Profile of elchino7

Your definition of durable exceeds its normal values. Firstly you use it equally as tough, wich scotts are not, but secondly you ignore the facts that scotts have higher HP than any other mobile light arty. As for it takes 3 shots it means you have plenty of time to retreat, since the normal ambush uses 2 AT guns at most. Lastly because scotts have such a high performance in other role than their intrnded role (indirect fire cover) OP asked for a discussion. Not its durability, not his mobility, but its AI autoattack power. Nice derail there tho.

But it's never been used nor it's main intended role is to be used as an indirect weapon as mortars or artillery. The unit is closer to a mobile light armored Brummbear. At most you'll see someone use the smoke from time to time.

It's ingenuous to compare it to rocket artillery, because they behave in a different way (long cooldown, no AA, fire most of it payload in 1 go). That's why they have an HP pool of 160. Because they don't need to be in the frontlines to work.
The closest thing is the MHT and it's still quite different even if we don't compare it's cost, popcap or time or arrival. Let's take a look at garrison clearing.

Mortars have a 0.50 modifier against garrison on direct hits and have a far dmg of 20 (this is used to calculate the dmg they deal to all entities inside a building despite whether or not they are close to the impact of a shell).
The Scott is set to 0.25 and 10dmg respectively.


Thinking a bit more, the closest related unit to the Scott should be the Stug-E.

The unit would had seen nerfs if it wasn't part of the major tech. The problem of been on the last tech building (reminds me of old P2 in Schwerer HQ).

If you nerf the direct fire mode, you would need to give it enough utility and firepower on barrage to make it worth using that late stage on the game. A mortar HT at the equivalent timing of rocket artillery is not gonna cut it down.

One way to change it is reducing the range on auto attack, while keeping it's AI performance, but improving barrage mode to compensate. What about HE delayed fuse barrage ?

Sherman would be the last or close to it on the list of medium tanks been bad.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/84257/useful-interesting-threads-2-0


If you want the practical answer:

1-The ladder is based in an ELO system. A new account is assigned X number. If you win against someone who is ranked higher you win more points than if you do against someone who is inferior to you.
While your ELO number is hidden, your position on the ladder is based on this number.

2-How do you obtain this number? By playing at least 10 games with a certain faction, a certain mode and with certain people. Each ranking is independent of the others. Each different pair (2v2) or team (3v3+) has a specific ELO number.

3-The interesting part comes from the numerical ladder position vs your rank level. There are 20 ranks, which if you look carefully, you can see that several ranks are missing. This is due to the fact that each of the 20 ranks represent a certain percentile of players which are ACTIVE.
While the ranks 16-20 represents the top200 players, the ranks 15/14 are generally missing cause those represent the top X percentile of the playerbase.

4-Talking about activity. Once you stop playing with a certain partnership and mode for a whole month, your rank becomes hidden. Your ELO remains the same (although it is said to be a certain decay, it's not effective TBH to the point it matters). Once you play 1 game, you have a whole 1 more month till it becomes hidden again.

Why does the ladder look like it is right now?

A) The first 10 games are REALLY important. If you secure around 7/8 wins you should easily be put around top200 even if you haven't face anyone around that rank.
B) Top50 with fewer than say 25 games require a really good WR % depending mostly on type of ladder as well. It's not the same the random ladder than the arranged team ladder.
C) There's a breaking point around +100 games on which you forcefully raise in the ladder by just playing and maintaining around 55% WR.
I like to call this, the PG.Angreifen effect. While the player has a better WR that what i mentioned before, you could see that there are probably better players with better WR on the ladder. But these type of players have gone through such a grind, that they have a higher ELO. This is more notable on random ladders for teamgames.

Overwatch flare is only broken for team games where it applies to all ally points. In 1v1 it is fine. Soviet radio intercept provides free recon without set-up or a cost and has been accepted in multiple commanders since day 1.

Unlike radio intercept, the overwatch flare is a dead giveaway to your commander selection and the opponent knows it is in use. You can counter it with sweepers or use it for counterplay using indirect fire units.

TBH, that's the first thing i thought to compare with on the concept of "free" recon. Radio intercept gives you audio cues and only works on 1v1 mostly as in other modes it's actually contraproducent to the player (you miss important normal audio cues due to sheer volume of them appearing).
You know what units are arriving. You don't know where and when. But the most important aspect of OW ability is the vision it provides as it helps other units fight as well. We all know the penalties of say firing into FoG.

Giving it the same behaviour as booby traps and a symbolic small cost, will lower the current powerhouse which is Overwatch as a commander.