Profile of general_gawain

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 919

General Information


Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback3 Dec 2020, 01:04 AM Just to discuss the role of Sappers as a combat unit some more to take some of the combat weight of the IS. A few quick thoughts: 5-man Sappers with Stens in T1 with adjusted manpower costs (because of fifth man) without negative modifiers in the open. Not able to bolster of course. Constructing Mortar gets activated with T2. In addition you get an T2 upgrade for Sappers at T2 with two Thompsons and a smoke or WP grenade (taking both slots). IS Heal upgrade moved from IS to Airlanding officer (gets one medic model) who looses some of his offensive stats along with cost and population to be more in a support officer role. At Hammer/Anvil Sappers get two different Heavy Engineer Upgrades which fit the style of Hammer/Anvil. Maybe move Vickers to T2? Only real downside is that Assault IS at Land Lease Regiment with Thompsons get redundant and have to be replaced with another ability. Commandos on the other side are still distinct enough to justify their existence. After this changes there would be some more space to balance IS without breaking UKF early game performance. In addition you would have more versatile game openers. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback3 Dec 2020, 00:11 AM Jump back to quoted post2 Dec 2020, 14:42 PMVipper Centaur FF QF 17p Heavy engineer Churchill UKF M3 Some remarks: QF 17pd Later: yes Less range: Definitely not. It should get slighlty more range than elephant/Jagdtiger to not get picked up by these. With 10 range less this would be even more hilarious. FF From all allied TDs it is the one I wouldn't discuss to change anything more. It has its downsides with very low RoF, low speed/acc and very unreliable rockets. Some more turret speed is a good change. Its not too good, really doesn't need a nerf. Centaur No, I would see the Ostwind on top. Reason: survivability. You are overestimating the changes. While Ostwind can escape some of its allied tank threads Centaur still gets caught up by units like PZIV, Panther or StuG to get that one or two extra shots off and destroy it. Ostwind can escape more easily. In addition Panzershrek pens Centaur with his far superior armor 100% frontally at long range, that is not the case with low armor Ostwind and all allied infantry AT weaponary. And while Centaur has no access to smoke Ostwind really gets a panic button with doctrinal Panzertactican. All told Centaur has a harder live. It is still easier to vet up an Ostwind. Churchill Just want to point out that it says nothing that it is called a "triple buff", because two of them are very small (RoF and population). A low angle rocket attack for Panzerwerfer is only a single buff for example but a really big one. Just for comparison that "triple" is worth nothing here. I would reduce its price and population even further, nerf damage and penetration and give it slightly better AOE and strong MG damage. So it would be much more of an infantry killer with consistent damage output that really struggles to keep up in a fight with an Ostheer PZIV. The infantry supressing Panzer Shock ability in CoH1 was a funny one, would have loved to see it here too. Thick smoke is far better, to assault MG supported positions. I wouldn't change it. UKF M3 The commander is pretty dead if you ask me since the Rifle boys are not allowed to be upgraded anymore with heal/recon and Sappers got an AT grenade. For a mobile halftrack you are better off with Land Lease commander and its M5, because he has better abilities in overall. IS and Sappers/Heavy sappers The basic problem of UKF is that is basically only has one combat infantry unit. Even USF with Riflemen centrism has more, because Rear Echelons have the very useful smoke nade, a suppression ability and are a nice cheap AT unit, when equipped with two bazookas. In addition Rear Echelons are not very busy with engineer jobs, because of the absence of real mines and the existence of USF vehicle crews for repairing. Sappers on the other side are very busy with laying mines, building emplacements and repairing vehicles/emplacements. In their sparetime they are a cc unit theoretically, but they can't compete with other real cc units, so screw them there. Heavy Sappers with Vickers and two Brens are not worth it either, because it costs way more ammunition than getting IS with two Brens which inflict similar damage because of better long range stats and additional Enfields instead of Stens. Last but not least you get Sappers when you already have 3-4 partly vetted IS squads, so there is no reason to build multiple Sapper squads. So IS is forced into beeing the jack of all trades even more than Riflemen. The only way to change this is either drastically change the combat role and timing of normal sappers or add a second nondoctrinal Infantry unit. Then you can take away some of IS abilities and allocate them. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback2 Dec 2020, 00:14 AM Jump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 17:28 PMmstcrstn i remember some time ago when no one played brits. Now they can be pretty tought to beat in some stages and with some strategies. Maybe bolster can pe pushed later as an upgrade. But they got to do smth about their lmg. I feel they are to weak. Limit to only one if possible, but a better one. Hope new mortar solves some of their problems against camping opponents in 1v1 though I don't think it will see too much love. And I remember a time at their release where they were op as f... and everybody played them. Just tankstomp the opponent with mutliple Churchills at a price of a PZIV. But even worse was the time where they just got the new Emplacement Commander and Sim City was a common sight in teamgames (often allies lost that games nevertheless, because UKF player turtled on a VP/fuel with his whole population, while all axis player attacked elsewhere). I do like them a lot more as they are now. It is just the missing off onmap artillery / rocket artillery that is not depended on a grenade throw and some flaws with IS / Sappers. In addition one or two commander really would need some love, I have always the same three in layout, because there is no doubt about them beeing superior to all others. Otherwise I do think they are at a pretty fine spot. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback1 Dec 2020, 23:25 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 17:34 PMVipper This are mostly design change and need to be tested then one can fix any issue there might be. But you seem to have missed: Officer from headquarters Wasp without T2 Cheaper IS .... Edit: I missed the Wasp without T2 and I don't understand why. Its timing is fine, why putting it in T1? Cheaper IS comes with nerfs, I don't think it is worth it. Officer from HQ is the only real change with an impact if you ask me, but it comes with a few nerfs too. Biggest one is the loss of the Vet1 recon plan. Keep in mind that only the Commando Regiment has a doctrinal ability to lift the fow behind enemy frontline to target a howitzer for example. And don't get me wrong we do share some thoughts. Like you I don't want an emplacement onmap artillery, because we don't want to go back to static UKF emplacement play. UKF needs something mobile, more fragile instead (risk/reward). Emplacement play was bad in those days and it will be bad in these days again. Like you I don't like the Heavy Sappers in their current form, there would be so much potential for a more versatile play style. Bolster is another feature that doesn't work like it should, I'm with you there. But changes like cutting Bren damage output to half of its former peformance by remvoving both of them completely at one upgrade and giving only one Bren at the other upgrade sound a little bit drastic if you ask me. There has to be something to make up for such a drastic change. That was missing in your post and lead to mine. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback1 Dec 2020, 16:49 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 12:29 PMVipper UKF stock units... Nerf UKF hard! I'm wondering which game you play. In my game they are just fine overall, but reading your post I get the impression they are pretty op. Yeah, there are some flaws, but getting this correct means to nerf some units and buff some others that are too weak/underused. I didn't found that second part in your post, maybe you just forgot to fill it in there? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] Bug Reporting29 Nov 2020, 22:18 PM Not really a bug of the current patch but something I reported at the last patch that wasn't corrected. If my british M5 halftrack with upgraded Quad gets destroyed I always get shocked because the english voice line tells me I have lost a crocodile flame tank. It takes a few seconds to realize that I can't field a Crocodile at the Land Lease Regiment. Then I'm relieved inspite having lost my Quad. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback29 Nov 2020, 21:39 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 21:28 PMmiragefla On the Land Mattress, it is very unlikely for its position to be changed. But we'll keep an eye on the Mortar Pit and Advanced Emplacement. If the Heavy Barrage spam become real - after we bug fix it - a global cooldown on the heavy rounds could be a thing or there's more cost and risks to it. But that is the typical UKF emplacement problem. All other commanders get punished for the existence of one commander that should have never been released. That is so frustrating and hampers balanced emplacement play so much. I really do thing UKF desperately needs some nondoc onmap artillery / rocket artillery that can be used on targets behind enemy lines and isn't depended on one of your squads getting there into grenade throwing range (only faction without it). Thumbs up for you trying to get this done! But I'm afraid the mortar emplacement is not the right way to implement it. Thanks for giving us feedback nonetheless! In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback29 Nov 2020, 20:22 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 19:08 PMSupport Sapper Im not a big fan of the new heavy barrage, too, it is nice to have, but at the same time an easy target for pressure from the community... The biggest setback for UKF emplacements is the existence of the Advanced Emplacement Regiment and the existence of brace. If an emplamcement is just fine, that commander pushes it slightly over the top. Brace is another story. While completely fine on emplacements near the frontline where you can force the use of brace in multiple ways to kick it when brace wears off, it is a whole different story at artillery emplacements far behind the frontlines where you usually would use offmaps to fight them. I do think you just can't balance it. The land mattress on the other side can be balanced. Its timing and performance is easily adjustable and there is no commander who has an influence on that. I do see it at around the time the Walking Stukka shows up. Maybe just in the last building without Anvil/Hammer tech. For Mobile Assault Regiment I do see something mobile as a doctrinal replacement. Either something like a halftrack for early mobile pressure or an Avre / a Crocodile for very late attacks on fortificated positions. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback29 Nov 2020, 18:43 PM I do think Heavy Sappers are discussed to the fullest. There is nothing new anymore Lets get back to mortar emplacements. The more I think about them in their new late game, the more I do know what will happen in teamgames: 1. UFK players will find a spot for 2-3 mortars with 180 Range ability + Repair station (Advanced Emplacement Regiment) from where they can shell the opponent frontline at 2 VIPs without drawing counterfire from LEIGs and mortars. 2. Axis side will notice that they can’t push it, because it is too far behind enemy lines. One hit offmaps make no sense either because of brace. 3. Axis will try to counterfire with leFH but get destroyed by Counter Battery and Precision Barrage (Advanced Emplacement Regiment) + UFK teammate abilities. 4. And lo!, the shitstorm came upon them and the glory of the emplacement dimished as it was nerfed to the ground to be never seen again in this game, because the devs were so afraid. So please do us all a favor: Keep the cheap one mortar emplacement with upgrade for a two mortar emplacement, but put a nondoctrinal land mattress in the place of the proposed 180 range ability mortar emplacement. Thanks! In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback29 Nov 2020, 16:45 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 16:16 PMVipper Actually rifles at late game are more useful than the sten because they do not get destroyed while trying to close the distance. UKF has two nondoctrinal infantry options (not counting Airlanding Officer with limit 1). Giving Heavy Sappers LMG+Enfields puts them in the same fighting role as IS. That would be so boring, I can imagine better ways to set them apart. Just listing some of them: 1. Keep SMG and AT grenade (except with AT satchel charge option). Add something like demolition charges / heavy gammon bomb / AT or AI satchel charge/ heavy AT mine (M20/Riegel). 2. Keep SMG and AT Grenade, add smoke grenade or white Phosporous and two Thompsons. 3. Keep SMG and remove AT Grenade, give them some kind of more reliable PIAT (PIAT expert combat training). 4. Keep SMG and AT grenade and add a flamer (included this as an option inspite of dissent with you). All four options would fit a heavy engineer thematically and would grant them their own distinct combat value. In: COH2 Balance