Since you ask I will explain.
I simply placed a PTRS Penal and AT PF in sandbags set them invincible a and drove a PzIV and T-34/76 to them.
If one want in game examples one can watch the games themachince has linked and everyone can play the preview mode and get his own perceptive.
Thank you for your perceptive.
For those of us who've tried to use Penals in the live version, we aren't worried that a few small buffs will make them OP, even if the changes are all buffs instead of nerfs. Penals in the live version are expensive to buy, leading to slow starts, and expensive to reinforce, causing a players to be starved for manpower. The PTRS's are currently just good for sound effects versus late game armor, but don't really damage anything, while leading to a lot of bleed while trying.
remove the Mg upgrade on panther can be an option to off set further buff
No, if they buffed the AOE of the main gun and removed the MG, you'd have something like the Comet which was a worse balancing problem. Buffing the range of the main gun would make it too good against Allied TD's.
I thought it was at most 15 range, but i guess it's just visually confusing at first if you look the distance within the end of the barrel and the Katyusha.
I'm not used to guessing range but the video certainly looked like it was nearly point-blank. Sander's explanation makes sense though.
Of all the things in the patch, I think the small buff to the Panther's accuracy is one of the ones that will cause the least problem. Maps like Red Ball are going to be nearly an auto-loss as Allies if the game goes past 25 minutes. Jaeger Armor isn't getting touched, but inexplicably the ISU is. Throw in Panzerfusiliers being part of Breakthough (so that the long range TD's are firing first every time), plus the LEFH winning the arty battle versus the ML20, and finally top it off with nerfs to the Jackson and SU85 nerfs and Red Ball will be an axis-dominated shitshow.
It wasn't considered moving. It's at like 15ish range, maybe 18. But at that range it shouldn't miss that.
The Panther has 6% at close range. The Katy's size is 20, so I'm pretty sure that means it has a 120% chance to hit. It looked like you purposely stopped the Panther so I'd vote for bug in this case.
The Jackson, SU-85, and ISU nerfs are really going to hurt the allies late game, on a patch where it didn't seem unbalanced.
A lot of times the Panther does seem mediocre for its price, but I think I'd rather have a buff to its MG's.
The main issue with the Scott is while it's very good at auto-fire, probably too good, it fails to serve as functional artillery for the late-game of USF. It's AOE profile is very good at killing models, but is very poor at wounding or damaging models which is more prominent on the barrage which is known for very poor accuracy and you need to deal good AOE damage since most shells from barrage abilities don't land directly on target or are fired from further ranges into the FOW.
It's not serving the USF faction well enough in its other function as artillery to compensate for the lack of rocket or heavy artillery, with its best performance being Sherman HE lite.
So why didn't you increase the range of the barrage if you want it to be usable as functional artillery? Your change made it a more expensive mortar HT with no white phos.
Not really, Panther and StuGG are pretty well defined in the Ost roster, with the Elefant behind them. Same with Jagdtiger, JP4 and Panther for OKW.
I don't think standardization is a good thing. If I want mirror matches I'll play age of empires.
Most of the early RTS's had standardization by default. The units on different sides were basically the same but with different skins. We played those games anyway because it was the early 1990's. By today's standards, those games are boring and nobody misses them, unless they're just waxing nostalgic.
I like the difference in COH2's armor, other than I wish Strategic Reserves had came with a JPIV instead of a PIV.
ISU-152's ability to snipe infantry from behind a wall of AT I would say is more impactful as you stop all ability to capture territory and also can deny VPs for infantry daring to step on that. The JT and Elefant are more devastating to vehicles, but they can't lock out a VP or territory from infantry on their own and bleed the opponent of infantry.
And while I'm not responding too much, be assured we're keeping an eye on the posts passing through the threads.
But Napalm is right about the effect on the late game in 4v4's. Right now, games can go either way in the late game, and there is an okay trade between Ele/Jt backed by Brum/mg's/paks/elite infantry versus ISU/Jacksons/Firefly with at guns and regular infantry. Without the range of the ISU, it's going to be much worse at forcing retreats because the Ele and JT will outrange its HE round. Add in the SU85 and Jackson nerfs and you've just wrecked late game for Allies unless everyone wants to play UKF.
Lastly, it seems really odd that the ISU is getting nerfed on a patch that is intended for core or META issues. It's not a core unit, and not particularly META given the large number of maps where it's a bad idea. If it's going to be nerfed, it should be done in a patch that focuses on heavies (other than the rear armor nerf which is fine).
...
It will be interesting to know why the world championships turned into such a stale series, more interesting than the games at least.
I watched a few of the games and they still seemed interesting. Regardless of how balance is done, good players will find the way that gives them the best chance of winning and everyone will play that one way, even if their odds of winning are just 1% better than the next dozen alternatives.
I really enjoyed watching VonIvan versus Luvnest when VonIvan was playing Wehr. It seemed like that game should have been over early but once VonIvan got his P4 out, he made it interesting for about 45 minutes. Luvnest was equally interesting to watch with his commando play. I don't think I've ever seen anyone get nearly as much use out of commandos as he did. It's too bad that allies can't share control of units, it would be really fun to watch those two play with Luvnest controlling the infantry and VonIvan controlling vehicles.
Hm, I appreciate the change but this doesn't change the fact that penals scale quite badly against upgraded volks or 5men Grens. Especially not for their cost of 300MP. T1 openings take quite a heavy toll on your manpower (especially since healing costs 250 MP for some reason). I'd suggest lowering the penal cost to 280 mp to better reflect their combat performance on top of the changes above. A tommy squad is at 270 and with the global 5th man upgrade I'd rather have that squad instead of a penal any time.
M5 Half-Track
Gotta see how this plays out, if it becomes too much of a dice roll to take down a plane,
Please this. I haven't played 1v1's in awhile, but in team games, the extra cost of Penals really hinders them in the early game. Combined with not scaling well, it makes T1 starts difficult on many maps. The RA might help MP bleed a little, but not enough to make a difference.
The AA nerf to the M5 is way too much. Combined with the T70 nerfs, it makes T3 unappealing. If they're going to do this, they should make T3 optional.
Since so many other LV's are being changed, could you look into timing on the Greyhound? It comes too late to have much of an impact. The unit itself seems mostly okay, other than the main gun is really lackluster.
Relic Entertainment
