Login

russian armor

[Winter Balance Update] USF Feedback

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (20)down
29 Nov 2020, 01:20 AM
#81
avatar of GiaA

Posts: 712 | Subs: 2

I'm torn on the scott. It already doesn't see much use in the 1v1 live version. It has fairly little immediate impact on the game and in an even game being 1 medium/td down can be huge. However there are certain scenarios where the scott becomes this seemingly uncounterable machine of death. This is hugely dependent on the map, army compositions and gamemode. I think the current change is definitely an overnerf. I'd much rather see a survivability nerf. The most obvious option is removing the defensive smoke.
29 Nov 2020, 01:44 AM
#82
avatar of GachiGasm

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Regarding snare change, what excatly is being addressed. I mean, if the idea was to give USF better time during LV phase, then this change is resonable.

If the idea was to help USF with snares later in the game, when you might have lost vetted units, after LV phase, then it would be more logical to locked it behind 2 officers or Major, to keep things as they are right now, while improve lategame.
29 Nov 2020, 03:19 AM
#83
avatar of Ulaire Minya

Posts: 372

Can we take part of the vet 3 acc bonus rifles get and throw it onto vet 2?
Rifles get outscaled by axis inf who all get their acc bonuses at vet 2 .
It takes forever to hit vet 3 because of it and usf already bleeds mp like mad due to the close range nature of rifles.
29 Nov 2020, 04:22 AM
#84
avatar of KT610

Posts: 69

Riflemen should have their weapon slots reduced to one because Double BAR riflemen make Paras and rangers redundant which Hurts Airborne, Heavy Calvary, and Urban Assault

to Make up for change I suggest riflemen cost lowered to 270 and Rear Echelon given place general purpose mines like Soviet Engineers, Royal Engineers and Sturmpioneers
29 Nov 2020, 06:33 AM
#85
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 04:22 AMKT610
Riflemen should have their weapon slots reduced to one because Double BAR riflemen make Paras and rangers redundant which Hurts Airborne, Heavy Calvary, and Urban Assault

to Make up for change I suggest riflemen cost lowered to 270 and Rear Echelon given place general purpose mines like Soviet Engineers, Royal Engineers and Sturmpioneers


I think it'd help balance quite a lot to remove Double BAR / Double Bren from non-elite units. They would have to have those weapons buffed to compensate and maybe buffs to the squads themselves too, but they'd be brought in line with other line infantry.

That said I don't feel Double BAR is all that overpowered, the BAR isn't that great. In fact it's slightly worse than the Panzergrenadier G43 (nearly identical DPS at all ranges, except around ~8-10 where it's much lower), and actually makes Panzergrenadiers worse at their job to pick up a dropped BAR rather than just keep their StG. The only other automatic rifle type weapon is the FG 42 and that thing overshadows most weapons, let alone the automatic rifles.
29 Nov 2020, 09:48 AM
#86
avatar of SpadeAce999

Posts: 44

I wonder why there is no about Rifle company in this patch. Looking at the tournament that have been going on up to now There is few choices of rifleman companies. The other skills of the Rifleman Company are very useful. But it's simple why the rifleman company wasn't chosen. It is rifle company that is not very attractive to top users.

Therefore, I think that other companies that have not appeared in the tournament must be reviewed through this patch. It is necessary to integrate the rifle flare with the field defense of the rifleman company.

And I think it's good to add a ranger squad as a new skill. The Ranger squad needs the same skills as the Soviet penal squad. In order for the Ranger squad to perform an assault mission, it is necessary to be able to install or throw explosives. and Ranger squad's skill points need to be adjusted from 3 to 2.

Unlike the Sherman 76, the Easy8 needs to be able to be used as an outfighter tank. As a user who wants to see the diversity of U.S. tank units, the easy8 is really a tank with no personality. Even if the anti-infantry ability is lower than now, it will be more useful if you increase the range of Easy8 to about 45-50.

Of course, I think that there are many friends who disagree with my opinion. However, whenever I watch the Company of Heroes 2 tournament, the game looks like a duplicate. Particularly after the suppression of the call-in unit, the game is not very fun.

I have been playing games for the past 6 years, and I think that there is not simply a game balance aspect that there are few 1v1 users like now. Starcraft, a genre of strategy games, is also not perfect in balance. However, I think adjustments are necessary to the extent that there are no units that are not used well. In particular, easy8 needs some kind of buff, just like StarCraft's Goliath received Charon booster.
29 Nov 2020, 09:48 AM
#87
avatar of OswaldMosley

Posts: 62

Raising the veterancy requirements for Rear Echelon troops is a bad idea IMO since they're the worst engineers in terms of combat performance. Even Soviet engineers seem more competent in fire fights
The only way for REs to become useable in fire support is for them to vet up.

Also USF vehicles could use an armor buff they're very fragile... Especially the utility car and and tanks
29 Nov 2020, 10:06 AM
#88
avatar of KiwiBirb

Posts: 789

Could the Pack howie and Scott’s position in the tech tree be swapped?

Current problems:
The pack howitzer’s role is pretty unclear. Right now it is mostly a RNG cannon used against infantry. It’s high scatter makes it bad vs. Team weapons, while its high scatter means that when firing even on moving infantry there is a chance the shot will scatter in the direction the squad is moving and it will deal a ton of damage

Meanwhile, the Scott is in a weird spot too. As mentioned earlier by someone else, it can either be practical useless or borderline over powered.
It comes out really late, at around a medium tank timing. To stand a chance of surviving the enemy medium, it has really good survivability in the form of mobility, three shots of HP, smoke, and the ability to shoot over shot blockers. It also deals pretty good DPS.
However, none of this can really help make it viable as a first unit to build, as an enemy medium tank will absolutely destroy it, especially since USF mines are not very good. However, if you can somehow get 2 Scotts and prevent your enemy from threatening them, he is pretty screwed. The range and indirect fire makes AT guns useless against a scott, and they allow you to win lots of infantry engagemts to deny fuel while bleeding the enemy of manpower, meaning it’s hard to get a tank out to kill them.
No amount of buffs will ever make a Scott a viable first unit out at major tech in my opinion, and any big nerfs will just make completely useless.

Ideas:
Making the pack howitzer in major tech and purely good against team weapons would fill the role of rocket artillery that USF is missing.
Making the Scott in Captain tech with the current nerfs in the patch would offset the nerfs due to the earlier timing, and It could still be countered at this timing, as Ost could rush it with Shreck Pgrens and OKW could use the Puma. its survivability could also be finally be nerfed as it wouldn’t be competing against medium tanks.

I am a bit worried about a Scott in Captain tech against Ost. I mentioned Shreck pgrens as a counter, but it would be a pretty weak counter. Maybe the barrage would need further nerfs so that a PaK would be able to somewhat counter it
29 Nov 2020, 10:50 AM
#89
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13477 | Subs: 1

Could the Pack howie and Scott’s position in the tech tree be swapped?
...

scott in CT would be uncounterable.

I had suggested, mortar to Cap but both m20 and mortar require only officer. Pack to major scott doctrinal or vice verse.
29 Nov 2020, 12:19 PM
#90
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1

My ideal is swaping scot with sherman 105, buff sherman 105 durable to stumpanzer lv.
Scot move to rifle company, e8 to armor company.

By doing so, USF have a stock tanky AI specialis, open the path for neftng jackson's durable. Rifle company now have a mobile infantry support gun, armor company now have advance premium medium tank.

i had made a mod on this along with works for other faction if anyone want to check it out.
29 Nov 2020, 14:13 PM
#91
avatar of RoastinGhost

Posts: 416 | Subs: 1

I would rather have AT rifle grenades unlocked via veterancy, because it's a nice, mild form of asymmetry.
It's interesting and unique that vehicles need to behave differently around vet 0 and 1 riflemen.
Also note that USF has a chance to retain vehicle vet on death (with crews), so it seems fair enough that late-game squad losses are more punishing.
29 Nov 2020, 14:21 PM
#92
avatar of Kepler

Posts: 26

Balance team you bunch of muppets. Fix the goddamn USF so we can play OKW again. Im so sick and tired of you tailoring the balance to suit only the top 20.

Muppets.

Rant over.
29 Nov 2020, 14:23 PM
#93
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17900 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 14:21 PMKepler
Balance team you bunch of muppets. Fix the goddamn USF so we can play OKW again. Im so sick and tired of you tailoring the balance to suit only the top 20.

Muppets.

Rant over.

If you think your problems come from balance, but you are not rank 100 or better, balance is not your problem.
29 Nov 2020, 14:43 PM
#94
avatar of Sumi

Posts: 132

I don't know if this patch was meant to buff Rear Echlons or not but what it does is literally nothing. RE serve as shooting practice for the axis opponents and a minesweeper for USF. Only after investing 100 or 120 ammunition does it become usable, which means that the unit itself is lacking. Reducing the re-inforce cost for RE does nothing. Why? Because no one makes more than 1 in commanders without Rifle nade and flamethrower and in those commanders too they mostly make 1 more, so a single unit on the field which literally does nothing except minesweeping got -2 reinforce cost, this means that 6 manpower is saved every time it retreats to the base and is reinforced. Reducing the reinforce cost only makes sense on units that are heavily used for example Grenadiers which people make upwards of 3 so reinforcing all of them they save 24 manpower or more as compared to only 6 in USF. This 6 manpower saving won't make much difference since it will just cost 6 mp less and won't decrease the round trip from frontline to base and vice versa. Increasing the veterancy requirement on a unit that requires investment to become USABLE is a mentality that I will never understand. RE is so horribly worse that even if you manage to flank mg42 you might cause it to retreat in like 9-10 bursts idk but will also lose 2 models almost. It can barely stand against any unit with 4 models shooting and when equipped with minesweeper it is not an AI unit anymore.

Jackson first had an armor decrease and now it got a vet pen decrease I think it should be reduced to 140 fuel as it used to be. It got 2 back to back nerfs but it still is a 145 fuel paper AT.
29 Nov 2020, 14:45 PM
#95
avatar of Kepler

Posts: 26

Thats so stupidly bullshit.

Why should I have to play the game of my life every game to even have a chance of beating a much lower rank. Against a higher rank winning with OKW is impossible. No chance. OP riflemen, WC51, stuart timing and its ability to neutralize the puma momentarily. Lightning fast 50 cal setups. etc...

The game should be playable by players not in top100.... but i guess not. Thx balance team for your elitist work
29 Nov 2020, 18:31 PM
#96
avatar of KiwiBirb

Posts: 789

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 10:50 AMVipper

scott in CT would be uncounterable.

I had suggested, mortar to Cap but both m20 and mortar require only officer. Pack to major scott doctrinal or vice verse.


The first change has nothing to do with the Scott or pack howitzer, and how does the second change accomplish anything related to making the Scott and pack howitzer more balanced units?
The Scott and pack howitzer will still be in a terrible spot with no changes for the reasons I discussed in my post, and I see no reason and you gave no reason for how making the Scott doctrinal and moving the pack howitzer to Major or making the pack howitzer doctrinal would make these units more balanced and viable

Also, how would the Scott in Captain be uncounterable? I gave examples for how it could be countered at captain timing, and even admitted it might need further nerfs so that it would be balanced against Ost.
29 Nov 2020, 18:55 PM
#97
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13477 | Subs: 1


The first change has nothing to do with the Scott or pack howitzer, and how does the second change accomplish anything related to making the Scott and pack howitzer more balanced units?
The Scott and pack howitzer will still be in a terrible spot with no changes for the reasons I discussed in my post, and I see no reason and you gave no reason for how making the Scott doctrinal and moving the pack howitzer to Major or making the pack howitzer doctrinal would make these units more balanced and viable

Also, how would the Scott in Captain be uncounterable? I gave examples for how it could be countered at captain timing, and even admitted it might need further nerfs so that it would be balanced against Ost.

Imo on the biggest problem of P.H. is its timings

Delaying a unit is nerf and pack howitzer being delayed would amke far more balanced since there would be counter available.

USF already have a plethora of stock indirect fires option like mortar, pack howitzer, Scott, Major barrage and that makes some of them redundant.

So trying to create room for all of them by keeping them stock is in my opinion a waste of time and making some of them doctrinal is a better option.
29 Nov 2020, 19:42 PM
#98
avatar of KiwiBirb

Posts: 789

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 18:55 PMVipper

Imo on the biggest problem of P.H. is its timings

Delaying a unit is nerf and pack howitzer being delayed would amke far more balanced since there would be counter available.

USF already have a plethora of stock indirect fires option like mortar, pack howitzer, Scott, Major barrage and that makes some of them redundant.

So trying to create room for all of them by keeping them stock is in my opinion a waste of time and making some of them doctrinal is a better option.


I see where you are coming from now, thanks for explaining.

I don’t think moving stuff to doctrines is the solution though because it doesn’t really fix the issues with the units
29 Nov 2020, 19:58 PM
#99
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13477 | Subs: 1



I see where you are coming from now, thanks for explaining.

Glad that I could help.
30 Nov 2020, 13:00 PM
#100
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13477 | Subs: 1

Another issue with the Pack howitzer especially HEAT barrage is that it does too much damage to support weapons and they get destroyed.
PAGES (20)down
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 cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

342 users are online: 342 guests
6 posts in the last 24h
28 posts in the last week
145 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45516
Welcome our newest member, Bondroff
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM