

M1918 BAR:

This should have been done long ago. Riflemen are on the expensive side, yet still struggle to compete with vetted/elite Axis infantry units. Dropping expensive BAR's all over the place was a real problem, especially considering that one needs to pay a considerable price to unlock them in the first place.

Rear Echelon:

I'm fine with these changes. If you're using them to fight anything except for vehicles (with Bazookas), you're probably in trouble anyway.

Riflemen:

This change makes sense, considering how easy it is to get wiped by Stukas and Panzerwerfers. When you replace your riflemen, and still cannot snare vehicles in the late game, it's pretty unfair.

M1 81mm Mortar:

I don't think these changes are going to make a big difference, but any improvement is welcome considering the power that the early Wehrmacht MG has to quickly lock down critical fuel/VP territories.

M2HB 50cal:

I'm not sure there is any need to weaken the USF's MG capability... US infantry already struggles against elite infantry like Fallschirmjager, Panzergrenadiers, and Obersoldaten, and the MG is only a 4 man squad as it is... I have gotten my 50cal's, even in cover, picked off by a couple of groups of elite Axis infantry.

M20:

From the perspective of a USF player, these are welcome changes. I almost never see this being used in team games, as it is too costly and takes too long to arrive on the battlefield for what it does. The mines it lays are great for the late game, but that's about it.

M5 Stuart:

These changes seem alright, despite the nerf to the engine shot ready aim-time.

Pack Howitzer:

Completely unnecessary changes. The Pack Howitzer was already nerfed by having its crew size reduced by one. Also, this unit has to be unlocked for a fuel cost, and the unit itself is very expensive at 340 manpower, and takes quite a while to produce. Furthermore, it is not a retreatable unit, and is easily de-crewed by Walking Stuka strikes, as well as just about anything else within range of it. The whole point of the last nerf it received was to maintain its offensive power while making it more vulnerable. If you're now also going to weaken its offensive power so drastically like this, it will be pointless to pay 340 manpower for it, especially in light of the mortar changes and the mortar availability from T0. I'll just go for mortars, and this will be even more rarely used in team games. The USF don't get access to a sniper, so this is a must have weapon for seriously jammed up positions. Meanwhile, I routinely lose multiple infantry squad models in single shots from the LEIG, which only costs 270 instead of 340 manpower. This nerf makes no sense to me at all. If the offensive power is being reduced by 33%, then so too should its manpower cost be accordingly reduced.

Major:

These changes could offer a subtle improvement to the recon ability.

M8 Scott:

I'm ok with removing the human crush, that's an acceptable nerf. But what's the point of nerfing the anti-infantry capabilities of this vehicle, which costs nearly as much in fuel as the Sherman tank? I won't bother making these anymore, I'll just save up the extra 35 fuel or whatever and go straight for the Sherman. You make it sound like the decreased anti-infantry capabilities will be offset by an increase in "splash damage", yet the stats you cite show a barrage AOE distance nerf, a barrage damage nerf, a barrage damage decrease, and even an increase in angle scatter on the barrage. These are already fragile in team games, so I'm puzzled by the major nerf here.

M36 Jackson:

This nerf doesn't make sense. I'm beginning to think that whoever decided upon these changes does not play USF in team games. Every single OKW commander gets access to a King Tiger for the late game. Jagdtigers are commonly used, and it is common to see multiple Elefants on the field in the late game. Just yesterday there were masses of Panthers on the field of a Hill 400 game, with 2 Elefants controlling the middle, 1 Jagdtiger behind them, and 1 King Tiger up front. The guy with the King Tiger even had a Sturmtiger on the field. Only one single USF commander gets a heavy tank (the Pershing), which is no more durable than a Panther, and only one can be fielded at a time. Is it really necessary to reduce the Jackson's penetration? How else are US players supposed to deal with King Tigers, Elefants, Jagdtigers, Brummbars, Panthers, and the list goes on? The AT guns are not a great solution, as they constantly fail to penetrate, even when using the munition-costing Sabot round. Worse, when they are lost, Axis players can pick them up and penetrate American Jacksons with ease, since the armor has already been nerfed into oblivion on these paper tanks. On top of this, Jacksons aren't always a great solution to enemy armor, when the field is full of infantry with Panzerschrecks, PaK 88mm emplacements, and even just mines and small AT guns. I don't see how further weakening the Jackson is going to encourage players to choose USF in team games, and I am beginning to think that your 'balance' changes only apply to 1v1 matches. You might want to consider implementing separate balance changes for 1v1 mode and for team game (2v2, 3v3, and 4v4) matches, because this makes no sense at all.

Case in point: I recently fought a Tiger head-on with two Vet 3 Jacksons, WITH the HVAP rounds activated, and bounced 2 consecutive shells with my first Jackson. My second Jackson bounced its first shell off of the Tigers frontal armor as well. Of course, I would have liked to flank the tank, but he had it in a Lienne Forest passageway which didn't allow my Jackson to pass by it and do so. I ended up losing one Jackson and retreating the other. If two vet 3 Jacksons with HVAP rounds enabled can already occasionally struggle to deal with a single Tiger, I don't see how weakening the penetration is appropriate for the late game.

WC 51:

I don't have a major problem with this nerf, although this won't scale so well if its peak range is limited at 40 instead of 45. It is already quite fragile and weak against MG's and Panzerfusiliers, which are super common to see early on in team games. Again, I am commenting about this from a team game perspective (mostly 4v4).

Calliope:

I'm ok with this change if all rocket artillery in the game is being nerfed in the same way. My issue with reducing American rocket artillery is that only two commanders get Calliopes to begin with. Contrast this with the fact that every single OKW commander gets access to the Walking Stuka, and every single Wehrmacht player gets access to the Panzerwerfer. Only two American commanders get access to rocket artillery anyway. Is it really necessary to further weaken their ability in team games? Furthermore, they don't come until CP 10. CP TEN! Walking Stukas can arrive by CP 3 - I rushed one the other day and absolutely devastated my opponent with it. I don't understand how an expensive Calliope, which already became more fragile after the previous nerf, and which arrives so late in the game, needs another nerf.

Conclusion:

All in all, I think that these changes make little sense from a team game perspective, though I'm ok with the WC-51 nerf and the M8 Scott human crush nerf. Nobody will bother playing with the USF in team games if their units continue to become weakened through 'balance' patches like these, though. Again, it's the only faction in the game that doesn't have a strong non-doctrinal artillery piece (like the Walking Stuka, Katyusha, Panzerwerfer, and British HQ artillery). Couple that with no heavy tanks at all aside from the Pershing (which even had its AI capabilities recently nerfed), and one will struggle to keep up with the heavy Axis armor in 4v4 gameplay. Nerfing the Pack Howitzer and M8 Scott, the only two non-doctrinal artillery pieces that the US has (which are still weaker than Walking Stukas and Panzerwerfers) just doesn't make any sense to me.

On a final note, why isn't every US commander allowed to call in a Pershing? What's the counter argument for this suggestion? I find it odd that every single OKW commander can call in a King Tiger, complete with its 375 armor, 240-damage-per-shot gun (with high pen), but USF players are forced to rely on Jacksons only, which become quite boring (though essential) to play with in 4v4 matches. They are also super weak against Panzerschrecks and die in a hurry if not kept way back, which limits their offensive potential drastically. I understand that there are some die-hard Axis players who will come here and cheer every nerf to USF, but being objective about these changes and the detriment they will cause to the already-weakest team game faction is important unless we want to see only British and Soviet units on the 4v4 battlefield.

Why does every Wehrmacht player get access to Panzerwerfer rocket artillery, but only two USF commanders can say the same? The USF needs some major re-working to be competitive in the late stages of team games. This patch addresses virtually none of that. I would be interested in seeing the Pershing become an available call-in tank to make every US commander more viable in 4v4 team games. An alternative and/or additional option could be the introduction of the 203mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M43, which was indeed used in the capture of Cologne during World War II. Even if its gun were no more effective than the similarly sized Soviet B-4 (which is of moderate value at best, currently), it would at least make the games more interesting and give the US Forces SOMETHING besides the Priest to handle Pak 88mm emplacements, LEFH pieces, masses of armor, etc. If I think of anything else along the way, I'll come back here and edit my post.