|
It bothers me how much the community wants to add things to a faction rather than fixing the things already implemented.
A good example of that is a thread which was posted about a month ago. It suggested that COH2 didn't need balance, it needed more commanders and units to balance everything out. That is just simply bad game design and a horrible idea. It is also that thought process which is increasingly making it difficult to tell factions apart (i.e. Wermacht/OKW).
The OKW have an understandable trade off between both scavenge and vet 5, they don't need to have resource caches on top of it. If it is really that necessary then fix the other (much more clear) problems with its units and then implement caches if it is still necessary afterwards. |
Thread: Bofors3 May 2016, 19:01 PM
320/60/12 is still pretty low compared to a double ost mortar or tanks. It should be more increased to at least 420/40/12. Why? Because it can kill medium tanks, insta kill infantry, big range and ultra resistant. It requires a lot of micro to kill it. Because lets face it, if you start tickling it, you will see mortars or blobs incoming 5 secs later. Emplacements are rarely left undefended..., add to that their mortar range and in 2v2 you lock the 2/3rd of the map, and send your troops attack the last third.
I don't have such an issue about the actual power of bofor, more their resistance.
When braced, which is free, they take almost no damage from everything. Even a tank is not that hard to kill. This is particularly annoying when using sector artillery or when you have spared enough ressource for one rocketenwerfer. You will use your resources for nothing if he braces it at the right time. Then wait 90sec to reload and do it again
Emplacements should either cost way more or and be more vulnerable. Brace should reduce the damage to only 50%.
MHT might be a good counter, but should I choose my commander because of only one or two units he has on the field ?
Yet, don't forget the counter barrage ability, able to destroy any indirect fire unit on the field on small maps, meaning 1v1 2v2. This makes your mortar free target practice for the brit.
The problem, as I see it, is that emplacements are very difficult to balance. On one hand, you have an extremely powerful Anti-infantry, vehicle, and Air emplacement but, on the other hand, it is completely static and repairing it can be difficult if it is under constant pressure (cancer doctrine excluded). If suppressive barrages range was reduced like I suggested then that would go a long way in making it much more vulnerable since it could no longer self counter mortars and the like. At worst, it would *force* the UKF player to build a mortar pit to go along with it (which would also be more costly if the population cost was increased on it).
That being said, I could understand raising the price up to 350/60/12. I believe that the fuel should definitely be increased on the Bofors to heavily punish the UKF player on his teching and severely punish him if he decides to build more than one. |
Even 14 seems like a stretch.
It has one single role, it gets countered by multiple units, its almost never good idea to build it for the fuel cost alone.
No one in his right mind will put a fifth of popcap for immobile AT gun.
Sure, it can't be one shoted by off-map like PaK43 can, but other then that it really isn't more survivable.
I agree with all of this, however, the Pak43 can be decrewed and stolen. The 17-pounder can not. That is the main reason I am okay with the 17-pounder being more expensive (in some form).
All in all though, the 17-pounder is a really just a tricky emplacement to nail down. On one hand, it is static, fragile vs indirect fire, and gets easily blocked by terrain. On the other hand, it is an extremely strong anti-tank area denial emplacement, has a long range, fast turn rate (in comparison to the Pak 43), and with a flare ability. It definitely needs its cost adjusted but nailing down exactly what it is worth is difficult to determine.
I would maybe advocate for 340mp, 40 fuel, and 14 population cost but I am not certain. I am paranoid about turning the 17-pounder from a never used emplacement to spammed everywhere. |
|
Literally just commented about this on the Bofors thread before seeing this.
I vote for decreasing the population cost to 14. It is powerful and has a strong range but is limited by being fragile (even with Brace), requiring a lot of AI support, and being static. Requiring it to have the population cost equivalent of two 6-pounders makes sense to me in that way.
Of course, I would also argue for a pop cost increase for both the mortar pit and bofors up to 12. That's pretty important to my idea of it. |
Thread: Bofors3 May 2016, 05:34 AM
This is about the only post on this thread worth anything. A manpower increase might be good and prevent spamming multiple bofors and making bofor/pit combos a bit harder.
Almost every other post involves nerfing it into near uselessness.
I can expand on that idea as well.
Increase the cost of the Bofors from 280-mp/30-fuel/10-pop to 320/60/12 and decrease the range of its suppressive barrage ability from 60 to 50. The Bofors will still be extremely strong at locking down a point against infantry and vehicles but the cost increase will force the UKF player to seriously consider what route he wants to go. If he buys the Bofors then he will seriously slow down his Cromwell. If this is seen as too drastic of a nerf (which I don't believe it is) then a potential alternative is to up the cost of the initial side tech and lower the cost increase of the Bofors. The change in its suppressive barrage range is just to prevent it from countering indirect fire (something it wasn't meant to do).
In addition to that change:
Increase the population cost of the mortar pit from 8 to 12.
Decrease the population cost of the 17-pounder from 20 to 14.
The result of all of that together would still allow for sim cities to be a completely viable strategy (considering how powerful all of those emplacements are) but not nearly as cheap and easy to pull off. If the UKF player decides to go with the sim city route then it will heavily punish his mid-game (slower Cromwells) and even his extreme late game to an extent (due to population increases). In total, I think it would allow for a much less frustrating experience for Axis players and a greater strategic diversity from UKF players. |
No. Why? No other indirect-fire support weapons can garrison, why should the brit mortar?
I advocated an idea like what he is suggesting a while ago. That idea, though, was that the British trenches would get a 150 MP upgrade (or so) for a single mortar team inside of it (which would fill the trench slot). Same range as the pit but still static, and easier to take down. It would reward good placement and make Trenches much more present. |
Mortars in general are never a proper counter against blobs. Normal mortars are not flexible enough to respond to incoming mobile blobs due to low range (which requires constant repositioning) and a very long time between 'enemies spotted' and an 'effective load delivered (setup time and rate of fire)'. The 120mm has a good AoE and range, but suffers from long reload and setup time (regarding countering blobs).
However, the British mortar is able to respond early enough to incoming threats (no setup time, long range) and deliver a massive load of firepower (high RoF, 2 mortars).
The British mortar is a defensive tool whose max range should not extend further than the frontline. That also ensures the response time to threats because it won't be busy doing offensive tasks.
You know, I've actually been advocating a pop cap change to the Sexton in order to make it more balanced. I didn't think about this until now, but maybe that's also a solution to the Mortar Pit. Currently, it gets 2 mortars with a strong range (which is necessary due to its static nature) for only 8 population. For comparison, getting two mortars for any other faction would cost 12 population. That is a difference of 4 population. I think it would be a fair and reasonable change to bring the mortar pits population cost up to reflect that. At the very least it may make the Brit player have to think more about if they really want it or another Cromwell. it would also make Sim City slightly more taxing to build, which I consider a good thing.
On that same topic, the 17-pounders main problem is also its population cost (20). Lowering that down to 14 or so may make it much more viable in games.
Geez, apparently there are a lot of things on the Brit side that need a pop change. |
i have a suggestion which would fix 2 brit problems AT ONCE
switch mortar pit with a regular mortar team buildable in t2
switch emplacement commander counter barrage ability with mortar pit unlock (woiuld meet the commander's theme)
Misleading title. There are far more problems with the British than just the mortar pit and counter barrage (which just got nerfed hardcore).
That being said, I would be perfectly happy with a mobile mortar instead of the mortar pit. |
Only thing I would do is to nerf the suppressive barrage range slightly so it can't be used to fire on mortars or other sources of indirect-fire at their max range.
+1 to this |
Yea, the raketenwerfer wasn't meant to be the one AT stopping force of the OKW, but now that they've lost all other credible AT weapons that are acquired before mid-game, it has a heavy burden. It was meant to be a support AT that you can use if you're pushed back that can fight alongside with your schrecks.
I'm not exactly an expert on the OKW and I know this is a highly contended topic, but I have a tendency to think that the raketenwerfer would work much better if it was made into a 5 man squad. I believe that would make up for its deficiencies in penetration and range.
That being said, I can understand why people would be opposed to that idea since they can already cloak and hop in buildings (which would be the most problematic part of that potential fix).
Anyway, just a thought. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
