Profile of Myself

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 677

General Information


Thread: Farewell & Hello - Breaking Brad 21 Apr 2016, 15:38 PM Jump back to quoted post21 Apr 2016, 12:19 PMMr.Smith .... Now, I reverse this question to you. The panzerfaust has range about 30 .... The range of the P.F. might be 30 the range of the ability is less (about 15-20). In: Lobby
Thread: Switching brummbar and ostwind tech building swap21 Apr 2016, 09:04 AM I actually think this suggestion is worth trying. It allows Ostheer to avoid building both T3 and T4... Brumbar should also get some bonus when firing on fortifications (similar to Avre) either in its normal shots or in its vet 1 barrage ability. There is a rather easy fix for Ostwind worth trying. Just give the hull mg some suppression... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: A radical idea to rebalance T-34/7620 Apr 2016, 18:17 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Apr 2016, 17:45 PMMr.Smith ... The T-34/76 is an end-game tank for the Soviets tech tree. ... Well Soviet stock units are closer to USF and not OKW, Ostheer or UKF... Their buildings are rather cheap fuel wise but the stock units not very good in late game... Jump back to quoted post20 Apr 2016, 17:45 PMMr.Smith - What problems would a fuel-sink T-34 create to balance (as opposed to the current MP-sink T-34). The T-34 already comes late. With a hiked fuel cost, it will arrive even later. I did not actually claim it was a problem and I don't actually object although it might need some testing, I simply pointed out, that using Comets and Panthers as basis is not very solid since they are tanks with different roles... I am not so sure it is going to work though since if one is floating fuel the doctrinal vehicles options are generally allot more cost efficient than the T-34/76, so I suspect that people would still go for doctrinal vehicles...When I play Soviet I don't usually float fuel... As I explained before, I find earlier access to T-34/76 a better approach (without access to Kati and Su-85), or some sort of bonuses on T-34/76 for commander with no call in tanks... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: A radical idea to rebalance T-34/7620 Apr 2016, 17:13 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Apr 2016, 16:50 PMMr.Smith .... 2. Now, let's have a look at the MP-to-Fuel ratio of tanks of other factions. I am listing them here in decreasing order: ... Comet and Panther are not typical "medium tanks". If one wants to compare the T-34/76 with other factions one should probably compare it with: M4A3 Cromwell PZIV as those are vehicles in the same class/role with the T-34/76 In: COH2 Balance
Thread: A radical idea to rebalance T-34/7620 Apr 2016, 16:29 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Apr 2016, 15:36 PMMr.Smith ... 3. The Soviet late-game issue (too doctrine-dependent) ... doctrine dependence is actually faction design, if one want to mess with it one would probably have to reconsider the availability of doctrinal units and their cost efficiency and that would lead to a major overhaul probably similar to OKW and I don't find that necessary. Jump back to quoted post20 Apr 2016, 15:36 PMMr.Smith ... To give you an example of what I mean by fuel sinks, consider OKW. ... If one wants to introduce fuel sinks for soviet, one could have Soviet building give limited access to units requiring further upgrades for more units. For instance T4 could require only T1 or T2 but allow access to only T-34/76 requiring T3 building and/or upgrade for access to Kati and Su-85. Another approach would be that since the main issue with the T-34/76 is actually its performance against heavies one could increase the fuel cost of the SU-85 and turn it into a more specialized heavy tank hunter with slower ROF but more penetration... Yet another approach would be to make T-34/76 better for doctrines that do not have access to call in tanks.... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: A radical idea to rebalance T-34/7620 Apr 2016, 16:00 PM Jump back to quoted post19 Apr 2016, 15:54 PMMr.Smith ... - Let's assume that T34-76 currently performs like a 250 MP / 80 FU unit (debatable) ... If we accept that T-34/76 was balanced around its normal price when it was in T3 than is performing like a 310/100 unit. When it was moved, its stat did not change, it simply become cheaper... July 21st Balance patch T34-76 To compensate for the increase in teching cost to produce t34s Cost reduced from 310/100 to 300/80 In: COH2 Balance
Thread: A radical idea to rebalance T-34/7620 Apr 2016, 14:27 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Apr 2016, 14:14 PMMr.Smith ... Slightly Off-Topic, but a suicidal ability (Ram) doesn't really feel like a good fit for a Veterancy bonus. Especially given the terribleness of the pricing. ... ...and thus ram should increase the T-34/76 chance to survive or be more deadly if the tank was vetted. The problem with ram is that if it too effective people will start throwing away their vet 0 tanks, if its not it will not be worth used on vetted tank. On the other hand if it improves with veterancy it can become either a good option for a vetted tanks (better chance or survival, very big cooldown is probably the way to go)or a good trade off for sacrificing a vetted tank (more penetration damage/criticals). Jump back to quoted post20 Apr 2016, 14:14 PMMr.Smith First, let's prioritise fixing the stock Soviet options for the lategame. Soviet lategame doesn't have to be stellar, but it should, at least, not punish the player for building late-game vehicles that the player paid good MP/FU to tech up to. is this thread generally about T4 or specifically about T-34/76? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: A radical idea to rebalance T-34/7620 Apr 2016, 13:40 PM Actually my opinion about how to improve T34/76 (as many other EFA units) is to first fix abilities and veterancy bonuses. T-34/76 could probably become far more attractive with a better VET 1 ability and with ram that scaled with veterancy. Other than that one could make some of the less used doctrine actually provide some sort of bonuses to T-34/76. For instance Industry could allow building T4 without T3 but giving access to only T-34/76. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: April 20th Update20 Apr 2016, 13:03 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Apr 2016, 12:08 PMMr.Smith ... The cost of vehicles is not just the mere sum of their constituent resources, for the simple reason that: - You can never ever increase your MP income in this game - Soviets have absolutely no mechanism to trade fuel-efficiency for MP-efficiency. ... The cost of a vehicle it the combination of manpower cost and fuel...that is what you pay to get a vehicle... You may actually have a bigger MP income by having lower upkeep....thus a T-34 with a pop of 10 is cost less manpower drainage than PZ4 for with pop of 12...and less manpower to buy... Soviet have vehicles with high fuel cost to manpower cost like the T70 which is dirty cheap when it comes to manpower (yet balanced due to high fuel value)...at 200 manpower...or the option between su-76 and su-85 with different manpower to fuel ratios. I have not argue that T-34/76 is too cheap or that it correctly priced, my argument is that one can not simply ignore fuel cost... In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: April 20th Update20 Apr 2016, 11:53 AM Jump back to quoted post20 Apr 2016, 11:47 AMMr.Smith ...I guess you are arguing that the T-34 trades decreased Fuel cost for increased MP cost.... I am simply arguing that saying that T-34/76 cost is not low just because its manpower cost is not as low as it fuel cost is not a valid argument... The cost of vehicles is the combination of manpower and fuel not just the manpower. T-34/76 might or might not work but it is centrally cheap and cost efficient in mid game... In: COH2 Gameplay