Profile of general_gawain

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 919

General Information


Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback22 Dec 2020, 17:49 PM Jump back to quoted post22 Dec 2020, 17:42 PMVipper This is matter of design and not a matter of balance Why I'm winning more games in 3vs3 and 4vs4 with OKW than with UKF? It is a balance issue in game modes where the lategame is overproportional represented. 2vs2 is the most balanced team mode in Coh2. Early and midgame do exist to a much larger percentage. Jump back to quoted post22 Dec 2020, 17:42 PMVipper To put simply a faction can have 2 units only available and be still be OP. Noone questions that. But since UKF isn't OP there is no reason for a blind spot. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback22 Dec 2020, 17:20 PM Jump back to quoted post22 Dec 2020, 17:03 PMVermillion_Hawk Indirect fire being one of UKF's gaps isn't a huge issue to me. If you really need rocket artillery the Land Mattress doctrine is there, but otherwise the base artillery does the job just fine for attacking static positions. You can always sneak a sniper close to the position if you can't approach with a Pyro Section, which is even easier to use with the smoke drop. Sneak your sniper to the Howitzer. Man you are good ;-) The problem with the base artillery is the red smoke. You want to thin out a defensive position? This only works for flak emplacements, bunkers and OKW trucks. The team weapons, tanks and infantry already withdrawed a little bit to get some space between them and the shells (unless opponent is afk of course). So it is more of an area denial if you use it versus mobile defensive positions. Always playing that one landmattress doc? No, thanks. That is exactly the point I don't want at any faction. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback22 Dec 2020, 17:14 PM Jump back to quoted post22 Dec 2020, 17:02 PMVipper Only if the faction is not designed to have superior unit exactly because it has gaps in roster. If you want UKF to have the same tools as Ostheer then Infantry sections should be toned down to grenadier level, AEC to 222 level and so on... If you want Soviet to have the same tools as Ostheer then Penals should be toned down to grenadier level, T70 to 222 level and so on... Just made this complete for you, not that we missed one of the three superior allied faction in the end. XD I don't think you can compare just Infantry sections to Grenadiers. Ostheer has a whole different playstyle with best nondoc ingame MG playing a big role. Ostheer mobile mortars are great too in addition (fire rate and accuracy), something UKF is missing completely with the exception of one commander. Grenadiers have much more of a supporting role than IS who are the backbone of UKF early game. AEC and 222? How can you even think about putting this two in the same sentence? Completely different roles, completely different tech and timing... All I was speaking about is that no faction shoukld have a complete blind spot which results in taking the same doctrines game after game again to fill that blind spot. That doesn't leads to game diversity, it is the opposite. If a faction is superior in specific spots, it should have inferior units instead of a blind spot in other aspects of the game. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback22 Dec 2020, 17:00 PM Jump back to quoted post22 Dec 2020, 16:55 PMVipper Only if the faction is not designed to have superior unit exactly because it has gaps in roster. If you want USF to have the same tools as Ostheer then riflemen should be toned down to grenadier level, Stuart to 222 level and so on... USF has no gaps in its roster. I took USF as an example for doctrinal alternate/superior units although they already have inferior stock units for it. Thats how it should be. So I don't understand your comment. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback22 Dec 2020, 16:02 PM Jump back to quoted post22 Dec 2020, 14:21 PMLetzte Bataillon Not everyone needs to have everything in their stock roster down to the last detail. Some armies need doctrines for certain classes of units such as Rocket Artillery for the UKF. That's fine, the factions are supposed to be asymmetrical. That's what commanders are there for. If anyone likes playing UKF with Rocket Artillery they can select the Mobile Assault Regiment. Doctrines should give elite units or alternate units. They shouldn't fill a complete gap. The Calliope or Priest for example are alternate indirect fire units. Although USF has no rocket artillery or artillery unit with the range of priest in its nondoc roster it has mobile howitzers and M8A1, so its not a complete blank spot, just an alternate or superior way. UKF on the other hand is the only faction that is missing a spot completely: Indirect fire... no the mortar pit in its current form doesn't fill that spot. No faction should be forced into taking always the same 1-2 commanders to fill a gap in their nondoc roster. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback22 Dec 2020, 11:53 AM Jump back to quoted post22 Dec 2020, 10:27 AMHannibal Not sure what your point is. If it comes down to builds, I agree that UKF is a bit bland because of they are missing the indirect and a second LV, so their tech is quite predictable (especially in the current meta). I do think thats the point. Isn't it always 3-4 IS + maybe an UC (or seldom a vickers) into Bolster + Sappers and 6pdr into AEC (maybe add a Landing Officer or sometimes Sniper)? Emplacements are another failure, with the exception of that one good placed (screened) mortar pit. Bofors and 17pdr are rarely seen (atm Bofors gets locked out anyway). That whole concept can't hold its ground. Then you have to lock out either Comet or Heavy Engineers/Churchill. In fact you go either for Comet or Heavy Engineers. Lets have a look at the other allied factions: If I play soviet I play all 8 units of T0, T1 and T2 in different matchups/maps. That alone is a diverse starting. Its similar when playing USF, sometimes you go Lieutenant, sometimes Captain. That alone are completely different decisions that lead to different playstyles. For more diversity: - Sappers in T0 with some extented combat utility - maybe Anvil/Hammer shouldn't lock out the other units, but only the other abilities (same approach as for Bofors/AEC) - of course UKF needs an onmap nondoc artillery unit (still hope for another solution than extended mortar pit) In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback21 Dec 2020, 19:30 PM Jump back to quoted post21 Dec 2020, 18:39 PMMMX absolutely correct. reload bonuses from abilities and vet only affect the actual 'reload' part of the firing delay. Thanks, you are welcome. Very interesting, all the time I thought Jackson comes out on top with its raw damage, but that isn't true. Jackson excels in speed, accleration and moving acc but not in a static stand off. So it seems this way when it is about static raw damage: Vet0: SU85 > M36 = FF Vet1: SU85 > M36 = FF Vet2: FF > SU85* = M36 Vet3: FF > Su85 > M36* Relation of Population/Ressources to raw damage: SU85 wins on all Vet-levels. Maybe it pays for this with its flanking exposure. Most interestingly JPIV is similar to SU85 and beats all three TDs in a direct fight and is better versus mediums in addition, but quickly falls short, when ist comes to fighting heavy tanks (has significantly lower penetration). *Edit: Okay we shouldn't forget that SU85 gets 30% bonus Penetration at Vet2, M36 gets it at Vet3, FF doesn't get it (instead it gets the 40 damage). That does mean that FF stays not always on top versus heavy tanks. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback21 Dec 2020, 17:07 PM Jump back to quoted post21 Dec 2020, 16:08 PMSander93 I would guess the M10, Jackson, Scott and Priest have these to facilitate the crew reload animations because they are open topped vehicles. The Pershing has wind down because of the unique casing ejection animation. Afaik all the other regular closed USF tanks don't have it. Am I right to assume that the Vet2 20% reload buff and the Vet3 15% reload buff of the Jackson doesn't affect wind up and wind down? So this part of Jackson reload never gets modified and the 25% of FF at Vet2 does more than 20% and 15% of Jackson together because it affects 8.0 seconds out of 8.25 total reload. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback21 Dec 2020, 15:57 PM Jump back to quoted post21 Dec 2020, 15:54 PMMMX there are a couple of additional delays, e.g wind up, wind down and aim time, that are mainly there for animation cues to play correctly (think of a mortar reloading (actual reload), then putting the round in to the tube (windup), firing, and post-fire animation (wind down)). this is usually not used for tanks, but for whatever reason some USF tanks have quite significant wind up and wind down delays Thanks, after years of CoH2 I learned something new today In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback21 Dec 2020, 15:43 PM Jump back to quoted post21 Dec 2020, 15:40 PMSander93 Since 90% of the playerbase plays teamgames. 3v3 and 4vs4 is heavily unbalanced with some weird (unfair) map design and bs combos. Noone seems to look into that. Only 2vs2 is fine atm. Jump back to quoted post21 Dec 2020, 15:40 PMSander93 You're at the right website, but tank reload is based on more than just the reload value. Always click on the tank gun and then hover over the dot in the graph; that's where it will show the actual reload. Thanks that is interesting. Why the Jackson gets about 2 seconds more reload and the Firefly only gets 0.25 seconds in addition? What is the missing factor for such a huge difference in comparison to reload value only? I would appreciate if you would explain that. In: COH2 Balance