Maybe it would at least be possible to enable this ability on default when build/recrewed? That way we can still disable it to keep miragefla happy but we don't have to click that button so many times.
The return of investment is too low, unless we're getting rid of the ugly overhead button the majority of the time, when the AT gun is in normal (prioritise vehicles) mode
Pak 43's have a crew and Prioritize Vehicles only applies to the main gun.
Blah that sucks! I'm sure he has his reasons, but having to click "prioritize vehicles" on every AT gun I build or recrew, and every tank destroyer I build or crew, is one of the most annoying parts of the game for me. As far as unit mechanics go, it just feels like unnecessary micro.
What would he think about prioritize vehicles as the default, and free-fire (shoot anything) as the toggle?
I want to get rid of the ugly yellow shield that, anyway, disappears when there's trees or smoke or whatever. There's no suitable icon to signify "Free-fire"
I wanted to do that; limit AT guns to attack buildings (to bust emplacements/bunkers) and vehicles only, and to remove the ugly overhead yellow icon. However, Miragefla vetoed it and the proposal never got through
I also wanted to do the same for dedicated TDs (which would also save players from having to click the prioiritise vehicle button every damn time they re-enter the Jackson). Same result.
For generalist tank etc prioiritise vehicle, I also wanted to change the overhead ugly and intrusive yellow icon with the squad-shield padlock from brace. That way it takes up less space, and you can also keep track of unit status from the unit shields in the top-right, or also from the tactical minimap. Same story
Regardless of vet 5 15% accuracy not working, it still seems out of whack that vet 4 falls would perform similarly, given that many other units get 40% accuracy bonuses at vet 2, waitng until vet 5 to get 30% accuracy total seems very out of line with other units veterancies. This is particularly bad considering they do not recieve any weapon upgrades, meaning that their veterancy could be better to compensate when it is in fact worse.
Similarly though paratroopers have relatively poor poor veteran bonuses, but they have access to some of the best weapon upgrades available.
Elite units tend to get significantly lower vet bonuses than non-elite units. Precisely because Vet0 elite units are considerably stronger than Vet0 non-elite units.
Commandos in DBP get like +30% accuracy and -10% RA in total.
Paratroopers get +25% accuracy and -29% RA
Falls are meant to get +30% accuracy and -29% RA. However, 15% accuracy isn't applying properly, and even a 10% difference in infantry engagements is enormous.
Shock troops also get really low Vet bonuses.
Shot-range troops that come late need to have really good Vet0 performance, otherwise they will bleed like pigs. Similarly, they get bad Veterancy bonuses, so that they don't turn into wipe-gods if they ever make it to Vet3.
Sorry, I don't get the idea of your post. Yes, commando changes are stupid and potentially dangerous to ballance. Yes, okw mostly has 4 men squads. They have 2 that have more than 4 men and both of them couse ballance issues since okw release. There is nothing new here.
What's wrong exactly with Infiltration Commando changes? They're literally the most expensive Commando variant in the game now, considering you need to reinforce them to get their full squad, and they can't exactly wipe things anymore by popping in the middle of nowhere.
The glider drop from Commando doctrine is extremely potent.
CoH2 is strategically shallow, and it has always been.
Players have, outside their initial build order one real meaningful decision: their first fuel investment.
Buffing and nerfing that one decision players can make won't change the landscape of players really having no strategic diversity to begin with.
It is not the luchs fault that strategy is shallow in coh2.
If only the solution to non-linear teching had not been staring us in the eyes for many years now...
A mandatory supply yard construct/upgrade to OKW teching would do so much to alleviate the pain that is the MedHQ/MechHQ fork.
Soviet and OST teching is OK.
Brits will also be OK now that their Tommies -have- to buy their upgrades.
USF teching could kinda work with the free officers if we swap AAHT and Stuart.
Non-linear teching only works if:
- The cost for double-dipping isn't too cripling (e.g., CoH1 USF design/Soviet T1/T2 design)
- Or, each tier is self-sufficient, but there's FU/MP trade-offs to make to access all the tools (e.g., USF if we swap Stuart with AAHT).
Otherwise, non-linear teching requires you to put almost everything at T0, and only use T1/T2 to buy 1-2 units max and then forget about the tier (OKW current design).
No it isn't. Since when you add total build time to the MechHQ, you delay all other units. With the timer on the luchs, you only delay the only problem in that tier.
Not really.
If you lay down MechHQ at the precise moment you have enough for the MechHQ (but not enough for a luchs), you need to wait for 60 more fuel for the Luchs.
60 more fuel is easily 2-3 minutes. The MechHQ will finish being produced well before those 2-3 minutes you are waiting to receive fuel income.
If you do this, and the proposed cooldown is shorter than, say, 2 minutes it will have no effect of delaying the Luchs.
Why not make its accuracy on the move less good? And make it less nimble? The current problem with it is that it can push units of the field, chase them and wipe them reliably and get away fast when trouble arrives. The unit however needs a window of opportunity without its hard counters there.
That's a performance adjustment to the Luchs. We find there's nothing wrong with Luchs performance, and altering its vet0 performance would make a delayed luchs a severe liability. Nobody would build it, and if you don't have luchs you don't have MechHQ.
This is sort of like the Flame Hetzer in DBP. For anybody that's used it briefly, it's Vet0 performance is extremely meh. However if you get the Hetzer at Vet1, it becomes actually damn good for cost.
One of the upcoming changes to the Hetzer is giving it its Vet1 performance at Vet0, just to facilitate it entering the field.
in the video there's not only falls he didi it for all units ober too
maybe leave close damage the same and lower the mid one ?
The only engagement that was particularly troubling was the Falls vs PPSh cons one, and we know for granted that Falls +15% accuracy modifier at Vet5 is not applying properly at all.
It's probably OK if yolorushing shot-range units can win with a sliver of health on a test-lab scenario. That's because in the live game you would never wait it out until the end. A short-range unit has to commit to a fight, and if their retreat path is cut off in the meantime, they risk being wiped. A long range unit can always throw grenades from their cover, or retreat after they've inflicted enough bleed.
Long-range units also perform far better in a blob than short-range units.
PS:
We also strongly suspect that hit the dirt is rather OP, and we'll probably further reduce the RA bonus it gives to bring it a bit more inline.
leaving asisde the luch issue ,mr smith can you please respond about the ppsh cons perfromance ? they seems a bit too strong even without hurra
We're looking into it (and also hit-the-dirt performance). Perhaps, we'll reintroduce the 10% accuracy nerf to PPSh.
However, while that nerf was in-place PPSh performance seemed extremely underwhelming.
What we do know however is that Fallschirmagers aren't the right benchmark to measure PPSh cons performance (due to falls flat DPS), and neither are Conscript PPSh are a good benchmark to evaluate Falls performance (for the same reasons).
If PPSh Cons and Falls behave well with respect to all other units in the game, the only way to address this is to tweak DPS curves. However, tweaking DPS curves requires us to evaluate them over a sequence of months, which we can't currently afford.
Where did I say it was improved over live version ?
Lol you are trying so hard...so:
So...? Improved in everything but doesn't get a situational RA cover bonus
The earlier patch: was reducing the normal target size, and consequentially their veterancy target size, both way better than any other mainline including same cost rifles.
The lastest version, that you claim being the "big muh nerf" was actually an improvement, with less situational cover bonus, but retaining the much better dps.
After that, I listed all improvement/nerfs from LIVE to 2.0
Better moving accuracy, better bren reload, better pop to avoid low mp income with pop.
This pretty much DESTROY your claim that IS are worse, those aren't worse at all.
Since turning others post over to put stuff people have never said in their mouth seems meta more than luchs, i'll be more specific so you can stop playing dumb: NO CHANGE MADE NO BREN IS WORSE.
-Moving accuracy bonus ? Blessed manna for IS rifles, especially in early game
-Veterancy nerf in RA ? Late game RA was broken anyway, but it doesn't even matter if we speak about early game.
-RA in cover ? Maybe, but...
-kubel armor was nerfed, hardly will have the same combat role as before
-flame grenade can be avoided, that pretty much outweight alone the additional cover RA.
And still, your pathetic attempt to put stuff in my mouth and strawman about "worse spot" IS continue..
> Implying that Infantry Sections were OP outside cover in live version.
Where did I say it was improved over live version ?
By the late-game, yellow cover is everywhere. Thus, unless the Brit player is completely brain-dead, they will always find a source of cover to get that performance boost.
Now, can you please stop wasting everybody's time in this thread?