Profile of Kurfürst

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 144

General Information


Thread: Volksgrenadiers [DBP] 6 Dec 2017, 15:32 PM Volks are fine, their Stgs are fine, too. Base volks do meh damage especially as they face Riflemen and Penals who beat them to the pulp with semi-autos. Tommies used to be nigh invicible at the start as well, now its a lot better. Not having access the StG upgrade is laughable in the face of BAR/Bren blobs. It ain't that great on a single unit. The original Shreck Volks was unusable for anything other than being cannon fodder or spammed massively since their base Kar98s did very little damage. Let's not go back there as it would seriously break the game. What's not OK: - they lack a weapon slot making them awkward in not being able to pick up any dropped items. Unlike all other mainline infantry squads, which can. They need to have an empty slot to even the playing field, Vet 4 if must be since they already lost a lot of veterancy there. - Flame granades are somewhat problematic, though I don't see them being undodgable any more than you can't really dodge other granades either without taking some damage. The reason to implement them was to provide anti building ability against maxim spam cancer. The original potato smasher was simply too weak for this. The flame nade however was a bit of an overkill since unlike other granades, it actually foces (sidenote - Molotov on a cheaper Hurrah! unit does the same and nobody bats an eye) units out the building . Now OKW has some smoke finally, perhaps the original Volks potato smasher granade back, but with much better damage modifier against buildings/heavy cover/emplacements, to keep its anti-building role, but perhaps with smaller AoE than regular granades. This would keep the unit relevant as an anti building unit, but without too good of regular granade that could overlap with Obers. The Flame Granade upgrade can stay as an ability with Feursturm doctrine. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: December Balance Preview28 Nov 2017, 21:08 PM Guys, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Just look at Coh 1 Panther. It was perfect. Avarage to slower firing, but dealing tons of damage to tanks. IMO Just keep the live RoF, but increase damage to 200. More alpha damage, Better against prediums and lights, but pretty much the same against TDs and mediums (4 shots). Equalize moving accuracy to .65 to both OKW/OST version. This was the Panther recipe in COH1 and it worked flawlessly. Rework Vet2. Ost one looses the +10% armor but gains +5 range at vet 2 or 3 like Tiger (OST is the only one without a 60 range TD), OKW one képes the 10% armor, looses the range or gains some sort of offensive bonus. I am also very much in agreement with Stug changes. Increase base armor by 28%, decrease ROF and Pen by 14-14%. Less cheese turbo firing, more useful and survivable late game. Increase damage against garrisons and emplacements to give it a secondary, historical role. In: Lobby
Thread: December Balance Preview28 Nov 2017, 16:01 PM Map without flanking options -> just go for ATGs and support them with MGs. Panther's ain't exactly great against those. In: Lobby
Thread: December Balance Preview24 Nov 2017, 09:26 AM Jump back to quoted post24 Nov 2017, 03:24 AMHon3ynuts "With the changes to Gammon Bombs, we are also adjusting the Bundle grenade to match its counterpart’s performance" Gammon bombs and Bundle Granades are not related to each other. Gammons are a gimmick at specialized semi-doctrinal brances in a faction with very strong infantry, Bundled Grenades are on T2 stock infantry in a faction that already struggles against infantry, and it struggles BAD. If there is a more pressing needs to balance things, its Penal AT satchels, courtesy of the Creators of Universal Penal Spam. The tank wiping potential is ridiculous and is constantly abused. It does 240 damage to vehicles, which means that its a guaranteed wipe of a medium tank in 2-3 shots. Which is not that hard to pull off as most Axis tanks / vehicles are rather slow to accelerate and backpedal out of range, and if the first connects, the tank is slowed down sufficiently so the rest will connect anyway. 90 munitions two/three-click abilities shouldn't give you tank wiping ability on stock infantry, period. Penal AT Satchels are problematic due to the combination of range, too high damage dealing ability and the fact they do not need much positioning as the satchel will always penetrate because of absurd pen, regardless of hitting rear or front armor. In contrast with the allagedly 'problematic' Bundled Grenade (of which no one complained about ever, and which in contrast is doing 1/3 the damage of the penal satchel, doesn't auto-penetrate armor, isn't heat seeking and doesn't cause engine critical), the Penal AT Satchel always penetrates, costs about the same as and the bundled grenade (or less with Vet).... Kinda potent for something that's existence was justified by the occasional pushing of PTRS models with light vehicles that aborted their aim, is it not. And guess what, its not getting nerfs, its getting BUFFs - a its is now also heat seeking. Also it probably wouldn't hurt if the ability's activation range would be reduced by one-third, the damage against vehicles to 200 from 240 to prevent it giving you easy thank wipes with satchels (unless its a StuG or something smaller) and if the PTRS upgrade would make PTRS Penals also slower asthe same rate as Heavy Sappers, to prevent reoccuring scenes of weaponized autism chasing after tanks all the time, and last and not least, because Gammon bomb. Oh, and while we are at it. Why is the Bundled Granade also not an auto-penetrating snare (which was btw its historical function) like the Penal PTRS Satchel? Because PTRS is getting DPS buff after DPS buff yet its somehow fair to have Super-Snare on AT Penals, its fair to have snare on AT Riflemen, but its somehow horrid to have them on Schreck Panzergrens..? In: Lobby
Thread: December Balance Preview23 Nov 2017, 13:41 PM USF still blobs with double BARs very effectively but somehow it ain't a balance issue to be addressed, in fact, they just received an indirect buff to their infantry with faction-wide WA and RA Veterancy nerfs to OKW units, and even the poor MG 34 got hit by the nerf hammer. Panther lost armor and firing on the move while the Jackson received a 33% durability buff with a DPS decrease a fire on the move accuracy that was ninja-buffed pretty much back to the same moving accuracy and DPS. It just deals less damage per shot, but shoots and penetrates more often. When does it sink in that a TD that is fast, has a fast turret does not deserve high moving accuracy AND 60 range to boot? It is entirely understandable with casemate TDs - they need to make the first shot and make that count. A TD that engages and disengages at will, and is largely uneffected by movingor flanking? Not so much. At least the UKF issues were dealt with more or less. Brace is less overpowering, Sim Cities are less build-and-forget. Some of the core balance issues remain however. - medium armor is unviable because sniper TDs that still hit them with 88% hit probability at max range. At Vet 0. - in connection arty fest behind TD wall meta - penal meta still viable - riflemen blobbing still very viable - OST overhaul, including -- Sdkfz 251 base variant being useless -- OST's infantry scaling, or the lack of it -- Panther in general. Now missing just the same, but more frequently. -- OST still does not have a 60 range TD, that Panther could be (with veterancy for example) In: Lobby
Thread: December Balance Preview23 Nov 2017, 11:39 AM Jump back to quoted post23 Nov 2017, 10:42 AMSupremeStefan and why okw non doc heavy is stonger than pershing in doctrine ?? A better question is, why Heavy Cavarly has both the Pershing and Rangers? Better tank options and better infantry options in the same doctrine, where is this headed - apart from being an OP PTW DLC? The Rangers are really oddball choice there and they would fit in far better into a light infantry centered doctrine like Recon support while Heavy Cavarly armored doctrine would benefit from something more armor/combined arms-related, like M5 HT or M10 call ins. In: Lobby
Thread: December Balance Preview23 Nov 2017, 09:37 AM In addition, I think the concept of cheaply recrewing team weapons that come in a bundle that costs an arm and a leg with cheap models that have 1,25 RA to start with and who would then receive what is an additional 1,25 penalty RA of the team weapons crews is... mostly just free team weapons for the opponent. Just imagine the worst MG of the game crewed by guys with 1,6 RA meeting the double BAR blob. In: Lobby
Thread: December Balance Preview23 Nov 2017, 07:56 AM PaK 43 needs at the very least a range increase to make it less vlnerable to arty and generally allow it to sit back more; that, and/or made decrewable like British emplacements (btw why are those non decrewable in the first place? Maybe switch that to being non decrewable only when brace is on) Price is not an issue with it, but the fact that 500 or 350 mp is wiped with one clicks without any counterplay expect not to build it. In: Lobby
Thread: December Balance Preview23 Nov 2017, 06:54 AM I guess the Bundled Granade stunt was the last straw in this ‘balance patch’. It took years that the horribly overpriced bundled granades to become useful, and now you want to nerf it back, pardon, made ‘more accessible’ BECAUSE GAMMON BOMB. There were also community concerns about the SOV howitzers being weak, right ? Oh and OST/OKW one just too strong, right? Not even an exlanation. And the most golden one - PaK 43 is simply too good, even though it does not even one 1/10th the survivability of the non doc 17 pdr, it is removed by one click offmaps? Nerf TWP on PaK 40, too? There are far, far too much changes and most of them do not even have a point. They just chance (and likely break) something nobody complained about. There are a number of much needed changes, but they do not worth breaking the whole game Just because mod makers have endless ambitions. Sometimes less is more. And these stereotypical BS explanations especially in v1.5 - make (insert Axis stuff) more accessible, i.e. nerfed to the ground, ‘improve scaling of (insert Allied stuff)’ fat buffs nobody asked for. Fuck DBP, I do not want it. Even the all purpose penal hordes that its creators granted us previously are more interesting than this nerf everything on the Axis side, buff everything on the Allied side. The patch failed to address the balance issues for the fifth attempt and is just breaking stuff left and right now. In: Lobby
Thread: December Balance Preview22 Nov 2017, 19:52 PM The sum of the infantry changes is that OKW elites no longer exist but (buffed) double BAR/Bren WFA mainlines the existences of which was rationalized by said, now non-existing OKW elite. OST never had one in the first place. Since WFA armies can simply purchase extra DPS that is to be earned by OKW elites mostly by fighting and bleeding and preserving units (i.e. via veterancy bonuses), instead of relying on earning veterancy which is even less of an issue for replacement WFA mainlines since they can now earn Veterancy faster by feeding on OKW "elites" that now elite only in name but not in the abilities they gained. Trouble is, WFA infantry never needed help in the first place. In: Lobby