16 Dec 2020, 22:28 PMVipper
May I suggested that avoid opening discussion about who is favoring what in the feedback thread, it is rather nonconstructive.
God forbid I point out the obvious. You had better censor me!
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] USF Feedback16 Dec 2020, 23:05 PM
16 Dec 2020, 22:28 PMVipper
God forbid I point out the obvious. You had better censor me!
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] USF Feedback16 Dec 2020, 22:59 PM
9 Dec 2020, 15:19 PMthedarkarmadillo
9 Dec 2020, 15:19 PMthedarkarmadillo
I'm just now seeing your response here, so I'll take it point by point.
I was trying to give you an oopsie out for trying to compare a barrage only vehicle that delays armour by minutes to an auto fire super mortar that could wipe squads at any time without warning.
As for me introducing the Walking Stuka into the conversation, my point is that it has a huge impact on 4v4 gameplay, especially on maps with chokepoints. There's a reason I use it all the time, even often preferring to field it before the Panzer IV Ausf. J, which is a great unit itself. The Walking Stuka definitely has a more devastating impact upon gameplay on certain maps, some of which I already mentioned (Lanzerath Ambush, Port of Hamburg, Essen Steelworks, etc.). I'm well aware that the Walking Stuka, Scott, and Pack Howitzer are very different, and that the Stuka costs much more fuel to field. My point is that here we are weakening the USF's Pack Howitzer and Scott, which pale in comparison to the Walking Stuka and the domination it brings to a dense battlefield, at a time when the USF's nondoctrinal artillery power is already woefully inadequate by late team-game standards. I think you know where I'm going with this.
the enemy outplaying you or map issues doesn't make the comparison better if you have an issue with the Stuka make a stuka thread, don't try to use it to somehow justify the pak howi being too strong. And for the record, the audio cue is what in part makes the Stuka OK. It's not a wipe out of nowhere like the pak howi
Dropping gargantuan bombs in a small chokepoint where anybody with a brain is virtually guaranteed to inflict heavy damage does not exactly classify as 'outplaying' anyone, in my book. I don't have an issue with the Stuka at all. It's an effective weapon, leave it that way. My issue is that some people come here and complain about the potency of two weapons (the Pack Howitzer and M8A1 Scott) that have far less potential in 4v4s, and now we see the USF's non-doctrinal artillery options further weakened into obsolescence. The audio cue is reasonable for the Walking Stuka, but it still doesn't mean an expert can't get hammered by it. If that were the case, other experts wouldn't use it. They do.
you are missing the point entirely. Fuel cost is not insignificant. The Stuka costs more than regular proper arty, and building it delays proper armour by minutes for a chance to wipe every minute or so. The pak howi costs no fuel and delays nothing while possibly wiping every few seconds.
I never said fuel cost was insignificant, and have acknowledged this multiple times now. You are missing my point when I say that non-doctrinal USF artillery is the worst of all of the factions already, and that weakening it further does absolutely nothing but make the USF less playable at a competitive level in team game matches. If these weapons are going to be weakened, the USF has got to get some other non-doctrinal artillery options, or at least allow all commanders to call in a Pershing, in just the same way that all OKW players can call in a King Tiger. It's that simple.
I know you are pretty new here but I'm well aware of the plight of team games and also that usf does quite well in them despite the lack of rocket arty.
I'm not sure if you're taking a shot at me for being new to the forum, or if you're simply pointing out that I'm unaware of your own awareness of the plight of team games (fair point - I don't know you too well), but I have played this game enough to believe that I can contribute a meaningful perspective to issues with team game balance. I concur with your assessment that the USF can perform well in team games, if you're happy with just making Jacksons every single game (and hiding them from virtually every other unit on the battlefield), or doctrinally fielding a Calliope or Priest from 3 commanders in the late game. Apart from being boring and repetitive, the lack of potent non-doctrinal artillery and heavy tanks discourages the use of all but a few USF commanders. This is simply bad for the game. That's my opinion.
I'm aware how early an okw player can field rocket arty. I've been playing this game since before it released and understand that if you play passively the Stuka will punish that. A properly micro medium will be equally devistating and higher impact however. Not that it's relevant to the discussion outside a reference point as to how expensive the Stuka is.
It's hard to quantitatively measure comparative efficacy between units like these, but, anecdotally, I have deduced that the Walking Stuka's team game infantry-killing power dwarfs that of the M8A1 Scott or the Pack Howitzer, yet the latter two are the target of the most recent AI nerfs. Do you see where I'm going with this? It doesn't make sense for a faction whose non-doctrinal artillery capability is already the worst in the game to have its current abilities beaten down even further. Add to this the long-established issue that the USF has no heavy tanks and you can see why players always choose the same few USF commanders in team games, or simply opt to forgo USF altogether and choose the UKF or the Soviets when playing on the Allied side.
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] General Discussion16 Dec 2020, 21:43 PM
14 Dec 2020, 20:34 PMKatitof
Probably, but "vipper doesn't like how it is now" isn't exactly a valid reason to even start considering the option and literally no one ever complained about their default weapons being too strong or weak.
I'm new to these forums, and admittedly don't have a ton of time to read every single post, but I have already seen the way that conversations are routinely driven by fanboys opposing any positive changes that could help improve their least favorite faction's competitiveness in team games. Can't we do better than this as a community, for the sake of more-interesting gameplay?
The fact that we have certain factions, commanders, and units getting virtually no use in competitive matches is driving people to play with the same of the aforementioned again and again. Good players won't deviate far from them if they have any real desire to win matches. Frankly, it makes the game boring and less enjoyable to play. Can we do a statistical analysis of the commanders, abilities, units, etc. which are used least often, and propose some changes to them to bring them into relevancy? I'm proposing this for *all* factions, not just those factions I play (or like) the most. Or is this underway already?
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback9 Dec 2020, 23:34 PM
9 Dec 2020, 16:05 PMAlphrum
initially, penals PTRS was suppose to be this last ditch option, if you had no other AT or lost your AT and you needed AT badly, that's where you can give penals PTRS as a last option and yet this stupid unit has received constant buffs. I can see it needing buffs from maybe a 1v1 prospective only but in team games penals bobs are some of the most common and effective blobs in 3v3's and 4v4's and this is just encouraging it.
Hmm, "effective" PTRS Penal Battalion blobs? Versus light vehicles, absolutely. Versus other infantry, absolutely not. Any time I've ever made 3 PTRS Penal Battalions, I haven't taken a single great infantry-versus-infantry fight with them. They are lousy versus other infantry once fitted with the PTRS rifles, so a Soviet player had better have a plan for countering Axis infantry. PTRS Penals will never cut it against any half-decent Axis player's infantry.
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] USF Feedback9 Dec 2020, 08:20 AM
9 Dec 2020, 05:02 AMthedarkarmadillo
Just so we're *clear here*, I am fairly certain that there is only one "Walking Stuka" in the game, and that is the rocket artillery. I clearly stated "Walking Stuka" - to be clear
Even if you hear the sound effect, retreating your troops can inadvertently cause you to lose more to the strike. Any decent player will mix it up and attack your retreat line, knowing that you may run or reposition your troops when you hear the rockets going off, and end up retreating or even just moving into the explosion. Some maps have smaller passageways where dispersing your forces can't always be done in a rapid or effective way (Port of Hamburg, Essen Steelworks, Lanzerath Ambush, etc.). Surely you're aware of all of this. Then again, you didn't know what a Walking Stuka was, and you have a "#stalinwept" signature on your profile, so I can only imagine the level of sarcasm you bring to an honest conversation.
A lone allied medium tank won't make it very far getting tangled up with even a single Raketenwerfer/Pak 40 and a single snare, mine, etc. If you played 4v4 COH2, you'd know exactly what I'm talking about. Getting a Walking Stuka out at CP 3 is much more devastating in 4v4 team games, and doesn't carry nearly the same risk that rushing a medium tank does. I routinely do more damage with a Walking Stuka than I do with the T34/76, which doesn't scale nearly as well into the late game. Ask any Allied player what he fears more from OKW: A Walking Stuka or a Panzer IV?
I appreciate the condescension, but nothing you say can distract nor detract from the reality that the US faction is non-doctrinally lacking in strong artillery and armor (and, thanks to this latest patch, is getting even worse), which was the point I think I've very clearly made by now. So, if you want to nitpick and play semantics games with me in an effort to deny reality and tell me that the sky is green, that's your prerogative. I've made my case and it's my opinion after spending a lot of time playing 4v4s, which I suspect you aren't too familiar with. Conversely, maybe you know very well what I'm talking about but aren't objective enough to acknowledge it here. That's fine, too.
P.S. An OKW player can usually field the Walking Stuka before a Soviet, British, or American player can field a medium tank. By the time the Allied player gets a tank with his fuel, you can easily have multiple Raketenwerfers and snare-capable infantry to crush it. There is a reason some expert Soviet players will create a Katyusha before they create a T34/76. The same can be said for OKW players who opt for the early Walking Stuka. It has the potential to do a heck of a lot more damage, and survive for a lot longer into the match. It's often more efficient. You don't have to keep it too close to the danger on the battlefield and can still inflict a lot of damage.
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] USF Feedback8 Dec 2020, 22:48 PM
Look, without letting this debate get too acrimonious, I will try to make my point clearer, even though I suspect you already know exactly what I'm saying. Let me boil this down once more.
In competitive 4v4 team games, most USF players choose the same commanders again and again (Calliope, Priest, maybe Airborne, or whatever), if they even choose USF at all. It gets old. The USF has no non-doctrinal rocket artillery, and even its doctrinal artillery comes no where near as quickly to the battlefield as the Stuka, which, as I mentioned, I often rush in by the absurdly early time frame of CP 3. You're waiting until CP 9 for the Priest, and CP 10 for the Calliope. It's not even close. Yes, I understand that they're not exactly the same, and that there's good reason for the later arrival of those pieces. That said, the Walking Stuka is still devastatingly effective at an extremely early stage of the game, when players are even less able to handle large blows to their populations. I'm not complaining about that or saying that that should necessarily be changed. That said, I don't agree with weakening the Pack Howitzer and the Scott.
Furthermore, the USF doesn't have any heavy tanks, with the exception of the Pershing, which, with the same durability as the Panther, isn't as strong as the Tiger, Tiger Ace, King Tiger, etc., and only one can be fielded at a time. And now, we're nerfing the two non-doctrinal artillery pieces, which, in my opinion, aren't anywhere near as powerful as the non-doctrinal rocket artillery offered to other factions (the Walking Stuka, Katyusha, and Panzerwerfer). The Brits are a bit lacking in non-doctrinal artillery, too, but at least they have the base howitzers to handle some static emplacements and offer some area of denial for a while.
Do you see why this imbalance is a problem in 4v4 team games? It pushes USF players into choosing the commanders which have the Calliope and Priest if they want to stand any chance in the late game. Jacksons are great, but have no anti-infantry potential, and are extremely vulnerable to just about everything else on the map. Again, picking USF just to go Jacksons every single game is boring, yet, aside from the doctrinal artillery available to three commanders, you don't really have any other choice but to do so when it comes to contributing meaningfully in the late game (if you want to win, anyway). So, now that I see the Pack Howitzers and M8A1 Scott being weakened, I'm scratching my head. The USF is now, non-doctrinally, going to be even worse against those clustered, late game environments, and yet have no heavy tanks to deal with those environments, either. I don't get it. It's like the 4v4 game isn't even taken into consideration by the balance team.
For the record, I'm not a die-hard Allies fan. I would be happy to see improvements made to the Axis factions, as well. I would argue that the King Tiger should receive a range/vision buff. It's expensive, slow, and takes up a lot of population. Another point - I don't think it's necessary to see the 5-man Grenadier squad removed/weakened. I don't think it's too much to have a commander with really strong infantry. When I play with the USF, I don't mind struggling against 5-man Grenadier squads. I want the game to be fair and competitive, and I love the uphill challenge that the Allies face when there are Elefants and Jagdtigers on the back of the battlefield, with LEFH's raining hell down on everything. I just want there to be some more viable options for the USF, so that all of their commanders can get use. It's the only faction in the game that doesn't have heavy armor and non-doctrinal rocket artillery, and that makes them, in my opinion, the hardest faction to play in 4v4 team games. Again, non-doctrinally, you've got the Jackson for the late game, and that's about it. It's extremely boring.
For the sake of keeping the game balanced and yet still interesting, additional weapons (I suggested some in previous posts) which the US historically used during WWII should be on the table to give the faction some more late game potential. The 203mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M43 (used at Cologne) and the truck-mounted rocket artillery (similar to a Katyusha) used by the US Marine Corps at Iwo Jima comes to mind. I'm also for expanding the Axis factions so that Axis players don't similarly get bored with choosing the Elefant and Jagdtiger commanders in game after game (although at least they all have access to Panthers, Stukas and Panzerwerfers to reliably deal with decent armor and congested defensive positions, respectively). The Japanese and other factions should be added at some point, too, though maybe this would be best left for COH3.
I forgive you for saying that I'm making a ludicrous argument, but I don't think there's anything ludicrous about what I'm saying at all. My intention is not to compare each Allied unit to each Axis unit. I understand, that, in some cases, that would be like comparing apples and oranges. I'm not looking to do that. Asymmetry is what makes this game interesting. If all things were equal, the game would be boring. All I'm saying is that, in the case of the USF, there is nothing in the way of non-doctrinal rocket artillery or heavy tanks to compare to the Axis factions. Such USF weapons simply do not exist. And that's a problem. Compounding that problem by weakening the Pack Howitzer and the M8A1 Scott just doesn't make good sense to me from a team game perspective, but if it's going to be done, the price for those units has got to come down accordingly, so that there is at least some compensation for the change. I agree that the Pack Howitzer is still better than the LEIG, in most situations (although, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't the LEIG maintain its 100 auto-fire range while the Pack Howitzer can only auto-fire at 80?). I'm pretty sure the Pack Howitzer only gets 20+ range than the LEIG when it is barraging units, but I could be wrong - haven't checked the tools in a while.
As for your argument of removing the Calliope and the Priest, then Zeroing, Assault Artillery, and the likes would have to go, and, before you know it, every weapon in the game would have to be removed for the sake of 'equality'. I'm happy to see some factions better at certain aspects of the game than others. But for the USF to be missing both the non-doctrinal rocket artillery and heavy tank options, their other weapons had better be quite strong if they are to have a chance in the 4v4 landscape. And that means maintaining the strength of support weapons like the Pack Howitzer and .50 Cal machine gun, which, in light of the latest balance patch, is not currently happening. Maybe those weapons are "overpowered" in the eyes of 1v1 players, but in big, late team games, they hardly compensate for the lack of the non-doctrinal rocket artillery and heavy tanks that I have been highlighting here. Perhaps separate balance patches for 1v1 and 4v4 game modes is necessary.
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] USF Feedback8 Dec 2020, 19:45 PM
8 Dec 2020, 18:21 PMPip
Major artillery produces a flare, alerting the enemy to the oncoming barrage. Walking Stukas and Panzerwerfers do not, and you know this very well. I spread my forces out as much as possible against OKW players - I'm not stupid. But the span of the Stuka strike is wide, and there are *multiple* bombs that can hit *multiple* squads. And if you water your force concentration down too low in an area, do you really control it?
As for your comments about the LEIG, as I said - if you want to weaken the Pack Howitzer, let's say, to the LEIG level, then the pricetag should come down as well. Problem solved. Furthermore, the White Phosphorous doesn't come until Vet 1.
When it comes to the Pack Howitzer, you're wrong about it not requiring fuel. You have to pay fuel to unlock the Pack Howitzer in the first place. And, in any case, it cannot be driven away in a hurry like the Panzerwerfer or Walking Stuka - so why would it cost fuel? The Pack Howitzer doesn't have an engine.
The Pack, along with the Scott, give the USF powerful, long-ranged bleeding tools, that both have actual attacks when they aren't firing a barrage (unlike the Stuka, incidentally). Again, i'm not sure why you think they're an analogue to Rocket Artillery, though if you'd really like to make the comparison for some reason, the Pack Howitzer costs 50 less MP and doesn't cost any fuel. The Scott also costs 130 less manpower and 25 less fuel than the Stuka. The population (Pack 8, Scott 10, Stuka 12) are also rather different.
You're making my point for me. Again, the USF has no non-doctrinal rocket artillery. The only non-doctrinal artillery the USF has is the Pack Howitzer and the M8A1 Scott. And now they're both being substantially weakened. Do you understand how that might be a problem in team games?
You're welcome to use the USF mortar instead, if you do think that's somehow a comparable tool. I don't know where the Pack Howitzer stands in the USF arsenal at the moment, but you're making some pretty ludicrous arguments.
Which part of my argument is ludicrous? The part where I'm factually pointing out that the US has no non-doctrinal rocket artillery, but has some weaker weapons, the Pack Howitzer and the M8A1 Scott, which are now being significantly weakened?
You dodged my question about adding non-doctrinal rocket artillery to the US faction to balance its late-game feasibility in team matches. Do you think that would be fair?
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] USF Feedback8 Dec 2020, 17:31 PM
"The pack howie is powerful, the issue was that it was TOO powerful. Whether the changes were "too much" remains to be seen."
...But it's alright for the Walking Stuka to come out at CP3 and wipe out defensive positions and multiple squads (Pack Howitzers included!) in a heartbeat, though, right?
If the pack howitzer is receiving a ~33% AOE nerf, then its MP cost needs to be markedly reduced as well. Weakening its performance but leaving its cost at 340 makes no sense at all. A USF player might as well just go for some cheap mortars and skip the unit altogether, which is what Axis fans seem to want, and to whom they're being catered by the balance team.
Again, a point which you completely dodged from prior posts is the fact that the USF has no strong non-doctrinal artillery like the Panzerwerfer, Katyusha, Walking Stuka, or UK Base Howitzers. The Pack Howitzer and the M8A1 Scott are all the non-doctrinal artillery a USF player has, and they were already weak options to begin with compared to said weapons. And yet, some people are still complaining about these weapons, while they busy themselves Stuka-ing Allied positions at CP3. Even if the Scott were as good as the Stuka, one can't even field it until the Major comes out. Meanwhile, the LEIG slaps mortars, MG's, and infantry around while costing just 30 MP more than a mortar.
I find it really tiring to play with the same few USF commanders again and again, knowing that powerful non-doctrinal artillery options don't exist, and knowing that there is only 1 USF commander with a heavy tank (though it's got no more HP/armor than a Panther, and so isn't really a 'heavy' tank, anyway)...
The USF will simply have to receive comparable non-doctrinal artillery to become competitive late in team games. Do you have any opposition to that, Pip?
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] USF Feedback7 Dec 2020, 05:32 AM
30 Nov 2020, 23:46 PMProtos Angelus
I was surely using the HVAP rounds.
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] USF Feedback30 Nov 2020, 23:27 PM
30 Nov 2020, 21:21 PMSander93
That's what I said! But it happened. Maybe the 325 value is outdated? I'll have to check the COH2 tools again.