TDs should counter heavy tanks, just not as effectively as they do now IMO. If they are positioned even slightly well, a Tiger has no chance against Allied 60 range TDs with its low 45 range and slow speed because they can just kite away safely while returning deadly fire.
Giving the Tiger a bit more range would help it a lot, so it can effectively engage when TDs are slightly out of position without having to literally banzai rush (45 range) them to take a shot. Decreasing the range advantage TDs have (by buffing the Tiger's range) would keep them as effective as they are now, but would greatly increase the amount of skill needed to micro them to this full potential as it becomes much more risky to engage.
Otherwise I'd settle for a price decrease that better reflects its current restrictions.
Interesting idea. I wonder how much it would change things. Something between 50-55 range would probably be ideal in this situation, however, probably nearer to 50 would make most sense because allied TDs should still effectively outrange axis heavies (since they are counters to it). Keep in mind a 5 range difference is ludicrously small in tank to tank fights and would be a ton of micro to keep within with TDs, especially the non-Jackson (and much slower) ones.
Tbh while I know it's too late in the game I wish damage was relative to the caliber of the gun for the sake of new players. One shouldn't have to dive into the stats to find out that the 88 deals the same damage as the 75 unless it's a kt then it deals as much damage as a 152, unless that 152 is lobbed from a howitzer, then it deals as much damage as a 76, which is exactly half the damage of a pak 43s 88.... Which is the same damage as the 76mm 17lb, which ends up being more than the 88 of the elefant who deals the same damage as the 128 of the Jagdtiger who deals almost double the damage of the 122 of the is-2 who deals the same damage as the 57mm at gun..
Yeah well there’s so much wacky bullshittery with weaponry in this game. Aside from just tank guns, you have infantry weapons, where there are 3 different versions of the stg, all with completely different dps curves, two versions of the M1 carbine, like 4(?) versions of the kar98k, 2 mosins, 2 brens, etc. It’s absolutely ridiculous but probably doesn’t matter much most of the time to newer players. It’s pretty intuitive that the ranger version of the M1 carbine is better than the rear echelon version or that the ober kar98 is better than the volksgrenadier version. I didn’t even notice the kt did 240 damage for a long time when I was a newer player, but once you get good enough that that sort of stuff starts to matter you end up figuring it out anyway. |
Sorry, your right, I based my info from watching the top players and most used ostheer and almost everyone used the Soviets. Sorry for the mistake.
Despite this, I do struggle against the USF. Not in the early game though but in the late game. I always thought that OKWs 5 level veterancy was their main bonus and that this would counter the ability of USF to get double bar riflemen. Now its just normal veterancy but in 5 levels. BTW pls make bars only fire when stationary or give them a massive penalty for firing on the move I cant stand blobs.
The UKF is the worst I can see that now. They should have some love too.
Sounds more like an l2p issue. I don’t mean that in a mean way, just that you have a hard time with/want advice on countering blobs.
OKW’s best bet is usually just out-dps-ing the usf blob. Obers backing up your volks and/or a p4 or luchs (if it’s still alive) would help a lot with that. If you can use it, the Stuka is a great blob counter as well. The mg34 works ok but you have to keep stuff in front of it because if he has like 3+ rifles with double BARs they might be able to frontally wipe it (same goes for other mgs vs infantry blobs, it’s not necessarily unique to mg34 vs rifleblobs). Generally, as long as you can hold your side and not get wiped by the blob you’ll be winning since you’ll be bleeding him very badly by killing a ton of riflemen models.
BARs are more or less fine and nerfing them would make riflemen straight up worse than volksgrenadiers whole also being significantly more expensive and having slightly worse support across the board. Double BAR rifles are designed to beat volks one on one and that’s why things like obers and luchs exist. |
Remove the mortar and USF has no garrison counter until Captain or Major.
This is somewhat tangential but I’d really prefer removing the usf mortar and giving them a sniper instead. Fits the theme of mobility much better and would do more to support riflemen. This is assuming riflemen + sniper isn’t blatantly op especially against ostheer.
That or just give them a nondoc flamethrower or like a flamenade on REs. I honestly don’t think that a t0 mortar fits the faction very well at all because it encourages static play on the usf side which isn’t what the faction is designed for at all. |
Actually that is not true 2 MP44 at max range have 2.89 DPS while a single BAR has x136% more at 3.94.
Ah ok. Does that mean their mid and close range dps is greater? Also, how do the total squad dps’s (4 garands, 1 BAR vs 2 stgs, 3 volk k98s) stack up at those ranges?
Time and resource commitment needed are not worth for the state USF is in, compared to original OKW. At this point, you need to be efficient in how you implement any changes. What's the most effective way to achieve a desired goal without requiring lots of testing in either balance or implementation.
Huh good to know. Makes me a bit sad though.
It’d be great to at least rework airborne commander and tweak timing on recon support a bit for the reasons I mentioned that make it hard to use their callins to the full extent though. |
Rear Echelon smoke was a good idea. The problem is the upgrade's still priced like the much more powerful Rifleman smoke, so nobody ever unlocks it.
150 MP 15 FU like Weapon Racks is the highest I think it can go right now. It might even get away with being 100 MP 10 FU like the UKF grenades.
+1 |
|
I thought the tiger is generally considered one of the better heavies all around except that it gets whacked by allied TDs for the most part like all heavies do. |
Raketen can't be fixed. The issue lies within the low profile of raketen, those ground hits aren't misses but collisions.
Muh historical realism.
Isn’t there a weapon code setting that can disable projectile collision with ground/obstacles/etc.? IIRC it’s used on the luchs, centaur, and ISU152 that I know of. Just set that on and nerf accuracy a little (so it doesn’t end up hitting things more than all the other at guns as a result) and problem solved.
I would kill for this bad boy
Ah the fond memories. Perma-immobilize might be just a tiny bit op in coh2 though lol. |
Basically, refer to the points loopdloop and I made earlier (seriously, please read through relevant posts before coming into the discussion :/ )
Yes, obers have better vet (could be debated, but true in general).
Commandos come earlier.
Commandos have 5 man.
Commandos are doctrinal while obers are not.
Both have similar costs.
Points not made earlier:
Commandos lose dps slower than obers (again, this is all max range) because stens hardly contribute.
And youre kind of missing the point. None of us want commandos to have some new long range focus. People are proposing rifles in order to allow them to be 5 man on spawn. Im pretty sure that most of us believe that no one should want to stay on enfields. If you want ober level of long range damage on this unit, you accept that youre getting that on what is actually intended to be an infiltration unit.
If you did cater their vet for long range/standard combat/not ambush then they would be broken because they would have better durability than obers and come much sooner. Also, why does UKF need another long range squad when theyre likely to have 4-5 long range squads already. The option for commandos to be long range combatants already exists without vet or their stens facilitating it, so why not keep that aspect the same?
+1
There’s no need for what would essentially be slightly better infantry sections instead of the only real cqc squad and elite infantry that brits have access to. |
IS not a point when you are talking about "design" that no longer holds true. All the strengths that made USF held together with a limited roster of units, is no longer strong enough to carry it through the game.
-Cpt doesn't come with zooks.
-M20 doesn't work as a mini T70 against OH nor longer bullies 200HP 222s
-AAHT is not an iwin unit.
-Stuart AI has been cut down.
-Pack Howi with it's clunky 3 man crew, doesn't have insane scaling (vet 2 affecting AA) nor suppression (thx god).
I'm just refuting this point.
"That would mean that USF get access to everything and the faction would have to be redesign so that either their infantry or the support weapon would need to be toned down."
Is USF combined arms too strong?
Considering that getting an OKW like rework is impossible, you think that shuffling units from tiers wouldn't work at all because one would be the defacto tier to choose from?
If i'm not missing the point, i think we are just gonna discuss whether keeping the current model with "stand alone" officers but with an easier access to both versus a straight linear tech is better.
I agree with the first portion. My two cents on it are that I really don’t think that usf combined arms is overly strong and giving them the ability to actually properly use combined arms would not make it so either. If that was the case people would use airborne a lot more than it already is even given its horrible design (4/5 of its abilities are manpower callins? Really?) and you would notice the difference. USF also doesn’t get access to anything to cut manpower bleed until about 4-5 mins when an officer comes out, at which point a lot of bleed has already been inflicted. They still have the second most expensive mainline infantry that, again, doesn’t have much support until 4-5 minutes, unlike literally any other infantry in the game. Ost have early hmgs and snipers, soviets have early hmgs, snipers, and the clown car, brits have early hmg and the UC, OKW has sturms (they trade very well sometimes) and the kubel. USF has ambulance. I didn’t mention any mortars at all because they’re more of a team weapon counter than bleed cutting tool IMO. Then there’s the fact that grens and volks both get access to nades and weapon upgrades much quicker than usf tends to get BARs, and even then lmg42s can definitely stand up to single BAR rifles with ease and (IIRC) the volks’ 2 stgs combined have slightly greater dps than a single BAR at all ranges, but are on a cheaper squad with better support at almost all stages of the game. Double BAR rifles are superior but those don’t come till much later and at much greater cost. So usf infantry superiority is much less total in most stages of the game than original design would have necessitated and no longer really justifies shitty tech structure.
Sidenote: how come you say USF getting an okw-like rework is impossible?
Somewhat unrelated to the other points: the free officers are nice but IMO should be replaced by much cheaper weapon rack and grenade sidetechs because it would allow for a much more “normal” army composition instead of so much riflespam. It’s already necessary to have at the very least 3 riflemen in the early game before you even get an officer and then you get essentially a 4th rifle squad (yes, for free), which is nice, but then you have to turn around and spend around 300mp and 40 fuel for nades and weapon racks for your riflemen, meaning that you are forced to have a lot of rifles without being able to easily afford other things like support weapons, light vehicles, or elite infantry. This is especially a problem with commanders like airborne and recon support that are designed to use non-rifle infantry as a core feature of the commander (3 rifles + lt/cpt + echelon + pathfinders + paras is way too much infantry to be getting early on without much team weapon or vehicle support). IMO this somewhat forced over abundance of combat infantry and lack of support weapons drags the faction down more than it should and also makes it less enjoyable to play against. I don’t think that people necessarily like playing against metric tons of infantry (the infamous freedom blob says hello). |
Ober rifles being better than tommy rifles isn't really the point though. The two brens more or less equal the mg34 AND the 3 ober rifles (again, long range). So imagine if obers had 3 extra tommy rifles of DPS.
Yes, obers get better veterancy (you can make arguments about the ambush bonus, smoke, or whatever else being conditionally better, but as a whole, obers definitely do have better vet).
I think timing is a consideration too. Besides this, I think what you posted is a fairly complete picture of the comparison.
Anyway, I think the point is that there is justification for reasonable concern that enfields + brens become an issue, and that would be enough to warrant counteractive measures (nerfs to their brens) - especially since their current bren combo seems fine in its current state.
+1
And again, getting brens instead of stens is more or less shooting oneself in the foot and should be avoided anyway. |
Relic Entertainment
Heartless Jäger 
