I think LMGs are a no-brainer upgrade.... still pretty strong but not sure how to balance them out |
BRING LIGHT UPON THE MASSES!!! THE TRUTH HAS BEEN REVEALED!!!!!!!!! |
Napalm, i agree on why 4v4 is unbalanced, but i disagree with your solution.
I would also like to add on why the state of 4v4 is so unbalanced:
1. Axis have better AT (paks, schrecks, fausts, tanks)
2. Axis have better AI units (Obersoldaten, LMG Grens, Pz4, a whole range of OKW infantyr..)
3. Axis have heavier armor
4. Maps are smaller which negate proper flanking by Allied mediums
5. Axis late game has low risk but high reward whereas ALlies really have to gamble on their attacks.
The ALlies are supposed to have the advantage in numbers, especially tanks such as Sherman and T34. However, the state of the game and 4v4 basically nullifies this theoretical advantage.
These are all very important points. Once the Panthers, Obersoldaten, AT guns, etc roll out, there isn't enough room for the ALlied mediums to maneuver. Allies have to risk so much just to push back the Axis tanks and superior infantry.
Why do ALlies have more risk and Axis less? The AT advantage is on Axis' side. Flanking with medium tanks is a gamble because Schreck blobs, superior AT guns, and heavy German armor nullify the "advantage". Germans on the other hand, have the luxury of defense or offense. Their superior infantry are long-range units that can wipe out other Allied infantry in the defense and offense. Axis tanks are heavily armored and deadly. They can shrug off most Allied AT while attacking or defending.
In short, Axis units overperform in the late game. THis is magnified even further when 4v4 brings even more of these units into the field. In addition, the 4v4 maps are not big enough for Allied players to use their speedy mediums to flank the enemy.
SOLUTION?
As i said earlier, i have to disagree with your remedy. Personally, i am very biased against adding more DLC (The DLC concept is just a piece of money-grabbing shit that destroys games). It would be wrong to say that adding DLCs won't solve anything because you can theoretically, flood the game with viable commanders. However, from an ethical perspective, would rather not go there...
I really think the solution is to tone down the "asymmetric balance" (basically means Axis are better at everything). Of course, the game would be boring if the units were the same, so some variety is definitely good. My wish is that all factions, regardless if you are in the early game, mid, or late, have a chance to win REGARDLESS OF WHAT COMMANDER YOU CHOSE. This means having a solid set of VIABLE NON-DOCTRINAL UNITS. If each faction were given the proper tools to reliably counter what the opponent has, then it would lead to a less frustrating game. This would reduce the asymmetric nature of the factions, yet keep the faction differences.
The above solution will take a long time to implement, so i think there are other stopgap remedies to solve the 4v4 imbalances. THese are:
1. Nerfs to Axis late game units (yes, controversial i know).
2. Buffs to Allied AT (difficult, because we can only work with existing units who are already inadequate)
Like Napalm said, these are difficult to do because Relic must identify changes that won't ruin 1v1.
Anyways..... we will see what happens |
the problem is how Soviets are played. They are competitive with the right commander, but utterly useless without
IMO, a heavy AT unit in a nondoc role will make the faction a lot more playable without having to choose the right commander. This way, other units like the ISU152 can be properly balanced.
Tweaks and balances will come. I can see the SU100 coming out in the late game while the SU85, in its current state, as more of a midgame unit. |
Don't praise them too quickly about fixing 3v3 and 4v4 game modes. Lets see it action for awhile. There are some reasons why these game modes can never be balanced but I'll get into that in another thread.
it is only a stopgap, but I think we planted the idea that team games are broken into Relic's head. Now that they have done something to remedy this (albeit a temporary solution), they will most likely have to finish it eventually |
Ok hope you all have gotten that out of your system. I'm not talking about what guns did or didn't do IRL.
But that the SU-100, being an upgraded SU-85 AS THE GAME GOES, would need to have an increased penetration, dmg and armour compared to the SU-85.
Quite a lot actually or it would just be a slightly better SU-85 without the need for T-4. Having it just slightly better would just mean SU-85s never get built.
Having it alot better would mean German heavies, which is 70% of the German faction would be effectively nullified. This isn't a good approach.
Disclaimer this is based on teamgames.
In my mind the Allies already have more than enough dedicated AT, the problem being the Germans have so much better infantry that they can quite easily destroy most of that AT with inf, and the few things the allies can do against it is semi-static MGs or dedicated AI vehicles that can be taken out with little trouble by German infantry or their long-range AT platforms, the allied MGs will get wrecked by artillery or simply overrun.
After that the ger infantry moves in and destroys or damages alot of the allied AT. After that there is little problem for the German heavies to roll in.
Giving the allies a new and improved infantry unit would hopefully negate this problem. That would mean the Ger infantry needs to push already from the get go with their tanks, meaning we would get a situation where we see large battles of composed armies slugging it out.
Instead of having what I see alot of now. That is pushes of german infantry doing their best to knock out some AT before retreating because of Katyusha or some other artillery barrage. When enough AT has been knocked, roll in with tanks.
Hence why I feel there is a need for some more soviet AI infantry rather than AT infantry. That would just make them play more like Germans and would keep the meta more or less the same, I feel we need to mix it up.
I must disagree. Allied AT is woefully inadequate against German armor. Top players such as Cruzz and Vonivan have commented that Allied AT isn't on par with Axis. ZiS guns tickle Panthers, TIgers, KT, and Jgdt, while SU85s can only chip away.
I agree that Germans have superior infantry that could shove off Allied AT crews and weapons, but they also have better AT in every single way.
1. Panzerfausts > AT nade
2. Schreck > Bazookas and PTRS
3. Pak > ZiS
I do not think Soviets need another infantry unit. Shocks are already very good. The SOviets have the infantry they need, but the units have to be changed to be more competent (especially conscripts and penals).
Yes it would kill all german heavies, because it could do that in real life, and in coh logic, all tank destroyers are completely innefective againts infantry but super good againts tanks.
Even then, the D-10T was just slightly less effective in penetration than the KWK 43/L71
The elephant has 400 penetration, KT has something like 240. Even tho they use the same gun IRL, their gun stats in coh 2 are completely differently due to the elephant being a TD and KT just being an all round heavy tank by purpose.
So an SU-100 would also probaly have huge penetration because of it's TD role, and considering it's penetration and range was superior to that of the ISU-152, in game the penetration would probaly be something like 350 or so and it would have maybe 70 range, same as ISU or elephant.
And please don't add the su-100. We don't need more bullshit super range super tanks
I really think you are overestimating the SU100s gamebreaking capability. Imagine the power of the Jackson on a nonturreted tank destroyer. It would not automatically be OP. And Burts, just because it could defeat enemy tanks in real life doesn't mean that it will do that in COH2. Look at the ISU152. It could probably one-shot most Axis tanks in real life due to the sheer explosive power of the shell. However, this does not happen in COH2 because of gameplay and balance.
Well, I don´t want to write walls of text. In the end Soviet tanks had to come closer to German tanks for all different reasons to fight them. It was also not about luck but the skill of the crews. This engagement range gap is what caused so many casualties.
He is right though. Anything could happen after you fire the shell. People don't look at spreadsheets of DPS and whatnot when fighting. After all, even low caliber shells have the possibly of breaking the threads, knocking out a crew member, getting a lucky hit, etc
|
I am happy they mentioned things about 3v3 and 4v4 game modes. The new munitions change should definitely make games feel better. At least there is a sliver of hope that Relic thought about team games and are going to address the OKW problem in the future. |
OH THANK YOU RELIC. MUNITIONS REDUCTION NAND KUBEL CHANGES!!! I AM CRYING TEARS OF JOY RIGHT NOW!!!
edit: BTW the munitions nerf is actually 100% down to 80% not 66 to 80
edit again: Yes I think the Kubel supposed to be down to 35 now. They probably made a typo. I think they are showing which kubel changes actually have been reverted so we have to look at the first value instead of the second one |
Welcome to Company of Heroes 2! |
Not having the T34/85 as a nondoc uinit is like having the Sherman commander clal-in |