Profile of Hannibal

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2

General Information


Thread: Cover should increase armor27 Apr 2022, 14:04 PM Jump back to quoted post27 Apr 2022, 13:42 PMVipper There is no need to add target tables one can simply change the cover table and change the damage cover modifier of mortars and grenades from 0.5 to 0.75 vs heavy cover for instance. That's what I meant by target table. The problem I described stays the same. Jump back to quoted post27 Apr 2022, 13:42 PMVipper The problem with removing cover damage modifier and replacing them with armor is that it will increase the damage for light vehicles weapons and HMG/AP rounds. For instance m20 has penetration values of 3/2/1 and Dhsk has penetration values of 7/6/5. I already acknowledged that this would not be an easy change of some numbers and then everything were perfect in the opening post. I am making a general point about the design of cover. The current system works for gameplay, but falls short on authenticity and intuition on quite a few ends. However, while AoE weapons can be solved by an engine update, small arms not so much The last part would be working though as intended. Concrete numbers aside, large calibers and armor piercing ammo should have higher penetration and be better suited to hit enemies behind cover. There is currently a complete penetration system implemented for small arms that next to useless. Introducing different armor values to infantry squads is neither authentic nor intuitive. The battle hardened PGren is not able to magically deflect a bullet because of his experience any more than a green Conscript on his first day of battle. He will have a better understanding of how to keep his profile low and how to move, which is summarized in the abstract RA value in CoH. Cover can be an interesting way to give relevancy to small arms penetration without sacrificing authenticity. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Cover should increase armor27 Apr 2022, 10:05 AM Jump back to quoted post27 Apr 2022, 09:47 AMVipper The damage of certain weapon like mortars and grenades can be fixed changing the damage modifier they have vs cover and imo it would make more sense since this weapon should be specialized in dealing with entrenched troops. This unit specialization does not need to be touched at all. My main point is to give more meaning to weapon penetration. Removing the oddity of staying within the explosion radius on purpose is a bonus and just an example of how the current system leads to unwanted side effects, which then have to be countered with special modifiers to make it more believable. To my knowledge, the target tables don't check for directionality. If that's true, adding modifiers will lead to other issues, mostly with grenades. For example, if you storm a squad behind sand bags and lob a grenade behind them, currently you do half damage (odd behaviour). Introducing a 2x damage modifier will bring it up to full damage again and negate the benefit of sticking to cover (wanted behaviour). However, throwing the grenade in from the side, you'll suddenly do double damage, because the target table still applies while the damage reduction does not. Given that much of this could be fixed by updating the engine, I'd rather focus on small arms. As stated above, explosive weapon behaviour against green cover is an odd symptom of the current system. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Cover should increase armor27 Apr 2022, 09:38 AM Cover at the moment gives a RA modifier and damage modifier, depending on the type of cover. I was thinking if it weren't better if Relic had replaced some of these modifiers with an armor bonus instead. Both make intuitive sense - hiding behind a wall both decreases your profile as well as your chance to be hit through the object. Harder objects such as brick walls (green cover) are also harder to penetrate than e.g. fences (yellow cover). For small arms, they do almost the same thing: Increase the effective health of the squad. However, there are two advantages: - Currently, green cover grants an additional damage reduction modifier. Due to this, explosive weapons often behave unexpectedly bad. Most prominently, it is often better to wait and leave your squad in the blast radius of a grenade and then retreat if you reacted a little bit too late, because that way your squad benefits from damage reduction. - Penetration values on small arms could finally be somewhat meaningful again. Almost all small arms weapons have a penetration of 1 at all ranges, with LMGs going up to 1.2 and HMGs even higher. These values barely matter. Only against the unicorn exception of Shock troops and some LVs, there is a difference. But even in these cases, it is often a bad decision to use small arms fire against that vehicle. To sum it up: The armor and penetration system of small arms has basically been removed from CoH2. And that is bad. An HMG should just rip through some wooden planks, while and SMG should have issues doing so. There would definitely be some balance issues and even some logical issues such as craters providing very little penetration reduction, but overall this would be benefitial. Obviously not for CoH2, that ship has sailed, but I assume for CoH3 there would be an advantage. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Royal engineer Recovery Squad27 Apr 2022, 07:53 AM Jump back to quoted post27 Apr 2022, 06:52 AMVipper Nice to see that you actually did some test. Do know appreciate the effect of distance? I thought after 5 pages of theocrafting, at least a basic test was necessary. Since you keep dodging the actual points I made, I'm out of this discussion. Good luck with this one and see you in the next one. In: Lobby
Thread: Royal engineer Recovery Squad26 Apr 2022, 23:37 PM Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2022, 16:40 PMVipper Caping the rest of the map is less important in large modes because there are more people caping, I pretty sure you are aware of that. And the same goes for the enemy team. Every time an ally has to cap a point for you because you as UKF push the UC+Sapper combo, there will be a gap in his front line where he is down one squad to his opponent. There is definitely an advantage in good coordination, but again: prove how this is game breaking, how Axis have a hard time to recover from that. Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2022, 16:40 PMVipper Securing the fuel early is very important and it can in some cases decide the game especially vs OKW. Transports are like the M3 are used to get wipes in 1vs1 and not in order to cap the map. Your whole argumentation revolves around 1. aggressive sapper drops - a quick glance over the available counters will tell you that this is not a large issue 2. UKF being able to have more units on the field for about 30 seconds and therefore being able to take a fuel point first. Arriving 10-20 seconds earlier to a any point does not decide the game. If it does, there is a huge skill gap. If that were the case, Ostheer should win way more often, since pios+MG beat almost any combo of pio+mainline with somewhat competent players. Especially in larger modes where flanking is hard. OKW can generate a similar combo stock by building Volks+Kubel. But they don't. They might lock down the sector first, but the game is too much back and forth and will always be in even games. All this while there is so much speaking against it being OP. There is no point to make here, you make claims and don't back them up with tests, and the reasoning provided is fairly weak. I even just tested it: On Whiteball, rushing fuel, OKW's SP arrives there at 1:05, the first Volk about 20 seconds later, the Kubel arrives at 1:35. Trying the same thing with the allegedly problematic UKF strat, first IS arrives 1:05 (no surprise), while the Sapper+UC combo arrives at 1:32. Now, Whiteball is not the largest map available, but it shows the scale of the "problem": You're arriving maybe 10 seconds later than the UKF player. You've not shown in any way how this is problematic. If it were, games would be decided by the first engagement only. In: Lobby
Thread: Royal engineer Recovery Squad26 Apr 2022, 16:25 PM Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2022, 15:40 PMVipper Other transporter are not really relevant as I hope already pointed out. Once more "Have you see the UC ASIS combo?" in mode larger than 1vs1? No, I have not seen that combo regularly, nor in the recent weeks. Why? Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2022, 15:40 PMVipper Since neither you nor I have access to how often is being used it is not important. And I have already point out in other threads that the correlation of something being op and something being used often is no not simple as that. The point is that if something seems to be barely used at all, then you need to make a really good case why it is OP. Strong units get used more frequently than weak ones, that's pretty much a fact. We're on page 4 and you have no strong arguments why this combo were so problematic. Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2022, 15:40 PMVipper How fast one can get hit troops on fuel or other important point for the initial fight is a an important factor in game. No one invests 500 MP for the first 20 seconds of the game if it also means not capping any other point at all. This combo needs to continuously pay off to be viable. As I pointed out, both Axis factions have the necessary counters. The game is not decided by the first engagement. Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2022, 15:40 PMVipper The importance increases with the distance one has to travel. Which is why transports and lighter vehicles in general are more important in smaller modes, since a single player covers a larger area of the map. In: Lobby
Thread: Royal engineer Recovery Squad26 Apr 2022, 15:20 PM Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2022, 14:39 PMVipper The WC51 analogy is and cav rifles is simply not relevant. Actually the reason why Cav rifles are CP 1 and not CP 0 like ASIS is because the combo of minute 0 WC51 and Cav riflemen would be broken. You can see it too by the link I provided so there is no "maybe" here ... Once more I have not claimed that this tactic is very common so I have no idea why some people are fixating on how often it is being used. Have you see the UC ASIS combo? if you have why do you bring up irrelevant thing like M3A3 and WC51 I pointed it out because you wrote this: ...transporting troops works much better in larger modes and maps where it enables to concentrate units faster. to claim that this topic is more relevant to team games. I replied that I barely see transports for transporting troops in 2v2 and 3v3, whereas I remember it being used extensively in 1v1 tourneys, as well as other points I made. The UC - as a transporter - is still not "much better in larger modes". Not to my knowledge, not to my experience. On some huge maps like general mud, I could imagine a niche but that's a niche function and micro intensive. How often it is being used is important. If it were OP, you'd see it regularly. So, if the tactic is not OP, this leaves the question if there is any other larger design issue with it. The recovery sappers are coming a bit earlier to the frontline than originally intended. Minor point, but no real issue. Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2022, 14:39 PMVipper Point was that distance is a factor contrary to your claim. Do we agree that distance is factor? If you already focus on single words and exact phrasing, then don't make up that I claimed that "distance was not a factor". Anyway, I have no idea what you define as a "factor". A factor for synergy and getting more out of your Sappers? Yes. A factor for making this strat OP? Nope, because it is not. It still does not show how this combo is problematic because they can push you off the map easily, which was the whole reason you started this thread. It enables UKF an aggressive start, definitely. Still, that is not a problem at all. In: Lobby
Thread: Royal engineer Recovery Squad26 Apr 2022, 14:19 PM Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2022, 12:10 PMVipper Not really the Jeep donated to UKF was completely broken in larger modes and was part of the reason why it lost its crew. Maybe someone else can chip in. I cannot recall seeing the Jeep being abused in 3v3. The reason why it lost its crew is also a different one. My point still stands: The WC51 can transport units, it even comes with close range cav rifles. Outside of 1v1 streams and tourneys, I have not seen this being used/abused. Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2022, 12:10 PMVipper The m3a3 is used in 3vs3 and 4v4 and there are player who even spam them but it not really relevant to UC and SMG troops case. A UKC player can have move his IS produce the UC and call in the RoRE(or ASIS) and concentrate those units. Distance is a factor in this case because the transport allows RoRe do arrive earlier that they could if they where moving on foot and partially negates the effect of starting on CD. Maybe you have seen some players use it. I have been playing CoH2 as one of my major games for the last 4,5 years, and I have not seen any transport + CQC cheese at noticable level in 3v3 and 2v2 apart from >occasional< uses of the M3 back when Penals where the way to go for Soviets. The UC+Sapper combo that you describe I have seen exactly once this patch. Judging by what other users write, I am not alone in this assessment. Apart from some people trying to have fun or just trying to cheese, this strategy is rarely being used, nor is it viable or problematic. Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2022, 12:10 PMVipper A UKC player can have move his IS produce the UC and call in the RoRE(or ASIS) and concentrate those units. Distance is a factor in this case because the transport allows RoRe do arrive earlier that they could if they where moving on foot and partially negates the effect of starting on CD. So why should he not? Commanders allow for different openings, that's a good thing. Winning the first fight is important, but nothing game breaking or unrecoverable. Transporting troops to arrive earlier on the front lines is, well, exactly what transporters are meant to do. There is nothing to prove that those 10-20 seconds you save on that specific combo are wildly problematic. In: Lobby
Thread: Royal engineer Recovery Squad26 Apr 2022, 11:51 AM Jump back to quoted post26 Apr 2022, 10:14 AMVipper ...transporting troops works much better in larger modes and maps where it enables to concentrate units faster. Definitely not. Transporters like USF's Jeep, and the M3 have been an issue only 1v1. I mainly play 2v2 and 3v3 and even before the nerf of transported troops they were rarely used. Singling out units is the most important thing with this strategy, and this is way easier in 1v1. Also the impact of the won engagement is much higher, since it will secure you probably two territory points, maybe even more. In larger modes, this won engagement might not even win you a single point. In: Lobby
Thread: Royal engineer Recovery Squad26 Apr 2022, 11:43 AM Jump back to quoted post25 Apr 2022, 20:41 PMVipper This issue has more to do with timing and less with power. The RoRe are OP for an engineer unit (especially with heavy sapper upgrade) but that is not the issue. It issue has to with timing and with initial contact. Ostheer while more vulnerable to it has all the tools it needs to counter that combo. Early Fausts, a 5 minute 222. You could even build early PGrens within ~3 min to negate the Sappers. You might be on the defensive for the first couple of minutes, the first two of which are mostly capping the map anyway. The combo works for maybe 3 assaults if everything works out well before counters arrive. There is nothing game breaking, it is fully okay to be expected to defend for a short time. OKW has slightly more limited options, but on the other hand they are a more mobile army and less vulnerable to those pushes. They have SPs from the very start, Fausts at a decent timing, STGs soon after. You could even tech a PSchreck if necessary. The Sapper+UC combo also has a very limited window of opportunity. As I said, there is not enough wiping power to actually wipe a squad and/or steal an MG. I cannot see how the impact of this combo is so huge that it needs to be looked at. It's a different, more aggressive start for UKF for sure, but not a game breaking one. In: Lobby