Profile of general_gawain

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 919

General Information


Thread: Commander Update Beta 2021 - USF Feedback12 May 2021, 11:53 AM Jump back to quoted post12 May 2021, 06:11 AMSander93 Flanking doesn't just not work at the moment, it doesn't work in general because of the core design of the game. And thats a totally sad thing because "True Sight" is perfectly made for flanking moves. I completely agree that it is pretty hard to get a successfull flank because you have to get to that small 90 degree area behind that tank while there are a lot of other units around. This gets especially hard because both M10 commanders have no form of rocket artillery or good offmap that helps to strip that support. Abilities like Fear Propaganda Artillery or White Phosporous Barrage would be a good addition to a commander with flanking tanks to supress/slow/conceal that support. Alternatively any form of rocket artillery could work. A partly snare immunity and more received acc for M10 would help a lot. You can always bind it to an ability to balance it. I do think at directly fighting the StuG G the M10 sucks, compared to M36 it sucks too. Lets not speak about Panther. You can't make it viable in frontal combat without a lot of buffs. But there is still some room to improve M10 for flanking as long as it looses the frontal fights. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Commander Update Beta 2021 - USF Feedback11 May 2021, 23:55 PM Jump back to quoted post11 May 2021, 19:35 PMSander93 I'm thinking about switching around Flanking Speed and HVAP. So HVAP would become the standard ability like on the 57mm. Because flanking generally sucks in CoH2. Then it can have better frontal engagements against mostly the OKW P4J, but not really anything bigger, and it would be behind an additional pay wall to keep its 80 fuel cost in check. HVAP will help but it's not a straight up improvement (which could be dangerous with a vehicle this cheap). As it stands it needs to reload the HVAP shell, so unless you time it perfectly after a regular shot it will cost you some DPM, and can then fire only 3 of them at vet 0-2, before needing like a 10 second reload to revert to normal shells. The latter is because it will load the fourth HVAP shell for about 4 seconds before the ability runs out and then it will have to reload a regular shell on top. I'm not sure if it is the right thing to give up on the flanking mechanic because it just don't works out at the moment. That would be sad, because it removes a potential tactic from the game. Shouldn't we think how we can make flanking more viable and rewarding? With HVAP at Vet0 and Flanking Speed at Vet1 the M10 will become the small inferior brother of M36 even more since it would emphasize it for frontal fights. One of its basic problems in that combat role would be, that it would always loose vs T3 Stug G because of higher target size, less RoF, less accuracy and lower penetration (without activating HVAP). In frontal use it is just an inferior StuG G while beeing doctrinal on top. What is the problem about flanking? If you flank you risk to eat a mine, an infantry snare or running in supporting AT weapons (handheld/ATG). Pretty much everytime I tried to use multiple M10s in a multiplayer game for a strong flanking move I made good damage vs Tanks/vehicles only to run into some infantry with shreks and snares to get finished up quickly. The main problem is, that one hit with any AT weapon is enough to follow up a snare instantly. A snared M10 is dead of course, there is no way to escape somehow. Maybe Flanking speed should just give some more received acc, additional turret rotation speed and a timed snare immunity. I do think something like that could be the difference between a desastrous flank and a somehow successful one. This are just some thoughts, Alternatively you could think about lowering its target size in general or raising the amount of damage that is needed for a successful snare. Just some more thoughts. You could trade some penetration or range for better RoF too, if flanking would work out, such changes would really emphasize the flanking aspect. Anything that doesn't lead to another standard TD for frontal fights is a good thing. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Commander Update Beta 2021 - USF Feedback11 May 2021, 18:19 PM Jump back to quoted post11 May 2021, 14:10 PMthedarkarmadillo . USF light/medium AT vet is fucked. The 57mm gets less rof from all 3 levels of vet than others do at vet 2 alone. Even the soviet baby AT gun gets more ROF. I really wish some vet was standard, or at least consistent. With the exception of maybe Super Bazooka USF has a problem with its AT in general not only at its AT Vet. USF AT either sucks or only performs well if you invest lots of ammunition. The only exception is the Jackson, which overperforms quite a bit to make up for the lack of the other ones. I know it is out of scope but USF AT units need a general buff doctrinal and nocdoctrinal at the cost of a Jackson nerf. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Commander Update Beta 2021 - USF Feedback11 May 2021, 11:35 AM Jump back to quoted post11 May 2021, 10:15 AMHannibal I don't think it has much to do with the HE Sherman. The M10 competes with the Jackson for AT duty as a cheap and more spammable alternative. At least in that way, it is slightly similar to the StuG/Panther matchup. The 76mm Sherman found a spot as well despite that combo and despite the Jackson, so there should be room for the M10 as an even cheaper alternative. But in the current design it does not work outside of the mentioned 1v1 vs Ostheer T3. The UKF M10 even has a way better niche since the Firefly occupies a heavier TD role than the Jackson, leaving even more space for a light TD. Yet, the commander is among the least picked despite bringing Assault Sections, a mortar and self repairs. This commander fills a lot of holes in the UKF lineup, still it is only average in the loadout picks even in 1v1. This should really tell us that something is wrong with it, and the M10 is part of it. The real problem of the M10 is that it can't decide what it wants to be. 1) I want to be a flanking tank... - great base speed and accleration - 0,75 moving acc (like all AEF tanks) - Flanking Speed ability at Vet0 - medicore pentration for beeing AT purely (wants to shoot at rear) 2)...or maybe just not? - low-medicore health - paper armor from all sides - too high target size - not even smoke pods or smoke lauchers for an escape - too slow turret rotation (especially if using Flanking Speed) - 50 range (flanking means you should be closely behind them...) - HVAP at Vet1 (you don't need high penetration if you are at their rear) It just doesn't fit, half of it stats are made for frontline combat, the other half for flanking. You won't shoot at a tank you flanked successfully at 50 range for example, you should be a lot closer. If you have a look at the StuG you'll see a tank which is completely made for fighting head on at the frontline, way better designed for its combat role while beeing comparable cheap. If M10 wants to be a real flanker instead of an emergency replacement for M36 it needs more survivability (target size / received acc / smoke), less range, faster turret rotation and higher RoF. That way it could work as a flanking tank. Somehow more sight or an ability like the Hunter ability (-> detection) of the Cromwell would help too. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Commander Update Beta 2021 - USF Feedback8 May 2021, 10:29 AM I still hope for seperately buildable Reserve Falls, since that 80 munitions on a such munition hungry Company really kills the ability to field more than 1-2 Falls in bigger game modes (or replace a somehow lost squad). In addition something still has to be done about Greyhound. It seems they don't want to buff its combat stats, but i can't understand why not exchanging meme canister shot with an useful ability that isn't a buff to combat stats like a recon ability (flares/extended vision...). Would make it useful later on. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Commander Update Beta 2021 - Soviet Feedback8 May 2021, 10:16 AM I agree about the doctrines that I don't comment, but here are the things I want to remark: Jump back to quoted post8 May 2021, 06:53 AMJPA32 Guard Motor Coordination Tactics - The most boring doctrine of all time. Solid Elite Infantry, Solid Elite Armor, Solid abilities, + 1 meme Mortar. Not being touched in anyway despite being incredibly popular. This commander will be even more useful because of the buff to the RoF of the 120mm barrage ability and the replacement of its Vet1 ability. I don't think it will be a meme mortar after this patch. Jump back to quoted post8 May 2021, 06:53 AMJPA32 Shock Rifle - Untouched, but it's about to be heavily invalidated by Soviet Shock due to the 85 > KV8 and Incendiary Artillery Barrage being trash. (I wholeheartedly recommend a buff for it in some form.) I don't thing incendiary is trash, but yeah the commander is less attractive than similar ones. The ATG Ambush could be exchanged for something more interesting or maybe just expanded to the stronger Tank hunter Ambush ability. IS-2 could need a little buff on top. Jump back to quoted post8 May 2021, 06:53 AMJPA32 Lend Lease - Being absolutely gutted horribly. Assault Guards change is a buff but ultimately whatever, but losing the ability to expend excess Munitions for Fuel in "Allied Supply Drop" for a 200 MP Opel Blitz is unusable due to how hard you bleed Manpower as the Soviets, the triple heavy Manpower doctrine abilities (Ass Guards, Opel Blitz, DShK.) and how impossible Opel Blitz are to keep alive against competent players, and if the M4C Sherman is getting the same reload nerf that the 76mm Sherman is getting (Which I think it is since they're the same tank unless I'm mistaken?) then it's probably not worth using over 85's or KV1's. This doctrine has nothing worthwhile now in theory since there's a better way to get DShk's too. (Airbourne) I can see this Commander at 3vs3/4vs4, a gamemode where allies are really struggling. The fuel drop was a meme there because it got always shot down, so I do think exchanging it for the Supply truck was a good move. Super Bazookas are a nice addition for 3v3/4vs4 too. But I agree about the RoF nerf to 76mm, which makes it even more less potent than the strong T34/85. Vs tanks with high armor it still can use its HVAP shells without loosing efficiency, but the nerf to standard shells obviously made it worse vs low armored vehicles/tanks and infantry. 76mm needs an AOE buff to its standard shells for a partly compensation. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: COH2stats.com match and player statistics 2.06 May 2021, 17:00 PM Jump back to quoted post6 May 2021, 15:38 PMHannibal If we really assume that factions with smaller playerbase are in general also of lower skill, Axis should have a win rate of slightly above 50%. However for 4v4 ladder population seems fairly even, on OKW has more players than the others. I was talking about Soviets Top200 in 4vs4 which are played as often as OKW and almost as often as Ostheer, way more than USF/UKF. Soviets about 10.600 ranked players OKW about 10.400 ranked players Ostheer about 11.700 ranked players I would assume that there shouldn't be a difference between the Top200 of this three factions. this argument can be applied partly to UKF/USF maybe which only have a ladder about 7100-7600 ranked players. Jump back to quoted post6 May 2021, 15:47 PMVipper When it comes to player TOP200 in 4vs4 the number of games for March is 278 and for April 358. What are those numbers? I see 439 and 506 games for Soviets, so this is slightly below 1000 games in two month. You can't calculate how many games you really had in total, because you don't know how many Soviets were in that games that lost or won together. The total winrate in both month at average is 41,8% In: Lobby
Thread: COH2stats.com match and player statistics 2.06 May 2021, 14:34 PM Can somebody explain why Soviets dropped in 4vs4 Top200 monthly data so drastically? Is there any reason? [url=https://coh2stats.com/stats/month/1617235200/4v4/wgerman?statsSource=top200]https://coh2stats.com/stats/month/1617235200/4v4/wgerman?statsSource=top200 march: 45,6% winrate april: 38,5% winrate I always thought off Soviets beeing the strongest allied faction in 4vs4, but in average of both month they have the lowest winrate according to coh2stats.com In: Lobby
Thread: Petition to Nerf/Remove Soviet Mortar Flare2 May 2021, 13:21 PM Jump back to quoted post1 May 2021, 15:40 PMGachiGasm How so? You dont have downside of having 6 man crews unless you cap weapons. Regular mortar dies when you have 1 model left, meaning you have 4 spare models to have, unlike other mortar teams which have only 2. Lets say you was attacked and lost 3 or even 4 models, you still have your mortar alive with original crew which is cheap to reinforce. Other faction would have get mortar de-crewed and would requare to re-cap it. Even if you cap it with the engi squad, it would still cost you more to reinforce 3 models+1 model on the team weapon, then for soviets to reinforce 4 models of the original crew. Jump back to quoted post1 May 2021, 14:57 PMVipper If, in your opinion, there is important down side, in having 6 men crews for your mortar, here is tip for you, do not reinforce you mortars to full and leave them at 4 men. It is an option after all. Yeah I sometimes only recrew them without reinforcing. Overall having 6 man is a survivability boost, but like I said, it has a downside because it will bleed you more. This is a big difference to having a squad of 4, 5, 6 or even 7 (late game cons) soldiers since each of them raises your damage output too and drastically raises their frontline combat time. Having more men at a mortar (behind the front line) does not raise your damage output. It makes you less prone to get fully wiped but more likely to get hit and thus bleed. I want to exaggerate to make it more clear: If you would have a mortar crewed by 30 soldiers, you would have a pretty much non decrewable weapon which still would fire with only one mortar and would be hit by every single counter shell or rocket because you can't miss 30 soldiers spread around a mortar. So six man obviously bleed you more while raising your survivability in indirect fire fights. Edit: To make it even more clear: I never said having a 6 man crew is a disadvantage, it just isn't. I only said it has a downside. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Petition to Nerf/Remove Soviet Mortar Flare1 May 2021, 14:32 PM Jump back to quoted post1 May 2021, 08:01 AMmrgame2 if i am not wrong, the sov mortar have better survivability too! This is more important at MGs or ATGs which are more likely to get targeted by small arms fire of infantry. If mortar gets targeted by indirect fire you will still get a small survivability boost vs alpha strike damage (the damage over the time you need o react and retreat or relocate), but on the downside it bleeds you more. You are more likely to loose multiple soldiers to a single attack. So there is a downside to sixth man mortar crews you may not have thought off. In: COH2 Balance