No that's not really how it works? The effects against cover are bound to the weapon, aren't they? Unless the way that the cover data is presented with the weapon in serelia is just an abstraction and the code works a different way.
As I understand it:
1.) The game checks if a model is in cover
2.) The model recieves fire from a weapon
3.) The weapon itself has certain effects against the model depending on what kind of cover its in
If that's the case, then I'm sure it would be possible to adjust the likelihood of hitting a model in cover for that specific weapon by an equation involving the RA of the cover and the penetration.
For example, you could say a stone fence has 1.1 armor.
So you could put an entry for the Kar98's RA modifier against something like: "green_cover_stone" as something like ".5*(penetration/1.1)"
EDIT: that's just a hypothetical equation, I don't know if it would be better for balance to have it be additive or multiplicative.
I am not sure why you are confused.
If unit receives bonus from cover is squad thing. IS section will get bonuses even if there flanked or fighing in point blank range.
This completely different from a weapon firing to certain target and doing "accuracy" and "damage" checks and applying the appropriate modifiers.
A fence's armor would effect the damage that fence would receive and not the unit behind it. |
I've mentioned multiple times now that this is a design discussion that is untied from engine restraints. I've mentioned how the current system of RA and damage reduction is not authentic and what issues it creates, to then further introduce how my suggestion could at least partially solve even those. From the beginning I clearly stated my suggestion is not supposed to be introduced into CoH2 and that there would be issues in doing so.
Please stop with assuming to apply all changes to the CoH2 system. We don't exactly know how CoH3 functions, I assume similarly, but nevertheless we get a "fresh" start with people working on the game and being able to make larger changes even after release, as seen with CoH2. But even assuming all that, this discussion can be completely untied from both CoH2 and CoH3.
What I fail to understand is what in your opinion would be the benefit of protection being offered by armor instead of received accuracy.
As you have posted there is little difference if a bullet miss or fail to penetrate.
I could see why one want to introduce an "armor" system for infatry so that certain units can be more durable to certain types of weapons (although if such a system did exist it should be as simply and easy to understand as possible and not the COH1 mess).
I can even understand if some does not like the damage reduction green cover offers for small arms fire. I simply do not see the "armor" brings to cover that received accuracy can not bring. |
The gentleman has already stated this was a hypothetical for a future CoH game, so worrying about how it would be implemented into CoH2 is unnecessary.
Coh3 uses the same mechanism as COh2
However, if the game already has code to detect which models are inside of cover and which are out, I don't imagine it being too hard to implement.
That is irrelevant since in the current target table system there is check for the weapon firing, if the squad had any defensive bonuses there would have to be an additional check to see if those apply to specific weapon firing.
As I have point out in previous post UKF infatry used to get Received accuracy bonus when in cover that was always working when the squad was in cover even if the squad did not actually benefited from normal cover bonuses.
Either way I don't think coh2 even has a way to differentiate covers besides directional or not. Cover from a dead cow is coded the same as cover from a shrubbery, etc.
There are around 4 types of cover in use.
There are additional garrison-building and terrain types that can effect weapon performance and provide bonuses.
For instance flamers do less damage in water terrain. |
And as I already pointed out, this is a general design thread, not a balance thread about introducing a new "feature" into the current CoH2 environment.
One issue I can see is AoE weapons like a tank hitting the cover in front, but still being able to heavily damage the model behind it. Although I assume that is probably quite realistic, it might not make for good gameplay.
I didn't clearly specify, but the armor bonus should obviously be directional. This is also how defensive cover bonusses are currently applied.
And what I am trying to pointed out is that the current system applies to weapon not squad themselves and that is why direction cover and point mechanism works.
By giving an armor bonus to squad itself instead of the weapon one has to add a new calculation done by the squad to see if the weapon firing on the squad should get cover penalty or not. (not even sure if that is possible)
If one want to the effect you describe all one has to do is to adjust the cover tables of "high penetration small arm" so that they have lower accuracy/damage penalties so the DPS equals that of armor. |
...
Cover should change armor. This makes sense intuitively and logically. All the penetration and accuracy values would affect the fight in an expected way. High penetration weapons ignore more of the cover because they can just shoot through it.
As I already have pointed out that can create issues with light vehicles and their balance.
But there is another issue.
The Cover tables system that is now used takes into account cover mechanisms like direction cover/point blank mechanism.
The armor bonus you are proposing which would be based around the squad itself and not the weapon firing would probably not since a squad with either have the bonus armor or not.
|
Neither a sturmpio nor a MG42 should do unsupported solo actions at the frontline at the beginning of the match when you look into fog of war and notice you are against brits. Especially not on a map like Steppes  The only exception for this is rushing a strong house, where UC + engineer can't do anything against you anyway.
You mean like sending the SP to secure the fuel?
And who said anything about unsupported?
You think that a SP will not forced to retreat if he is focused fired by IS+UC+RoRe
The combination of UC and CP 0 call in infatry (ASIS/RoRe/RaidSec) allows UKF player to concentrate units faster to the initial point of interest.
Glad to see that we are past the " exaggerating completely" line of arguing. |
Vipper arguing for target tables? Can someone bring a thermometer down to Hell real quick?
Target tables and cover tables are two different things.
The post you quoted is about cover tables and not Target tables. |
That's what I meant by target table. The problem I described stays the same.
...
If I understand correctly you are suggesting to remove the table cover damage modifiers from weapon and add a armor bonus to units instead.
What I am saying is that the armor bonus is rather irrelevant to mortar and grenades. If the damage modifier are completely removed these weapon will do full damage probably more the normal since the squad would probably be more bunched up.
What I suggested was that instead of removing the damage modifier was to reduce the penatly from 0.5 to something like 0.25.
On an separate issue:
It is correct that Armor in most case does really come to play in hand held small arm.
The complication of introducing armor in the cover mechanism is that certain weapon (mostly vehicles based weapon) that are balanced around light vehicle play will start to over perform vs infatry in cover.
And on separate issue:
When UKF infatry used to get an received accuracy bonus when in cover that bonus messed with cover mechanism since it applied even when directional cover was not applying or when the point blank cover mechanism kicked. Maybe there is a way around that but I do not know. |
This unit specialization does not need to be touched at all. My main point is to give more meaning to weapon penetration. Removing the oddity of staying within the explosion radius on purpose is a bonus and just an example of how the current system leads to unwanted side effects, which then have to be countered with special modifiers to make it more believable.
To my knowledge, the target tables don't check for directionality. If that's true, adding modifiers will lead to other issues, mostly with grenades. For example, if you storm a squad behind sand bags and lob a grenade behind them, currently you do half damage (odd behaviour). Introducing a 2x damage modifier will bring it up to full damage again and negate the benefit of sticking to cover (wanted behaviour). However, throwing the grenade in from the side, you'll suddenly do double damage, because the target table still applies while the damage reduction does not.
Given that much of this could be fixed by updating the engine, I'd rather focus on small arms. As stated above, explosive weapon behaviour against green cover is an odd symptom of the current system.
There is no need to add target tables one can simply change the cover table and change the damage cover modifier of mortars and grenades from 0.5 to 0.75 vs heavy cover for instance.
The problem with removing cover damage modifier and replacing them with armor is that it will increase the damage for light vehicles weapons and HMG/AP rounds.
For instance m20 has penetration values of 3/2/1 and Dhsk has penetration values of 7/6/5.
|
Assault Engineers spawn with 1.0 target size, not 0.9.
According to patch notes
"Assault Engineers (All variants)
Assault Engineers are being boosted to better reflect their short-range nature and their support role.
- Population from 8 to 7
- Received accuracy from 1 to 0.9"
But I have to agree here with the people that you are exaggerating completely about this strat, Vipper.
Read OP and try to find the exaggeration:
The RoRe (Royal engineer Recovery Squad) has seen many buffs since it the beginning of the game with the latest becoming available at CP 0 with 5 entities/stens and able to get Flamers. (and vet 1 sten bonus change)
The units still has superior repair speed over Engineer and smoke grenades and can upgrade with flamer and heavy sappers upgrade.
Now the synergy of this unit with UC has become very good since the UC can be used to drop them aggressively without taking casualties and the can repair a UC very fast.
Imo the combo should be looked.
Do you describe the sentence "Imo the combo should be looked." as "exaggerating completely"
Yes, you can force retreats against lonely squads, even make them waste a faust with the fast repair speed of RoRe. But lets talk about the Elephant in the room now:
1) against a Kubel + sp, this strat is an absolute joke, and many people combine these 2 units at start
1) 1 IS + UC + Rore can not deal with Kubel+SP? As I already pointed out the strategy works better in large maps (that usually come in large modes).
2) In teamgames, good axis players will bunch up their army as soon as possible believe it or not. Especially when they expect a scout car. And then this strat sucks as well... nobody is stupid enough to walk on the corner of the map with a lonely gren/volk in exposed positions when they know what you're trying to do here
I full aware of that because it is what I usually do, try explaining that to people who claim that by concentrating the early force in one spot you giving away map control in team-games.
3) Forcing a retreat on 1 squad doesnt matter, and afterwards smart axis players will not let that happen again
So forcing a sturmpioneer or HMG42 to retreat from the initial fight in map like steppes or red ball express does not matter? |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
