Login

russian armor

Aerohanks balance changes to improve combined arms play.

2 Nov 2020, 09:54 AM
#1
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2691 | Subs: 1

I want to suggest a few minor changes to improve combined arms play. Currently there is a lot of infantry spam going on, with weapon teams only entering the fight later on. I think this is mainly due to the timing of when weapon teams are available and the up-front cost required to get them, which often leaves players lacking in map control if they do anythinfg other than build 4 basic infantry units.

For this topic I want to focus on Soviets, Ostheer and OKW.

Soviets:
T1 and T2 cost reduced by 80MP
T3 cost increased by 80MP

This change will allow for the earlier incorporation of Maxims and penal troops into the build order without having to spend too much resources on tech, while not buffing T70 timing.

OKW
MG34 available after 1st truck purchase instead of deployment
Truck cost reduced by 20MP.
All tech structures increased cost by 20MP.

Self explanatory. Allows for much earlier MG34 which means more build order options for OKW who are now often resigned to building 4 Volks.

Ostheer:
50MP starting bonus removed
T1 cost reduced by 50MP.
This change doesn't impact normal builds at all but it puts a slight brake of T1 skip builds which are overperforming. It stimulates mixing Ostruppen with normal grens and snipers/mortars for more combined arms play.
2 Nov 2020, 09:57 AM
#2
avatar of JohnSmith

Posts: 1273

Soviets:
I would buff the maxim by making it suppress quicker. I would not change penals coming out earlier.

Ostheer:
Change of starting MP is a good one, but it already feels pretty slow for me as OST player to get units out. I'd increase the buildtime of overperforming tiers instead of punishing MPs
2 Nov 2020, 11:14 AM
#3
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2691 | Subs: 1

Soviets:
I would buff the maxim by making it suppress quicker. I would not change penals coming out earlier.


The problem with the maxim supression is that by the time it hits the field (usually after at least 4x cons and Zis3), enemy soldiers will have some Vet and grenades unlocked. In early engagements (as seen in team games), the supression is quite fine. By allowing builds with early maxims in 1v1, it becomes possible to get some supression in early and have some Vet available by the time grenades enter the picture, which you can then counter with Sustained fire.

Penals/sniper builds are not very strong at the moment and as Soviets you will usually struggle hard for mapcontrol if you go for them (the up-front investment of 160MP is just too high, you are almost playing with a squad down) The only thing that keeps you on the field is the m3 flame clown car, but this is locked by munitions more than Manpower.


Ostheer:
Change of starting MP is a good one, but it already feels pretty slow for me as OST player to get units out. I'd increase the buildtime of overperforming tiers instead of punishing MPs


By shifting the MP around as in my suggestion there shouldn't be any change at all to Ostheer unit timings except for when they T1 skip, which is a strategy that has dominated the meta for a long now. Changing tier timings will effect every possible build, even the ones that are fine right now.
2 Nov 2020, 11:45 AM
#4
avatar of gbem

Posts: 1979


the supression is quite fine.


it isnt... its suppression is the lowest in the game and is nearly 4 times as long as the suppression of the 3rd lowest machinegun (vickers)
2 Nov 2020, 12:22 PM
#5
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3164 | Subs: 7

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Nov 2020, 11:45 AMgbem
it isnt... its suppression is the lowest in the game and is nearly 4 times as long as the suppression of the 3rd lowest machinegun (vickers)


It's slow but not that slow. At mid range against neutral cover the Vickers suppresses in about 1.55s while the Maxim takes 2.56s. At max range it's 1.73s vs 4.27s.
2 Nov 2020, 12:35 PM
#6
avatar of gbem

Posts: 1979



It's slow but not that slow. At mid range against neutral cover the Vickers suppresses in about 1.55s while the Maxim takes 2.56s. At max range it's 1.73s vs 4.27s.


ahh its closer to 3 times instead... i knew the vickers could suppress in around a second and around 4 seconds for the maxim... still thats a 146% increase (2.46 times) in the amount of time it takes to suppress at max range... isnt that extremely significant?
2 Nov 2020, 12:40 PM
#7
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2691 | Subs: 1

Guys, please don't polute the thread with maxim suppression statistics when there is a perfectly good other thread for that on the first page.
2 Nov 2020, 12:52 PM
#8
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13290 | Subs: 1


Interesting analysis and suggestion.

I would like to add factor into to the equation.

Imo infatry have simply too much fire power for their time frame and that bleed manpower making HMG less disable that mostly cost time via retreat.

Making HMG unattractive also make mortar unattractive.

So although I understand the point of view I can not agree with some of the suggestions. Imo earlier Penal in their current implementation is simply a big NO.

Imo one should test postponing such powerful units.

For instance one could change the the OKW starting unit to VG and have Penal built quicker cost less but start with less weapon and having to upgrade.

(I personally would even go so far as to redesign Penal as dirty cheap infatry armed with smgs and having MP-40 replace the STG for OKW having OKW start with VGs. Probably allow the MP-upgrade earlier to keep the "offensive" orientation of OKW.)
2 Nov 2020, 13:04 PM
#9
avatar of gbem

Posts: 1979

Guys, please don't polute the thread with maxim suppression statistics when there is a perfectly good other thread for that on the first page.


yeah but id argue that the maxim also needs a direct buff beyond just earlier onset due to cheaper T2...
6 Nov 2020, 12:37 PM
#10
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2691 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Nov 2020, 12:52 PMVipper

Interesting analysis and suggestion.

I would like to add factor into to the equation.

Imo infatry have simply too much fire power for their time frame and that bleed manpower making HMG less disable that mostly cost time via retreat.

Making HMG unattractive also make mortar unattractive.

So although I understand the point of view I can not agree with some of the suggestions. Imo earlier Penal in their current implementation is simply a big NO.

Imo one should test postponing such powerful units.

For instance one could change the the OKW starting unit to VG and have Penal built quicker cost less but start with less weapon and having to upgrade.

(I personally would even go so far as to redesign Penal as dirty cheap infatry armed with smgs and having MP-40 replace the STG for OKW having OKW start with VGs. Probably allow the MP-upgrade earlier to keep the "offensive" orientation of OKW.)


I don't agree with the infantry having too much power. I remember in the first years of coh2 infantry was a lot less potent with their rifles, and it wasn't good; conscript would always oorah straight into the enemy to molotov them (which had a chance to cause crits), and flanking and using cover was less rewarding as it mostly came down to who got the better grenade off during engagenents rather than who had better positioning.

Earlier Penals would be more strong than they are now, but they don't have sprint and are more easily supressed by HMGs, which the OKW player will also be able to get after the first truck in my suggestion, so both axis forces will have them very early on.
6 Nov 2020, 13:33 PM
#11
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13290 | Subs: 1



I don't agree with the infantry having too much power. I remember in the first years of coh2 infantry was a lot less potent with their rifles, and it wasn't good; conscript would always oorah straight into the enemy to molotov them (which had a chance to cause crits), and flanking and using cover was less rewarding as it mostly came down to who got the better grenade off during engagenents rather than who had better positioning.

Earlier Penals would be more strong than they are now, but they don't have sprint and are more easily supressed by HMGs, which the OKW player will also be able to get after the first truck in my suggestion, so both axis forces will have them very early on.

There is middle ground between release and allowing 300 manpower infatry before minute one.
6 Nov 2020, 13:47 PM
#12
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2691 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Nov 2020, 13:33 PMVipper

There is middle ground between release and allowing 300 manpower infatry before minute one.


How different is it really from having 280mp tommies and 300mp Sturmpioneers, sprinting assault grens, and MG42s available before minute 1?
6 Nov 2020, 13:52 PM
#13
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13290 | Subs: 1



How different is it really from having 280mp tommies and 300mp Sturmpioneers, sprinting assault grens, and MG42s available before minute 1?

Assault engineer have no snares, become weak in late and are doctrinal (this command issue no faction issue).

SP are not mainline infatry due to pop and reinforcement but I would have not problem replacing them with vg as starting unit

Tommies do not have allot less durability DPS, DPS on the move, are cover depend and UKF is messed up faction

Hmg-42 are support weapon they where introduced in T0 because USF rolfstomped Ostheer, they are not really an issue, even if it was I would not trouble swapping them for grens
6 Nov 2020, 14:00 PM
#14
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2691 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Nov 2020, 13:52 PMVipper

Assault engineer have no snares, become weak in late and are doctrinal (this command issue no faction issue).

SP are not mainline infatry due to pop and reinforcement but I would have not problem replacing them with vg as starting unit

Tommies do not have allot less durability DPS, DPS on the move, are cover depend and UKF is messed up faction

Hmg-42 are support weapon they where introduced in T0 because USF rolfstomped Ostheer, they are not really an issue, even if it was I would not trouble swapping them for grens


Yes, those are differences with the units. But why are they all OK but not penals?
Penals also have downsides that can easily be listed - no snares, bad grenade, no sprint, weaksauce AT upgrades. Why would giving Soviets some options for build order diversity that other factions already have be so problematic?
6 Nov 2020, 15:12 PM
#15
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13290 | Subs: 1



Yes, those are differences with the units. But why are they all OK but not penals?
Penals also have downsides that can easily be listed - no snares, bad grenade, no sprint, weaksauce AT upgrades. Why would giving Soviets some options for build order diversity that other factions already have be so problematic?

It does not have anything to do with diversity it has to do with power level.

It the reason why PF start without g43.

Lethality of unit should be in line with the time frame.
6 Nov 2020, 15:45 PM
#16
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2691 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Nov 2020, 15:12 PMVipper

It does not have anything to do with diversity it has to do with power level.

It the reason why PF start without g43.

Lethality of unit should be in line with the time frame.


Fine, then we can make Penals 260MP with 3 SVTs/3Rifles and give them a Muni upgrade for the rest of the SVTs. That brings them in line with 0cp fussiliers that start with grenades/fausts.

The tech structures of Soviets and OKW desperately need tweeking because volks/conscript spam is too boring.



6 Nov 2020, 15:55 PM
#17
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13290 | Subs: 1



Fine, then we can make Penals 260MP with 3 SVTs/3Rifles and give them a Muni upgrade for the rest of the SVTs.

That would be a far better design. (I would try 4-2 so that PTRS Penal have 4 mosin/2 PTRS instead of 3/1/2)


That brings them in line with 0cp fussiliers that start with grenades/fausts.

PF do not start with grenades only with AT grenades.


The tech structures of Soviets and OKW desperately need tweeking because volks/conscript spam is too boring.

Imo that is direct result of the power of infatry and making units arrive earlier. There is little reason to use support weapons when blobs are so effective and rushing light is so good.

Imo the window of opportunity for units should be increased by delaying tech.



1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag shadics ARG.
  • U.S. Forces flag TüMe
  • Ostheer flag The101stAirBorne
  • Ostheer flag Clororaa
uploaded by TüMe

Board Info

240 users are online: 2 members and 238 guests
Rosbone, Spanky
17 posts in the last 24h
107 posts in the last week
491 posts in the last month
Registered members: 36501
Welcome our newest member, meliodas7
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM