Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Some thoughts on OKW and their issues.29 Mar 2021, 21:18 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2021, 21:16 PMKurobane Personally I feel like Volks and Sturmpios are fine and the real weakness is the Vet 5 Veterancy. Take the Kubelwagon for example. The Kubelwagon requires 3525 Experience to hit Vet 5 while the Universal Carrier only needs 2160 to hit Vet 3. Both units arrive at the same time and have similar costs. Essentially this causes casualties/losses to be significantly more punishing as you need significantly more experience to reach top peak performance (maxed out Vet) vs any other allied units. While the idea of Vet 5 vet is nice and cool in practice it ends up counter productive as Company of Heroes is supposed to allow someone to come back/Catch up from a mistake and one faction is punished way more than others. This is especially so for support weapons. The MG 34 at Vet 5 is hands the best MG in the game but at Vet 0 it is easily one of the worst. Even if you do manage to get the MG-34 Veterancy, all it takes is one lucky grenade or mortar shell and all of that hard experience is lost leaving you with overall weaker support weapons and forcing you to crutch harder on your infantry. I would gladly trade Vet 5 for Vet 3 for a less punishing Vet system. Generally speaking XP value are in mess and need to be looked at. So is vet bonuses. The vet system needs an overhaul for the last 5 years. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Soviet Commander Revamp 202129 Mar 2021, 21:10 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2021, 20:00 PMKatitof "nerf everything!" quotation mark are used to transfer exactly what someone else has written. That is not what I have written. Pls make correct use of quotation marks or do not use them at all. Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2021, 20:00 PMKatitof How come every single idea for "revamp" of allied unit or commanders involve nerfing it to the ground? That is simply false. Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2021, 20:00 PMKatitof With already extremely rich assumption there is anything wrong with that particular commander in the first place. Its not. You are entitled to your opinion and your opinion is respected. Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2021, 20:00 PMKatitof Weapon crates provide additional team synergy, YOU hate the ability, its not "abomination" in any way and there are multiple abilities across multiple factions that work in similar fashion. Yes that is correct it my opinion that the ability is a abomination and I have explained why. Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2021, 20:00 PMKatitof There is nothing wrong with dshk, but you're now 4th year on your crusade to remove it from the game. Pls avoid non constructive personal comments (for the 5 time). Sprint need to be removed from Dhsk as it has been removed from other hmgs and that change will not removed the hmg from the game. The assumption that removing sprint will somehow removed Dhsk from the game is simply unsupported. Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2021, 20:00 PMKatitof Airborne rally points are not better or worse then any other forward retreat point, you're nitpicking and exaggerating here. I am not "nitpicking and exaggerating" (pls avoid personal comment) even top players who's opinion you respect and you even recommend it to others described it as very strong. Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2021, 20:00 PMKatitof Airborne guards have no identity crisis, they are potent AI LMG squad, which soviets do not have otherwise. Normal Guards are potent LMG squad. Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2021, 20:00 PMKatitof They DO have higher AI DPS then regular guards and have other AI focused perks over them. They might but they are not more cost efficient than Guards, they have zero AT and come a CP later. Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2021, 20:00 PMKatitof Not understanding the units very clear role does not mean it does not have one and your suggestions is "elite conscripts". We already have defensive oriented squad in game, it does not require doctrine and fulfills its job just fine. Pls do avoid non constructive personal comments. Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2021, 20:00 PMKatitof But I do give you one point for the last one, rocket run was overnerfed, it deserves a buff or cost reduction. You can keep your point, I am not interested in collecting points. In: Lobby
Thread: Soviet Commander Revamp 202129 Mar 2021, 19:11 PM Airborne Troops Tactics General: A Commander that needs to be looked. Suggestion: Weapons crate drop The ability is a abomination that should simply be removed from the game. There is simply not salvaging. It comes way to early at CP 1, it is exploitable since it allows weapons or resources transfer across allies. PLS scrap this ability. If one want to keep the SVT for conscripts make it anomral an upgrade at CP 2. Ability could be replaced by an airdropped M-42 or Zis gun to promote T1 play or a smoke bomb plane. Dhsk HMG Paradrop Remove the vet 1 "sprint" ability HMg should not have access to this ability. Make AP rounds the vet 1 ability add another bonus (DPS/Sight/...) to the ability Lower the close DPS especially at vet 3 that is too high. Airborne Rally Points This points can become oppressive and promote blobbing. Remove fuel cost. Restrict reinforcement usage for Guards Airbourne (GA) only. Make the mini information a timed ability or replace with flare. Move the GA vet 1 strafe to this building, they are not a command unit and should not have access to such an ability. (maybe even add a timed defensive aura with a cost) Airbourne Guards Troops (note that unit Airbourne while the rest is of the abilities is Airborne) (and the name of the unit is Guards Airbourne) A unit is deep identity crisis. It comes 1 CP later than Shock/Guards cost about the same (more MU for LMG upgrade), without bringing much else over shock and Guards. Guards have about the same far DPS with added utility of AT and the fire superiority/tactical assault in no way make them better than shock troops. On the other hand they can infiltrate but do not have camo like other unit of that type. In sort they need a redesign. Possible solution instead of trying to fit them in the same league as Shock/Guards balance them as a CP1 unit for a superior mainline infatry in T2 builds. Reduce cost to 280-300 (possibly making build able or call-in) with good defensive vet bonuses (if there is a need for better scaling allow a single DP upgrade that can fire on the move at T4). Coming with grenades, AT snares. Or redesign them as 5 men infiltration unit with camo. IL-2 Anti-Tank Rocket Run The ability is still not a good place. One could try one of the following make it cheap reliable but causing far less damage so that it can only contribute in killing vehicles instead of doing the majority of the damage. (75-100 mu for around 200 damage+temporary weapon disable sight disable) or Make the ability come with 2+2 different weapon two rocket rocket launcher firing at fixed location requiring player to aim and 2 "homing" with in the designated area for around 400 total damage. Then the planes could arrive faster making the ability usable even without the ram combo. In: Lobby
Thread: USF Airborne Commander Revamp29 Mar 2021, 16:13 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Mar 2021, 17:03 PMKurobane ... Imo it would be better to remove the fuel cost from beacons and keep the airdrop reinforcement mechanisms for paratroopers. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Non-doc recon29 Mar 2021, 15:50 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2021, 15:23 PMUnit G17 Actually there are 3 okw doctrines that can benefit from recon sweep: -Breakthrough, assault artillery. The Uhu also synergises extremelly well with the Jagdtiger, it's a meta team game doctrine. -Feuerstrum, stuka rocket barrage. It deletes howitzers and this commander is quite meta too in team games. -Scavenge, 105 mm arty. Okay, this is an odd one out, not only the commander is not meta in team games, but also the arty is kinda meh. There is longer list of USF/UKF commander that benefit from reckon sweeps. Do you want me to provide it? I simply do not see how OKW benefit more than USF or UKF from stock reckon planes. Keep in mind that have already posted my opinion that stock reckon sweeps should be removed from all faction including OKW. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Non-doc recon29 Mar 2021, 15:14 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2021, 14:46 PMUnit G17 This. Actually even with a casual arranged team the lack of recon was often a problem, more in 3v3. Now on axis side I can just ask an OKW player to get an Uhu for that or make one myself. However with randoms this can get more troublesome. And yes, the implementation part...ugh. Well, on wfa armies it is on non-mainstream units (I can't describe it better), I mean, okay, one always gets a Major as part of tech, but the Major itself is not meant for frontline combat. The UKF assault officer is pretty strong in cqc, but one wouldn't make one on open maps and the okw uhu is also best used on open maps. So at first glance the best I can think of, without introducing new units, is the M3 scout car for soviets (would require vet or tech) and the command bunker for ostheer at T3 or 4 (I mean for example the ukf assembly can call in arty). In the latter's case one could upgrade the medic bunker at their base for recon. Neither the major nor the assault officer need to be anywhere near the front line to call in a reckon sweep in the enemy base. As for the assault officer one can use it in open map by giving him LMGs, it is not optimal but his low received accuracy make actually good in long range cover to cover fights once equipped with lmgs. Not to mention the very powerful "Heroic Charge" that can also be used in long range cover to cover fight. So imo OKW do not really have a meaningful advantage when it comes to stock reckon sweeps. Having that said I would rather have all stock reckon planes removed and replaced by a flare for UHH and binocular for major giving him "focus sight vision. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Brummbar performance29 Mar 2021, 15:06 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2021, 14:43 PMHannibal Fair enough. My misunderstanding then. No problem, maybe I was not clear enough. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW Commander Revamp 202129 Mar 2021, 15:03 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2021, 14:42 PMSpoof Sounds like a lot of needless extra work, and it doesn't fit the faction theme of small model sizes in each squad. Granted, Falls in their current form would fit very well into the needs of Ostheer. Ostruppen area already 6 men and fit the faction theme. Generally speaking Paras are vulnerable during landing (can die both from collision and enemy fire) and that it is a better design to have more than 4 entities. One can even find videos of fallj no surviving the drop. Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2021, 14:42 PMSpoof Also, wasn't the whole point of giving Falls paradrop to make them NOT be infiltration units? The initial issue they wanted to fix was the wipe potential of enemy squad at spawn (which has been partially fixed already with the 2 K98. Why paradrop solution was chosen is unclear in the notes but probably has more to do with changes in "Airborne Assault" and less to do with removing the infiltration part. In the old implementation the commander actually had the access to both infiltration and parachute Falls which in my opinion was a better design. "Airborne Assault" was a bad ability and the correct to fix it but there where solution better solution imo. In: Lobby
Thread: Non-doc recon29 Mar 2021, 14:38 PM Stock reckon sweeps should be removed from as stock option. That would even create the need for commander reckon planes. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: OKW Commander Revamp 202129 Mar 2021, 14:36 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Mar 2021, 14:22 PMSpoof Operation Greif was not Luftwaffe Fallschirmjager operation. That's the problem. Also, how is giving 4-man paradropped Falls to Ostheer going to change anything, anyway? OKW is the faction with more men per squad anyway. If Fallschirmjager become available to ostheer are parachutist they should be model after USF paras and be 5 or 6 entities. In: Lobby