Profile of Hannibal

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2

General Information


Thread: Pathfinders are anal cancer27 Jun 2022, 12:29 PM Jump back to quoted post27 Jun 2022, 10:28 AMCrecer13 Nobody thinks that having two infantry units in one commander is a very bad design? Maybe move the Pathfinders somewhere to another commander? And maybe add the Paratroopers to another commander? The whole commander design does not really work. No one will do frontline drops with the team weapons because it is way too risky. Having two infantry units is okay overall I would say. Some other commanders work like this as well. What I don't like it is that none of these units really replace another unit in your normal build. Other factions do it better: - Soviet Shock army: 120mm functionally replaces the normal mortar, Shock troops are bonus for flexibility - Guard Motor: Same thing, just with Guards - Defensive tactics: Basically completely replaces T2 - Lend lease: DshK replaces Maxim, Guards are bonus - Osttruppen Doctrine: Osttruppen replace Grens, Artillery officer is bonus - Mobile assault regiment: Two units replace stock units, third one is new Plus, there is this intention with beacons to make them work together, but it is more of a gimmick than a proper feature. Combine this with USFs fairly rigid infantry build order, and the fact that you'll get officer squads regardless if you want them or not, you'll overload yourself with infantry. Neither Paths nor Paras are "classical" mainlines, they don't replace other units, you're supposed to get both of them, and you're supposed to still get Rifles and officers. It's just a bit too much. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: TUNING PACK - SYNC ERROR DETECTED (NEED HELP)27 Jun 2022, 09:51 AM I think I had this issue years ago when I played bot matches with friends. Back then, it depended on who hosted the game. What I also remember is that my slow ass potatoe PC had issues keeping up with the game. I had to zoom into a corner where nothing happens so it could catch up again. It might be the issue for one of you too, I could imagine the game goes out of sync for one player if the difference is too large. In: COH2 Bugs
Thread: Command P4 vs Command AEC - what the buff! 26 Jun 2022, 14:50 PM Jump back to quoted post26 Jun 2022, 14:04 PMVipper It combat performance combined with its high manpower cost/XP value/pop/tech is related those value are not values of a support unit. I agree on the XP value. The others have nothing to do with some type of unit class, but have to match the "worth" of a unit on the battlefield. The command P4 has about the AI of a normal P4. You basically trade the AT capability for utility and some all in all cheaper cost. It is incredibly strong in team games when you can support your teammates' forces and literally buff units worth >100 population for a coordinated push. But this mostly works in large games with arranged teams. In smaller modes, especially with randoms, it does not, because you only buff your army, half of which is probably somewhere else or cycling between frontline and base. A similar effect comes from map size. Overall it is a good unit, but just like many heavies, it works better in larger modes and is hard to fit in smaller modes. Regarding OP's post: It really does not make sense to compare the Command P4 with UKF's designate ability. I have no idea what the point of this is besides some rant that the Command P4 were UP. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Command P4 vs Command AEC - what the buff! 26 Jun 2022, 13:51 PM Jump back to quoted post26 Jun 2022, 09:04 AMVipper C. Panzer 4 is still in weird place. Cost more manpower than a normal PzIV. Has worse AI than ostwind for the same fuel. Combines low accuracy and penetration so is not very good vs light tanks. Has the same tech requirement as PzIV/Ostwind. Has same XP value as PZIV ans similar vet bonuses. Has the a pop of 12 although a support unit. In most cases building an ostwind or PzIV is a better choice. The Command P4 is a utility unit. Comparing it only based on combat performance with combat focused units does not make a strong argument. The odd position the Command P4 has is that it is not really worth it in 1v1, but quite strong in 4v4, especially for arranged teams. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: JLI + SOV ScoutCar = New Sniper ClownCar??????9 Jun 2022, 22:40 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Jun 2022, 18:11 PMEtherealDragon When it's spelled out like this I no longer doubt my sanity as to why I feel like Overwatch is an ever-present cancer in team games. I should have noted that this is max range, which as pointed out before is the best case scenario - unlike any other weapon in CoH2. Still, on open field and as long as you don't close in, the sniper G43 will hit almost all his shots, and cover barely does anything. The other 3 dudes still fire "normal" weapons, so cover is still worth it. But don't expect that snipes will happen way less frequently. It will take a bit longer until the model has dropped below 70%, but the sniper G43 will hit basically just as hard as on open field. Relistically, you'll probably achieve >95% hit chance on open field and ~90%+ against units in cover. Unvetted, that is. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: JLI + SOV ScoutCar = New Sniper ClownCar??????9 Jun 2022, 09:53 AM Slightly off-topic on how accuracy generally works. The sniper G43 of the JLI almost can't miss against units in cover. the 1.15 accuracy * 0.9 cover modifier still is above 1. Then they also get +40% accuracy at vet 3. At this point, the only way to miss a shot is if the targeted squad has an RA lower than 0.69. So in virtually all engagements, cover or not: If the sniper G43 shoots, it hits. And if the target is below 70% health, it is dead. Putting them into any transport would lower that and basically be a waste of their potential. Let alone the fact that it is difficult to acquire a transport as OKW in the first place. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Pioneer combat strength early game7 Jun 2022, 15:30 PM Jump back to quoted post7 Jun 2022, 13:34 PMProtos Angelus I tested it out. It's basically that echelon are so criminally bad at combat, that you can basically ignore them as their DPS is laughable. Even at 10 range, Pios have 55% more DPS than echelon. Tested out Rifles + Combat engineers (soviet). Pios get wrecked. Tested out rifles + vehicle crew... pios lose hard. Basically, RE is completely useless in combat until you invest 100 munitions into them, at which point they can be used as a vehicle deterrent. Or you could use the volley fire and delay the weapon upgrades a bit. And I wouldn't call them useless later on. Not only can they repair tanks quite fast, they do get the flamers and they can plant mines. Double Pio with MG42s can easily stand up to anything in 3v3s. Mostly due to map designs. Tightrope even showed the power of double pio into PGrens power. So all in all. The fight should say "Rifles" vs double Pios. Rifles + Rear Echelon = Rifles -> Rear Echelon = 0 iff Rifles =/= 0 I think against pios REs are even worse. At range 10, Pioneer DPS is about 80% higher. What you probably meant is that REs have 55% the DPS. As you said, they somehow have to be due to bazookas and their fifth man. Their odd veterancy actually helps in that regard. Res are best against the Kubelwagen were the low accuracy does not matter. Otherwise, they don't add an awful lot. They are the only squad that I don't rebuild if I see that my enemy is not using mines In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Pioneer combat strength early game7 Jun 2022, 13:20 PM There is no issue with pioneers. They are decent at the beginning, but fall flat on their face quickly. Spamming them is not viable, nor is even building a second one in the early game unless you're trying some odd double MG/double pio stall for PGrens. In a normal build, you'll pay for it once LVs arrive until the mid game where you can finally use the increased repairs for your medium tank. This overall sounds like a fair trade off to me, let them have their chance to shine. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Thanks A_E and the rest of the team!5 Jun 2022, 09:58 AM Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2022, 15:53 PMA_E Thanks for the kind words chaps! "It's being taken as a given probably a bit too much than it should." Yeah I could tell that with the viewer figures for ML, glad that GCS3 saw a return to public interest. " I hope you'll stick around for CoH3, but I can obviously understand if at some point you decide that organizing tournaments consumes too much time and you have to or want to focus elsewhere, although I of course hope you and everyone else involved will still be up for tournaments in CoH3." Let's hope we don't have to organise our own tournaments at launch at the very least! I wasn't playing CoH2 yet when Relic created tournaments back in the days. When they do for CoH3, I hope they match the more casual style of your organizations. The main appeal of your tournaments for me has always been that you could see a lot of improvisation around every corner. Just some real fans having fun with the game and casting it, not some super polished "product". Relic wants to promote their game, they need to make it look good even if it were not, while you had the freedom to just cast whatever you want. It's always been a tourney, not an advertisement, and that's the important part. If Relic-organized CoH3 tournaments can't match that, I'm gonna stop watching. Keep that up. Your tournaments have their rough edges, but they're bloody good anyways. In: Lobby
Thread: OP vs ez mode?3 Jun 2022, 14:59 PM Jump back to quoted post2 Jun 2022, 16:43 PMEsxile Balance isn't an on/off technology. Relic did acknowledge the skill gap issue between faction and aimed toward resolving it by reducing the skill requirement for some faction and increasing it for other and at least taking it in account every time they release a new patch . This got lost in translation years later with the succession of community members doing the balance and I my opinion especially (but not only) around the last new commanders patches and those after. What's more A-move than Grand offensive commander? As I said, I highly doubt that Relic had a better balance towards micro than the balance team had. The balance team has done a LOT towards consistency. Vehicles for example usually got armor reduced and HP increased. These changes also reduce the overall micro load. However, I'd rather move back to the overall topic of how micro affects balance in a not-so-obvious way. We can surely have different opinions who is the scapegoat of the current issue, in the end it is futile since Coh2 does not get updated anymore and we'll have to wait for CoH3 to maybe do a better job. Jump back to quoted post2 Jun 2022, 16:43 PMEsxile PageP's stat don't say anything about balance because you don't know the real gap between players, it just shows the win/lose ratio, the rest is interpretation. If you want to go that way you'll have to demonstrate that TOP200 faction A = TOP200 faction B but you can't. I know that, and yet it is still the best data we have. Definitely better than purely anecdotal evidence. But still, my last point stands regardless of win rate data: Axis factions are easier to micro, because they have less units on the field. The current mix of cost/population and performance is very well on point for most units in CoH2 thanks to the community patches, but having to take care of more squads means every unit will be managed less efficiently, and that's were late game Axis shines a bit brighter than late game Allies. Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2022, 01:01 AMtheekvn say about balance. Can We see USF, OKW and UKF in final GCS 3 ?. funny enough Balance team tend to use big tournament as a benchmark of balance. Now what, Soviet and Weh all the time.. From what I remember, Sanders always said tournaments should be taken with a big grain of salt for balance discussions. Which is exactly on point. The fact that Soviets and Ostheer dominate tournaments is still Relic's fuck up. Especially USF and UKF play very linearly and predictably with little deviation and easy exploits. Especially if your opponent can counter pick a faction. In: COH2 Balance