Login

russian armor

State of Heavies, take two

MMX
8 May 2021, 07:52 AM
#1
avatar of MMX

Posts: 828 | Subs: 1

Hello there…

With the Commander Revamp in the works, I’ve decided to revisit a topic that has always been discussed quite controversially in the past – the current state of heavy tanks. There’s been a lot of complaints about how these tanks have lost their punch and how they perform even worse than mediums in the AI role now. Hence, I’ve decided throw my hat in the ring once more in an attempt to bring some numbers to the debate. For those of you who are less inclined to read through the following wall of text I’ve included a TL;DR at the end with an executive summary.



Preface


After receiving nerfs to their AoE profiles in the Winter Balance Patch of 2020, many players found the AI performance of heavies across the board to be somewhat lacking and, as a result, the Tiger, IS-2 and Pershing became much less frequent sightings in all game modes ever since.

For me this came a bit as a surprise, as after running the numbers the results seemed to imply that the overall AI performance loss wasn’t even that great – somewhere in the range of 5-20% depending on distance to target and spacing the entities of the squad (Old comparison here).

However, the method I used back then for comparison was admittedly somewhat flawed, since it didn’t take the contribution of the tank machine guns to the overall DPS and model kills into account. This would, for example, make the performance loss of the Tiger seem much greater than it actually is in-game, simply because the Tiger’s MGs are responsible for a significantly greater fraction of the total damage output than, say, those of the Pershing.

On top of that, my previous assessment was based solely on the time it takes to completely wipe a given squad (T2K). While this yields a pretty good approximation of the performance in a lengthy fight, it isn’t really depicting a realistic scenario to happen in an actual game, as the squad would likely retreat once only one or two low-health models are left.

Another very important factor was also not considered back then; namely the discrepancy between damage dealt to a squad and the actual number of models killed per shot. This seems trivial at first, as more damage would be expected to translate into more entity kills. However, this isn’t always the case and there are several examples where a tank deals more overall DPS to a squad but kills significantly slower (as for example the Cromwell vs. Pz.IV).

To address these shortcomings, I’ve conducted a more extensive set of simulations (details to the spreadsheet/algorithm used here) that not only record the average T2K as the metric for comparison, but also capture the damage dealt and kills scored as a function of time over the whole duration of the simulation. Each result represents the average over 2,000 repetitions of the same setup to eliminate fluctuations due to RNG as much as possible. This should give a clearer picture of the impact of the AoE nerfs and allow the changes to the “alpha-strike” capabilities of the tanks (i.e. the damage and kills after the first shot) to be measured.



Results


1) The Tiger


To begin with, let’s take a quick look how the AoE nerfs in the Winter Balance Patch affected the infamous Tiger tank, and further how the old and new Tiger compare to their smaller cousin, the Pz.IV Ausf. H, in terms of AI performance:

Scatter and AoE profile comparison


As visible from the graph above, the Tiger lost a significant chunk of its near AoE damage and suffered a reduction of the near and mid AoE distance. While this didn’t change the gross AoE damage dealt per shot too much, the effective OHK radius was shortened significantly (from 1.333 to 0.5 m), even below that of the Pz.IV. This means the current version of the Tiger should not only be much worse in knocking out individual models than its pre-WBP alter ego, but also inferior to the Pz.IV… but by how much exactly? This of course depends highly on the circumstances, as squad formation, distance and other modifiers, such as damage reduction (through Vet or heavy cover) and received accuracy (only affecting the DPS of MGs) will have a significant effect on the survivability of infantry squads.

To shed some light onto how these circumstances affect the relative performance of the three tanks, let’s break this down into 4 scenarios, each involving a simulated fight (2,000 repetitions) against a squad with 6 entities and a 0.5 modifier to target size (e.g. as if in yellow cover) under different conditions:


1.1) Distance: 35 m; clumped formation

This scenario emulates the rather common situation of engaging a squad at mid to long range, right at the max range of the tank-mounted MGs. The individual squad members are quite tightly bunched up due to hiding inside a crater or some foliage providing yellow cover, thus increasing the chances of multiple models getting caught in the AoE.

In-game representation of test scenario 1

Graphical representation of results for test scenario 1


Comparing the absolute damage (upper left panel) and damage relative to the live Tiger (middle left panel) dealt over time, it is immediately evident that the live Tiger fares only slightly worse than the pre-WBP version (~ 20% after the 1st and 10% after the 2nd shot, respectively), while dealing significantly more HP damage than the Pz.IV in the same timeframe. However, as established before the raw HP damage is not necessarily the best metric to assess the AI performance since any damage that isn’t converted into a model kill can be conveniently healed away for free after retreating from the engagement.
Hence, the number of model kills scored, especially within the first one or two shots fired, is an important performance benchmark to gauge the “alpha strike” (i.e. 1st shot) capabilities of a tank. Looking at the respective model kill graphs (upper and middle right panels), it becomes clear that both the pre-WBP Tiger and Pz.IV perform much better in this regard than the live Tiger (250% and 90% more model kills with the 1st shot, respectively). This performance gap however closes rather quickly after more shots are fired. In fact, the live Tiger overtakes the Pz.IV with respect to model kills already after the 2nd shot and scores 30-40% more kills from there onward. This is also visible from the median T2K values for the whole 6-men squad (value at Σp > 50% in the lower left panel), where the difference between the pre-WBP and live Tiger is very slim (18.5 s and 21.5 s, respectively), whereas the Pz.IV takes significantly longer to wipe the whole squad on average (35.3 s).


1.2) Distance: 35 m; wide formation

In the next scenario the targeted squad assumes a more spread-out formation typical for units out of cover. This reduces the overall effectiveness of AoE weapons as fewer models will be close enough to the explosion at any given time.

In-game representation of test scenario 2

Graphical representation of results for test scenario 2


Due to the larger distance between the individual models of the squad the raw HP damage dealt per shot is lower and the contribution of the tank MGs to the overall DPS is higher than in scenario 1 (as visible from the steeper slope between shots in the graphs). However, the relative performance differences remain quite similar; the live Tiger deals a bit less damage per shot than the pre-WBP version but much more than the Pz.IV, while the difference in the number of model kills after the first shot is now slightly smaller than before. Still, the Pz.IV beats the live Tiger in terms of alpha strike performance, although less drastically. Overall the edge the Tiger has in terms of AI over the Pz.IV is rather small, which is probably due to the decreased value of its bigger AoE in this case.


1.3) Distance: 10 m; clumped formation

While the majority of firefights between infantry and tanks will play out at mid or long range to avoid getting snared, it is sometimes helpful to close in on a defenseless squad or weapon team to minimize the scatter penalties and maximize the DPS of vehicle-mounted MGs. The next scenario tries to emulate this somewhat by simulating a fight against a clumped squad at 10 m distance.

In-game representation of test scenario 3

Graphical representation of results for test scenario 3


As would be expected, the DPS at a range of 10 m is higher than that at 35 m (scenario 1), albeit most of the DPS increase stems from the greater MG DPS at close range. Once again the alpha strike performance is similar to that in scenario 1 with the old Tiger scoring more than 3 x and the Pz.IV almost twice the model kills with the 1st shell than the live Tiger. However, over the entirety of the fight the performance difference between the pre-WBP and live Tiger is again rather negligible (~5% T2K difference), while the Pz.IV takes about 66% longer to completely wipe the target squad.


1.4) Distance: 35 m; clumped formation with 0.5 DR

The last scenario simulates the effect of heavy cover under otherwise identical conditions to the 1st case. With the reduction in AoE near damage introduced with the Winter Balance Patch 2020 the Tiger now deals a maximum of only 120 damage on scatter hits. This means the live Tiger, unlike the old Tiger and Pz.IV, can no longer one-shot entities behind heavy cover outside of natural hits (i.e. successful accuracy rolls), which should have a noticeable impact on its AI performance.

In-game representation of test scenario 4

Graphical representation of results for test scenario 4


Indeed, both in terms of damage dealt as well as kills scored the live Tiger performs significantly worse than the pre-WBP version and only manages to match the average model kill count of the Pz.IV after the 5th shot fired. The alpha strike performance of the live Tiger is therefore pretty awful even compared to a medium tank of half its cost, which in my opinion is something that needs to be looked at. Over the full length of the firefight this performance gap closes again thanks to the higher average AoE damage stacking up continuously, resulting in a median T2K roughly 30% lower than that of the Pz.IV but still 27% higher than the old Tiger’s 30.5 s.


2) The IS-2


Similar to the Tiger, the mighty IS-2 has seen its AoE near damage and distance reduced after the WPB, almost halving the OHK radius to a mere 0.53 m. Overall the changes were less drastic than for its German counterpart, but the impact on its alpha strike performance should be of similar magnitude. To put things into perspective, the AI strength of the IS-2 – pre and post WBP-revamp – against a clumped squad at 35 m range (as in scenario 1 for the Tiger) is compared to that of the T-34/76 for scale.

Scatter and AoE profile comparison

Graphical representation of results for test scenario 1


As expected, the 122 mm cannons of both IS-2 variants clearly provide more raw damage than the T34’s 76 mm gun by a large margin, while the difference in DPS between the old and current IS-2 is almost negligible (~ 10% less alpha damage). However, as in the Tiger’s case, the number of model kills after the 1st shot went down by almost 60% compared to the pre-WBP IS-2, resulting in the T-34 to snipe about twice as many models with the first shell now. Nevertheless, the median T2K values for both IS-2 incarnations are only about half that of the T-34, meaning in longer engagements the IS-2 remains clearly superior.


3) The Pershing


For the last heavy of the bunch, the Pershing, the AoE changes had a similar impact as for the IS-2. The OHK radius was roughly cut down by half while the raw damage potential remained largely unchanged, suggesting a similar drop in alpha strike capability as for the Tiger and IS-2. In this case, the 75 mm Sherman on HE shells serves as the benchmark for AI comparison against a clumped squad at 35 m.

Scatter and AoE profile comparison

Graphical representation of results for test scenario 1


Looking at the damage dealt per shot the old and revamped Pershing, just like the IS-2, are again less than 10% apart. The edge in DPS the M26 has over the HE Sherman is quite a bit lower than in the Tiger/Pz.IV and IS-2/T-34 case, which shouldn’t be too surprising given the great AoE of the M4’s high explosive shells. However, in terms of alpha strike performance the AoE nerfs cut the average kill count of the Pershing after the 1st shot roughly in half, now being ~ 20% lower than that of the HE-Sherman. Again, the Pershing overtakes the M4 in terms of model kills after the 2nd shot, but the overall difference in performance for long engagements is rather small (median T2K for the HE-Sherman is only about 27% higher).


Conclusion


The AoE profile adjustments made in the Winter Balance Patch clearly achieved their intended goal of severely reducing the alpha strike capabilities of heavy tanks without affecting the AI performance in drawn-out firefights too much. As a result, the Tiger, IS-2 and Pershing now deal a great amount of HP damage without sniping individual models in the first shot, thus giving the opponent ample time to react and retreat a squad if necessary. Compared to the standard medium tanks in their respective factions, all three heavies still perform much better over the course of longer firefights, both dealing substantially more HP damage over time and requiring less time for a complete squad wipe.

However, it can be argued that the reduction in alpha strike capability made heavies much less appealing as a means to inflict MP bleed than the cheaper and much earlier accessible medium tanks that don’t suffer the same inefficiency in model sniping. Furthermore, the reduction of the AoE near damage to 120 significantly worsened this problem for units in heavy cover, against which the revamped heavies are much less efficient than their medium counterparts.

While I don’t think anyone would want to see the AI performance of the affected heavies to go back to their pre-WBP level, I guess it would be fair to argue that the AoE near damage reduction might have been a bit too harsh. Reinstating the ability to OHK models behind green cover would probably not affect the current overall AI performance by much, but make heavies bit more fearful when assaulting entrenched positions. Otherwise, I’d say heavies are in a pretty good spot overall and only very slight adjustments, such as the above, would be needed to let them reconquer a spot in the meta without becoming too good.


What are your thoughts on the matter?
8 May 2021, 08:18 AM
#2
avatar of jagd wölfe

Posts: 1660

Good analysis

jump backJump back to quoted post8 May 2021, 07:52 AMMMX

What are your thoughts on the matter?


Mediums should receive the same treatment, all of them, and become more consistent with far aoe hits while dealing less damage at green covered units

Would even remove shell switching from standard Sherman as compensating buff and merge the stats of AP and HE shell

Mediums can get TOO lucky, it happened even in the ML5 series iirc of a Panzer IV sniping 5 conscripts models
8 May 2021, 08:58 AM
#3
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12173 | Subs: 1

nice work. Well done.
8 May 2021, 09:44 AM
#4
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3106 | Subs: 7

I personally think the trade-off between slightly less alpha damage for more consistency is worth it. I've been using the Tiger and Pershing a lot recently and if you use them in their new intended role (as the finishing cornerstone of your army composition and not as one man armies) then they perform very well imo. Fully vetted they are still beastly.

Based on my own experience, the more consistent health damage in ingame scenarios makes them more reliable than mediums, especially with other damage sources pitching in (1-2 hits will force a squad to retreat where a medium will generally take a more), and their better scatter ensures that they will get these required hits more often / faster than medium tanks.

And of course these heavies are also significantly better anti-tank than mediums, which further helps to compensate for their different AI profile. Especially the Tiger has fantastic AT when fully vetted. I consider it to be a better Panther that also deals significant AI damage, and it's very good in that role. It has won multiple games already in the current ML5 series.


About mediums, if I had carte blanche I would personally tweak their stats to shift AI power from the main gun more to the MGs (and let them scale with veterancy) to reduce RNG, improve consistency and reduce OHKs. This would be better for both the user and the one on the receiving end.
8 May 2021, 10:41 AM
#5
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3458 | Subs: 2

I think heavies are in a good spot. Next patch with the KV1 pop nerf, the IS2 will likely be the meta for Soviets in 1v1.
8 May 2021, 11:04 AM
#6
avatar of jagd wölfe

Posts: 1660

About mediums, if I had carte blanche I would personally tweak their stats to shift AI power from the main gun more to the MGs (and let them scale with veterancy) to reduce RNG, improve consistency and reduce OHKs. This would be better for both the user and the one on the receiving end.

Absolutely, it would also make choosing Panzer/Tank commander a less mandatory choice and an actual tradeoff
8 May 2021, 21:17 PM
#7
avatar of Descolata

Posts: 467

Id apply the AoE snipe change to all mediums. P4 pretty consisently kills 1 per shot. I might be biased, because they already did that to the Cromwell and Sexton and Comet and Churchill.

Great math btw. Its REALLY NICE. I like the criteria of "if it aint dead, it doesnt count". If im reading this right, the HE Sherman has about the same AI as the P4.
9 May 2021, 00:35 AM
#8
avatar of KoRneY

Posts: 535

Id apply the AoE snipe change to all mediums. P4 pretty consisently kills 1 per shot. I might be biased, because they already did that to the Cromwell and Sexton and Comet and Churchill.

Great math btw. Its REALLY NICE. I like the criteria of "if it aint dead, it doesnt count". If im reading this right, the HE Sherman has about the same AI as the P4.


You think the ost p4 has the same AI as an HE sherman?
9 May 2021, 01:04 AM
#9
avatar of Descolata

Posts: 467

jump backJump back to quoted post9 May 2021, 00:35 AMKoRneY


You think the ost p4 has the same AI as an HE sherman?


Wow, nevermind. HE Sherman is a monster. It does 2 P4 shots in its first alpha. The Pershing has to be stupid good to even compete.
9 May 2021, 01:16 AM
#10
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1090

jump backJump back to quoted post9 May 2021, 00:35 AMKoRneY


You think the ost p4 has the same AI as an HE sherman?


Didn't they always have about the same AI? Generally? HE Sherman having shock value due to hitting generally smaller squads (vs OST) and having larger AOE (4 vs 2.5) but comparable distances. Meaning, the extra far distance you get with 4 AOE does not generally do much unless vs multiple squads? But to answer the question. No. HE Sherman has better AI than OST P4, in first shot or so, doublish. I won't get into charts and graphs and whatnot since I always question the validity of such analysis in a game which is pseudo random.
MMX
9 May 2021, 04:24 AM
#11
avatar of MMX

Posts: 828 | Subs: 1


Mediums should receive the same treatment, all of them, and become more consistent with far aoe hits while dealing less damage at green covered units


Id apply the AoE snipe change to all mediums. P4 pretty consisently kills 1 per shot. I might be biased, because they already did that to the Cromwell and Sexton and Comet and Churchill.



About mediums, if I had carte blanche I would personally tweak their stats to shift AI power from the main gun more to the MGs (and let them scale with veterancy) to reduce RNG, improve consistency and reduce OHKs. This would be better for both the user and the one on the receiving end.



I think both approaches (less OHK, more consistent damage; lower gun performance and buffed MGs) could be made to work and would be an improvement in line with where the overall state of the game has been moving towards for quite a while. Less RNG wipes and more consistency.

The first already works out rather well for most of the British tanks, as Descolata pointed out. The Cromwell, Churchill and Comet all deal quite a bit more raw damage per shot than mediums of the other factions but are less likely to snipe models on first hit. As a result, those dreaded one-hit squad kills occur much less often when playing against Brits.

Moving some of the DPS / KPS to the MGs would also help to reduce the huge variance in AI performance due to RNG and might have the added benefit of making squads with lower model count a bit less vulnerable compared to 6 or 7 men squads. Usually the bonus RA that compensates for the smaller squad size does nothing against AoE damage, but it would help a great deal against increased MG DPS output.
However, one thing that would be difficult to balance is the huge performance drop small arms experience as the game progresses due to more abundant yellow cover and Vet bonuses to target size. If you increase the damage output of tank MGs by too much, they'll tear though infantry in the earlier stages of the game. If the buff is too small, the AI performance of tanks in the late game might turn out to be too low. Maybe an overhaul of the cover bonuses as was suggested some time ago could fix this, but I doubt anything that radical is likely to happen in this stage of the game's life cycle.

Ideally, I'd probably try to implement both to some extent; increase the overall or 'mean' AoE damage dealt while lowering the OHK radius. This paired with a slight buff to MGs could compensate for the loss of DPS/KPS without the MGs getting too powerful early on.
MMX
9 May 2021, 05:27 AM
#12
avatar of MMX

Posts: 828 | Subs: 1

If im reading this right, the HE Sherman has about the same AI as the P4.




Didn't they always have about the same AI? Generally? HE Sherman having shock value due to hitting generally smaller squads (vs OST) and having larger AOE (4 vs 2.5) but comparable distances. Meaning, the extra far distance you get with 4 AOE does not generally do much unless vs multiple squads? But to answer the question. No. HE Sherman has better AI than OST P4, in first shot or so, doublish.


I'd say it depends what metric you choose to compare the two, but in general the HE-Sherman is superior to the P4 by quite a large margin (as it should be considering the HE shells do next to nothing to armored targets). If you consider alpha strike kills only, both are relatively similar since the number of model kills here only depends on scatter and OHK radius (despite the slightly smaller OHK radius the Sherman wins here the greater the distance to the target gets due to superior scatter characteristics, but not by much). But the damage output per shot of the M4 is much higher (mainly because it affects more models on average thanks to the huge AoE radius), so the longer the firefight draws out the more models reach such a low HP threshold that any further AoE hit or MG salvo will kill. This gets pretty obvious if you take the average T2K as the basis for comparison; here the P4 would take about 25% longer to wipe a clumped 6-men squad at 35 m (as in the example in the OP).



Of course this doesn't even take the better moving accuracy and lower moving scatter of the Sherman into account, yet. For the Sherman, scatter only increases by a factor of 1.5 as compared to 2 for the P4. Hence, when chasing a retreating unit the odds of the M4 to hit anything are still about 44% of what they would be if stationary, whereas the P4 will only be 25% as likely to hit.

The greater AoE radius of the HE-Sherman will obviously be more useful the more models can be hit at the same time. But this isn't limited to fighting multiple squads, or blobs, as it will also increase the odds to do any damage at all to single models or squads. A P4 shot missing a unit by 3 m won't do any harm, while a Sherman HE shell at the same distance deals 16 damage. This adds some consistency at the very least, which I'd consider quite useful.

9 May 2021, 06:46 AM
#13
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3106 | Subs: 7

jump backJump back to quoted post9 May 2021, 04:24 AMMMX
However, one thing that would be difficult to balance is the huge performance drop small arms experience as the game progresses due to more abundant yellow cover and Vet bonuses to target size. If you increase the damage output of tank MGs by too much, they'll tear though infantry in the earlier stages of the game


Letting the MGs scale with veterancy like regular small arms would probably be enough. The DPS bonus from veterancy (+30-40% accuracy and -20-25% cooldown) is generally more than the RA bonus (-15-29% TS) and already helps compensate for the increased availability of light cover late game.

Besides reducing OHKs a tank would also become more consistent in other areas, most noticeably when firing at infantry that are behind (several) objects or elevation where right now the gun would struggle to deal any damage as it's very likely to scatter its shots into these objects or elevation, where the MGs wouldn't have this issue.
MMX
9 May 2021, 07:12 AM
#14
avatar of MMX

Posts: 828 | Subs: 1



Letting the MGs scale with veterancy like regular small arms would probably be enough. The DPS bonus from veterancy (+30-40% accuracy and -20-25% cooldown) is generally more than the RA bonus (-15-29%) and already helps compensate for the abundance of light cover late game.

Besides reducing OHKs a tank would also become more consistent in other areas, most noticeably when firing at infantry that are behind (several) objects where right now the gun would struggle to deal any damage as it's very likely to scatter its shots into these objects.



Hmm, it never even occurred to me but this would actually be a pretty elegant solution to the problem. Would be interesting to see how this plays out for sure.

9 May 2021, 07:47 AM
#15
avatar of Klement Pikhtura

Posts: 459

I actually came to like M26, simply because of its speed and acceleration (similar to that of P4J). You go in, shoot 1 or 2 shots and gtfo. Rinse and repeat. And imo heavy's AOE is pretty good at that. It knocks out a squad out of the fight pretty fast, and if enemy disrespects it, he may receive a nasty wipe.

But the problem is that often 1 or 2 shots is not enough and you already can face a repositioning panther or volley of several AT guns. And if shot misses or got bad scatter, you may face a hefty repair downtime. This especially evident with Tigers, that almost always faces a TD or two, that will most certainly complicates its usage quite a bit.

I think 1 of the ways to improve heavy tank performance is to buff their acceleration and/or speed, so that they could gtfo faster. It also makes them more viable as in assaults, better at rotation etc.

Apart from straight AOE buffs, there are also options like price, pop-cap adjustments, timings etc. Like with almost everything in life, price/performance is a viable metric in COH2 imo.
9 May 2021, 08:19 AM
#16
avatar of jagd wölfe

Posts: 1660

I actually came to like M26, simply because of its speed and acceleration (similar to that of P4J). You go in, shoot 1 or 2 shots and gtfo. Rinse and repeat. And imo heavy's AOE is pretty good at that. It knocks out a squad out of the fight pretty fast, and if enemy disrespects it, he may receive a nasty wipe.

But the problem is that often 1 or 2 shots is not enough and you already can face a repositioning panther or volley of several AT guns. And if shot misses or got bad scatter, you may face a hefty repair downtime. This especially evident with Tigers, that almost always faces a TD or two, that will most certainly complicates its usage quite a bit.

I think 1 of the ways to improve heavy tank performance is to buff their acceleration and/or speed, so that they could gtfo faster. It also makes them more viable as in assaults, better at rotation etc.

Apart from straight AOE buffs, there are also options like price, pop-cap adjustments, timings etc. Like with almost everything in life, price/performance is a viable metric in COH2 imo.

I'm not sure about buffing heavies mobility. I would rather collectively buff their moving accuracy to USF levels to make actively chasing them away with minimal support a bit less easier and make its offensive use against mediums and TD less RNG dependant
9 May 2021, 08:24 AM
#17
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 2383 | Subs: 2

This is very nice, good work!
From the simulations, can you grab any data how the distribution of kills and damage is between the first shots?
That's usually the most impact and the important ones. You show the average which is clearly lower in the new versions, but to see the chances how each shot performs would be cool as well.

Regarding the discussiin about mediums:
I doubt that rebalancing more damage to the MGs for all mediums would be generally good. A singly shot rarely wipes more than 1-2 models unless the squads are clumped by cover or just random game pathing. In the latter case it is quite unfortunate, but unless the plan is to really gimp near AoE and OHK radius, this will also happen with a new profile.
Mediums must have a good reason to use the main gun against infantry. If it became too weak, then there is no reason to not prioritize vehicles with the gun. But unless the game jerks around, mediums barely kill a lot of models with a single shot. And if they fight against the back of a clumped squad in cover, I would say that this is fine and more due to skill and good positioning
MMX
9 May 2021, 08:42 AM
#18
avatar of MMX

Posts: 828 | Subs: 1


I think 1 of the ways to improve heavy tank performance is to buff their acceleration and/or speed, so that they could gtfo faster. It also makes them more viable as in assaults, better at rotation etc.

Apart from straight AOE buffs, there are also options like price, pop-cap adjustments, timings etc. Like with almost everything in life, price/performance is a viable metric in COH2 imo.


Fully agree to the last part. In fact, if i were up to me I'd probably go for a slight price reduction (maybe around 10%), but that's it. Performance-wise there's no doubt that heavies are decent; they provide good AT paired with excellent AI (with the possible exception of fighting units in heavy cover) and great survivability. A buff to mobility would probably require quite a bit of a rework, as this would eliminate one of their key weaknesses (in particular the slow turret/hull rotation). At the very least the range boost the Tiger and IS-2 get at Vet 2 would have to go in this case. However, I personally see the extra range as kind of a defining trait and would rather not have it replaced by something else.
MMX
9 May 2021, 09:42 AM
#19
avatar of MMX

Posts: 828 | Subs: 1

This is very nice, good work!
From the simulations, can you grab any data how the distribution of kills and damage is between the first shots?
That's usually the most impact and the important ones. You show the average which is clearly lower in the new versions, but to see the chances how each shot performs would be cool as well.



thanks a lot!

do you mean something like the probability distribution of how often the 1st shot dealt x (0, 20, 40, etc.) damage or scored n kills?
unfortunately i don't have this kind of data at the moment due to how the results are calculated (i.e. it stores only the average, not the individual results of each iteration used to derive it which reduces calculation time by a lot), but it would certainly be possible to do this for the first shot.

i agree that this would be quite interesting, especially with respect to judging how reliable the damage output is between different tanks. maybe i can get some data on that...
9 May 2021, 10:31 AM
#20
avatar of Smartie

Posts: 834 | Subs: 1

In a Forum with too many hot takes on complex subjets the op is a very welcome difference because MMX put a lot of thought and time in it!
Well done, Buddy!

My 2 cents About it:
A lot of the most important things was already posted. I just think that we should consider more that saving fuel / mp for heavies does not allow you to build other Units / tanks. That's why heavies need to deliver because there is no point in waiting if the unit does not have a considerable impact.
I know this is an unpoluar opinion but I think that the performance of the heavies was not the problem in the past but the early timing. I
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

Board Info

76 users are online: 76 guests
83 posts in the last 24h
429 posts in the last week
2412 posts in the last month
Registered members: 25185
Welcome our newest member, kai_bailey_70
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM