To me, the ISU is a crutch in Soviet late game. If things are even, I am often relying on that thing to wipe squads. In much the same way it is or was a tactic to use Sturmtigers for the same role. Having to go forwards into battle, take a shot or two from a Jagd or Elefant, then having to retreat and repair, will make it more vulnerable to pushes more of the time, make it do less damage over time as it's forced to withdraw, and these two aspects combined will make it less useful when it is sorely needed.
Still, with this nerf to ISU152, one no longer needs to change rear armour because the main use of ISU152, which is to snipe units is in range of JP4 and heavy tank destroyers. Even a panther can take it on with a bit of closing in (50 range vs 60 HE mode).
Elefant and Jagdtiger are the best anti tank units in the team games, 2v2+ they completely shut down any sort of tank play, especially if supported well, but they are not OP. With the exception of the nuke ability on Jagd, elefant is weak to infantry and can be flanked if out of position.
When you're saying things like this, I agree, but I wonder why you think it's fine that ISU has lower range. Ele and Jagd can already shoot at it from the front and, I'm sure, reliably penetrate it at maximum range, let alone fifty range.
Not really. The 60 range nerf is not as bad as it seems.
it is bad because ISU is going to have to repair or be more vulnerable to pushes as it takes damage from its now shortened maximum range.
ISU-152's ability to snipe infantry from behind a wall of AT I would say is more impactful as you stop all ability to capture territory and also can deny VPs for infantry daring to step on that. The JT and Elefant are more devastating to vehicles, but they can't lock out a VP or territory from infantry on their own and bleed the opponent of infantry.
I raise you Jagdtiger's barrage ability, and, secondly, the Brummbär's (although less extreme but still with considerable range).
If anything, I'd like to keep the range as is but, to counter this, maybe increase scatter when attacking ground to make smoke more feasible?
I appreciate the response. Some additional thoughts for you and the team:
- Soviets rely on armor late game to counter vetted axis infantry. Having an Elephant or JT on the field sitting behind a defense shield negates their ability to operate, especially the ones that are good at AI, such as the T70 or T34. As such, I'd say that the Axis player could equally lockout territory by sitting and sniping with the Elephant or JT and using other armor or vetted infantry to hold points. Please consider applying a similar treatment to the Elephant or JT.
- What role, if any, does the KV2 have in the game?
Here's Napalm saying the same thing I said above, where Soviet vehicles are the wiping tools of the Soviets, not elite infantry squads with LMGs. When you have Ele and Jagd shutting down a sector of the map it's difficult or impossible to wipe axis squads with the anti-infantry oriented tanks that are so necessary. Same for USF, too, with the standard Sherman and 105mm howitzer Sherman.
I'm including this from Mr. Someguy because he has done the hard work for me already. I think the points he makes here and the numbers he provides illustrate just how difficult it can be in an evenly matched late game.
What I said in the Soviet thread fits here as well, since we are now talking about the Elefant and the ISU-152 and their respective positions in each Army.
The Elefant and Jagdtiger are heavy casemate tank destroyers with 110 Rear Armor and 1040HP, the SU-85 cannot challenge them because it is woefully outranged and outgunned, so they must flank it with T-34-76 but this is not successful either because the immense HP and occasional bouncing mean that you could leave it idle and alone and it'll take a pair of T-34-76's twenty seconds to kill it.
Unlike facing the ISU-152, the Soviets don't have a Panther they can send forth to poke holes in the front or front sides without risking swift annihilation. An Elefant does 300 damage, so a shot to an SU-85 that dare challenge it will put it down to 340HP in a single counter-hit. An ISU does 240 damage, so if a Panther steps up to challenge it, a successful counter-hit will only put it down to 720.
It is very difficult for stock Soviet to deal with an Elefant that is completely unsupported, add in the fact that it absolutely will be supported and you've got something that is incredibly difficult or even outright impossible to remove. On the other hand, Ostheer and OKW both have a tank that can not only take a few hits to the face, but dish some out.
Let's pretend Axis can only field Panzer IV's and have to deal with an ISU-152. You still have a much easier time than the T-34-76 v Elefant: Panzer IV's higher penetration allows them to punch through the ISU's weaker rear armor 100% of the time from max range, while a T-34-76 is required to close in to medium-close range for a 100% chance to penetrate an Elefant from the back. Now factor in that the Panzer IV has blitz, and it is extremely easy to rush around the side of an ISU even if it starts reversing. But Ostheer/OKW doesn't even have to do this, because they have the Panther.
Soviets do not get that choice, and they still have it considerable harder. Had the Soviet's medium tank been the T-34-85 I would understand, but it's not. Lowering the ISU-152's rear armor to Elefant's does not level the playing field, it unbalances it. Here is statistical proof:
Panzer IV vs ISU-152 (Live)
125/115/110 Pen vs 155 Armor = 80%/74%/70% chance to penetrate.
T-34-76 vs Elefant/Jagdtiger
120/100/80 Pen vs 110 Armor = 109%/90%/72% chance to penetrate.
Panzer IV vs ISU-152 (Preview)
125/115/110 Pen vs 110 Armor = 113%/104%/100% chance to penetrate.
Now consider Axis also have access to Panzerschrecks which they could support their Panther or Panzer IV rush with, and you're dealing damage to the ISU at a rate far exceeding what a T-34-76 rush could do to an Elefant or Jagdtiger.
Overall, I think if only the ISU is going to be changed and it's going to receive both a rear armour nerf and a range nerf with it's HE ammunition, then it should also receive mobility/speed buffs, significant reduction to switch shell types, and/or a reload increase to AP rounds. This is all to counter the vulnerabilities that are being introduced to it.
|
|
Reducing the range of the ISU is a bad way to fix whatever the perceived issue is.
I suppose the issue is that, to counter ISU, axis team must go Elefant or Jagdtiger. But, reducing the HE range of the ISU is an awful way to go about fixing this issue because, as was explained earlier, ISU is very vulnerable to axis armor, especially the Panther, from all ranges.
If there is going to be an ISU range nerf then there ought to be some significant boost to its maneuverability and speed so it can effectively withdraw. Changing ISU like this is going to necessitate changes to the stats of other tanks, not just elefant and jagdtiger, because the threat of a P4/Panther push is going to be much more potent.
Theoretically, I'd love to see a coh that does not have crazy powerful individual things like ISU152, Elefant, Jagdtiger, Sturmtiger, etc., but focuses more on medium tanks and and infantry combat but that's for a different thread |
|
Is there any discussion about Panzerfusiliers & their early panzerfaust? If I recall, changes to Volksgrenadier faust timing was to allow more openers for t1 soviets. Regardless, I always felt frustrated that panzerfusiliers come at 0 CPs and have that faust whereas volksgrenadiers do not.
I'd love for volks and panzerfusilier faust timing to be the same. |
WTF GBPirate is getting lazy, i'l do statistical analysis.
statistics are hard 
 Any idea what the win rate of osttupen vs mech is?
I didn't take any commander data in my spreadsheet but you can download the replays yourself and look!
As for faction wins/losses, it is possible to deduct wins and losses depending on how faction selection went. For some matches it's possible, for others it's not. This is all based on the spreadsheet, bcuz you can still go back and look through the replays. Perhaps next time I'll go through and be more meticulous (but then someone will ask me for build orders, eh?) I'm no SiphonX.
So for example, round one, Bao vs Paula. We can only get some partial data.
We had one allied win, three axis wins. OKW had the only axis loss and USF had the only allies win, so in one of the four games USF beat OKW. After that it's tricky because OKW could have beat USF or UKF, and Ostheer could have won vs USF or just won vs UKF twice.
I think for any game that was a shutout (3-0, 4-0) you can figure out the faction wins in the same way. But when there was more than one game that went for the player that lost, that's when there are too many variables with the limited statistics provided! |
Is it possible to also have the faction that where in each game?
Do you mean statistics for matches as Ost vs UKF USF Sov and OKW va UKF USF Sov?
If so, this was one thing I considered but as I noticed how skewed the faction selection was I decided it wasn’t exactly worth it because the statistical significance of it would be slim-to-none. I wouldn’t be able to compare it to previous tournaments easily as I had not collected or looked at that data. Looking at seed upsets and ace games was easier to compare across all three tournaments and more meaningful because because of that reason. |
i can only talk about 2vs2 tho. 2vs2. The problem that isee its hard for the smaller ones to promote our events. Like i host 2vs2 showmatches every now and then to test new 2vs2 maps and give teams a way to show their skil but like i said its hard to promote your event if its not a big tourney cause a huge post doesnt make sense for a 50 bucks showmatch.
Hey man, if you want to make some kind of long-running event/league, a YouTube series, etc., I'd be more than happy to write some kind of promo piece for it on .org. I could draft up a social media post you could send around too on the official forums, Steam forums, and Reddit. |
|
I can't speak directly to this, but if you are interested in running a tournament, that's something that can be done! You could talk to still active organizers of previous 2v2s for support, advice, or perhaps even a partnership.
It's also much more difficult for casters to catch the action of four players rather than just two. And there might be another issue re: funds, where having a prizepool may attract more players, but rewards would be cut in half for each individual in a 2v2 format. |
I think most people are making good points here.
I disagree with you, NorthWeapon, on your conclusion, that Relic shouldn't have any community input on balance.
I would prefer if members of the balance team weren't just volunteering, but actual paid, part-time employees. I'm a sucker for labour rights, but that's not what this website is for. Having community members with a voice on balance is important for having realistic and desired changes. But those community members shouldn't be top 50 automatch players. They should be map designers, they should be casters, they should be active community members at several tiers of automatch. they should be anyone who wants to respond to a call for balance perspectives. I want a balance team that asks for and looks at the opinions of everyone, not just what someone who is paid to make games thinks. I don't think those people have enough time to play their games to the degree that many of the fans do.
With regards to actual balance in this game, I think this quote from Mirage from page 3 says it best:
Faction Flavour Should Be done Without Compromising Core Aspects
Having no core tools for core systems such as reliable suppression - Kubels will never cut is as MGs late game to counter blobs - should not be the case. All factions in their core should at least have the basic tools to counter either large infantry assault, defensive positions, and/or heavier armoured vehicles.
Can't always be done due to lack of assets, but the core tools should be there.
I'd expand this to the opposite as well, where flavour shouldn't negate a core aspect. Classic example of this was Obersoldaten ignoring Retreat modifiers. When I was playing USF back in 2014-2016 I was so frustrated that I would lose games to OKW that were in an even dead-heat until the late game, when OKW's veterancy design eventually made them better than my riflemen. When we had traded evenly, both losing a combat squad, both losing a light vehicle (or not), see-sawing on VPs, it was fun and engaging. But once those squads got their fourth and fifth level of vet and my squads were stuck on triple vet with 2x BARs, it felt like the OKW player was being rewarded more for their preservation of units and that would snowball into more lost manpower, less map control, etc. on my end.
Every faction should have access to reliable suppression, mobile indirect fire, anti-personnel and anti-tank mines (either split mines like Ost or dual-purpose like Sov). There are a bunch of other things that are too numerous to mention here but y'all get the idea I hope.
I'll admit, the balance changes can be daunting especially when I'm playing less 1v1s or even team games regularly. But I would rather have balance changes and "revamps" every 4-6 months (that also fix bugs!) than leave the game in broken and bugged states. Who knows what would happen if we were still playing the game we were in mid-2017. I think it would've died. Maybe not completely, but it would be a steady hemorrhaging of playercount.
On this idea:
I think competitive COh2 would benefit and be elevated by having a competitive tournament mod/build where the game would be more "competitively" minded and balanced in terms of cheese strats, and abusive mechanics/faction combos, etc. The mod could be designed by a committe of the "pros" , guys that know about the meta, and all the individual units and mechanics, and what not, kinda like the current build of the game is designed.
But I think we havent seen this because it would split an already smallish and honestly already currently divided playerbase, and the top players probably would find it difficult to practice properly,...i think? Maybe they dont wanna change how things have been done for almost 2 decades at this point going back to Coh1?
obligatory shoutout to Wuff for making the Tourney Mode mod and for AE/MasterLeague for promoting its use.
I think this is a great idea. I would love to be able to play against random people in a more competitive setting. I'm not sure about balance changes, but I like what Wuff's mod has done and kept it relatively barebones, but eliminating some of most egregious non-competitive elements. I'd also be for replacing OKW base defenses with MG emplacements so OKW can be base rushed.
I think the way to implement this would be to have temporary leagues with fresh leaderboards. There would be global leaderboards like we have now, but just use that same ELO system in a separate leaderboard and search system (that is saved online so people can always go back and look at their stats or other players' stats) in a league that lasts 4-12 weeks using the hyper-competitive mod. |
|
Next ML tournament is going to have some sort of commander ban system, I think, so that should be good. This is for the January event AE sort of announced today but i don't think it's for the chill events next month. |
|
I'm responding to a bit of the posts from before discussions turned towards maps, but
I think it's right to say that balance and faction choice can't really be extrapolated from one tournament, let alone one with only half the VP count of standard tournament rules. I think it can be something to have in the back pocket, but not something you should be using as a primary case in an argument. Even in terms of early game dominance it's difficult to extrapolate because there is so much more time in a 500vp game.
If someone wants to go through each and every game (or at least the ones that were broadcast by a streamer) they could come up with commander-specific data, but I didn't have the time to do that on my own with real life getting in the way. Again, I don't think that would be too relevant on game balance either way. all replays are in the discord!
I can speak a bit about the future, though. A_E put out some ideas for ML4 and a popular idea is some variation of commander elimination. Commander Terminator was quite a successful event in terms of live viewers, I believe, and had a lot of hype around it! So hopefully we can come to expect more of that in the future.
*Edit* Looking at World Championship data so far, there have been 11 matches played to game 3 (ace game) out of 26 total matches (~30%). That matches up with ML1 and ML2 stats more or less. I think this may come down to several factors, the largest of which is player fatigue. More time means more mistakes even from dominant players. And coh2 is designed to allow comebacks, with fuel and muni from every point, more manpower income with less population cap, etc. The strategies and habits of lower-seeded players may throw off some of the higher-seeded players who are used to playing a certain way against those closest to them. I can go on about this phenomena idea but I'm tired. I think these factors together make it possible for seeding upsets (take Elpern vs Luvnest in ML2, for example).
Stormjäger said that first round doesn't count because of skill gap between seeded players, but I don't think that's the right attitude in general. Those closest to the middle will have the most equal matches. There's been plenty of coh2 tournaments where seed 16 vs 17 battle it out and hold the brackets back while they slug it out. If you wanted to exclude first round data, take away the games from the top and bottom quarters and look at the closer middling matches.
I like looking at expected seed outcomes (hence the # of upsets) and when they occur. in WC2020 as well as ML3 they only happened in the top 8 (excluding lower bracket here). I really think the top eight or top ten seeds with these players is a roll of the dice in terms of who will win. Their skill and the way the game is make it that way. Maybe by the middle of next year after ML6 and WC2020 and maybe another big 1v1 tourney will give us a clear winner but so far every ML tourney has had a different person at the top! |
Canada
United States
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
