The majority of modifier are Multiplicative, I suspect those are also although I did not check.
I did a few more quick tests of different abilities stacking: T4 bonus, 'Counterattack Tactics', and 'Assault and Hold'. It seems that the bonuses are applied multiplicatively. So, for example, with T4 and 'Assault and Hold', the math is:
100% (default capture rate) x 125% (T4) x 200% (AH) = 250% de/capture rate
Full testing:
T4: Increases the capture and decapture rate of all Ostheer infantry units by 25%
CA: +200% capture rate
AH: +100% (de)/Capture rate
default
decap - 10s
cap - 15s
counter-attack
decap - 10s
cap - 5s
assault and hold
decap - 5s
cap - 7.5s
t4 default
decap - 8s
cap - 12s
t4 + counter-attack
decap - 8s
cap - 4s
t4 + assault and hold
decap - 4s
cap - 6s
By far, 'Assault and Hold' has the best synergy with the new bonus.
Thanks for the tests.
I mean the synergy is fine, but both added together could potentially cause issues. However, this is an easy fix and I'm sure balance team is monitoring
I think it depends on how its stacking. Multiplicative stacking would a bit different than additive, for example:
100% (default cap rate) x 125% (T4) x 200% (counter-attack) = 2.5 capture speed
1.00 (default cap rate) + 0.25 (T4) + 1.00 (counter-attack) = 2.25 capture speed
* After so many changes left, right, center, and then down, yea, it needs a total clean and polish.
It needs recoding. It's 32 Bits! The Spaghetti Code is bad. Also, we want side armor on tanks
Code changes won't happen, especially recompiling the game into 64-bit; I doubt there's anyone working on CoH2 with either the skill-set or access to the code/tools to do that. It would also require a ton of testing.
However, the things we can change, like unit/ability stats, tool-tips, etc. could really use a review. For example the inconsistent friendly-fire for units/abilities.
[...]they make for a rather counterintuitive, mechanically unpredicatable game.
Maybe it's time to clean up a bit?
In general, the entire game desperately needs a 'clean up and polish' pass. There are so many inconsistencies that even for veteran players, some interactions can be surprising.
The idea is that because Ostheer is significantly more vulnerable to late game wipes due to small squad sizes, a passive capture rate buff should help compensate their field presence a bit.
The problem with the M36 Jackson was never its ARMOR. The problem is its 60 RANGE "always pen" 200 dmg on the move.
The problem with nerfing the M36 by any significant margin is that it has the potential to basically 'brick' USF as a whole. I'd like to see the M36 nerfed (or split into 2 units), but its only going to happen gradually, or in some future patch with TDs as a focus point.
My guess is that the next major patch will deal with it, as the changes to mediums probably won't bring a change in builds/play style as big as the balance team is hoping for.
Another question:
Any hope of addressing the Pak-Howitzer/Scott's "RNG wipe" state? In the last patch, the scatter was increased a lot, but nothing was done to the AoE or Damage values. Now, instead of consistently wiping models, it randomly wipes models - which is frustrating to both play with and against. One solution could be to revert (entirely or only partly) the accuracy changes, but decrease the damage/AoE. That way the units would be a more consistent damage dealers, rather than a unpredictable wiping machines.
Love the ostheer t4 changes in this version, but why are we still reducing costs if we're adding stuff?
I don't understand the need to restructure and reduce the tech costs if we're also increasing the value of what you're getting
Both are pretty good points. Even when ignoring the bug, why is the capture rate being added at all? It seems like a pretty arbitrary, and unnecessary, buff. It could likely be removed without any other changes, and the reduction in overall buffs could then justify the lower price. As is, I have a feeling T4 will simply turn into a "buff building", with little other purpose.
IR HT
That unit needs something more than just a sight range. Something to refresh it. Crazy high vision would make it from useless to overpower and abusive. Adding a side features and abilities unlock with vet system would be the most reasonable. Therefore you could spread that extra +10 range in later stage of the game.
Perhaps adding a "mark target" ability (with muni cost) could be interesting. As for vet, I'm not sure if that's the best path to take. Considering the IRHT can't deal any damage, vetting it entirely through shared vet might take ages.
Increases the capture and decapture rate of all Ostheer infantry units by 25%
This capture/decapture bonus stacks with multiple T4 buildings (but not the reinforcement bonuses). This can be pretty hilarious, especially when combined with 'counterattack tactics', as a gren squad can neutralize and then capture a point in a fraction of a second. Example video.
Not necessarily practical to do in a real game, but more creative players might find a way to use this.
This is a great step forward. My only question is to why the Sherman variants are at 21, compared to 20 for everything else; it's a 5% difference in target size, which I can't see making all that much of a difference. On the other hand, this might just reflect me wanting things to be 'standardized'.
Cromwell
Considering UKF infantry sections are already fantastic against infantry, and considering the power of the Centaur, why was increasing the Cromwell's AI power the compensation selected? I would think either better AT power, or some other bonus would fit better.
M36 Jackson
A nice change that was brought up a few months ago (P4 will have a 0% chance to bounce), but as I said in that thread, it won't fix the over-all problem. I really think more needs to be done; possibly "splitting" the M36 into two separate units, one good against mediums, another good against heavies.
Heavy Panzer Korps
This is an interesting change, but I still don't think it'll fix the "T4 is ignored" problem. Now players will build T4, since its cheap and gives bonuses; but they won't actually build T4 units most of the time.
Additionally, after some quick testing, I found that the capture/decapture bonus stacks with multiple T4 buildings (but not the reinforcement bonuses). This can be pretty hilarious, especially when combined with 'counterattack tactics', as a gren squad can neutralize and then capture a point in a fraction of a second. Example video.
I know it's completely impractical to build multiple T4 buildings, but it is a bug.
Panzerfusiliers
Excellent change; this was exceedingly annoying to play against. It also didn't make much sense.
IR HT
Maybe I missed it before, but the search light doesn't turn anymore, and the 'cone' thing doesn't alert the enemy, either. This is pretty much ideal in terms of implementation, imo. Great work.
Conscripts
Also a good change, imo. It'll require a fair bit of testing, combined with the earlier changes, to see if this works, though.
And it'll always be meta as long as both axis factions spam nothing more then P5 and P6.
You see, you think Tiger is a cure.
Its not.
Together with other heavies, its the cause of pretty much all problems.
If there is no danger of heavy tanks, there is no reason to build more then 1 TD and if you can't play around 1 TD, you REALLY need to improve.
I never suggested the current Tiger/Heavies were a 'cure'; they're a crutch. Heavies are a problem, but if they're nerfed (and they should be) without nerfing 60-range TDs, we're just going to end up with OST being in an even worse situation. Most players go for a Tiger over a Panther (or mediums) simply because a P4/P5 gets completely deleted by TDs, while not doing all that much. Meanwhile, a Tiger has a lot more HP and armor, does a lot more damage, and can deal extremely well with Allied infantry.
Once heavies are fixed, TD spam is still going to be meta, since it will completely shut down any and all Axis tanks, except for super-heavy TDs and maybe JP4s.
Again, not necessarily. I'll remind you that the Su85 was cheaper and better at dealing with mediums, specially with vet, than their current version. The FF is not the ideal unit to deal with mass mediums and the Jackson is an issue on it's own.
A Stug with some reshuffle on vet (def vet 2 swap with vet 3) and putting TWP at 160dmg (since it already forces a reload) would make the unit perfectly fine. Same with adding to the PV accuracy on vet a lower value, as all other TD receive it.
How is a STUG going to deal with an M36? The M36 is faster, has more range, more HP, has a turret, and is more accurate on the move. The SU85 and FF aren't as bad, but they're still going to have the range advantage, meaning they're almost always going to get the first hit in.
Doomlord52
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
