i don't get it... is2 in game performance doesn't appear to soak up much damage at all, not as effectively as other heavies in the game.. yet that seems to be the primary issue talked about here
The IS2 is very durable because it doesn't face 60 range high penetration TDs. Of course with armour/penetration it's a lot about RNG. You can have a P4 pen an IS2 twice in a row if luck is on your side. Especially due to how rear armour works in COH2. Often times shots from the front that are slightly angled end up counting as rear armour hits. |
Soviets are simply too strong lategame.
LeFH was overnerfed aswell) and you can not counter Soviet lategame.
Both ML20 and LeFH were over nerfed. This might have been a good idea for 3v3 and 4v4 but in 2v2 this change had negative consequences. Why should turtling playstyles (on both sides) be rewarded? Makes no sense especially because most 2v2 maps are way too small and narrow and you can't outmanoeuvre people. |
|
Instead of making all units the same why not let IS2 keep it's armour but lose some of the firepower?
|
What if soviets are the benchmark?
What you say here is exclusively your own personal opinion, not a fact, so we will be greatful if you stopped presenting your personal, subjective opinion as a fact.
There is no such thing as "benchmark", every faction and unit is considered individually in the context of its own faction and what it faces against. Its been done like this ever since modders took over balancing. THAT is a fact backed up by all the changes made so far and reasoning behind them.
Agree.
It is not an objective fact that Ostheer is the "benchmark" and it's also not an universal fact that Ostheer is the "best designed" faction either. A certain person here always claims these things because they suit his personal agenda but that doesn't make them true.
|
|
I feel like this is the point when a reasonable thread goes completely overboard. Maybe calm down and wait for Siphon's numbers before removing Soviets from the game? |
So, to summarize;
- T-70 has bloated AI power
- T-70 is a crutch unit, and is required so that Sov mid-game doesn't drop off steeply
- T-70 scales better than any other LV
- Vet 3 T-70 can be more beneficial than a big tank
and arguably
- T-70 over-performed in WCS
- T-70 is the strongest LV in the game
I don't see a lot of solutions here. If we nerf the AI power a bunch to bring it in-line with the Luchs (point 1), then sov mid-game drops off steeply (point 2). Meanwhile, at vet 3, it's bringing more power and/or utility than a much more expensive medium tank (point 3 + 4) - and it can get to vet 3 easily, because of its AI power (point 1). All of this results in it over performing, as per points 5 and 6.
We could buff other LVs to match the T70, but then we run into OKW's Luchs/Puma completely crushing USF/UKF, as well as the possible return of 444/666 - and it would also mean further power-creep, which I'm personally against. Furthermore, as we saw from WCS, OKW/OST vs. USF is close to balanced, and UKF's issues aren't from the LV matchup, so drastically reworking these units would likely cause more problems than it would fix.
Considering all those points, the only solutions I'm seeing are either reworking Sov's mid-game to not rely on the T70 (and then nerfing its AI power dramatically), or making the T70 only a temporary power-spike by making it scale much worse.
You completely ignore timings for some reason. Do you realize that the first T70 costs you almost as much as Luchs+Puma together? Or that Stuart takes 55 fuel to unluck while the T70 takes 100? Or that the AEC is locked behind only 45 fuel?
T70 is fine. You can prepare for its arrival much easier than you can prepare for 222, Flame HT, Luchs, AAHT and Stuart.
The reason why Soviets are slightly too good is the late game dominance. |
If anything, the T-70s bloated anti-infantry power is its main problem (I think the Luchs is a much better design in regards of TTK, as it's powerful enough to force off squads and even wipe very late retreats, but isn't powerful enough to solo entire squads within seconds, and the T-70 should've had a more similar power level). But the Soviets kinda need the T-70 as a crutch unit, as their mid game drops off quite steeply without it. Even though I personally dislike how wipey it is.
I don't really understand the Luchs comparison. Luchs is locked behind 60 fuel. T70 requires 120 fuel to get if you go for Conscript upgrades. |
The IS2 and Pershing seem much cheaper than other heavies b/c they don't require more tech than a medium. KT, Ost tiger at least cost more to unlock than say a p4.
OKW Tiger costs no extra fuel either. OKW Tiger is actually cheaper to unlock than IS2. It costs OKW 195 fuel when going mech and even less with T1.
Ost Tiger costs 200 fuel with BP1+2+3 plus T1+T2+T3 building. IS2 costs 210 fuel with T2,T3,T4 and Conscript upgrades. Pershing costs 200 fuel with Major+one officer+ one LV upgrade, ambulance and weapon racks. |
|
Regarding the IS2. People are right when they complain about it being OP but so is Pershing and Tiger. They all need to be toned down a little. |
|
What makes Soviets a bit too good is the late-game. It's almost impossible to fight against IS2/KV2+SU85+Katjusha+7man Conscripts unless you have a significant resource advantage. Soviet early and mid-game are fine. ISU in 2v2 is also questionable IMO. Maybe to a lesser extent in premade games but in random 2v2 without Ele it's a nightmare to deal with.
Airborne is also a questionable doctrine IMO. I hate the rocket attack + ram cheese that is abused at the moment and I also don't like that you can give endless SVTs and Dhsk to your teammate in 2v2. |
Germany
Relic Entertainment
