How about a fun tourney with a 100% abandon chance mod.
I'd watch that
Speaking purely theoretically, I actually think 100% abandonment chance would be far superior to whatever low % chance it is in COH2 right now (though obviously I would rather it be 0%).
If a mechanic was consistent, it can be planned around. If a mechanic occurs only rarely, especially when said mechanic also can represent a HUGE resource shift from one side to the other, it is broken. This is why plane crashes were nerfed, because they rarely happened (maybe 1 ever 10 games), and had the potential to instantly lose a player the game. |
Great list. Agree on most of it. One thing I don't personally feel the same way about is grenade dodging, but I've seen umtiple people mention it. To me the bar that appears is almost too obvious, although it is probably a placeholder anyways.
I think what he meant is that the actual animation of the grenade being thrown is almost impossible to catch, in part because of the farther out zoom, and in part because of the animations being very subdued compared to those in coh2 (which were very obvious, with long and animated windups.) In addition, I'm just not a fan of denoting something that used to be immersive (seeing a grenade being thrown and hearing the troops callout) with a simple UI bar. COH to me has always been great because of how alive the battlefield feels; that you don't feel like you are playing with toys on a map, but living soldiers.
I do however, disagree with his point about the audible warnings for grenades. No-one can spend 100% of their time watching engagements, and the grenade callouts make for good gameplay and user feedback. |
17-lber should be the counter to the JT, as a stationary AT weapon should be the counter to a heavy tank destroyer. Especially now that the Stuka's incendiary barrage was moved from vet 4, OKW has no excuse to complain about British emplacements.
It's not like the JT doctrine doesn't also have an offmap to help attack emplaced positions either. JT barrage range should be reduced so the vehicle can't just sit a mile away and fire (not like it doesn't already have very high armor to protect it when enemies get in range). |
IS-2 used to have 240 damage with better AI and reload of 9 sec until 2014 and people did not like it.
So they changed that with better AT gun/160 damage and 6.4 secs reload.
You know, except that it had actually garbage AI because it had terrible scatter and couldn't hit either tanks or infantry when it did fire...
The issue wasn't the 240 damage and slow fire rate (in which case people would never use the ISU-152), but the accuracy/ scatter. |
Personally, I think the IS2 is crippled by being originally designed in COH as an analogue to the Tiger 1, when historically it was closer to the Tiger 2 in terms of armor protection and firepower. If I could redesign the unit from the ground up, I would make it a heavily armored, slow RoF vehicle with the same main gun damage stats as the KT (Slower reload obviously.) To compensate for slow RoF, it should instead have faster movement speed than the KT, and maybe a wider AoE on each shell so it damages infantry in a wider radius (but doesn't kill anymore than the KT does.)
It would obviously have to be priced around as much as a KT with these changes though. |
They also lack even enough pen to pen the front of a P4 consistently, and are not really that mobile in comparison to other tanks when not using flanking speed. I would like to see more stats before I can be sure that it needs a buff, but it is sorely lacking as USF's sole lategame AT vehicle. (Especially when you don't even have HVAP rounds unless you choose to go for the mechanized support building.) |
Penals + Fight to the Death is borderline broken IMO. The accuracy buffs turns the penals into actual terminators, even against retreating troops. Most players don't realize how effective your penals become, and may retreat too late, only to get squad wiped. It also helps your penals vet quickly, which they usually struggle to do.
Bonus: if your enemy starts blobbing to focus fire you when you pop your abilities, just propoganda arty them. |
Problem with the stuart is very lackluster AI performance, but also not that great AT capability. In terms of anti-tank, it is better than the T-70, but realistically can only engage the exact same units as the T70 and expect to win (halftracks, scout cars, luchs, rocket artillery).
I wouldn't want to buff the Stuart's AI, in case it makes USF midgame too oppressive, but maybe a pen buff to make it more consistent against medium tanks (which the Stuart should be able to support in attacks against like the AEC). |
Snipers need to be reworked from a design perspective. I like the idea of a unit that outranges weapon teams and attacks them from a distance, but can be pushed off easily...
Oh wait, a mortar already fulfils that role.
So, instead of being a long range kiting damage dealer, IMO snipers should be turned into recon first units. This way, they would fulfil a valuable role in game, which is not really represented by any of the core units (Infantry Recon/ Stealth Recon).
How to do this? Well, I would make Snipers small squad size (2 to 4-man) Recon teams, with a paid ability that allows them to snipe a specific model, with a cooldown (This ability could also provide a burst of suppression or a short stun). These recon teams should get moving cloak, and have access to other abilities that synergize with them being used for recon (IE flares or maybe radio beacons). They will be able to fight, but should have DPS curves tailored for longer range combat (or at least different ranges than the owning faction's mainline infantry).
With these changes, snipers become far less frustrating to fight, far more consistent to use, and fulfil a new, unique role in every army's core composition. In addition, there will be plenty of space to differentiate these Recon teams for each faction asymmetrically.
---
I know this likely won't happen in COH2, but I hope something like this happens in COH3. |
With all the recent USF threads popping up recently and the fact this has gone on for 6 pages makes me feel like its evident that USF MP bleed is real or at the very least in need of some tech adjustments.
I've already suggest give USF a similar MP cost decrease late game akin to OST and Sovs.
Change to MP bleed:
Once major is on the field, decrease reinforce cost for rifles by 1~2, RE's by 1~2 (needs tested to)
Changes to tech that might help mitigate USF problems back teching problem:
move AT/.50 to T0, still require tier unlock. once cpt/lt building is upgraded allow for the building of the other support unit type respectively.
Can the community balance team at least attempt at making a change to see how well it scales in a beta patch?
I don't want it to be a free unlock, if adopted. I always liked the idea of side techs, as they add strategic depth. In addition, the rifle manpower issue only really shows up far lategame IMO. I would put it behind a side-tech in the HQ, which can be purchased at either Major tier or all 3 officer unlocks. We don't want US getting another powerspike so quickly, after their strong midgame. |