Login

russian armor

Eastern Front Armies Revamp

PAGES (56)down
18 Jun 2017, 17:52 PM
#821
avatar of Strummingbird
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 952

You guys might want to take a look at and rein in the 6 man crewed weapons with the new conscript buffed accuracy. They straight up beat pioneers and osttruppen head to head and do more damage than they deserve to actual combat squads on their own.
18 Jun 2017, 19:56 PM
#822
avatar of Jubey

Posts: 22

Sorry for the question a bit off-topic im just curious, but are they going to propose this mod for the next balance patch to relic ?

Or this mod is just intended for custom games ?
18 Jun 2017, 20:00 PM
#823
avatar of some one

Posts: 935

No.
Its just a wish list.
Nothing special.
nee
18 Jun 2017, 21:30 PM
#824
avatar of nee

Posts: 1216

Currently FRP give USF, UKF and OKW an unfair advantage over ostheer and the soviets.

On the offensive it allows for insane presure and lower the impact of machineguns and overall better unit management.

On defense it provides a strong staying power and allow indirect fire weapons to survive counterbattery fire.

Thing is, it is different for every faction. Allied factions requiere unit combos: Mayor+ambulance and FRP+upgraded Tommies
OKW can access to the FRP, a reinforcement point and healing in the same package.

I've heard balancing its also giving new options to players but FRP counterdicts some of the basic principles of CoH, as a game that rewards unit preservation, superior micro and better tactics


If basic principle of CoH is no forward retreat then it was ditched since 2014. A lot of changes to the factions were made since then and they all accommodated FRP; if anything forward retreat IS a basic principle of COH and people just don't like it when they are at the receiving end when playing as Russians.

It doesn't so much give an unfair advantage over EFA, since larger squads at T0 allow that from start to finish, it simply magnifies the problem by letting said larger, stronger and more versatile squads run back and forth between a point for faster reinforcement and travel time (ignoring, conveniently, the manpower cost that which is unchanged); it actually doesn't solve it and it's apparent once you actually play this mod in a large game. People just want to be vengeful against blobbing, not getting rid of it altogether.

UKF is the only one that is solid on defence alongside FRP due to emplacements and the only faction to have it with T0 HMG, but it's cost and playstyle pretty much has players ignoring UKF's FRP situation.


wehrmacht and soviet can use Halftrack as retreat point, but it should be doc or non-doc ?
Should be non-doctrinal, but with the tech, fuel and micromanagement cost I think it makes up for it. 30 fuel to produce an FRP rather than tanks is going to cost you some tech time, especially if you follow it up with another 30 fuel for a reinforcement plus FRP combo and effectively rely on infantry for much more of the game.

Which leads me to think that OKW's FRP should probably cost fuel or munitions as well to give more opportunity cost. Currently FRP is JUST a manpower cost of like a single infantry squad or ISG. If it also cost tech or upgrade/ ability resources, then that already lessens the impact of blobbing since less time for T4 truck and less resources to use abilities and upgrade.

Frp promotes bad play (just assault, if gone Bad just retreat and be on the assault 20sec later again).
Remove it or build a doctrine solely around it.


Disagree due to aformentioned points made, and they made not one but THREE distinct factions around it.



Ost:
-Add it as un bunker upgrade (same timing as US major ) using the same upgrade button : can't be on the same bunker as healing or reinforcement.

Sov:

-Add it as an M4 halftrack's upgrade (same timing as US major).
-Make the base medic mobile so they can go to the front.
OKW:
-Add it as an infra-red halftrack's upgrade (same timing as US major).
-Add the healing box supply drop from it. (remove it from pio)
US:
Add it as an ambulance's upgrade (same timing/cost as it was with the major).
Remove it from major.


I thought about Ostheer bunker as FRP before but it would either look weird due to four upgrades for a bunker (UI will have the fourth one a second row); and combining it with an upgrade would make it a bit powerful especially on smaller maps.
It could of course just be an upgrade-after-upgrade thing where upgrading any bunker will unlock the FRP upgrade, so you are forced to spend more munitions after the initial 60. I also don't really want Ostheer's FRO strategy to mimic British simcity what with requiring more bunkers. However with smaller and specialized squads Ostheer is less likely to be a blobbing faction even without additional manpower burden.
I also sort of think the FRP upgrade could replace he reinforcement one entirely and have the reinforcement rely solely on halftracks, so there would be the requirement of T2 plus fuel investment for the FRP to really work, rather than just building another bunker nearby. Replacing medics is also viable since squads can heal themselves and others now.

On the medic thing it could be an alternative upgrade to M5 halftrack, for a total of four possible but mutually exclusive roles:

Un-upgraded: transport, reinforce
1- quad 50cal for combat
2- FRP, requires toggle (immobilized)
3- medics, requires toggle (immobilized)

For a single halftrack the four roles cannot overlap so you can neither reinforce, heal or transport with that halftrack upgraded to FRP, and vice versa. So you either have to micromanage with multiple halftracks, which means less tanks and manpower, or just live with the limitations accordingly. Vanilla halftrack however remains viable simply because of mobile rienforcement that can still fight on its own or with infantry inside.

I do like the idea of OKW's IR halftrack providing the FRP; it would require it to be next to T2 for reinforcement combo, but can be hardcountered because its got neither weapons nor durability; it also means they are far more relevant in a game and can't be ignored by any blob-oriented player. It would effectively make FRP less effective due to easily being destroyed (and unwitting player retreating blob all the way back to HQ), while not actually changing the way FRP is handled for this faction. I personally prefer if OKW tried to stay a bit different than other halftrack-based FRP though, however the idea of halftracks filling the FRP role is still a good idea in itself. Definite +1.

I think what makes FRP better is if it's less effective on its own and thus requires other things nearby, which itself require more investment of resources and micro; so of all factions USF represents FRP the best, as it requires Major (T4 non-combat unit) plus ambulance together for effective retreat point. The more things required for useful FRP the better, IMO.
The only change I would want is if Major needs to upgrade to FRP first just like UKF and OKW, and munitions cost would mean less ability for BAR and bazooka blobbing.
Another idea is requiring all three officers to be on the map to allow or unlock FRP.
18 Jun 2017, 22:49 PM
#825
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

it is quite surprising how many times FRP is argued as core of post WFA armies. that totally misses the point.

Blizzard, deep snow, mud were basic principles in CoH2 but it was removed because it went against other basic principle of CoH series, maneuvers - and the formers just got removed 'cause of that.

FRP messes with mechanics such as hard retreat (and opp. cost related to it), tactics of soft retreating and the very nature of back and forth-ness of vCoH2. that's a fact that supports neither side.

Also, i don't really see people arguing for removing FRP for balance reasons. its been around for 3 years. and if you are calling for removal or keeping of FRP due to balance, i think that is pretty weak.


The real question is whether FRP adds more pros than con in terms of gameplay wise. I think in that sense a poll would be a nice way to find out what people think and influence the decision to whether remove it or not - https://www.coh2.org/topic/61948/is-frp-beneficial-to-gameplay.

I argue that it is not. We all know relic designed and balanced the game around 1v1. FRP in that sense makes sense - maybe 10 sec off the retreat, or completely change the battlefield by basically moving the base to another corner of the map, OPP cost being that you get farther away from the region you decided stay away from. The maps in 1v1 are sizeable enough to make that kind of thinking make sense. All that gets destroyed as soon as you go up ONE gamemode. Instead 10 sec, its 30, 40, 50, 60 secs... Instead of helping you to focus on a part of the map by forgoing the other, you get to focus on only part of the map you need to focus on. FRP simply does not work as intended 2v2+, i would argue, and it disrupts the hard retreat, soft retreat and back and forth mechanics of CoH2 negatively.
18 Jun 2017, 23:31 PM
#826
avatar of Nano

Posts: 212

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Jun 2017, 22:49 PMpigsoup
Valid points.


I would argue it does add fun to the game, it makes more sense to add a doctrinal FRP to Eastern Front armies than to remove it from the three teams that were designed with it in mind.
19 Jun 2017, 00:32 AM
#827
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072

About FRPs:

CASE 1) REMOVED COMPLETELY:
it will indirectly nerf WFA AND UKF but mostly just in team games (3s and 4s especially). I don't see any big problems with this change for UKF or OKW since they have durable reinforcing structures however I think the ambo could use a serious speed buff and or durability buff to make it more front line and better for soft retreating. USF relies most on FRPs especially for team games since their faction is so based around frontline infantry.
Summary: IF you remove FRP (hard retreat) buff soft retreat.

CASE 2) DECREASE EFFECTIVENESS OF FRPs:
I propose doing this by significantly increasing the reinforcing times for units THAT HARD RETREATED TO A FRP. This means if the units last retreat point was there base then they will have normal reinforcement times (via soft retreating) but if they hard retreated to a FRP then they will take significantly longer to reinforce (to account slightly for the time it would take to walk back to the FRP from the base). If the coding is possible, you could even determine the increased reinforcement time based on how far away the FRP is to HQ.

Another option is to allow only one squad (from each player if in team games) to reinforce at a time if it's last hard retreat was to a FRP.
Summary: nerf FRPs by increasing reinforcement times for units that hard retreated to the FRP.

Those are my thoughts regarding FRPs.
What do you guys think?
19 Jun 2017, 00:45 AM
#828
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072

Regarding recon in the game:
With the proposed changes to how aircraft work with it being more consistent in countering I would like to see a major buff to the air recon planes mainly via a cost decrease. I feel like air recon could play a bigger role in the game with it being cheaper and used more now that it can be countered by all factions
It would be nice to see players getting AA units to counter recon planes because they are actually a problem.

Would add more incentive to flank and plan out attacks since Intel on enemy movement would be more readily available.

This would normalize reconnaissance for all the factions. Currently recon planes are significantly outshined by flare abilities like Brit advanced warning, smoke raid, mortar cover, OKW artillery flares etc. I think recon planes should cost less than mentioned abilities since they are counterable and rarely used.


TLDR
Significantly decrease cost of recon planes due to normailzed AA capabilities of AA platforms for all factions.
19 Jun 2017, 00:53 AM
#829
avatar of Nano

Posts: 212


CASE 2) DECREASE EFFECTIVENESS OF FRPs:
I propose doing this by significantly increasing the reinforcing times for units THAT HARD RETREATED TO A FRP. This means if the units last retreat point was there base then they will have normal reinforcement times (via soft retreating) but if they hard retreated to a FRP then they will take significantly longer to reinforce (to account slightly for the time it would take to walk back to the FRP from the base). If the coding is possible, you could even determine the increased reinforcement time based on how far away the FRP is to HQ.

Another option is to allow only one squad (from each player if in team games) to reinforce at a time if it's last hard retreat was to a FRP.
Summary: nerf FRPs by increasing reinforcement times for units that hard retreated to the FRP.

Those are my thoughts regarding FRPs.
What do you guys think?


I wonder if these things are technically possible in the game with out the developers help? Maybe it is also possible to increase the cost of reinforce at FRP or something?

Maybe modders will have to comment on exactly how hard this would be?
19 Jun 2017, 01:00 AM
#830
avatar of miragefla
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Jun 2017, 00:53 AMNano


I wonder if these things are technically possible in the game with out the developers help? Maybe it is also possible to increase the cost of reinforce at FRP or something?

Maybe modders will have to comment on exactly how hard this would be?


There is no easy way to adjust reinforce of units, that I know of, when they are near a particularly entity. There are likely work arounds, but we've been avoiding 24/7 checks and auras to avoid performance issues and adding more strain on processes.
19 Jun 2017, 01:13 AM
#831
avatar of cochosgo

Posts: 301

Or maybe make it only viable in 2v2s.

I've been thinking about special cap points, like the repair stations in the refinery map, in game modes outside 1v1.

Anyways I like the idea of removing FRP and giving each faction better soft retreat options. It rewards carefull playing.

Now ostheer has another healing option thanks to the medikit rework. Soviets can now use M3's to drop medical supplys (thus, not being a wortless unit outside the first minutes). OKW can drop medical supplies on their base with strumpioneere and the Batallion HQ could be used as forward point to heal and reinforce, as they don't have access to halftracks. UKF has the most reliable healing option in their tommys. USF only have their ambulance so that might be a problem
19 Jun 2017, 03:16 AM
#832
avatar of voltardark

Posts: 967

Frp are not related as much to unit preservation that they are to reinforce time.

Unit preservation is more related to unit veterancy.

Frp are important because they give more tactical options.

And it why all factions need them.

I really don't want this game look more like Starcraft.
19 Jun 2017, 04:05 AM
#833
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Frp are important because they give more tactical options.


IF 1v1 > don't get it.
IF 3v3+ > always get it
IF 2v2 and map = big then get it, else don't.

On big 3v3+ maps FRP are no brainers. I'll rather have 3 Volks and a FRP rather than an extra squad. Because that extra squad means popcap and bleed, while the investment on FRP is a one time thing. The "but you are one down squad" means shit, if you are saving 60s x 3 the time it takes for those 3 squads to reinforce and get back into action. You will save mp due to lower popcap and you have the option to heal low health squads which haven't lost models.


...


If FRP are staying then i think there are different ways to tackle the issue depending on which aspect you want to focus.

-Timing/tech:
Delay OKW's FRP to 2nd truck called/deployed. This put it barely on UKF forward assembly timing.

Anything else seems to involve hack like solutions which might bring more issues than resolving FRP.

-Interactive/micro:
As i've said in the past, why not make it a 60s ability, 3mins cd (values are just representative). Then you have to time your "retreats". You could add a munition cost to it.

Cons: it might incentivize more "human waves" attacks but this would had a bigger drawback is timed wrongly or the opponent is able to capitalise on this.
Prop: i think this should be the "easiest" to implement.

Alternative option:
-FRP is a 1min duration with 30s CD.
-While FRP is active and on cd, it lockdowns reinforcement on Med HQ and Forward assembly. Medics still work.


19 Jun 2017, 04:53 AM
#834
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072

Anouther option to FRPs is limit it to only one sector outside base sector? Not sure that would make much difference though...
19 Jun 2017, 06:47 AM
#835
avatar of FG127820

Posts: 101

Thread too long ... why is everyone talking about changing FRP? The EFA have mobile halftracks for field reinforce for free, which can be handbraked now. Maybe add some ability to allow timed FRP.

USF, UKF and OKW FRP are expensive, and risk being artied when timed well; it also takes a long time and is expensive to replace (250+200 MP for brits, 100+200+300 for OKW) with exception of much cheaper USF major. A lot of times you lose squads not in combat, but while retreating back to the FRP.
19 Jun 2017, 09:35 AM
#836
avatar of TickTack

Posts: 578



There is no easy way to adjust reinforce of units, that I know of, when they are near a particularly entity. There are likely work arounds, but we've been avoiding 24/7 checks and auras to avoid performance issues and adding more strain on processes.

Instead of increasing time, just make a blanket +33% MP reinforce cost for all units after FRP has been built?
19 Jun 2017, 09:50 AM
#837
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1

I dont see the issue with FRP either. In 1on1 they arent used in 99% of games, 2on2 they are useless on many maps and easily destroyed on others. 3on3 and 4on4 they are usesful but offer a perfect place for easy targets for Stuka, any kind of arty, off-map abilities etc.

From my experiences FRP are often a death trap against decent opponents.

Plus there are maps like Hill331 or Angermünde which are horrible to play at without FRP
19 Jun 2017, 11:18 AM
#838
avatar of 0ld_Shatterhand
Donator 22

Posts: 194

About the Panzerschreck on Sturmpios.
The power of the M3 Clowncar against OKW is problematic. As soon as it is on the field, the OKW player can´t do anything than just retreat, waste manpower on a raketen and/or tech up as quickly as possible and hope he survives the M3.
Panzerschreck upgrade from the Sturmpios should help in this situation, but in reality, it doesn´t. Why?
Panzerschrecks have great damage, and penetration while lacking rof and constant damage output. Essentially they are very good against slow moving heavy armoured targets. So it's exactly the opposite you need in the early game against the M3. Neither is it a viable option in the late game. One Schreck is simply not enough to really frighten TDs. So what can be done to make it a viable option at every stage of the game?

My suggestion: Make it a two part upgrade. How should it work:
In the early game, the Panzerschreck upgrade should be replaced by two Panzerbüchsen (German equivalent to PTRS) from the Theather of war missions. Due to higher rof and lower damage, they are good against Light vehicles without straight up destroying them. They are useless in the late game, however.
So once T4 is set up I suggest another upgrade. Something like "Upgrade Panzerabwehrwaffen" (Upgrade Anti-Tank-Weaponry) for 60 mun which replaces the two Panzerbüchsen with two Panzerschrecks. It should be locked behind the P4 and Panther upgrade so you either have to go for an early Jagdpanzer or Panzerschrecks and not both.
In the end, you paid 120mun for two Panzerschrecks. It would give OKW a viable AT platform back, something they lacked since the removal of Schrecks on Volks. It's not spammable either due to small squad size.
It's also a better option to earlier faust (like before GSC patch), because it's an actual investment and the M3 gets not instantly hard countered and has some breathing room, thus making it viable.

And yes you could argue that Panzerbüchsen were outdated and hardly used in 1944, and that's definitely true. But besides the argument of balance and more ingame variety, OKW resembles the late war German faction, there everybody was forced to fight and resources there limited so it's not so far of to see some use of Panzerbüchsen due to lack of proper weaponry especially as it can get replaced with Schrecks later on.
19 Jun 2017, 16:20 PM
#839
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

You guys might want to take a look at and rein in the 6 man crewed weapons with the new conscript buffed accuracy. They straight up beat pioneers and osttruppen head to head and do more damage than they deserve to actual combat squads on their own.

Shouldn't they beat osttruppen and pios though? I mean, osttruppen are like 15 to reinforce and pios are engineers.
19 Jun 2017, 16:32 PM
#840
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1


Shouldn't they beat osttruppen and pios though? I mean, osttruppen are like 15 to reinforce and pios are engineers.


Hmg crews beating flanking unit should not happen, especially if the reinforcement cost is the same with original hmg crew.
PAGES (56)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

Offline

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

514 users are online: 2 members and 512 guests
wearicy, Crecer13
4 posts in the last 24h
31 posts in the last week
85 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44634
Welcome our newest member, wearicy
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM