Profile of Lago

Avatar Area

Offline unknown
Posts: 3260

General Information
Steam: 76561198031945233


Thread: Swapping the P4 with the werfer5 Feb 2020, 16:00 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Feb 2020, 15:53 PMZeroZeroNi Instead of just trowing away an idea consider it first. Relic did. This is how OST's tech structure was originally organised. It's why unlocking T3 results in the voice line "medium armour and rocket artillery is now available." You could restructure OST's tech to work like this, but it would be more than simply swapping the units. You'd need to rework all the teching costs so T4 comes out earlier. You'd then have to completely rebalance T3 around its own earlier timing. That'd mean reverting the Ostwind to its previous state and probably toning down the StuG too. It'd be a major undertaking in fixing what isn't really broken. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Tank Destroyer Poll5 Feb 2020, 15:52 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Feb 2020, 14:47 PMWingZero Also why do we need the P4 to perform well vs Jackson? P4 can also bleed man power vs infantry as well. Multi role tank vs hard counter TD? The SU-85 and JPIV are casemates. It's slow, has poor maneuverability and its turret is locked forward. This forces to it to adopt a defensive playstyle and attack from range with support, as anything that gets behind it can kill it. The Firefly follows a similar logic. It has a turret, but it turns so slowly it might as well be a case mate. Combine that with its slow rate of fire and it'll lose a close range fight with a faster, cheaper, more versatile medium tank. So, once again, it adopts a defensive playstyle and attacks from range with support. The Jackson has 640 HP, a turret with decent rotation, a good fire rate and good moving accuracy. This means it can dive to secure kills and take down medium tanks in a brawl. This isn't something the other three 60 range tank destroyers can do. Combine that with it unaccountably having the best penetration (imo that should have gone to the slow firing Firefly) and it's no wonder the thing's an endless balance headache. For the medium tank vs tank destroyer balance the other factions have to work, the Jackson needs some sort of disadvantage at close range. A 160 HP reduction and a corresponding drop in fuel cost is one way to do that. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: COH2 winter balance mod - discussion5 Feb 2020, 15:37 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Feb 2020, 19:56 PMSander93 The Commando Glider Insertion will probably get merged with the Forward Logistics Glider. I.e., they will become the same ability where a Commando squad can be called in by glider for 390mp and then an additional upgrade will unlock the FHQ abilities. The split was done so that Commandos become easier to get, so that players who don't want the FHQ stuff don't have to pay a premium just to get the squad. And so that players who do want the FHQ don't get bundle that's too cheap (as was the case in v1). Will see if its possible to make the glider repairable. Are you sure about this? Combining the abilities is effectively giving Commando Glider Insertion to Vanguard Regiment. Commando Glider Insertion is largely balanced out by how lackluster the rest of Commando Regiment is. If you give it to Vanguard, you risk turning UKF into a one commander faction. Even if you don't, it'll kill Commando Regiment stone dead. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Tank Destroyer Poll4 Feb 2020, 19:56 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Feb 2020, 19:47 PMT.R. Stormjäger Jacksons HAD a weakness, then they buffed their HP because they were way too fragile They had the same HP as M10s and StuGs, so they were still four taps for most vehicles. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Tank Destroyer Poll4 Feb 2020, 16:33 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Feb 2020, 16:21 PMSander93 Yes, a 145 fuel stock TD can not reliably frontally penetrate the most heavily armoured tank in the game that costs almost twice as much. Shocking. What are your thoughts on the relative strength of the tank destroyers? Your insights are usually pretty good. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Tank Destroyer Poll4 Feb 2020, 15:54 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Feb 2020, 15:51 PMRiley "The Jackson has the best penetration" lol. m36 cant penetrate Jagdtiger. And this happens very often. Someone get this man the unit stats spreadsheet. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: USF weapon racks, feature or trouble?4 Feb 2020, 15:52 PM Relic is never going to delete the weapon racks. What they could do is remove OKW's ability to almost universally upgrade in enemy territory. I'm really not sure why they still have that. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: StuG and SU-764 Feb 2020, 15:47 PM In the age of heavies, these two lighter tank destroyers have been left behind. The StuG is designed as a bread-and-butter tank destroyer for Ost, and matches up well against most armour in the game. However, it loses to its fuel cost in call-in heavies like the IS-2 because of its relatively low penetration, making building what should be a fairly standard unit a risky play. The SU-76's initial design was a dual-role artillery tractor / light tank destroyer. It had a weaker barrage than the ZiS gun, but it was free. This turned into a problem in team games when players figured out they could buy loads of them and nuke any unit that came close by stacking several barrages on top of them. The solution was to give the SU-76 the ZiS barrage (which costs munitions) instead. It was a good idea in theory, but taking away the SU-76's ability to act as an indirect fire weapon killed it off: the T-70 already beats everything at that timing that's not a Puma, and the SU-76 isn't guaranteed to beat that. I've got a solution for each. StuG Replace the StuG's ineffective HEAT shell ability with a timed AP shell ability like its closest parallel, the M10, has. This'll allow veteran StuGs to engage heavier targets when vetted up if you pay munitions. SU-76 If it's meant to be a hybrid artillery tractor/tank destroyer, scrap the ZiS barrage and give it the ability to switch to an anti-infantry mode. Something like the StuG-E's shells should do it. It then becomes a more defensive alternative to the T-70. If it's meant to be a tank destroyer, raise its cost to 280 MP 90 FU and give it 160 damage. If it's a ZiS gun on tracks, let it be a ZiS gun on tracks. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Tank Destroyer Poll4 Feb 2020, 15:27 PM The four 60 range tank destroyers are currently not balanced against each other. The Jackson has the best penetration, the maneuverability to chase down retreating vehicles, the biggest penetration boost with veterancy and an ability that boosts its penetration. The SU-85 also has an excellent gun and the powerful Focused Sight ability at Vet 0. It's also the cheapest, but it's the least maneuverable. The Firefly has no penetration buffs with veterancy and a terrible rate of fire that doesn't really up for its higher damage gun. It's hamstrung largely for the sake of the Tulip rockets, which already have a hefty munitions cost to limit them. None of these TDs are unusable, and you build all of them if you need them. However, given they serve the same role and face the same enemy units, shouldn't they be balanced against each other? They're currently not. The Jackson is better than the SU-85 is better than the Firefly. The question then is which to balance them around? Which tank destroyer is at about the right power level right now? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: COH2 winter balance mod - discussion4 Feb 2020, 02:36 AM I'm not sure how I feel about nerfing the SU-76. I get that it's a standardisation, but that unit's hardly meta. Ostheer changes are pretty tame so far. It's definitely a worthwhile edit, but I suspect there's more to come. I may be underestimating the impact of the Grenadier change. As for the Brummbar, has the mod team considered giving it the KV-2 treatement and accelerating the projectile? It currently needs manual targeting with Attack Ground. If it was faster, that wouldn't be the case. In: COH2 Gameplay