Before nerfing IR HT..there are much better candidate for a faster nerf because they have much more BS impact than the IR HT.
like the 110muni cluster bombs form USF...totally OP for the costs.
or B4 spam...or USF howis
ahh, a classic ullumullu...
btw, you forgot: bofors & mortar pit nerf when? |
[...]
HM-38 119% better.
[...]
interesting. i had assumed the 82 mm to perform better due to the higher rof and lower scatter / huge hitbox of the target. |
IR HT requiring muni to function is like conscripts requiring fuel each time they throw a molotov. Imo it's a very bad course to follow
why though? you have to pay muni everytime you call in a recon plane or activate partisan network, not sure why the same logic shouldn't apply to the IRHT. that aside, and to use your analogy, i'd say it's like conscripst having to unlock molotovs for mp/fu once and having to spend mu each time molotovs are used. |
pretty sure it's been suggested before, but how about turning it into a timed ability for some munitions, say 20 sec for 75 mun? |
Heavies just need a price increase.
this, together with a delayed arrival on the field. several solutions have been suggested before, such as making them buildable or adding a delay between call-in and actual deployment. cp requirements could stay as they are right now, and individual price/timing adjustments would bring the most obvious outlyers (e.g. is2) back in line with the rest of the cast. |
yeah, don't forget the balance team also pees into your bowl of fuhri-o-s every morning... maybe it's about time you take off that tinfoil hat. |
Dont merge 5 men grens with g43, thats the only reason to go for german infantry in the first place. Otherwise you can go 5 men grens into tiger.
Its like removing ppsh cons and replacing it all with svts, just unecessary buff which a) kills a commander and
B) creates even stronger other commanderr
Commanders are suposed to have tradeoffs, if they dont they become to dominant in the meta
Merging mp40 and ir stg would further buff the all mighty grand offensive, which is a terrible idea btw..
this is pretty much spot on. the least thing the game needs right now is being pidgeonholed into an even less diverse set of viable commanders, which is exactly what op's suggestions would achieve. |
both 1) and 2) would indeed be great and shouldn't take too much to implement (not sure about 2) though, since that might require some ui changes as well).
although 3) sounds interesting, i wouldn't get my hopes up to see it implemented as it is quite a drastic change gameplay-wise. from what i've been reading between the lines there won't be any major changes except rather small tweaks at that stage of the game's life cycle, since any patch could be the last. thus, there's simply not much room for experimentation (or, rather, fixing whatever unforseen consequences might arise from too progressive changes). however, i'd gladly be proven wrong by someone with more insight into what's planned for coh2 in the future. |
not sure what this should achieve? anyway, lv have been toned down enough within the recent patches (with possible exception of the t70) to be in a pretty balanced state. ost having a slightly harder time to deal with lvs than other factions may be true, but the answer to this should not be further nerfs to lvs in general. |
Unit bundles, if priced correctly, can be both viable and strategically interesting.
If you dislike unit bundles on principle, fair enough, but the M5 bundle is well worth its price in its current state.
i second that assessment; most unit bundles now give you two useable units for a pretty good discount and you can always adjust your build around this to make use of both accordingly. does this restrict access to a second squad of assault guards or make it a less ideal choice in the lategame? certainly. but i see no reason some abilities shouldn't have some sort of limitation with regard to flexibility to justify advantages in terms of costs. if anything, i'd suggest to reduce the cost of the call-in slightly to make it a more appealing choice. |