Profile of Horasu

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 279

General Information


Thread: UKF - Know your units - Medium armor13 Aug 2015, 00:44 AM Fireflies will make people cry, but it won't be Axis... it'll be us Allies... 12s reload in Alpha... cries In: Lobby
Thread: Su-76 no longer needs free barrage?11 Aug 2015, 06:09 AM The way I see it, while Axis have heavy tanks, Allies have superior artillery. Let them have the free barrage. It's a defining role of the su-76 and it's already on a deathly long cooldown. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Undo Soviet T3 before T4 requirement10 Aug 2015, 23:07 PM As Gandalf stated, you'd have to increase at least the cost of t4 if you remove the prerequisite. However... Increase it too much, and you'll never see t3 + t4 in games. Increase it too little, and t-34 rush will dominate. Removing t3 requirement would also destroy the "light vehicle play phase" that Relic wants to extend. Finally, it would push the Soviet meta back into needing call-ins again, which sucks big time. In the end, it would do more harm than good at this point. I think requiring t3 for t4 is the simplest and most elegant way for the game to do a light vehicle --> medium vehicle transition. Too many more problems would rise from changing it now. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Why Tank Spam Is Not Inherently A Bad Thing.10 Aug 2015, 07:13 AM Jump back to quoted post10 Aug 2015, 04:25 AMhubewa Well, that would be true in the previous meta and timing of units, if the SU-76 was in the TD building. But now, what you have is the SU-76s dominating the Panthers in every engagement in 1v1 maps which are smaller. Also Fuel, considering the timing of units and cost of teching to these units, is a bit of a miscomparison. It costs a lot more to build your first panther than your second, just as it costs a lot more to build your first SU-76 than your 2nd or 3rd. That and with the strong T3 soviets get, they get to tech/build SU-76s a lot faster by pushing the Germans off the field. As an Early/midgame vehicle, I feel the SU-76 is far too good for the time when it arrives. I think vehicle balance should be more framed by pop cost, fuel, role and when it arrives on the battlefield. Alright, then would you feel better if SU-76s came later but everything stayed the same? That seems to be the message you're giving me. I wouldn't mind if T3 was pushed back by 10 fuel or something since M5 and SU-76 are problem units, but there is really no elegant way to push SU-76's back too much without crippling SU. Nerfing them would spell disaster as they would be locked out of a reliable TD until they have enough fuel to afford their most expensive tank in the last tier. I feel like the design of SU in CoH 2 doesn't leave a lot to work with. For now, a scaling TD that arrives mid-game might just have to be a thing that Axis have to work around. But timing for the SU-76 is a little off-topic, so I will leave it at that. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Why Tank Spam Is Not Inherently A Bad Thing.10 Aug 2015, 01:14 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Aug 2015, 22:13 PMhubewa IMO SU-76 spam as it stands is fine.... If the unit wasn't so darn good dealing with Panthers, Tigers or Elefants EN masse. But see, that's why I made this post. They're supposed to begin countering Axis late game equivalents in numbers. My lengthy previous posts aside (which I think justify 2-3 SU-76s vs. 1 panther nicely), 2 SU-76s cost 150 fuel. In a head-to-head engagement with no flanking or other tactics whatsoever (in which the SU-76s cannot do and the Panther can do), why shouldn't they be able to fight back against a Panther's 175 fuel? And Tigers... Truly, they are more vulnerable to SU-76s than a Panther due to their slower nature, but I would attribute that to a Panther's overperformance as well as the fact that those two hold different roles in combat. Tigers slowly break through a line while Panthers use Blitz tactics. TD's of any type, not just SU's, are better against the former than the latter, so maybe if you see SU's being spammed, a strategically sound choice would be to withhold from Tigers. I actually really doubt any amount would help against an Elefant though. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: How to bring back the LT from the dead9 Aug 2015, 18:50 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Aug 2015, 06:52 AMLatch Most matches I watch the LT is skipped in favor for the CPT, fair enough, each to their own but from what I understand the major consensus is that it offers nothing of value over the CPT with its stuart for early vehicles and AT for good armor repellent. I still go LT most games, I feel the M20 is vital to my early and often late game (mines) victory, many don't agree and that's fine but its no secret i'm the minority when it comes to teching LT. What if, teching the LT also unlocked the BAR/Zooks or nades for the infantry and thus making them the only way to unlock them? Give the LT a fuel+Manpower increase, or the M20/AA to balance the costs but it would certainly change the way the game is currently played. Well, until everyone goes LT and skips CPT of course, ha. If I recall, USF are the only faction that needs to unlock weapons separate from normal teching, I understand the want for variety by making USF the most pain in the arse faction to play as, but maybe this would help (to quote relic) "create more diverse and creative strategies with the faction". Locking BAR / Zooks behind LT is not buffing the LT. It's nerfing everything that's not LT. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Why Tank Spam Is Not Inherently A Bad Thing.9 Aug 2015, 18:35 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Aug 2015, 18:18 PMAlexzandvar A medium loss for most factions is a set back, a medium loss for OKW is a game loss. Like every faction has it's own micro challenges... Hey, I don't know if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me there, but here's an excerpt from my previous post that I thought sounded pretty cool regarding this philosophy. Sure, it's not as devastating when Allies lose one of their tanks, but that's because you're playing by a different set of rules. You can't expect to win by killing a couple Allied tanks like they can for you. You have to make them bleed with your superior tools that I mentioned above. How do you get ahead as Allies? Pinch their few tanks in with good tactics and destroy them. How do you get ahead as Axis? Bleed their tanks with your better ones. Bleed them until they can't bleed anymore. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Why Tank Spam Is Not Inherently A Bad Thing.9 Aug 2015, 18:12 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Aug 2015, 18:06 PMBasilone "Spamming" a unit does not make someone a bad player. Some of the most elite CoH1 2v2 players spammed M10s, and to do it successfully and not leave a graveyard of free munitions for a Wehrmacht player took a lot of micro and careful planning/positioning. But the SU76, SU85, or anything else without a turret takes a lot less skill since you are basically sitting at range at choosing a unit to fire at, and if you ever get in danger you can reverse all unit simultaneously (doing the same thing w/ 5+ tanks in vcoh took god tier micro). Spamming an assault gun type vehicle will always be fairly easy compared to making offensive manuevers with turreted tanks, but since we have so many more assault guns in coh2 will just have to deal with it and hope its different in the next game. In the mean time they could cut down on SU76 spam by getting rid of the T3 requirement for T4. I like SU76s because I already made the building anyway and I don't want to build another expensive structure for T34 when I can immediately start getting another powerful unit. Now I never played vCoH, but here's how I see it. Sure, sitting in the back requires less micro. But defensive play means you're sacrificing engagements on your terms. It's a tradeoff. You can engage offensively with multiple turreted TDs, but the price is a lot more micro. You could sit back, but you leave yourself open for the enemy to engage in his favor. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Why Tank Spam Is Not Inherently A Bad Thing.9 Aug 2015, 18:03 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Aug 2015, 16:49 PMAlexzandvar When your outnumbered and facing a lot of DPS with fragile units you have to use a LOT of micro. It's a different type of micro, but it's micro none the less. What the OP is talking about is macro; controlling a large force of units as opposed to a small one. Let me give you an example, when your OKW PIV hits the field it will be facing a large amount of AT which means you need to be on the ball with reversing it and moving it around the field. It represents a very large investment which means it's loss is a big one. When you dealing with cheap spammable units one loss isn't a huge deal. "spam" such as maxim spam, SU-76 spam, and whatnot is brainless because it relies on simply overwhelming your enemy through the shear impact of so much suppression/DPS in the case of maxim spam or barrage + AT in the case of the SU-76. When countered both these things fall apart and almost always result in a loss for the executing player; but countering them requires far more skill than executing them does. Thank you for the civil conversation Hello Alexzandvar, Let's step back for a second and look at definitions. "Macro" in terms of RTS means focusing on your economy. Increasing your income through mining minerals or something, teching up, etc. to ensure you have the resources to build a large army. This is largely irrelevant in this game because your resources come automatically with capturing territory. I looked up "micro" on urban dictionary (har har I know, but it's the best sources we've got for non-official words while also showing what the most widely accepted use of the term is through the rating system) and the top 3 definitions emphasize something important: Managing MULTIPLE UNITS. (Link to the term is at the bottom of my post. Entry #1 says "single units" which is not to be confused with "a single unit.") Thus, by the sheer definition of the word, managing 2+ SU-76s requires, by far, much more micro than 1 Panzer IV. I was not talking about macro in my post. Now I want to address the other part of your post. I'll ignore MG stuff since I made this thread to defend SU tank spam. Being "on the ball" with reversing and positioning does require skill, but that all comes with the package of managing a tank. Every person who has tanks need to do that, or you're throwing away resources. I'm saying SU has to do it twice as much as Axis. No, I don't think it's true that you can sit a bunch of SU-76s in one spot and call it a day. Even head-on, if you leave your fragile tanks sitting like that, you are inviting the axis player to engage in his favor with his rules (if he's not bad). In other words, when he engages, your tanks will be in danger. Due to their fragility, one or more will die if you don't move and position every one. And without escape/engagement mechanisms like combat blitz and smoke, SU has to be even MORE precarious in their positioning, reversing, and engagement ranges than Axis. Your argument that it takes a lot of micro to manage an Axis tank only further justifies my position that it is just that much harder to micro Allied tanks, instead. Now you might be thinking, "How can they be forced to micro more than me when I have to deal with a wall of tanks and AT by being forced to flank and track the positions of every gun just to ensure that my one tank lives? It's too much!" Well, you are given the tools to deal with it. Their shots can bounce; yours don't. You have escape/engage skills, they do not. You are durable, they are not. And you only need to kill one or some of their tanks per engagement to come out on top. Regarding the large resource loss that comes with losing your tank, I believe that is a natural price to pay for the "few but powerful" quirk of the axis powers. There is nothing wrong with it and it should be that way. Your post implied that, because Axis have a lot to lose with the destruction of a single tank, that they should not be forced to face a wall of enemy tanks. However, I would flip that argument on its head and say that because they could lose so much, being forced to face a wall of tanks is a natural obstacle to overcome and should be expected when you roll out your first elite tank. Sure, it's not as devastating when Allies lose one of their tanks, but that's because you're playing by a different set of rules. You can't expect to win by killing a couple Allied tanks like they can for you. You have to make them bleed with your superior tools that I mentioned above. How do you get ahead as Allies? Pinch their few tanks in with good tactics and destroy them. How do you get ahead as Axis? Bleed their tanks with your better ones. Bleed them until they can't bleed anymore. I'm losing a bit of steam and I feel like the message got muddled near the end, but I hope it comes through. Micro: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=micro In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Why Tank Spam Is Not Inherently A Bad Thing.8 Aug 2015, 22:48 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Aug 2015, 21:50 PMAlexzandvar This method of thinking is somewhat paradoxical considering if you make them cost more you can increase performance. The reason why (normally) Axis tanks a better 1v1 is they cost more, but this isn't always true. For instance IS2 > Tiger, T34/85 > Panzer IV, and so on and so forth. Spam is cheesy as hell and really shouldn't be encouraged, it's essentially brainless. Combined arms should be encouraged, not just making a fuckload of a unit until your enemy can't handle it anymore. I'd like to point out paragraph #6 in my original post where I argued for the fact that spam is, in fact, not brainless. It demands an intense amount of micro to keep your fragile yet numerous units alive, else you will just be throwing fuel into the trash. Can it truly be more brainless than controlling one tank in which you can rely on a lot of enemy shells bouncing? I think not. Even when not engaging enemies, the amount of map awareness to not get flanked or accidentally leave a stray unit in a vulnerable position is intense as well. I feel like managing 3+ SU-76s is a feat of strength on its own. To address your first point, you COULD theoretically increase tank prices and buff their stats as well to mirror Axis tanks, but I feel like the community, as well as myself, are against it due to the "asymmetrical balance" of CoH 2. Sure, having literally the same units stats-wise on each side would solve all balance issues, but in the end, diversity is key, as squippy pointed out: Jump back to quoted post8 Aug 2015, 22:11 PMsquippy But equally, there shouldn't only be One True Way to play. In: COH2 Balance