All right, a real question now (not trolling or anything here) Is stop-commanding a tank before it shoots really that rare/difficult? I'm asking because the whole "accuracy one the move" gets thrown around a lot, like who cares? just tap the brakes before the shot.
If you have Korean-like micro-skills and sense of timing - yes, it's possible. It was video from one guy, that showed in cheat-mode circling t-70 around gren squad with "stop-move" - result great, but to implement this in real game...Only if CoH2 will be like SC2 with big prize pools we will see players who will micro like that. |
|
There is info about upcoming patch? Just interesting to know what will be change and what could be change. Also some sugggestions from people what needed to be changed.
My personal wishes:
1. Some QoL changes (all TDs and ATG always have turned on ability "armor prioritize")
2. AA prioritize mode for all AA units
3. Fast flag capping - when you right click on flag, point will be capping much faster, but your squad more vulnurable and can't fire while capping.
|
The Panther should get 60 range, cost up to 210 and decreased acceleration. Decrease turret rotation and revert the HP buff while giving it half the armour back.
That way positioning matters above all for Panthers, they are expensive because they are good and their lack of acceleration means counterplay is easier with flanking. Good armour and mediocre HP means you can easily kill a Panther by flanking it, plus its higher cost means it’ll be less supported, so you can’t yolo a panther and have it survive. Its slower turret rotation contributes to all that.
OST version of FF, but with armor? Not only acceleration, but reduce overall mobility as well, to be in par with other TD and of course no blietzkrieg (replace other ability, stun shot or something else). You will get more armored and healthy 60 range TD than enemies variants have. It could work, but need overal rework of allied top-tier TD.
What role wiil be play JP4 for OKW in that case? IT already have 60 range and could deal with any allied stock unit (only churchill could make problems due hp pool). |
You know that Assault Guard the are even more expensive and are delaying the construction of T3 and T4. and Again the ridiculous excuses of poor design. Why do you compare the Assault Guard with the Cavalry. The Assault Guard is comparable to the Shock Troops and Rangers / Paratroopers. And they do not cost 270m. they cost 510 + 30 their price can not be considered separately. When the HT is removed, you can talk about their price. Let's everyone call-in infantry arrive with the HT and fuel for the paratrooper squads - this is was is really, really good if you time it right, will reduce spam and delay the construction of all tiers for all fractions.
I'm big fun of Lend-Lease commander. Assault group, in fact not delay your T3 and T4. Why? Fuel drop. HT costs 30 fuel, the same amount you will get from 1 drop. You can call-in assault group BEFORE you even build T3. When you have quad you don't need t-70, quad counter any OST LV and could fight against flak-ht from OKW. Only luchs and puma could kill it very easy.
In fact, i would prefer fully remove assault guards from doctrine and move call-in HT to 2 CP like in UKF lend-lease commander. Because main power of this commander, not HT, not guards, but M4c and fuel drops.
Also self-repair for shermans (to reflect, that you can't repair M4c by crew as USF) and repair station instead repair for cons will be better for overall theme of commander. |
I am also curious why there would be hesitance to place a build requirement on heavy tanks as it is not altogether anything more to request than the massive number of requirements already put upon producing them, and depending on the placement in the build order certain requirements could actually be removed, since the building required would in my proposal be the very building the unit is being built from, and any tech required normal for unit production at that stage anyway.
If we delay heavies even more in time, we just abandoned them from game. Right now in bad situation heavy could help to you save the game. Make heavy with requirement to be build, just kill them in 1vs1 and 2vs2 games. The will arrive on the war too late.
|
Not a very elegant solution either. We are specifically moving away from invisible modifiers as much as we can to make the game more straightforward to everyone. Introducing artificial accuracy modifiers (on top of the natural accuracy modifier that is target size) is not a good direction to take.
Add high damage per shot (200, 210) and low ROF. Against fast mediums top-tier TD will be not preferable choice. Medium still need 4 shots for become killed, while his timelife will increase in engagement against TD. Against "fat" slow targets (heavies) top-tier TD will be more good. Only balance issues will be in HP pool of heavies.
|
|
AssGuards just need some little rework - repair ability and boost to movement when vehcile near (like pgren) instead flare mine and it will be more than enough for 510 MP price combo. |
The changes you say plus:
SU 76 moved to sov T4, and given buffs so it matches the StuG more closely (medium tank hunter)
76mm Sherman added to stock USF with a 50 fuel tech - just like Ostheer 50 fuel to access premium medium, panther.
UKF already has Comet/Churchill to deal with mediums.
It could work, but in any cases - it will be very, very long and big patch. USF and UKF still need some sort of medium tank TD. I against M4c as stock unit for USF, because it makes regular sherman...redundant. Who need regular 75mm sherman when you can build 76, that have advantage against P4 and could deal with infantry? When faction have 2 similar units in roster with overlapped roles, it always make one of them "forgotten". Better give M10 for USF and UKF as high mobile TD against mediums. |
|
If we decrease effectivness top-TDs against mediums we will get situation with effectivness allied mediums vs axis mediums (hi waves of threads about balancing allied mediums against axis mediums), especialy fun will be with soviets, where stock t-34/76 is trash against p4. 1vs1 each axis medium better than allied, add stug/JP4 and you will get reverted version of current allied meta (top tier TD+mediums). Stug and JP4 counters any medium and have range advantage, P4 have armor advantage and always have better chance to win 1vs1 engagement. Such changes just make commanders with premium mediums/tds meta (t-34/85, m4c, E8, m10).
IMHO, if we want get rid off allied TD meta, the better way just increase DAMAGE (200 or 210) and reduce ROF. TD still need 4 shots to kill mediums, while have low ROF, it will be much less effective against mediums and give them more time in fight against TD's, but make them more orientated against heavy targets.
|
I'm very sorry that I don't believe Soviet reports which claim the destruction of probably 500 Tigers at Kursk while in reality there were less than 200 deployed there.
Plus actual Soviet reports have been often censored on purpose for propaganda purposes, that's also the reason why nobody addresses them anywhere and only refers to Western reports which are probably more accurate because they're not as biased.
You can also think what you like, there's a reason why so few books are written on Soviet tanks and units compared to German, American and British such.
All sides always "lied" in war. Sometimes for mistake (could you say that that tank on 2km away is Tiger or P4 with side skirts? Do we have someone who have full information about happening?), sometimes intentional (propaganda or trying to save your ass from blaming on defeat). But if someone works with documents, you ALWAYS have more chances say where true is. Soviets, germans, british, americans, japanese and e.t.c, all "lies" in the war. No one told you to trust soviet reports about success operations, but you could watch on soviet loses scripts (every regiment have such records), watch on german loses scripts and THEN compare what was in real case. That how real historican works. It's the most correct documents (from those you could find), because if you try to make your loses "lesser" on paper, when your commander will told you "attack this position, you have 3 tanks and 100 soldiers", it will be you failed if you don't do this.
About censoring soviet reports...i read some of them (you could read them too, many were published and now everyone could read them) and in many of them were very tough critique of commanders, were pointed mistakes that was made in failed operations (infantry didn't go for tanks, artillery didn't fire in right spots, recon didn't made and e.t.c). If reports were censored we will see only "Our regiment capture 100 germans!", "We capture this village with minimum loses!" and e.t.c. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
