Making a designed command vehicle will make it easier to balance the unit, in pop/damage/cost.
Actually the can be 2 version of the unit (or 3) a normal one, a command vehicle one (and artillery one) all thou I would rather move that ability to officer.
Profile of Vipper
Posts: 12168 | Subs: 1
Post History of Vipper
Thread: Make Valentine and Commander vehicle be one ability？19 Sep 2021, 10:18 AM
In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: 2 non-doc upgrades for mainlines19 Sep 2021, 10:15 AM
19 Sep 2021, 08:53 AMGeblobt
My point is that tech is becoming cheaper and cheaper this is simply a trend that should be stopped.
If a faction is behind in tech instead of making cheaper it should simply become more expensive for the other faction.
In: COH2 Balance
Thread: 2 non-doc upgrades for mainlines19 Sep 2021, 08:44 AM
19 Sep 2021, 08:41 AMGeblobt
Making tech cheaper and cheaper does not seems to create new issues as seen by UKF. One should be looking in slowing down tech instead of continuously promoting it.
In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Cover and countering cover18 Sep 2021, 17:43 PM
Not everything has flat damage there units with bonuses vs certain units.
Target tables where (over)used in coh1 and it was a nightmare.
On the other hand one can make sensible use of target tables and benefit from them.
(of instance ballistic can be set to 80 damage and add the rest as bones vs vehicles)
That is unnecessary there is no need for target tables when one can use cover tables. Target tables are used for use against specific units types.
This was one of the few good changes the balance team has done as it added consistency rather than RNG elements.
Yes we know USF have been nerfed to the ground "Make America great again".
Now pls read post 5 since that is irrelevant to this post.
Thread: Cover and countering cover18 Sep 2021, 15:36 PM
Unless you can differentiate between sandbags heavy cover and regular heavy cover, which you can't, increasing certain weapon weapon damage against heavy cover is a bad idea. Regular heavy cover is not an issue at all, and as it's part of the core defining gameplay of the series, it's not needed/desirable to nerf that in the progress. The sandbags target size nerf exclusively nerfed sandbags heavy cover only.
I do not see the reason there should be such "differentiation" is need.
Cover is a core mechanic that does not mean that there should not be tools designed to counter it. On the contrary there are tools specifically designed for it like flamer. On the other hand other tools like indirect fire weapon have been nerfed heavily and now are not that good against heavy cover.
And this goes against the "core game design" of "rock, paper, sciccors"
If one faces a vehicles one builds ATG, if one faces units in cover again build ATG...
Maybe you have not seen the number of complains about these units.
Thread: Cover and countering cover18 Sep 2021, 15:30 PM
i don't think letting AT guns become more effective at taking out sandbags makes indirect fire any less desirable. you'd usually not be getting a mortar specifically to fight units entrenched in heavy cover anyway, but rather as general fire support against any sort of stationary target (e.g. weapon teams) from outside retaliation range.
Or you simply do not get a mortar...
weapon teams can also benefit from cover..
The difference mechanics are of less importance if both get the job done.
This is not a general change but for certain specific weapons. If for instance the scott was better vs unit in cover that would make the unit more desireable.
Thread: Cover and countering cover18 Sep 2021, 14:34 PM
18 Sep 2021, 14:25 PMPip
This quite irrelevant. Each faction should have access to the tools they need.
The fact the USF build tank traps as "heavy cover" is silly. If they need heavy cover then simply replace tank traps with sandbags. One can then make tank traps actually work as tank traps instead of cover.
18 Sep 2021, 14:25 PMPip
Mortar already do "reduced" damage and can not 1 shot entities, but you get idea. These units should be good vs cover without being oppressive vs units in the open.
Thread: Cover and countering cover18 Sep 2021, 14:17 PM
18 Sep 2021, 14:13 PMPip
Surely USF would need to gain Sandbags as standard on REs if their Tank Traps were to become yellow rather than green cover?
If you ask me there should less sandbags available in game and not more but this hardly the issue of this thread.
The issue of this thread is improving cover and anti cover mechanism because imo having ATG and TD dislodging entrenched troops is bad design.
If you need sandbags they should get them.
Thread: Cover and countering cover18 Sep 2021, 13:16 PM
Cover and especially heavy cover increases the durability of unit significantly.
Combined with the ability of faction to create heavy cover become an issue.
An issue also seem to be the damage of indirect fire weapon where some people claim that do not do enough while other that are too power
As solution the MOD team increased the target size of sandbag.
The problem with that solution is that it allow ATG weapon to destroy them easily making indirect fire weapon even less desirable.
Facing tank? use ATG/TD
Facing entrenched infatry? use ATG/TD
For these reason I would suggest the following changes:
1) Sandbag target size change revert. Heavy cover should not be countered by AT weapons from long range.
2) Certain weapon get improve modifiers for firing on heavy cover those can include Scott/Leig/mortars
3) Other weapon like rocket artillery remain as they are or even become worse vs units in cover
4) Tank traps build time increased greatly, target size reduce, resistance to ballistic weapon and now provide yellow cover.
The changes will help to diversify build including indirect fire weapons when facing heavily fortified opponents and make certain units worth building without making them oppressive.
Thread: OKW teching clarity18 Sep 2021, 09:48 AM
18 Sep 2021, 09:30 AMWAAAGH2000
I was talking more about the display of upgrades and bonus which can be a bit confusing to navigate.
For instance ostheer reinforcement bonus comes T4 and the user can not see unless he actually build the T4. If the icon was moved in T0 then it would be more player friendly.
In similar manner the Soviet one is available in T3 and free in T4 if the icon was move to T0 it might become easier to see and explain. Maybe there could be a separate tab in HQ that has all the upgrade (non related to the building itself)/bonus.
Ladders Top 10