Profile of general_gawain

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 919

General Information


Thread: USF Pathfinders need to be balanced11 Nov 2021, 00:36 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2021, 15:59 PMrumartinez89 Kind of, those Elite units need to vet up first to beat down Pathfinder with bars. Since Pathfinders vet pretty quickly compared to other squads fighting a Vet3 double Bar with say a PG ain't the best idea unless you catch them out of position. The increased damage along with the native crit chance can cause a otherwise decent engagement to go sideways. After you invested 120mun into 2x bar you better should win vs a PG squad without any mun spended. PGs are an early game unit, not a late game elite. Anything else really would be hilarious. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can we revive Mechanized?10 Nov 2021, 21:04 PM Jump back to quoted post10 Nov 2021, 15:54 PMVipper Even at ML5 mechanized was rocking it. 27.7% pick rate with airborne at 21.3% while it was vetoed as high as 70.8% Only watched ML5 finals and grand finals, there it wasn't playing any great role. As far as I remeber USF only got picked two times, Mechanized and Airborne. Both games were lost for USF. Soviets were used on all other games for allied side and scored some wins. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can we revive Mechanized?10 Nov 2021, 09:50 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2021, 18:16 PMIntoTheRain I know it might not be popular here, but I kind of like the increased commander diversity we see now that Mechanized has been dethroned. I wouldn't mind a buff to the 76, but I really don't want to go back to the 'all Mechanized, all the time' meta we had. I wonder where do you get that data from... If I look at the period before commander patch and the period after commander patch Airborne company is always leading pretty obviously in 1vs1. At loadout picks nothing really changed, Mechanized was at 4th place back in that period. There was some movement at the top picks below Airborne put nothing extraordinary in the ratio of numbers. So I can't find anything that leads to the conclusion that it was always mechanized back then and that you have somehow more variety now. Nothing really changed regarding variety. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can we revive Mechanized?9 Nov 2021, 14:44 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2021, 13:49 PMVipper Repair allowed the vehicle to easily get back to fight even when damaged ... Crew that gain veterancy could be used for other vehicles. ... This is somehow the basic spirit of USF vehicles that had to be removed from Pershing, Calliope, Priest already for more urgent reasons. WC51 could have just adjusted in price instead of ripping out its spirit. Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2021, 13:49 PMVipper I brought up the exploit just to point out that early Cav passenger are an issue but I do not think that that was the main reason for removing the crew. If we set the reasons apart: Putting WC51 at 1CP as I suggested or turning it into a combat MG unit without transport ability as you suggested would both prevent early abuse with Cav Rifles if they would be available at 0CPs. Both solutions would allow for different openings than always Rifles. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can we revive Mechanized?9 Nov 2021, 13:17 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2021, 13:07 PMVipper WC51 was being exploited by giving to UKF lend lease players with assault section which have similar stats. The combo proved to be OP. You can probably test it yourself in cheat mode. RW is not a huge risk with low chance to hit and long aim times and investing 290 manpower to counter a cheaper vehicle can leave one in infatry disadvantage even if one manages to kill the WC51. (Imo RW should be locked behind first truck set up and faust behind truck being build) I didn't thought about that team game combo. A possible solution would be to give WC51 a CP requirement and taking back the crew nerf. That would make CP0 Cav Rifles possible and remove the team game exploit. If the team game combo was the problem, why was it nerfed in such a way? Before nerf it could capture points by disembarking. Repairs were cheap. Now repairs cost 20mun and the unit can't capture points. Seems the nerf did a lot more than the removal of one exploit. I agree about RW/faust proposal. Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2021, 13:07 PMVipper That is why my suggestions included starting with a HMG and being able to be refitted for m3. Would be something to think about. Could be an option having 1 or 2 as a combat unit instead of building further Rifle squads. Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2021, 13:07 PMVipper I can agree with that. We have something more to agree about. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can we revive Mechanized?9 Nov 2021, 12:58 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2021, 12:17 PMVipper As I said I would rather stop here and not continue down this path... Yeah, let us stop here. Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2021, 12:17 PMVipper You have suggested changes that are buff and can create balance issues. I have already pointed out that WC51 with Cav riflemen passenger can cuase balance issue especially in OKW 1vs1. I'm not sure about this one. Thompson upgrade would be locked behind tech so they would have their standard weaponary. Grease Guns aren't that bad either, but keep in mind the following: - WC51 + Cav Rifles costs 480MP - WC51 gets shredded super fast by small arms, if close up - OKW has the Raketen as an early counter available - going for Kubels could work out too Edit: ...if this really would have the potential to be a problem, WC51 could be set to 1CP instead of Cav Rifles. That way it would make more sense and you could break up the 3x Rifles start. Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2021, 12:17 PMVipper What I have said is that imo WC51 and 76mm are already balanced units that do not require buffs so buffing them is not path in making the commander more attractive. - WC51: Got slightly overnerfed in early game performance. Not close to Clown Car as somebody said here. - 76mm: Even if we assume it is balanced, it still has no place in USF tank lineup because of its nondoctrinal contestors. It needs a redesign which should be balanced around more AI damage while retaining its current AT value. If we would look at it as a more expensive upgrade of M4A3 with higher AT value it would clearly be set apart from E8 while worth taking over M4A3. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Is it time for some new 4v4 maps?9 Nov 2021, 12:07 PM I would love too see one or two new maps for 4vs4, because playing a 4vs4 with friends can be great fun. 1) I wouldn't place fuel on the centre line, because many games are predetermined if one side gets the better start and manages to capture both fuel points or capture one at least while the other one is embattled. 2) Since fuel and munition income gets inflated a lot at 4vs4 it could be interesting to play a map without fuel/munition points alltogether. Maybe this could prolong early and midgame by a little bit. On a plus side every strategic point would be of the same importance to fight for. Maybe players wouldn't rush for the same two points in the beginning in each and every game. 3) It has to be a wide map to leave some room for movement. No narrow lanes please. In: Mapping Discussion
Thread: Can we revive Mechanized?9 Nov 2021, 11:50 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2021, 11:34 AMVipper Still posting that " Meanwhile Panther needs 20 seconds to 100% destroy a 76mm Sherman at 50 meters." without specifying that you do not take accuracy into considerations is simply misleading even if unintentional. So why you don't called out MMX for posting wrong data about the time a 76mm needs to destroy a Panther? Aren't his diagramms misleading? Imo they are not and neither is my post if you factor in the coherences and relations of the discussion. my post was clearly pointing to his data, because I took his numbers for Sherman for a direct comparison. In a direct comparison it makes no sense to add another factor which wasn't used to calculate the data you want to compare to. It is only misleading if you take the post for itself and don't take the time to read the post it is related to. Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2021, 11:34 AMVipper One should not try to solve overlap issues by making units OP and creating balance issues. Its not even of any importance if it is just an overlapping issue or a balance one. The outcome is the same. 76mm has no place in USF tank roster. It needs a redesign along with 2-3 other units/abilities in this commander. I proposed some ways it could be done. Noone speaks about creating a balance issue. Its just you who smells trouble if someone says "Can we revive the last choosen commander in USF commander loadout, please?". In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can we revive Mechanized?9 Nov 2021, 11:31 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2021, 09:54 AMMMX true, a 76mm sherman won't scare off a panther, whether with or without hvap munitions. however, it would arguably be kind of nuts if it were an actual threat to it as both tanks serve fundamentally different roles, have different costs/timings and also differ in their ai potential. i see the 76 mm more as a hybrid between the regular sherman and the jackson, though you can probably argue it's not too effective in either at or ai compared to the two. since the last patches first and foremost gutted its anti-inf performance, i'd agree that a small ai buff to the regular at rounds might be a good call. still, i think the hvap is fine for what it does and shouldn't be made any more powerful. Yeah I'm with you here. Its not about HVAP beeing up or 76mm beeing an equal match to Panther, it is rather about the failed concept of the standard shell beeing more of a competition to HVAP shell instead of beeing some sort of reliable AI source. Instead of nerfing RoF they could have nerfed penetration of standard shell, that way 76mm would have retained old AI value. Alternatively they could have buffed AoE while nerfing RoF or removed standard shell alltogeher and replaced it with some sort of HE shell. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can we revive Mechanized?9 Nov 2021, 10:53 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2021, 09:13 AMVipper That is simply false for a number of reason including the fact that you assuming a Panther will hit a Sherman with each shot at max range in in game fight which simply is not the case. Before marking my data as false you should consider the coherences. I didn't include accuracy because MMX wasn't either. That was the only way to directly compare to his diagramms. Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2021, 09:13 AMVipper In addition if you expect a cheaper mainline tank to take out a more expensive both in price and tech Panther you are simply expecting too much. If 76mm could be spammed and win vs Panther what vehicle would axis faction have to use to counter them? I don't expect that. I expect having it better AI than it has now to give a reason taking it over M36. I do think I made this point pretty clear multiple times in this thread alone. Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2021, 09:13 AMVipper 76mm has better AI power on the AP round. If you expect to have equal AI power than HE round you are simply expecting too much. No I'm not. All can be balanced around delay of shell switch and unit cost. There is absolutely no balance problem. Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2021, 09:13 AMVipper If you compare the unit with other mediums instead of expecting to beat Panthers, the unit is fine. 1) I don't expect it to beat Panthers and I never said so. You put words in my mouth. Again, it was always about its AI performance. 2) It is not fine if you compare it to other USF tank options in T4. Going for nondoctrinal M4A3 + M36 is better than going for 2x 76mm. So there is a problem within the USF tank roster/tank balance. It just isn't worth the doctrinal choice (along with the other abilities of the commander). Looking at commander loadout stats I'm not the only one who thinks that. I would even go so far as to say that 76mm wouldn't be a good alternative to M4A3/M36 Jackson combo if it would be nondoctrinal, because the unit has no real place in USF tank roster in its current state. In: COH2 Balance