Profile of gbem

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 1979

General Information


Thread: Reduce the cost of tier 48 Oct 2018, 12:03 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Oct 2018, 08:49 AMVipper Since you seem to have missed my point let me explain once more. Each faction has its own design and its own weakness and strengths. Looking at one factions strength and claiming that another faction should get the exact same strengths simply does not work. This was proven with the USF mortar (and Penals) on release when it become apparent that cloning a unit and moving to another faction can result to broken unit. Making a faction rely on doctrinal cheese is bad design... t1 at least can live without it... but t2 just dies because conscripts are useless without the ppsh In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Reduce the cost of tier 48 Oct 2018, 11:55 AM Jump back to quoted post8 Oct 2018, 09:23 AMullumulu someone didnt understand the cons! it isnt a classcanon like grens. they are t0 with: - 6models a 80 healt = 50% mehr life than grens - can sprint - can merge - can trow AT nades and molotows (deny cover/ bring mg our of houses...try this with grens) - can build sandbags - can lay mines.. what do you expect more? that they deal dmg like grens? WTF? let them take a stolen lmg and they get horrible strong ..more at vet3 Hahahahah you think cons even compare to grens? Grens have better RA Grens get better damage Grens get better accuracy Grens bleed alot less Grens get a non doctrinal weapon upgrade Grens can build a bunker Grens get the best grenade ingame (riflenade) Conscript utility doesnt even come close to grens outright power... why do u see alot of t1 builds opt to skip out cons? Theyre as good as a tickle In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW Fortifications Docrtine8 Oct 2018, 08:12 AM Jump back to quoted post8 Oct 2018, 07:58 AMullumulu what is so hard on this commander? the lefh? it should be easy deleteable ...exspacilly in teamgames per callin or counter arty the bunkers? get a mortar, pak or tank the pak43? brits have the nearly similiar gun...NONDOC! counter it like the lefh...callin or arty i dont see anything which isnt easy counterable with the normal teamcommanders as allie. dont pick 1v1 commanders and u will be ok. Play the allies and you will understand how bullshit you are right now In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW Fortifications Docrtine8 Oct 2018, 02:40 AM By the way why are you using a tiny font... its kinda hard to read In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW buildings and resources upon cancellation8 Oct 2018, 02:38 AM Jump back to quoted post8 Oct 2018, 02:30 AMdistrofio Awsome! I do also want that to happen. I think of SWS buildtime to be IDK twice as slow, but if sturmpios are present and "help" with their setup they come back to normal rates (or better hehe) Maybe another way to achieve that is that total HP of the SWS HQ grows with its % of construction. If you land a couple shot on a 5% done HQ it will blow up. Another idea is to remove notifications of the HQ being attacked, and activate them when its finished. That could be done aswell...i like the 5% of hp lost causes its destruction... but maybe it seems a bit exploitable... but uncacellable when in combat sounds nice aswell imo... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW Fortifications Docrtine8 Oct 2018, 02:34 AM Jump back to quoted post8 Oct 2018, 02:20 AMdistrofio First of all I ask you to take a moment and read this: I think Fortifications doctrine on OKW does not fit their theme. OKM seems to be aggresive and good at spec ops and breakthroughs. The elite of german forces yet not the most conventional. okw I know many OKW will not like to hear this, but fortifications its kind of OP in some aspects. Battlegroup Headquarters and LeFH18 synegise too well and becomes really annoying. In many 4v4 games that guy who plays fortifications just sit there and just waits to win, in 1v1 is a risky choice but its an option. IMO that fact breaks both, the faction design and balance since any buff to tanks/troops will make things easier to defend that setup. Maybe someone will argue that fortifications doctrine "its mostly to counter" other arty heavy commanders. If that is the case I consider there are better options with more fidelity to the faction aggresive design. Other strange thing with fortifications is the field defense ability, I know, its useful as it is. But its a copy/paste of OST bunkers and mines, Its like making OKW half like OST. Again it breaks the faction design, the balance (since bunkers are great to hold ground for 0 Pcap). Need a reinforce point? you already got one. Need a blob control?, Mg34. Maybe changing the aspect of "fortification" to an "ambush" or a "coordinated assault" design might be the first step. For example: LeIG new abilities, ie LeIG now can camoflage to make them elusive as raketen. A new mine type could be coded into the game, ie "Glasmine 43" this mines cant be detected with minesweepers, they are small so only affect infantry, additionaly they could cause some dot (as a bleeding effect) on the soldiers affected. Maybe give sturmpios the ability to cloak on cover with an camoflage upgrade, an "ambush package" upgrade. Or else take some other commander abilities like "For the Fatherland", "Signal Relay" or "Artillery Flares" to enhance the defensive or map awareness aspect. Maybe a drastical one would be remove MG 34 as a non-doc from T1 unit and give it only to this doctrine only, but flack HT would need a suppression bonus after that. Yet I just dont have the best answer of this one. What I expect achieving here is: Keep factions design original and balanced. Help further balance changes removing possible exploits or strange synergies out of the game. A possible revamp to this doctrine and maybe OKW after that (? Tradeoff a defensive commander for better offensive strategies for OKW. Get feedback on this doctrine, whats good/strong/bad of it. Backtrack the tendency of mirroring factions because of lack of good ideas. TLDR: I agree that forti breaks 4v4 games... but imo ambush is already filled out by scavenge and specops doc while coordinated assault is already filled by breakthrough and feuersturm doc... for okw id like mechanized doctrine... one that emulates the original german doctrine of blitzkrieg... a 251 halftrack wehr clone... a combined arms ability similar to USF... a heavy artillery barrage to break concentrations... a command p4 similar to the wehr one... and heat rounds for the armor... Thats just my opinion doe... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW buildings and resources upon cancellation8 Oct 2018, 02:20 AM Jump back to quoted post8 Oct 2018, 00:51 AMdistrofio I want a clear answer. Why does OP want to punish so bad placement of SWS? I dont think there is any type of "OPness" in that. Also note mention, when any of the already set up SWS are spotted they suffer a lot, being it mortar fire or any attempt of flanking. I think its only to make a cheesy play or force even more OKW to placer their HQ on base area Its not bad placement that i want to punish... but i want to punish 1. Lightly or badly defended setting up HQs... 2. Hqs setting up without support And reward 1. Actively scouting okw to punish bad HQ placement 2. A hard push to knock out a setting up HQ... Remember that this doesnt really affect HQs already setup... rather it affects HQs under construction that are unsupported... which rightfully means... okw actually has to actively defend its HQ... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Reduce the cost of tier 48 Oct 2018, 02:13 AM Jump back to quoted post8 Oct 2018, 00:44 AMdistrofio We both agree totally here. Maybe lowering CP por shock troops or guardians can help keep the aggressive aspect of SU. I have tested and im certain that suiciding (is that a word?) squads gives you XP (rly), maybe a new strat that makes you "sacrifice" a conscript squad or two in order to get even faster a guardian rifle squad, or distracting the oponent can be a thing. I might just be terribly wrong. Anyways SU is not in a bad spot as everyone here is saying. T4 is too far away to tweak it. As i mentioned before, if you lower T4, then T34 should be somewhat nerfed, otherwise SU just will stomp every game unless they fu*k up real bad (ie. hitting a Teller mine) Hmmm id say if we want t2 to be viable its the cons and maxim that needs a good look at over guards or shocks... But yes i see your point... t4 buffs would actually break t1 gameplay and make it OP... point taken... its t2 that needs fixing In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW buildings and resources upon cancellation7 Oct 2018, 17:58 PM holy shit what happened here?? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Reduce the cost of tier 47 Oct 2018, 17:57 PM Jump back to quoted post7 Oct 2018, 17:33 PMdistrofio The game must be assymetric in order to have some challenge. Otherwise you are just playing AOE2 with some fancy graphics and machine guns. Get the idea, if you as russian are not putting pressure into your oponent, to halt or cripple their fuel supply, thats a mistake you and only you are making. There is no balance issue there, its the game design itself. Ps. If you really want to talk about balance then start looking at those details, all of them, not just plain math (ie SU fuel vs OST fuel). Keep track of the things make factions strong/weak/fast this is a much better argument than matrix put up really... yes i agree that SOV T1 should be an aggressive faction and prevent the opponent from holding/keeping their fuel supply... but my main prob here is not T1... my main problem is the more defensive oriented SOV T2 build... you see although T1 can actually pressure ost enough to delay the P4 to the point where the T-34 comes significantly earlier... (around a minute or longer) this simply isnt true for a SOV T2 build since 1. its a less aggressive and more defensive build overall unless PPSHcons are involved 2. its a more fuel intensive pathway... it actually takes more fuel to go thru T2 towards the T-34... maybe the real problem here is with T2... but a cheaper T4 would help greatly aswell In: COH2 Balance