Profile of MilkaCow

Reference

Yea, there was some talk about starting with a Volksgrenadier instead of a Sturmpio, but that would require some additional changes. Otherwise the Oberkommando would have no chance to win any fights vs USF early since Riflemen have a (comparably) shorter build time. At 280MP it should be 28 seconds, yet it's 25 seconds. This may not sound like a major issue, but with one Riflemen easily beating a Volks and 40 second buildtime on the Sturmpios it is.
Right now it takes 23 seconds to field a Volks and a Sturmpio, the opponent has a Rear Echelon and a Riflemen at 25. Switching the starting units it would take 40 seconds.

That's why I wouldn't switch them unless the build times for some units get changed. This means, it's not such a simple change anymore, but actually needs quite some testing.

You are wrong. Does the PaK gun bounce the KV-1 100% of the time? How about the IS-2?


I just played a game where I took out a KT from the front with 3 SU-85s.

SU-85 has 200 penetration, KT has 425 front armor.

"lol but 425 > 200"

are you fucking serious right now?

Read my post. Re-read it. Read what I write about "bouncing".

Bouncing means it deflects shots. It does not mean it "bounces" all the time, as that is never possible, except for small arms weapons. None of the weapons here are small arms.

E8 has never bounced a shot from a pak gun, nor should it

You state that the PaK never bounces from an Easy Eight
190/215 = 88% Chance to penetrate
200/215 = 93% Chance to penetrate
210/215 = 98% Chance to penetrate

has the formula for armour vs penetration changed? pen/armour = chance to penetrate, amirite?

Nope, it's still the same. Since the term "bouncing" could be misunderstood I actually added a description hoping that would clarify things. It's pretty much the way, that almost everything that's not small arms can penetrate anything, the chances just get really small. So it's easiest to differentiate into things that always penetrate and those that don't, as that is the most simplified view of a main guns penetration power.
The Easy Eight has the ability to bounce almost all German guns. It does not do so reliably, but unlike for example the T34 which can bounce only a few it is far more resilient.

Easy Eight:
fuel: 135f;
manpower: 380f;
armor: 215f
rear_armor: 95f
hitpoints: 640f

So, you say 215 armor bounces nothing? Also that 35% more armor than the Soviet is "a little bit"? As well as 26% more penetration? Let's see what all bounces:

Jagdpanzer:
| | penetration: {
| | | far: 170f;
| | | mid: 185f;
| | | near: 200f;
| | };
=> Can bounce on all ranges

King Tiger:
| | penetration: {
| | | far: 200f;
| | | mid: 220f;
| | | near: 240f;
| | };
=> Can bounce on ranges above 25

PIV Ostheer and Oberkommando:
| | penetration: {
| | | far: 100f;
| | | mid: 110f;
| | | near: 120f;
| | };
=> Bounces on all ranges

PaK:
| | penetration: {
| | | far: 190f;
| | | mid: 200f;
| | | near: 210f;
| | };
=> Bounces on all ranges

Tiger:
| | penetration: {
| | | far: 180f;
| | | mid: 200f;
| | | near: 220f;
| | };
=> Bounces above 25 range

Panther:
| | penetration: {
| | | far: 220f;
| | | mid: 240f;
| | | near: 260f;
| | };
=> Reliably penetrates!!!

So Panther, PaK43, Elefant and Jagdtiger are the only vehicles that reliably penetrate the Easy Eight Sherman. Others, like Tiger and King Tiger penetrate over half of their ranges.

If you compare the tank in general to others of the Allied side which are similar (Soviet Sherman, T34/85) you see it's better than the Soviet Sherman (though slightly slower) for the same price. It's performance is at least similar if not even a bit better than of the T34/85. This tank is 400 manpower and 140 fuel, lower armored, but has more HP. The T34/85 has a slightly faster firing main gun (6.15 instead of 6.6) with 2.5 instead of 2 radius, but far less penetration, especially on long range.

So in general I'd say that tank is definitely not aligned for it's cost. I'd put it at 420 MP and 145 fuel most likely, as I think I'd keep it as strong as it is.

The Jackson is a really strong tank, it's targeting priorities are just a bit weird at times. If you change it to not target infantry (please change that for all TDs), then it's most likely even too good. It's already too good for it's price, it's only the handling problems that make it feel less potent.

No unit should get a bonus to retreating units, and you definitely don't give it to a high-dps long range unit. The StG upgrade that ignores cover is baffling, since cover mechanics have been a core concept for CoH since the beginning, and now all of a sudden there's a long-range unit that just ignores it.

I agree that the bonus damage vs retreating units is bad, but I honestly don't think it's such a gigantic issue. Flamethrowers completely ignore retreating modifiers as do all explosives. Obers have .5 accuracy modifier, other units have .4 - So there is a difference, yet I don't think you feel the difference that much.
The StGs do NOT ignore cover. They perform better vs cover than other weapons, but they still deal less damage vs units in cover. Besides that, they are no long range unit. The Kar-98k and LMG34 are long range, one of each gets replaced for the StG44 and neither of them have that performance vs cover. A Ober+StG44 deals less damage vs units in green cover on 35 range than it does without the upgrade. Unless you get to mid/close range the low dmg of the StG44 means that it's cover ignoring is basically useless

Didnt name call anyone except relic. Who thoroughly deserve it due to these issues being raised for over one month and not addressed properly. Nothing new.

Although maxim and OH UP'ness has been an issue for months.

No name calling means no name calling.

Besides that, the game is released since less than a month, so how can it be that these issues have been raised for such a long time? Regarding the points you brought up about PGrens, Fallschirms and Obers - they did not receive a balance change, but simply a bug was fixed.

It seems you want issues fixed instantly, but then if the patch is not good or the changes are over the top you complain. Assuming Relic really had no idea about an issue it would probably take at least 1 week till it becomes clear it really is an issue. More likely more, as with a new patch and changes often people are too stuck up in their old builds and it takes them a while to try out counters. Once it's likely a problem usually Relic gathers some initial opinions from some players. Then creating possible fixes takes a bit (as I assume, Relic is not just waiting for the latest problem to be discovered and can drop everything to take care of it). Let's say 2 days. Then you actually need to verify if this change solves the problem and does not create other problems. This is far less obvious than you may think, especially if not only one thing, but 30 or 40 are changed at the same time. That means you need at least 2 or 3 weeks of testing, for major issues probably more. Then there is an additional week for QA and to create the changelog / videos regarding the changes. The majority of the community does not understand the stat changes in the changelog, so it's necessary to write texts (though a lot ignore there and go straight to complaining). In total you have probably a month or two till something gets changed.

You misunderstand the point. I said they are idiots. I am the customer and i expect the product to be fit for consumer use. I.e. I pay money for a balanced game.

This is not a balanced game atm. Refer to Imperial dane video

No. You pay to be able to play the game. You do not pay a monthly fee to make them continuously support the game. It's getting supported because that is what is necessary and expected for such a game. A company which would not do this would most likely not sell subsequent games. Yet you in no way pay for a balanced game. Once again, please stop name calling.

Regarding Dane, I think he's quite biased to the way he thinks a faction should play and not how it is balanced. Conscripts for example do not scale well into lategame as a combat unit, but have a high utility value. For Volksgrenadiers you also have a high utility value for the Panzerschreck, so they have less abilities and no other upgrades. If you compare Volksgrenadiers and Conscripts you'll notice that they are pretty similar in performance. Riflemen on the other hand do not have much utility value. They can't build anything, AT-Riflegrenade is a vet ability and the weapon upgrades are not actually on the unit, but faction wise (with a cost to enable them and forcing you to get them in base). So they have close to no utility cost and are incredibly strong per cost.
This means, I in no way can understand his arguments about Volksgrenadiers underperforming or not scaling into lategame. They are strong due to the Panzerschreck, but in other areas are less effective per cost. Overall it's still a balanced and fine unit. If he prefers Volks without a Panzerschreck, but a LMG, then that's a design issue, not a balance issue.

TBh, Ciez was the biggest detractor to beta. Never seen a guy with so much brown-nosing, "yes-saying" and such a passive -aggressive and disrespectful attitude towards other contributors.

A real snake in the grass.

Wait, what? Can't remember that you were ever in the Beta and I never heard anyone in the group complain about CieZ, so I assume that's a completely made up remark.