Login

russian armor

State of the Soviets

PAGES (17)down
6 Dec 2019, 22:50 PM
#201
avatar of Mazianni

Posts: 772



Yes a grossly oversized 6 man weapon team with crazy survivability, with super fast set up time and good suppression with a cone of fire that it should never have gotten in the first place and backed up by 7man infantry squads and soviet ultra early game scout cars that single handidly limit any other strategy being used by an entire faction other than going grenadiers yes unbelievable how anyone can anyone complain about that!!


Why do you people still think the Maxim has "super fast set up time". Last I checked it was 3 seconds, just like the MG-42/MG-34/Vickers. Is that super fast to you?

Do you play anything other than ostheer?
7 Dec 2019, 06:33 AM
#206
avatar of Kasarov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 421 | Subs: 2



Why do you people still think the Maxim has "super fast set up time". Last I checked it was 3 seconds, just like the MG-42/MG-34/Vickers. Is that super fast to you?

Do you play anything other than ostheer?


Not only is the set up time the same, the Maxim's suppression per second is statistically the lowest of all machine guns. Talk about observation bias.

Not to mention M3 is in a different tech building than Maxim, but of course he wouldn't know that.

On topic:
My suggestion for 7-man cons is simply to reduce it back to 6-man, but keep all the other benefits. The 7th model (sergeant) is buggy anyway when recrewing team weapons and doesn't have winter skins either. This would result in a mobilized squad with about 14.2% less both survivability and firepower, which should be more than enough of a nerf.

Even if that doesn't hit the sweet spot, there's ways to fix it. If the nerf is too heavy, remove the weapon slot limitation and make it global. If the nerf is too light, adjust the numbers of the other bonuses. I think the passive bonuses themselves are great for cons, and it would be a shame to get rid of any of them.

My suggestion for IS-2 is to increase it's reload slightly and improve (both) Panthers' penetration. This way Panthers stand more of a chance to trade shots. Maybe even increase JP4 penetration as well.

I don't think nerfing IS-2 armor is a justified decision because of it being one of the few frontline answers to stealthed Raketen walls. I think buffing the intended counters to the IS-2 and nerfing the IS-2's damage output (reload so it's not any less reliable per shot) can go a long way.
7 Dec 2019, 08:39 AM
#207
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3164 | Subs: 7

Why do you people still think the Maxim has "super fast set up time". Last I checked it was 3 seconds, just like the MG-42/MG-34/Vickers. Is that super fast to you?

People confuse it with pack-up time. Regardless it makes the Maxim reposition about a second faster than the HMG 42/34, which is a very noticeable difference when trying to outflank one.


My suggestion for IS-2 is to increase it's reload slightly and improve (both) Panthers' penetration. This way Panthers stand more of a chance to trade shots. Maybe even increase JP4 penetration as well.

Only the IS-2's armor is a problem, so making Panthers and Jagdpanzer IVs better against all other high armor targets too for no reason is not a good solution. The IS-2 would still do fine against Raketens (200/190/180 pen) with ~340 armor and 1080 hitpoints. There's no reason it needs to have 375 armor when Axis lack high penetration (and high DPM/range) tank destroyers.
7 Dec 2019, 09:02 AM
#208
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

lThere's no reason it needs to have 375 armor when Axis lack high penetration (and high DPM) tank destroyers.


There would be a reason, if Heavy tanks had the appropriate 300+ fuel costs. Since they’re only 230-260 fuel of course they are OP.
7 Dec 2019, 09:06 AM
#209
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17583 | Subs: 8

Only the IS-2's armor is a problem, so making Panthers and Jagdpanzer IVs better against all other high armor targets too for no reason is not a good solution. The IS-2 would still do fine against Raketens (200/190/180 pen) with ~340 armor and 1080 hitpoints. There's no reason it needs to have 375 armor when Axis lack high penetration (and high DPM/range) tank destroyers.

The question here is, what would be IS-2 identity then?
It already got lower range, less DPS, loses to a tiger in 1v1, so what would it have over Tiger?
Because if its supposed to be nothing, then I can't see why its firepower and range shouldn't match Tiger as well.

Tiger used to be the damage monster while IS-2 was unbreakable shield with meh firepower, wouldn't losing that part of identity make it impotent again compared to tiger?
7 Dec 2019, 09:09 AM
#210
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3164 | Subs: 7

There would be a reason, if Heavy tanks had the appropriate 300+ fuel costs. Since they’re only 230-260 fuel of course they are OP.


That's not much of a solution either, no one would ever buy a 300+ fuel unit. The momentum and timing lost from that alone (~3 extra minutes with regular 20-30 fuel income) would likely make them unviable again.

We're currently looking at some minor tweaking that should hopefully make them harder choices over mediums while still leaving them as a powerful strategic option.


The question here is, what would be IS-2 identity then?

It can still keep the identity of a high armored durable beast. It doesn't need 375 armor for that though when Axis tank destroyers have either low penetration (JP4/StuG) or low range (StuG) / DPM (Panther). ~340 armor would still be a lot higher than the Tiger I's, at least relatively (lower pen weapons firing at it). While giving Axis more viable options (increasing the effectiveness of Jagdpanzer IV / StuG / Panther) to fight it than only the Tiger I.

Not to mention it has gotten a significant firepower increase (against both infantry and vehicles) so it's much more well rounded now, and doesn't need overcompensatingly (and unhealthy) high armor anymore. High armor will be good enough.
7 Dec 2019, 09:35 AM
#211
avatar of Kasarov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 421 | Subs: 2


Only the IS-2's armor is a problem, so making Panthers and Jagdpanzer IVs better against all other high armor targets too for no reason is not a good solution. The IS-2 would still do fine against Raketens (200/190/180 pen) with ~340 armor and 1080 hitpoints. There's no reason it needs to have 375 armor when Axis lack high penetration (and high DPM/range) tank destroyers.


Why not then have a target type table for Panthers and Jagdpanzer IVs to have x% more penetration if the target has the IS2 tag? The IS-2 would be able to keep its armor protection against all lesser threats, and Axis now have more reliable tools against the IS-2.

Also, I'm curious to know your personal thoughts about 7-man conscripts.
7 Dec 2019, 09:50 AM
#212
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2418 | Subs: 1

Instead of making all units the same why not let IS2 keep it's armour but lose some of the firepower?

7 Dec 2019, 09:54 AM
#213
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3164 | Subs: 7

Why not then have a target type table for Panthers and Jagdpanzer IVs to have x% more penetration if the target has the IS2 tag?

Sounds too convoluted. There'd be issues with cumbersome implementation (Relic skeleton crew working on patch implementation, not sure if target tables can even handle penetration), odd mechanics (nothing in the game currently works like that) and most importantly player communication (we want to remove hidden modifiers, not add them).


Also, I'm curious to know your personal thoughts about 7-man conscripts.

I think the upgrade is mostly fine, the implementation is fun and unique. Given how (probably slightly over-)effecient it has made the Soviet late game, I'd probably just tone down either the reinforcement cost reduction (from 17 to 18/19) or decrease/remove the cooldown bonuses.

I don't play Soviets much myself though, and I don't play 1v1 where the 7 men upgrade seems to be an issue (compared to being mostly a non-issue in teamgames), so I definitely wouldn't let my opinion on this weigh too much.
7 Dec 2019, 10:05 AM
#214
avatar of Kasarov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 421 | Subs: 2


Sounds too convoluted. There'd be issues with cumbersome implementation (Relic skeleton crew working on patch implementation, not sure if target tables can even handle penetration), odd mechanics (nothing in the game currently works like that) and most importantly player communication (we want to remove hidden modifiers, not add them).


Target tables do handle penetration vs target type, and a few weapons have damage vs target type (handheld AT weapons and AT guns for example do almost nothing to infantry via target table damage type).

The reason why I suggested Panther penetration was that it was the only (I think) tank destroyer type vehicle that didn't get penetration (or accuracy iirc) through veterancy. The reason why I suggested lowering IS-2 RoF is because Panthers have low DPM, and it would allow for the Panther to trade shots more evenly. The two would indirectly contribute to Panthers being more effective vs the IS-2 as well as other "problem" heavies people like to complain about, like KV-1s and Churchills.

Of course, I don't really care if IS-2s got an armor nerf to 340. I was just suggesting something to hit more than one bird with one stone.
7 Dec 2019, 10:41 AM
#215
avatar of Maret

Posts: 711

What about give to panthers ability similar to su-85? Increased range, increased pen, small con of fire, decreased mobility. It will reflect some kind of "ambush" style of working. The same way as su-85 do it, while keep their identity as medium tanks hunters.
7 Dec 2019, 11:07 AM
#216
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12978 | Subs: 1


The question here is, what would be IS-2 identity then?
It already got lower range, less DPS, loses to a tiger in 1v1, so what would it have over Tiger?
Because if its supposed to be nothing, then I can't see why its firepower and range shouldn't match Tiger as well.

Tiger used to be the damage monster while IS-2 was unbreakable shield with meh firepower, wouldn't losing that part of identity make it impotent again compared to tiger?

The IS-2 lost the identity of "unbreakable shield with meh firepower" with the latest changes to its gun. It no longer has "meh firepower".
7 Dec 2019, 11:11 AM
#217
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12978 | Subs: 1


...
We're currently looking at some minor tweaking that should hopefully make them harder choices over mediums while still leaving them as a powerful strategic option.
...

The problem of this unis especially in small modes is their shock value. What one should be looking is to lower their shock value.

For instance in case of the IS-2 one could lower the bases Armor/HP of the unit but overhaul its veterancy bonuses to defensive ones providing the extra Armor/HP.

I already have made a thread about it:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/102581/redesigning-super-heavy-tanks
7 Dec 2019, 11:16 AM
#218
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 1971 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Dec 2019, 11:07 AMVipper

The IS-2 lost the identity of "unbreakable shield with meh firepower" with the latest changes to its gun. It no longer has "meh firepower".


Because of this, this tank was - complete shit, no one needs an expensive tank in which the AA DShK does more damage than the main gun. Return to "unbreakable shield with meh firepower" conception - This is an absolutely stupid idea.
7 Dec 2019, 11:21 AM
#219
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12978 | Subs: 1



Because of this, this tank was - complete shit, no one needs an expensive tank in which the AA DShK does more damage than the main gun. Return to "unbreakable shield with meh firepower" conception - This is an absolutely stupid idea.

I suggest you read my post again more carefully this time, I have not suggest that IS-2 should be returned to what it was, I simply point out that IS-2 no longer has the "identity" of a "unbreakable shield with meh firepower". It can dish out damage just fine and even got vet 1 ability to dish out more damage.
7 Dec 2019, 11:29 AM
#220
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 1971 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Dec 2019, 11:21 AMVipper

I suggest you read my post again more carefully this time, I have not suggest that IS-2 should be returned to what it was, I simply point out that IS-2 no longer has the "identity" of a "unbreakable shield with meh firepower". It can dish out damage just fine and even got vet 1 ability to dish out more damage.


Here I just agree with you, "unbreakable shield with meh firepower" concept is not needed.
No damage - no veterans - no sense. And finally, the IS-2 lost this concept.
PAGES (17)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
GCS3: Quarter Finals

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Oberkommando West flag Oziligath
  • The British Forces flag T.R. Sidewinder
uploaded by Oziligath

Board Info

89 users are online: 3 members and 86 guests
Flying Dustbin, Kurobane, ShadowLinkX37
21 posts in the last 24h
238 posts in the last week
1013 posts in the last month
Registered members: 31954
Welcome our newest member, morris_john_92
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM