Profile of Svanh

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 181

General Information


Thread: Royal Engineers are op18 May 2016, 09:21 AM Jump back to quoted post18 May 2016, 08:37 AMMr.Smith Thus, at some point, we are going to have to consider giving Tommies some utility: - Give them a recon-section upgrade (e.g., SLE's) that allows them to be accurate on the move (but disables picking up other weapons) - Fix the base howitzers: Give the projectiles some actual AoE (currently they are still on-par with Katyusha rockets). Consider removing the cost of calling down artillery from Tommies. Nobody can afford 45 Munitions (+45 munitions for the upgrade) in the early game to call down 3 shells. The sniper can retain the munition cost, as there is no forward investment/lock-out (from medkit) involved there. Find a way to give Tommies access to smoke. Either mobile mortars, or base howitzers or something. - Add a mobile mortar to UKF, and let faction synergy work its magic there. I'm not a fan of the recon-section, free call-in artillery, or Tommy smoke. - Recon-sections will most likely be introduced doctrinally (which doesn't fix the issues) or will dilute the long-range role of Tommies (reducing the number of easy and intuitive counters). - The artillery actually calls down six shells per howitzer. The Royal Artillery Regiment call-in only calls down three. Reducing the cost of the Tommy version (and its shell count) would be a good change but outright removal of the cost would be a bit much. - Tommies are long-range superiority units (want long LOS) that can build green cover (which makes them effectively immune to suppression). Smoke will only be used in situations that would usually require a hard retreat (i.e., careless play). Jump back to quoted post18 May 2016, 08:37 AMMr.Smith Now, regarding the suggestions that Svanh made: If I had to categorize the changes, these would be: - Increase the AI power of Tommies - Give Tommies snares - Make Tommies the PIAT gods of UKF (Because of the cover penalty, they are currently the underdogs) - Nerf Sappers by giving them inferior weapons from the racks - Some solid QoL changes (Flare range, Vickers K, etc) My gut feeling is that Tommies would already be buffed a lot, if we already completely removed SLE's from their Vet3 "bonus". However, that alone: - would make double-Bren Tommies extremely frustrating to play against, late-game - does not give us an answer about how UKF is supposed to get by early-game (when munitions are scarce) (The Vet3 bug NEEDS to go already. If the only reason for keeping this bug in is to balance double-Bren Tommies, then fix the (RNG-prone) bug, and find a more consistent way to balance the unit). However, if we also go for giving snares on top of the AI buffs, that might be killing it. The other thing is that, I do agree that if Tommies get buffed, Sappers no longer have to remain super-efficient. However, I am not sure if giving them inferior versions of weapon rack upgrades would be the right way to go; that might make the Heavy Engineers upgrade more awkward than it has to be (apart from hurting your mobility). Why not just, straight-up increase the MP cost of Sappers? Giving Tommies more mobility (as much as it would help) pushes them towards the Riflemen/Obersoldaten school of balance. I'd prefer them to be long-range DPS and support infantry rather than all-rounders. I wanted to address Tommy scaling and utility (DPS and support) more so than straight performance so as not to completely destroy Ostheer. The snare, artillery flare and PIAT changes were to address utility scaling (the PIAT changes to encourage a more long-ranged role). The snares aren't necessary to the other changes but they do help UKF with their mid-game issues. You should note that Sappers would receive the exact same weapons the Tommies do but simply don't receive the in-cover bonus (which could always be added to their vet 1) to encourage players to use Tommies in a long-range fire support role with Sappers used to assault and soak up damage. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Royals can use 4 slots -- Known bug?18 May 2016, 08:55 AM After testing with the CheatCommand mod, I couldn't get both the minesweeper and flamethrower upgrade on the same Sapper squad. Everything else holds except that you seem to be able to buy the flamethrower upgrade after dual-equipping Brens. In other news, the Sapper cover bonus doesn't seem to be limited to the Sten in the mod tools (I thought it was fixed, so take this with a grain of salt). Flamethrower/Vickers/Dual-Bren Sappers go! Jump back to quoted post18 May 2016, 08:02 AMdrChengele So... basically, instead of using a weapon slot, both the minesweeper and the flamethrower use their own internal logic because fuck you, that's why. Any chance this is easily fixable with the mod tools? Correct, but as far as I can tell, none of the minesweepers actually use a weapon slot. It's extremely simple to fix in the mod tools. In: COH2 Bugs
Thread: "Assymetrical" veterancy system 18 May 2016, 07:56 AM Jump back to quoted post17 May 2016, 15:04 PMBasilone A few things wrong about that. First why is 3v3 and 4v4 even a consideration? COH is not balanced for those modes, it cannot be done. Making 1v1 more balanced will trickle up, but it can never be as balanced because team games have unit combinations that aren't possible in 1v1. For example if Sturmtiger + Jagdtiger is a really OP combo, that issue only exist in team games. Then if you nerf those because of 4v4 casuals they become underpowered in 1v1. More people play team modes than play 1v1. "Why is 3v3 and 4v4 even a consideration?" is as much a useless question as "why does CoH have skirmish AI or a campaign?" The issue with balance in 4v4, 3v3, and to a lesser extent 2v2 is because CoH2 has been designed around 1v1. This isn't in itself an issue, as 1v1 balance can definitely scale well into team games. The problem is that Relic gave little to no thought as to how mechanics scaled (Old Opel Blitz, Caches etc.). Fixing the way resource income scales in team games and adjusting the maps would make 3v3 and 4v4 much more like 1v1. Jump back to quoted post17 May 2016, 15:04 PMBasilone And just because you start with veterancy does not make it ok to lose units. It makes it a little less painful, but you still lose the manpower, still lose the munitions if you buy another weapon upgrade, you might lose some map control, and you still feed vet to other guy when you lost the unit. Plus the process of earning vet has gotten easier than it used to be, vet is now a participation trophy for getting in combat rather than something you earn by getting kills. Receive damage earn experience, lel. Get a couple vehicles hits with infantry AT earn easy vet, lel. Having bought veterancy matched against earned veterancy means the veterancy system doesn't scale well into larger game-modes, which clearly doesn't concern you, but is not something Relic is likely to be interested in given more play team games than 1v1. The problem with veterancy via kills is that it favours bigger, tougher units (i.e., units that don't need veterancy). In: Lobby
Thread: Royal Engineers are op18 May 2016, 07:10 AM Given the prevailing "Sappers OP, Tommies UP" sentiment, what does everyone think of the following changes? Tommy vet 3 changed, now equips all squad members with SLE (using this method), and the accuracy bonus has been increased from 20% to 30% Tommy vet requirements increased to 600/1200/2400 from 560/1120/2240 (this is increased from the balance preview value, current patch vet requirements: 480/960/1920) Tommy cover bonus now a bonus (of the same magnitude), weapons adjusted accordingly, changes only apply to UKF weapons and weapon upgrades that Tommies can receive (i.e., not MG34s or Commando Brens) Tommy artillery flare range increased from 30 to 45 (current patch: 20) Piat scatter removed and projectile speed increased by 25% Piat cost increased from 40 to 50 HEAT Grenade ability added to Tommies, requires Mills Bomb research HEAT Grenade now does full snare damage and snares on damage, not penetration Gammon Bomb cost reduced from 75 to 45 Sapper vet 3 reinforcement cost reduction removed Recovery Sappers now have Sapper build options Sappers now receive the Tommy Bren from weapon racks All units now pick up the right weapons from dropped Brens (No more Tommy Brens for Obersoldaten) The Vickers K now has a moving-fire version for elite (obersoldaten, commandos etc.) infantry, mirror of the Commando Bren (standard Vickers K mirror of Tommy Bren) Vickers K now gives Commando Vickers K to elite infantry when picked up The general idea of these changes is to increase both Tommy utility and scaling as well as reduce the extent to which Sappers with weapon upgrades can be spammed and be effective. As you can probably guess from some of the proposed changes (and their tense) I have a mod here if you want to test the changes. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Royals can use 4 slots -- Known bug?18 May 2016, 07:07 AM I apologise if I was unclear. Jump back to quoted post18 May 2016, 06:29 AMwouren Are you sure? I thought it was the minesweeper that did not take a slot The sapper_flamethrower upgrade adds the slot item tommy_flamethrower which has a slot_size of 0. Both the minesweeper and the flamethrower take up no slot space. Interestingly enough, none of the minesweepers take up weapon slots. Jump back to quoted post18 May 2016, 06:29 AMwouren Shouldn't as in can't or shouldn't be able to? I tested this just today. Shouldn't be able to, as I understand it. The tools have been inaccurate before. Jump back to quoted post18 May 2016, 06:29 AMwouren Nothing will stop me from upgrading my REs with 2 vickers HMGs! I made the same mistake in my initial post (fixed it now). I've been mixing them up ever since the announcer on the halftrack said 'dropping vickers' when it was really a bren. The halftrack does actually drop a Vickers. It has the same stats as the Tommy Bren (i.e., a downgrade for Sappers), just a different model. The Vickers that Sappers get with the heavy engineer upgrade is identical but takes up no slot space. Jump back to quoted post18 May 2016, 06:29 AMwouren Evidence that you may have mistaken the flamethrower not taking up space for the minesweeper not taking up space. The minesweeper does not take up a slot so you shouldn't be able to upgrade the flamethrower (I believe) and still get the heavy upgrade since one of them has to be blocking the upgrade. There is a specific setting under the upgrade extension called number_of_slots. The description in the tools, which is correct, is "Set the limit to the number of upgrades the squad can get. -1 means unlimited upgrades.". Sappers have this set to 2. This does not refer to weapon rack upgrades as those count as picked-up weapons. Jump back to quoted post18 May 2016, 06:29 AMwouren Thanks for the support! No worries. In: COH2 Bugs
Thread: Royals can use 4 slots -- Known bug?18 May 2016, 06:12 AM Right, I've had a look at this in the modding tools. First, the M2 flamethrower doesn't actually take up any slot space even though it requires an open slot to upgrade. You can grab two Brens/PIATs/Vickers after upgrading. Second, you shouldn't be able to upgrade both the minesweeper and flamethrower at the same time. Both upgrades have a specific requirement that the other isn't present. I don't know whether this is a bug or a change that isn't in the tools. Third, Royal Engineers only have two upgrade slots. You can have two of the minesweeper, flamethrower or heavy engineer upgrades but not all three. That still doesn't stop you from being able to have a flamethrower, Vickers K, and two Brens/Vickers/PIATs. Last, you can always have the heavy engineer upgrade except if you have both the minesweeper and flamethrower upgrades. I'll probably do some in-game testing though. In: COH2 Bugs
Thread: The COH2 Ability Guide18 May 2016, 06:06 AM Great work! I did notice a typo in the penalties applied to the UKF command vehicle though. Shouldn't it be +100% reload and cooldown? In: Guides
Thread: Non-meta doctrine fixes [UKF]17 May 2016, 07:34 AM Jump back to quoted post17 May 2016, 00:42 AMSuperhet Tactical Support Regiment If you ever get this doctrine, use it. It's a matter of the bits that work being good enough to distract from the terrible abilities. The main issues are Field Recovery Operation and Forward Observation Post, for the reasons you've described and I like your suggestions. Decreasing the cost of the FOP and actually giving Recovery Engineers the ability to build things would also be good. I disagree with you on the Air Resupply Operation. Getting healing, faster reinforcement and cheap team weapons is very useful if you've been on the wrong end of some artillery or need an AT gun urgently. I wouldn't mind a CP decrease for it though. Jump back to quoted post17 May 2016, 00:42 AMSuperhet Commando Regiment The only other issue with this commander is that the Commandos are extremely overpriced (500 for one squad vs. 350 in Vanguard). Adding the ability to produce Commandos from the glider and/or reducing the cost of the Glider call-in would go a long way. You could also make the glider permanently cloaked unless an enemy unit comes too close (surprisingly easy to mod in) or allow Sapppers to repair the glider. Jump back to quoted post17 May 2016, 00:42 AMSuperhet Royal Artillery Regiment Concentration Barrage could do with firing more shells per howitzer but it's mostly fine as it is. The main issues with this doctrine are with the Valentine and the Sexton. The Valentine would be quite a useful unit, allowing you to take the Bofors without forgoing a light vehicle and scaling into a UKF version of the T34/76 with more utility, if Relic hadn't halved the damage of its main gun in UKF release patch. Increasing the damage from 80 to 120 or 160 would be enough to fix the Valentine. The Sexton's a bit of a mess. It costs less than the Priest but has significantly less range, fires fewer shells per salvo, and has a worse AOE profile. As long as you chose a buff that affected its main role (i.e., not health or armour) you couldn't go wrong. Jump back to quoted post17 May 2016, 00:42 AMSuperhet Royal Engineer Regiment The problems with ABFMS: - It comes too late (8cp) to be used in early-game garrison fights - It costs too much (150 mun) to be used in early-game garrison fights - It's unreliable (instead of using an overwatch action, it checks the area at 15-second intervals for enemies in buildings and defensive structures) - OKW trucks (one of the major fortifications UKF faces) are specifically exempted from the ability I'd make these changes: - CP requirement reduced from 8 to 4 - Cost reduced from 150 to 75 munitions - Ability now uses an overwatch action (so the ability constantly checks whether anyone meets the target criteria) - OKW trucks made more expendable or take reduced damage from this ability instead of being completely immune In: Lobby
Thread: Royal Engineers are op17 May 2016, 06:37 AM Here's a thread from a few months ago that covers some of the issues with Sappers (and Tommies). In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Forward Observation Post16 May 2016, 10:03 AM It could certainly use a cost reduction (to 100/20?) or some passive bonus. Jump back to quoted post14 May 2016, 20:35 PMtimujin.il Also the inability of "scavenge" engineers to reclaim abandoned weapons is frustrating. They can, you just have to destroy the weapon with an AT gun first. In: Lobby