The greyhound also gets faster reload speed. Luchs also lost the ridiculous 100% hitrate vs vehicles. Therefore the Greyhound can stop and fire, whereas the Luchs will have to constantly choose between stopping to be accurate and following the enemy vehicle to keep up.
However, that's not greyhound's main job; greyhound is an infantry murdering machine. Greyhound also does quite well vs paks with its cannister shot & MG combo. That's the main reason it has to come out later. The greyhound far outperforms other light vehicles in an AI role. All in all, greyhound is that bit of oomph that Recon doctrine needed to keep up with other USF doctrines.
So far, in every mod game we've played people were building their core-army light vehicles and then called Greyhound as an icing on the cake to deliver the killing blow. That was before we swapped Stuart/AAHT locations though.
Unless the accuracy nerfs are far more than I understand, the luchs should still win against the greyhound rather handily. As you've said, it probably won't need to given how much more potent it looks against anti infantry, but I just think that its buffs against light tanks are being oversold. Most of the responses from the mod team have made it seem like the luchs would be more or less a non issue for the greyhound (just like its a non issue for the t70, since thats what its AT was compared to).
Though when my argument is this technical and going off of this much guesswork, I guess it's at the point where I should just shut up and play the mod and see how it all actually works in practice. |
1.declare for Soviets
2.https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/viewBoard/0/steamid/76561198141467493
3.infantry doctrine/joint operations doctrine/defensive doctrine
Absolutely hyped to see you play  |
Then we have the issue of having the same M8 Greyhound that no one builds. 4CPs is also not that far away. In most cases if you're being aggressive with USF, you'll have those CPs when the majority of light tanks are arriving, if not slightly after.
Furthermore, the M8 can still tackle other lights the same way a T-70 can while also having 24/7 recon vision while the T-70 needs to pop the hatch open and shutdown its main gun.
From my experience, the luchs usually comes out when I, as the okw player, am at 2 - 2.5 cps (2 if i have excellent fuel control, 2.5 if its average or slightly in my favor). If I'm behind, it comes at right around 3, I think. I imagine that the timing for the 222 is more or less the same because of there not really being a rush for ost t2. I just think you're underestimating how big the gap is in/would be in their timings. Of course these values are VERY rough, and based only off of my experiences and observations
The t70, in my experience, usually wins against a luchs with ~40-70% health remaining, while the luchs usually wins against the greyhound with ~60-70% health remaining. Again, all of these are from my observations. Since the only relevant change to the greyhound in this matchup (from what I can tell), is the change from 240 to 400 health, I still don't see how the greyhound will manage to take a luchs down to lower than 40% health.
I'm not saying the greyhound will be underpowered (especially with ALL of the other USF changes thrown into the mix, which makes things unpredictable), but I think saying it can tackle other lights like a t-70 can is a massive stretch. Of course the greyhound can be to the luchs what the luchs is to the t70 (better AI, worse AT), but I feel like this dynamic mostly manages because it means that both the luchs and the t70 are the strongest vehicles on the field at their timings. I don't know if the greyhound will be able to have the appropriate impact with it coming at around the time of a t70, but having to run from a luchs like a luchs has to run from a t70. |
Yeah I'll have another look at the Commandos. Was rather put of by the Airlanding Hoccifer, whose entire squad seems to die if a Kraut sneezes at them. As three of em are Commandos I assumed they were all crap.
I do use the abilities, of course, but the potentially useful ones are in the wrong places. Need a snare in a teamgame? Try getting an AEC up to even Vet 1. Croms are difficult enough most of the time.
Christ the amount of abuse my poor Tank Hunters got shocked me. Soon as the Bosch saw em they'd have railway artillery and all sorts dumped on their heads. Same with the FF. Especially if there was merely one KT on the field.
I can see that the Land Mattress commander buffs the UKF early game, who knows maybe even makes it competitive? Trouble is the UKF late game has now been left almost utterly bereft of clout.
Ironically enough, if you use the airlanding officer's heroic charge(?) ability, then they can easily destroy any single infantry squad in the game. The only case where i see them possibly losing is if they have to cross red cover against vet 4+ obers with IR stgs. |
Bro, you must be doing something very very wrong if you're struggling against infantry.
Played both factions, and even I see the Panther needs nerf, or a proper balance.
for USF, It takes 3 M10s, and 2 AT guns to even Pen a panther, Even against side armor.
If you're struggling with infantry you're not supporting your tanks properly, you should never let a tank go into a scenario alone.
As far as armor goes, From the most recent stats I could find (please, post a link for stats, cause im struggling to find the most up to date ones), The Panther armor is 10 LESS than a TIGER tank. And does EVERYTHING a tiger does and more.
I've seen so many squads, including elite inf, like rangers get one shot by a moving Panther.
So, The panther does not need to be cheaper, it is really good against infatry, especially with the MG mount, and is easily vetted and can out trade so many allied tanks, which isnt actually that Historically accurate. even the Sherman to Tiger ratio was about 4 Shermans to one Tiger, which was what the tank was built for.
I may sound salty, but you'd get pretty annoyed if 2 AT guns and 3 TDs were bouncing shots left right and center, off a tank.
Now lets talk about AT Grenades.
USF AT nades, at most will give engine crit at a ratio of about 40/60. Soviet nades, about at most, 60/40. Fausts, 95% of the time. But that is what they were made for, so that is completely to be expected.
Point in the matter, Panthers need a REAL balance, in line with being historically accurate. It is a myth it took 5 Shermans to one Panther.
As Coh2 Is based towards the end of the war, Tanks like the M4A3E8 Traded pretty evenly with Panther tanks. it was never a 5:1 ratio, Even the Tiger Tanks were about at most, 6:1 ratio.
To conclude, The Panther doesnt need a cost rescale, It needs a proper balance. Not a "drop the tank and win the game" balance. seems like im exaggerating, and you're probably thinking Just get AT.
Allies do, Allies have, every single shot pretty much bounces.
What do you do when the one thing AT is made for fails?
I know you had a newer post, but I found this one better to reply to.
The panther (320) has 20 more armor than the tiger (300).
Panther armor: http://stat.coh2.hu/squad.php?filename=panther_squad_mp
Tiger armor: http://stat.coh2.hu/squad.php?filename=tiger_squad_mp
So yes, your armor values for the panther and tiger are made up/outdated.
Also, you do realize that side armor is not a thing in coh2, right? As in it doesn't exist - end of story.
What's more, if you're not already aware, the game is not and should not be balanced around what was "historically accurate."
Also, why say: "I've seen so many squads, including elite inf, like rangers get one shot by a moving Panther." Elite infantry dies just as easily against tanks/mortars/explosions as every other infantry in the game, ignoring difference in model count (target size is essentially negligible as a factor because of the low chances of a natural hit). The fact that you imply elite infantry is more durable against tanks makes me think you don't even know the mechanics behind how vehicle/AT weapons function against infantry. Your claim about panthers being "really good against infantry," is subjective, but I think players would overwhelmingly agree that the panther is lackluster (but serviceable) against infantry.
Claiming the panther is easy to vet is...questionable. High vet requirements, and low dps mean that the panther is slow, and somewhat difficult to vet.
Anyway, since you wanted confirmation: Yes, you are blatantly talking out of your ass and have no idea what you're talking about. Being absolutely clueless about how this game and how units work is fine, but I think many people would appreciate it such people didn't dilute balance discussions with "historical accuracy," "one time, X happened to me, so Y unit is obviously overpowered," and if they didnt completely make up unit stats/mechanics out of nowhere, then dogmatically defend their completely arbitrary claims once people respond with the actual units stats that disprove their made up arguments.
|
Well I think it means something because somebody who knows how to play will use 1919s. You bring up interesting points for sure.
IMO (and I'm not trying to argue, just saying what I think of it), putting 1919s is weird because it gives up the negligible advantage of garands being semiauto (negligible because upgrade weapons do most of a squads dps anyway) and the role of riflemen being an aggressive flanker squad with its utilities and general stats. I also rarely put 1919s on paras (even though it's really really good) for pretty much the same reasons. I also always buy racks anyway because I don't like making at guns (or I go lt) and at my level it's usually not necessary anyway as zooks and maybe a AAHT or Stuart will do the same thing but for less mp. You also have a higher dps ceiling with double bars as the enemy closes (if they're inclined to do so, basically all of okw).
Right, m1919s really change the role of riflemen, which makes it awkward for sure. I like 1919s because they give riflemen the ability to win at any range. In a lot of cases with 1919s, the enemy squad will lose at both max and min range, while with a bar, you still want to get to point blank. In a sense, 1919s make up for a weakness while bars capitalize on a strength. That said, ive been considering trying double bars again for many of the reasons you mentioned, especially since the non-1919 commanders (namely armor and heavy cav) arent getting nerfed anymore. |
The ultimate point is there is no reason for you to be against USF weapons to be field upgrades. Your argument of being a TOP 1vs1 USF players is not valid since it would be exactly the same for you while improving USF gameplay on teamgame.
I suspect that your answer and little speech on TOP1vs1 vs TOP teamplayer had more to do with the poster than the topic itself looking at past discussions between the two of you.
I never posted that I was against USF weapons being field upgrades in this thread. At all. Feel free to provide a quote by me that shows otherwise. |
Lol no one except 1000+ teamgame noobs. Double bars, hell, 1 bar, is superior to 1919s for a variety of reasons.
If it means anything, i always use 1919s. The long/max range dps of a squad of rifles with a single 1919 is essentially equal to that of a double bar rifle squad. On top of this, the main advantage in combat is that you dont lose dps as quickly since nearly all of the dps in a 1919 squad is on the last man, which means in a hypothetical fight to the death at max range, a rifle squad with a single 1919 would probably win against a double bar rifle squad.
Some other notable advantages are that:
1919s dont even have a chance of dropping unless the squad gets wiped (since the weapon is on the last man) while double bars drop starting on the second to last man (in most situations this results in FAR more bars to be given over than the number of 1919s that would be given over).
1919s dont require weapon racks, so you save a fair amount of fuel and manpower. |
Top players played the WBP before the patch goes live, we even had tournaments and one was called "King of the Hill" if I remember well.
TOP players are following what the best of the top use to play. As you say, everybody use the Armor doctrine because DevM used it with success. If tomorrow DevM comes with a new strat around Tier3 and Paratroopers, everyone will follow him.
Im aware of king of the hill, seeing as how i played in it.
Dave already made frequent use of paras, and he held rank 1 with usf pretty consistently but not too many people adopted his strategy. His build was a little too prone to being punished and required a more specific style in order to pull off. While i generally agree top players usually look towards the absolute best players for their builds, i think that some strategies are too specific to be adopted by other players. Then again, that isnt even the main point youre trying to make, so just consider this just some of my ramblings. |
I'm sorry but I fail to see the logic behind what you say. Because you don't need it so it shouldn't be on the game.
If I understand you well, because all USF skilled players do not use USF tier3, this mean we could remove it from the game, after all skilled players do not need sherman, jackson or Scott, you never see them teching Tier3. And even, to be more realistic, so even if we keep the USF tier3 in the game. We could simply remove the ambulance and the Major FRP ability because a simple base healing aura do the same job and since top skilled USF players do not use the FRP, it has no value in game.
Your statement about balance being only made around top player has a big flaw. Top players didn't see Penal being that's strong with the last patch while the modding team have exclusively listen them. They didn't see the Luch becoming such a wiping machine as well as OKW being so strong in all stages of the game, they were pretty much saying the opposite. They didn't say a word about the Kubel raping USF early game while they are now fully agreeing on this problem.
The maxim was also fine for top players...
I never said that something that isnt used should be removed, i dont think you could even argue that i so much as implied it. He said skilled players use forward ambulances, i proved otherwise with more evidence (anecdotal evidence is more evidence than he provided).
Also, i never said that balance should be based around what top players SAY, i more or less said thay it should be balanced around how top players PLAY. Arguing that balance shouldnt be based around the highest level of play because top players did not predict penals or the luchs being too strong would be balancing around what top players say, which isnt even what im suggesting. Balancing around the fact that top players heavily use penals and the luchs would be balancing around how they play, which IS what im suggesting. |
United States
Jae for Jett
VonIvan
RtN. momo4sho
Burmie
Burmie
Relic Entertainment
