Thanks Warmoneky, but credit where credit due, Nullist sugested the upgunning of the t34 for a Muni's cost, which i think is a marvelous idea, though i think 100 is quite alot, i would think 80 would be more fair.
lol oops. too many L's in both of your names for me when i'm about to crash |
|
crells explained it perfectly. cost wise it's hard to value a t-34 right now. from a historical standpoint. there was like a 5 to 1 ratio of t-34s to p4s in the war. i'd say do one or two things. make fuel for t-34 cost 65-80 (balancing act here so that t-70s are still used at all based on cost) or as crells suggested earlier: give t-34's a munition upgrade which turns that tank into a t-34/85 |
no, flame weapon have no bonus modifier vs. building, either does grenade, which is stupid
how so on the flames? flames ignore armor and cover, and the building is nothing more than 3x green cover for the squads inside...
thats what i remember the devs saying at least :/ |
|
i'd like to see the range stay within the call in circle (and maybe make that circle smaller). then remove all damage done to units in cover (only damaging units in red or zero cover) and suppress (not pin) the infantry in the area. duration shortened would be fine (not opinionated on duration either way) |
|
tbh i really dont mind the buff buildings have. i know alot of people want the nerfed badly but all flame weapons are brutal to units inside buildings. also, russians have satchel charges and demos to destroy houses so they cant be used at all (underused). give german pios demos and buildings will feel more like strategic battle points rather than i'm gonna sit here so my unit doesnt die.
buildings are there to negative suppression and small arms fire. they do nothing for mortars, flames, explosives, or tanks ramming the building (although i know right now most grenades dont always do enough damage to garrisoned units, with the exception of the molotov. so maybe that one aspect should be looked at).
in addition, most buildings are designed and placed in such a way so that they have blind spots and cannot cover two areas at once, making flanks very good |
|
auto vaulting on retreat would be fine. just not under normal movement.
oh and tycho, the blizzard also forces timing and positioning. it allows for some crazy fights with the limited los and movement allowed before freezing. freezing slows movement and attack speed/reloading. |
|
Relic should buy the maphack software, then tear it apart so they know how to block it |
Um, this is what happened in COH1, and I think it is a good mechanic. It forces people to more carefully pick where their support units go. If they do a bad job/if the MG/mortar/ATG is outflanked, it should be killed outright.
This is what kept the COH1 infantry battles fluid - support teams which had a large influence, but weren't dominant.
this to me is what ruined vcoh. bad players will always lose units, but making the game so that one mistake costs you major setbacks (lost mg42, russian recrews with 6 man squad, need to pay 240 mp to get another mg42 or lose map control, fall behind in tech...) because my 3 man squad had a molotov thrown on them which killed them outright instead of forcing retreat (retreat meaning that territory is now my opponents and i have to retake it. smaller loss and allows for more tactical gameplay).
when i start losing whole units in 1-2 shots, i feel like i'm playing a coh/sc2 hybrid which is a horrible thought
edit: if i remember correctly support teams had alot more armor (pak did for sure) and there were less flame weapons. meaning the extra hp was not near as necessary |
- MG42 4 man crew further increases its ability to repel flanks and is unrequired, just return in back to 3 man crews. I have been saying it since alpha, please increase the damage of all small arms rifle fire so that flanked support units and units out of cover are punished harder and faster. In my mind 2 conscripts with a flank on a gren and mg42 should win the engagement, however this is rarely the case as MG42 pack, unpack and then fire extremely quickly again in response. Without an increase to small arms fire, my solution would be increase the pack up time of the MG42 so molotovs do more damage and a flanked unit is punished.
- Soviet nerfs on mortars makes no sense as they were actually quite ineffective as they were last patch. Furthermore, it amplifies the strength of MG42's as mortars are weaker and the effects of flanking are weaker. I feel now the only way to breach well played 2-3 gren/2 mg based play is with M3 flamers/snipers or stall to T70. I feel flanking is never rewarded how it should be and early game Soviet indirect fire does not break MG positions well.
as someone who likes watching you play, i respectfully feel we are playing two different games. russian mortars did and still force me to engage (i.e. baited) or fall back. mg42s died in no time to molotovs with 3 man teams. players were punished hard for being flanked. flank a maxium means you have to resupply but not rebuild it. flank my mg42 before patch, oh well there's 240 mp down the drain plus any vet i might have got.
it's still easy to kill the mg42 with molotovs and flanking
if i go 2-3 gren and 2 mgs vs one mortar, 2-3 conscripts and a maxium (same manpower for both sides), the russian player will push me back. if i rush in i give up my mg position and allow the russian a better flank. |
I recommend a reduction in PIV maingun infantry dmg, and a buff to the MG upgrades infantry dmg, to more severly relegate it to AT duties, at vanilla cost.
This would indirectly improve the position of the T34 in asymmetric timings and medium tank balance.
As to Sov AT potential, its split/squished between the tier buildings.
The T34/85 provides the "upgunned" AT potential that people seemingly would like to be on the T34, but is doctrinal and prohibitively expensive due to the double purchase requirement, which causes problems in timing, due to having to save resources for so long to field them.
I recommend making T34/85 a non-doctrinal "upgun" option for vanilla T34s at say 100 Muni.
Result would be a more versatile T34 that people can develop individually in three directions, either in vanilla as AI and AT support, as a Ram, or a more dedicated AT option.
this is best idea to help the t-34 without hurting the game balance in some other way. RELIC whip out that notepad! |
United States
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
