Login

russian armor

What was old CoH2 infantry combat like?

29 Sep 2021, 14:44 PM
#1
avatar of donofsandiego

Posts: 305

So completely disregarding support weapons and just focusing on mainline VS. mainline here; how exactly did the infantry combat work?

I came in some time after it was all reworked but from what I (possibly mis)understand from older posts is:

-> All weapons had the "same damage profile". I'm assuming this means all rofles had the same profile, all smgs the same, etc?

-> All infantry units had literal armor that could bounce bullets (but I don't recall whether recieved accuracy was a thing)

So if I understand this correctly, theoretically conscripts had an advantage over grenadiers simply because they had 2 more rifles in a squad and it all did the same damage, BUT it wasn't true because conscripts had shitty armor and grenadiers didn't?

So basically it was a game of synth squads wading through rivers of bullets bouncing off of them like waves breaking upon a beach? It intrigues me. If you know more about it please enlighten me.
29 Sep 2021, 15:10 PM
#2
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12249 | Subs: 1

This how weapon worked before and after the patch.

https://www.coh2.org/file/4641/elbe_weapons.png

Infantry had both target size and armor bonuses.
29 Sep 2021, 15:12 PM
#3
avatar of GachiGasm

Posts: 784 | Subs: 1


So basically it was a game of synth squads wading through rivers of bullets bouncing off of them like waves breaking upon a beach? It intrigues me. If you know more about it please enlighten me.


Not really. I belive it had different philosophy behind it to achive simular results we have right now.

At very least RNG in inf combat was less persistant, I belive that back in the day there wasnt any kind of "recieved" accuracy or if it was, then it was less impactfull.

There was less RNG in regards of how inf combat worked, for instance situation where 1 model was instantly sniped by voley fire was less common and so on.

You can play original soviet campaign to see what game was on release, because I belive non of the core balance changes changed unit stats.
29 Sep 2021, 15:18 PM
#4
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1112



Not really. I belive it had different philosophy behind it to achive simular results we have right now.

At very least RNG in inf combat was less persistant, I belive that back in the day there wasnt any kind of "recieved" accuracy or if it was, then it was less impactfull.

There was less RNG in regards of how inf combat worked, for instance situation where 1 model was instantly sniped by voley fire was less common and so on.

You can play original soviet campaign to see what game was on release, because I belive non of the core balance changes changed unit stats.


I think you're right. USF campaign as well. Models drop left and right there and most of the stats are unchanged. Much different combat than the multiplayer/skirmish part. Most of it is broken/bugged as well.
29 Sep 2021, 15:19 PM
#5
avatar of donofsandiego

Posts: 305

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Sep 2021, 15:10 PMVipper
This how weapon worked before and after the patch.

https://www.coh2.org/file/4641/elbe_weapons.png

Infantry had both target size and armor bonuses.


Ah, so when people say the weapons all had the "same profile" they just mean that there were no weapons that were better at range than in close. Got it.
29 Sep 2021, 15:24 PM
#6
avatar of donofsandiego

Posts: 305



Not really. I belive it had different philosophy behind it to achive simular results we have right now.

At very least RNG in inf combat was less persistant, I belive that back in the day there wasnt any kind of "recieved" accuracy or if it was, then it was less impactfull.

There was less RNG in regards of how inf combat worked, for instance situation where 1 model was instantly sniped by voley fire was less common and so on.

You can play original soviet campaign to see what game was on release, because I belive non of the core balance changes changed unit stats.
Hmm. But how exactly does the armor factor into reducing RNG though? If anything I feel like it would be more of the same. Or maybe everything was less lethal? I'm still kind of confused.
29 Sep 2021, 16:02 PM
#7
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12249 | Subs: 1

Hmm. But how exactly does the armor factor into reducing RNG though? If anything I feel like it would be more of the same. Or maybe everything was less lethal? I'm still kind of confused.


The armor bones made infatry tougher vs some small arm fire since infantry did not generally get penetration bonuses. On the other hand some weapon like flamer or HMG where less effected because they had higher penetration.
29 Sep 2021, 18:23 PM
#8
avatar of GachiGasm

Posts: 784 | Subs: 1

Hmm. But how exactly does the armor factor into reducing RNG though? If anything I feel like it would be more of the same. Or maybe everything was less lethal? I'm still kind of confused.


"The "armor" statistic in COH2 reduces the damage your infantry take from small arms fire (SMGs, rifles, machine guns, etc.). It does not prevent damage from flames or explosives (mortars, tank shells, grenades, artillery)."
Source

To put it simply:
When inf used to have armor, they were hit more often (since accuracy of units was a determining factor) but damaged they recieved was reduced because of the mentioned armor.
When armor was replaced with rec.acc all inf started to "avoid being hit" based on RNG rolls, while taking 100% damage if they get hit. In other words, you might lose 1 model instantly in other engagament and in the simular one you might lose non, because you had bad\good rng rolls on rec.acc.
29 Sep 2021, 18:26 PM
#9
avatar of rumartinez89

Posts: 224



"The "armor" statistic in COH2 reduces the damage your infantry take from small arms fire (SMGs, rifles, machine guns, etc.). It does not prevent damage from flames or explosives (mortars, tank shells, grenades, artillery)."
Source

To put it simply:
When inf used to have armor, they were hit more often but damaged they recieved was reduced because of the mentioned armor.
When armor was replaced with rec.acc all inf started to "avoid being hit" based on RNG rolls, while taking 100% damage if they get hit.


Do you remember why Shock troops kept their armor? What benefit does it have over just starting with small target size.
29 Sep 2021, 18:39 PM
#10
avatar of GachiGasm

Posts: 784 | Subs: 1



Do you remember why Shock troops kept their armor? What benefit does it have over just starting with small target size.


Well they kept it because they are the single squad with bodyarmor on the model :foreveralone:

But to be serious, it brings consistency. Because in order to drop shocktroops models, you actually have to damage them enouth, they wont drop models instanly just because enemy squad managed to lay 4 hits with the voley on 1 model.

Its like having your 1 model instantly being sniped just because it was first to enter into enemy LoS, this is the bad RNG roll of rec.acc. If mentioned unit had armor, then it would have been hit aswell but damage would have been determened by the armor it had, rather then how lucky you are.

For example, imagine 10 shots being fired with 0.8 accuracy.
With armor, you have 80% chance to hit the enemy and damage enemy recieved is based on the armor value it has.
With received accuracy your squad accuracy is calculated based on the enemy received accuracy. So you might hit enemy 10 times or 0 times, based on the RNG rolls.
29 Sep 2021, 18:59 PM
#11
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3122 | Subs: 7

Do you remember why Shock troops kept their armor? What benefit does it have over just starting with small target size.


RA can be partially or even completely negated by high accuracy weapons, high accuracy veterancy bonuses or high accuracy at close range.

Armor protects against all small arms weapons (except a few that have higher than the standard 1 penetration, like the LMG 42) at all ranges equally. It also stacks durability when in cover, and it gives a squad protection even in neutral or negative cover.

It has a unique gameplay characteristic and it fits their model. For all other squads it would've provided unnecessary unintuitive protection, i.e. squads not really taking more damage up close than at range or not really being punished for being out of cover.
29 Sep 2021, 19:00 PM
#12
avatar of donofsandiego

Posts: 305



Well they kept it because they are the single squad with bodyarmor on the model :foreveralone:

But to be serious, it brings consistency. Because in order to drop shocktroops models, you actually have to damage them enouth, they wont drop models instanly just because enemy squad managed to lay 4 hits with the voley on 1 model.

Its like having your 1 model instantly being sniped just because it was first to enter into enemy LoS, this is the bad RNG roll of rec.acc. If mentioned unit had armor, then it would have been hit aswell but damage would have been determened by the armor it had, rather then how lucky you are.

For example, imagine 10 shots being fired with 0.8 accuracy.
With armor, you have 80% chance to hit the enemy and damage enemy recieved is based on the armor value it has.
With received accuracy your squad accuracy is calculated based on the enemy received accuracy. So you might hit enemy 10 times or 0 times, based on the RNG rolls.


Sooo wait. If this method reduced RNG compared to the current version, why exactly did people want it removed. I guess because it was unrealistic (which is understandable). Though it does seem like it would promote flame and MG spam if the two completely negated armor.

EDIT: Less affected by the armor I mean.
29 Sep 2021, 19:02 PM
#13
avatar of donofsandiego

Posts: 305



RA can be partially or even completely negated by high accuracy weapons, high accuracy veterancy bonuses or high accuracy at close range.

Armor protects against all small arms weapons (except a few that have higher than the standard 1 penetration, like the LMG 42) at all ranges equally.

It has a unique gameplay characteristic and it fits their model.


Ah I see. And SMGs probably aren't going to be doing a lot of damage even in close range against some heavily armored opponent I suppose.
29 Sep 2021, 19:08 PM
#14
avatar of GachiGasm

Posts: 784 | Subs: 1



Sooo wait. If this method reduced RNG compared to the current version, why exactly did people want it removed. I guess because it was unrealistic (which is understandable). Though it does seem like it would promote flame and MG spam if the two completely negated armor.
EDIT: Less affected by the armor I mean.


I believe it was removed by relic, simply because it was just hard to balance it out. They just slapped received accuracy and called it a day, since with armor it was more about what units are facing each other, with rec.acc is more about how many hits you can roll and it ultimatly doesn't matter what unit faces what unit.

Since damage done to pios will be equal to the damage done to obersoldaten, if you actually manage to hit them. On paper its a more fair system, but as I was saying in practice you can either have money shots all the time or 0 damage.
29 Sep 2021, 19:27 PM
#15
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12249 | Subs: 1



"The "armor" statistic in COH2 reduces the damage your infantry take from small arms fire (SMGs, rifles, machine guns, etc.). It does not prevent damage from flames or explosives (mortars, tank shells, grenades, artillery)."
Source

To put it simply:
When inf used to have armor, they were hit more often (since accuracy of units was a determining factor) but damaged they recieved was reduced because of the mentioned armor.
When armor was replaced with rec.acc all inf started to "avoid being hit" based on RNG rolls, while taking 100% damage if they get hit. In other words, you might lose 1 model instantly in other engagament and in the simular one you might lose non, because you had bad\good rng rolls on rec.acc.

That is inaccurate. There is no difference between between vehicle armor and infatry armor.

You can check that in cheat mod with Shock troops or H. Ro.e
Vaz
2 Oct 2021, 18:19 PM
#16
avatar of Vaz

Posts: 1124

vipper is correct, it mattered where you hit the model. The infantry acted like little tanks when they have body armor. Panzergrenadiers had armor and they were ferocious. Sometimes you drop them like nothing and sometimes they run through everything you have. I think their armor increased at a veterency level too. Shock troops had like 2x the armor, you pretty much had to retreat your grens if you didn't have some armor piercing rounds, like from an mg42. It's easier to get bonuses to hit something with an RA bonus, than it was to penetrate the body armor with small arms. They could have played with penetration values on the small arms though. Not sure why they didn't.
2 Oct 2021, 18:36 PM
#17
avatar of Klement Pikhtura

Posts: 515



Well they kept it because they are the single squad with bodyarmor on the model :foreveralone:

But to be serious, it brings consistency. Because in order to drop shocktroops models, you actually have to damage them enouth, they wont drop models instanly just because enemy squad managed to lay 4 hits with the voley on 1 model.

Its like having your 1 model instantly being sniped just because it was first to enter into enemy LoS, this is the bad RNG roll of rec.acc. If mentioned unit had armor, then it would have been hit aswell but damage would have been determened by the armor it had, rather then how lucky you are.


Hmm, isn't body armor is sort of a bonus rec. acc. for small arms like rifles and smgs? The higher the pen, the more chance to pen the target. That's why you get higher DPS towards shocks from HMGs and LMGs then from kar98Ks and G43s.

It is very similar to armor penetration and target size. First you need to land a hit, which is (acc.* target size)*100%, then, if you land a hit, penetration chance is calculated (penetration/Armor)*100%. So if the chance to hit is 90% and chance to pen is 60% you get a combined chance to deal damage of 54%.

I think removing armor was a good thing, because it made game less complicated. The damage reduction, which Grens have (and heavy sappers??) is another story. But again, I started playing in 2019, when all that jazz was long gone.
Pip
2 Oct 2021, 21:33 PM
#18
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1545


Hmm, isn't body armor is sort of a bonus rec. acc. for small arms like rifles and smgs? The higher the pen, the more chance to pen the target. That's why you get higher DPS towards shocks from HMGs and LMGs then from kar98Ks and G43s.

It is very similar to armor penetration and target size. First you need to land a hit, which is (acc.* target size)*100%, then, if you land a hit, penetration chance is calculated (penetration/Armor)*100%. So if the chance to hit is 90% and chance to pen is 60% you get a combined chance to deal damage of 54%.

I think removing armor was a good thing, because it made game less complicated. The damage reduction, which Grens have (and heavy sappers??) is another story. But again, I started playing in 2019, when all that jazz was long gone.


Heavy sappers also have armour, not Damage Reduction.
3 Oct 2021, 09:29 AM
#19
avatar of GachiGasm

Posts: 784 | Subs: 1




Yeah I brainfarted, I for sure thought that inf armor at least in early strages of coh2 worked differently and actually was reducing damage rather then ignoring it completly.
3 Oct 2021, 09:49 AM
#20
avatar of TanithScout

Posts: 56

Infantry play used to be useless after 5 mins or LV's started rlling out, thankfully COH2 infantry play is really viable at all stages
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

94 users are online: 6 members and 88 guests
luvnest, Sturmpanther, VonIvan, MastaKlinge, Crecer13, VonManteuffel
47 posts in the last 24h
383 posts in the last week
1672 posts in the last month
Registered members: 25852
Welcome our newest member, angeljhgeorge
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM