We're thinking about giving Penals 3x PTRS or reducing aim time, and letting PTRS attack ground.
That would render the squad useless vs infantry and a single point of failure because a single squad can get pushed away quite easily. The problem is still that you can get one ptrs volley out before having to retreat vs the flame HT. unless you take out a chunk of health of the HT it's of no use. Also PGrens will have a a good time because of the reduction of anti infantry capabilities.
A combination of increasing the lethality of PTRS (e.g. damage) and reducing Flame HT range would help alot. For their current cost they perform poorly. This would also help other units such as guards and tank hunter cons, not just penals.
Can we make PTRS better so they can actually be a threat to light vehicles? That would help T1 and make Soviet less dependable on AT guns like ZIS or M42s.
I also like this one, giving the M3 much needed utility.
Maxim
I gotta test this, but from reading the patch nodes, this should be good. I never quite understood a use case for the sustained fire ability though.
ZiS-3 Field Gun
yeah this is a good change
Special Rifle Command
good change
Penal Battalion
Hm, I appreciate the change but this doesn't change the fact that penals scale quite badly against upgraded volks or 5men Grens. Especially not for their cost of 300MP. T1 openings take quite a heavy toll on your manpower (especially since healing costs 250 MP for some reason). I'd suggest lowering the penal cost to 280 mp to better reflect their combat performance on top of the changes above. A tommy squad is at 270 and with the global 5th man upgrade I'd rather have that squad instead of a penal any time.
M5 Half-Track
Gotta see how this plays out, if it becomes too much of a dice roll to take down a plane,
SU76
my biggest issue with the Su76 is that it is extremely sluggish and unresponsive and has poor accuracy (e.g. hitting the ground multiple times) and penetration making it easy prey for PUMA or PIVs. The changes are nice, but won't change anything in that regard.
I think it's important to make Soviet T3 more worthwhile since the T70 is all that holds soviet mid game together, and that is getting nerfed now.
T70
Quite a hefty nerf for a unit that basically carries soviet mid game.
T34/76 and T34/85 Ram Ability
So what does the ram do now? just damage? Locked behind vet 1 seems like a bad choice in my opinion.
Katyusha
yeah if this is kept consistent with all other rocket arty this should be fine
SU85
I guess that's fair, it's still really good
ISU-152
alright
Summary
I can't really tell if this patch does the soviets more harm than good. T1 Changes are good over all (except penals maybe). T3 changes are not optimal. By nerfing the t70 I feel like there needs to be a compensation by making the SU76 more reliable and a good tank hunter for medium tanks (or better with vet). As a result, Soviets would be less dependent on rushing for the t70 and instead go for T1 with SU76 backup. This opens up more ways to play with them. I'd also suggest lowering the cost of base healing in at least manpower regards and/Or adding fuel or muni cost instead. Just food for thought.
We also have to see if that horrible early game around enemy osttruppen/Flame HT is gone now. A 4 Minute Flame HT for soviets is incredibly hard to deal with the core components (e.g. without baby at gun). I hope this patch will make T1 a viable strat again, bringing more variety to the games.
EDIT:
After playing the mod I can confirm that osttruppen will still dominate the soviet early game, light vehicle timing + pgrens is too powerful. Since soviets have to go for M42 at guns every game in order to deal with that, I don't see any change in the meta, regardless of the ostheer changes. T1 is not feasable, because 222 arrives at the 4/5 min mark. The Penal vs Osttruppen combat, considering it's a 100 mp difference is really weak.
Also snipers can't deal with MGs now without sacrificing a valuable supporting squad in front of it, which makes it vulnerable to flanks. I don't like the sight change at all, especially since sniper were rarely seen in the patch previously anyway.
To be fair, there is not really that much room to experiment at the moment. Osttruppen area menace at the moment, making early game a nightmare for Soviets denying most strategies und shutting down T1 starts. Flame HT arrives at the 4 minute mark, which only leaves you go for an defensive approach with AT gun or Defensive Doctrine while your opponent can happily go for Pgrens, resulting in further map presence loss.
UKF can work quite well, but it's highly dependant and a bit of a gamble how well you can deal with the sniper.
USF in the end is the safest choice, having more options to deal with light vehicles and even a bit of initiative with the Stuart.
its not in here but i thought that he could make the same thread about the Maxim deathloop.
Just to understand what happens when it triggers, because u read alot about that in the Forum.
I dont think everyone know exactly what the deathloop is or what it means.
the deathloop (gunner runs up to the gun) is intended for the maxim, think it makes up for the 6 man crew as originally designed
Hello Everyone. Let me start by saying thanks to the mapmakers for all the effort into providing us new playgrounds to mess around with in CoH2.
After playing the tourney games today I wanna share my feedback on the maps I played (Mol, Amily, Ploiet). I will mention Bocage tomorrow, though from what I've observed so far is that is seems too large for 1v1.
What all maps lack are meaningful buildings. Buildings have become more and more absent with the recent matches. Mol for example has one next to the VP, which act more as deathtraps to nades as proper garrisons. The window placement and the lack of them also makes them really unattractive for Soviets and USF. On Bocage there is one, but it only covers a strategic point far away from the action, so why even bother.
The map I liked most so far is Amily. That one is well crafted with lots of flaking routes and meaningful cover. The Cutoff for the Northern side is a bit too brutal though. You can cover almost both cutoffs from the center next to the VP, which makes strategies like Osttruppen, MG into T2 extremely potent. That needs some refining, but apart from that I really like it. With minor adjustments this would be a neat addition to the automatch rotation (also like it visually).
Mol is a bit tricky. I didn't really like it nor did I dislike it. The map is really interesting to look at on the sides of it (with all the trenches for example). But there is almost no worthwhile territory, so there are almost no engagements fought at all. Meanwhile the center is pretty straight forward - though less interesting. I also dislike the Shed with the Tractors next to the southern cutoff, as it doesn't provide proper cover or does anything meaningful at all. I wish all the goodies on the sides were squeezed into the middle. To make the sides more interesting I'd push the munition points further to the sides. There is also a lack of green cover in a circle around the middle VP (only bushes and farns). Overall decent map though.
Ploiet is probably my least favourite map. It feels a bit stretched, with the middle more or less as a container and then the sides quite far away, resulting in long retreat path. The buildings are too bulky and meaningless, offering little strategic options and windows to shoot out of. The base MGs cover and important flaking route in the middle (towards the bush). I am not a fan of VPs acting as cutoffs. The important fuel and munition points could also be moved a bit more towards the center, as they are so far to the edge of the map, stretching 1v1 engagements quite thin. By opening up that corridor behind the buildings and moving the resources point a bit closer to the center aswell as adjusting the VPs to not act as cutoffs this could improve the map.
Also while I'm at it, can we tidy of the 1v1 automatch map pool? There are too many maps now they are certain vetoes like Bayeux which take up valuable vetos.
Imo it arrives too late. Stuart / Bren + AEC at roughly 2 CP in an average game require AT gun tech, getting a puma in addition (+ picking a doctrine) at 5 CP isn't really worth it because at that time the threat is usually contained and you want to tech up for a P4.
The whole binding to CPs is wrong in my opinion. A different approach like USF LT + extfa tech option for light vehicles would suit it better with no CP requirement. I also dislike how the puma needs to be built, but the Valentine doesn't get the same treatment.
Germany
Luvnest
PanzerGrenadierAngreifen
Multi_(wwU)
Multi_(wwU)
ZE
Relic Entertainment
