Not sure what can be removed but anything that makes the game more polished (UI, tooltips, etc) is always appreciated.
Standardisation unfortunately is a way of balance, so unless you mention what you have in mind, it's difficult to asses.
Well, there's two categories, imo. The first, as you said, is standardization in terms of unit performance/balance; so bring the IS2's range in line with other heavies at all levels of vet, or fixing the inconsistent pricing on turret MGs (USF is particularly bad). These would have minor balance implications, though.
Then there's stuff that's consistences for no real reason (that I can discern), like the current state of friendly-fire.
I think the later (and things like it) should be looked at, and could be fixed with little-to-no knock-on effects.
Go through the changelog, assess the changes, toss out what you don't need any more? Standardise stats where you can, remove exceptions to the rules you don't need.
If this is something the Balance Team is willing to consider, I'm happy to do the work to produce a spreadsheet from the changelog that breaks down changes by unit.
CoH2 could use a 'cleanup patch', but I don't think there's anything that could be "tossed out"; all of the changes are needed. That said, there's a ton of really strange inconsistencies, missing tool-tips/descriptions, broken bulletins, etc. that could be fixed (can we please get MG's firing arcs to actually match the UI cone?).
Oh look, all the axis mains are once again trying to nerf the one unit that keeps USF late game together and gives allies a chance to push the heavies off the field they barely have access to themselves.
If I have to fight panthers with m10s, I'm uninstalling lel.
Honestly, just bump the fuel cost up to 155 instead of 145/140
You're talking about making a unit, and an entire faction worse than it is.
I'm sorry but Tiger and Panther tanks were not invincible armored behemoths in real life, there were an assortment of vehicles and guns that could kill them relitively easily. They were not invincible in real life I don't know why people expect that they should be in this game too.
You both know that with this change, the M36 would still be a stock unit, and that it would still be effective against heavies, right?
The point is to go from:
M36 -> Everything
To
M36 -> Heavies
M10 -> Mediums
You both seem to think (or at least, it comes across as) that the M10 would replace the M36, and the M36 would be deleted from the game. This isn't what the suggestion is, at all.
Just wanna point this out, you're reading the pen values incorrectly on the graph. 150 is the near pen and 130 is the max range pen. It's near->far from left to right on it. I don't like that way but that is how it was made.
This graph also seems to be slightly dated. The JT armor is no longer 525 and is 450. Although I didn't notice any other wrong values. Doesn't include KV series from soviets for some reason or a lot of the sherman variants. So I think this graph is helpful, it has its downsides.
Hah, you're right. What's even better is that I made that graph, so I should be able to read it.
I should have some time to update it this weekend, though. Any other suggestions?
The M10 doesn't have a reason to exist now and it hasn't for a couple of years. It only makes sense being part of the Brit Lend-Lease Commander.
I don't understand the continued crying ahout this unit...oh wait I do. The OKW mains bitched and moaned to get it's armor nerfed and the balance team caved so now there is going to even more bitching and moaning until its just an expenisve M10.
Yes... I know; it's because it's made completely redundant by the M36.
If you look at that chart, it's pretty clear that except for the M36, USF has nothing with decent pen. Their 2nd best option is the M1, with 130 pen at 60 range (far). 150 pen in CoH2 is basically useless; it'll work against "light" mediums, like a STUG or a stock P4, but that's it. It won't do anything against the pretty standard 230+ armor that axis brings to the table almost every game.
By adding in the M10 as a non-doc unit, suddenly there's a choice. Instead of either rushing straight to an M36, you can instead opt for a cheaper M10, that will likely deal with mediums just as well as the current M36. This is good for USF. It gives build variety, and also means you're not forced to save for the ~140f TD every round.
The point isn't to replace the M36, or to nerf the M36 to be an "expensive M10". BOTH units would be available, but they would be specialized; the M10 for fighting mediums, and the M36 for fighting heavies.
Voted yes to all; it seems like a solid set of ideas to me, at least on paper.
1. The M10 becoming non-doc just makes sense. It gives USF an intermediate AT solution that they desperately need. However, the M10 couldn't be implemented with its current stats; right now it's balanced as a single doc-locked call-in, not as a default unit. It would probably need a price increase or something.
2. This is a good solution to where the M36 should go, in terms of teching, and it prevents the USF T4 from having two rows of icons in some cases.
3. Once all this happens, the M36 needs to become a dedicated heavy-counter, rather than the "everything on tracks" counter. Otherwise, this just delays the current issue, rather than fixing it. The M10 would need to have a reason to exist after the M36 was unlocked, which it wouldn't, without M36 changes.
Unless the notes were changed, we reduced the value for 10% for the final version.
Notes still list it as +25%.
Doing some testing, it looks like the bonus stacking bug was fixed. However, it seems that the +10% capping bonus blocks any other bonus from being applied, meaning that building T4 can actually result in slower capping speeds.
Gren squad w/ nothing: 10s decap, 15 s cap (same as before)
Gren squad w/ nothing + T4: 9s decap, 13.5s cap (correct for a +10% de/cap bonus)
Gren squad w/ "Assault and hold": 5s decap, 7.5s cap (same as before)
Gren squad w/ "Counterattack Tactics": 10s decap, 5s cap (same as before)
Gren squad w/ AH + T4: 9s decap, 13.5s cap (+10% T4 bonus, but AH isn't working)
Gren squad w/ CT + T4: 9s decap, 13.5s cap (+10% T4 bonus, but CT isn't working)
60 range TDs will always and forever be tied to the fortunes of ubiquitous high durability high armor Axis heavies, from Panthers into Tigers and KT/Heavy TD.
M36 should have it's firepower adjusted to counter these units in particular, but be less effective versus medium armor, as the FF is currently balanced.
Stock penetration nerfs for M36 or SU-85 shouldn't even be in the realm of consideration as long as Axis heavies exist as they do now. If we want to nerf Panther HP pool and tone down heavy call-ins or somesuch maybe we can move in that direction (and possibly remove the wind_down/wind_up for the Panther as well), but that is making things more complex than they need to be.
Pretending 60 range TDs would vanish in any case is insanity; they will always be meta as long as they are the only option for countering the heavier axis units that are essentially guaranteed to show up, especially in the heavy tank meta and especially in team games.
I actually agree with you on this, especially the "M36 counters everything" bit. In general, TDs need to be split into "anti-medium" and "anti-heavy" roles (with the former coming earlier and cheaper than the later): this is currently the case with the SU76/SU85, STUG/Panther, JP4/Panther. However, it's somewhat missing for UKF (???/FF), but it's completely missing for USF - when you unlock the M4A3 (a pretty standard medium), you also unlock the M36, a top-tier, late-game, TD. This doesn't make sense. I'm not sure entirely how to implement it, in terms of tech-tree/unlock placing, but there needs to be an intermediate step between "nothing" and "counter literally everything".
Idiots and retards will counter by reading none of my post and claiming the heavy meta is a reaction to TDs, but this doesn't change in any way the fact that said TDs are the only counter to heavy tanks of any sort. Allied medium tanks lack the penetration and effective AT DPS to face anything above a Panzer IV (as it arguably should be): a Panther hard counters allied mediums far more than a SU-85,FF, or even M36 counters Panzer IVs. Tigers and KT are an even bigger problem as they combine this durability and nigh-invulnerability to most stock AT with the ability to wipe infantry and ATG crews, making TDs the only option short of triple ATG spam (virtually impossible in team games due to non-doctrinal Axis rocket artillery.)
This is where you lost me (and not only because insulting people isn't beneficial to an argument).
The Heavy Meta <-> TD Meta is tied together; one can't exist without the other, so you can't really blame one "side" for starting it.
Heavies are incredibly 'tanky', and yes, the 60-range TDs are needed to counter them. However, because those TDs are so powerful, it means countering them with mediums (or even axis TDs) just isn't viable. Two M36s will drop a P4 to "one shot" territory in the first salvo, while doing it at +15 range, and on the move, forcing the P4 to retreat. The same can be said for the SU85s and really any other axis medium. As a result, Axis is forced to find something that can survive the initial "burst" damage, but still deal with the TDs; and there's only a few choices. Axis can either out-range the TDs with their own "super heavy" TDs (JT/Ele), attempt to survive the initial salvo and then chase (Panthers), or get a generalist that can deal with infantry so their own Schrecks/Paks can deal with the TDs (Tigers).
So axis is left with Ele/JTs, Tigers, and Panthers... which can't be countered by Allied mediums, which means allies are forced to get TDs every game... which means Axis can't field mediums, so they're forced to go with heavies... etc.
Both need to be nerfed, but they need to be nerfed at the same time.
As for rocket arty, that's pretty prevelant on both sides, so it's sort of a moot point. For every PWerfer/Stuka, there's usually a Calliope/Katyusha/Land Mattress. Then there's on-map artillery (LeFH, etc.)../
Absolute morons with double digit IQ, grade school reading comprehension and broken English will refuse to realize this fact no matter how many times it is restated and so these threads and posts like them will continue until this game finally dies, because Axis mains believe half of the enemy team's popcap should be dedicated to 'combined arms' countering their one heavy shock unit, and anything else is 'lazy'. Instead, despite calls for rebalancing the M36 in particular to make it less oppressive versus Axis mediums, we will continue to hear bitching about these units until they are collectively nerfed into the ground to make room for more braindead heavy tanks play.
The thing is, Axis needs to invest half their pop-cap to counter the allied TDs with combined arms. Schrecks could deal with the TDs, but Axis infantry isn't all that resilient, and allied infantry offers a ton of AI power. Non-doc Axis TDs could deal with the TDs, but except for the JP4, they lack the range to do so. Pak40s/Raks could deal with the TDs, but they're crewed weapons, so are destroyed easily by late-game.
As for rebalacing the M36, as well as others TDs, the calls for literally any changes are usually met with a lot of resistance. This thread is a good example.
I think this would be ideal, but it also might be too late in the games life for that type of change. If they did it though they could potentially make the Jackson 480 HP again and make it a true glass cannon
Considering the current preview patch is adding new units to UKF, I think it's still possible. I don't know the exact details on how it should be implemented, or what the "post addition" M36 stats should be, but I do think its a possible change.
Probably, because NO ONE sane complains about panthers and super heavies and dealing with them is L2P issue?
What? Have you seen these threads? Literally every one of them turns into "TDs need to be good to counter panthers/heavies, in fact its Panthers/Heavies that are OP". Both are an issue.
Jp4 is great because it's guaranteed to pen 95% of stock allied armour and has a great rof. There are exactly 2 stock vehicles that the Jp4 can't pen every shot, and both of those are on 1 faction and each are exclusive with the other. Meanwhile, match that up against the axis and there are as many vehicles it would be OK against as it would struggle against. If you are too stupid to realize that "huuuurrr de durr just swap them then!!!" is an absolute retarded thing to say due to asymmetric balance which is extremely prominent in the armour design of factions in surprised you can navigate a forum in the first place.
This is kind of an unfair comparison. If we stick entirely to non-dock vehicles, Ost's only "high armor" vehicles are the Panther and Brumbarr, and for OKW, it's the Panther and KT (which is a joke, anyway); so 3 units in total. Yes, that is more, and they are more prominent, than the Coment and Churchill, but there's more to this than stock units. When we look at call ins that the JP4 falls flat (a large portion of the TD argument is regarding Tigers/Ele/JT/etc.).
IS-2
ISU-152
KV-1
KV-2
KV-8
Churchill AVRE
Churchill Croc
Pershing
Sherman E8
The JP4 will struggle against all of these, since they all have between 215 and 375 armor, meaning a chance to pen between 79% and 45%. Even a panther, with its 220 far pen (but only 50 range) will struggle with these (except the E8), whereas the M36 will only have problems with a few (slow) call-ins.
The SU-85 does have slightly better DPM (TTK vs Panther is ~28s from the first shot, disregarding accuracy and penetrations) but it has the obvious weakness of not having a turret against a diving Panther or other vehicles.
For what it's worth I think the Firefly is balanced (hits hard but slow reload and mediocre mobility), the SU-85 is mostly balanced (although I think the selfspotting is bad because it goes against the combined arms principle of the game, even if it has a significant drawback) except for its very high penetration, and the Jackson is slightly overperforming on purpose because it's the only real reliable late game AT for USF.
Obviously the SU-85's and Jackson's situation isn't ideal but tinkering with them will be very complex and have significant ripple effects, and that's not really something we want to touch at this point.
I'm going to be honest; this isn't the response I was expecting. I'm aware that the problem is complicated, but it's the balance teams responsibility to work through complexity, not step away. Furthermore, "Over-performing on purpose" has never been an acceptable answer - it's at best a temporary solution, but it should never be the solution.
For the sake of discussion, let's ignore the FF, since it's rarely brought up in these discussions: it's generally M36/Su85/Panther. Also, I agree that the FF is pretty much balanced, for the reasons you listed.
Regarding the SU85, you've said that its self-spotting is bad game design, and that its high pen (especially with vet) is also unbalanced; so why aren't these things being addressed? I concede that changing unit base stats can be complicated, but I don't see how nerfing the SU85's Vet 2 "+30% penetration" and/or its vet 3 "+20% reload speed" would cause issues.
At vet 0, the SU85's 220 far pen (60 range) gives it an 85% chance to pen panthers, and once it hits vet 2, it'll pen a Panther 100% of the time. Then, once it hits vet 3, its reload time drops to 4.53 sec.
If we use the Panther to compare, it only gains a +10% armor bonus at vet 2. This means that once the SU85 hits vet 2, the Panther's armor becomes irrelevant (260 -> 286). At both vet 0 and vet 3, the SU85 will pen it 100% of the time. Ideally, the increase in armor should match the increase in pen, so that losing a unit becomes impactful, rather than the current state, where it's a "race to vet". Finally, if we assume a pair of vet 3 SU85s (this seems common), that means a TTK vs. a vet 3 panther is 9.06 seconds - which is far, far too fast.
Dropping the SU85's vet 2 pen bonus to +10% would remedy this problem, as would reducing the Vet 3 reload bonus (the JP4's vet 4 bonus is +15%).
As for the M36, as you pointed out, its USF's only source of late-game AT. Why not change this? It's been suggested several times (there are other threads, but I'm linking my own) that giving USF a "medium TD" (for example, a massively adjusted non-doc M10) would fix several problems at once:
it would allow the M36 to specialize into an "anti-heavy" role
it would give USF access to an early TD (similar to the STUG)
it would give mediums more room to breath.
it would fix the M36's "scaling" issue, where it ends up countering everything exceptionally well
ATGs are too vulnerable in 3v3s and 4v4s late game because of an abundance of rocket and howitzer artillery. Bazookas barely scratch the paint of Panthers and heavies (except doctrinal Rangers). These are not reliable options to fight the heavier Axis armor, some of which are stock.
As ShadowLinkx37 asked; then why is arty being buffed this patch (pop from 15 to 13)? If ATGs are too vulnerable, resulting in the constant TD vs TD spam we've seen (especially in team-games), why aren't ATGs being made more viable in late-game (likely by nerfing arty)?
Howitzers might be cancerous, but an equal or higher pop requirement compared to the Calliope, Priest and Sexton (15, 15, 14 respectively) is hard to justify for a unit that's quite easily countered with the right doctrine.
Then those units should have their pop increased instead.
As I have said, there comes a time, where "balance" problem becomes "L2P" problem and 60range TDs are the latter now.
Sander's has literally just said that they're over performing.
SU-85 is mostly balanced (although I think the selfspotting is bad [...]) except for its very high penetration, and the Jackson is slightly overperforming
I'm not sure how you construe this as "it's balanced, L2P". It's more "it's a bit OP, but very, very complicated to change", which isn't even close to similar.
Its only dangerous if you take one sentence from his post and drag it out of context. In the context of an ability that essentially sacrifices the tank, asking someone to scout ahead for that is not exactly asking a lot
Comparing it to when the JT firing 320 damage shots at 85 range is pretty ridiculous
The rocket strike on airborne is the issue here, not ram
How is it out of context? The premise of thedarkarmadillo's argument is that the ability (Ram) is fine, since it can be countered by not allowing the opponent the opportunity to use it. It shifts the focus of the entire discussion from the ability itself, to countering the unit.
As a comparison (and yes, it's supposed to be extreme), we can shift the focus from the JT's past absurd damage (in this context, its attack was the ability) to simply not allowing the JT to use this ability.
It's the same argument.
As for the rocket strike being the problem; how so? It follows all of the rules of off-map abilities; it drops red smoke, it has a delay, the plane itself can be countered (although it is a bit fast). By itself, the rocket strike is essentially 'on the curve' in comparison to other abilities.
Doomlord52
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
