Some stats are simply oversight...
Stuka rocket penetration of 0
FF mid range of 45
Sniper HP 82
HVAP deflection damage
ISU-152 skill deflection damage
KV-2 minimum range
Churchill's acceleration/rotation
PzIV J XP and rear armor values
Stuka penetration has been fixed a couple of patches ago.
I won't debate these to not go off topic. But these stats are slightly different. Most of these are directly visible and directly impact the performance of a unit in an obvious, visual, sometimes even quantifiable way.
This minimum distance that MMX was talking about looks more like some odd fix to something the engine could not handle properly, or that Relic did not figure out to handle otherwise.
But I agree that, if there are even "obvious" stats that got forgotten, it is likely that "hidden" stats got forgotten even more often. |
Yeah the normal accuracy hits seem to always hit the front part if the targeted tank faces even just a bit forward (i.e between +89 and -89°) and vice versa for rear armor shots. Not sure what would happen if you hit exactly 90° side-on though, that would probably be worth to test. Also, for scatter shots to show this weird behavior you have to always fire at least some distance behind the target. The exact extent you need to overshoot seems to correlate with the distance scatter of the weapon; if some part of the scatter cone lies inside the hitbox of the target the whole thing doesn't work and you get a frontal hit instead (and not only sometimes, like if a shot would scatter too short to make it out of the tank's hitbox, but apparently it never at all). Hence why, even if you somehow managed to fail the accuracy roll of a regular attack at point blank, the scatter shot wouldn't phase through the front border of the hitbox.
That makes me think this is indeed some buggy and unintended interaction, and I've got no idea why it is even in the game. Maybe a remnant of some obscure bugfix in the very early days of CoH2's development that never got deleted? Hard to say for sure.
The editor description states that "distance_scatter_obj_hit_min" cannot exceed 10 m, yet for practically all weapons this is set to 10 by default. So whatever purpose it might have originally had to tweak this value, it seems pretty much redundant now.
Then again, it opens the door for shenanigans such as this, so there is certainly a purpose nonetheless 
To be honest I believe this might have just been a quick and dirty fix for collision detection problems. Maybe even for an early, buggier version of the engine, but maybe it is still kind of "necessary". I don't know how large Relic was at the time, but there were probably multiple developers fiddling with the system at the same time. Might very well be that one "fixed" some issues with this one, then it got forgotten and/or no one tested if it could be safely removed.
As Vipper suggested, it might also prohibit vehicles from damaging themselves, although this could be set with other parameters. I also don't fully know where the projectiles spawn. If they spawn within the vehicle's hitbox, it might be to prevent instant detonation. Might still have been for an earlier engine version though, since shots phase through friendly tanks anyway now.
Just like you, I also noticed that a tiny angle change from 89° to 91° will fully decide about frontal and rear armor hits. Accuracy hits seem to always travel in a straight line, but I have only tested for stationary targets. Not sure what happens if the target moves. Weirdly, this might lead to tanks with high frontal armor, large target size and large hit boxes like the e.g. Elefant, IS2 and KT to perform better against ATGs, because shots will always hit, and thereby always hit the front armor, even if you attack from an angle. Technically, a low accuracy unit with very low scatter would perform better, since it has the chance to scatter hit the rear.
Anyway, that's a very nice find you got there, albeit an odd one. |
|
This is cheesing the game engine on a whole new level.
I only had time for a quick read so I might have missed it:
Why is it important to ground attack? Do normal "accuracy" shots behave differently? I know they often ignore world objects, but to they always impact on the frontal armor then?
Also, do you have any idea why it exists? Would Coh2 really be THAT buggy if shots didn't phase through for a couple of meters. If so, why is it shorter for only a hand full of units?
Or is this just a weird remnant of a CoH developer entering a random value because he forgot that the SOP said "10"... |
...
Alright, for this I can see the point.
However, if you want to compare the 105mm and the Brummbar regarding survivability at vet, don't forget that the 105mm also gets 160 HP more. Higher survivability with vet is not a specialty of the Brummbar in this case |
Its because the unit is more balanced on 1vs1 you don't see it often. You don't primarily play with units that are balanced but those very good close to overpowered. Otherwise we wouldn't have see such sudden interest to use the Sturmtiger during 6 months until you finally made it balanced.
Conversely, just because a unit is used does not mean it is overpowered. Casemates are rarely used in 1v1 because mobility and flanking is more important. Second, Ostheer needs to tech into T3 because their P4 is very, very good and they'd otherwise break under the medium armor pressure. Staying in T3 is just more cost effective than going up to T4.
You also shouldn't forget though that team games favor beefy units which the Brummbar certainly is. As Ostheer, your option is the PWerfer (which we also regularly see) and the Ostwind. The Ostwind doesn't perform as well though since it needs more time to deal its damage, which you don't have due to higher unit and AT concentration.
Given that your OKW team mate can provide rocket arty, but not a Brummbar, it makes more sense as Ostheer to go for Brummbars than PWerfers. |
|
I'd say Soviet T2 build is similarly easy to learn. Late game vehicles are surely easier to use as OKW though, especially in team games. |
Probably sturmpanther played OST and the brummbar didn't bounce 10 shots against a wall of AT guns so they decided "you know, brummbar is UP now"
Brummbar is not OP at the moment, nor is it UP but it's survivability and target size are laughable.
I mean, Jackson has a target size of 24, meaning you can dive it and shoot it on the move. Brummbar, being a fu**ton larger vehicle has a TS of 22, with 260+ armour, ton of HP and not bad mobility considering how heavy/turret-less it is. Heck, it can backpedal faster with the engine damage than infantry can run. At vet3 it has 6.8 max speed, more than Jackson, and closely the same amount as the M10 TD at vet1 (and same target size as the small tiny M10 TD).
So what's your suggestion then?
Make if more fragile but buff its damage?
Your arguments are fairly incoherent. The target size difference is small to almost negligible for shooting on the move. SOV and UKF have a 0.5 moving modifier, so the actual difference is effectively 1 target size.
Also the "small tiny M10" is actually not that small, I don't know where you get that from. |
|
I never said anything about the very vague term of 'impactfulness', nor did I compare the 222 to the T70. Please don't make stuff up that I have not said
I am also not the oracle of CoH2, my opinion is not worth more than any random Joe's opinion.
And most of all, please all go back to topic, this topic is actually about OP claiming some Ostheer units need more accuracy. It is okay and normal to deviate from the main topic over time, but the 'impactfulness' of the 222 and T70 have nothing to do with the topic and this side discussion is dragging on a bit too long.
If you want to discuss that, go to PMs or a different thread. |
Imo 105 mm is pretty susceptible to both mediums (P4s) and AT guns, but Sturmpanzer is a good spot right now, maybe too good to someone's liking.
Also 105mm it is in a tricky spot, because HE sherman is that good, while being more diverse.
Overall I agree.
The Brummbar is in pretty much a perfect spot both for OST as well as for Allies as long as they have a TD. The only issue I'd have design wise is that you are a bit too vulnerable if you lose your TD. It's expensive enough that you can expect the Allied player to have a tank on the field, but also cheap enough that you can't really expect the Allied player to invest in more than one vehicle or more than one dedicated TD for it. If that TD is gone and you can't rebuy quickly, it's almost game.
The position of the 105mm within USF is obviously worse, but probably also a different topic. I'd not call it "pretty" susceptible (pen chance is ~55% at mid-long range, accuracy not included) but still worse than the Brummbar. I think what holds it back apart from the commander is also the existance of the StuG as well as the PaK stun shot on Ostheer. The StuG is such a cheap counter to the 105mm it's not really worth taking it against Ostheer. |
Agreed. Hence why I have been advocating for target tables even if basic ones for units like this. We could maintain current survival rates vs ATGs while being able to be countered by tanks without needing 3-4 Tank Destroyers to ensure a kill.
To be honest I am not a huge fan of target tables. They convolute how units interact. Even if there were some kind of in-game encyclopedia, you can't expect players to read all the pages for each unit and put all the stats into context. But that is another discussion, so I'll leave it at that.
Regarding the Brumm/105mm: We could probably achieve something very similar by slightly nerfing the mobility. An ATG won't outrun it anyway even if it survives. It would make it weaker vs mostly vehicles, and mediums would have a better chance to flank or counter push.
I think there is enough space within the CoH2 engine to achieve this without a target table.
Out of interest though: What modifier would you give? |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
