Login

russian armor

When Relic call that an anti-tank gun

3 Nov 2021, 08:00 AM
#41
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3164 | Subs: 7

As is, deflection damage is generally deleted from CoH2. The all or nothing coin flip has caused lighter units to disappear in the late game since they can barely contribute to the foght anymore. They become pop cost inefficient compared to higher tier units. The existance of heavy armor then forces all factions to have access to high penetration units, otherwise heavies become a game ender. Those high pen units (TDs and ATGs) in turn shit on medium armor, which is why from 2v2 upwards you'll always see a Panther and Comet spam. Due to similar reasons, other units such as the StuG, JP4 and SU76 disappear from the late game: Because they might be unreliable when they need to perform against heavier armor.


As much as the current system promotes overreliance on high tier TDs, a deflection damage system would just promote spamming low tier units instead of teching, which would be bad too. I'm sure we don't want to go back to people spamming SU-76s and just frontally out DPM-ing everything. If the opponent invests in a (super)heavy tank, which comes with a lot of tech costs nowadays, you should be forced to invest in higher tier units yourself too. We've purposefully raised the costs of superheavy vehicles, so spamming low tier crap to counter these late game units rightfully shouldn't work. In this particular case, there is no way a pair of 270mp ATGs should even have the slightest chance to significantly damage a 1500mp/500fu superheavy tank from the front.

Imo deflection damage would be a bad solution. Hopefully side armor in CoH3 will help. Then low tier units can still deal damage, but it would still take effort to position them to get to the side armor, rather than just relying on sheer DPM to cause damage on frontal deflections. And high tier TDs wouldn't need such ridiculous pen values.
3 Nov 2021, 09:20 AM
#42
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12567 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Nov 2021, 04:14 AMMMX
I acually like the idea of making the armor-pen system a bit less binary by introducing deflection damage as Hannibal and others suggested. Of course the exact value would have to be chosen wisely in order for the game not to become too arcadey, but sth like 1/8 to 1/4 of the regular damage on penetration could be reasonable. Not only would this reduce the reliance on high-pen AT vs heavily armored tanks somewhat and keep mediums relevant in later stages of the game, but it could also kind of break up the rigid HP tiering a bit. Especially the latter would be interesting as it would give other AT options that don't operate by the 80/160 dmg formula, such as some hand-held AT and snares, a bit more room to shine.
Obviously, such a radical redesign is pretty much out of the question for CoH2, but it might be an option worth considering for the sequel nontheless.


From my experience from COH1 I can say that giving all units deflection damage it would be a bad change.

Have you even seen or used Tetrarch spam? When units like that get a critical mass they simply overrun everything.

One could give specific units or specific abilities to unit that provided deflection damage but that should be limited.
MMX
3 Nov 2021, 10:15 AM
#43
avatar of MMX

Posts: 946 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Nov 2021, 09:20 AMVipper


From my experience from COH1 I can say that giving all units deflection damage it would be a bad change.

Have you even seen or used Tetrarch spam? When units like that get a critical mass they simply overrun everything.

One could give specific units or specific abilities to unit that provided deflection damage but that should be limited.


Yep, I was there when Tetrarch spam was a thing and I shamefully admit to having lost the occasional KT to an M8 as well back in the day. I think no one here disagrees that stuff like this shouldn't have a place in CoH2. However, I'd also wager that it pretty much depends on how and for which units deflection damage gets implemented to prevent scenarios like that from happening again.
LVs, for example, wouldn't need to deal DD at all. This could be restricted to mediums or above where the spam potential is already comparatively limited due to popcap. Also, having a deflection damage multiplier of 0.5, as it is now for most (relevant) units in CoH2 that still have it, would clearly be excessive and could be dialed down to maybe 25% at most. Of course this might also mean that most of the armor/pen values would need an overhaul as well in order to keep the relative power levels of the affected tanks roughly the same. A whole lot of work for sure, but I'm pretty convinced this would both be possible as well as have some benefit - if implemented properly. If it would be worth the time that late in CoH2's life cycle is another story of course.
3 Nov 2021, 10:33 AM
#44
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 2592 | Subs: 2

As much as the current system promotes overreliance on high tier TDs, a deflection damage system would just promote spamming low tier units instead of teching, which would be bad too. I'm sure we don't want to go back to people spamming 4-8 SU-76s or in the case of vCoH an M10 train and just out DPM-ing everything. If the opponent invests in a (super)heavy tank, which comes with a lot of tech costs nowadays, you should be forced to invest in higher tier units yourself too. We've purposefully raised the costs of superheavy vehicles, so spamming low tier crap to counter these late game units rightfully shouldn't work.

Imo deflection damage would be a bad solution. Hopefully side armor in CoH3 will help. Then low tier units can still deal damage, but it would still take effort to position them to get to the side armor, rather than just relying on sheer DPM to cause damage on frontal deflections. And high tier TDs wouldn't need such ridiculous pen values.

Adding deflection damage without any further changes is a buff to all vehicles who get this treatment. Obviously there would need to be other adjustments, for the most part probably regarding cost and population.
I'd personally find it a good thing if multiple SU76s could fend of heavier units more reliably. The question is just how effective they should be. Should two SU76s replace a SU85 (assuming the same stats)? Surely not. Cost would be similar and SU76s already have the advantage over mediums, they should not perform equally against heavier tanks. But 3-4? Maybe yes. Building 3-4 SU76s costs more both in resources and pop than an SU85. At this point you have the choice: Invest your resources into lighter units to be able to deal with mediums well and heavies somewhat acceptably if positioned well, or invest into a heavy TD to deal well with heavies but only mediocre with mediums.
I don't think you should be forced into higher tier units when your opponent buys a heavy, but you should be forced to invest more resources.

To repeat myself: All this is theoretical. I don't think it should be implemented for CoH2 at this stage anymore, nor am I so naive to assume that just slapping deflection damage on top of some unit will magically fix them without causing issues. In the above example, the SU76 might need a cost increase, maybe even Soviet teching could or should be changed. If both TDs are equal late game choices with different focuses, they might both belong into T4. We might even need to change heavier units because of that.

The current system, along with many other issues that LVs have, reduces the benefit of light vehicles in the late game. Building two of them is usually not worth it outside of some 1v1 engagements, because you invest too much into the current spike and fall down heavily afterwards. At the same time it is not feasible and also not desirable to have both a light and heavy version of something. This eats too much pop cap in a game with very restricted population for units. And that's a shame because this way the game forces you into similar, optimal builds and units every game. The stock rosters of Coh2 factions give you only a hand full of vehicles, and about half of those are discarded for the late game for various reasons. Deflection damage would be a step for some of them towards more usefulness.

EDIT:
In the end side armor should solve a lot of these issues. I don't think Coh3 will have as severe armor balancing issues as CoH2 just because of this small change.
3 Nov 2021, 10:41 AM
#45
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12567 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Nov 2021, 10:15 AMMMX


Yep, I was there when Tetrarch spam was a thing and I shamefully admit to having lost the occasional KT to an M8 as well back in the day. I think no one here disagrees that stuff like this shouldn't have a place in CoH2. However, I'd also wager that it pretty much depends on how and for which units deflection damage gets implemented to prevent scenarios like that from happening again.
LVs, for example, wouldn't need to deal DD at all. This could be restricted to mediums or above where the spam potential is already comparatively limited due to popcap. Also, having a deflection damage multiplier of 0.5, as it is now for most (relevant) units in CoH2 that still have it, would clearly be excessive and could be dialed down to maybe 25% at most. Of course this might also mean that most of the armor/pen values would need an overhaul as well in order to keep the relative power levels of the affected tanks roughly the same. A whole lot of work for sure, but I'm pretty convinced this would both be possible as well as have some benefit - if implemented properly. If it would be worth the time that late in CoH2's life cycle is another story of course.

Glad that we agree.
3 Nov 2021, 10:46 AM
#46
avatar of FelixTHM

Posts: 464 | Subs: 1



It's a 400mp 145fu tank with Vet 1 HVAP, the M10 is the one that gets Vet 0 HVAP. Still, I agree with the sentiment.


I used 500/150 because that's how much the player in the video had at the moment that the KT appeared, point taken about HVAP.
3 Nov 2021, 12:27 PM
#47
avatar of Klement Pikhtura

Posts: 704

Imo deflection won't work in coh2, just because it requires a major overhaul of the balance. As was said before, you could just build a swarm of t34s and kill anything. This also makes armor and penetration stats less valuable. Current system works good. There are few units like ISU, Ele and JT that could use an armor nerf with tweaks to m1 57mm ability, but otherwise the tanks/TD/AT dynamic works good imo.
3 Nov 2021, 15:28 PM
#48
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3266 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Nov 2021, 09:20 AMVipper

From my experience from COH1 I can say that giving all units deflection damage it would be a bad change.

Then it's a good thing most of the people talking about it here didn't say ALL units
3 Nov 2021, 16:25 PM
#49
avatar of Porygon

Posts: 2771

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Nov 2021, 09:20 AMVipper


From my experience from COH1 I can say that giving all units deflection damage it would be a bad change.

Have you even seen or used Tetrarch spam? When units like that get a critical mass they simply overrun everything.

One could give specific units or specific abilities to unit that provided deflection damage but that should be limited.


6 upgunned Hotchkiss killing a Pershing in 10 seconds?
Yes, I definitely did that around 2007, but dude, you misunderstood the concept, mass upgunned Hotchkiss meant to be able to penetrate and vaporizing any US armour, not even the Pershing able to withstand this. Nothing to do with deflection damage here.

And, no matter how many "Faghounds" Brits built, he just can't beat a Panther. This prove you are wrong about those Panzer II / IS2 example.

They should make it like COH1 that bouncing shot should at least having some damage. Miss and bouncing shot is so frustrating.


Hmm, just like the 57mm (the same gun) shooting the KT would do SOME damage if it is not penetrating, what else?
3 Nov 2021, 16:28 PM
#50
avatar of Porygon

Posts: 2771

Imo deflection won't work in coh2, just because it requires a major overhaul of the balance. As was said before, you could just build a swarm of t34s and kill anything. This also makes armor and penetration stats less valuable. Current system works good. There are few units like ISU, Ele and JT that could use an armor nerf with tweaks to m1 57mm ability, but otherwise the tanks/TD/AT dynamic works good imo.


During pre-OKW/US-COH2, you could just build a swarm of t34s (with good flanking and mine sweeping) and kill anything.
Why not?
Pip
3 Nov 2021, 16:44 PM
#51
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1579

Really, you should just give deflection damage to non-penetrating hits from weapons with a penetration somewhat comparable to the armour value of the target, not to every weapon.

The 222 shouldn't be doing deflection damage to the IS2, but the Stug should.
3 Nov 2021, 17:35 PM
#52
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12567 | Subs: 1



6 upgunned Hotchkiss killing a Pershing in 10 seconds?
Yes, I definitely did that around 2007, but dude, you misunderstood the concept, mass upgunned Hotchkiss meant to be able to penetrate and vaporizing any US armour, not even the Pershing able to withstand this. Nothing to do with deflection damage here.

And, no matter how many "Faghounds" Brits built, he just can't beat a Panther. This prove you are wrong about those Panzer II / IS2 example.



Hmm, just like the 57mm (the same gun) shooting the KT would do SOME damage if it is not penetrating, what else?


PLS explain exactly which unit in your opinion should have deflection and how much that damage would be and which units should always hit their targets.

Both armor and accuracy are key mechanics of the game so pls explain why and how you would like to change them.

In COH1 Tetrarch swarms would easily kill a Panther and that was bad design.
3 Nov 2021, 21:55 PM
#53
avatar of Klement Pikhtura

Posts: 704



During pre-OKW/US-COH2, you could just build a swarm of t34s (with good flanking and mine sweeping) and kill anything.
Why not?

As I see it, this change would make a lot of units less viable e.g. panther, any TD, Puma, AEC, most heavy tanks etc. Players are still complaining that several units are useless, like m10 and SU76, imagine if that amount of units triples after adding this feature.
3 Nov 2021, 22:15 PM
#54
avatar of GachiGasm

Posts: 835 | Subs: 1

I still dont unredstand why concept being claimed bad judging by the failed balance decisions within the concept? I mean, aside aurguments "well cheap units spamm killing expensive units" there is pretty much no other aurguments against it.
Ffs its known that LV in vCoH with deflection were bad chose, but it was problem of the LV balance, not the deflection system in general, because in proper tank to tank\at combat it worked perfectly fine.
4 Nov 2021, 01:51 AM
#55
avatar of Porygon

Posts: 2771

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Nov 2021, 17:35 PMVipper


PLS explain exactly which unit in your opinion should have deflection and how much that damage would be and which units should always hit their targets.

Both armor and accuracy are key mechanics of the game so pls explain why and how you would like to change them.

In COH1 Tetrarch swarms would easily kill a Panther and that was bad design.


What's the problem, count how many Tetrarch you required to effectively killing a panther. One or two mines is enough screwing up the Tetrach swarm.

COH1 was designed like Allies using lighter, cheaper, faster tank swarming the Axis cats, same with M10 and M18 Hellcats, but not dumb thing like SU-85 you just sit there and A-move. You can kamikaze a M8 with mines to the panther, blocking it, blowing up his tread and finish up with M10s. 1-2 M10s frontal A-move assualt will never work. That's what COH2 had dumped down the whole standard of gameplay but I guess it is Eastern Front and the German & Russian doing it in that way.

If you micro correctly in COH1 you should be able to circle strafing the Axis cat which your lighter tank moving faster than the cat's turret. Of course it only works if the axis player didn't have Grens and Pak support.

Pre-OKW/US COH2, we did it the same way with T-34/76 /85. Guess the gameplay meta wasn't as stall and boring like nowadays that every single game are like mainline infantry -> 2 MG -> 2 ATG -> medium tank -> late game tank.


As I see it, this change would make a lot of units less viable e.g. panther, any TD, Puma, AEC, most heavy tanks etc. Players are still complaining that several units are useless, like m10 and SU76, imagine if that amount of units triples after adding this feature.


Yep, back in those time, (huge T4 cost) Panther was a waste of manpower, isn't fast, rigid like a Leopard 2 in current state.
4 Nov 2021, 08:23 AM
#56
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 12567 | Subs: 1



What's the problem, count how many Tetrarch you required to effectively killing a panther. One or two mines is enough screwing up the Tetrach swarm.

COH1 was designed like Allies using lighter, cheaper, faster tank swarming the Axis cats, same with M10 and M18 Hellcats, but not dumb thing like SU-85 you just sit there and A-move. You can kamikaze a M8 with mines to the panther, blocking it, blowing up his tread and finish up with M10s. 1-2 M10s frontal A-move assualt will never work. That's what COH2 had dumped down the whole standard of gameplay but I guess it is Eastern Front and the German & Russian doing it in that way.

If you micro correctly in COH1 you should be able to circle strafing the Axis cat which your lighter tank moving faster than the cat's turret. Of course it only works if the axis player didn't have Grens and Pak support.

Pre-OKW/US COH2, we did it the same way with T-34/76 /85. Guess the gameplay meta wasn't as stall and boring like nowadays that every single game are like mainline infantry -> 2 MG -> 2 ATG -> medium tank -> late game tank.



Yep, back in those time, (huge T4 cost) Panther was a waste of manpower, isn't fast, rigid like a Leopard 2 in current state.

Maybe I was not clear enough. In you opinion should unit like T-70, Luch, Stuart, 222 should have deflection damage ? and if yes how much should that be?
4 Nov 2021, 10:11 AM
#57
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3164 | Subs: 7

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Nov 2021, 16:44 PMPip
The 222 shouldn't be doing deflection damage to the IS2, but the Stug should.


I disagree. A heavy like the IS-2 comes with such a high tech and unit cost nowadays that a (few) cheap T3 unit(s) should not be enough to counter it. It should require an equal time+resources investment to reliably counter it, in this case T4 + Panther/Tiger/Elefant. The StuG is an intermediate medium tank counter, not a high tier end game TD. It has no business taking on (super)heavies.

Deflection damage is an equally flawed system that should not be brought back imo.

I expect side armor in CoH3 will fix most of the issues that CoH2 has with pen/armor.
Flanking will become significantly more viable, giving mediums and TDs a chance to use good positioning rather than dangerously overextending or relying on bloated pen values to damage heavy vehicles. It should allow lower tier units to scale better, but only when the player uses/positions them correctly.
4 Nov 2021, 10:22 AM
#58
avatar of Porygon

Posts: 2771



I disagree. A heavy like the IS-2 comes with such a high tech and unit cost nowadays that a (few) cheap T3 unit(s) should not be enough to counter it. It should require an equal time+resources investment (T4 + Panther/Tiger/Elefant) to reliably counter it. The StuG is an intermediate medium tank counter, not a high tier end game TD. It has no business taking on (super)heavies.


That's why COH2 is silly in this aspect. If late game units are totally immuned to earlier units then why should you preserve your lighter armours? COH is different from other RTS that every units should be useful in any stage of the game and the core idea should be preserving them.

Look at AOE4, Hand Cannoneers can be countered by the most basic Archers.
4 Nov 2021, 13:41 PM
#59
avatar of leithianz

Posts: 377

57 really sucks. It has penetration of almost normal Sherman at far range.(120)

57: 150/140/130
pak:210/200/190
zis: 200/190/180
rak: 200/190/180

I know 57 fires faster, but it doesn't really stands out.
Spending muni to use gold shell for every fight is very painful.

And USF has the worst tier build to have AT.

IMO they should give at least +30 penetration to all range & reduce extra peneratrion on skill.
4 Nov 2021, 13:48 PM
#60
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3164 | Subs: 7

That's why COH2 is silly in this aspect. If late game units are totally immuned to earlier units then why should you preserve your lighter armours? COH is different from other RTS that every units should be useful in any stage of the game and the core idea should be preserving them.


Most units scale by either getting good veterancy bonuses (like Puma) or gaining utility (like T-70/222 scouting). Likewise a vet 3 StuG for example still has a decent chance to deal damage to an IS-2 due to the various combat bonuses that it gets through veterancy.

That's different from being able to just spam cheap units and avoid teching up to counter an enemy's high tech/unit cost late game unit just by sheer frontal DPM, which would become possible if deflection damage were to be introduced on a large scale.

Scalability of units should come from either vet 3(/5) combat performance or (veteran) utility. Not from stock performance.
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

102 users are online: 2 members and 100 guests
Klement Pikhtura, Olvadi
19 posts in the last 24h
139 posts in the last week
654 posts in the last month
Registered members: 28226
Welcome our newest member, MaianChang
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM