Login

russian armor

Make T-34/85 and M4A3 (76) non-doc just like OKW Pz4

21 Dec 2016, 14:49 PM
#41
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

KV-1 was also a predecessor of the T34 and IS series of tanks. I always thought that the KV1 fit coming out around the time of T70s and SU76s.

I also thought that that army composition should square off with StuGs and Pumas (and I guess the luchs). Panzer 4s would be met with T34/76s, and Panthers with T34/85s. Then IS2s and Tigers.

Then WFA happened.
21 Dec 2016, 16:35 PM
#42
avatar of Mirdarion

Posts: 283

KV-1 was also a predecessor of the T34 and IS series of tanks. I always thought that the KV1 fit coming out around the time of T70s and SU76s.


In terms of Soviet tank doctrine, the KV-1 has nothing to do with either the T-34 or the IS-series (that claim is similar abstruse as claiming that the Sturmgewehr was conceptionally some sort of predecessor to the AK-series). Sure, the armament was similar to the T-34 for most of the time of its existence, but being heavily armoured meant a completely different usage profile. Meanwhile, the IS-series was used as a more modern form of the old assault gun. With a tank of that capability, the necessity to mount heavy guns to awkward or casemated chassis was gone - the IS-series could mount guns that served the same purpose, while also being able to withstand more firepower, while also being more mobile. The trade-off to medium tanks were cost, technical complexity, and mobility, which is why the concept was made superfluous by the idea of the Main Battle Tank.

Back to topic: This idea is impossible to properly balance. The Panzer IV series in this game is already constantly on the backfoot, even against what the Allies can currently field. Sure, the OKW Panzer IV is notably better off than its Ostheer equivalent, but that doesn't help it much in the face of massive cost differences compared to performance differences.
The T-34/85 as the Soviet standard tank has been discussed regularly in multiple forums over the past couple years, and in the end the result was mostly the same: It would be impossible to balance against the then useless T-34/76 - regardless of whether the T-34/76 would then end up in those very same doctrines that now contain the T-34/85. The availability of that choice would be meaningless, because the game's demands would always favour the T-34/85, thus actually limiting strategical diversity.
Then there's also the problem (especially with the US) of how to balance these upgrades into the asymmetrical gameplay: Riflemen are massively superior to all other standard infantry, and that has a very specific reason. Suddenly overturning that reason would require a significant reconsideration of how USF early game works, and suddenly we have another Osther/OKW faction - I don't think anyone would like that.


P.S.:


It's "America" not murica and it's "Captain" not capatain. Please have a little bit more respect for my country, I never disrespected yours or have seen another one of my fellow countrymen here do the same.


21 Dec 2016, 17:19 PM
#43
avatar of Bulgakov

Posts: 987



In terms of Soviet tank doctrine, the KV-1 has nothing to do with either the T-34 or the IS-series (that claim is similar abstruse as claiming that the Sturmgewehr was conceptionally some sort of predecessor to the AK-series). Sure, the armament was similar to the T-34 for most of the time of its existence, but being heavily armoured meant a completely different usage profile. Meanwhile, the IS-series was used as a more modern form of the old assault gun. With a tank of that capability, the necessity to mount heavy guns to awkward or casemated chassis was gone - the IS-series could mount guns that served the same purpose, while also being able to withstand more firepower, while also being more mobile. The trade-off to medium tanks were cost, technical complexity, and mobility, which is why the concept was made superfluous by the idea of the Main Battle Tank.

Back to topic: This idea is impossible to properly balance. The Panzer IV series in this game is already constantly on the backfoot, even against what the Allies can currently field. Sure, the OKW Panzer IV is notably better off than its Ostheer equivalent, but that doesn't help it much in the face of massive cost differences compared to performance differences.
The T-34/85 as the Soviet standard tank has been discussed regularly in multiple forums over the past couple years, and in the end the result was mostly the same: It would be impossible to balance against the then useless T-34/76 - regardless of whether the T-34/76 would then end up in those very same doctrines that now contain the T-34/85. The availability of that choice would be meaningless, because the game's demands would always favour the T-34/85, thus actually limiting strategical diversity.
Then there's also the problem (especially with the US) of how to balance these upgrades into the asymmetrical gameplay: Riflemen are massively superior to all other standard infantry, and that has a very specific reason. Suddenly overturning that reason would require a significant reconsideration of how USF early game works, and suddenly we have another Osther/OKW faction - I don't think anyone would like that.




The Panzer IV series in this game is already constantly on the backfoot, even against what the Allies can currently field. Sure, the OKW Panzer IV is notably better off than its Ostheer equivalent, but that doesn't help it much in the face of massive cost differences compared to performance differences.



This. Axis don't get a power spike when they field their first medium tanks, which really they should do after having to be on the backfoot vs allied light tanks (every allied faction has a light tank that hurts infantry and other vehicles. Axis do not)

Instead, when it arrives, it instantly has to deal with the Cromwell and Sherman. The Soviets seem more balanced in this but the SU76 can stop the PIV from pushing into territory to take back ground lost because of the T70.


In 2v2 it always feels like wave after wave of allied power spikes with no power spike from the Germans. When the Axis do get their great tanks, the field is already full of mediums that can deal with them because of their numbers. (and don't forget the resource gap that's a result of Allied early-game dominance)
21 Dec 2016, 17:56 PM
#44
avatar of Mirdarion

Posts: 283



The Panzer IV series in this game is already constantly on the backfoot, even against what the Allies can currently field. Sure, the OKW Panzer IV is notably better off than its Ostheer equivalent, but that doesn't help it much in the face of massive cost differences compared to performance differences.



This. Axis don't get a power spike when they field their first medium tanks, which really they should do after having to be on the backfoot vs allied light tanks (every allied faction has a light tank that hurts infantry and other vehicles. Axis do not)

Instead, when it arrives, it instantly has to deal with the Cromwell and Sherman. The Soviets seem more balanced in this but the SU76 can stop the PIV from pushing into territory to take back ground lost because of the T70.


In 2v2 it always feels like wave after wave of allied power spikes with no power spike from the Germans. When the Axis do get their great tanks, the field is already full of mediums that can deal with them because of their numbers. (and don't forget the resource gap that's a result of Allied early-game dominance)


This is where it becomes iffy. The Panzer IV is not meant to be a power spike, by its very design. It is there as a necessary part of a diversified army, to fill the gap the StuG can't fill.

What you describe, is what I have on multiple occasions compared to the way initiative works in the father of modern strategy games, Kriegsspiel. The idea is that a force without (or with inferior) offensive capabilities, either in terms of strategy or in terms of ability, has no (or less) initiative and is thus forced to react to its opponents's actions. From this follows, that the terms of an engagement can be seized by one side, taking the other side's ability to apply a strategy of their own. It's like a good shuttlecock player making the other player run constantly after the bird, without moving much himself.

How does that apply to COH2? Well, initiative is present in the way assaults work. From the strategical position, any army is generally able to mount an assault (as that depends on the player). But the capability to do so varies significantly across the different armies. And that's what makes the current Ostheer gameplay so boring: There is no offensive capability here, forcing the Ostheer player to either massively outwork his opponent, or have the terms of the game dictated to him. That doesn't mean Ostheer is weak and needs buffs per se (outside of the current balance issues), it means that playing the faction feels unrewarding, because you have to be much more capable to navigate the battle into a certain direction - something for example a USF player can achieve with significantly less input. It makes a faction feel harder to play, despite it having powerful tools at its disposal (and especially the USF faction design is actually meant to mitigate that effect, by having some units require more micro to work well).

The solution here is not to buff the Panzer IV, I heavily recommend against that, but to adjust its opponents. That can start with a general rework of for example movement penalties to accuracy, which would actually require the StuG for example to be nerfed in that regard, to differentiate it even more from the Panzer IV.


P.S.: Fixed some translation issues.
21 Dec 2016, 19:17 PM
#45
avatar of A. Soldier

Posts: 3094 | Subs: 2



In terms of Soviet tank doctrine, the KV-1 has nothing to do with either the T-34 or the IS-series (that claim is similar abstruse as claiming that the Sturmgewehr was conceptionally some sort of predecessor to the AK-series). Sure, the armament was similar to the T-34 for most of the time of its existence, but being heavily armoured meant a completely different usage profile. Meanwhile, the IS-series was used as a more modern form of the old assault gun. With a tank of that capability, the necessity to mount heavy guns to awkward or casemated chassis was gone - the IS-series could mount guns that served the same purpose, while also being able to withstand more firepower, while also being more mobile. The trade-off to medium tanks were cost, technical complexity, and mobility, which is why the concept was made superfluous by the idea of the Main Battle Tank.

Back to topic: This idea is impossible to properly balance. The Panzer IV series in this game is already constantly on the backfoot, even against what the Allies can currently field. Sure, the OKW Panzer IV is notably better off than its Ostheer equivalent, but that doesn't help it much in the face of massive cost differences compared to performance differences.
The T-34/85 as the Soviet standard tank has been discussed regularly in multiple forums over the past couple years, and in the end the result was mostly the same: It would be impossible to balance against the then useless T-34/76 - regardless of whether the T-34/76 would then end up in those very same doctrines that now contain the T-34/85. The availability of that choice would be meaningless, because the game's demands would always favour the T-34/85, thus actually limiting strategical diversity.
Then there's also the problem (especially with the US) of how to balance these upgrades into the asymmetrical gameplay: Riflemen are massively superior to all other standard infantry, and that has a very specific reason. Suddenly overturning that reason would require a significant reconsideration of how USF early game works, and suddenly we have another Osther/OKW faction - I don't think anyone would like that.


P.S.:





Yes, I'm a troll for pleading someone NOT to be disrespectful towards my country's name.

Brilliant.
21 Dec 2016, 19:56 PM
#46
avatar of Bulgakov

Posts: 987



This is where it becomes iffy. The Panzer IV is not meant to be a power spike, by its very design. It is there as a necessary part of a diversified army, to fill the gap the StuG can't fill.

What you describe, is what I have on multiple occasions compared to the way initiative works in the father of modern strategy games, Kriegsspiel. The idea is that a force without (or with inferior) offensive capabilities, either in terms of strategy or in terms of ability, has no (or less) initiative and is thus forced to react to its opponents's actions. From this follows, that the terms of an engagement can be seized by one side, taking the other side's ability to apply a strategy of their own. It's like a good shuttlecock player making the other player run constantly after the bird, without moving much himself.

How does that apply to COH2? Well, initiative is present in the way assaults work. From the strategical position, any army is generally able to mount an assault (as that depends on the player). But the capability to do so varies significantly across the different armies. And that's what makes the current Ostheer gameplay so boring: There is no offensive capability here, forcing the Ostheer player to either massively outwork his opponent, or have the terms of the game dictated to him. That doesn't mean Ostheer is weak and needs buffs per se (outside of the current balance issues), it means that playing the faction feels unrewarding, because you have to be much more capable to navigate the battle into a certain direction - something for example a USF player can achieve with significantly less input. It makes a faction feel harder to play, despite it having powerful tools at its disposal (and especially the USF faction design is actually meant to mitigate that effect, by having some units require more micro to work well).

The solution here is not to buff the Panzer IV, I heavily recommend against that, but to adjust its opponents. That can start with a general rework of for example movement penalties to accuracy, which would actually require the StuG for example to be nerfed in that regard, to differentiate it even more from the Panzer IV.


P.S.: Fixed some translation issues.


Nice ideas! Your solution could work too. I'm not arguing that buffing the Piv is the only way but that it is, at least, a way to level the playing field.

Do you see though that allied tanks all have a shock factor and provide a power spike and that the axis lacks this almost entirely. Any shock unit they have is either already countered by the time it arrives or immediately after.
21 Dec 2016, 20:10 PM
#47
avatar of Aradan

Posts: 991



Yes, I'm a troll for pleading someone NOT to be disrespectful towards my country's name.

Brilliant.


America is continent. Your country name is United States of Murica, no? :) :) :)
21 Dec 2016, 20:11 PM
#48
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

The stupidity in this thread is going places. I am going to keep an eye on this.
21 Dec 2016, 20:49 PM
#49
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

From now on, if you have offtopics stuff to discuss with each other do so via PM. Anything forward to this post will be invised even if it includes relevant stuff.



21 Dec 2016, 20:58 PM
#50
avatar of Aradan

Posts: 991

From now on, if you have offtopics stuff to discuss with each other do so via PM. Anything forward to this post will be invised even if it includes relevant stuff.





I'm sorry founders this topic and you, for more work with us. But i cannot resist. :)
21 Dec 2016, 21:16 PM
#51
avatar of Aradan

Posts: 991



Hold up, those were needed for the OKW, both Soviets and the USF have the T34-76 and M4A3 Sherman, just not the upgraded versions by default.


Soviets and USF also need this. At least in team games. This medium tanks can be locked behind some late game tech in T4.
22 Dec 2016, 05:11 AM
#52
avatar of tigerhunter

Posts: 20

KV-1 was also a predecessor of the T34 and IS series of tanks. I always thought that the KV1 fit coming out around the time of T70s and SU76s.

I also thought that that army composition should square off with StuGs and Pumas (and I guess the luchs). Panzer 4s would be met with T34/76s, and Panthers with T34/85s. Then IS2s and Tigers.

Then WFA happened.


+1

KV1 would be fit in tier4. I think.
22 Dec 2016, 06:20 AM
#53
avatar of A. Soldier

Posts: 3094 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Dec 2016, 20:10 PMAradan


America is continent. Your country name is United States of Murica, no? :) :) :)


And your country's name is surrender to the Germans and work for them, no?

And another thing, the Allies don't "need" those upgraded tanks in late team games, they can do just fine without them as I've seen from experience.

They would just be a good addition to both Armies since both lack any properly Armored tanks by default that can also act as meatshields like the British Churchill. I was also thinking about adding the KV1 T
to the Soviets by default once all structures were built.
22 Dec 2016, 06:25 AM
#54
avatar of UGBEAR

Posts: 954

o_O KV-1 as soviet end game non-doc tank? Do you all even realize how incompetent KV-1 could possibly be in the late game,a end game slow speed tank with medicore armor plus a short barrel 76mm gun, you folk are better than that.
22 Dec 2016, 07:47 AM
#55
avatar of A. Soldier

Posts: 3094 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Dec 2016, 06:25 AMUGBEAR
o_O KV-1 as soviet end game non-doc tank? Do you all even realize how incompetent KV-1 could possibly be in the late game,a end game slow speed tank with medicore armor plus a short barrel 76mm gun, you folk are better than that.


Never said end game unit.

But perhaps a buffed up KV1 would be able to soak up the damage while the T34s or SU85s behind it deal some.
22 Dec 2016, 08:48 AM
#56
avatar of UGBEAR

Posts: 954

I was also thinking about adding the KV1 T
to the Soviets by default once all structures were built.





Never said end game unit.

But perhaps a buffed up KV1 would be able to soak up the damage while the T34s or SU85s behind it deal some.


Building all necessary/unnecessary structure to get a KV-1 seems pretty end game to me, OKW could enjoy a KT with same effort, KV-1 as last tier unit is IMHO a bad idea especially for a sluggish tank with medicore armor and short barreled gun.


Authentic(Not realist) wise, T-34/85 is suitable for COH2's theme, consider how late the Jadpanzer 4, Jadgtiger, Kingtiger, participate the war, yet they are dancing in every corner in relic's fantasy game.
22 Dec 2016, 08:56 AM
#57
avatar of UGBEAR

Posts: 954




Back to topic: This idea is impossible to properly balance.



Brits is more "impossible" to balance yet its still in the game, the word "impossible" is misused too often, scale up USSR/US's high-end non-doctrinal medium tank could cause these much panic in this forum is pretty unexpected, granted that axis still holds the armor superiority against US/USSR.

22 Dec 2016, 10:16 AM
#58
avatar of Aradan

Posts: 991



And your country's name is surrender to the Germans and work for them, no?

And another thing, the Allies don't "need" those upgraded tanks in late team games, they can do just fine without them as I've seen from experience.

They would just be a good addition to both Armies since both lack any properly Armored tanks by default that can also act as meatshields like the British Churchill. I was also thinking about adding the KV1 T
to the Soviets by default once all structures were built.


Yes, my country surrended after betrayal from their allies Brits, France and Soviets. Munchen 1938. Disadvantage of small countries.

Okw, Ost and Brits have all weapon units type in base. Their choice of commander bring a benefit or supplement (off-map atry, another type of infantry)
USF and Soviets must take specific commander, if they want medium tanks equal of panther. This is very limiting and do not have a sense of choice. And say, that they do not have it all, when OKW, OSt and Brits all have, is strange.
22 Dec 2016, 11:11 AM
#59
avatar of DAZ187

Posts: 464

i agree with this. buff the kv1 and replace the docs with 85s, with kv1s, M4A3 and even maybe kv2s. it really sucks to have one doc with these tanks. give the game some variety. this meta has been stale for way too long.

some of the ost docs and soviets need a small rework to make them viable. no1 will pick a doctrine if it doesn't have some sort of armor behind it "most of the time"
22 Dec 2016, 12:22 PM
#60
avatar of A. Soldier

Posts: 3094 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Dec 2016, 08:48 AMUGBEAR





Building all necessary/unnecessary structure to get a KV-1 seems pretty end game to me, OKW could enjoy a KT with same effort, KV-1 as last tier unit is IMHO a bad idea especially for a sluggish tank with medicore armor and short barreled gun.


Authentic(Not realist) wise, T-34/85 is suitable for COH2's theme, consider how late the Jadpanzer 4, Jadgtiger, Kingtiger, participate the war, yet they are dancing in every corner in relic's fantasy game.


I still didn't say end game unit, plus the KV1 will never be one and I don't see the point in comparing it to the KT, the KT is superior, it's gun, armor and size are wayyyy better plus it's price, compared to the KV1's one, buffed or not, will never be close to each other.

What I wanted to do with making the KV1 require all of the tech buildings was somewhat make it come out late enough for it to meet the heavy German hitters such as the Jagdpanzer, Jagdtiger and so forth so it can protect the Soviets' lesser armor tanks.

How I see this topic's idea going for the Soviets are in 2 ways: You already have the T-34/85s gun in the SU-85, but it too lacks the 85's protection, so make the KV1 a default tank which should be timed to come out around the German heavy hitters' times to soak up the damage like I already mentioned.

It will need a buff to it's armor and not to it's health since the Churchill's health pool is sorta ok when you take into account the vetted Sapper's repair rate plus their heavy engineers upgrade, the Soviets don't have that luxury so a tank with a huge health pool would be useless for them because it would take such a long time to repair so the KV1's armored value should be buffed a bit to meet it's damage sponge role.

OR add an upgrade that replaces the normal T34/76s with 85s like in CoH with the American Army's Sherman.

As far as the USF goes, if only we had a model for the Jumbo something similar could be done for them as well.

Both Armies DO NOT lack proper firepower against German tanks by default, they lack armor to take hits, both the Su85 and Jackson are excellent heavy damage dealing tank destroyers altho they lack armor screening units for protection and take a lot of micro to manage sadly.

Those are the problems and solutions to those problems I see, wether or not Relic or their community modding team implement them is up to them, that or find another way to tackle the problem which I highly doubt.
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
  • Oberkommando West flag Oziligath
  • The British Forces flag T.R. Sidewinder
uploaded by Oziligath

Board Info

211 users are online: 2 members and 209 guests
Antemurale, ShadowLinkX37
24 posts in the last 24h
180 posts in the last week
683 posts in the last month
Registered members: 33957
Welcome our newest member, momente-einfangen
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM