Login

russian armor

Sander's personal balance changes

PAGES (24)down
6 Jul 2020, 13:16 PM
#41
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Changes not mentioned means no strong opinion on them (mostly cause it would require play testing on live scenario)

Global changes:

Rocket Artillery
There are plenty of units which only has recharge as a vet component in some it's vet levels. I don't think there's anything you can implement which makes sense for how they are used. If your goal is to reduce fire volume, a plain nerf across the board on vet values would work.

Flamethrowers
5 years too late but finally.

OKW

BG HQ Tech change
Gameplay wise i love the change.
Design wise it's a bit iffy, cause it's not symmetric with Mech HQ and if put my "noob goggles" on, it looks confusing.
I would test it and implement it nevertheless.

This also has the side effect of giving Volks faust faster.

Flak HQ
Yes pls.

Though this is how i would add changes upon it (May or not all changes be applied)

-Nerf range/performance of the main gun. Remove suppression.
-Remove/reduce vision.
-Now that it takes slightly more resources to deploy, the weapon is active on construction.
-Panzer authorization is a one time upgrade, irregardless if the Flak HQ is destroyed.

-Flak HQ now gains access to a 60 munition time based ability which gives its offensive performance back (range dmg suppression) and give the building a dmg modifier against incoming damage (not as strong as brace) for a short time. Vision is still dependent on other units.

SP
I don't like ANOTHER 2 PS squad.
Indifferent to medic upgrade. I see some positives and negatives.
BUT i feel like a big alarm rings by the huge overbuff in the nade cost. It goes from situational good to use in every engagement when possible.

I prefer Mirage's route overall. Cut down cost, 1 less pop and non mutually exclusive with sweeper.


Flak HT
Yes to pen buffs.
Fire on the move, even if offset slightly by increased cost, feels like an EXTREME OVERBUFF.

If we talk about experimental changes, i woudl reinforce the idea of the unit been good when setup and not just making it another aggressive LV.

As far as testing new things, i'll rather see the unit have increased cost and increase HP to 400 or just a +20HP with no change cost.

Stuka
Regardless of this suggestions i think the pen changes should go regardless on live as a bugfix.

I like the faster arriving flame barrage.

I THINK it would be more cancer to play against if AoE is tuned down + suppression + low cost. It would still destroy support weapons on direct hits and now it just pins down your army.


PIV and Falls
Don't like them. Simil opinion to Osinyagov
Falls change seems like a recipe for disaster, without more changes been listed.

Flare + Command PV
On top of that change i would go a step further and give the command PV a one time pass recon plane.

All other changes
Yes


Would continue later with other factions.
6 Jul 2020, 13:23 PM
#42
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3164 | Subs: 7

Also considering Jäger Armour was changed did you forget to remove the IL2 bombs from the ISU doctrines? Or is that intentional? I remember you wrote in another thread you would want to have them removed.


I did take it away from Mechanized Support. I didn't think it was really needed to take it away from the other ISU commander as well, seeing how that one already has fewer other goodies (no Guards, no Mark Vehicle etc) and isn't as versatile.
6 Jul 2020, 13:26 PM
#43
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2418 | Subs: 1



I did take it away from Mechanized Support. I didn't think it was really needed to take it away from the other ISU commander as well, seeing how that one already has fewer other goodies (no Guards, no Mark Vehicle etc) and isn't as versatile.


I disagree on that. I see the Shock+ISU one pretty often too now that Shocks are so good. I think it would just replace Mechanized Support completely. Please consider removing IL2 from both of these doctrines.

ISU+Shocks+IL2+Crew Repair+ Vehicle detection is still too much good stuff in one doctrine IMO.
6 Jul 2020, 13:33 PM
#44
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3448 | Subs: 1

If anyone disagrees with something, then that's completely find and feel free to post arguments why and what you'd do instead, to change my mind or to help along the discussion. If you can't be bothered doing that then also please don't bother posting at all and don't pollute/hijack this thread with troll posts. I hope the moderators will kindly see to enforcing this.

This childish attitude is why members of the balance team do not like to engage in public discussions.


It is not about each change but the volume of it. Should we take any change individually or all together? Because if the idea is all together then it is impossible to imagine what good those would do on the game.

Individually speaking, they look like more of a christmas list than a balance goal aiming changelist. In that regards Mirafla changelist is much more consistent toward a aimed direction for each faction.

6 Jul 2020, 13:40 PM
#45
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2418 | Subs: 1



Flak HQ
Yes pls.

Though this is how i would add changes upon it (May or not all changes be applied)

-Nerf range/performance of the main gun. Remove suppression.
-Remove/reduce vision.
-Now that it takes slightly more resources to deploy, the weapon is active on construction.
-Panzer authorization is a one time upgrade, irregardless if the Flak HQ is destroyed.

-Flak HQ now gains access to a 60 munition time based ability which gives its offensive performance back (range dmg suppression) and give the building a dmg modifier against incoming damage (not as strong as brace) for a short time. Vision is still dependent on other units.

SP
I don't like ANOTHER 2 PS squad.
Indifferent to medic upgrade. I see some positives and negatives.
BUT i feel like a big alarm rings by the huge overbuff in the nade cost. It goes from situational good to use in every engagement when possible.

I prefer Mirage's route overall. Cut down cost, 1 less pop and non mutually exclusive with sweeper.


Flak HT
Yes to pen buffs.
Fire on the move, even if offset slightly by increased cost, feels like an EXTREME OVERBUFF.

If we talk about experimental changes, i woudl reinforce the idea of the unit been good when setup and not just making it another aggressive LV.

As far as testing new things, i'll rather see the unit have increased cost and increase HP to 400 or just a +20HP with no change cost.

Stuka
Regardless of this suggestions i think the pen changes should go regardless on live as a bugfix.

I like the faster arriving flame barrage.

I THINK it would be more cancer to play against if AoE is tuned down + suppression + low cost. It would still destroy support weapons on direct hits and now it just pins down your army.



Regarding the Flak HT, being able to shoot on the move seems very strong indeed. But I don't think it would actually be that good because the Flak HT relies mostly on accuracy to kill stuff. I don't see it being very potent with 0.5 moving accuracy considering it has pretty bad scatter and AOE values The only scenario in which this would really help a lot is against diving vehicles like the AEC or the T70. Also as Sander said it wouldn't have any suppression on the move so it couldnt suppress squads trying to snare it. This is a change that has to be tested for a few games to know how it would actually translate into the game. If it is too OP the moving accuracy could bet set to a lower value like 0.25 so it would be useful against vehicles only.

I don't like your suggested T4 changes, they seem overly complicated and "fix" something that isn't broken in the first place.

The nade cost on Sturmpios should definitely be reduced as Sander suggested in the OP. Right now their stun grenade is ridiculously overpriced. Paying 30 munitions for a super short stun is just crazy. I mostly don't even bother dodging it and continue fighting because of how bad it is.

Shocks are IMO also a unit that is slightly too good as it is. I find playing against them very frustrating as OKW. It makes skipping LVs almost impossible because Volks are basically useless against them.
6 Jul 2020, 13:49 PM
#46
avatar of Toyvendor

Posts: 40 | Subs: 1

+1000 on the changes
6 Jul 2020, 13:58 PM
#47
avatar of SweetrollNearTheDoor

Posts: 169 | Subs: 1

Sander's changes would probably solve (at least) 90% of the current gripes that affect the balance and improve the overall fun factor while making every faction more enjoyable and rewarding to play.

However these changes present an opportunity for some alternative solutions.

Indirect fire cooldown vet bonus removal

Would it be worth looking at adding a new vet ability like "Extra munitions"? Since there are a lot of howizer doctrines with only a few tools to utilize munition float on I think it would be an interesting change to make it possible for players to exchange munitions for faster barrages making on-map arty work like off-map clicks. The players would still be able to use the free barrages if they don't want to sacrifice their munitions but then again players who decide to invest their munitions to barrages would get more bang for their buck on their initial investment before the howi gets one-clicked.

AEC tread break

Nowadays brits have several snares and temporary stuns. The AEC tread break is a relic of a bygone era when this was not the case and currently its one of the most punishing snares especially after vet 1. It feels kinda ridiculous that a light vehicle is able to completely cripple a full health Heavy tank or Heavy tank destroyer from such a long range. The combination of smoke, speed and the range of the tread shot make it an unreasonably high threat to late game armor. Is it possible to add a health threshold for the cripple or make it less punishing for Heavies. (I don't think it is intended/good design for an AEC to be able to present such a significant threat to end game armor but maybe its just me)

Rapid conscription / relief infantry

I like the idea of trading munitions to recover manpower from losses but would it be overpowered if the ability still provided Prostruppen/Conscripts if full squads were wiped during the activation of this ability? I don't think it would cause big issues since it would be an extremely bad trade to sacrifice vetted up and upgraded squads to get fresh replacements at later stages of the game. The replacement squads would still make it easier to recover from all in pushes and to regain map control more quickly for example while preserving the original characteristics of the abilities.

6 Jul 2020, 14:08 PM
#48
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

I like most of it. Wish bunkers would cost popcap though. :(

Iirc they would have to split the mg bunker and the standard bunker, which imo is a good change. I'd love to see bunkers used with infantry garrison instead of JUST upgrades
6 Jul 2020, 14:11 PM
#49
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1601 | Subs: 3

My thoughts on some of the suggestions for the other factions:

Penals (experimental change)
In order to make this unit slightly more balanced over the course of the entire match, while also making Penal openings slightly more viable by increasing the speed at which they hit the field, some adjustments are made to their scalability.
  • Cost from 300mp to 280mp
  • Build time reduced by ~10s
  • Now spawns with 4x SVT and 2x Conscript Mosin Nagant
  • Now has two upgrade paths: AT upgrade path replaces 2x MN with 2x PTRS and AI upgrade path replaces 2x MN with 2x SVT
  • AI upgrade cost gives access to smoke grenades
  • AI upgrade cost 50 munitions



50 munitions for 2 SVT's is a terrible deal, the smoke grenade doesn't make up for this because you usually don't want to spend munitions just to spend more munitions.

Overall this suggestion just seems too complicated. I feel Penals just need slightly decreased buildtime and lower reinforcement cost (they bleed hard because of their bad RA).

M5 Halftrack
The M5 is given more utility with a healing option. The AA power is being reduced to become more in line with other similar units.
  • Unupgraded halftrack can now drop a single med crate (no AOE heal) for 15 munitions
  • Quad upgrade AA power reduced (values to be determined later)



15 muni and no AoE heal is too situational for my taste. The 251 model with healing inside when not in combat would be fine and only buff the unupgraded M5.

Rear Echelon Grenade Launcher (Urban Assault)
Reload time of the grenade launcher is being increased to make counter play (moving out of the way) a bit easier. This should hopefully make the grenade launcher less effective in blobs.
  • Reload time increased by 0.5-1s


This is just a badly designed weapon upgrade. The opponent has to dodge every nade with no micro investment from the US player.

It should be replaced with the ability for Rear Echelons to fire a Rifle Grenade like Grenadiers, this would also make it more useful on higher levels.

Schwerer Panzer HQ (experimental change)
Experimental change to the cost split of the structure and Panzer Authorization costs, in order to make fully upgraded Obersoldaten come sooner, as well as the doctrinal vehicles. In addition, as a reactionary vehicle, the Jagdpanzer IV can be placed in the first stage as well.
  • Cost from 100mp/60fu to 100mp/80-90fu. Panzer Authorization from 100mp/60 to 100mp/30-40fu.
  • Stock SPHQ now unlocks Obersoldaten with access to weapon upgrades; Jagdpanzer IV, and the doctrinal Ostwind and Hetzer
  • Panzer Authorization unlocks Panzer IV, Panther and access to Tiger II


This could work, but it seems strange to "force" OKW to go for specialized vehicles with tech benefits, while other factions can just get a medium whenever they want.

After the Tiger and Command Panther crutch got removed, it revealed just how expensive it is for OKW to unlock tanks compared to other factions, therefore I'd propose the following:
  • SPHQ cost to 150mp/100fu
  • Unlocks everything except the KT requirement and Panther.
  • Flak gun upgrade for 50mp/20fu, unlocks Panther and is a requirement for the KT
  • Perhaps allow the Flak gun to attack ground because it's less of a no-brainer now
  • P4 J unchanged


Sturmpioneers
Some quality changes to Sturmpioneers to make their abilities (including the med crates) easier to use and to make their anti-tank package more viable to increase strategic diversity.
  • Stun Grenade cost from 30 munitions to 15 munitions to standardize cost with other similar grenades
  • Cost of Panzerschreck upgrade from 70 munitions to 60 munitions
  • BG/Mech HQ now unlocks access to a second Panzerschreck (additional 60 munitions)
  • Medical Supplies cost from 45 to 30, now drops 2 med crates instead of 3. Cooldown removed.


Stun grenade cost shouldn't be reduced, OKW already has allot of force multipliers to win infantry engagements early on (sandbags, powerful starting unit and "techless" STG's and flame nades).

Personally, I'd like to see Sturms changed to be slightly less oppressive early on, but less punishing to lose and easier to get a second one:
  • Cost from 300mp to 260mp
  • Starting weapons from STG's to Assault Grenadier MP40's.
  • Sweeper upgrade cost increased from 30 to 60 munitions. Arms the squad with STG's.
  • Double Schreck upgrade once BG/Mech HQ is up for 100-120 munitions (locks sweeper upgrade).


Flak HT 251/17
The 251/17 is still not very popular due to how vulnerable it is, and how clumsy it is to use. By allowing it to fire on the move and giving it slightly higher penetration, it should hopefully be slightly better at fending off enemy light vehicles, to make it a more competitive choice compared to the Mechanized HQ light vehicles.
  • Can now fire on the move (0.5 moving accuracy); needs to set up to cause suppression
  • Penetration from 30/30/30 to 40/40/40
  • Cost increased from 270mp/50fu to 290mp/55fu


I like it, but allowing it to fire on the move sounds like an overbuff, no reason it should be able to defend itself while moving while the USF AAHT can't (except with its mg's).

Stuka (experimental change)
The Stuka can be both very oppressive and very bad, because barrages can be devastating (especially to team weapons) but can also be dodged very easily (by infantry). By reducing the AOE damage but adding suppression, the unit’s performance should become more lineair (less wipey but also more reliable). The added suppression should also give OKW a good anti-blob platform. These changes will also make it perform better against emplacements and lightly armored vehicles, while making it worse against tanks.
  • Rocket AOE nerfed. Rockets now cause suppression similar to the Panzerwerfer
  • Rocket penetration from 0/0/0 to 40/40/40. Rocket AOE penetration from 200/180/162 to 40/40/40. Deflection damage from 40 to 50 (all identical to other rocket artillery)
  • Incendiary Barrage moved from vet 4 to vet 1 (with additional adjustments if needed)
  • Vet 2 replaced with +100% penetration on rockets (?), vet 4 replaced with -20% cost of Incendiary Barrage ability (?)
  • Fuel cost from 100 to 80-90




With how essential the Panzerwerfer is in team games, I'd move it to the HQ and require Schwerer, while adding the Mortar Halftrack to Mechanized. This would also allow an earlier anti-garrison tool for OKW if they decide to go Mechanized.

Overall I'd take a different approach for the Stuka:
  • Moved to Schwerer (Mortar HT added to Mech)
  • Fuel cost from 100 to 80-90
  • Line barrage replaced with a normal scatter barrage (think coh1).
  • Incendiary barrage moved to Feuerstorm doctrine (with additional adjustments if needed).
  • Line barrage unlocked at veterancy 2-3, possibly with a slight munition cost.
6 Jul 2020, 14:42 PM
#50
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 1351

JibberJabberJobber's and Sander's suggestions include so many quality changes that it is difficult to decide which approach is better as both as extremely good (that is moving balance in even more perfect direction). So cool to finally read some logical and reasonable suggestions. I'd use either of those as whichever ideas one implements they will be good.

One thing I'm lacking here is the adjustment to ZiS gun barrage.

Maybe sth like this: Soviet ZiS gun should pay munitions for each HE shot rather than for a salvo of 4. Each shot should cost e.g. 20-30 munitions. The goal would be to make it less spammable and deadly and make a Soviet player invest in mortars if they wanted indirect fire rather than build at guns. It would also require more micro and munitions if they wanted to spam such HE shots. They would be used to drain a bit of health rather than delete team weapons. ZiS is supposed to be an at gun and building it too early should be connected with a risk of lacking in anty infantry department. It could also be a reason to build su76 if a player wanted a better barrage.
6 Jul 2020, 14:44 PM
#51
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

Battlegroup HQ
In order to make it easier for OKW to back tech to medics and indirect fire, and give OKW access to support weapons (HMG and ISG) faster to increase build diversity, the Battlegroup HQ is being split into two parts.
Cost from 200mp/25fu to 50mp/5fu. Only unlocks access to medic upgrade and ISG
Motorized Support upgrade added. Cost 150mp/20fu. Unlocks Uhu and 251/17 and gives access to the FRP upgrade
Medics upgrade from 100mp/15fu to 100mp/10fu
SPHQ and Tiger II require a fully upgraded (except medics) BG HQ


This along with the price reduction on the P4 allows builds that go straight to a P4 to get it 45 fuel earlier. If you go for Ostwind you can get it 55-65 fuel earlier. Why is timing of vehicles being ignored? Noone in their right mind thinks current OKW Ostwind arrives 55-65 fuel too late to be balanced.

In my opinion of you made the BGHQ like this, you should make the medics 5 fuel and require the Mechanized HQ to be built before the Schwerer is up.


Recrewing team weapons
Due to Ostheer’s small standard squad size, they have a disadvantage in recrewing team weapons compared to other factions because if their 4 men squads lose 1 model, they can no longer recrew weapons.
Ostheer model requirement to recrew team weapons from 3 to 2


This is beyond unfair and shouldn't even be considered.


Teller Mines
Adjusting the performance and cost of Teller Mines should both increase their availability and make them less oppressive for the enemy, giving a positive net result. With these changes they will no longer instantly kill light vehicles, and will require a follow up (Panzerfaust etc.) to finish one.
Cost reduced from 50 munitions to 40 munitions
Damage from 400 to 320
Now guarantees a heavy engine damage critical on light vehicles


A change for the sake of change that fixes absolutely nothing. If your vehicle dies to a teller it's because you didn't have a sweeper nearby and deserve to lose the light vehicle.


Tiger I
Calculations show the Tiger was slightly more affected by the AOE adjustments compared to the other heavy tanks. Reinstating the veterancy scatter bonus (although in a reduced form) should compensate this.
Vet 2 now gives -10% scatter (was -20% previously)



I wonder who it was that disputed Tightrope's video on the AoE adjustments and claimed his own personal opinion was the valid one.



Rest of the changes look ok, though soviets receiving mostly nerfs and a bad adjustment to penals that accomplishes nothing is very questionable, the faction could use some help. Also no fix on T1 skip builds for Ostheer or changes to Pgrens. I don't think making changes just to satisfy the 3v3 crowd is a good direction, there are very oppressive strats in 1v1 like Ost T1 skip that are not being addressed at all. Hopefully mirage's changes are not to be ignored next patch, he has some really good changes that will improve things considerably in 1v1.
6 Jul 2020, 15:18 PM
#52
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3164 | Subs: 7

This along with the price reduction on the P4 allows builds that go straight to a P4 to get it 45 fuel earlier. If you go for Ostwind you can get it 55-65 fuel earlier. Why is timing of vehicles being ignored? Noone in their right mind thinks current OKW Ostwind arrives 55-65 fuel too late to be balanced.

To deploy the SPHQ would still require a fully teched Battlegroup so the T4/P4 timing wouldn't change, besides the potential cost reduction on the P4 itself. But that would still put it at 165 fuel teching cost compared to Ostheer's 125-155 for the same P4. The Ostwind would arrive only 30-40 fuel faster than it does now, which would only put it on par with Ostheer's T3 timing.


I wonder who it was that disputed Tightrope's video on the AoE adjustments and claimed his own personal opinion was the valid one.

Tightrope's video incorrectly suggested that the Tiger's AOE was really bad based on a single test, which yes, I did dispute and still stand by. The new Tiger AOE is still good. But some people's AOE calculations showed that it was hit by the nerfs just a little bit harder than the other heavies, which this change is meant to remedy.


I'd also like to hear which of Miragefla's changes would improve 1v1s and what I didn't address, because as I've said I don't play 1v1 and I haven't watched as many replays/casts/streams lately to get the complete picture of what's going on there.




6 Jul 2020, 15:24 PM
#53
avatar of JibberJabberJobber

Posts: 1601 | Subs: 3



This along with the price reduction on the P4 allows builds that go straight to a P4 to get it 45 fuel earlier. If you go for Ostwind you can get it 55-65 fuel earlier. Why is timing of vehicles being ignored? Noone in their right mind thinks current OKW Ostwind arrives 55-65 fuel too late to be balanced.

In my opinion of you made the BGHQ like this, you should make the medics 5 fuel and require the Mechanized HQ to be built before the Schwerer is up.


It says:


Cost from 200mp/25fu to 50mp/5fu. [...]
Motorized Support upgrade added. Cost 150mp/20fu. [...]
SPHQ and Tiger II require a fully upgraded (except medics) BG HQ



So the skirtless P4 would come 20 fuel earlier, while the Flamehetzer and Ostwind would come 30-40 fuel earlier.

I think with this suggestion, OKW's Ostwind still wouldn't come faster than Ostheer Ostwind if rushed (if Schwerer would cost 90 fuel):
-10+10+5+20+10+90+100 = 225
-20+40+105+100 = 225

That said, I prefer a 100 fuel schwerer with a 20 fuel upgrade just for the flak, Panther and KT, without the skirtless P4 stuff, it would be less of a balance risk and still keep OKW's tank tech the most expensive.


A change for the sake of change that fixes absolutely nothing. If your vehicle dies to a teller it's because you didn't have a sweeper nearby and deserve to lose the light vehicle.


The light vehicle would still very likely be dead if it hit a teller on the frontline, while chasing units to base or while flanking. It's mostly to give the allied player an opportunity to repair it he hits a teller on his own "safe" territory (a fair reason imo, other mines allow the same).

Of course the issues are that it forces Ostheer to go for a 222 even more to finish crippled vehicles off and that it would make the Stuart with crit repair much more survivable. Cheaper tellers would also make AAHT's even riskier to go for. But it's worth considering.



I wonder who it was that disputed Tightrope's video on the AoE adjustments and claimed his own personal opinion was the valid one.


I haven't followed this drama about Tightrope, but I think Tiger being hit hardest is just a result from Stein Grenadier's AoE calculator.
6 Jul 2020, 15:28 PM
#54
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

snipe


Damnit I missed it, okay I guess it's fine like that though I'd still like to see OKW require a T1 -> T2 -> T3 tech route, I think it would be a nice parallel to Ostheer as they're the 2 axis factions and would allow OKW to be better tuned.



I'd also like to hear which of Miragefla's changes would improve 1v1s and what I didn't address, because as I've said I don't play 1v1 and I haven't watched as many replays/casts/streams lately.



Ostheer

Infanterie Kompanie
-Fuel cost removed
-Experience gain adjusted to remain the same

Battlephase 1
-Fuel price from 40 to 50

There's also some other really nice changes that fix problematic 1v1 units.

M2HB 50cal
-Setup time from 1.375 to 2.375

Infantry Section
- 25% capture bonus removed
-Requires a Platoon Command Post to build Sandbags

Valentine
-Now requires 5 command points to be unlocked from the Headquarters; no longer a call-in
-Build time of 1 minute from the HQ

Rifleman Field Defenses
-Now requires 1 CP

Also some sandbag delays which would be hopefully combined with the build time nerfs you proposed.

I think most people would be happy if mainlines lost sandbags altogether.
aaa
6 Jul 2020, 15:32 PM
#55
avatar of aaa

Posts: 1484


OH clearly strongest faction this patch, rest are about equal

1. What a hilaorious nonsense. Consxrips repair kit is trash ability that is NEVER used by anyone. And they want to replace il2 with it. This ability is 100% useless and need to be removed completely

2. Teller to 40 muni ftw. They should be at least twice more expensive than normal mines. Its already mandatory to have double sweepers vs OH any game. While vs OKW 1 sweeper is enough.

3. Penals needs a significant late game buff. They arent potent without guards. While having higher reinforcement cost than any axis unit including obers - 162 mp. They must have ura and not only that.
6 Jul 2020, 16:12 PM
#56
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

Also forgot to mention, hands off the 222, infantry detection is an amazing ability and has big importance in the sniper start meta vs ukf as you need it to detect if a countersnipe is coming. Replacing with a speedboost makes the 222 and Ost weaker and more vulnerable while also taking away a lot of strategic depth from the game. Absolutely awful change.
6 Jul 2020, 16:28 PM
#57
avatar of CreativeName

Posts: 281

i basically agree, dont care or am curious how it plays out on everything i dont mention

Rocket Artillery - All veterancy cooldown bonuses removed
Sounds like a 4v4 thing, im not sure if thats worth denying the few instances you would build rocket arty in 1v1 and make it less rewarding to use in 2v2.

Sandbags build time for mainline infantry - Build time for Conscripts and engineer units not affected
doesnt really make sense to me

Sturmpioneers - Stun Grenade cost from 30 munitions to 15 munitions
no, they are non-doc and win you engagements like most nades or mabye even better. dont encourage spamming them pls

Flak HT 251/17
The unit is fine, it can already fight a t70 when set up. Id rather remove the supression on the move for the other aa variants. Maybe a health buff with vet like the usf aa.

Panzer IV ausf.J
looks like a good change but what about the pop cap?

Fallschirmjäger
please dont screw with any okw doc-infantry, i cant take it anymore. you cant make em all viable and unique. better keep em as they are than break them

Stug III ausf.E
dont need buffs, its already kinda oppressive with its range

Command Tank - Received Damage modifier from -10% back to -20%
used to be OP and probably will be again. maybe not since it isnt a call in anymore. Needs testing but for now i dont like it

Penals (experimental change) - AI upgrade cost gives access to smoke grenades
no, theres a reason smoke on rifles was removed. mainline inf should not have smoke

T-34 ram
best way to fix it is to replace the vet1 capping with ram, that would also help against the ram+offmap combo

WC51 - MG range from 45 to 40
good start but not enough imo... just get rid of some of its 500 abilities

6 Jul 2020, 16:32 PM
#58
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1196

i basically agree, dont care or am curious how it plays out on everything i dont mention

Rocket Artillery - All veterancy cooldown bonuses removed
Sounds like a 4v4 thing, im not sure if thats worth denying the few instances you would build rocket arty in 1v1 and make it less rewarding to use in 2v2.


Less rewarding in 2v2 its a small price for less cancerus 4v4
6 Jul 2020, 16:42 PM
#59
avatar of Maret

Posts: 711


Maybe sth like this: Soviet ZiS gun should pay munitions for each HE shot rather than for a salvo of 4. Each shot should cost e.g. 20-30 munitions. The goal would be to make it less spammable and deadly and make a Soviet player invest in mortars if they wanted indirect fire rather than build at guns. It would also require more micro and munitions if they wanted to spam such HE shots. They would be used to drain a bit of health rather than delete team weapons. ZiS is supposed to be an at gun and building it too early should be connected with a risk of lacking in anty infantry department. It could also be a reason to build su76 if a player wanted a better barrage.


Just replace zis barrage on TWP. Because if we make each shot costs on 20-30 muni it should have buff? IRC zis shoot 4 shells, 120 muni for one ability of stock unit? Sounds like madness.

SU-76 is dead unit, forget about it. No one build it for HE barrages or as AT tool. As AT tool zis 100% better, don't decrease your field pressure (try to hold map without T-70 when enemy have weapon upgrades), have much more better scaling to late-game and have barrage.

aaa
6 Jul 2020, 16:52 PM
#60
avatar of aaa

Posts: 1484

First bring normal stats from tournaments. Normal =
1. Games played per faction
2. Winrate for factions

To know what to nerf and buff.
PAGES (24)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
CoH1 Final Battle Grand Final

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

261 users are online: 1 member and 260 guests
adamírcz
13 posts in the last 24h
217 posts in the last week
799 posts in the last month
Registered members: 33123
Welcome our newest member, Hjax
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM