Is it the same? I cant check right now but I think the gren rifle nade is much stronger. Haven't seen anyone get wiped by the echelon nade. Heck, my volks didnt even lose 50%hp super clumped up vs it a couple of games ago.
I meant in usage it would have been effectively identical to how you use the Gren Rifle Grenade. You would just get to use it a lot more liberally since its free.
The Grenadier Rifle Grenade itself does about twice the max damage, has a lower minimum range, and no delayed fuse on landing, but has a lower max range, smaller aoe radius, and lower penetration.
In practice the RE Rifle Grenade is far weaker as it has far more limited wipe potential, but with each one being free I think the upgrade would have paid for itself in 3-4 uses. I think the ability to wait for when you want to use it could even be an upside, as they know the grenade is coming and have to keep a watchful eye on their squad as it gets into the half health range. |
That behaviour is a bug as old as the game itself. All the new formation did was slightly enhance the issue by having them move further forward than before. Use attack move command instead to prevent it.
They never went more than about 5 range ahead before. Now you can get it to 20 range ahead of the MG. Thats a massive difference in the way the unit plays. Right clicking on a unit now means its far easier to see it setting up, but gives it more self spotting, and makes it harder to wipe with explosives. None of which were intended changes as far as I know.
I don't pretend to understand the quirks of the CoH2 engine, but I'm curious why the models can't be set to self root at the beginning of the MG setting up rather than the end? |
The original version kept the 60 munitions cost to upgrade it and nerfed their cooldown into oblivion.
My point stand, if it was a good idea to make them requiring user input fair enough then why didn't the team just followed with the idea?
Instead we've got a declaration that the ability is in fact weak but get nerfed anyway. 
I couldn't tell you.
I'm just giving you my opinion. I think the live version is incredibly strong, and thought the first revision was a fair change. I'd completely disagree with their assessment that it is weak and that the revision wasn't user friendly. Its the same as a Grenadier Rifle grenade, and would most likely have paid for itself with 3 uses. It even had the upside of not knowing when the Grenade was going to be launched. |
|
I just want to know why the squad member behavior changed on MGs.
The 3 squad members not carrying the MG now move toward the target if you right click on it rather than giving it a setup command. I tested on an MG42, and the squad members can now get a full 20 distance ahead of the MG itself. |
Someone from the balance team can explain how:
1- something not particularly powerful can have been nerfed to the ground on the first patch iteration.
2- still get nerfed, I mean: it is not particularly powerful but slight nerf to its reload time.
Shall we nerf all flamthrower because they are particularly more powerfull on their own vs cover.
I'm certainly not on the balance team, but I have no problems with nerfing it and think they should have kept the first version.
Auto attacking Grenades are incredibly powerful at that timing, and require far more input (and screen time) to counter than they do to use. Its a zero risk, high reward weapon.
The original proposed version would have kept the Grenades free, but forced user input to use. I think that is a fair way to at least equalize out the amount of APM required to fight them. |
Meanwhile the StuG, Stupa and Elefant are sitting in the corner crying because they're fixed gun vehicles and can't really make great use of hull down.
Someone had suggested giving the Stugs camo when in hull down, which would fit with their ambush role irl and give the casemates a good reason to use this ability.
Elephant is too strong with it though imo, and would have to be left as is. Brummbar would require testing but could go either way. |
|
In the Ostheer thread they are discussing how the Riegal is not worth a doctrinal point and could be paired with another upgrade to bring it in line with other doctrinal points.
I think the British Flamethrower could probably use the same treatment. A single upgrade to a single unit is not good enough to justify an entire doctrinal point, and both Feursturm and Rifle Company have flamethrowers paired with other upgrades.
I'm wondering if the new Vickers could be paired in with it and added to Sections as an upgrade option? |
|
Some interesting ideas here. Some of mine:
BLITZKREIG:
* Breakthrough Equipment
* Panzer Tactician
* Recon Overflight
* Command Panzer IV
* Stuka CAS
While this commander has skyrocketed in popularity lately, I'd like to see it diversify itself further away from Lightning War and Spearhead. Breakthrough equipment is a decent set of upgrades that this offensive minded doctrine will certainly make good use of.
FESTUNG SUPPORT:
* Mortar Halftrack
* Forward Resupply Station
* Puma
* LeFH
* Sector Artillery
There is no real reason that a faction with as many docs as Ostheer can't make 4 LeFH docs work. With the Puma and Mortar Halftrack, this doc will dramatically upgrade Ost light vehicle roster, while defensive tools and artillery round out its arsenal and give it more of a team game focus. Forward Resupply Station is actually a little awkward in this suggested doc, and I wouldn't be opposed to swapping it out.
MOBILE DEFENSE:
* Counterattack Tactics
* Panzer Tactician
* Jaeger Command Squad
* Mobile Observation Post
* Puma
I'll submit this doc as an alternative spot to put the Jaeger Command Squad instead of Storm. Command P4 is already in a metric ton of docs, so I don't feel like 1 fewer option will hurt much. I'd really like to see the balance team take a hard look at the 'fast cap' abilities. They are really weak abilities for a doctrinal point, and either need to add in some combat utility, or else you could arguably even remove the costs altogether and balance them around cooldown. If that isn't reasonable, I would have no qualms about them being replaced altogether. |
Yeah, someone can actually think a certain upgrade or ability is bad, but take the current implementation for granted because it's obvious that's not going to change, and instead advocate that at least it shouldn't be made more available to limit the amount of (bad) influence it has on the game. Is that really so hard to understand?
If someone legitimately holds that opinion then I think thats fine.
But you are coming to the defense of someone who's opinion constantly changes and has no real basis or grounding. His opinions constantly shift and move to fit whatever narrative he wishes to spin today. He's not arguing in good faith and the mods and balance members here have continually shielded him from some very legitimate criticism. |
What follow up? This one?
No more LMG on USF troops pls.
M1 C is not would be a upgrade to Garands with better far DPS not a scoped Carbine.
If I am not mistaken they should already exist in the game.
(maybe this weapon m1a1_carbine_rifleman_spec_mp I am not sure)
Because of relative positioning, mainlines of each faction are designed to trade optimal in certain range.
For the same reason axis mainline infatry should not have an upgrade that allowed them to beat double bar riflemen at mid range.
There is no other way to read this other than LMGs shouldn't exist because it allows them to trade effectively with Axis mainlines at longer ranges. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
