Becasue we don't need insta win abilities.
Well... it's not insta win. It shouldn't wipe everything in big area, giving no chanses for enemy to resist. Wipe everything in medium area for high ammo cost and with huge cooldown would work just fine! Your enemy built a big defensive line, which you just can't penetrate with your infantry or tanks or even artillery? Call RailUberGun, clear it out and rush in. Medium area of blast means, that it will only clear few structures or units, but saving enemy forces in general. No insta-win, but only way to break enemy resistance and get one for long period chanse to take advantage in game. I don't see anything bad in that. At least, it wasn't bad in CoH 1 at least, why should it be bad here?
And also... if it's allowable to have "insta-win" ability for UKF (Air supremacy), why not allow to Ostheers to have such one? It will work different, 1 strike, instead of mass of bombers, at lesser area but with same effect - clear some territory for to push and rush in that.
|
I think Relic wanted to make OKWs base defenses like Panzer Elites base defenses from CoH 1. And actually, that 2cm AA gun performs pretty much like Flakvierling 38 from CoH 1.
Only problem - role of aircrafts in CoH 1 was way lower, so if base AAs of PE weren't such a big problem, in CoH 2 they really bothers and ruining some airabilites for no reason.
But it also would be lame to change AA guns on OKW base to just HMG bunkers. It may be something else. Maybe... Pantherturms? 
|
Who said it's Gustav? It's a railway gun and not all railway guns were like Gustav.
It's fine.
Well, why not to make it "Gustav"? You know, sometimes it says that "Schwerer Gustav is ready to fire", when ability becomes ready to use, so... who knows.
Anyway, I think V1-like offmap stirke would be way more useful for breaking defensive lines, than those pathetic and inaccurate 3 shots. Specially for that count of ammo, which you need to spend on it. |
We all know, that CoH 2 is not about "realism" or "common sense", but... ain't it strange, that 800+ mm RailUberGun performs like common 203mm B-4 Puncher? It looks pretty similar, and I guess - deals pretty same damage. And more than that - it deals 3 shots per barrage, that is absolutely against any logic, cos such beast just coulnd't shoot so fast!
I have a suggestion, which could both make that off-map strike more attractive for people and make it way more realistic = more attractive again.
I think everyone, who played in CoH 1 remember V1 off-map strike and how it worked. For those, who didn't, I'll remind: 1 shot, long time before strike, that creepy annoying sound instead of flares, huge damage (insta-wipe of everything in blast area) and huge cooldown time. I think, that RailUberGun should work absolutely same. RailUberGun should be 100% similar to "V1" strike, but only in CoH 2.
And it would work good, I suppouse. That arty would be really good tool of 1-shot breaking UKF's emplacements, like it was with V1 and Emplacements in CoH 1. It would be really way better breakthrogh tool, than it is right now. And I suppouse, that that ability supposed to be effective breakthrough tool. Huge damage at once, but at least 5 mins cooldown, otherwise - people will abuse and spam it, like they do pretty often with Stuka Dive Bomb strikes.
And of course - it all will be more realistic. Only 1 powerful shot, destroying absolutely everything (look at pics of RailUberGun shell, it's damn bigger than medium tanks!), creepy sound also can be added and of course - long time reloading. It took hours, if I remember right to reload that machine - here is only 5 mins for you! Great offer, don't ignore it!
So, what do you think about it? Im really sure, that such big instrument of making MASS DESTRUCTIONs, GENOCIDEs and Absolutely and Totally UNreasonable Ultra-Reich-1488%efficiency-VIOLENCE desreves to be better, than soviet kid size toy-howitzers .
|
|
Health increase won't help at all - problem with howitzers is mostly not in their "big vunerability", cos... that's quite normal.
Problem is - Howitzers, as support guns, don't do their work good, cos they only deal damage, and deal it ineffectively. Random accuracy, long-time barrages, compared with insta-barrages of rocket platforms, all of that makes Howitzers really ineffective gun, specially if you keep in mind, that you have to say "No" to Heavy tanks or other kinds of very useful and agressive units for to get Howitzers.
Adding supression and direct hit criticals would make it better for it's role. Let it be same fragile, but also let it deal more problems to enemy, so it would worth such risks and big investments in that.
Making that cheaper or less vunerable won't solve problem at all. Right now howitzers are "overpriced vunerable harmless guns", after that they will be just "harmless guns". Main problem in that is not "overpriced" or "vunerable" - main problem is "harmless = useless". So, let's solve that before, and then we will see - would it be reasonable to keep such high price and low HP to those upgraded howitzers. Maybe it will be just right and balanced!
P.S. Sorry for some "strange" sentences in original post. Bad knowledge of english... On russian all that I said would sound little more understandable and better.
|
|
First - some old, but still necessary suggestions:
1. Howitzers supression. I think it would be good to add to howitzers some kind of "AoE supression" around blast area of shell, size should be dependable on caliber of howitzer - small AoE for 87mm or 105mm for example, but bigger for 203mm. It would add both efficiency and realism to Howitzer guns, which are suppoused to be "support" units". So - they would support better, than they do now against infantry.
It might be "short-time supression", breakable after few secs and not insta-red even from direct hit.
2.) Causing "small critical damages" to tanks from direct hits. It would be also part of improving of "support efficiency" of howitzers. Howitzers are pretty... poor accurate, so they rarely hit directly tanks and deal good damage on them. So, for to make that moment of luck more... exciting I think would be fair to add causing small damages to vechiles by direct hit, like Turret Lock, or Crew Stun or Engine overheat... You know, those "yellow" damages, significant, but not deadly, like engine or turret destroy. It would also add some realsim to Howitzers mechanics. And of course - rise support value of those guns.
As Artilleryfag I think, that such improvements would really make Howitzers worth their 600 MP or 400-500 MP and ~100 fuel (for S-P) and also worth taking doctrines with howitzers... but without heavy tanks or other late game powerful tools. Right now, it's more reasonable in all game mods at allmost all maps take "heavy tank doctrines" or others, with real combat units in, but refuse from Howitzers, because when you take howitzer-doctrine - it's signing pact of enevitable and 100% loss for yourself.
Such improvements would also solve another problem - domination of rocket artillery platforms over Howitzers arty. It's obvious for everyone, who played in CoH 2 - Rocket arty is way more efficicent against traditional "arty" targets: large infantry groups, static positions. Rockets cover instantly big area with rockets and deal huge damage to all targets, while howitzers shooting slow, inaccurate and give a lot of chanses to enemy to save their infantry or static positions or even tanks (depends on luck) from Howitzer barages. That's just not right, if we also keep in mind, that vanilla rocket platforms (Katya and Werfer) are non-doctrinal, while almost all howitzers in game (except shitty base QF 25s) are doctrinal. What for I should take doctrine with Howitzer, if I can get better artillery without it and take something better, like IS-2 or Tiger Ace? Seriously...
And last point. A lot of people will say "buff howitzers - buff campstyle play = bad idea". Ok, but here is another problem we have - Howitzers exist in CoH 2, they are obviously "campstyle" units, we can't do anything about it. So, if we hate campers and we don't want to see such gameplay in CoH 2 - why not to remove Howitzers at all, instead of keeping them in game but holding them in condition "useless, vunerable and expensive"? That doesn't make sense, you either have units of some type and some "gameplay style" and make it worth (really huge) investments in that, or you remove it, because you don't want to see such units and such gameplay in your game! That's really mockery under players like me, who like howitzers! "You want to play on arty, retard? Here is your arty but... wait, it sux! Because we want it suck, we designed it to suck, because majority hates people like you, campers, so - go lose and suck to normal players, retard artyfag". That's some kind of bait, where in the end game pisses on your face. That's some kind of bad trolling, stop it CoH, please!
|
I agree, they are fine
Yea, infantry with almost 0 firepower efficiency and 0 ways of making it better without doctrines (exclusive for USSR, lol), infantry, which can't hold a punch because of high target size stat, infantry, which only can run like a crazy and throw shitty grenades, exahusting my ammopool, right after exhausted fuelpool on unlocking that shit is fine.
If such infantry is fine, then I guess Grens are Uberfinegoodnice! And TommyRiflemans are not tommies, they are Rex Power Colts, each of them. Soviet mainline infantry is one of the worst infantry squads in game and definitely - worst mainline infantry squad of all factions.
Utility squads shouldn't worth like combinants (240 MP). Utilites of all other factions cost something around 200 MP. If they would cost so, then OK, at least it will have sense. More or less.
We may look at another "utility infantry" squad in game - Rear Echelones. They are pretty similar - cheap, ineffective in combat with their "drunk redneck accuracy", but working good as support and utility. And even may be turned in combat effective squad with... additional weapons! Rears showing us, that weapon upgrades can be really saving for Cons and their poor state, we shouldn't ignore that!
So, as I said, more sense it will have, if there will be some way to improve combat stats of those trashsquads. Commissars is good way, they can improve their accuracy and rate of fire by their aura, there are video, that shows how Commissars work, I like that. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFOfH70Yb4w
Or, Conscripts may already get non-doc weapon upgrades. Can somebody explain me, why USSR is really ONLY faction in game, which not allowed to have non-doc weapon upgrades for core infantry? And what they getting instead of such significant (it is significant) loss? From my point of view - USSR getting nothing, it's one way "downgrade", without compensation. That's not how assymetrical balance and balance in general works. |
Cons have oorah for closing the distance, why are we even discussing this?
Orrah doesn't make them more resistable to damage or doesn't protect them from supression. Grens still can shoot them down, while they running on them or random HMG burst can stop that rush and turn them back.
And besides - they are not close combat squad in a first place, if we don't give them PPSHs. Mosins rifle shooting very slow, so, in close combat they might lose to Grens or Volks. It will all depend on random and luck, but I see pretty often, how Cons can't deal in close with Volks or even same Grens. Poor rate of fire and still low random accuracy makes that unit absolutely bad even in close combat. Make PPSH undoctrinal and that will make sense in something.
But... better DP-28s. Cos again obvious truth - Close range < Long range in CoH 2. |
Hi MissCommissar,
cross-reading your posts indicates that you are passionate about the game and your posts are well above the random rant, which both is good.
However, I think there are some flaws in your original statement, because you seem to forget that 6 cons have simply more HP than 4 grens. Even taking "target size" into account, 6 cons have effectively about 440 HPs, whereas 4 grens sit at 351. Likewise, the combined DPS of cons is about 20.6 vs. 23 for 4 grens (point blank). You can do the math, and it turns out that cons on average will win vs. grens at short range. At long range it is the other way around.
This "balance" originally was kept while both squads would level up. However, after the buff to vet3 of cons about almost a year ago (more reduction in "target size"), vet3 cons probably have the upper hand now in slightly more situations vs. vet3 grens.
Now, the obvious "problem" is that grens eventually will get the LMG upgrade, at which point they will win regardless of the distance (unless you are somehow able to keep them moving). You wouldn't be the first person to complain about the lack of a similar upgrade for cons.
However, looking through the soviet commanders it seems pretty obvious that this is not a simple oversight, but a deliberate design choice: Unlike Ostheer, almost every commander has either weapon upgrades for cons, Guards or Shock troops, or other call in infantry. It's ok if you don't like the choice (again you wouldn't be the first one there) but I guess chances of that being changed isn't too high.
That said: I read a lot of your posts. In several of those you complained basically that some Russian units don't have the role of their Ostheer counterpart (e.g. MGs) or that Russians can't e.g. build Ostheer bunkers. Taking this together it sounds like you would be more happy if Ostheer is copied over to Soviets, relabeling the units and using Russian models. Wouldn't that be kind of bland? Btw, glad to hear that you seem to have realized that Ostheer fits your preferred style of play better.
Last comment: In terms of having your squad killed by the main gun of tanks, target size is not overly relevant. They don't get whiped because the tanks hit a model, but because they hit some place close to the squad; and the only thing of importance then is having your guys not bunch up. Guess which property of cons helps them in that situation over grens...
Edit: Molotovs do have impact damage, same as OKW's incendiary grenades. I guess you checked out the stats site? You have to look at the "_MP" version.
Here is few points:
1.) Maybe cons will beat grens in close range. But... there is always problem with "close range", which people forgeting - you need to get you unit safe to that close range, before it will start affect. And with such accuracy, grens can just snipe out you upcoming Cons or whoever else and be good. Same actually works with any Long vs Close range squads. For that reason, I think, that Stormtroopers are way lower, than Guards. Saying from my experience: units with bigger range of efficient fire are better than any other. It also works even in DoW... but no, there are jumppacks.
2.) I don't understand, why people like to mention "Veterancy bonuses" comparing or discussing about units. Almost all units, guess even Osttrupens, can be really cool, when they have Vet3, but when I call-in unit, it usually comes with Vet 0. And getting veterancy for Cons is quite problematic - EXP coming from performing frags and dealing damage. But... as I said - Cons can't effectively deal damage, like their oppose from Axis or even Allies side. So - they vetting pretty slow + squad wipes under fire/retreat fire because of high target size. It's really difficult to make them Vet3. Way easier to do it with Grens or whatever else infantry, which is more resistable to damage and deal real damage.
3.) Unlike Ostheer, USSR is "addicted" to doctrines. You show that addiction as benefit, but it is actually great minus and cripple of entire faction - you can get reliable combat units or upgrades only and onlt from doctrines. While facitons like, OKW, UKF or even Ostheer have units, doctrinal of USSR level in stock and from their own doctrines they getting "top of the line elite", which is outstanding, compared with soviet Call-ins. And of course - weapons and other upgrades are in stock for those factions, only poor USSR must suffer without it for some reason. I would agree, if that exception of non-doc upgrades would be compenstaed with high quality of infantry itself, but it is even worse than all others... It's just cripple, without compensative benefit. Unreasonable and unnecessary.
4.) When I talk about "Ostheer unit design", I mean, that their design has reason and it is design, as it should be, when you making "healthy faction". HMG = defensive. Core infantry = damage and versality (grens can into versality, actually). Defenses = exist. And everything else. Soviet design, from another side, is absolutely unreasonable. Idea of "offensive HMG" was retarded from very start, cos HMG will be support-defensive weapon in CoH 2, like it or not. That's how in-game mechanics works. Same goes to Cons, to some other units in stock... Their design, just like design of entire faciton is broken. Absolutely no defenses for USSR + tough doctrinal addiciton + tiering system, stolen from CoH 1 USF, but Relic, I suppoused, missed the idea of that system, so it became also wrong. USSR needs either serious redesign or addition of some gameplay elements, like deffensive structures and reliable stock units, for to heal doctrinal addiction. Otherwise - USSR always will be underdogs, compared with other "healthy" factions.
5.) Hm... maybe molotovs have impact damage, it's low anyway. And besides, problem with molotovs is not impact damage, but "slow-mo" throwing and range of that throwing. It's risky to use that nade, you can lost entire squad, while they throwing that shitty bottle. Or, while they try to reatreat after that. It happens pretty often with me, when my squads shooting those guys in back - good accuracy + high target size works.
|
You realize you don't have to use cons, right? Once the patch comes out you can skip right to penals if you want stronger early game infantry. Then use cons as supplemental support units still. It's not like teching locks you out of anything. The abilities are what give cons their utility, wanting to put them on Penals is just asinine. Can you really not understand the concept of different infantry squads playing different roles? Not everything has to be riflemen.
Cons are strong enough in the early game anyway. Have you ever tried closing with oorah? They beat both volks and grens from close range.
Ok, but roles should be reasonable and there should be logic behind it, don't you think so? Cons are utility infantry? Fine, then why I should spend my resourses for not cheap equip-upgrades on them, instead of real combat infantry (Penals or whoever else)? Why from very start I must use "utility infantry" with poor combat stats, while ALL other faction will have real combats?
Cons as support is ridiculous idea. For some reasons, Grens are equiped with pretty same pack (nade+at snare) and in same time - have nice firepower and weapon upgrades + cost similar 240 MP. So, it seems to be possible to have both support and combat unit at once without "breaking balance or something else". Merge and Oorah abilites are overrated, I think, just like "6 man squad benefits". It looks like people don't really play in CoH 2 and don't see, that all of those things can't replace real unit qualities - durability and firepower and make unit worth spendings on it.
And 240 MP is... pretty big price for "utility unit" with no durability or firepower, Osttrupens and Rears looks more reasonable with their 200 MP price at that role.
Btw, I don't like that concept "Cons support, Penals combat". I would like to see another "Engineers support, Cons combat, Penals in trash, changed to Guards with PTRS or DP-28 optional upgrades". That would really make soviet infantryplay more powerful, soviet gameplay in general less painful and... it would have sense. You will have only 1 support unit in T0, instead of (unnecessary) 2 (cobmat engineers), 1 mediocre combat unit Cons, and really tough combat Gurads in T1 for 330-350 MP (that's a lot for early game, you should know), if you want to play agressive. Guards would also work well with M3 and be T1 AT-unit, which would make it way more attractive for people, which don't want to lose to helluva "222 spam" or earlyluchs.
Guards in doctrines might be changed to "VDV Paratroopers" with PPS-42/43 smgs, for close-mid combat fights.
P.S. Ok, that my idea is kinda... ridiculous also, as idea of support-concsripts. But here is another - add Commissars in USSR already, for they could rise up combat abilities of that "utility trash"! Add them in doctrine or in T1. Better in T1 - more attractive for aggresive players again.
|
Relic Entertainment
