|
I have to say certainly an interesting take on revamping the tiers and gren unit placement. The only concern I have is that it would be a t0 infantry spam fest however if the game were to follow a natural progression it would certainly allow for penals to get some use because they are excellent flanking units.
I would love to be able to modify and play some games out with this adjusted algorithm and see how it plays out because it would certainly give some interesting dynamics. I personally like to see out of the box solutions like this because while it does get rid of a bit of the asymmetry I don't think the factions would be similar enough to take away from the feel of the game. |
I feel there should be a hard left and right to major RNG actions, aka damage on a squad from stepping on a mine. Every few games I will lose an entire 4 man grenadier squad to a single 30 munition mine, which if it happens early on, can be extra crippling. I've had it happen to my 2nd built gren squad in a match 3 minutes in 
Therefore I would like to see hard coded restraints on what an individual action can or cant do with RNG determining how effective the action was within those constraints.
In the above example a soviet mine would never kill more than the number of squad members minus 1, so a max of 3 grenadiers in a 4 man squad or 2 in a 3 man squad. The rng would determine whether 1, 2, or 3 grens are casualties and to what extent their health is damaged. In the case that a 1 man squad triggers the mine, he will of course die.
I can understand how this would be frustrating and I am sorry so you are losing gren squads to mines. While this is not the preferred method of losing enemy units the same frustration can be caused by losing a unit to any action that early in the game. Personally after having this happen to me in games I often simply purchase sweepers and am set back slightly however players that tend to plant a mine this early will not just have one mine on the map so the detection granted will often yield a gain in munitions for me.
I think that this issue is more due to pathing in certain areas and could be fixed in that manner but i do understand your frustration with this mechanic.
The result is consistent gameplay for both factions:
1. The soviet player knows he will cause at least 1 casualty with a mine, and reliably kill off 1 man squads.
2. The german player knows although his squad could be crippled and forced to retreat, he will have the ability to retreat instead of lol instantly dying when you arent looking.
This would be an undesirable affect because there would be no need for sweepers if i suspect a mine i would just walk my pios out in front of the tank and take 1 casualty to the pios consistently and trade the manpower for days. This problem would be compounded by ostruppen.
In a more prevalent example, buildings should never be collapsed by any munition short of a railway artillery strike until the health of the building is less than say 30%? The lower the health of the building, the greater the chance that it will fall apart. A 10% health building should reliably be destroyed while a 50% health building should reliably stand strong. No more rifle nades into a 80% health building killing your entire guards squad.
Although I didn't save the replay because I rage quit, I have lost my first MG squad in kholdny ferma winter by putting it in the church and the church self destructing from the very first 82mm mortar landing on top. That was unbelievable to me and just bad gameplay from the engine
If you refer to my post above and to what relic has stated about buildings, there is little change in the works for buildings. I do believe that if they are to stay as is the destruction of a building should cause half of the remaining squad to abandon the building much as if you have squad present in a building that is set aflame. It sucks to lose 3 guards, or 2 mg crew men but at least the squad could be retreated and preserved if you are unlucky.
I kind of think this isn't a hugely common issue right now. Making units keep in cover better (like, say, DOW 2) would probably have a bigger effect.
My personal preference is to make an engi flamethrower only destructible if the squad is reduced to one or no models by the loss (meaning, a responsible retreat can reliably protect you from the gamble) but I absolutely agree this is one of the most egregious RNG things.
I appreciate the input and you could be entirely correct I just worry about the cover modifiers in regards to support weapon teams and durability but that is certainly a plausible fix.
Heavy engine damage from AT nades and fausts just needs to go. Otherwise I'm not too fussed about making mines that much more consistent... they already seem to work for me. And cut engine damaged blitzkrieg as well. That's just silly.
The biggest RNG thing I want to see addressed right now is the building crits and health operating very strangely.
I can understand the frustration that damaged engine blitzkrieg can cause but I am purely trying to approach this from a neutral setting and if following the duration the engine is in a worse state than before the ability was activated (assuming it had taken engine damage prior) this would allow you to still exploit your advantage potentially to an even greater degree without removing a veteran ability based on light engine damage. |
Oh Right definitely! mines aren't so prevalent that I shouldn't pay for hitting a mine. I was actually suggesting that I don't mind fausts and at grenades having a chance to do heavy engine damage if the tank has taken a certain amount of abuse previously. This at least would be a condition that a player could weigh the risks of to some extent.
That would be acceptable I could deal with a medium tank under lets say 50% health having a takes medium engine damage and one under 25% receives heavy engine damage. I don't think that I can honestly say that an AT grenade should ever cause it to heavy tanks but I do appreciate in input and that would certainly be better than the current system. |
Well written. I´ve to say i agree fully with 2 and 3. Should molotovs/RG should act equal to cause a crit on flamer?
Regarding N1 i can´t think of the complications on changing values. Shouldn't this mean it would also affect other troops such as team weapons or snipers? What about pios vs engineers?
I do not feel that fire begets fire, to put it simply no detonation should occur in my perfect bubble from Molotov, flame half-tracks, or KV-8s.
What about if 2 at-nades are needed to light damage engine on heavy tanks ?
I don't like the idea of 1 at-nade damaging the engine of a heavy tank 100% of the time.
I personally don't mind the RNG in general.
I apologize if I did a poor job addressing this in my OP I did not intend to change the actual penetration amount of AT Nades. I merely meant that when it does penetrate it does light engine damage so on a Tiger lets say the chance of penetrating would still be low and possibly require several grenades.
+1, well presented.
And a fix for borderline-randomly collapsing houses would be a godsend for my bloodpressure.
Thank you, I completely forgot about houses I must have been tired last night!
I think the primary issue is not the collapse itself but the complete loss of life. Perhaps if it worked like buildings that go up in flames. Implement a 50% squad loss to a building collapse but certainly some of your guys would pile out the door. This would be for mid/large buildings, if you are in a small building shame on you lol.
I'm not qualified to really weigh in on #1 but they all mostly sound good to me. Regarding heavy engine damage though, I'm amenable to tanks with say 3/4 to 2/3 life having a chance of taking heavy engine damage. On fully healthy tanks it is particularly distressing.
I can absolutely see your perspective that hitting a mine if you were to be playing soviets could really punish you. Remember though if sweepers are moving with the tank and even spot the mine you can safely drive over it. (This safety ends when you lose LOS of the mine with the sweepers or they are killed.) |
|
After around 400 hours of game time since beta a few things stick out to me like a sore thumb.
1. Early Game infantry combat.
What the perceived issue is - Random Model loss and potential engagement loss in superior or equal cover.
What the Solution is - Decreasing Rifle Damage and increasing rate of fire.
Why this Solution would work - Each rifle bullet fired by each model is an independent instance, this leads to a plausible misinterpretation of the percentages allocated to hit. Take for example a 50% chance to hit, each round fired is a coin flip this means that the likelihood of streaks of heads or tails is highly plausible. Say i flip a coin ten times it is entirely reasonable that I could get 9 heads and 1 tails, however the more i flip the coin the more likely I will approach 50% which is what one would expect. This solution would also improve the effectiveness of cover against enemies with a similar rate of fire lets say conscripts and grenadiers. Any slight reduction in hit chance like yellow cover would yield more consistent results.
2. Pio/Enigneer BBQ Banaza!
What the perceived issue is - Random Model loss results in huge loss of resources and potentially the loss of my squad!!!! (Due to flamethrower ignition)
What the Solution is - Eliminate the ability for SAF(Small Arms Fire) to detonate the Flamethrower.
Why this Solution would work - Since SAF does not cause the detonation of any other explosive in the game logically the flamethrower should not go up in smoke in this manner. Additionally Explosives could have an increased chance of detonation since this daisy chain precedence also exists. This would prevent the colossal early game loss to the first Conscript round without producing flame squads of doom. Since an explosive would be required to cause detonation the loss of a flame squad in this manner would be the result of a deliberate action on the enemies part requiring them to allocate resources (Mines, Grenades) or relying on fortunate hits (Mortars, Tanks). While I personally would like to see it go away all together this is a way to incorporate this cinematic effect, without rewarding pure luck early game. It would be a calculated risk to send a pio into an area that is being shelled or to ignore them while they engage a pgren squad.
3. Engine Damage and Blitzkrieg
What the perceived issue is - The enemies AT grenade/Faust always causes heavy engine Damage to my tank!!!
What the Solution is - When an AT grenade or Faust penetrates it causes light engine damage. Soviet Mine medium engine damage. Teller Mine heavy engine damage. Blitzkrieg operates while the engine is damaged following the ability the tank degrades its engine status down to the next level of damage. Light/Medium Medium/Heavy.
Why this Solution would work - Consistent performance of abilities is crucial and knowing somewhat what to expect is important for both players in a match. A shot at light engine damage on a heavy tank for the cheap price of 15 munitions is amazing and if it can be achieved it should be! (assuming you have the units to follow up) This however is not the case for heavy engine damage from 1 AT grenade or Faust can often result in a loss if even slightly well executed. Rewarding favorable scenarios for a common action is acceptable to me however rewarding game winning conditions for the same action is not. This is why i suggest that the mines be the sources of medium and heavy engine damage. These items require foresight, tactical positioning, and battlefield knowledge, in addition to a direct counter at the same price or 1/2 the price of the mine itself. Because of the differing cost of the mines the engine damage should be correspondingly more lethal to the larger investment. Lastly Blitzkrieg is a veteran ability and one that is gained through combat. I do believe that the other changes listed would address the use of this ability as an oh shit button however if the speed while damaged with blitzkrieg is active is to stay as it is in live I would suggest that following the duration of the ability the tanks engine status would degrade to the next level of damage. This will promote the use of the ability following a mine hit to be a plausible defensive maneuver at a cost. |
I think you overestimate the impact of one LMG gren a few mins into the game and underestimate the current conscript spam meta. In the hands of good players the soviet early game has no trouble holding territory or more likely, advancing. Units shouldnt be balanced to the lower skill tiers to make the game more newbie friendly for people still learning the units ("This would need testing clearly but I think it prevents the early LMG which I see as the largest struggle for moderate players.") I would ammend that statement and say micro/unit preservation is the biggest struggle for new players
The majority of soviets I play against do not build t1 anymore, the clown car has fallen out of favor hard. T2 is situational but sometimes used until fuel is out for t3. If anything the soviets dont need anymore advantages that help their meta get a t70 out faster... 9/10 players rush t3 and harass the periphery (fuel points, etc) with a quick t70 which is an extremely effective tactic and very hard to counter
Now that I think about it if you want an example about an early LMG not being a game changer, ill attach my last game against vonivan's soviet. He won and the LMG made no difference in the long run
Fair enough for bad players like me its a problem and no changes should be made. |
I use lmgs and rifle nades every single game, I said quite clearly I dont rush the first LMG often which is the premise of your thread: delaying the first LMG
I'm not trying to be antagonistic but since you keep going that way im going to be blunt: why are you trying to fix a problem that doesnt exist? What does moving LMGs to tier 2 accomplish? Due to the high munition cost they have almost no impact on tier0 battles. Dont say thats a reason to do it, because we could put su85s in the hq at tier 0 as well simply because "no one wil have fuel to buy one 2 minutes into a game so why not?"
I understand that you personally do not go first mg. That is fine then this does not apply to you.
The LMG allows the grenadier to purely outclass a single conscript squad I think most everyone would agree to this point 1v1 LMG Gren vs. Conscript the LMG Gren wins. That is absolutely fine but as it stands if I were to go a standard build lets say 3 grens MG tier 1. It is absolutely plausible that one of these grens would be upgraded very soon into this build whether you as a player does it or not.
This creates a large disparity in effective units on the field. By delaying the LMG unit the battle phase is advanced you will need to allocate an additional 200 mp, (fuel is negligible for the purpose of this discussion as MP is the key component in early game fights), prior to the LMG upgrade then the decision point would have to be approached to advance battle phases in between the construction of your Tier 1 force. This delay in while in a normal game is nothing that you think of at all does not allow the forced manpower advantage the 60 munition upgrade yields.
Therefore this would keep the early game on even footing even if it is just for a minute or 2. This would allow for the soviet player to complete construction of their Tier 1 or 2 building around the same time LMGs will appear on the field, thus negating some of the huge veterancy gains attainable by LMG grens in the early game.
This would not stop a German player from utilizing the LMG upgrade it would simply come at a cost if you wanted it extremely early preventing from retreats on multiple fronts. |
if I could untick every varient of the vcoh map ports I would
and thank you for ignoring the content of my post
I just didn't understand how what you said pertains to the topic at hand at all so I took the given information anyone who has played this game for any period of time and stated it back in a rhetorical manner. That was bad form and I apologize. The thing about suggested change is while the the LMG will not come until you upgrade to T-1 (The first German base upgrade). Much the same that Molotov's and at grenades require upgrading in order to use. The difference is that as you upgrade to t-1 you can continue to produce 4/5 of the units available to you at the time as a contrast if a soviet chooses to upgrade for Molotov's they will be producing no combat units at that time.
Since you have already stated that you don't use LMG42s or rifle grenades I don't see the point in derailing the thread.
Additionally I would like to see where you got the 95% from.
|
You say its a shift not a nerf, but is it needed? What advantage does it bring to the game over the current gameplay?
There is no such thing as a commitment to t2 as ostheer since they have to go through that upgrade to get to t3 or t4 anyway.
If the idea is to balance shifting grenades to t1 for grenadiers to counter building rush meta, then I'd argue this doesnt accomplish that either since RNG makes rifle nades too expensive of a t1 investment for inconsistant returns. With a molotov, 10 munis cheaper, you know the unit has like a 95% chance of being forced from the building or severely wounded. Rifle nades might bring the building down; probably it will do nothing worthwhile as the 6 man conscripts soak 1-2 losses and stay in the building. Shooting two rifle nades has just cost you your first lmg or flamer or teller mine.
I honestly see no difference in the opening 5 mins by slowing this upgrade other than a small nerf to much needed experience for 4 man grenadier squads trying to hold the early game against soviet advantages--MGs are no longer reliably able to suppress a single unit with a spotter, let alone multiple cons with molotovs.
My point was that molotovs deny buildings to the ostheer in t0 cutoff fights. A perfect example is that stupid house on the eastern fuel in semois: both players basically have to plan their opening moves around that fuel point... the germans to rush defend it if they start on top, the soviets to cut it off either way. This is nothing to do with LMGs and everything to do with conscripts being built from the HQ and molotovs being available t0 combined with coh1 maps putting buildings near high value points on one side of a map only.
All the core 1v1 maps atm devolve into the soviets rushing buildings as fast they can because they know its such an effective strategy
Buildings are broken? |
I dont think this would significantly impact the game in regards to the LMG. Teching in coh2 is very rapid, almost as fast as you might get the muns in the first place on a low income 1v1 map or if you get cutoff early. More over I dont believe LMGs are imba.
I don't thing they are imbalanced on the grand scale of the game however they lend a huge veterancy push very early on, and since it wouldn't significantly impact how the game is played all the more reason to implement as it is more of a shift than a nerf!
Rebalancing the building issue in t0 is key but its as much an issue of map design as unit design. Rifle grenades are no where near as cost effective as molotovs. 15 muns for an ability that uses input lag/pathing to its advantage is a great value. God forbid your support teams repeatedly tries to pick up a MG while standing in flames if the gunner dies first. Molotovs never stop being useful throughout the game but they turn the building wars at the start one sided.
This doesn't make sense to me and I guess I don't understand. Yes Molotov's are far more successful at routing German squads from buildings and great when used in a flank, however rifle grenades are vastly superior from an defensive standpoint and due to their range can drastically affect the outcome of a gren vs support team fight without putting the gren in as dangerous of a situation. I find it exceptional when used in conjunction with an MG42, and constantly use them against support crews and infantry in cover throughout the game.
Most games I dont even get a LMG with my first 60 muns because there is literally so many other important things for ostheer to do with it that waiting a few mins wouldnt change my personal gameplay at all. And lately I've been trying g43s for something different vOv
That is an entirely valid point as often I do not use my first 60 munitions for an LMG however when that is how those first 60 munitions are used I believe that is the window in which Soviets are in the worst position to deal with them, and unfortunately you and I aren't the only players in the game.
The incentive to this change is slightly more active play in the first few minutes of the game and the use of successful combined arms being rewarded even if it is simply the MG42 in conjunction with a rifle grenade at range.
|
1
TradeMrk
Stichy
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
