Login

russian armor

Week 3 Update to the Balance Mod

PAGES (8)down
18 May 2016, 19:34 PM
#21
avatar of miragefla
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13

Remember, infantry crush is completely separate from what a vehicle can crush.
18 May 2016, 19:35 PM
#22
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3143 | Subs: 2

Looks good (especially bundle change). But we're still missing a change the the most worthless unit in the entire game: OKW Flak.

Both the OKW Flak and Ost Pak 43 should really have their crews made invulnerable like the brit versions.


Flak yes, PaK 43, no, and this is coming from an OKW player, yes, as hard as it's to believe the guy with the British avatar is an OKW player, I only played them along with Fortifications before the Brits, now I have strategic diversity between Allies and Axis.

My main reason is getting rid of the crew for that 10 pop cap after the fighting is wayyy away from it, as much as it hurts me to kill my own award winning vet 5 crew.
18 May 2016, 19:44 PM
#23
avatar of general_gawain

Posts: 919

Sherman Bulldozer - Quality of Life

Developer Comments: We are adding a hold fire toggle button so the Sherman Bulldozer doesn’t fire at units that is unintended.

• Added Hold Fire


They finally do something about Sherman Bulldozer and it is only a "Hold Fire Button"? Guess this won't help to make it playable.


Land Mattress - Strategic Diversity

Developer Comments: We felt the AOE damage spread was too wide and felt it needed a slight reduction.

• AOE damage spread reduced from 0.2/0.4/1 to 0.1/0.25/1
Cromwell


Land Matress should have been nerfed in AOE in first place instead of making it come later than Walking Stukka. Funny as they say "slight" while cutting AOE in halves - lol. Guess they sold enough of Mobile Assault Regiment, time to double-nerf it and play Vanguard only again for strategic diversity.

Otherwise good changes.
18 May 2016, 19:45 PM
#24
avatar of The amazing Chandler

Posts: 1355

jump backJump back to quoted post18 May 2016, 19:05 PMRollo
British AT snare added to the grenade package pls relic


This!

4 of 5 factions have a snare now with their main infantry, Brits should have one too.
18 May 2016, 19:51 PM
#25
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 959

I strongly disagree with the removal of infantry crush on medium tanks.

I think it's important for units to be able to step out of their main role in certain situations and challenge the conventional rules of gameplay. To me, it's one of the pillars of what makes COH great.

It's a mechanic that rewards skill and planning on both sides (because tanks can be baited into a crush to overextend). Without it, units become a little more boxed in to their roles and the game gets a little more shallow.

If the mechanic creates efficiency issues with specific units (M10 and Cromwell for example), then I'm sure those units can be dealt with individually and avoid sweeping changes.


The point of those units (m10, Crom) was to the be AT, not dedicated infantry crushing vehicles. The mechanic was, at least from what I saw, insanely inconsistent. Sometimes the tank would insta-wipe 3 squads, other times everyone would get out of the way. It wasn't fun to play with (too inconsistent), and it wasn't fun to play against (too inconsistent).

At least heavy crush tanks are a bit slower, so they might end up being a bit more reliable.



Flak yes, PaK 43, no, and this is coming from an OKW player, yes, as hard as it's to believe the guy with the British avatar is an OKW player, I only played them along with Fortifications before the Brits, now I have strategic diversity between Allies and Axis.

My main reason is getting rid of the crew for that 10 pop cap after the fighting is wayyy away from it, as much as it hurts me to kill my own award winning vet 5 crew.




That almost makes a good argument to make the crew invulnerable. Shouldn't really be able to decrew your own units at will to free up pop-cap (see USF calliope meta a while back).
18 May 2016, 19:51 PM
#26
avatar of Cabreza

Posts: 656

Oh god, I am going to lose so many squads to bundle nades now.


Holy yell yea. That nade is going to be a squad wiping machine now.
18 May 2016, 19:56 PM
#27
avatar of Sandblastednut

Posts: 21

Crush change is bad.
18 May 2016, 19:57 PM
#28
avatar of PencilBatRation

Posts: 794

Regarding nade dejaVu: It will be only effective against support units. Braindead players who intentionally ignore the relatively long animation (compared to other elite nades)and refuse to move deserve a wipe
18 May 2016, 20:11 PM
#29
avatar of CookiezNcreem
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 3052 | Subs: 15

infantrycrush needed to be removed from tank destroyers and tanks with higher speeds/speed states(basically only m10s and panthers, cromwells and warspeeding/blitzing tanks)

taking it from all mediums though is straight dumb and soft to me. 85% of the time trying to crush with something like the sherman ends in it getting pakwalled to death or snared and then pak walled/shrekt any fucking way, especially now that both volks and grens have snares. crushing was tank suicide in the preview mod vs the new volks with that 100% hp 100 damage snare(havent played it or checked earlier notes so i hope that was fixed)

part of a mediums power/advantage is when theres not enough AT on the field(which usually means you won early game to get the medium tank advantage out) is them being enabled to push squads around to run them off fast as a result of the lack of AT.

some soft-ass, spongey, charmin shit there.

I guess we can still push them to stop weapons from firing, but thats kinda meaningless now with the lack of single shrek squads(all double shreks, or snares, good luck charging into that)

tank crushing is apart of coh, always has been.

#bringbackcrushing or just make vehicles phase through infantry altogether if we're THAT FUCKING soft now because because kubels,uc's, etc pushing shit out of cover is retarded gameplay too
18 May 2016, 20:15 PM
#30
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

Developer Comments: The Size of the Cromwell was smaller than other Medium Tanks. We are slightly increasing its size value to match other Medium Tanks.

• Target size increased from 18 to 23


WHAT?

the t34 76 and the panzer 4 have size 22. only the sherman is at size 23.
18 May 2016, 20:17 PM
#31
avatar of poop

Posts: 174

Removal of crush is an unnessisary nerf to the T34.

One of the goals of this patch was supposed to help soviets miserable late game. But the changes so far are all one step forward/one step back.

SU-85 pen buff / rate of fire heavily nerfed

T34 cost reduction / cost restored

T34 anti infantry buffed/ machine gun nerfed, crush removed


---


Soviets have the lowest win % in almost all modes. And will continue to do so after this patch.

18 May 2016, 20:40 PM
#32
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702

Infantry crushing being removed is a horrid change.

It encourages blobbing and completely annihilates such units like the t-34/76 which relied on crushing to be useful. The buff was nice, but with the infantry crush nerf the t-34 is overall much more worse now.

It also completely nerfs armor company out of the competitive meta. Although cheesy, the m10 being a viable anti infantry unit let USF have some other options other than calliope/pershing commander.

Relic. Just because a strategy is cheesy, DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS TO BE REMOVED and nerfed into the ground. You are completely destroying armor company with this change.

Revert please.

Everything else eems good tbh.
18 May 2016, 20:45 PM
#33
avatar of voltardark

Posts: 967

Removing tank crush from medium is a really bad change :

1)Affecting mostly allies;
2)Sherman + smoke was a solid way to battle inf with at-weapons;
3)It remove realism;
4)It remove a fun component from the game;
5)There from the beginning of Vcoh.

Removing it from tank destroyers only could be acceptable, but really not essential neither realistic.

Please revert that change.

Thanks.
18 May 2016, 20:49 PM
#34
avatar of tightrope
Senior Caster Badge
Patrion 39

Posts: 1194 | Subs: 29

The thing about commandos is that they don't have much combat veterancy (more utility) so they needed a strong nade to be relevant.

Squads that get the bundle grenade on the other hand do get nice veterancy and now they have a nade even stronger than the light gammon bomb. Why? Sure the bundle nade was underperforming but it only needed a slight tweak.

18 May 2016, 20:54 PM
#35
avatar of Superhet

Posts: 132

Personally I'm glad that infantry crush was basically removed because it's not even a little based on reality, which yes the game is not a simulator but it's supposed to at least have a connection with the real world. Yes it could happen, yes it did happen, but was it what tanks did? no. And more significantly, was trying to run them over what tanks did against infantry with any form of anti-tank weaponry (fausts, schreks, grenades, hell even PIATs)? no. If some tank becomes useless without crush then it should simply be rebalanced.

jump backJump back to quoted post18 May 2016, 20:40 PMBurts
Infantry crushing being removed is a horrid change.

It encourages blobbing and completely annihilates such units like the t-34/76 which relied on crushing to be useful.


So there's the real problem.
18 May 2016, 21:07 PM
#36
avatar of PencilBatRation

Posts: 794

You can just give specialist units shuch as M4, dozer and CMD PIV heavy crush. Problem solved.


Thanks.


Thanks,


Thanks.
18 May 2016, 21:08 PM
#37
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1217

I like that they added a reason to go Panzergrenadier now.
WHO
18 May 2016, 21:08 PM
#38
avatar of WHO

Posts: 97

as long as there's handheld AT, there should be crush :( esp when it can be put on engineer classes.
18 May 2016, 21:09 PM
#39
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

Personally I'm glad that infantry crush was basically removed because it's not even a little based on reality, which yes the game is not a simulator but it's supposed to at least have a connection with the real world. Yes it could happen, yes it did happen, but was it what tanks did? no. And more significantly, was trying to run them over what tanks did against infantry with any form of anti-tank weaponry (fausts, schreks, grenades, hell even PIATs)? no. If some tank becomes useless without crush then it should simply be rebalanced.



So there's the real problem.


But what they really did is driving over AT guns, should they add it to the game instead? Could be a lot of fan :D or at least add AT guns, machineguns and other team wapons as possible targets of t-34s ram ability :D (without breaking tanks gun, shock and light engine damage at most)
18 May 2016, 21:11 PM
#40
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

They should revert the cost of the m10 if the changes go live
PAGES (8)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

592 users are online: 1 member and 591 guests
Tomcorsnet
7 posts in the last 24h
22 posts in the last week
137 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45023
Welcome our newest member, resilientmind
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM