Profile of general_gawain

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 905

General Information


Thread: Can we revive Mechanized?9 Nov 2021, 00:35 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Nov 2021, 00:28 AMApplejack ... Thanks for putting so much effort into it. The math you just showed lead to the nerf: - Standard shell reload from 4.1/4.5 to 4.85/5.25 So the math isn't the actual one. Together with previous WC51 nerfs and the removal of Dozer blade, this seemed to be too much to cover the weak spots of this commander anymore. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can we revive Mechanized?9 Nov 2021, 00:14 AM Jump back to quoted post8 Nov 2021, 21:18 PMBetterDead ThanRed regarding ''least picked commander'', some commander is bound to be at the bottom....... Yeah sure, someone has to be. But have a closer look: Ostheer/Soviet: Their abiliites get used multiple times at a "hundred" commanders. The one with the least appealing mix of the recycled abilities lands at bottom. I don't care, because they add nothing to the game I can't get elsewhere. UKF: Advanced Emplacement is ranked least. Emplacements never fitted this games, were either op or up and are somehow disturbing game mechanics. Good that this commander is ranked last place. OKW: Scavenge Doctrine is at bottom. Youg get JLI, that you get at Overwatch too. Only unique OKW unit ist Ostwind, but of course it is just a direct copy of the Ostheer unit. Boring, deserves to be last. USF: Three unique units and two units you only get at one other company in each case. One of the unique units (WC51) would allow different openings if it wouldn't have been nerfed that harsh (WC51), a second one (Cav Rifles) should allow different openings by getting CP requirement lowered to 0 (and upgrades bound to tech). Company adds five units to a roster which really needs some variation. No other company does that. Sad, that this one is last. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can we revive Mechanized?8 Nov 2021, 19:40 PM 76mm has standard shell of Sherman with better RoF and penetration. Instead of the M4A3 HE shell it has an AP shell. I thought about two variations which could make the 76mm more tempting to take: 1) What if 76mm would have HE shell and AP shell instead, of course seperated by the 5 seconds shell switch? Would be interesting to have two specialized shells that need some foresight (and recon) plus user input to be used effectively versus the right targets. 2) Or let 76mm have HE shell and its already better standard shell but with AP mun as an ability that cost munition to activate. Both variations would be more of a straight upgrade of the M4A3 similar to T34/85 beeing a straight upgrade of T34/76. Atm I do think 76mm isn't that attractive because M4A3 is just better at infantry killing while 76mm is no match for M36 at killing tanks. A 76mm that has the M4A3 stats versus infantry plus the option to be better versus tanks could be more interesting and would justify a higher cost and maybe the doctrinal choice too. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: USF Pathfinders need to be balanced7 Nov 2021, 18:32 PM Jump back to quoted post7 Nov 2021, 10:22 AMVonManteuffel You call 30MP reinforcement cost for a 4 men squad expensive? Cool! Then OKW Jägers are SUPER-expensive with 35MP cost... 30MP is expensive indeed for a squishy 4-man unit which neither starts with something like 0,8 to 0,7 received accuracy, some sort of body armor or a super high dps (glasscanon style). Jagers start with 0,8 and go up to 0,46 in stages until they are fully vetted. They are better in real dps too. You just can't compare. Jump back to quoted post7 Nov 2021, 10:22 AMVonManteuffel And your whole argumentation targets at a skillful playstyle. Sorry, but we talk about players with very much skill and even they struggle hard and have almost no chance. So don't argue with skill and l2p issues. Thats none of the reason. At this point I should clarify the core of the issue. It's not solely about Pathfinders themselves. It's about the very abusive combo with M8 Scotts, Packhowitzers, MGs and AT guns. As Axis you MUST play with weapon teams. But this combo is a hardcounter to weapon teams. So in order to not nerfing all USF weapon teams (which is nonsense) the only chance to fix this, is nerfing Pathfinders. Airborne is a very frequently played commander, maybe the commander which gets played the most off all USF Commanders across all game modes. You can use Pathfinder spam right from the start, the combination with M8 isn't very expensive either. If it would be op in the way some guys want to make us believe the overall winrate across all game modes should reflect this. But it doesn't. It is pretty close to 50% overall and that is great. So either the combo isn't op in that way or it is op indeed but other USF units make up for that by beeing up. I don't know whats the case but it seems to be just okay in outcome overall. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: USF Pathfinders need to be balanced6 Nov 2021, 19:37 PM Jump back to quoted post6 Nov 2021, 18:58 PMmrgame2 does the riflemen bulletin buffs work on pathfinders btw? Pathfinders have a own bulletin and a second one if you bought Ardennes Assault and finished campaign with Able company. They can’t use the Riflemen bulletins. Personally I do like any variation of the boring 3x Rifle standard opening. So a Pathfinder opening is welcomed. I would vote for 0 CP Cavalry Rifles with upgrades locked by tech too. More variation means more strategy and tactics and that is a good thing. There have to be ways to counter Pathfinder of course but I can see this counters, so I don’t see a general problem with Pathfinder openings. Of course you have to adapt. A defensive MG/mortar build won’t work very well. Grens with LMG upgrade (once MU is available) will work way better. If there is a lot cover where Pathfinders will stay and fire a supporting mortar could work out. Force into trading whenever possible since Pathfinder are expensive at reinforcing. Playing OKW Kubels are a great answer to Pathfinder openings, Pathfinders are way worse vs Kubel than Rifles are. That are only nondoctrinal answers to a doctrinal thread. Try sprinting Assgrens for example, you’ll really drive Pathfinders back with them. Different openings require different answers. It would be boring if you could react always the same way with your standard build to different openings of your opponent. Edit: It is sad already, that WC51 openings got nerfed a little bit too harsh to be of any relevance now. Nerfing Pathfinders would lead to another opening disappearing. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can we revive Mechanized?3 Nov 2021, 23:40 PM To elaborate this further: I do think three changes would help a lot to make the commander more viable without opening a new opportunity for 76mm timing pushs in 1vs1. The third one is something that I just thought off: 1) Revert 76mm RoF nerf or if you want to keep the standard shell less useful vs low armored vehicles (which was part of the intention to nerf RoF) buff AOE instead 2) Change Combined Arms with some sort of howitzer offmap 3) Bring Cavalry Rifles down to 0CP call-in on cooldown but lock their upgrades/abilities behind tech Reason for third change: Once you get to 1CP you have already 3 regular rifles on the field. This makes this unique unit way less viable because they act as some kind of replacement for Rifles. If you could build them at 0CPs and unlock their abilities with tech, you really could use them as an alternative build to standard Rifles right from the start or just mix them. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Can we revive Mechanized?3 Nov 2021, 21:07 PM I do think it is really sad that Mechanized got pretty much entombed by commander patch. Since 16th of june it ranks at USF ninth commander loadout place of nine in 2vs2/3vs3/4vs4 for the categories "all" players and for "top200" players. In 1vs1 it ranks at 6th place of nine for "all" players and "top200" players. It is sad because this commander has 3 unique units (WC51/76mm Sherman/Cavalry Rifles) and two more units that you get only at a few USF commanders (M3/Mortar HT). I do think the basic problem that lead to the nerf was a timing push in 1vs1 of the first two 76mm Shermans with Combined Arms activated and some infantry nearby (of course). WC51 already was nerfed at that point, there was no problem with it anymore. Removal of Bulldozer Blade and reduction of 76mm RoF of normal shell seems to be too much. I argued that way before the patch was launched already. Looking back now I do think I was right about it. As I said before I still think either take back 76mm RoF nerf or give more AI damage to AOE to compensate (larger OHK or more damage in outer AOE). I personally don't mind the removal of Bulldozer Blade upgrade for normal Sherman, but the 76mm as the core of this commander deserves some attention. In addition to address the timing push in 1vs1 remove combined arms and replace with some offmap howitzer ability. That way it should get somehow more interesting for multiplayer games incidentally. Two problems solved with the exchange of one ability. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OH hulldown / Vet1 KV-1 hulldown3 Nov 2021, 20:06 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Nov 2021, 09:13 AMHannibal The KV1 situation is different. The KV1 is shit at AT anyway. Hulling down a KV1 and supporting it by an ATG already gives a more or less "complete" package. I do think you only get this complete package at 1vs1 with a KV-1 and double Zis. Very hard to dislodge if there is a point that is worth defending. Higher RoF will make sure that KV-1 will kill or chase off infantry and deal damage to advancing mediums. In 4vs4 this is different. The high count of Panthers in this game mode makes hull down for KV-1 obsolete. You will always be picked off by Panthers which vet themselves at your hulled down KV-1. It is similar to a hulled down Panther without range bonus vs allied TDs. The high number of indirect firing units in this game mode leads to more vulnerable AT-Guns in addition. 50 range would be a lot more useful here for KV-1 to deal some damage versus Panthers and support other AT weaponary that wasn't decrewed by indirect fire. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: OH hulldown / Vet1 KV-1 hulldown3 Nov 2021, 19:02 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Nov 2021, 09:12 AMVipper So are suggesting that KV-1 should trade 10 more range for relaod. Glad that we got that out of the way. I'm suggesting one possible outcome because you repeatingly asked for it. My first post only was about making the abilities the same, which way ever. There would be many other options too. Jump back to quoted post3 Nov 2021, 09:12 AMVipper It seem that you are also suggesting to nerf the Ostheer ability. Regarding damage reduction: If you have a problem with reducing incoming damage from 25% to 20%, go with 25%. I really don't care about that. KV-1 would need 9 penetrating hits either way so there is no real change. Regarding range: Panther and StuG go from 62,5 to 60 range (still enough), all other lower ranged tanks tanks stay the same. Its only a real nerf for Elephant, but it would still have 80 range and could kill 7pdr emplacement with attacking ground (which it shouldn't do). Are you okay with an Elephant with 87,5 range? You would cry out pretty loudly if you could hull down the ISU-152 that way. If I remember correctly 80 range was already too much. So again, i'm asking you directly: Do you think a Super Heavy TD with 87,5 range should exist in this game? Jump back to quoted post3 Nov 2021, 09:12 AMVipper Imo the extra range for KV-1 would be a straight buff buff for both 1vs1 and 4vs4 and a buff the unit that simply does not need. I explained with examples already why I do think RoF is better in 1vs1 and it is a nerf for 1vs1. In 4vs4 it would be a needed buff if I look at allied winratio in that game mode. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: OH hulldown / Vet1 KV-1 hulldown3 Nov 2021, 00:41 AM Jump back to quoted post2 Nov 2021, 23:47 PMVipper So why don't you simply say what are actually suggesting? In you opinion should both abilities provide +15% reload speed -20% received damage or that abilities should provide +25% weapon range -25% received damage. Either way you are suggesting balance change (either a buff to KV-1 or nerf to Ostheer hulldown) and you main argument is "quality of live and transparency" and that simply does not make sense. A simple name change of the abilities would solve the issue without upsetting balance. So lets break it down to balance if that is your argument: I do think KV-1 in general is more impactful on 1vs1, because it can hit the field quite a bit before a Panther shows up. If your opponent went for a PZIV you are safe a long time before a Panther shows up. In this situation I do think KV-1 is way better off with the faster RoF. Backed up by double ZIS it doesn't need 50 range, faster ROF will do better at killing infantry and fighting advancing medium tanks. But I do think more range instead of RoF is better at 3vs3/4vs4, there you will quickly see the first Panther after you got a KV-1 and the extra 10 range help more than some faster RoF in that situation. I would give all tanks that are hulled down something about a fixed +10 range instead of +20% (partly fixes the elephant problem) and a -20% damage modification. On the bright side of this change KV-1 would be better in multiplayer and worse in 1vs1. If I look at current winrates in 1vs1 and 3vs3/4vs4 that is excactly how it should be. In: COH2 Gameplay