Profile of Ulaire Minya

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 372

General Information


Thread: How would you address new factions' powercreep?14 Jul 2016, 13:17 PM Jump back to quoted post14 Jul 2016, 13:15 PMKatitof Because I personally consider charging with HMG against LMG squad behind cover being a bad idea. You can just as easily put it behind cover too and let it engage at maximum range. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: How would you address new factions' powercreep?14 Jul 2016, 13:10 PM Jump back to quoted post14 Jul 2016, 13:07 PMKatitof Spios? G43 Pfussies also beat LMG squads at close range. However I will +1 for the smoke as its greatly underused. So out of the 3 options you decided to focus on one? Shit design notwithstanding, OKW has 2 of the 3. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: How would you address new factions' powercreep?14 Jul 2016, 13:03 PM Jump back to quoted post14 Jul 2016, 13:01 PMKatitof That is a brilliant idea! From now on I will use OKW smoke abilities when closing on tommy LMG behind green cover or alternatively move in with HMG! Sounds like a perfect plan to win the game! What OKW cqc units are you planning on closing in with in the first place? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: How would you address new factions' powercreep?14 Jul 2016, 12:37 PM Jump back to quoted post14 Jul 2016, 12:11 PMKatitof You mean HMG? And who do you mean by them? Assault grens? Sturmpios? PPSH partisans? Commandos who do not have a single rec acc bonus? Oh these pesky OP CQC units. Because LMGs are not supposed to melt everything on approach. Thats why they were nerfed over and over. And HMG do not counter inf by dealing damage to it. If only you could use some form of support weapons to ensure your cqc units could make it close enough to engage at optimal range... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: How would you address new factions' powercreep?14 Jul 2016, 01:42 AM Recieved acc nerfs across the board In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Balancing Indirect Fire8 Jul 2016, 06:12 AM Jump back to quoted post8 Jul 2016, 06:05 AMmedhood Yeah thats what I meant pretty much, nothing is more annoying than to move an infantry squad and you get bombed by the mortars and the enemy didnt even click once But still making the barrage be real short is probably the best so if for example you bomb an AT gun and he moves it and you know where it is you can continue bombing its new position That would certainly work. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Balancing Indirect Fire8 Jul 2016, 05:48 AM Jump back to quoted post8 Jul 2016, 05:42 AMmedhood I always thought that removing the auto-fire and making it just barrages with quick cooldowns would be better, but what about attack ground? The enemy can just move out of the barrage making you wait to be able to use the next barrage which would be annoying even with a quicker cooldown, this would only make the Mortar useful for breaking up concentrated positions Now I support putting a bigger micro tax on the mortar, so I would say remove auto-fire and leave the barrage abilities as is but you also need to leave attack ground or replace that with an ability so players that actually micro the mortar are allowed to "track" mobile enemy units by using the ability while any of the other abilities are on cooldown, or just leave it bombing a building to get a nasty MG out at the end rewarding the player who is actually mircoing Mortars and other indirect fire weapons are meant to disrupt the enemy, not win the engagement for you. By forcing them to move away from an advantageous position your infantry's job is now that much easier. To clarify, when I say lower barrage cooldowns, I mean somewhere in the neighborhood of 5-10 seconds, thus rewarding a microing player with almost constant support. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Balancing Indirect Fire8 Jul 2016, 05:17 AM Hi there! I had a thought about how to keep the intended purpose of the light indirect fire weapons (mortars (mobile and the pit)and the light howitzers making them less spectacularly lethal. So, as we all know the purpose of the light indirect fire weapons is to disrupt enemy formations/defenses, thus making it easier for your forces to win their engagements. The current performance of indirect fire weapons certainly accomplishes that, but I feel that it goes too far in terms of pure lethality. Indirect fire should force the opponent to move their units around, not wipe them out wholesale (small squads in particular). There are two possible solution I have in mind: the first is to properly space out squads to make them more resilient to AoE weapons and reduce frustrating wipes. I feel like this would be the solution that requires the least changes as it should be a fairly simple task to copy-paste the spacing of well-spaced squads like Infantry Sections and Paratroopers into other units. The second solution is to remove autofire from light indirect weapons, leaving them with only barrages. Now, the cooldowns would have to be lowered of course, but I feel that without autofire indirect fire weapons would be less lethal to units as they wouldn't be able to "track" targets, but simply deny an area of the map, fulfilling the aforementioned purpose of indirect fire. Let me know what you guys think. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW vs USF 6 Jul 2016, 15:59 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Jul 2016, 15:36 PM__deleted__ Hope I helped you Thanks a lot for your help! In: Replay Reviews
Thread: OKW vs USF 6 Jul 2016, 13:55 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Jul 2016, 12:53 PM__deleted__ You want to say that my post is just talking about nothing. Good to know then I actually have one more question. What advantages does Scavenge convey? In: Replay Reviews