Profile of Pip

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 1594

General Information


Thread: Penals, the Elephant in the room8 Dec 2020, 21:57 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 20:10 PMelchino7 snip PF in team games: I think that would depend on the strength of the players you're fighting. PF are undeniably weaker combatants, and less cost-efficient, and less able to contribute to fights early, so you run the risk of being overrun by your opponents. Going full ~~retard~~ Panzerfusilier is not necessarily going to be as detrimental as in 1v1s and 2v2s though, i agree. Another reason "PF clone" is absolutely not what I'm suggesting, they're merely the most obviously "Alternate, similar role mainline infantry" to illustrate a point. Regarding Design Space: Again, I'm not suggesting they follow the approach of PF, being weaker and more expensive, but scaling far better than Volks. I'm suggesting they be the same price as Conscripts, (+ - ~10mp) and simply offer a different type of mainline infantry in some way. Ideally they'd both come from tier 0 in this concept version of CoH2, which would obviate issues posed by an "alternative mainline" requiring a special building. The exact nature of their being "Different" would likely require a fair amount of experimentation and design work, and admittedly it's very unlikely to happen, but I think at the very least it's an interesting thought experiment, right? I think there's definitely design space available to implement something like this. It just depends on what it entails, precisely. Slightly unrelated: But on their own I definitely agree that """Combat""" Engineers are the weakest starting unit, but when combined with a merging squad and Flamethrowers they can arguably be one of the best in some circumstances. Regarding reworked Penals: Yeah, I've never thought the idea of balancing an unit around its veterancy was a good idea, especially not for Infantry. Despite the game being about unit preservation, losing units does happen even to the best players, and having to rebuild an unit that only becomes usable at vet is a daunting prospect. 7man was a good move, even if it has some teething problems. As i mentioned in a previous post I'd want Penals (In this rework concept) to benefit from "Mobilise Reserves" in a similar fashion to Conscripts do now, because I think non-weapon based unit upgrades are quite suitable for Soviet mainlines (And this would also help cement the "Alternative" idea, that all current conscript upgrades benefit "New Penals" in a similar way). Regarding the Balans™ team: You're likely right, but I think if it's done well a "major" rework like this might be easier and better for the game in the long run than fiddling about trying to fit square pegs into round holes. Hey, if I (or whoever) do[es] all the design/implementation work for them, they might at least entertain the idea, eh? I can't speak for them obviously, but I'd imagine the Balans™ team might be interested in a "big" change if it's A: Done well, and B: fixes issues... Assuming Lelic lets them, obviously. As I said before, I think it's a fun thought experiment even if it doesn't ultimately go anywhere, it's not as though theorising hurts anything. Regarding DLC and Balans™: Yeah, that was basically the impression I'd gotten so far, thank you for the history lesson, I'm genuinely always rather interested in how balance has progressed through COH2 (and any game's) life. Beyond patch notes it's not really terribly well documented, though, and patch notes don't quite give the whole story. Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 20:31 PMKatitof So you want to have cons split into 2 units. Yeah, no, that's never gonna happen and I can't stress how stupid the idea is. Why is it a stupid idea? The intention would be to provide two slightly more "specialised versions" of a core infantry squad, not to "split conscripts into two units"... at least the way I'm thinking about it. I'm not endorsing the exact approach Vipper is suggesting, regarding taking tools from Cons and giving them to Penals, but I am behind making Penals a viable "Alternative conscript squad" rather than what they are currently. I really don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the idea, unlike other suggestions I've seen made on the forum. In: Lobby
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback8 Dec 2020, 21:18 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 21:06 PMgbem Point is 7 man doesnt come too early since equivalent weapon upgrades come much sooner... and Ostruppen arent a core mainline... conscripts grens vg is and rifles are core mainlines Lastly do note that sov t4 and ost t4 take around the same cost to rush ( without buildings for ost or sidetechs for sov) and realistically comes out at around the same time aswell You didn't say "Core" mainline, you just said "Mainline". Ostruppen are absolutely "Mainline" infantry, they largely replace Grenadiers when they're used. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] USF Feedback8 Dec 2020, 21:16 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 19:45 PMJon2020 Major artillery produces a flare, alerting the enemy to the oncoming barrage. Walking Stukas and Panzerwerfers do not, and you know this very well. I spread my forces out as much as possible against OKW players - I'm not stupid. But the span of the Stuka strike is wide, and there are multiple bombs that can hit multiple squads. And if you water your force concentration down too low in an area, do you really control it? As for your comments about the LEIG, as I said - if you want to weaken the Pack Howitzer, let's say, to the LEIG level, then the pricetag should come down as well. Problem solved. Furthermore, the White Phosphorous doesn't come until Vet 1. When it comes to the Pack Howitzer, you're wrong about it not requiring fuel. You have to pay fuel to unlock the Pack Howitzer in the first place. And, in any case, it cannot be driven away in a hurry like the Panzerwerfer or Walking Stuka - so why would it cost fuel? The Pack Howitzer doesn't have an engine. You're making my point for me. Again, the USF has no non-doctrinal rocket artillery. The only non-doctrinal artillery the USF has is the Pack Howitzer and the M8A1 Scott. And now they're both being substantially weakened. Do you understand how that might be a problem in team games? Which part of my argument is ludicrous? The part where I'm factually pointing out that the US has no non-doctrinal rocket artillery, but has some weaker weapons, the Pack Howitzer and the M8A1 Scott, which are now being significantly weakened? P.S. You dodged my question about adding non-doctrinal rocket artillery to the US faction to balance its late-game feasibility in team matches. Do you think that would be fair? You're right, Major Artillery does produce a red flare, just like UKF base howitzer calldowns, which was the unit that sentence was talking about (Hence it referencing "UKF base artillery" and not mentioning the Stuka or Panzerwerfer.) I'm not sure why you decided to talk about the Pwerfer and Stuka here. The span of a Stuka strike is "Wide", yes, but it is also very thin. If you move your units five meters you go from "Dead" to "Hasn't been touched". If you are losing multiple infantry squads to the Stuka you are playing incorrectly. If your units aren't sitting in a straight line more than two simply will never be hit, incidentally. There is a difference between "Force concentration" and "Blobbing". If the Pack Howitzer was the same strength as the LeIG then yes, it probably should cost the same. The Pack Howitzer is stronger than the LeIG though, so i'm uncertain what the point of asking that is. You'll be losing 20 range, a significant amount of AOE, and both the HEAT shells and White Phosphorous though, so I guess that's your call. You also have to pay fuel to unlock the Stuka, and in fact almost every unit in every army, excepting your starting ones. What you are doing, though, is looking at a fuel-costing unit and a non-fuel costing unit and expecting them to be comparable. You are also then looking at the Scott and comparing it to the Stuka despite their completely different roles, and the fact the Scott is significantly cheaper. It is a "problem" if they're both weakened to the point they are not any good. That doesn't appear to have been the case. The fact you're comparing entirely dissimilar units is what's ludicrous. The Pack Howitzer and Scott are not the same thing as the Stuka, or any rocket artillery for that matter. Sure, have nondoc rocket artillery. Have something similar to a Panzerwerfer and give up your Scott and Pack Howitzer. I expect the rest of the USF roster will have to be adjusted accordingly. Oh, you'd have to lose the Priest as well, from doctrines, as well as the Calliope. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Penals, the Elephant in the room8 Dec 2020, 18:56 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 18:46 PMLady Xenarra Ahh right. Yeah I bought the game towards the end of 2014 and maxim spam was what ultimately finished my 1v1 career in this game lol. 6 man gren-likes! These crazy design decisions by Relic I'll never understand. It really is surprising how decent CoH2 is today, given Lelic's rather insane balancing decisions early in its life. It's certainly not perfect, but it's far better than anyone looking at the game in 2014 could have imagined it would ever be. Did all the "good" decisions come after handing development to the Community Balance team, or did Lelic decide to stop drinking mercury before then? In: Lobby
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback8 Dec 2020, 18:52 PM Honestly I'd have thought this "Raid" section idea would make more sense if the squad were given an SL with a Sten of some type (Thompson/STG-style "Assault rifle" rather than SMG profile) , rather than a scoped bolt action rifle. (Could even give them two, they'd be rather similar to (Although likely superior to) volks at that stage) It feels slightly schizophrenic to give the squad a capping bonus, and removal of their OOC penalty... while slightly improving their max range performance, and worsening their performance at closer range. Were I making changes I'd give the Scoped rifle to Pyro Sections, as other people have suggested, and the aformentioned Sten to "Raid Sections". It certainly "feels" more appropriate, but UKF do seem to have rather a plethora of SMG units already. (And specifically it feels like it might step on Assault Sections' toes a little, though obviously they're not quite the same) In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Penals, the Elephant in the room8 Dec 2020, 18:43 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 18:28 PMelchino7 In the current meta. Let me remind you not too long ago, when Ostwind was OP prior to nerfs, skipping T2 was the norm. 1- What you have in mind is a full rework of not only T1 but Conscripts as well as spreading different type of upgrades and grenades. If the whole plan is gonna be making Penals to be analog to PF, i'm saying that that design is not gonna work cause it was already implemented before. Yes, a full rework on many more units is gonna open more possibilities and might make this concept work, but i don't think a Conscript is open up for realistic debate. 2- It doesn't matter when you field the M3A1. You need 60 munition + been on your territory + the time to upgrade. You hit around 3:30, faster if you rush exclusively munitions but going T1 and building an M3 means lower territory capture. How long till a 222 arrives? This is expecting the best scenario of facing Assault Grens, cause Gren/Ostruppen openings nullifies it. Worst if you play team games. OKW can open or react with PF or plainly go for Flak HT. If you fail to wipe things up, you basically lost the game. Which opens the only alternative of playing risky with snipers and your only realistic option is getting a commander with the 45mm AT gun. But snipers don't accomplish much against all the meta units we have atm which are mobile in nature or have an increased number of models. 3- Be precise and realistic. What AT infantry, with which weapon upgrade. At the end of the day, this whole discussion and exchange of ideas just shows that Penals is not the Elephant in the room. I think when people are talking about Penals being reworked into a PF analogue, they're (Or at least I'm) not saying they should become PF (In that they start out semi-useless but outscale their counterpart massively/can be given Shrecks), but that they should be a similar type of unit to PF, a mainline infantry alternative that doesn't necessarily have to replace the "regular" mainline. In the same way that people (generally) will build PF as a supplement to Volks, rather than their entire infantry force being PF. When were Penals a PF analogue, exactly? Was this when they had the ability to upgrade with two Flamethrowers? I'm not disputing you, I'm just not sure to what you're referring. I agree that Penals aren't quite "The elephant in the room", but I do think they're an unit without a real place. Turning them from this strange "Semi-elite AI that can become a semi AT infantry" squad into a viable mainline alternative to Conscripts I think would be a good move, and would leave room for their replacement with a more focused squad in tier 1. Also, I'm not Vipper, but I'd suggested a more AT-focused Guards squad as "that AT infantry squad" One or more extra PTRS, Button, and/or some sort of anti-vehicle utility ability on top of this, but without DPs, and definitely without a real snare. Perhaps there are other options, the same concept of AT guards who instead of PTRS have Lend-lease Bazookas, or even Panzershrecks (Though Shrecks on a six man squad in a faction with merge is perhaps a bad idea). A third option might be to make the M42 nondoctrinal and put it in tier 1, but that would be rather redundant, and I don't think it's such a fantastic idea. In: Lobby
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] OST Feedback8 Dec 2020, 18:29 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 18:16 PMWiderstreit Yep, that is the problem of Osttruppen. Without changing Grens and Osttruppen, the problem will not be fixed. Osttruppen have to become more expensive and buffed in ther def. task; Grens need to become more aggressive with e.g. a shock grenade. -> So Osttruppen + Grens work well, while Grens + PnzGren still stay attractive. Its not about making Osttruppen better, it is to give Osttruppen the chance to become better by price -> like I posted. If your goal is to have a squad who can assault while Osttruppen defend, you'll always be better off with Panzergrenadiers than with Grenadiers, I'm afraid. I'm just not sure if there's room for both Grens and Osttruppen in an Ostheer lineup if Grenadiers remain the same sort of unit as they are now. Even with a stun grenade they're not going to be terribly effective "Assault" infantry. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] USF Feedback8 Dec 2020, 18:21 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 17:31 PMJon2020 ...But it's alright for the Walking Stuka to come out at CP3 and wipe out defensive positions and multiple squads (Pack Howitzers included!) in a heartbeat, though, right? If the pack howitzer is receiving a ~33% AOE nerf, then its MP cost needs to be markedly reduced as well. Weakening its performance but leaving its cost at 340 makes no sense at all. A USF player might as well just go for some cheap mortars and skip the unit altogether, which is what Axis fans seem to want, and to whom they're being catered by the balance team. Again, a point which you completely dodged from prior posts is the fact that the USF has no strong non-doctrinal artillery like the Panzerwerfer, Katyusha, Walking Stuka, or UK Base Howitzers. The Pack Howitzer and the M8A1 Scott are all the non-doctrinal artillery a USF player has, and they were already weak options to begin with compared to said weapons. And yet, some people are still complaining about these weapons, while they busy themselves Stuka-ing Allied positions at CP3. Even if the Scott were as good as the Stuka, one can't even field it until the Major comes out. Meanwhile, the LEIG slaps mortars, MG's, and infantry around while costing just 30 MP more than a mortar. I find it really tiring to play with the same few USF commanders again and again, knowing that powerful non-doctrinal artillery options don't exist, and knowing that there is only 1 USF commander with a heavy tank (though it's got no more HP/armor than a Panther, and so isn't really a 'heavy' tank, anyway)... The USF will simply have to receive comparable non-doctrinal artillery to become competitive late in team games. Do you have any opposition to that, Pip? If you're counting UKF base artillery then you should be counting Major Artillery. The walking stuka isn't an analogue to the Pack Howitzer or Scott, it is strong against team weapons but not terribly strong vs infantry squads when compared to other rocket artillery due to it's accurate rocket impacts, if you're losing "multiple squads" to it then you are making a mistake. The LeIG is also an interesting comparison to the Pack Howitzer. It's accurate, and has 20 more range than a mortar, but it's AOE is very small when compared to similar weapons. The Pack Howitzer in comparison, has another 20 range on top of that, possesses average damage (Which becomes ludicrously high with HEAT), ludicrously high AOE (Being toned down this patch, but it was more than double the LeIG's AOE if Stein's chart is to be believed) Oh, and it also has a White Phosphorous Barrage. The Pack, along with the Scott, give the USF powerful, long-ranged bleeding tools, that both have actual attacks when they aren't firing a barrage (unlike the Stuka, incidentally). Again, i'm not sure why you think they're an analogue to Rocket Artillery, though if you'd really like to make the comparison for some reason, the Pack Howitzer costs 50 less MP and doesn't cost any fuel. The Scott also costs 130 less manpower and 25 less fuel than the Stuka. The population (Pack 8, Scott 10, Stuka 12) are also rather different. The Calliope is doctrinal, but is arguably the strongest and least vulnerable rocket artillery in the game. You're welcome to use the USF mortar instead, if you do think that's somehow a comparable tool. I don't know where the Pack Howitzer stands in the USF arsenal at the moment, but you're making some pretty ludicrous arguments. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback8 Dec 2020, 17:28 PM If the 7man cons upgrade is somewhat difficult to place in the soviet tech tree, is there some reason it couldn't be split into multiple "levelled" upgrades, and spread out a little more across the tech tree? Ergo, after tier 3 you can allow Cons to upgrade to 7 men (or allow them to upgrade to have the reduced reinforcement cost) and then after tier four is constructed apply the remaining part of the upgrade (either behind a further research or immediately upon construction of tier 4)? That might help alleviate how spiky the upgrade is, while still allowing Conscripts (and Penals) to be improved somewhat in the midgame. Perhaps there is something I'm missing? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] OKW Feedback8 Dec 2020, 17:16 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2020, 16:45 PMSpoof Yeah, I have to agree with the last part. The ability to destroy abandoned team weapons and gather resources from it is very strong. The strength is mostly in the destruction of the weapon more than the resources gained from them, honestly. At least in my mind. In: COH2 Balance