I'm sure the laughable "competetive" scene is what keeps the game alive.
It sort of is, yes. Tournaments, no matter how small, provide a significant avenue to broadcast CoH2 to a wider audience, which provides: Funding for future tournaments (through advertisement revenue etc), more players for the game itself, and also shows lelic that the game is still played/has potential. This last point is the reason (I believe) that we are still getting any sort of balance changes, and is definitely the reason we might get a CoH3.
Regardless, all (good) games are balanced around the "competitive" modes and players, as they are the ones in which players use units and factions in the most effective and efficient manner. This is how you determine which units, factions, and strategies are over-performing, so as to balance them to be more fair.
It does not make sense to try and "balance" around the lowest common denominator of players, who simply are unable to make use of units/factions/strategies to their full effectiveness, which makes "balancing" around them a futile effort.
That said: Larger team modes in CoH2 do need some sort of "separate" balance pass done, not through unit statistics, but through unit caps/population changes, or resource changes. Their problems stem from critical mass issues/abundance of resources, not due to the strength/weakness of certain units/factions/strategies, generally.
(Some doctrines do need changing based on teamgames, however. Some, such as Jaeger Armour, or the ISU doctrine, are simply not used in 1v1s, but cause issues in the modes in which they ARE used. This is the exception.)
TL  R; Yes, the "Competitive" scene is what's keeping the game alive, even if it isnt large. |
I don't own nor will I ever probably own an Apple product.
However my father does own an older iPhone from around 2014 from which year I also have a Sony Xperia Z3.
The difference is that my phone has better specifications while his is more expensive, for some "unknown" reason.
Just the other day it's battery also died suddenly simply because it was a bit too cold for it while mine had no such problem, again both phones from around the same time, his being more expensive, mine being cheaper.
Plus as I said previously Apple forcing down software updates on their older products in order to make way for their new ones as you can see here: https://www.computerworld.com/article/3599141/apples-iphone-slowdown-ploy-was-ridiculous-even-by-apple-standards.html
I'm also not sure what you mean with breaking new grounds exactly when as far as I'm aware they're further back than Android phones in terms of features even but since it has more "prestige" to it loyal customers such as yourself I'm guessing keep buying into it thinking that they're superior while just simply paying more for what you'd get in another brand's phones but whatever.
Anyway back to the topic at hand, I believe that there's still a bit of room left to experiment and finally fix, improve or change the Sturmtiger as Olek has proven but it seems like both the developers and community team have given up so whatever is being written here is falling on deaf ears which comes as no surprise.
Personally, I do think the "best" solution to both the Sturmtiger and the AVRE is to make them similar to the Brummbar/105 Sherman. Doing so makes both significantly less cheesy, and significantly more universally useful... though obviously it does erode their uniqueness.
Brief summary of potential changes: larger AOE for both, lower damage to the point where they don't oneshot, faster refire cycle, quicker aim-time.
Perhaps it's worth considering, though from what Sanders has said; the Balance Team is reasonably happy with the Sturm and AVRE, so it's likely they'll remain pretty much as-is. It is a bit risky to make big changes to units without a strict need with such an uncertainty about future patches. |
What you think is more likely to happen?
Reworking vet ability that is already reworked on balance preview mod, or add another unit to the roster despite players asking for it and pointing out it being an issue since day 1 of the faction?
I'd certainly like to hope the latter, as Lelic's insistence of clinging to terrible design decisions hamstrings UKF balance. |
If you do not have tool A, tool B needs to cover for it and do more.
You know, like whole fucking brit roster.
Alternately: Perhaps the faction should simply get tool A. Trying to make tool B cover for A "and more" has been the cause of a lot of the headaches surrounding UKF balancing. |
Does smoke prevent planes from providing that LOS?
I believe so, but it requires that you fire the smoke well before the plane, or whatever else is providing LoS is nearby. It's not really a good defence.
Some offmaps are able to be targeted just outside of the blocked LOS and still kill the artillery piece anyway, so honestly smoke isnt much of a defence for the artillery piece. |
I like this idea. After all, mutually exclusive army upgrades were a British thing at release, so extending that idea to their one-off officer squad is actually quite clever!
I've made this suggestion before, though more along the lines of them beginning as a rifle squad, and being able to upgrade into the current SMG infantry, or a Light Infantry Squad, or a more specialised rifle squad with multiple section-buffing abilities (Mad Minute, defensive boosts etc). Expanding on that with the "Forward Observation Officer" does seem like a pretty good idea though, as Sapper has stated, it would mean it would be able to be stronger than is usual, due to being limited to only a single unit, and being exclusive with any other upgrades the Officer could take.
I still think the officer ought to be the UKF starting unit, by the way, particularly if it does become a rifle squad initially. |
The benifit in this case would be rapid reinforcement and manpower saved. It wouldn't always be applicable but there would be scenarios where having squads on the field with full models would be better than not. Grens are 30mp a head and most of their dps comes from the lmg42 so what models are standing around firing their rifles don't matter so much, especially behind cover. Combined with a halftrack or command bunker you could have a cost effective line holder for a Time
I like it because it has clear drawbacks-outside the defensive scenario mentioned, your squad is weakened. Assuming you can chose between the models you want to reinforce from it could have some use for sure.
While you are missing the imidiate reinforcement of merge you are saving like half the mp and time in reinforcement for grens alone. If allowed on something like pgrens you could end up with a nasty halftrack pshrek combo. Weaker but with its boons as well.
I like the idea because it's a choice based ability with a dynamic
The issue is that, although the other three Grenadier models don't contribute as much damage as the LMG gunner, you will be losing those models at a much faster rate. A four-man squad with poor survivability due to being reinforced with Ostruppen models is not survivable enough to make best use of its LMG's damage, even with the Grenadier RA and Damage reduction bonuses. You will be forced to retreat your Grenadiers much sooner, due to more rapid model losses, which will translate into inferior DPS overall... which is compounded by having to retreat even SOONER than that, as you will have less effective HP on retreat than is usual, meaning you cannot safely retreat at the same approximate HP as you usually would.
Command bunkers aren't often used by Ostheer, incidentally (Though this might change a little with the coming patch that makes Command and Healing bunker upgrades non-exclusive), and Halftracks usually have a very short window in which they reinforce, as most Ostheer players will be upgrading them immediately to FHTs due to Ostheer's strong desire for a shock-light-vehicle.
As mentioned before, the main benefit of Merge is not necessarily the lower reinforcement cost gained by replacing models with Conscripts, but instead the opportunity cost of being able to "instantly" reinforce in the field, effectively sacrificing a weaker squad's presence on the battlefield (The Conscripts) for allowing either a more immediately utilitarian unit (Team weapon), or a more deadly one (Guards, Penals) to stay on the field for much longer... or for consolidating models from multiple injured conscript squads into a smaller number of intact squads, reducing the number of squads that need to leave the field at once. The suggestion you're making really doesn't do any of these things. |
Well done, you just contradicted yourself. You yourself say it relies on luck and no, it doesn't do "fantastic damage". When was the last time you played Soviets and used the ZiS? Because I have a feeling like you haven't at all if you're saying what you're saying.
No, I didnt. It relies on luck to get outright wipes, as with any non-grenade explosive weapon. The Brummbar also relies on luck to get wipes (Unless you are attack grounding, at which point its much more deterministic), Mortars rely on luck to get wipes, all tanks rely on luck to get wipes, artillery relies on luck to get wipes.
It does not rely on luck to do its job, however, which is to do AI damage at range, and force the relocation of units and team weapons. It does this while obviating the Soviet's need for a regular mortar in most cases.
I, like everyone else, make use of the ZiS in practically any soviet game, due to its strength and versatility. |
Yes, it is doing exactly that. Take away the arguably average barrage on an average unit and you're making a core necessary unit even worse. Why are you so fixated on this ability? It doesn't even kill and making someone move a few meters to the side isn't worth 30 munitions.
Since when is it an average ability? It does fantastic damage quickly, from a very good range, and dependent on luck, can quite easily wipe team weapons.
Why try and misrepresent Barrage as an "Average" ability? If all it does is "make someone move a few meters to the side", how exactly does it stop doing this with the slower barrage? |
Cons are decent, but they still lack burst potential of grenades and focus fire weapons, while the enemy does not. Being able to knock out models rapidly is a core component of the game right now and cons are one of the only squads in the game that is punished for losing models via linear DPS drop. You can knock out 3/4 lmg gren models and while it would indeed be stupid to keep em on the field, their overall DPS output remains largely intact. You take out 3 models of a con squad and half their dps is gone.
This isn't to say that it's an issue of this design and I by no means want a centralized DPS option for cons, but how they operate needs to be taken into consideration.
I mean, this is taken into consideration, isnt it? Conscripts are an utility squad that trades favourably with axis infantry, particularly once it gets the 7-man upgrade, and vets up. They're not intended as a burst damage/focus fire squad, they're there to take points and make the enemy bleed hard trying to get them back.
Centralised DPS is less an issue for SOV due to merge, and they even already have units (Guards, who are admittedly doctrinal) to fulfil that function. In any case, Conscripts are an exceedingly good infantry squad, with a lot going for it.
Whats more, as said previously, paying the se for a pak but flat out worse with no advantages is shitty balance.
The zis is worse at AT but more versatile. This is OK, even good design. It allows the unit to not over perform in one spot, "and still have other advantages thus justifying its price.
The isu is an extreme example of this philosophy.
As much as people like to bitch about the isu and its AP shells existence, without the option of having AP its AI would need to be massive to justify its price. We had that at one point and it was dreadfully oppressive.
A lot of things go into balancing a unit, some of these things are "needless extras" that keep its performance where it's wanted.
The zis is marginally worse at AT, sure, but it is also more survivable and has the incredibly valuable Barrage. Making the Barrage less effective than it is now is unlikely to make the unit useless or overpriced, I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.
I'm pretty sure the ISU-152 is an anti-tank vehicle, and the HE shells are the thing that people complain about... not the AP shells. Reminds me of another unit, actually.
And to wrap around, get rid of the barrage and soviet have no burst potential whatsoever in their opening tiers. They are designed with the barrage in mind as an option to fill the whole missing elsewhere. And cons with a nade would be far more oppressive than the occasional zis barrage.
I'm pretty sure it hasn't been suggested that the Barrage is being "gotten rid of", at least not meaningfully by anyone with the ability to make that so.
What's being suggested (and being implemented in the Balance Patch) is a nerf to the Barrage to make it less oppressive. It doesn't need to be oppressive to be an useful unit or ability. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
