Login

russian armor

Cover and countering cover

18 Sep 2021, 13:16 PM
#1
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12266 | Subs: 1

Cover and especially heavy cover increases the durability of unit significantly.

Combined with the ability of faction to create heavy cover become an issue.

An issue also seem to be the damage of indirect fire weapon where some people claim that do not do enough while other that are too power

As solution the MOD team increased the target size of sandbag.

The problem with that solution is that it allow ATG weapon to destroy them easily making indirect fire weapon even less desirable.

Facing tank? use ATG/TD

Facing entrenched infatry? use ATG/TD


For these reason I would suggest the following changes:

1) Sandbag target size change revert. Heavy cover should not be countered by AT weapons from long range.

2) Certain weapon get improve modifiers for firing on heavy cover those can include Scott/Leig/mortars

3) Other weapon like rocket artillery remain as they are or even become worse vs units in cover

4) Tank traps build time increased greatly, target size reduce, resistance to ballistic weapon and now provide yellow cover. (and replace Axis tank traps with dragon teeth)

The changes will help to diversify build including indirect fire weapons when facing heavily fortified opponents and make certain units worth building without making them oppressive.
Pip
18 Sep 2021, 14:13 PM
#2
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1546

Surely USF would need to gain Sandbags as standard on REs if their Tank Traps were to become yellow rather than green cover?
18 Sep 2021, 14:17 PM
#3
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12266 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 14:13 PMPip
Surely USF would need to gain Sandbags as standard on REs if their Tank Traps were to become yellow rather than green cover?

If you ask me there should less sandbags available in game and not more but this hardly the issue of this thread.

The issue of this thread is improving cover and anti cover mechanism because imo having ATG and TD dislodging entrenched troops is bad design.

If you need sandbags they should get them.
Pip
18 Sep 2021, 14:25 PM
#4
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1546

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 14:17 PMVipper

If you ask me there should less sandbags available in game and not more but this hardly the issue of this thread.

The issue of this thread is improving cover and anti cover mechanism because imo having ATG and TD dislodging entrenched troops is bad design.

If you need sandbags they should get them.


Sure, but USF are the only faction who both have access to Tank traps, and lack Sandbags (both nondoctrinally). Making the build time for Traps longer and making them yellow cover is pretty much a direct USF nerf, rather than a true universal change.

The ATG/Mortar changes you suggest aren't bad, though. I would go a little further to suggest that Mortars have their base damage reduced, and have little to no penalty at all for firing at heavy cover, which would make them a dedicated "anti-cover" unit type (while also preventing them from oneshotting squads with lucky strikes).
18 Sep 2021, 14:34 PM
#5
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12266 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 14:25 PMPip


Sure, but USF are the only faction who both have access to Tank traps, and lack Sandbags (both nondoctrinally). Making the build time for Traps longer and making them yellow cover is pretty much a direct USF nerf, rather than a true universal change.

This quite irrelevant. Each faction should have access to the tools they need.

The fact the USF build tank traps as "heavy cover" is silly. If they need heavy cover then simply replace tank traps with sandbags. One can then make tank traps actually work as tank traps instead of cover.

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 14:25 PMPip

The ATG/Mortar changes you suggest aren't bad, though. I would go a little further to suggest that Mortars have their base damage reduced, and have little to no penalty at all for firing at heavy cover, which would make them a dedicated "anti-cover" unit type (while also preventing them from oneshotting squads with lucky strikes).

Mortar already do "reduced" damage and can not 1 shot entities, but you get idea. These units should be good vs cover without being oppressive vs units in the open.
Pip
18 Sep 2021, 14:38 PM
#6
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1546

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 14:34 PMVipper

The fact the USF build tank traps as "heavy cover" is silly. If they need heavy cover then simply replace tank traps with sandbags. One can then make tank traps actually work as tank traps instead of cover.


Sure, that's fine, then. Tank Traps would need to be totally immune to crush and require wirecutters to actually remove (or something similar) if they're ever going to be used as "Actual" tank traps, though. I doubt that increasing their build time will make them any more usable against tanks, however.


jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 14:34 PMVipper

These units should be good vs cover without being oppressive vs units in the open.


Yes, that's why I'm suggesting they do sub-80 damage per shot but have 0 heavy cover penalties.

18 Sep 2021, 14:38 PM
#7
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3122 | Subs: 7

Unless you can differentiate between sandbags heavy cover and regular heavy cover, which you can't, increasing certain weapon weapon damage against heavy cover is a bad idea. Regular heavy cover is not an issue at all, and as it's part of the core defining gameplay of the series, it's not needed/desirable to nerf that in the progress. The sandbags target size nerf exclusively nerfed sandbags heavy cover only.

There's also the fact that there's usually up to 4 mainlines building sandbags, which is where it becomes an issue, and one light/medium indirect fire piece isn't going to counter all of that. As opposed to multiple AT weapons / tanks, that can.

Plus the fact that light/medium indirect fire pieces are already very good and cost efficient units in the more clumped/static teamgames and there's no need to buff their firepower any further.
Pip
18 Sep 2021, 14:53 PM
#8
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1546

Unless you can differentiate between sandbags heavy cover and regular heavy cover, which you can't, increasing certain weapon weapon damage against heavy cover is a bad idea. Regular heavy cover is not an issue at all, and it's part of the core defining gameplay of the series, it's not needed/desirable to nerf that in the progress. The sandbags target size nerf exclusively nerfed sandbags heavy cover only.

There's also the fact that there's usually up to 4 mainlines building sandbags, which is where it becomes an issue, and one light/medium indirect fire piece isn't going to counter all of that. As opposed to multiple AT weapons / tanks, that can.

Plus the fact that light/medium indirect fire pieces are already very good and cost efficient units in the more clumped/static teamgames and there's no need to buff their firepower any further.


This is fair.

If I'm honest I always like to see lethality going down rather than up, anyway. Longer engagements leave more room for tactical decision-making to push the advantage into your favour.
MMX
18 Sep 2021, 15:00 PM
#9
avatar of MMX

Posts: 842 | Subs: 1

i don't think letting AT guns become more effective at taking out sandbags makes indirect fire any less desirable. you'd usually not be getting a mortar specifically to fight units entrenched in heavy cover anyway, but rather as general fire support against any sort of stationary target (e.g. weapon teams) from outside retaliation range. in addition, mortars and AT guns still have two fundamentally different roles: one destroys cover to make the units behind it more vulnerable, the other does little to nothing against the cover itself but damages the entrenched units directly. so if anything, this creates more synergy between indirect fire pieces and AT guns instead of rendering either of the two redundant.

i'd also be careful about making units in green cover more susceptible against indirect fire in general. the fact that you have to stay immobile and pretty clumped up to enjoy the benefits of cover is already a pretty big penalty in itself. hence, reducing the 0.5 dr too much could easily make indirect fire too powerful.
18 Sep 2021, 15:30 PM
#10
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12266 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 15:00 PMMMX
i don't think letting AT guns become more effective at taking out sandbags makes indirect fire any less desirable. you'd usually not be getting a mortar specifically to fight units entrenched in heavy cover anyway, but rather as general fire support against any sort of stationary target (e.g. weapon teams) from outside retaliation range.

Or you simply do not get a mortar...

weapon teams can also benefit from cover..

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 15:00 PMMMX

in addition, mortars and AT guns still have two fundamentally different roles: one destroys cover to make the units behind it more vulnerable, the other does little to nothing against the cover itself but damages the entrenched units directly. so if anything, this creates more synergy between indirect fire pieces and AT guns instead of rendering either of the two redundant.

The difference mechanics are of less importance if both get the job done.


jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 15:00 PMMMX

i'd also be careful about making units in green cover more susceptible against indirect fire in general. the fact that you have to stay immobile and pretty clumped up to enjoy the benefits of cover is already a pretty big penalty in itself. hence, reducing the 0.5 dr too much could easily make indirect fire too powerful.

This is not a general change but for certain specific weapons. If for instance the scott was better vs unit in cover that would make the unit more desireable.
18 Sep 2021, 15:36 PM
#11
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12266 | Subs: 1

Unless you can differentiate between sandbags heavy cover and regular heavy cover, which you can't, increasing certain weapon weapon damage against heavy cover is a bad idea. Regular heavy cover is not an issue at all, and as it's part of the core defining gameplay of the series, it's not needed/desirable to nerf that in the progress. The sandbags target size nerf exclusively nerfed sandbags heavy cover only.

I do not see the reason there should be such "differentiation" is need.

Cover is a core mechanic that does not mean that there should not be tools designed to counter it. On the contrary there are tools specifically designed for it like flamer. On the other hand other tools like indirect fire weapon have been nerfed heavily and now are not that good against heavy cover.


There's also the fact that there's usually up to 4 mainlines building sandbags, which is where it becomes an issue, and one light/medium indirect fire piece isn't going to counter all of that. As opposed to multiple AT weapons / tanks, that can.

And this goes against the "core game design" of "rock, paper, sciccors"

If one faces a vehicles one builds ATG, if one faces units in cover again build ATG...


Plus the fact that light/medium indirect fire pieces are already very good and cost efficient units in the more clumped/static teamgames and there's no need to buff their firepower any further.

Maybe you have not seen the number of complains about these units.
18 Sep 2021, 16:43 PM
#12
avatar of Kurobane

Posts: 473

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 13:16 PMVipper
Cover and especially heavy cover increases the durability of unit significantly.


This has always been in the game though and its nothing new. If you give your opponent time to build it then they should be rewarded for that. Preparation for an upcoming battle is part of the strategy in COH 2 which is why things like mines exist.



jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 13:16 PMVipper

An issue also seem to be the damage of indirect fire weapon where some people claim that do not do enough while other that are too power


This is one of the consequences with COH 2 using a flat damage system for everything in the game. Especially when you have generic damage reduction modifiers in the from of Yellow/Green Cover that add unrealistic/unintended combat scenarios instead of more common sense/simplified target tables.

For example Mortars (and grenades) could be changed with Target Tables to ignore cover damage reduction (like flamethrowers do) as these are tools designed to combat entrenched positions not be weaker against them. Realistically a sandbag offers no protection against mortars in real life, not sure why COH 2 deems it necessary to offer 50% damage reduction in green cover. Doesn't make much sense.


jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 13:16 PMVipper

1) Sandbag target size change revert. Heavy cover should not be countered by AT weapons from long range.

This was one of the few good changes the balance team has done as it added consistency rather than RNG elements.

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 13:16 PMVipper

2) Certain weapon get improve modifiers for firing on heavy cover those can include Scott/Leig/mortars

Flamethrowers have this already, should be added to mortar based weapons so they can be balanced around consistent behavior rather than RNG elements.

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 13:16 PMVipper

4) Tank traps build time increased greatly, target size reduce, resistance to ballistic weapon and now provide yellow cover.


USF has enough nerfs as it is not sure why you want to nerf them further unless you want to swap the tank traps with sandbags.

Pip
18 Sep 2021, 16:57 PM
#13
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1546


For example Mortars (and grenades) could be changed with Target Tables to ignore cover damage reduction (like flamethrowers do) as these are tools designed to combat entrenched positions not be weaker against them. Realistically a sandbag offers no protection against mortars in real life, not sure why COH 2 deems it necessary to offer 50% damage reduction in green cover. Doesn't make much sense.


"Realistically" cover would protect you vs explosives if the cover was between you and the explosion itself, which I suppose is what the Damage Reduction is trying to simulate. The alternative might be to indeed only provide DR if the explosion happens on the opposite side of cover, but that arguably makes it much too random.

After a bit of thinking I'm actually of the opinion that Green Cover DR vs explosives is actually justifiable.
18 Sep 2021, 17:43 PM
#14
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12266 | Subs: 1


...
This is one of the consequences with COH 2 using a flat damage system for everything in the game. Especially when you have generic damage reduction modifiers in the from of Yellow/Green Cover that add unrealistic/unintended combat scenarios instead of more common sense/simplified target tables.

Not everything has flat damage there units with bonuses vs certain units.

Target tables where (over)used in coh1 and it was a nightmare.

On the other hand one can make sensible use of target tables and benefit from them.
(of instance ballistic can be set to 80 damage and add the rest as bones vs vehicles)


For example Mortars (and grenades) could be changed with Target Tables to ignore cover damage reduction (like flamethrowers do) as these are tools designed to combat entrenched positions not be weaker against them. Realistically a sandbag offers no protection against mortars in real life, not sure why COH 2 deems it necessary to offer 50% damage reduction in green cover. Doesn't make much sense.

That is unnecessary there is no need for target tables when one can use cover tables. Target tables are used for use against specific units types.


This was one of the few good changes the balance team has done as it added consistency rather than RNG elements.
....


USF has enough nerfs as it is not sure why you want to nerf them further unless you want to swap the tank traps with sandbags.

Yes we know USF have been nerfed to the ground "Make America great again".

Now pls read post 5 since that is irrelevant to this post.
18 Sep 2021, 22:30 PM
#15
avatar of GachiGasm

Posts: 786 | Subs: 1

I still think that the main problems of the sandbags in coh2 are:

1) Being able to build them super close to the flag point, denying enemy use of your cover, still I cant undestand why sandbag size wasnt increased to allow enemy squads always be able to use your cover.

2) Sandbags arent requiring any maintaining. Its always just easy to build new one

3) Easy to build and hard to destoy. While AT guns\arty and tanks do good amount of damage, players are still unable to do anything about them in early game (when sandbags objectively at its strongest) or untill 1st AT gun. Well unless you wire enemy sandbag

I think that the 1 is the more importand aspect of why sandbags are BS in CoH2, because they almost never backfire and considering how they are used, they are always one-sided.
19 Sep 2021, 12:47 PM
#16
avatar of DonnieChan

Posts: 2009 | Subs: 1

Was there ever the case in which tank traps were used to deny tanks?
20 Sep 2021, 20:51 PM
#17
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3233 | Subs: 1

Was there ever the case in which tank traps were used to deny tanks?

I've done it on Ettelbruck Station before. And I used to do it on Dusseldorf and Trois Ponts both of which are no longer in the game

It's only practical on heavily urban maps, which always seem to get removed
20 Sep 2021, 21:00 PM
#18
avatar of donofsandiego

Posts: 307

It's really silly to me how tank trap collision boxes are basically really thin sandbags that you build one on top of another.

Is it a balance reason that they weren't given a more square hitbox? Perhaps so that it's harder to deny tanks from entering areas? Or was it just so that tank traps could function as sandbags lite?
22 Sep 2021, 10:10 AM
#19
avatar of Klement Pikhtura

Posts: 534

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2021, 13:16 PMVipper


4) Tank traps build time increased greatly, target size reduce, resistance to ballistic weapon and now provide yellow cover.


makes tank traps absolutely useless, in any context but in covering bridges in 4v4.
22 Sep 2021, 10:32 AM
#20
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12266 | Subs: 1


makes tank traps absolutely useless, in any context but in covering bridges in 4v4.

So you rather have them used as sandbags?

Imo either they have to be used as tank obstacles or remove them form the game.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest
Autumn Open

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • Soviets flag Scoped
  • U.S. Forces flag NiteNite
  • Ostheer flag Imperial Dane
  • Ostheer flag HelpingHans
uploaded by Scoped

Board Info

194 users are online: 6 members and 188 guests
Grandfagen, OrangePest, Lady Xenarra, Vipper, serg_codmod, JohnT_RE
45 posts in the last 24h
347 posts in the last week
1696 posts in the last month
Registered members: 25977
Welcome our newest member, rileadcruze
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM