Login

russian armor

UKF September patch discussion

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (18)down
27 Aug 2019, 08:16 AM
#161
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1



I think Make it suppress and AA more reliable, increase traverse speed and improved tracking will make it viable without make it have to shred everything.

As I have suggested for OKW AA I would try 2 firing modes.
One suppress does little damage
One does no suppression but has higher damage

Thus user has his own input.
27 Aug 2019, 10:19 AM
#162
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

I do some further test with the bofor 1.2, now i can move a Volk straight in and toss a flame nade then retreat with 3-4 model, i did it 3,4 time in a row until the bofor is destroyed in cheat mod with fow on.

I see why most axis player said bofor 1.2 is solid change.

This is intended. The bofors isn't as independent as volks are. Bofors is supposed to have an army around it to be worth its cost but volks are supposed to win most engagements frontally and especially against Supression platforms with the micro tax on the not owk player due to their raw independence. This is a well known factor in balancing
27 Aug 2019, 10:26 AM
#163
avatar of Support Sapper

Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1


This is intended. The bofors isn't as independent as volks are. Bofors is supposed to have an army around it to be worth its cost but volks are supposed to win most engagements frontally and especially against Supression platforms with the micro tax on the not owk player due to their raw independence. This is a well known factor in balancing


I know, that's why anything beat volk 1v1 is considered OP.
27 Aug 2019, 10:55 AM
#164
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17875 | Subs: 8

I know one suggestion in the background has been to just raise it to 40 damage, but probably allowing it to better control the zone versus infantry with more suppression would probably be better since 20mm flaks from the 251 and emplacement.

Not easy to determine, but maybe if we can allow UKF to at least get a minor refund on emplacements it'd help.


I don't see why people would get it if it was suppression platform when, well, there is HMG for that.
Also, no one in his right mind would even consider the 15 fuel side unlock, much less the actual emplacement cost.

You need to remember it competes with AEC, it needs to do its job and it needs to do it well enough to give AEC up and pay that 60 fuel minimum(unlock+cost)(it still does cost 45 fuel, right? I literally never even consider to build it over AEC so memory is wonky)


This is intended. The bofors isn't as independent as volks are. Bofors is supposed to have an army around it to be worth its cost but volks are supposed to win most engagements frontally and especially against Supression platforms with the micro tax on the not owk player due to their raw independence. This is a well known factor in balancing


In case you are actually serious here:
So it shouldn't cost more then 10-20 fuel if it isn't even capable of fending off a light vehicle or most basic infantry squad, especially since it exposes you to light vehicle play around whole map by locking AEC out.

Emplacements may not be most pleasent way to play CoH, but this one should be cost efficient given conditions it requires to build, not just "demo charge'd" out of the game.
27 Aug 2019, 14:22 PM
#165
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Aug 2019, 10:55 AMKatitof
Also, no one in his right mind would even consider the 15 fuel side unlock, much less the actual emplacement cost.


That's the core of the problem with it.

It can't retreat, so it's destroyed if it loses an engagement. It's also too expensive to lose. Relic tried to solve this by making it tough enough that you don't lose it, and we've all seen how that ended.

At this point, I think a high investment, generalist, direct-fire emplacement inevitably results in SimCity.


I see two solutions to this problem.

The first is to make it a unit you can afford to lose: make it a cheap but easily destroyed emplacement like an OKW Flak. Enemy blows it up? Just build more.

The second is to make it a specialist: no anti-infantry capability beyond Suppressing Barrage, but 60 range, really good against light vehicles and a threat to mediums that get too close. That'd be a real alternative to the AEC.
27 Aug 2019, 16:07 PM
#166
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Aug 2019, 14:22 PMLago


That's the core of the problem with it.

It can't retreat, so it's destroyed if it loses an engagement. It's also too expensive to lose. Relic tried to solve this by making it tough enough that you don't lose it, and we've all seen how that ended.

At this point, I think a high investment, generalist, direct-fire emplacement inevitably results in SimCity.


I see two solutions to this problem.

The first is to make it a unit you can afford to lose: make it a cheap but easily destroyed emplacement like an OKW Flak. Enemy blows it up? Just build more.

The second is to make it a specialist: no anti-infantry capability beyond Suppressing Barrage, but 60 range, really good against light vehicles and a threat to mediums that get too close. That'd be a real alternative to the AEC.

I feel like that would be really strange. All other flak is AI focused so having one that just isn't at all would be awkward I think
27 Aug 2019, 17:36 PM
#167
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

I feel like that would be really strange. All other flak is AI focused so having one that just isn't at all would be awkward I think


Flaks and autocannons are very inconsistent. Some is accuracy based, some is AoE based. Some suppress, some don't.

The oldest flak gun in the game (the 222 upgrade for the Ostheer 221) was originally trash against infantry.


Personally though, I think cloning the stats and costs off the OKW Flak and removing the cost of the sidetech is a cleaner route.
27 Aug 2019, 19:21 PM
#168
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17875 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Aug 2019, 17:36 PMLago


The oldest flak gun in the game (the 222 upgrade for the Ostheer 221) was originally trash against infantry.

Its still is, most of 222s AI dps comes from coax and really lucky 20mm hits.
27 Aug 2019, 21:44 PM
#169
avatar of Jilet

Posts: 556

The thing that makes Bofors (and actually other emplacements too) is the brace ability. It just turns in a loop.

0> Build.

1> If there is an engagement where bofors will win then cool if not go step 2

2> Brace. Throw the cheap base arty or send in reinforcement or use commander abilities. Won ? Go to step 3. Lost ? Go to step 4.

3> Go to step 1.

4> Lose the game.

Remove the brace ability or lock it behind garrison bonus (Forward HQ does not count) Lower its fuel price or maybe change the fuel with muni. Keep stats as it is. Now we have a non-cancer, fairly counterable, not horrendously expensive to lose building.
29 Aug 2019, 05:09 AM
#170
avatar of Aarotron

Posts: 563

My issue with bofros was alway damage to light vehicles. If 222 ever even ened up close to it and you werent microing it, it was 100% dead. Also smoking it and trying to rush it does not always work as bofros can still target ground.
29 Aug 2019, 10:16 AM
#171
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

My issue with bofros was alway damage to light vehicles. If 222 ever even ened up close to it and you werent microing it, it was 100% dead. Also smoking it and trying to rush it does not always work as bofros can still target ground.

...
That is by no means unreasonable
29 Aug 2019, 10:51 AM
#172
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17875 | Subs: 8

My issue with bofros was alway damage to light vehicles. If 222 ever even ened up close to it and you werent microing it, it was 100% dead. Also smoking it and trying to rush it does not always work as bofros can still target ground.

Go check what OKW cheap flak turrets do to lights up to 30 fuel.
Return here with surprised picachu face.

A unit that costs 3x as much fuel is well justified to perform 3x as good.

Another droplet of wisdom I hope you'll soak is:
"you weren't microing it" argument leads to conscripts killing tigers and isn't any argument.
"you weren't microing it" leads to situations like ullumulu has in his games, where 50 range unit loses to immobile 40 range unit.
29 Aug 2019, 11:13 AM
#173
avatar of Aarotron

Posts: 563

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Aug 2019, 10:51 AMKatitof

Go check what OKW cheap flak turrets do to lights up to 30 fuel.
Return here with surprised picachu face.

A unit that costs 3x as much fuel is well justified to perform 3x as good.

Another droplet of wisdom I hope you'll soak is:
"you weren't microing it" argument leads to conscripts killing tigers and isn't any argument.
"you weren't microing it" leads to situations like ullumulu has in his games, where 50 range unit loses to immobile 40 range unit.


There is diffirence in vehicle dying in one burst that lasts in seconds while your in your given example there is considerable time sunk to perform it. I dont belive there is necessarily other things wrong with unit. And changes that were implemented in this patch are fine for me.
29 Aug 2019, 11:19 AM
#174
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17875 | Subs: 8



There is diffirence in vehicle dying in one burst that lasts in seconds while your in your given example there is considerable time sunk to perform it. I dont belive there is necessarily other things wrong with unit. And changes that were implemented in this patch are fine for me.

There is also considerable cost difference, which you ignored despite me specifically underlining it.

Luchs and T70 also have performance difference favoring T70, but T70 is also considerably more expensive.

Same thing with bofors, especially preview bofors, which is completely impotent now.

Don't blindly a-move your lights into fog of war.
29 Aug 2019, 11:30 AM
#175
avatar of Aarotron

Posts: 563

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Aug 2019, 11:19 AMKatitof

There is also considerable cost difference, which you ignored despite me specifically underlining it.

Luchs and T70 also have performance difference favoring T70, but T70 is also considerably more expensive.

Same thing with bofors, especially preview bofors, which is completely impotent now.

Don't blindly a-move your lights into fog of war.


Yeah cost diffirence i missed but at the same time i dont think cost is issue. I only disliked one part of the unit. It useless to banter about itanymore as the patch version is already implemented. I have nothing more about it.
29 Aug 2019, 12:00 PM
#176
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17875 | Subs: 8



Yeah cost diffirence i missed but at the same time i dont think cost is issue. I only disliked one part of the unit. It useless to banter about itanymore as the patch version is already implemented. I have nothing more about it.

Cost and scaling are always issues you can't ignore.
Especially if you are putting cheap unit against expensive one and expect cheap performance from expensive one or vice versa.
29 Aug 2019, 12:13 PM
#177
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Aug 2019, 11:19 AMKatitof

There is also considerable cost difference, which you ignored despite me specifically underlining it.

Luchs and T70 also have performance difference favoring T70, but T70 is also considerably more expensive.

Same thing with bofors, especially preview bofors, which is completely impotent now.

Don't blindly a-move your lights into fog of war.


Doesn't a 222 see far enough to not get blindsided anyways?
29 Aug 2019, 13:13 PM
#179
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

Churchill needs to be limited to 2 on the field or nerfed. It is too good as recently shown in 1v1 USA patch tourney.
29 Aug 2019, 13:22 PM
#180
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

Churchill needs to be limited to 2 on the field or nerfed. It is too good as recently shown in 1v1 USA patch tourney.


One match in which the Ostheer player did not produce the adequate counters (no snares or Tellers to slow them down, nothing to spot for the StuGs to use their range advantage, not getting at least one Panther to tank the damage for the StuGs, not using Pak 40s for their stun rounds) doesn't really prove anything.

That said, it will very likely receive a very minor price increase and one additional popcap (up to 19) for the final patch to better match its "performance" (mostly having 1400 hitpoints and decent armor). I personally think Churchills are only a problem when 2-3 of them are deployed simultaneously.

Instead of Churchills being used tactically as a damage sponge for other units, at the moment they are mostly just being spammed en masse to overwelm the enemy with their sheer number of hitpoints alone, so hopefully the higher popcap will make it very hard to build 3 of them and still have anything of an army left around them. Without support, they should be easier to counter.
PAGES (18)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

425 users are online: 2 members and 423 guests
Valeran, aerafield
17 posts in the last 24h
43 posts in the last week
97 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44644
Welcome our newest member, felayo364
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM