Fair. I tend to think of that more as an irritating micro tax, but you're right, it would.
It is a nice change to be able debate in civilized manner.
Modeling the Kv-8 after hezter as earlier cheaper tank would be better option imo.
Happy new year. |
Who said anything about buffing?
You, allowing both main gun and flamer is a buff or modeling after crocodile. |
...
Sturmtiger is the weirdest one out of everything to me. Main problem is hitting damaged terrain (maybe a higher arc of fire?) and personally think it could use a bigger AEO suppression, not sure how big it is but the sturm isn't a great option atm, it alright but not worth locking out the kt (if you wanted to get him out).
...
Sturm Tiger could easily be turned into a cheaper less lethal anti emplacement role vehicle and then the KT/ST could be removed.
Competing with a KT with HE munition will always be problematic. |
Yeah kv8 is very tricky.
In teamgames its brutal. You kill every pak / raketen atm 
A) nerf the damage of the fire
or
B) reverse the rangebuff
Imo all flamers vehicles should lose their DOT, drive and spray is not a good method for using these vehicles. That should come as an ability.
The KV-8 should be a shock unit and not a unit that can fight PzIVs, thus it should be cheaper.
I would also consider to become available in two way as call in unit with premium or build-able from T4 for discount. Then the unit would be better timed across all modes.
You could remove the gun toggle on the KV-8, then turn it into a 13 CP call-in like the Churchill Crocodile. They fill similar roles.
Soviets already have IS-2/ISU-152/KV-2 as super heavies last thing they need is another Super heavy.
The idea of continuously buffing units to make them more attractive is counter productive, there is allot of room for these unit if they timing and price is right without being buffed. |
Let's not compare 1 stat and draw conclusions from there, shall we?
Sturmioneers
- 300MP
- DPM is 64/28,8/3,8 at ranges 3/15/28
- lose 25% of their DPM if one model drops on approach
- No default weapon upgrade
- 0,87 target size
- goes up against high close range DPM Riflemen
- have bad combat veterancy at very high requirements
Assault Engineers
- 280MP
- DPM is 67/7/0,8 at ranges 10/18/30
- lose 20% of their DPM if one model drops on approach
- default flamethrower upgrade
- 0,9 target size
- goes up against low close range DPM Volksgrenadiers
- have quite good combat veterancy at reasonable requirements
TLDR Assault Engineers are better than Sturmpioneers while being cheaper. Their early game performance should be toned down a bit. They are performing at about 110-120% efficiency for their cost/role. Giving them 1,0 target size at vet0 (0,9 at vet1) and locking flamethrower behind tech should put them closer to 100% efficiency for vanilla performance.
Even better compare assault engineers with assault grenadiers when both are doctrinal, come at CP 0 and cost the same, while AE come with tonne of utility. |
Pathfinders are UP.
Pathfinders
290mp to call-in
Target size 1 (.71 at vet 3)
dmg at range 5/10/15/20/25/30/35 with 2xm1a1+2xM1 scouped, not includ 40% critical.
22.468/17.018/13.806/11.734/10.722/11.158/11.592
M1 scouped is prior to bars, meaning that they pick M1 scoped rather than BARs when losing models. In fact, it's a good way to waste munis to arm they with double BARs.
JLI
250mp to call-in, can be deploy from buildings
Target size .8 (.57 at vet 3)
dmg at range 5/10/15/20/25/30/35 with 3xkar98+1xG43 scouped, not includ 75% critical and ambush bouns.
17.607/15.634/14.108/12.874/11.866/10.623/9.383
+50% accruacy ambush bouns for 5 sec
G43 scouped have .9 accuracy against cover and garrison
...
No Pathfinder are not UP and your comparison is incomplete and simply flawed.
Pathfinders are a CP 0 unit that spawn with 2 elite carbines.
JLI are OP but are a CP 1 unit that come with 4 mainline infantry weapons, their Sniper rifle is gated behind tech. By the time JLI have access to their g43 Pathfinder can easily have access to BARS.
Finally claiming a unit is UP because it compares bad to an OP units is flawed to begin with. |
Lock this weapon behind tech, lock that weapon behind tech too, oh also lock this weapon behind tech, and finally lock this thing for when you win the game. Seems a little bit wrong to me. If you keep locking weapons behind tech, USF will start fighting with slings and nerf blasters so that it will be "balanced". What's wrong with Assault Engineers? Flamethrower? Fine, increase the cost and the duration to get the weapon. On the other hand, if your issue is the CQB, then replace one of their Grease Guns with a M1A1 Carbine.
Units available before minute 1 should be balanced around mainline infantry (grenadiers optimally), most mainline infantry have access to weapon upgrades.
That creates the issues that CP 0 call in units are either too strong when they arrive are to weak in mid game. By allowing weapons upgrades also one can adjust their power level according to the time frame. This does not have to be side tech.
In the cases of assault engineers having many flamers units burning everything is problematic. |
https://www.coh2.org/topic/84950/feelings-after-the-decemberpatch/page/1#post_id717194
77% people votes that JLI are OP.
Your claim:
"I think a large number of axis only players do not seem to understand at all what's the JLI's problem."
is not supported by the numbers.
Also your idea that there are "axis only players" is not support by numbers either.
The idea of making chances in the game to teach "lessons" to "axis only players" is flawed.
This whole thread is creating a toxic environment that is not needed.
Happy new year. |
On one hand, I think this is an advantage that is very much understated or never considered.
On the other hand, these units do appear from the edge of the map, which means this doesn't quite have as large of an impact as you would think it would.
Anyway, as someone who has wanted more discussion on assault engineers to take place, what do you and everyone else feel the problem is with them? Obviously your post implies you think they bring too much early pressure, but I'd like to hear why you think this is the case (the problematic factor(s) that leads to this).
For what it's worth, I'm leaning towards Sander's suggestion for them because I think their early combat performance is straight up too high.
Imo all CP 0 units (and generally units available before minute 1) should be balanced around grenadiers and be allowed to get weapon upgrades (possibly with tech) to fit better in their time frame. Should also be delayed a bit.
Suggestion:
1) Assault engineer ability start on cool down similar to Ostruppen
2) Cooldown increased (starting CD could be half? the normal)
3) Start as 4 men squad and have 2 upgrade available after 1 officer:
A) Flamer
or
B) 2 Thompson + 1 extra entity + 1 smoke grenade.
4) Price down to 240
5) destroy cover now cost munition and has longer CD (also effect Ro.E).
|
The penetration value it has is fine, the problem is that it does 60 damage when it does pen and 30 damage when it doesn't. My suggestion is to change it to 90 when penning and 45 when not penning.
Before it was 120 and guaranteed penetration. I think 90 with pen and 45 without is a much better balance than the current state.
That might be reasonable suggestion although values of 80/40 are better. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
