Login

russian armor

[Winter Balance Update] USF Feedback

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (20)down
9 Dec 2020, 10:01 AM
#183
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3106 | Subs: 2

Regarding the v2 Scott change:

Why so much focus on the barrage?
USF already has a mortar and the PaK Howie, another mortar-like unit is gratuitous. If it is supposed to be the replacement for rocket artillery, a swap of Calliope and Scott would fit better.
And USF also has a doctrinal mortar carrier already.

Overall a mini-Brummbar like function would fit way, way better in terms of unit diversity.
9 Dec 2020, 15:19 PM
#184
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



Just so we're *clear here*, I am fairly certain that there is only one "Walking Stuka" in the game, and that is the rocket artillery. I clearly stated "Walking Stuka" - to be clear ;)
I was trying to give you an oopsie out for trying to compare a barrage only vehicle that delays armour by minutes to an auto fire super mortar that could wipe squads at any time without warning.

Even if you hear the sound effect, retreating your troops can inadvertently cause you to lose more to the strike. Any decent player will mix it up and attack your retreat line, knowing that you may run or reposition your troops when you hear the rockets going off, and end up retreating or even just moving into the explosion. Some maps have smaller passageways where dispersing your forces can't always be done in a rapid or effective way (Port of Hamburg, Essen Steelworks, Lanzerath Ambush, etc.). Surely you're aware of all of this. Then again, you didn't know what a Walking Stuka was, and you have a "#stalinwept" signature on your profile, so I can only imagine the level of sarcasm you bring to an honest conversation.
the enemy outplaying you or map issues doesn't make the comparison better if you have an issue with the Stuka make a stuka thread, don't try to use it to somehow justify the pak howi being too strong. And for the record, the audio cue is what in part makes the Stuka OK. It's not a wipe out of nowhere like the pak howi

A lone allied medium tank won't make it very far getting tangled up with even a single Raketenwerfer/Pak 40 and a single snare, mine, etc. If you played 4v4 COH2, you'd know exactly what I'm talking about. Getting a Walking Stuka out at CP 3 is much more devastating in 4v4 team games, and doesn't carry nearly the same risk that rushing a medium tank does. I routinely do more damage with a Walking Stuka than I do with the T34/76, which doesn't scale nearly as well into the late game. Ask any Allied player what he fears more from OKW: A Walking Stuka or a Panzer IV?
you are missing the point entirely. Fuel cost is not insignificant. The Stuka costs more than regular proper arty, and building it delays proper armour by minutes for a chance to wipe every minute or so. The pak howi costs no fuel and delays nothing while possibly wiping every few seconds.
I appreciate the condescension, but nothing you say can distract nor detract from the reality that the US faction is non-doctrinally lacking in strong artillery and armor (and, thanks to this latest patch, is getting even worse), which was the point I think I've very clearly made by now. So, if you want to nitpick and play semantics games with me in an effort to deny reality and tell me that the sky is green, that's your prerogative. I've made my case and it's my opinion after spending a lot of time playing 4v4s, which I suspect you aren't too familiar with. Conversely, maybe you know very well what I'm talking about but aren't objective enough to acknowledge it here. That's fine, too.
I know you are pretty new here but I'm well aware of the plight of team games and also that usf does quite well in them despite the lack of rocket arty.
P.S. An OKW player can usually field the Walking Stuka before a Soviet, British, or American player can field a medium tank. By the time the Allied player gets a tank with his fuel, you can easily have multiple Raketenwerfers and snare-capable infantry to crush it. There is a reason some expert Soviet players will create a Katyusha before they create a T34/76. The same can be said for OKW players who opt for the early Walking Stuka. It has the potential to do a heck of a lot more damage, and survive for a lot longer into the match. It's often more efficient. You don't have to keep it too close to the danger on the battlefield and can still inflict a lot of damage.

I'm aware how early an okw player can field rocket arty. I've been playing this game since before it released and understand that if you play passively the Stuka will punish that. A properly micro medium will be equally devistating and higher impact however. Not that it's relevant to the discussion outside a reference point as to how expensive the Stuka is.

9 Dec 2020, 15:37 PM
#185
avatar of GiaA

Posts: 712 | Subs: 2

Regarding the v2 Scott change:

Why so much focus on the barrage?
USF already has a mortar and the PaK Howie, another mortar-like unit is gratuitous. If it is supposed to be the replacement for rocket artillery, a swap of Calliope and Scott would fit better.
And USF also has a doctrinal mortar carrier already.

Overall a mini-Brummbar like function would fit way, way better in terms of unit diversity.


Uhm no. Op HE sherman fills that role.
9 Dec 2020, 15:41 PM
#186
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3106 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Dec 2020, 15:37 PMGiaA


Uhm no. Op HE sherman fills that role.

Kind of, yes. But we have already 2 stock + 1 doctrinal mortar unit. There's overlap in both directions, but as mini Brummbar the overlap is smaller.
9 Dec 2020, 15:57 PM
#187
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

Regarding the v2 Scott change:

Why so much focus on the barrage?
USF already has a mortar and the PaK Howie, another mortar-like unit is gratuitous. If it is supposed to be the replacement for rocket artillery, a swap of Calliope and Scott would fit better.
And USF also has a doctrinal mortar carrier already.

Overall a mini-Brummbar like function would fit way, way better in terms of unit diversity.


There's simply too much overlap in USF's roster for any meaningful/healthy swaps. Making the Calliope stock would likely mean a doctrinal Scott is never used/needed again. Making it like a (doctrinal) mini Brummbar would heavily overlap with the 105mm Sherman. An armored and highly mobile medium barrage vehicle (i.e. a Pak Howitzer on tracks) is actually the most unique role I could think of. This way, USF has a stock indirect fire option for all stages of the game.
9 Dec 2020, 15:59 PM
#188
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1



There's simply too much overlap in USF's roster for any meaningful/healthy swaps. Making the Calliope stock would likely mean a doctrinal Scott is never used/needed again. Making it like a (doctrinal) mini Brummbar would heavily overlap with the 105mm Sherman. An armored and highly mobile medium barrage vehicle is actually the most unique role I could think of.

Then simply make some of the these option (mortar/pak/Scott/HE Sherman/Major barrage) doctrinal.
Or
accept that some of the unit will not see much action.
9 Dec 2020, 16:00 PM
#189
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Dec 2020, 15:59 PMVipper

Then simply make some of the these option (mortar/pak/Scott/HE Sherman/Major barrage) doctrinal.


I didn't say stock roster. They have too much indirect fire overlap in their entire roster. It's the same with all the Sherman variants. Relic should've come up with more diverse units (like the Jumbo). Swapping all kinds of things now isn't going to fix that.
9 Dec 2020, 16:12 PM
#190
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1



I didn't say stock roster. They have too much indirect fire overlap in their entire roster. It's the same with all the Sherman variants. Swapping all kinds of things isn't going to fix that.

I do not think that work like this:
Removing stock staff creates room for doctrinal staff.

If one removes from stock the T0 mortar (and eventually mortar become worth wile) there would be room a doctrinal mortar the same as if one removes the pack hoziter or HE shell.

The problem originates from the large number of high AI weapons available to USF as stock (mortar/pak/Scott/HE Sherman/Major barrage).

I am not sure how aware of the issue you are but USF have gone from being dependent on riflemen in producing a similar amount or even more support weapons than Ostheer. (at least according to WC2019 where the stat are available).

As pointed in the previews post one has to either reduce the overlap of all these options or accept that fact that not all of them will the same amount usage.
9 Dec 2020, 16:17 PM
#191
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1951

Regarding the v2 Scott change:

Why so much focus on the barrage?
USF already has a mortar and the PaK Howie, another mortar-like unit is gratuitous. If it is supposed to be the replacement for rocket artillery, a swap of Calliope and Scott would fit better.
And USF also has a doctrinal mortar carrier already.

Overall a mini-Brummbar like function would fit way, way better in terms of unit diversity.


These changes make it too similar to the MHT. I'd rather they gave the barrage a decent range like 120-135. The 80 range makes it just another mortar.

I do like the idea of switching the Calliope and the Scott. That would make the USF better in team games.
9 Dec 2020, 16:35 PM
#192
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1515



There's simply too much overlap in USF's roster for any meaningful/healthy swaps. Making the Calliope stock would likely mean a doctrinal Scott is never used/needed again. Making it like a (doctrinal) mini Brummbar would heavily overlap with the 105mm Sherman. An armored and highly mobile medium barrage vehicle (i.e. a Pak Howitzer on tracks) is actually the most unique role I could think of. This way, USF has a stock indirect fire option for all stages of the game.


You convinced me. I agree. When you put it like that, you are 100% right. Well, godspeed if you manage to fine tune it. I hope the end product is great.

Still the question stands: What is the opinion on Pershing amongst the people responsible for the balance?
9 Dec 2020, 16:40 PM
#193
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1

Swap the scott with sherman 105. Make 105 a bumbar clone, neft/remove sherman HE, reduce cost by 5 fuels.
9 Dec 2020, 16:48 PM
#194
avatar of SupremeStefan

Posts: 1220

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Dec 2020, 16:17 PMGrumpy


These changes make it too similar to the MHT. I'd rather they gave the barrage a decent range like 120-135. The 80 range makes it just another mortar.

I do like the idea of switching the Calliope and the Scott. That would make the USF better in team games.


I have no idea why scott barrage is still only 80 range, if they want buff barrage, range change should be first.
9 Dec 2020, 17:07 PM
#195
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1515

Swap the scott with sherman 105. Make 105 a bumbar clone, neft/remove sherman HE, reduce cost by 5 fuels.


I'd rather steer clear of any sort of "cloning". We have enough cookie-cutting BS with the "...more in line with". As much as I hate repeating it: This is an asymmetrical game.
9 Dec 2020, 19:36 PM
#196
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1

The Scott is moving in the right directionbut personally I'd like the see the barrage be a wee bit more damaging for near hits in exchange for maybe a slightly longer cool down or something. Right now it feels like an annoying pea shooter that you keep spamming barrage and hoping the other player doesn't pack up. I know forcing re positions and chip damage has it's own value but it feels like the lethality just isn't there right now. I don't see how Scotts can break down support weapon walls as is with their barrage.
9 Dec 2020, 20:14 PM
#197
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3600 | Subs: 1



I didn't say stock roster. They have too much indirect fire overlap in their entire roster. It's the same with all the Sherman variants. Relic should've come up with more diverse units (like the Jumbo). Swapping all kinds of things now isn't going to fix that.


They overlap because at some moments the various balance teams make them overlap.

Pakhowi was at the beginning an almost only barrage unit and Scott an almost only auto-fire unit. Then the various balance teams decided to made them more similar.

Buff the pakhowi barrage and remove its auto-fire, do the opposite for the Scott and you have two different units. You have the pakhowi be like a mix between rocket arty and field Arty in its purpose and scott a lighter brumbar.
9 Dec 2020, 20:45 PM
#198
avatar of IntoTheRain

Posts: 179

Might as well just swap the Scott for the Priest if they want to gut its auto abilities.

At least it can perform as psuedo (bad) rocket artillery and has the range to actually be useful.

Still have no idea how USF is supposed to deal with Axis elite infantry late game now with the 50 cal, Pack Howie, and Scott all getting gutted.
9 Dec 2020, 21:16 PM
#199
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Dec 2020, 20:14 PMEsxile


They overlap because at some moments the various balance teams make them overlap.

Pakhowi was at the beginning an almost only barrage unit and Scott an almost only auto-fire unit. Then the various balance teams decided to made them more similar.

Buff the pakhowi barrage and remove its auto-fire, do the opposite for the Scott and you have two different units. You have the pakhowi be like a mix between rocket arty and field Arty in its purpose and scott a lighter brumbar.


While i agree with the proposed changes, the pak howie was not a "barrage" unit. For example, HEAT shells replace the autofire normal mode. Barrage has always been horrendous since release, because the amount of shells was piss poor despite the range.

The unit was oppressive with vet and due to it gaining range on auto fire. Specially when they give it suppression.
9 Dec 2020, 21:17 PM
#200
avatar of Raxzero

Posts: 55



I have no idea why scott barrage is still only 80 range, if they want buff barrage, range change should be first.


This right here.

If the balance team is insisting on making Scott barrage-focused artillery unit rather than a frontline auto-fire unit, range of the barrage should be buffed so that it's actually useful in the late-game.

In exchange, smoke cannister can be removed to make the unit more vulnerable to dives.
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

482 users are online: 1 member and 481 guests
ShadowLinkX37
2 posts in the last 24h
39 posts in the last week
146 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44937
Welcome our newest member, Fradcfgrgir
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM