While I don't question your test result in the slightest, I doubt you drew the right conclusions from it.
In theory, both arty pieces should have a near 50/50 chance of winning a direct duel since they are virtual carbon copies of each other in every combat-relevant stat (now even more so with the number of shots per salvo being equalized as well). Still, that's not likely what you're going to see if you test it, say, 10 times in a row. An 80% dominance for either side out of 10 trials isn't much more unlikely than getting the expected 50/50 outcome. The reason is that each individual fight has a huge variance in possible outcomes due to RNG, ranging from 2-shot wipes within the first 2 shells fired to not even scratching the HP pool with a full barrage. You'd need to perform more than 100 or even 1,000 tests to get an accurate picture of the actual win chance.
The analogy would be to set up a duel between two KV-1s, for which the actual T2K should have a variance of similar magnitude. Even though the expected win chance is squarely 50%, taking the average out of 10 trials will almost certainly differ wildly from that.
Hence, unless you tested it (way) more than at least a hundred times I'd be careful to claim the leFH is way superior to the ML-20 in a direct arty duel.
You're still wrong. The ML-20 always fires less, it just isn't as bad as it was before. The ML-20 always fires 9 now instead of starting at 8. The LEFH fires 10. The last test I did was several patches ago so it wouldn't be quite as bad on an artillery duel, but all the other points remain the same. The LEFH vets faster, particularly if you can set it up within range of the USF base. Also, nobody builds arty to counter other arty. Arty is at best a soft counter to other arty so talking about an arty duel is just a red herring.
As for your comment An 80% dominance for either side out of 10 trials isn't much more unlikely than getting the expected 50/50 outcome., all you did was tell everyone that you've never taken a statistics class. Binomial distributions are covered in the first couple weeks. The probability of 80% for one side is 4.4% versus 24.6% for a 50/50 split. Those two numbers really aren't about the same. |
Do howitzer FoW penalties apply for each shell going out individually or when the barrage is cast? It can be quite difficult to hold recon planes up nowadays with how potent AA has become.
I'm pretty sure that it is when the individual shell is fired, based on having used cheatmod and toggling FOW. |
I think you quoted Sander out of context. His post was clearly about which of the two arty pieces has a better chance of winning a direct arty duel and why, not so much which is the better investment in a game.
Also, your facts aren't up to date or free of a good dose of bias either. The LeFH has only one extra shell per barrage (and at Vet 1 the ML-20 gets an extra shell at which point both are more or less equal). I'm not sure if the difference in squad size of the targets both guns are facing even makes any difference, as most often this is offset by lower XP value per entity for larger squads. Also, with the same line of arguing you could claim the ML-20 is actually the one that vets up faster since it will deal more damage per shot vs vehicles.
Not even close to being correct.
I used to test them head-to-head on two computers with two accounts. The LEFH won roughly 80% of the time. Also, your argument about vehicles is specious. In the rare case that it hits a vehicle, players simply move it. Hitting a lot of infantry does make the howitzers vet faster.
The only points in this thread that seem correct are the ones that Descolata makes. It's marginally okay against OKW when they stack their trucks. |
This is what we call bias.
The LeFH and ML-20 have the exact same scatter (accuracy) stats on the normal barrages.
They also have practically the same AOE profile, although it's slightly in favour of the ML-20 (94.1 AOE score for LeFH vs 101.5 for ML-20).
However, the ML-20 deals 200 damage on direct hits while the LeFH deals 160, giving the ML-20 a small edge in killing the other because it only needs two direct hits to kill the weapon (400 health) while the LeFH needs three.
It's the ML-20 that ultimately holds the advantage, although not by much.
Are you sure that he is the one that is biased?
The LEFH shoots two more shells per barrage. It shoots at squads that typically have more entities so it vets faster. It LOVES USF, as most every shot into the base will hit something. Also, when an ambulance is spotted, it forces a micro tax as the USF will either have to move the ambulance and Major or risk having their units randomly disappear.
I'll build a LEFH most every time I see a team with no counters to it. I build a ML20 in the rare times when I don't care if I lose and want to experiment to try to find a way to make it work.
If you're going to try to claim that the ML20 is better, post a replay where you beat someone at your level using one. |
I have been playing COH since I have known myself. It's been a good game.
Even COH2 after all these patches still gets more things right than wrong and that's why it's quite popular in the declining RTS market.
So I have played the Alpha COH3. Nevermind the graphical glitches, the overpowered units and the unfinished art, the real problem is that the company thinks that "involving" the community more will make a better game.
And it will not. I have some arguments for this. I might be wrong of course. I'm looking for a discussion, not a pronunciamento.
- The community cannot balance shit, because this is normally a job reserved for real professionals who have in-depth knowledge of what "balance" means in the context of the game to be made. The players should only be there to give opinion on closed environments. Something like what all good RTS companies have done since the dawn of time. AoE and AoEII had 200 ppl closed betas that met more like pals for a nice evening than gamers.
- The community cannot balance shit, because the players want their own faction to win. As they are not designers, they don't realize the scale of balance and also the model which seeks to be adopted. Most players, myself included, act emotionally to some things. I can't even get a grip on the number of times when many people lost to a specific unit, calling it OP and demanding its nerf.
- I guess I'm kinda nostalgic, seeing that COH 1 didn't really have that many updates (leaving aside expansion packs). It was a game. You liked it, you played it as it was. You didn't like it, you didn't play it again. It was simple. I realize it was horribly unbalanced in many departments (too USF friendly in some aspects, particularly PE vs USF).
So, in a nutshell, I just really want COH3 to succeed. RTS is slowly dying, let's not kid ourselves. I hope Relic won't fuck this up. AOE4 seems decent and its numbers are healthy. I can see there still is a demand.
Hard disagree. The patches that Relic put out were the worst. I remember one where they nerfed the bazooka because it looked too good in their spreadsheet. A "professional" is just someone who is paid to do something. That doesn't mean that they are competent.
My biggest problem with the community balance team is that they don't seem to listen to anyone that plays random 4v4's and won't address the couple units that make that unbalanced. Those units (Walking Stuka, LEFH, and Sturmtiger) are within scope. All of them can be countered when you're playing as a team but it gets really boring having to play as a team and picking the same two or three commanders every game. The flip side of that is that those same units are really mediocre in 1v1 and 2v2. |
Looking for your Opinions. Pls vote.
Cheers!
If you have other ideas, pls write them here down 
Buff the Scott's barrage so that it is more like a mobile howitzer, which it was, instead of a mobile direct-fire mortar. Nerf the autofire. |
I can't stand people who quit early in team games, it takes so long to find matches sometimes. I haven't noticed a pattern with a specific faction, but I can render a guess about USF
Their late game in team modes is the worst of any faction imo. If you don't go calliope, 2x AT guns will counter pretty much any fuel investment you build except maybe a 105 dozer
They rely on early/mid more than anyone so if that doesn't go well, the impatient players probably just quit. Would like to see a little more punishment for quitters in CoH3. Although they probably need to improve the matchmaking first lol
Or maybe the balance team could fix their late game? OKW always has a KT, Panther, and PIV available. USF often has no meatshield other than a couple doctrinal tanks. |
|
The fix that it needs is that the right side needs more ways to approach the center, not something that makes it better for arty. |
I was playing a game today and a KT bounded 13 consecutive shells from an AT overwtach. Is it supposed to do that???? I could have sworn that even ELE's didn't do that.
I don't remember it being nerfed. It's been okay but don't think it's really OP. I'd bet it was a lot more near misses than actual bounces. |
And this is the problem with like half the playerbase. Anytime someone says something is OP, a bunch of people come whining about the closest thing on the opposing side they can think of
One of my teammates complained about ST in chat yesterday. The guy who was using it said "just get AVRE". Our team had 2 soviet players and 1 USF. Critical thinking skills 10/10
Like maybe the AVRE is dumb too? I wouldn't know, since I literally never see it or use it
It moves too slow, doesn't seem to bounce much, and the turret often causes more problem than it's worth. The range is short so everything sees it and can move out of the way. It didn't shoot through sight blockers the last time I used it. You'd have to get really creative with smoke and other units to get it even somewhat usable. Even then, it seems like your micro and resources would be better spent on just about anything else. |
![Orange Zombie [ROK] flag](/images/replay/ostheer_flag.jpg)
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
