Profile of Balanced_Gamer

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 783

General Information


Thread: UKF September patch discussion29 Aug 2019, 15:34 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Aug 2019, 15:11 PMmrgame2 Yes sounds good. Churchill still have good pen to damage tanks from the side(rear) for 160 hp. I think that is heavy for AI tank. I rather keep the 18 popcap and reduces main gun to 120. Extra 2 popcap you can still put out 2 churchills. Ukf already have FF and Pak and Piats/Snares. It is pretty beefy indeed the Churchill. Soaks too much damage and sometimes able to deflect shots from both mediums and AT support gun pretty effectively too. I am kind of fine with but the fact that I am not fine with is the addition to its strength in the AI departement. It counters a bit too well the Churchill against the AT guns and just infantry in general. What Churchill changes I would implement, that it would not have such a stronger effect than it necessarily should be since you can acquire more than 1 Churchill, is to make 2 changes only: 1.- Reduce the armour a bit more since it already has great HP (more than KT). To make it more vulnerable to take damage from both AT guns and mediums better. & 2.- Reduce the speed. Decreases the deadly effect on dealing with infantry easily as well as AT guns. It also effectively makes the AT gun have more chances of countering the Churchill better. Since Churchill can pretty much counter anything in its path except heavier tanks. Bonus 3.- Oh, wait one other thing which make this interesting. You know the Kubel change made with the HP and all. It should be implemented on Churchill since it is supposed to soak damage. Less HP but has damage resistance, in this way able to make repairs faster. Currently it is a bit too mobile which contributes to its deadly effect on the field. It should be way slower as designed especially when it is designed to soak damage. At least the AT have a better chance of countering such a beefy strong hp unit. It will still have an impact on the field but it wont charge in as recklessly as it does now. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Thoughts on OKWs Flak Half Track29 Aug 2019, 14:30 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Aug 2019, 14:26 PMSneakEye Thanks for explaining. Just keep in mind that the Schwerer Panzer HQ will become more important since that all tank call-ins require it. It is a trade-off to go for the Battlegroup HQ. Choosing Mechanized will delay your tanks quite a lot. Tough, also to keep in mind, that to give off the control (early and mid game) by not using the Mechanized which has the means to do so due to having proper units that Med does not have, it might just take away the opportunity to even use the PanzerHQ efficiently. Another way of seeing this. I appreciate your evaluation. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Thoughts on OKWs Flak Half Track29 Aug 2019, 14:06 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Aug 2019, 13:58 PMSneakEye This doesn't make sense to me. However, this is a good reason to change/replace the IR Half-track instead. I mean in terms of AI support or even AT. Mechanized has all that better covered by 3 times. Luchs just great AI, far better than FHT. AT which Med Battlegroup does not even have. Indirect fire is a tie between the LEIG and Walking Stuka. Tough many argue Walking Stuka is the winner tough I myself believe its the LEIG. But not enough reason for going Med at all since its just not adaptive in comparison the Med base. IRHT is just good in team games but it is not all that useful in other game modes otherwise. That is what I mean. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Thoughts on OKWs Flak Half Track29 Aug 2019, 13:41 PM FHT needs changes dont you think? There is so many reasons currently why it should be improved or buffed to its former state (before the patch they nerfed this unit completely) or even better than it used to be. What do you think? My reasons: 1./ Not viable and potent enough to be used in 1v1. Raketenwerfer is a factor in making this unit suriviable. FHT as a stand alone unit, it does not do enough (DPS) damage output thus it is not efficient enough. 2./ It is currently open to many exposures. T70, Stuart, AEC, there is really no way make it survive at all when they are present. Mostly due to the lacking AT support but on top, FHT cant deal with lights as described. It is not good its damage output another thing 3./ Description states, good against infantry. For 55 fuel, it does not give that result as in comparison to Luchs for 60 fuel. The performance gap difference is huge in the Anti personel (AI) departement which FHT utterly lacks 4./ Cant surpress well enough even whilst being stationary. USF AA can do so on the move at a far better surpressing rate. Even more so for USF AA when stationary. 5./ Cant deal with infantry when on the retreat. Misses too much and reloads pretty too frequently. Accuracy (& scatter contribution to its accuracy performance) and reload is just terrible. Reload takes a good long 4-5 seconds. Geez that is terrible 6./ Battlegroup (Med base) does not have much to offer. Thus FHT should be buffed more, in my opinion. 7./ Can not even be used competitively as in comparison to its previous version (when it was stronger, before it was even nerfed). 8./ Of all units in game in terms of vehicles. It is the only that has to set up before an output can be done. Yet, in its current state, it is just no use since it provides no real effect/purpose. 9./ For 55 fuel, both the USF AA and OKW Halftrack deserve some additional HP. So at least it can sustain a bit more than usual. Gives just a slight 40-50hp. Since they too vulnerable for that price. Maybe. 10./ Due to its lacking output/performance, OKW FHT can not even obtain veterancy even properly at an efficient rate. Takes long before even acquiring Vet 2. 11./ In its current state, price, efficiency, output and performance. It is simply frustrating to use. Not even worth the investment currently. 12./ DECEMBER 19th "COMMUNITY" UPDATE, did not improve the unit at all, in fact it was made worse unintentionally (since they attempting on improving but it was not taken in the right direction properly), though I do hope they can change and fix it. Fix it Devs please! https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/67/coh-2-changelog/p5 comment number 140. It says it is meant to improve veterancy but it evidently has a hard time doing that. Damage had been reduced significantly to 16 damage. 20 damage was absolutely fine, especially for unit that had to be stationary. Surpression was halved, I mean ok but keep the damage then at 20. If not than increase the surpression. Dont make both the surpression and damage both bad. I would go for the damage output increase to 20 damage per shot since that would be definitely a far better improvement than going for surpression. It would improve vet scaling better, better output and at least can fend off better lights. If only they improved damage also. I know it has been a while back but I did not have the opportunity at the time to address these changes which I disapprove. It is still not good. To clarify what it needs to get better: Bring back its damage from 16 to 20 damage instead. Accuracy should be increased just by taking the Vet 2 accuracy bonus, applied to Vet 0 (default) instead. It would help scale, vet, combat, and most importantly, increase its consistency and efficiency. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Thoughts on OKWs Flak Half Track29 Aug 2019, 09:38 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Aug 2019, 09:32 AMKatitof Medics are optional side tech(as mandatory as they are, they don't need to be firs thing made at BGHQ) and are not required to unlock FHT, so that argument is void. And timing is significantly different, it can be up to 2 minute difference in 1v1 and 2v2 which is massive that early into the game. Why do you think Luchs has had its build time increased massively couple of patches ago? Because it arrived too fast out of mechanized and you want it to be out even faster - that equals to BFHQ having increased cost to match mechanized, which does the exact opposite of what you're aiming for, it nerfs BGHQ. Do you now see why luchs will never leave mechanized? For just that claimed difference of 2 mins. Really is just a terrible balancing decision for USF AA being significantly better in contrast than FHT. Just a bigger difference in contrast to its performance than in the difference of its (timing) arrival. In fact USF AA arrival can be faster if you use the Captain to speed up the process. Considering FHT is more vulnerable to many more situations and the fact that its output is just simply lacking. Does not quite make a point as to where it currently stands. Really a poor judgement to think that it is supposed that much better which is somehow approved. No logic really behind this evaluation. Oh, do not leave out this point that you left out. Cuz it had to do with "arrival", lol. https://www.coh2.org/topic/96376/thoughts-on-okws-flak-half-track/post/769860 In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Thoughts on OKWs Flak Half Track29 Aug 2019, 09:22 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Aug 2019, 09:10 AMKatitof Its also more expensive and arrives later. Yes, more expensive units that arrive later will perform better then cheaper units that arrive earlier if they have the same role. You've hardly discovered amerika here. It is the same timing. No different. While USF has to tech for getting it but OKW has to tech for medics, still would cost around the same price. Timing is not that much different. Takes just as long (similarly but not that much a difference in contrast) for OKW also. If you say later, it is not even 5 min. It is similar timing. I played enough to know that USF AA comes definitely earlier than Luchs. Why and it is simple? Later than FHT, I dont think so. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Wehrmacht September patch discussion29 Aug 2019, 09:11 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Aug 2019, 05:35 AMRaviloli That's exactly the issue, with STGs they are nearly identical to PGs, and that isn't good for unit identity, but it's good riddance too, with STGs you could easily park and hide them on your enemy's retreat path, pop tactical advance on any retreating infantry and boom, you just got an easy squad wipe without too much effort, tactical advance is too good of an ability to be allowed on a weapon that's decent at all ranges. That is pretty much what the USF Paratrooper is doing now except at a far more efficient rate when upgraded with Thompson in comparison. USF Paratrooper is doing the exact same thing. Tactical Advance. Jump back to quoted post29 Aug 2019, 05:11 AMUnit G17 They were identical to PGs with the STG upgrade with slightly lower target size and flipped vet2 and 3 bonuses. What made and would make the difference is the tactical advance ability on them. It would not be a problem actually to have that option available again. At least that would be an option which could make them more viable than they currently are. For me the STG package was a hit, just great. Simply bad decision in removing it completely. What would be even a better decision is to just switch the Pzschreck package instead since its shit. Same logic applies when playing OKW, none uses Sturmpio AT since Pzfusiliers has 2, more cost efficient (cuz price is way better) and it is simply more efficient. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Thoughts on OKWs Flak Half Track29 Aug 2019, 09:06 AM Jump back to quoted post27 Aug 2019, 06:05 AMullumulu uhm..whot? USF HT even suppress when moving...so u can kit any squad easily..while the OKW HT need luck to supress and must move (no more shooting) when a squad comes to near...USF ht only need move and has enough distance to suppress and kitting. on top of this..USF is much more consistent and win mostly all fights until mediums hit the field. (even vs puma (often seen in high rank tournament games)) while the OKW ht is helpless vs any stuart, t70, AEC etc All true indeed. USF AA is definitely much more consistent and efficient while OKW FHT simply isnt. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW September patch discussion29 Aug 2019, 08:45 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Aug 2019, 07:51 AMSmartie Hi guys, Can we please have a discussion about ways to limit the huge power gap between battlegroup and mechanized hq? I would like to see more radical changes- and it is surprising imo that we havent discussed the option of swapping units between mechanized and battlegroup. luchs could be moved to battlegroup flak ht moved to mechanized this change would make a lot of sense imo because... the luchs can better operate on its own compared to the flak ht the flak ht would be a lot better if you could protect it with the puma battlegroup would be a lot better but mechanized not significantly worse. I know that costs propably had to be adjudted but could we at least give more radical (it doesnt have to be this idea) changes a try? I mean we dont have nothing to loose- if things dont work out the way we hoped for we can go back to the status quo. Thats exactly the way you have chosed with loweting okw's starting ressources. Now is the time for bold moves. Lets use this chance and test as many different approaches as possible. Just doing that and leaving the way the Flak Half Track is currently performing, is simply no way. It would be better to improve its performance since its currently lackluster, that is the problem. USA AA Halftrack can handle both infantry and lights better currently. Can do while and while not on mobile (on the move, its only capable against infantry yet it is somewhat more efficient than what FHT can ever do while being stationary). The problem with the FHT is consistency and its potency, it simply does not have that. Its accuracy, scatter and reload is real bad (nerfed to a bad state). DPS output is real bad. Takes too long and does too little for that crappy output. That is why it is not favoured because of its lacking performance. Cant do anything right as it used to. It needs to have improvements in order for it to be able to self-sustain itself better. Devs needs to really see how it actually performs. Its simply in a terrible spot, its performance mainly. It has literally been nerfed too much. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW September patch discussion28 Aug 2019, 22:21 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Aug 2019, 22:00 PMKatitof Umm, everything about preview KT IS better. Better damage, better health pool/armor, better penetration. It simply doesn't deserve to be any better vs infantry then other heavies, because there is no balance reason for it. And not sure what anything about KT should be faster, when it was heaviest and slowest tank of the war. Individually, it couldn't even engage IS-2 without any problems, so it hardly was superior at all if you want to move on historical background. KT was not the slowest vehicle in the war. It was designed with the better equipment than the predecessor the Tiger (1). The engine of the KT is better but the overall weight of tank is what made it somewhat slower but the KT could go 41kmh while the Tiger (1) 45kmh. Not much of a difference in speed you see. Optics were superior, designs, armour, equipment, technology. Just simply a huge upgrade overall. For a super heavy tank. Surely that was really fast, even faster than some Sherman variants. Turret turn rate of KT was better than the Tiger (1). It depended on the usage of energy used by the tank. King Tiger turn rate was faster than the Tiger 1 which is pretty amazing when you think about it. Despite it being bigger the KT, the turret turn rate was definitely faster and better. KT current turn rate in game is like being traversed by hand which is pretty much a joke to what it actually was in reality. It did not run out fuel in game, did it? Bigger gun is deadlier but slower reload (which Coh2 got right with the reload). It was still reasonably fast for a big gun like that. What it should have been in game: Speed similar to Tiger 1 but slightly slower but in game its drastically slower (which is a false statistic). Turrent turn rate should be the same for the sake of balancing otherwise it should be faster than Tiger. In: COH2 Balance