|
The Panther is fine where it is, I don't think it should be changed.
The problem is on the Soviet side of things and their lack of handheld AT. It's a voluntary design imbalance that's meant to create more interesting tactical play. Soviets have a sight and linear fire advantage whereas OST get a mobility and resiliency advantage. That's fine on some maps.
Where this balance falls apart though is on maps with lots of shot blockers (buildings, thick hedges): Kholodny, the center of Semoskiy and Kharkov come to mind. SU-85s and Zis are nearly useless when a tank can just hide behind a building anytime it's in danger. The Sov side then need to compensate by picking commanders with heavy call-in tanks. I find this lack of versatility makes for more cookbook strategies where you either pick the right commander or stand a greater chance to lose.
|
the solution is simple, but difficult to implement. REAL Infantry AT. lets go back to vcoh, panthers werent such an issue there because 1: Ranger bazookas rape panthers rear armour. 2: paras with RRs are superb AT. 3: Panthers are piss poor against infantry. A trait about infantry AT is that they do not require setup to shoot and can react to quick movement such as tanks, resulting in them being superb in close ranges, best used to support AT guns.
yet here in coh2, we only have AT guns as the closest thing soviet has as infantry AT, or PTRS that dont even have a good 100% chance to penetrate rear armour. and AT nades at best a snare tool, cannot be counted on to do consistent dps.
so as panthers charges in, all it has to do is wade thru the initial AT fire, which it can count on its heavy armor to negate a good amount of the damage, easily getting into the flanks and ravaging soviet lines. because there is nothing that can protect flanks at close ranges. AT guns are too clunky and have to be constantly resetup, su85 can be circle strafed, ptrs takes years to down a panther.
the nature of soviet AT is that they are all long ranged snipers, so the best tactic to use them would be in staggered formation. in order to cover each other from armoured rush. so now, in order to counter panthers, or actually german armour mobility, every piece of AT equipment must be supported by another. if not, they are very easily circled and destroyed.
+1 Best analysis so far.
I feel like Relic is clearly aware of this issue and tried to compensate the lack of proper handheld AT with retardedly strong veterancy bonuses on the SU-85 and Zis. It's clearly a design decision and they've stuck with it so far.
I got my fingers crossed for an AT upgrade on penal troops but I doubt we'll ever see that. |
I'll repeat myself. If you want to remove or change ram you will have to redesign whole Soviet T3 as right now if Soviet went T3 only build and have no fancy call ins Ram is his only hope to fight of German T4 not to mention about German truly heavy units like Tiger
You wouldn't need a complete rework if you just replace the ram crits with a long stun.
What you would get is a predictable behavior where a ram would give supporting AT units enough time to damage an enemy tank. You can add some small RNG to the amount of damage dealt on impact and/or stun duration.
What you remove is the chance that a single diceroll will either win or lose the game for you.
|
The main issue I had with them was the extreme dominance it had on bridge maps.
You have your issues mixed up.
Hint: It's the bridge maps. |
|
I had a lot of fun trying out the Luftwaffles commander. I think it's a great example of a fairly balanced addition that introduces an interesting play style.
Still, it's a lot easier to play with commanders that include heavy tank call-ins. It's way too easy to get an IS-2 or Tiger with little map control, and easier still to get a 2nd and 3rd one after that.
Hopefully that will be taken care of in the next patch.
At the other end of the spectrum, Urban defense and both community commanders are underwhelming.
|
|
Community created vehicle and infantry skins through steam workshop. That's your moneymaker right there. |
What you're saying is you think CoH2 commanders should function like vCoH commanders. They should supplement a strategy, not define it. I think that works excellently when your base game offers a lot of strategic variety and depth. But CoH2 doesn't offer that. If you had vCoH-style commanders in CoH2, you'd have an extremely boring game.
Personally, I would've liked to see a deep base game with low-impact commanders. But CoH2 doesn't really have a deep base game, and the best hope for that depth right now is the constantly evolving commander system.
Yes, THAT is my message. I'm just hopeful that we can get more depth out of the core game starting from what we have. I see no reason why we couldn't.
Also, if the recent patches have taught us anything is that it may be harder to balance new wonky commanders than the base game. |
I agree, it's a bad solution, but the only way to fix the base game would be a major redesign, and that just isn't going to happen until an expansion, and even then it's pretty doubtful. But with the recent change to increase the number of CPs, I think Relic could make commanders a lot more complex and give them a lot of abilities and upgrades that could approximate the kind of strategic options that made vCoH so much fun. If they lock those additions behind a paywall, however, it just makes the situation worse.
I think we essentially agree to the point that the core of COH2 should be free. I just don't think that commanders should be that integral to the core. In fact, new commanders should be about as necessary to a players success as a new skin pack. My feel is that this was Relic's original intent based on their monetization model.
The fact that reality deviates from that original vision is a problem (balance). One that I hope Relic will see to and find ways to prevent in the future. |
|
I really don't think that commanders should become a crutch for the lack of strategic depth in this game (free or not). COH2 as a tactics/strategy game should be primarily about that. If it's lacking in that field, then Relic should strive to improve it, not cover it up with commander variety.
The thing is, no matter how many commanders you add, once you get past the wow factor of discovering a new ability, you're left with a bland strategy game (not that I think it's bland, but I would like to see more depth).
Commanders should not be that integral to COH. They are supplements to a playstyle and you should not be required to "have 'em all". That model has worked for MOBA games because the hero unit and its abilities are all you have. In COH, every base unit is important and each one should have a specific and meaningful role. |
|
Look, the commander system is the one aspect of the game that is least likely to change and too much effort is spent wishing it was something that it's not.
It's not up to us the presume if the current monetization system will work in the long run or not. The data will speak for itself and Relic will act accordingly.
This discussion has raised other aspects of the game that can be improved and that we can exert more influence on:
-global upgrades,
-improving the early game,
-cover,
-importance of light vehicles,
-late game being less of a heavy tank fest.
I suggest that we focus on those. |
0
RtN. Havoc
Strategos
Strategos
PanzerGrenadierAngreifen
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
