As for heavier AT guns: the US employed the 90mm M2 dual-purpose gun. It was quite similar to the famed German 88m Flak 36 gun. I could see it as a doctrinal emplacement in the future.
There was also the M5 Anti-Tank gun, which was based on a 3" anti-aircraft gun and started seeing deployment in 1943. It's basically the same gun that was used on the M10, however.
They didn't use anything heavier than that, so... maybe a reverse-lend leased 17pdr gun? Again, would be conceivable as a doctrinal emplacement, like the Brits had in vCoH or the Pak43 that's in the game now.
Edit: There was also the experimental 105mm T8 gun, which could penetrate 210mm of armour at 1000 yards, but weighed 8 tons (definitely not movable by the crew) and came too late to see action in WW2.
Sweet, so there's a historical justification for it. I'd say put in the 90mm, but instead of an emplacement, to reflect US mobility, I think it should be a deployable unit. As in, the gun itself can be moved around slowly, but cannot fire in that state at all. If you want to fire it, you need to deploy it and it takes 10-15 seconds. So it's a much more inflexible weapon than a normal AT gun, but still allows you some leeway. Make it both weaker and (maybe) more expensive than a PaK 43 to compensate. That should give a backbone to US AT. As for how to access it, I doubt Relic will ever a unit to a faction's normal roster, so obviously it would be a new commander. |
Am I crazy or do you get way more fuel than you ever did in CoH1? I tihnk it's something to do with the caches and strat points providing fuel.
Teching happens way faster. In vCoH you wouldn't start seeing tanks until the 25m mark, since they were all tucked in their faction's T4 which was expensive. The only one was the Stug in Whermacht's T3. In CoH2 it's not uncommon to see them at the 15m mark (or earlier for Soviets sometimes) because teching is so much cheaper and you have higher fuel income via strat points giving you some.
This is also magnified in WFA since OKW can get an armored TD or a puma out of one of its starting tiers, and USA can beeline to tanks with a mere 140 fuel spent.
Anyway, I still feel US late game is way too dependent on the Jackson, which is very good but so incredibly fragile one misclick = dead. Basically, you often win or lose your late game based largely on how you micro your Jacksons and how much the map allows you to do so. Apart from that their AT options are very lackluster sans E8. They really need some sort of meatshield tank, or at least for bazookas not to suck, especially considering they cost fuel to get. Or maybe a heavy AT gun, did they US deploy some of those? A stolen Flak 88  ?
|
Thats my point exactly. Would result in individual tiers that are complete in all they could need, in AT or AI, mixed into one package, but without having to go through the tech structures of other factions from which Sov is free to choose.
Why? Most other high-end tiers in the game are fairly all-around.
Ost T3 has an all-around tank, a tank destroyer, and an AI tank. T4 has primarily AI artillery, AI assault gun, and an AT tank.
USA T4 has an AI tank, a tank destroyer, and an all-around tank.
OKW tiers all have AT options (Puma, Jagd, Raketen, Panther) on top of their various infantry and/or AI platforms (Volks, ISG, flacktrack, Stuka, Obers, Sturmtiger).
Soviet tiers are the ones that are too specialized. In theory, getting X tier to have Y sort of units is good, but in practice it just creates severe unit overlap. The T-70 is overshadowed by the much more versatile T-34 which, apart from the speed, is the same thing but better. The SU-76 is an artillery, at which the Katyusha is better, and a moving AT gun, at which the SU-85 is much better too. These two units offer very little in their respective tiers.
I have seen very few T-70 since they were nerfed some time ago, and I almost never, ever saw SU-76 in CoH2's entire lifetime, and I wouldn't be surprised if people had similar experiences to me. Either these two units need a role change, major tweaks, or to switch places.
And no, this is not calling for faction homogenization. Soviet tech structure is supposed to give them choice, but in practice it pretty much pigeon-holds them into getting T-34s because T4 is too immobile and unreliable. It needs changes. There's also the separate problem that calls-ins do basically everything their T3 and T4 does, but better. |
People are claiming the ISG to be some god gun, it is not. It is very RNG dependent, I've tried 2 before and they were set up forward enough to cover past the "front line" by the end I think one had about 18 kills and the other around 8. Like all Indirect fire weapons such as mortars they are RNG heavy, altho I feel mortars still perform better as you can get them closer at very little risk for a much higher reward.
ISG's pretty much have to hit dead on to deal damage, they (Feel at least) to have a lot less splash than mortars.
ISG's will usually get 1 model if it hits, very rarely does it get 2 or higher. I see mortars regularly either take 2-3 models or spread out a fair amount of damage among a squad from splash.
Please try using things for more than 1 game where they get good RNG. Try them for at least 20-30 games and look at the average performance.
They also got their arcing and UnitAI Messed with since the Alpha, it feels as if they scatter a lot more now too. The Arcing seems to of been fixed as of the most recent patch but other than that.
Also don't get me wrong, I am not saying it is bad, I'm just saying it's unreliable, especially with the lack of Suppression Okw have.
This happens with all artillery. When the Katyusha was overbuffed, I had one with like 3 kills after 5 barrages, despite once aiming it straight at a Volksblob. It was destroyed, the 2nd one scored 20ish kills. RNG is part of the game.
Sure, it's not a god gun. But it's a very good unit, and I would gladly trade a normal mortar for it, because those are even more prone to RNG silliness. For its price it seems very fair to me, and very effective especially against Soviet T2 play. |
|
ISG is one of the best long range units of the early game and Stuka is one of the best artillery in the game period, if not THE best now that both Katyusha and Pwerfer were nerfed. I'm really not sure they mean anything else.
And hell, if we need to homogenize the factions that much, can I get no less than 5 elite infantry choices (Sturm, Jaegers, Falls, Fusiliers, Obers) as Soviets please? Different factions have different strengths and units. More news at 11. |
|
It could use some mobility, or at least fixing its damn pathing. For a medium sized armored vehicle, this thing seems to move around as if it was as ponderous as an Elefant.
Apart from that, I wouldn't say it's a bad unit. It hurts tanks well enough, and I had it beat twin P4s with an AT gun and/or conscripts as support a few times. The problem is that the SU-76, which I imagine is intended to support it, is not useful at all. Post-nerf Katyusha is decent, but overall Soviet T4 is just that; decent. Meanwhile, you can get T3 which allows for great early game aggression and transition in call-ins which are much stronger than anything in T4.
Really, the problem is far larger. The entire tech structure of the two vanilla factions means that, right now, their T4 is both more expensive and less effective than their call-ins. Because yeah, between spending 200ish fuel on T4+SU-85 or getting an IS-2, the latter will be the better answer the vast majority of the time. |
Fuel caches.
Cannot replace fuel points, costing MP and providing less gas, as well as being very easily destructible late game. By your own admission you had total fuel dominance all game and inflicted heavy losses on the opposition (5 Kat is like 1500MP 500F!). Unless it was a 3v3/4v4, there's no way you should have lost to those odds if you hadn't thrown the game away.
The Katyusha is OP, yes. It does not, however, mean any Axis loss is due to them. They do not win games if they are being destroyed in such numbers. Unless, again, your opponents outplayed you and came back.
I play a good amount of Ostheer in 2v2. I owe some losses to Katyushas, yes. I also managed to beat them. It's tough, but very doable. They are very powerful, but they sure as hell aren't an excuse for every loss against Soviets. Especially in 1v1. |
I stop playing this game until Katyusha crap is fixed.
Where is the fix Relic? Surely even you can see how broken this unit is and yes of course I am angry after yet another lost game in which this unit carried Soviet team to victory. This time I destroyed at least 5 of them and had BOTH fuels secured for our team majority of the game? You think that was enough?
Nope, they were able to build one after another. The moment I killed one there was another one in its place. Who knows, maybe I prevented spam after all.
No really, I repeat my request. Can a developer come here and explain thought process behind recent change to this unit? Why didn't you revert it to the state before the major nerf when it was fine.
If you really lost while destroying the equivalent of 500 fuel while holding both fuel points, I have no idea what to say to you. How the hell did he/they get 5 Kats out + the tanks they would need to have in the first place if their fuel income is realistically below 20? |
|
Historically, the first Tiger kill was when a Churchill with a piddly gun drove very close and shot at its gun mantlet (IIRC).
So yeah, acting as if Tigers, or any other heavy tank for that matter, should be immune to some forms of AT is stupid. AT in this game is meant to be used against tanks. Tiger is a tank, so AT is useful against it. That's a rule every single tank obeys to.
In fact, the IS-2 and Tiger are so homogenized that it seems silly to me to say either one is too powerful. They are almost identical apart in some details (mostly fire rate, turn speed and armor, and the last point is kinda offset by Axis having more penetration on their AT weapons). I would like the IS-2 to deal 240 damage at the cost of fire rate, to reflect it's behemoth 122mm gun. It would mean more unit diversity too. As someone suggested, buff its coaxial to make up for it against infantry if required. |
Thread: ISU-15230 Jul 2014, 19:50 PM
Am I the only one who hasn't found this unit to be all that amazing?
I've used it in 1v1 a few times and I hardly see it get squad wipes. It's a good general purpose assault gun (as the AT is quite good too) if it's protected, but I rarely see it destroying armies.
I don't play team games, so is it that much more dangerous in 2v2 and up?
The squadwiping is overdone by some. It's a solid assault gun. It won't win games by itself, but it will be able to effectively engage any target on the field if properly used and supported.
It's mobility and pathing are so shit, however, that driving/bypassing its support or even misclicking can lead to disaster. For its price tag, I think it's balanced. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
