|
This is one of the thoughts of feedback on the Soviet army. Rather than purely my opinion, I synthesized the opinions of friends playing games around me.
If you think about the role of the B4 Howitzer, I think the biggest role is to check or destroy the opponent's heavy tank destroyers. Therefore, I buff the damage in the patch from 300 to 500, but I want to reduce the number of shells from 3 to 2. |
|
Continue writing from the last feedback.
Today I am going to present two topics.
1. Greyhound CP buff
The M8 Greyhound appears too slow for a light vehicle. In the past, canister shots were so powerful that I think the timing of 4 points is a very good choice as a kind of suppression.
However, if you think about whether the M8 is a 4CP vehicle today, I don't think it is.
I want to make one suggestion. M8 call-in timing as a condition of 1cp instead of 4cp. Of course, there are prerequisites here. It's an upgraded form of the M20 utility car.
For Munition, I think 100 Munition is suitable as the cost including skirt-up. If that happens, I think the user has two choices.
I think you can create a variety of strategies by using the M20's anti-vehicle mines to block opponents at a relatively low cost, or by making the option of sustaining damage through stable gun upgrades.
Also, I think it is necessary to adjust the damage of the Greyhound from 40 to 60.
2. Ranger call-in skill readjustment
Currently, the company with the Ranger consists of a heavy cavalry company and an urban assault company. This is an extension of what I said in the previous feedback.
when we carefully considered the compatibility with the skills of all companies currently holding Ranger, it was judged inappropriate. Also, with this patch, they have changed their base armament to the M1 rifle, which is expected to increase the utilization of medium-range combat as well as close combat.
The unit replacement agenda I thought of is as follows.
(1) Infantry Company: Replaced Mortar Half Track with Ranger
The reason for this agenda is that if you consider 1vs1, what is the way to stop the infantry company's insufficient breakthrough and anti-tank vehicles? In addition, I think that the strange tactical behavior of infantry companies that focuses more on artillery than infantry-oriented tactics in team play will inevitably question the identity of infantry companies.
(2). Rifle Company: Advance infantry Equipments replaced with Ranger
The most necessary thing in a rifle company is the attack power of a rifleman rather than infantry equipment.
I think we need the ability to maximize. First of all, the biggest strategy of Coh2 is a strategy that runs like a cascade or gears by time.
The Rifle Company is the most aggressive commander of the American Company. In particular, the presence of Fire up is a skill that has the potential to enable assault infantry to infiltrate. If so, I guess there are some people who think that they can't make sense of giving up flamethrowers and flares here. However, the biggest reason to give up those skills is because of the nature of the rifle company. The rifle company is literally about enhancing the abilities of riflemen. However, the biggest disadvantage of the infantry equipment skill right now is that it is not a skill that strengthens the number of rifles, but a skill that strengthens the auxiliary units. In addition, the flamethrower of the rear squad is capable of deploying auxiliary firepower as a US military mortar, and infantry light ammunition is a skill that is not often used due to the cost and micro control burden. Obviously, this is a waste of one rifle company's skill. Therefore, I think the Ranger is added as a powerful assault agent or anti-tank assistant, and it can play a good enough role as a buffer until the advent of EasyEight tanks.
Then, I think there are some people who are wondering how the rest of the heavy cavalry and the city class should change.
(3). Heavy Cavalry Company: Ranger replaced with Cav Rifle, off-map smoke screen replaced with M5 Haft Truck.
I think that the first reason to replace Ranger with a Cav Rifle that came in is that the Cav Rifle, which has anti-vehicle skills in tank battles, is more useful. Also, the biggest reason for replacing the off-map smoke screen with the M5 is that the Cav Rifle has smoke grenades differently from the Ranger. In other words, it was decided that it would be better to allow mechanized infantry to be operated by adding the M5 according to the concept or strategy of the cavalry rather than the off-map smoke screen, as the self-coverage can be performed through the smoke screen.
(4). Urban assault company: Replace Ranger with Assault Engineer
As I mentioned in the previous feedback, I will briefly explain this part. In the current urban assault tactics, the Assault Engineer has two more advantages than the Ranger. First, it makes defense easier with mines and explosives, and is advantageous for tank and calliope repairs. Second, it is adept at building eviction by securing a flamethrower early in line with the urban assault.
I wrote about the Ranger call-in for a long time, but I think we should seriously think about this part.
I've added two feedbacks for a long time. Finally, thank you to the modding team who always struggles, and not everyone can agree on this kind of feedback, but I hope you take into account that there is such an opinion. |
Buildable 20mm Flak Emplacement
good change the unit need to be able to vet up though
Command Panther
The unit already has superior vision, flare should be available earlier and to more units, they should also be cheaper.
Early Warning Flare Traps
Good change
Le.FH 105mm
Counter barrage change is terrible, the 120mm mortar will dominate OKW trucks
Panzerfusiliers
The unit is too expensive compared to Penals reduce number of G43s and the cost of the unit.
Sturm Offizier
reduce cost of abilities with vet and lower XP value
Sturmtiger
Good change
Valiant Assault
good change
Zeroing Artillery
the ability needs to be toned, become cheaper with lower CP.
I think that Le.fh patch isn't terrible. You don't seem to think deeply about the intentions of this patch. In this patch, I think LE.fh's Counter Barrage nerf came out to sniper its use in team games. I hope you take it seriously, and I hope you don't express your opinion unconditionally that it doesn't work as you wish. In all your mansions, there are a lot of articles written with such intentions, so you can add them. |
|
Here are some suggestions for this Commander patch.
First, let's start with thanks to the modding team for making the patch.
However, it is a feedback that I think we need to make some additional suggestions, so I would like you to look at it.
And this opinion is not 100% my opinion, but rather as a reference to the opinions of the Coh2 players around me.
1. Additional buff proposal for Easy Eight tank
First of all, I think it is very encouraging to approach the concept of premium tanks like the Comat tank.
As a result, buffing the tank's gun range from 40 to 45 and improving the vehicle's speed and turning speed seem to be good intentions.
However, I am concerned that the penetration power will decrease as the range of the tank increases.
In fact, I think the reason why Easy Eight is not used compared to the 76 Sherman tank is the low medium-to-long penetration compared to the Hvap.
So I would like to suggest an additional buff.
It seems we need a way to buff the conventional tank gun penetration from 200/165/155 to 200/185/170.
If you do this, I think you can make sense even if you nerf the fuel requirement for the current Easy Eight tank from 140 to 150.
2. Rifle Company's skill integration and addition.
Currently, Rifle Company has two skills for Advanced infantry equipment and Riflemen field defenses.
To be honest, these two skills need to be integrated. Although they look different, the two skills with the same intention exist as obstacles that prevent the riflemen company from adding the necessary skills.
I think the addition of Ranger Squad is necessary as an assault infantry to maximize the fire up skill of the rifle company.
I think it's definitely something that can extremely boost the aggression of a rifle company.
Of course, there may be buffs for infantry companies and heavy cavalry companies while integrating the two skills, but I think it is very trivial.
3. Exchange between Rangers and Assault Engineers of the Urban Assault Company.
I think this opinion is probably the most difficult to understand from the perspective of users who read it. But I think this is absolutely necessary. According to the current patch, the units to support Calliope and armored battles are rather than Rangers.
Assault Engineers is good. Because it is much easier to conduct defense operations as explosives or mine operations that Rangers do not have, they are helpful in repairing tanks and Calliope, equipped with flamethrowers necessary for urban operations, and are the core of repelling enemies in buildings than Rangers. I think it can play an important role.
You may not like the above 3 kinds of feedback. However, I am convinced that this combination fits the AEF company concept of maximizing the character of the commander. Also, if you consider the elements of the game balance, I think that it is neither excessive buff nor excessive nerf. That's all the feedback I thought of. Thanks for reading. And thank you to the modding team working on better content. |
Ass engies would fit in urban assault Better than rangers frankly. With demos and flamer it would certainly suit.
I agree this idea. |
I've thought the Cav Rifles are thematically a slam dunk for Heavy Cav. They would also help to make the doctrine stronger in the early game. Rangers come very late. But CAv Rifles + off map smoke can make some noise.
I also don't like the fact that Heavy Cav combines the only heavy tank for US with an elite infantry unit. Pershing with a minor buff + CAv Rifles will already be a strong combo.
And "combined arms" could use some tweaks. Its barely used probably because of the high munition cost. Maybe lowering the cost (and the performance) would help.
If a Cav Rifle in Heavy Cavalry goes in place of Ranger, I think the Smoke skill should be replaced.
It is a subjective idea, but I think the M5 half-track vehicle is appropriate as an alternative skill.
If m5 is included in that way, I think there is a possibility that the lt tech will be used more in Heavy Cavalry's team game. |
Agreed on this! That's why you and the team should break new ground with the E8 to make it distinctive.
Just to throw out an idea:
Redesign the E8 to a Commando Tank. Your modteam member Stark suggested this in the "new US commander" thread 2 ago and I think the idea is worth a discussion.
E8 Command Tank would give you a lot of options to design a really outstanding Sherman.
The ez8 command tank doesn't seem to be a very good idea. Rather, I think the role as a main tank is better as it is now. Like the 76mm Sherman of the Mechanized Company, if you think of the ez8 as a tank that came out as an MBT, I don't think it needs more than a performance buff. What the rifle company needs is an MBT, not a command tank. |
If the sniper is no option for USF then I would like to see Rangers in "Rifle Company" and "Cav Rifles" in Heavy Cavalry" instead of the Rangers.
I agree with your opinion. However, these adjustments require some work.The cav rifle is basically armed with an m3 grease gun. I think their armament needs to be adjusted to m1 carbine. Are you thinking of the idea that the Ranger can help with the lack of anti-infantry capabilities to the rifle company? If so, I agree. Your opinion.
And for Heavy cavarly, I thought the Cav Rifle was pretty much needed. |
Do you know how much backlash you would get from whereaboos if you did that? Besides, E8 would still be useless. Even with 50 range. Well, not as useless. It's main role is to brawl mediums, however, having lower armour than OKW P4 and mediocre penetration, combined with slightly above average HP and below average AI cannon, 50 range would do nothing. Only real tank it would counter then would be OST P4. Unless armour or HP or AI or a combination of those is buffed, E8 will never see the light of day in any sort of competitive play (penetration values are fine as it is supposed to be a closer range tank).
Think about it, what would 50 range achieve on 200/165/155 penetration values? OST P4 has 180 armour, so that's about 85% to penetrate, which leaves quite a large margin for RNG. 15% ain't much but it ain't neglectable. OKW P4 has 234 armour, which is about 65% chance to penetrate, something I would not toy around with and leave it to RNG gods. Combined with 6-6.6s reload, there is much left to be desired.
Summa summarum, 50 range buff on E8 would be pointless and would further reduce the role it has. Why give it slightly above average armour compared to OST tanks and slightly above average HP compared to all stock mediums if you plan on using it long range only? To what? Have a chance at penetrating mediums?
Not gonna comment if E8 would go against a panther. Only a pair of E8s can contest with Panther
I listened to your opinion. I understood your exact opinion as saying that the ez8's range buff would be useless. If so, I would like to talk about your competitive edge with Panther, but I think that is a very wrong judgment. And the ez8's range buff is aimed at dividing jackson's anti-tank role. And if you don't have an accurate opinion on what you want, I can't communicate with you. What's the content buff you want for the Rifle company. |
E8 need just one thing:
50range like old comet to be something like soft panther
Usf need more AT options
I strongly agree with this opinion.
And if the ez8 is a buff in anti-tank capabilities in a rifleman company, on the other hand, it may lack anti-infantry capabilities. So the Ranger sniper idea is good, but I think it makes more sense to add a Ranger squad.
And the current ez8 doesn't have any distinct advantages, so top players hesitate to use it in tournaments.
So, if you adjust fire range, ez8 needs a buff from 40 to 50 as in this opinion. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
