Great points. Seems like youre advocating for OKW being a strong early game, weak mid game, strong late game faction. This is what OKW was mostly like when I started playing and its a direction that I can get behind.
One thing to keep in mind is that jli arent good enough as elite infantry (if they are even considered that) and falls are in a middling doctrine that only seems to be getting worse in dbp. Obers are great, but then you disincentivise the purchase of lught vehicles or anything that requires fuel because you want your t4 up asap. This also means that OKW gets punished for going callins in a way that no other faction is. Asymmetrical balance and all, but that would probably really hurt okw if they have to tech to be competitive with their infantry whilr other factions can have competitive infantry and a bunch of call in tanks. If callins were better balanced, then I would have no issue.
1- I would like a middle gap on T4 teching so you can pump out JPIV and Obers faster and locking the PIV/V and the gun after an upgrade. In a gross way, 1/3 of the cost to get T4 and 2/3 to tech.
2- In general, small arm DPS across the board on late game should go down IMO.
In that way, what i would suggest would make sense.
go to modding under in game store look up cheat command mod 2 by janne, its a win condition for custom gamesso you can use it with other mods
Adding to this. I suggest you download both versions as they fulfil (IMO) better jobs respectively.
Mod2 is more complete but a bit less intuitive/practical to work with. It has the added benefit of been able to test different commander abilities without the need of equiping them.
Mod1 excels at testing specifics units as it's faster to change ownership, states, copying units, etc.
They definitely do deal expected amount of damage. Do mind though that in case of buildings it actually makes a difference where you throw the granade. If it lands far away from enemy models it will deal very little damage unless whole building is set on fire (but that is a rare occurance).
As for flamers that have been rightfully standarised, no need to break that.
"Fixed an issue where Sapper flamethrower was dealing additional damage vs squads in cover (i.e., above the level of other flamethrowers)". Maybe they made UKF to get another type of flamer file.
Falls, sturm, ir stg obers...all close range units that will gladly replace mp40 non doc volks as a much better unit...OR volks will be more cost eficient and we are back to the initial issue.
Just a small clarification: Falls and IR STG are not necessarily close range units, the same problem with Volks STG (live) and Bars (IMO).
AR (assault rifles) should be good at close range, great at mid and bad at long range (see PG) when trading with Bolt/LMGs. The thing is that they are way better as long range units as well.
BAR has IMO too much long range dmg for a weapon which is meant to be mid/close and used on the move.
Falls are a 4 BAR squad.
IR STG has more dmg than the best bolt action (Ober) at far. They also fulfil the weird role of anti cover/pseudo anti garrison.
On top of that, ARs (and other SMGs) have a property which should be only part of HMGs. Focus_fire = false. This mean that each bullet they miss to hit on it's target, they get an extra change to hit through scatter. Something you can't account by just looking at DPS tables.
With that out of the way, as you say, i prefer going back to Volks been cannon fodder/utility (basically OKW pre rework) with more accessible elite units (Obers, Falls, JLI) with the stopgap been Sturmpios for the early/mid game. PF would fulfil the current role of Volks (live).
STG was a clutch in order to make the transition on the rework of OKW easier. The thing is, i don't think people will let go of the current "spam" STG Volks for an Osstruppen + Elite infantry type of army composition.
It has the HIGHEST penetration of all heavies, higher than tiger and king tiger, and the exact same accuracy of tiger and king tiger.
Just in case: accuracy is only relevant against vehicles. You have to still account for scatter shots (how far away you will miss from your target). When most people complain about drunk IS2 crew aiming, it's because the IS2 tends to overshoot (way higher scatter than the other 2 tanks) it's targets. IIRC, i think it was Cruzz who said you should basically go towards the IS2 and never have a wall behind you (for infantry). In that way you would avoid getting hit by the AoE.
You should be more afraid of the IS2 gunner than the RNG gun from the IS2.
@OP:
About "low" 160 damage: in the past, we had it do 240dmg. It didn't work. The gun used to have a 20% chance of vehicle crew shock/stun (same with Tiger), REALLY slow ROF and like 20% dmg deflection. It was still bad.
About the current situation with IS2 in comparison to Tiger: for one, there's only 2 doctrines with them, none of them been meta. Compared that to the 4 Tiger (+1 been the TA), one of them been really meta (Lighting) and the other ones having defining roles (resource manipulation + spin strafe; anti support weapons/simcity; Stug-E into Tiger).
Shock Rifle frontline has drop from the meta when the KV8 was nerfed and the Shocks been no longer relevant to the current gameplay. Flame barrage is balanced therefore not strong enough to bring on, same as the IS2.
Armored Assault: first ability which is only relevant for 1v1 due to radio chat clutter on teamgames and still not useful for like 70% of the playerbase. Overlapping of T34-85s vs IS2, repair vehicle been nice but not something you would choose a commander for, same as the IL2 loiter.
Buffing the IS2:
Ez way: the only thing i'll modify is to slightly decrease the scatter (still been higher than both Tiger).
More elaborate: aura affecting infantry which increase acc/RA by +10%/-10% ? Maybe that replaces the vet1 ability. Maybe a toggle mode on which slows down the speed of the vehicle in order to apply the aura?
ShockRifle: whenever either Shocks or KV8 receive some love, it would see play again.
Armored assault: replace radio intercept with either a reworked vehicle detection or something similar as to what British Hammer specialisations receive (the tracking on hit thing). T34-85 replaced with the soviet version of breakthrough (the one on Encirclement doctrine. Cost fuel (?) and lets vehicle be a little faster and decap points). IS2 on this commander could be slightly different than the one on Shockrifle. The aura vet 1 based ability could affect vehicles (accuracy/rof) instead of infantry.
If there's a bug that make green cover inconsistent it should be fixed as well as raketen cover introduced.
"@Smith do you think this is possible to fix so it works as it should (operators getting cover all the time)?"
Wow turned out to be an intended feature that needs instant fix.
My point was: you are asking for a feature that doesn't work 95% of the time as a justification of the "imbalance" on AT gun power levels. My previous post just told you that it didn't work. My 2nd post basically tells you WHY it doesn't work.
You are asking for Rak to provide green cover. My point is, compared to the size and HITBOX on other AT guns, how is this supposed to cover anything at all:
Even if you add green cover, the pivot point from which cover would apply would be small or you would had to increase the hitbox of it adding invisible walls.
This is a great buff/QoL:
That, plus the weapon-team formation changes in DBP that make the crew ignore craters when setting up their formations.
In case it might help finding the bug, i have a suspicious that the problem comes from the loader on the AT gun crew (not the one "aiming"). It might had been my perception, but it seems that the model on the left tend to be easier to protect.
Since i don't have any recording software ATM, i can't upload it but the pics and information i posted before is HOW THE FREAKING GAME is actually working right now (i just test it again).
You can be delusional and live in a world where a green icon provides you with placebo cover, or you can actually launch the game and see how the 2 guys on the weapons are dying as if they had no cover whatsoever.
Edit:
I'm amused by the level and variety of bugs this game has. AT gun cover operators (so i can found this post later)
@Smith do you think this is possible to fix so it works as it should (operators getting cover all the time)?
There's a fringe case on which operators DO benefit from cover. I only made the test with the Zis and the Pak40 with a single Ober model (vet3 for acc) and Gren (for Rifle nade).
-If the weapon is aiming at the center of it's arc, there's no cover whatsoever. You can move around 360° (just in case the directional cover was bugged) and you will still hit for 16dmg (Kar damage model).
-Now, when the weapon move to the limit of the arc, there's a pretty small window/arc on which the operators will benefit from having green cover ONLY at something like 20° from the center of the position at which they are aiming. This will affect small arm fire and explosives (note: explosive cover consideration only matters for the position from which it was fired, not where it lands).
-It seems that each AT gun might have a different arc on which cover applies when aiming to the sides.
Orange side is the position on which you fill benefit from cover.
Edit2: even more fun.
USF:
When looking to the left, it doesn't provide green (shield disappears). Yes when in middle and to the right. Pretty small gap of cover when looking to the right, same to the left depending on which model it is targeting.
SU:
The opposite, when looking to the right no cover but there's a small gap on which 1 of the models has cover. When looking to the left, the green cover applies up to 180 going counter clockwise from the center.
OH:
Same behaviour as Zis but on both sides. More cover.
UKF:
Same as Zis.
TL;DR: Update on the situation. You basically get no cover on operators 90% of the time unless they are aiming at specific points depending on each AT gun.
Except that
1) raketen by design bunch models (but nobody care, inconsistencies aren't on scope, only on the "RA normalization" is) that makes it easily wipeable more than other atg
2) green cover offers small arms protection..and a 50 range atg not having such protection means a LOT.
3) green cover STILL affect aoe based explosion of several kinds, including grenades and mortar shells scattered falling beyond the green cover.
4) the point 2 makes raketen even weaker against tank than point 1, because t34/sherman/whatever mg/pintle considerably damage the crew even frontally.
Like I said, nothing beyond 2vs2 should exist, it simply isnt playable..
You perfectly showed good points regarding how "clusterfuck" modes affect balance..
Did u read my post or not? The AT gun shield doesn't affect the guys manning the weapons. They get both full damage from small arm fire and explosives. On the past i did this by activating cheatcommands and looking at the damage a single Ober model (can't miss with vet) would do to all 2 man AT gun crew.
Due to how targeting works and formations, 90% of the time the models which are focus fired first and targeted are the ones manning the crew. Why? Because they are in the front and are the only available targets once infantry/vehicles enter on it's range.
Now check the pic for the default formation on the rest of the AT guns. It's a V shape on which the other 2 crews are separated so they don't all die to a single AoE shell. The only AT gun crew which benefits them is the Zis gun, because 2 models are been protected by the AT gun itself.
I'll give you an example from the most recent game i could find casted by Dane.
Once a single model dies on any 4man crew weapon, it will "magically" pop up a green shield because the majority of the models are supposedly behind cover (the 2 guys behind the weapons) but they don't benefit from them. Only when due to moving the weapon and other units passing by forcing the crew to move they will get behind cover. The default formation on all AT guns crew don't let them benefit from the At guns cover.
Don't bother with the stats, take a look at the model.
The only difference between with other AT guns is that the weapon itself probably has a bigger hitbox which will block incoming scatter shots (which i'm not sure if it's good or bad due to AoE).
NOW, what probably happens in the late game, is that due to craters forming up, crew will try to stay together inside those craters. This will force crew to change their default formation to bunch up inside, which for other AT guns means having 2 models benefiting from the green cover at best.
The best buff the Rak could ever receive is this: Projectile now ignores terrain elevation
Well...they would still die to tanks before firing the second shot FRONTALLY too, and will now die frontally to infantry too because of the "fixed" RA of any other team weapons because lacking the "non fixed" green shield any other atg that isn't a meme has, and I can't believe nobody in the team noticed by playing the mod...
"but that seems to have been their design intent from the very beginning."
You mean the super advanced design that includes volksshrek ?
Old copy paste.
1-The AT gun does not provide green cover for the guys operating the weapon. You do full damage (i can't test accuracy outside of making a mod) either through small arm fire or explosives (grenades or mortar shells for example). Easy to check by either killing the crew with a grenade/mortar or activating the dmg indicator on cheatmods.
2-The AT gun ITSELF does create green cover and each of them has a hitbox (which can blocks incoming shots). The thing is, it's mostly irrelevant for the crew due to formation.
Check the pic (for some reason the rak 4th guy spread out)
So yeah, green cover on the AT gun for the crew is useless, cause a shell landing on top of it will kill the 2 operating guys and heavily wound the 3rd guy which might be nearby.
That been said, it's not worthless putting AT guns behind cover, cause that will protect the operators.
Hitbox on AT guns might differ (not to confuse with size) which might intercept shots but would still wound crew operators.
1v1 gets more resources on average till min 15. From that point onwards, 4v4 get's more resources the longer the game drags on. What you can get away with on teamgames (including 2v2) is having one dimensional armies or rushing to certain tiers/vehicles due to not having the requirement of having a proper army which has to control the map. Outside of 1v1, cut offs and resource denial is non existant.
Having a proper 1v1 balance doesn't mean you will necessarily have a balanced 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4 game. Units that are broken on 1v1 doesn't mean they are equally cancerous on 4v4 or viceversa.
While we are balancing for team games. How about Allied units receiving next to no friendly fire but Axis units receiving Stalin's hammer as soon as a friendly mortar strikes near them?
That's a really good point. Not sure if changes had been done but this is from an old post i made.
Praise be the search function for old posts:
Going roughly through coh2stats icons and checking area_damage_FF_multiplier:
I might got some wrong values but overall, i think a normalisation of friendly fire by category of weapon should be done (Pwerfer is one of the outliers). I didn't bother with offmaps cause it takes more time to look for them.
If you ask me, i'll remove the 0.03/0.03 category and move it all to 0.20/0.20 Friendly fire shouldn't be as friendly as it's now.
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
