Login

russian armor

USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog

PAGES (17)down
19 Nov 2018, 20:24 PM
#161
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3216

I love the direction of these changes. However, I think going LT+CPT is too attractive a choice. My recommendation is to only give the first one researched their free officer. In return, the other tier is researched in 45 seconds instead of 90.


Crank up the manpower cost, reduce the cost of Major in turn. That keeps Major teching paths with the same timings, but makes LT+CPT more expensive.
19 Nov 2018, 21:20 PM
#162
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 2926

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 20:24 PMLago


Crank up the manpower cost, reduce the cost of Major in turn. That keeps Major teching paths with the same timings, but makes LT+CPT more expensive.

That seems like a good idea. I agree that LT + CPT is too attractive because of the quickness of the 2 free squads, but it should still be doable and that seems like a god way to do it.

Another thing to note is that airborne really needs a rework now that it's plausible to get an at gun and an mg nondoctrinally at the same time, since it makes 40% of the abilities in the doctrine superfluous for the most part.
19 Nov 2018, 22:18 PM
#163
avatar of Jae For Jett
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 990 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Nov 2018, 20:24 PMLago


Crank up the manpower cost, reduce the cost of Major in turn. That keeps Major teching paths with the same timings, but makes LT+CPT more expensive.



That seems like a good idea. I agree that LT + CPT is too attractive because of the quickness of the 2 free squads, but it should still be doable and that seems like a god way to do it.

Another thing to note is that airborne really needs a rework now that it's plausible to get an at gun and an mg nondoctrinally at the same time, since it makes 40% of the abilities in the doctrine superfluous for the most part.

;)
20 Nov 2018, 01:49 AM
#164
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1303 | Subs: 2


That seems like a good idea. I agree that LT + CPT is too attractive because of the quickness of the 2 free squads, but it should still be doable and that seems like a god way to do it.

Another thing to note is that airborne really needs a rework now that it's plausible to get an at gun and an mg nondoctrinally at the same time, since it makes 40% of the abilities in the doctrine superfluous for the most part.


Recon Support is still atractive due to it being a bundle, as well as having access to Pathfinders with artillery and the Greyhound, Airborne on the other hand will now be seen only for P47s just in case you face a Heavy Tank Destroyer in 2vs2.
20 Nov 2018, 03:12 AM
#165
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2277



"grass is greener on the other side of fence" I see this expression being tossed around ad absurdum to oppose any and all changes. While I do agree that not everything should be homogenised between factions, ...


Although you are on point, you have to admit too that all the recent topics aim towards "mirroring" factions instead of seeking new ideas. Everyone judges by its out knowledge but only a few really care about the game as a whole. If something on the other faction is OP either nerf it into oblivion or buff the crap out of my faction. It all resumes into an arm wrestling instead of tactics and strategy.
20 Nov 2018, 05:45 AM
#166
avatar of Bonewhite

Posts: 14

I like this change. Just adjusting Lt/Cpt's cost to 200mp/30fu and lower major's mp cost would fit perfectly.
And for the utility car, adding free skirt and remove the bazooka, increasing 50cal penetration will be good
20 Nov 2018, 07:20 AM
#167
avatar of jagd wölfe

Posts: 1182


Another thing to note is that airborne really needs a rework now that it's plausible to get an at gun and an mg nondoctrinally at the same time, since it makes 40% of the abilities in the doctrine superfluous for the most part.



+1
20 Nov 2018, 11:00 AM
#168
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3216

Recon Support is still atractive due to it being a bundle, as well as having access to Pathfinders with artillery and the Greyhound, Airborne on the other hand will now be seen only for P47s just in case you face a Heavy Tank Destroyer in 2vs2.


I think Jae's right on Airborne: the airdrops are less attractive albeit not useless. They still accelerate your fuel a little, and they're a good way to get:
» Pathfinder crewed team weapons that can self-spot
» Airborne crewed team weapons that can reinforce from relays (VERY useful on AT guns)

Secondly, it makes Pathfinders and Airborne themselves more attractive as you're not forced to spam Rifles.
20 Nov 2018, 17:03 PM
#169
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8234 | Subs: 1

Is the mod team considering that some USF units should be nerfed with the proposed tech system to come in line with units from other factions?

Examples:
0.5 has AP round from vet 0, is that really necessary since USF have access to both Bazookas and ATGS? Should this ability move to vet 1 like HMG-34/42.

If the M20 is so cheap 240/20 should the crew come with bazookas, should it have higher armor values than 222, should it have access to mine that immobilizes, should it come out with vet 0 smoke?

If the M15A1 is in the same tier with ATG and can be protected by them VS vehicles should be able to suppress while on the move unlike the 251/17 or the Quad.

Should the M8A1 be so deadly?


20 Nov 2018, 17:16 PM
#170
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 3599 | Subs: 1

Nerfs too USF? No sir we going headfirst into the land of BAR blobs, freedom fifties and holy HE sherman. Welcome to the age of #USFOP

20 Nov 2018, 18:24 PM
#171
avatar of sherlock
Patrion 14

Posts: 550 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Nov 2018, 17:03 PMVipper
Is the mod team considering that some USF units should be nerfed with the proposed tech system to come in line with units from other factions?

Examples:
0.5 has AP round from vet 0, is that really necessary since USF have access to both Bazookas and ATGS? Should this ability move to vet 1 like HMG-34/42.

If the M20 is so cheap 240/20 should the crew come with bazookas, should it have higher armor values than 222, should it have access to mine that immobilizes, should it come out with vet 0 smoke?

If the M15A1 is in the same tier with ATG and can be protected by them VS vehicles should be able to suppress while on the move unlike the 251/17 or the Quad.

Should the M8A1 be so deadly?


Out of all the units the M8A1 and m14a1 on the move suppression are probably the only things that might have to be looked at from a balance perspective.

Putting AP and incendiary on the same level is a bit odd. One does +100% damage and the other 25%, the former reduces the reload duration by 50% while the latter does not and requires a lot better foresight and timing. I leave it up to you to figure out which one is which, the buff in penetration is about the same (9 vs 10). This ability is such a non issue with its near negligible effectiveness against infantry that probably no one would mind if it was moved to vet 1, but it's not an ability that ever overperformed. This is a call for homogenisation, which I am fine with, but it is not a balance issue.

It is conveniently ignored that the difference in armour between the m20 and 222 is small (9 vs 11) and that the difference in health is a lot bigger (240 vs 320). This again is not a balance argument since the m20 has not been an issue ever since it was nerfed, this is another call for homogenisation where two very different units (one effective against infantry and light vehicles the other only against infantry) are compared, all differences ignored and then the difference in armour picked out because they both have 4 wheels. The smoke argument is odd, since all light vehicles (that have it) get smoke at vet 0 (the only exception being the m8a1, which is a t4 unit). Personally I'm all for locking it behind vet 1 for all light vehicles.
I'm all for changing the mine to a teller clone, imobilisation is frustrating to face and the mine often too expensive to use, so it would almost be a win-win. I've made that suggestion several times in the past.

I do agree that the m5a1 should potentially lose its on the move suppression. It has to be seen however if its performance needs adjusting after the change.
20 Nov 2018, 18:33 PM
#172
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 2343 | Subs: 5

V1.1 Changes

UPDATE: FIX INCOMING TO INCREASE TIER 1.5 AND TIER 2.5 FUEL COST TO 20. IT IS CURRENTLY 15, WHICH ALLOWS LIGHT VEHICLES FASTER THAN INTENDED.

USF Starting Resources
-Starting fuel value increased from 15 to 20

Lieutenant and Captain Dispatch
-Cost from 150/30 to 200/35.
-Research time from 60 to 70.
-Now grants 1/4 of a CP upon completion.

Platoon and Company Command Post Upgrade
-Cost from 50/20 to 50/15
-Research time from 30 to 20.
-Now grants 1/4 of a CP upon completion.

Major Dispatch
-Cost from 240/120 to 190/120
-Now grant 1/3 of a CP upon completion.

Rationale
After feedback, we felt that LT + CPT would become the dominant choice giving USF numerous infantry squads and all necessary support weapons to stall into a quick Major. Teching LT + CPT into Major will now cost 20 fuel more than completing either tier to unlock the Major. This should provide a meaningful choice for players.

The cheaper cost of officers was allowing USF to apply a lot of early field presence and pressure. We felt this was an issue for Ostheer in particular. We have increased the manpower cost of the LT and CPT by reallocating some of the Major's Mp cost to them. This change, in conjunction with the extra build time, should alleviate some of USF's newfound early pressure, while preserving improved USF build diversity. Note that the first Officer will still be available at the same time as in 1.0 due to +5 USF staring fuel.

The CP grant upon tech completion should help USF players fit certain units into a build more organically.

Airborne Doctrine
The following changes have been made to Airborne as the doctrine faced borderline irrelevance in this new tech structure. Both weapon drops should represent an attractive choice for players using a full LT or CPT build. The munition cost should prohibit weapon drop spam in team games.
-50 cal HMG now costs 125 manpower - 60 munitions
-57mm ATG now costs 125 manpower - 75 munitions. Now comes at 3cp
-Pathfinders available from 0cp


https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/comment/280822#Comment_280822
20 Nov 2018, 18:46 PM
#173
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8234 | Subs: 1



Out of all the units the M8A1 and m14a1 on the move suppression are probably the only things that might have to be looked at.



Putting AP and incendiary on the same level is a bit odd. One does +100% damage and the other 25%, the former reduces the reload duration by 50% while the latter does not and requires a lot better foresight and timing. I leave it up to you to figure out which one is which, the buff in penetration is about the same (9 vs 10). This ability is such a non issue with its near negligible effectiveness against infantry that probably no one would mind if it was moved to vet 1, but it's not an ability that ever overperformed. This is a call for homogenisation, which I am fine with, but it is not a balance issue.

Now take into account the armor values of Ostheer light vehicles and allied vehicles and you will see that 0.5 can easily counter them at vet 0 while HMG-42 need vet 1 and HMG-34 has a hard time even at vet 1.

This not a simply case of homogenization. The 0.50 was designed as a light vehicle soft counter because it was expensive to get both 0.50 and an ATG, now that is no longer the case and there is little reason for vet 0 AP round option.


It is conveniently ignored that the difference in armour between the m20 and 222 is small (9 vs 11) and that the difference in health is a lot bigger (240 vs 320). This again is not a balance argument since the m20 has not been an issue ever since it was nerfed, this is another, surprisingly, call for homogenisation where two very different units (one effective against infantry and light vehicles the other only against infantry) are compared, all differences ignored and then the difference in armour picked out because they both have 4 wheels. The smoke argument is odd, since all light vehicles (that have it) get smoke at vet 0 (the only exception being the m8a1, which is a t4 unit). Personally I'm all for locking it behind vet 1 for all light vehicles.

Again this is not a homogenization issue, its about a unit performance according to its cost and tech level.

You conveniently ignored the fact that m20 and 222 have different tech cost, different costs and M20 can buy armor/HP, increase the gap in armor and decreasing the gap in HP.

And what are those all light vehicles that have smoke? the AAHT that can not fire on the move?

Or the Puma/AEC who become available when ATG are available and cost more the 3 times the fuel?

The 222, 250, 251, M3 , M5, WC51, Grayhound and UC do even have smoke, why should the M20 should have? So it can drive in front of HMG and create a smoke screen and give even less reason to USF user to unlock grenades?


I do agree with the m5a1 that it could potentially lose its on the move suppression. It has to be seen however if its performance needs adjusting after the change.
20 Nov 2018, 18:47 PM
#174
avatar of sherlock
Patrion 14

Posts: 550 | Subs: 1

I'm not sure if I like the changes, but maybe I didn't try to get both officers on the field quickly enough. I still think that the cost for the officers should be lowered by about 5 fuel to allow them to be fielded as the 3rd unit, to offer a meaningful alternative to the 3 riflemen builds. The to counter balance the issue of both officers and then mayor being too cheap, at least one unlock can be required, which is exactly the 20 fuel difference.
20 Nov 2018, 18:53 PM
#175
avatar of miragefla
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 1253 | Subs: 14

I still think that the cost for the officers should be lowered by about 5 fuel to allow them to be fielded as the 3rd unit, to offer a meaningful alternative to the 3 riflemen builds. The to counter balance the issue of both officers and then mayor being too cheap, at least one unlock can be required, which is exactly the 20 fuel difference.


Your officer should still be arriving as the third unit if you're rushing for it. You might float a bit of MP, but you can also immediately build a team weapon off the bat, just delayed, which we found as a fair thing.

You want map control/early combat power: you go with the 3 rifles. You want a slower, but more diverse start, you go LT then .50cal or have your Captain fast build delayed units. Or build an extra RE instead during the delay.
20 Nov 2018, 18:57 PM
#176
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 8234 | Subs: 1

Lieutenant and Captain Dispatch

-Cost from 150/30 to 200/35.
-Research time from 60 to 70.
-Now grants 1/4 of a CP upon completion.

Shouldn't we now award Ostheer CP for battle phase completion and UKF for PPC, CCP and hammer/anvil completion?
20 Nov 2018, 19:31 PM
#177
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 3599 | Subs: 1

PogChamp BARfinders are back! Gonna open with airborne now!!!

I'm actually so blinded by happiness that airborne might be good and flexible enough to run paths and paras that I'm not even considering potential balance going out the window with min 0 paths.

EDIT: Ok now that I had 60 seconds of happiness that I could potentially use paratroopers, do you see a problem with giving USF 20 starting fuel? Here's some examples of fuel costs between USF and OKW, the WFA.

OKW starts with 5F, USF starts with 20 (in mod).

So OKW starts 15F back, which is the same fuel price as weapon racks, meaning that weapon racks are basically free if you take out build time and do some manpower calcs which I'm not doing right here. However, weapon racks, specifically BARs outscale StGs primarily because of 2x equip.

You see where I'm going here? If weapon racks is basically free, the upside of StGs on volks is they can be purchased anywhere, vs actually scaling in lategame.

I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather have lategame scaling over buying anywhere....
20 Nov 2018, 19:47 PM
#178
avatar of Jae For Jett
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 990 | Subs: 2

20 Nov 2018, 19:49 PM
#179
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 2825 | Subs: 1

I hardly see the benefice to tech weapon rack before at least having 60 munition but I can see something about grenade being more accessible.
20 Nov 2018, 20:08 PM
#180
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 2343 | Subs: 5

I'm actually so blinded by happiness that airborne might be good and flexible enough to run paths and paras that I'm not even considering potential balance going out the window with min 0 paths.


I think 0CP Pathfinders are great for more diverse and less awkward compositions, and they help early USF with a long range squad that can also scout OST's MG42. I don't think balance is much of an issue as they are very expensive, OKW shouldn't have any trouble with them and Grens will win low-med range engagements.
PAGES (17)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
  • Ostheer flag T.R. 6 squads, 4 maxim 2 engies
  • U.S. Forces flag °NOSMarkov.-
uploaded by KahootKing

Board Info

177 users are online: 7 members and 170 guests
James Hale, A_E, Brick Top, Baba, JibberJabberJobber, Sturmpanther, TheRestaurant
89 posts in the last 24h
798 posts in the last week
4563 posts in the last month
Registered members: 21798
Welcome our newest member, 2jasminee5823ra1
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM