Profile of Hannibal

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 3117 | Subs: 2

General Information


Thread: HM-38 120mm Mortar Squad is OP5 Oct 2021, 16:30 PM I think in general it is fine. I found it sometimes hard to catch when retreating. It has one model less than the normal Soviet mortar to compensate that it also needs one crew member less to operate. I think the "issue", if there is one, would be that the additional range for the barrage allows you to put it into a safer spot, making it harder for tanks and infantry to properly counter push. Again, IF there really is an issue, I'd suggest a slight RA nerf for the crew. This means that a Soviet player with good micro won't feel a big difference, but also that good infantry pushes to the mortar get rewarded more regularly. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: MG Deployment Bug/Issue?4 Oct 2021, 07:14 AM I had issues when my mouse broke and it regularly restired one right click as two. But if you say ATGs are okay that's probably not the issue then. I think I sometimes saw the MG not setting up, but I usually attributed that to be a mistake of mine. But surely it does not happen as frequently as for you In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: JP4 performance3 Oct 2021, 12:08 PM Oh boy. Away for a good day and your thread develops like that... Anyway, to get this back to topic. The JP4 100% pens all Allied stock vehicles. The only exceptions are the Churchill, against which it still performs well regarding pure DPS output compared to the Panther, and the Comet, against which it can still perform okay albeit unreliable, which makes the JP4 a subpar choice compared to the Panther against Comets. These two vehicles are mutually exclusive within the same faction and don't forget: Brits are only one out of 3 Allied factions. The next weakness are heavy tanks. Here the JP4 does a mediocre job. What it lacks compared to the Panther is stopping power and reliability. DPS wise it actually does similar or to better than the Panther vs all targets. Since the Panther can get rear shots more easily, I'll give it an edge vs heavier targets. Remember that those heavies are doctrine dependent and you'll often get a clue beforehand if your opponent can field a heavy or not. Even if you have issues against a heavy, OKW can build its own (expensive) KT, which syngergizes perfectly with the JP4. Now comes the catch: Even the vehicles the JP4 is "bad" against cannot really threaten it. Heavies are too slow to chase it, Churchill has neither speed nor penetration, mediums have speed but no penetration. Their only chance is to get rear shots, which is the weakness of all casemates and not specific to the JP4 despite lower mobility. With the vet2 +160 HP bonus, killing it becomes even harder. The JP4 then counters Allies' biggest strength: Their access to 60 range TDs to chip away Axis armor from afar. The JP4 counters all of them with ease. That's why it synergizes so well with the KT and Tiger. Against it I see only one real option: You need a deep dive. In this dive you'll probably lose at least one medium for it unless the OKW player has not set up any defense. Worst case scenario, you trade down about 25 fuel and a bit of MP. But you have a very good chance of trading up, especially if you planted 1-2 mines on the most obvious paths. After vet2, you'll probably not lose your JP4 and even if, it is hard to trade down. Now, to end this: The reason I think the JP4 is not used as often is that your first vehicle is usually the P4. Afterwards, the Panther synergizes better with the mobility of the P4 to create pushes together. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Design: Ballistic weapons1 Oct 2021, 16:47 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Oct 2021, 15:33 PMVipper Target tables are already an existing system even in COH2: Brumbar ST AVRE Luch PTRS Bazooka Shreck Piat Satchel AT satchel Land mattress Tullip all use target table just to name few. Most of the current target tables are either regarding snipers or emplacements. Or, in the case of handheld AT, infantry because the span of target sizes has not been used properly. As you mention, they are mostly there to solve specific issues, but often do not make sense. Jump back to quoted post1 Oct 2021, 15:33 PMVipper The problem with current implementation of HVAP M93 Shells or HEAT shell is that they are better shell regardless of target and not against specific targets. One can combine the target tables with abilities explaining that the specific round is specifically design vs super heavy tank. I am not talking about any specific ability in CoH2. It was a very general point it is possible to give both shells a proper role. Jump back to quoted post1 Oct 2021, 15:33 PMVipper Target tables got a bad name due to COH1 where units of the same type like infatry used different types of "armor" and thus where extremely durable vs certain weapons and very weak vs others. The system was confusing and made little sense and one had to know what work against what. We are talking about something completely different. Grouping weapon and targets in a way that makes sense will help player and developers. In the end of the day it does not matter how many units have modifiers as long as the system has clear rules that are easy to understand and make sense. Again: grouping units and using target tables can work for gameplay. It will not explain why the same shell performs differently against two targets when it should logically do the same. Jump back to quoted post1 Oct 2021, 15:33 PMVipper Because it designed as a hard counter to Super heavies. The system of lower ROF was tested in COH2 and was partially removed for units like the M36. Imo it is pretty easy to explain to player that a certain unit is designed specifically to counter super heavies and it much more disable than a unit that counter everything from kubel to KT with the same ease. And why should this be impossible with properly designing unit stats? We get a new game with CoH3, it is not like we would need to build on some of the rubble that CoH2 is at times. CoH3 can get fresh start. Jump back to quoted post1 Oct 2021, 15:33 PMVipper Only it's performance should not be consistent against all target because that make other units obsolete. Why would one bother to build a SU-76 that can not fight heavily armored target when a SU-85 can fight both medium and heavily armored units better? Imo target tables is not the cause of a problem but the solution in better designing rock/paper/scissor units and it is being implemented in number of other games. Problem starts when one uses target tables but creates that is inconstant and "illogical" and creates unique solution for similar issues. Actually this happens also to be the case in CoH2 but thankfully in small degree (and same uses of target tables do not make sense). Again, I am not talking about 'same performance against all units'. I am talking about getting a consistent outcome for the same actions. It is not consistent at all if both my medium/light TD and heavy TD need 3 shots to kill a LV, but the medium/light TD needs 6 for a heavy while the heavy TD also only needs 3 for a heavy (numbers made up obviously). It is much more logical to give the light TD a lower pen chance. I won't go into details regarding the SUs since I made general points. But you mention another important topic: LVs in CoH2 don't scale. At all. This is something that Relic will hopefully solve as they promised, as this created the need to make the last tier units jack of all trades. Overall I am slightly concerned about Relics new unit diversity in general. They introduce so many more different units, yet the scope of the game does not become larger. This forces units into becoming good against everything, because otherwise it is too easy to 'mis-tech' or counter certain builds if the units are too specialized. In: COH3 Central
Thread: Design: Ballistic weapons1 Oct 2021, 15:01 PM My point was and is that it is generally better to use already existing systems. Changing normal stats, abilities like switchable shells and abilities in general that for stat reasons work better on certain targets. These are all logically and intuitively clear to the player. While target tables can work on a gameplay level, they are often forgotten down the line during balance. Although you want to use them rarely, the way put it makes me think they will be used more frequently than you probably think. Heavy TDs get bonusses vs heavies, a logical extension will be AI specialists getting negative modifiers for vehicles or positive ones for infantry. Basically most specialists could get a modifier to reinforce their role. That might be a decent chunk of the units in the game getting modifiers. This can make it quite obscure how some units function. Why does my heavy TD a lot of damage to heavies, but not so much to mediums? Gameplay wise this might be quite desirable, but it does not communicate well to someone not digging stats. It is easier to understand if either the unit itself is designed for a slow ROF with high penetration or if I can force this via abilities. The former makes it consistent vs all targets, the latter gives the player a logical reason why the unit suddenly behaves differently: Because - simply put - he pressed a button to make the unit do that. But target tables don't. They just force different outcomes for the same event. That's why my whole point so far is to not use them unless there is no other option or an actual logical and obvious reason for it, such as damage vs buildings/emplacements. In: COH3 Central
Thread: Design: Ballistic weapons1 Oct 2021, 12:26 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Oct 2021, 12:16 PMVipper ATGs 160 when firing on building and mortar does 80. For emplacements I already agreed to modifiers since the engine is not made to handle how some weapons might behave in enclosed spaces, making special modifiers a good way to simulate that. However in your OP, your were talking about extra damage to vehicles. Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2021, 10:56 AMVipper The damage of ballistic weapon could be set to 80 and have the extra damage done vs vehicles only. That would allow smoother AOE profiles vs soft target. And your suggestion does not help here. Especially since this could already be done by the current system without any target tables. In: COH3 Central
Thread: Design: Ballistic weapons1 Oct 2021, 11:46 AM Jump back to quoted post1 Oct 2021, 10:57 AMVipper The proposed change is to create more dynamic play between vehicles. The current system where unit like M36 can kite from max range without very down sides vs most vehicles is rather boring. Yes, the issue is there are not that many variables to achieve that that intuitively make sense. Reloading always takes a similar amount of time, the only thing is aiming, which increases for all vehicles the farther away the target is. Jump back to quoted post1 Oct 2021, 10:57 AMVipper In real life some time it does. For instance a hollow shaped charge will do less damage to open top vehicle while a SABOT can do less damage to this armored vehicle since it can go in and out on the other side instead of bouncing inside the vehicle. But again this has to the interaction of units: As an extreme example if one doubles the damage and the ROF of the SU-85 vs Super and keep the damage the same vs all other vehicles the SU-85 remains as effective as it currently is vs Super heavies but half as effective vs medium and that creates room for the SU-76. I one is facing medium one uses the SU-76, is one faces super heavies one uses the SU-85. Again, this should be addressed by properly adjusting target sizes and accuracy values. On top of that I'd like to have a modifier for moving targets, since those are harder to hit than a static one. I think both of these could already do a great step towards making LVs viable late game. I also assume that the side armor of CoH3 will help quite a lot towards that, since it will create more room for flanking without needing to often over-commit like in CoH2. Jump back to quoted post1 Oct 2021, 10:57 AMVipper There are some reason: ballistic weapon damage vs infatry is "balance" by scatter but there are cases that shot do "scatter" normally but collide with world object and that make these shots have very high wipe potential. From a realism point of view there is very little reason that 75mm tank shell would do more damage that 83mm mortar (or even 120mm) round. And there are also other target like buildings there is very little reason why a ATG should do double damage to building than a mortar and making indirect fire weapon better than ballistic weapon vs certain target can create reason to build them without having to be OP vs infantry. What does this have to do with your 80+80 suggestion? In: COH3 Central
Thread: Design: Ballistic weapons1 Oct 2021, 08:46 AM Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2021, 16:46 PMVipper Not really most ballistic weapon have rather linear DPS curve with a few exception mainly Puma and M10 if I remember correctly. Even those units do not get ROF thou. Now imagine if a unit like the Elephant got longer reload the close one got (LMG profile) and unit like M10 got faster ROF when closing in. The only thing that would make intuitively sense to alter the ROF would be aim time, but then the question comes up if this difference should really be THAT large. Logically all vehicles would aim longer the farther away the target is. "LMG profiles" on ballistic weapons do not make sense. The reason why this works for current CoH2 LMGs is to simulate the "clunkyness" of the weapon, which for vehicles is already captured in speed, acceleration and turn rate. Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2021, 16:46 PMVipper There is room for more diversity. Currently there is little difference the behavior AP and HAVP for M36 only better accuracy/penetration. There are many thing one could do with the different types of munition while adding a layer of realism. Yes, to this one I agree. Some of these abilities need larger differences to tell them apart. Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2021, 16:46 PMVipper As I said the use should be kept to minimum and in categories but on the other hand it is great way add utility to units. One could create different categories with certain bonuses. For instance indirect fire weapon could do extra damage to building or "heavy TDs" could do extra damage to Super heavies. I do not think that it would really complicated if most ballistic AT weapon did 80+80 damage vs vehicles This part was a general agreement with you. However I'd like to get rid of target tables in most of the tank and infantry combat. I assume most issues could be solved by either switchable rounds or some other type of ability. Only specialized weapons like flame throwers or explosive charges could get some modifiers for example against emplacements. In these cases it also makes more intuitive sense since e.g. explosives work differently in rather enclosed areas than in open field. The engine can't simulate that unless there will be special modifiers added. The round of a heavy TD does not suddenly get stronger because it hits a heavier target. I'd rather not have stuff like this in there. I also see no big benefit in the 80+80 suggestion. The AoE against infantry would only be smoother in few cases where the base damage of the weapon is super high. But even explosives like the satchel or the ISU152 don't have huge issues that could not be fixed by normal tweaking of the current AoE values. The current system is fully capable of doing all of this already, in some cases already better. If you want an AoE profile with OHK radius but steep drop off after OHK and low but long range far AoE, you actually have more freedom with the current system. The near AoE distance stat can both define your OHK radius as well as the next starting point below 80 HP if you want that, from which you can define better steps for mid and long range AoE. Your 80+80 would already define the near AoE distance (=killing radius), everything just outside of the OHK radius gets close to 80 damage. If you want a steeper AoE curve, you're already forces to have a mid AoE distance that is fairly close to the near AoE distance, just to get that quick damage drop off. Which leaves you only with two further distances to define the rest of your curve instead of 3. But even if you still want that 80+80 so much, there is no need for target tables. Just set near AoE damage modifier to 0.5 and you effectively have you 80+80 already. In: COH3 Central
Thread: JP4 performance30 Sep 2021, 16:25 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Sep 2021, 15:52 PMSander93 Turning counts as moving, that is why they miss so often after turning to face a target because the gun (using gun traverse) already acquires the target and fires before the hull comes to a stop. It's less noticeable on the SU-85 because it has low scatter. JP4 is horrible though because it has high scatter. Miragefla tried a bunch of fixes but nothing was really satisfying. The SU-76 got 0.75 moving accuracy to partially remedy this, but that would've been too much of a buff to the others. Thanks for the info. I'll try if the fire aim time increase could work out overall. Technically, the JP4 should rotate 5° within 0.25 secs, which should match the fire cone angle. Technically, it should stop turning at this point. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Design: Small arm fire 30 Sep 2021, 16:06 PM Regarding DPS: I'd also like to have a "proficiency" value for each squad that scales the damage of the weapons in this squad. Conscripts with a picked up MG should be worse than Obers with a picked up MG since they do not have as much training. This could fix different implementations for the same weapon in game as well as special modifiers for picked up weapons like Osttruppen have. Technically, you could further complicate this by increasing the proficiency value the longer the squad uses its weapons, but this would probably be too much for a game like CoH. In: COH3 Central