General:
A solid commander that odes not feel like an "Engineer commander"
Suggestions:
M2 Flamethrower
As before replace the M2 flamethrower upgrade with an engineer unit (there are 2 unused unit the IS with Flamer and demolition sapper) that has rifles and flamers. Possibly able to build tank traps also and/or call in incendiary barrages.
Designate Command Vehicle
My suggestion would be to replace this upgrade with Valentine command vehicle.
In addition a number of changes to auras (for all command vehicles):
Now scale with veterancy gaining vet bonuses (Similar to C.Panther)
Now split into 2 parts, one passive will small bonus a second one timed ability (similar to KV-2/KV-8/Tiger)
Vehicle Crew Repairs
One of the most common abilities in UKF available to 4 commander. Replace this ability with:
"Repair stations" (vehicles not emplacements) so that engineer unit can fight
or
"Stand fast" (self-repair fro emplacements) with the following changes, can not be used during brace and/or requires garrison and/or disable weapons and/or can not be used when taking damage.
Demolition Specialists AVRE
Decrease acceleration and rotation, Churchills should simply not have that much mobility.
Hard cap number of kills from spitog and add a critical (stun, "shell shock") vs soft target and injured driver/load for vehicles. Reduce penetration (same goes for ST).
Assault infantry sections get their full durability at vet 2 which means they essentially reduce all incoming small arms damage output by 36% at this point(0.64 RA).
ON THE MOVE, Vet 2 FSJ FG42s will do 3 dps at max range, ~4dps at 20 meters and ~5 dps at 10 meters. This means that for the first portion of the engagement the IS are taking an average of 3.5 dps X 12(fsj models) X 0.64 recieved accuracy for the IS which comes out to only ~27dps. In other words it would take a full 3 seconds to kill a single model given this damage output and thats assuming every shot lands on one model.
If you look at the video though you'll note that by the time you order your FSJ to stop moving, they've already wasted a considerable amount of ammunition firing on the move and are forced to reload which delays the DPS boost you get from standing still. Once your FSJ do finally start firing again at the mid-close range they are now doing roughly 90 DPS against the section. Given roughly 2 seconds of on the move firing, an average of 2 seconds for each FSJ reload(actual reload is roughly 2.05 seconds) and another roughly 2 seconds of full mid-close range firing you should have done 250 damage give or take some based on range of individual squad members and me just ballparking the damage. Given that the assault section has 400 hp, it is perfectly reasonable you didn't wipe it.
Yes, the brit player got SLIGHTLY lucky in that your damage was spread out among the IS squad members instead of focusing on one or two models, but the numbers seem to add up.
As for IS being too strong too early- both sturmpios and assault grenadiers are superior initially to Assault sections. Assault grenadiers due to sprint, 5 models and having 0.95 RA while keeping roughly the same total dps. Sturmpioneers have superior dps at almost all ranges and a whopping 0.87 stock RA. Both Assault grenadiers and sturmpioneers are substantially more durable than stock 4man assault sections while having at least as much firepower.
There are no stock 4man assault section they start with 5 entities.
Right, that's sort of what I was getting at - maybe just not in enough detail.
The problem is, in CoH2, it's a lot easier to tweak an "aggressive squishy/cheap" faction than it is to tweak a "defensive tanky/expensive" faction. That, combined with the requirement to keep "faction flavor" is what I think we're seeing here.
Making a squishy/cheap/close-range faction better is pretty simple; increase the DPS to keep up with higher HP units, but keep the HP pool low while keeping cost down. If it's too squishy, adjust the HP up a little. There's really not too much of a limit to this, either. Cost can go down to zero, HP can get close to zero, and only DPS has an upper limit (at some point you hit "instant-melting" levels). However, as the price of units is generally low, you don't expect "instant-melting" DPS from them.
Adjusting a tanky/expensive/long-range faction has way more limits. Defensive stats can't go up infinitely as eventually the unit is indestructible and becomes an "I win" button. Price also can't go up infinitely, as it becomes non-viable to float the resources required to build it. Additionally, DPS needs to be reflective of the price; an expensive unit can't do low amounts damage (near-zero), as then it can be safely ignored - so DPS is somewhat tied to price.
This is what I think we're seeing with ost; we're hitting two of the limits. We can't make the mainline units tankier (i.e. stock 5-man 2-slot grens), because they'd stay in the field too long doing high DPS. We can't make the tanks tankier, as it forces the allied factions into more and more niche AT roles. We also can't make the units more expensive, as OST already struggles with MP bleed. Essentially, we've hit the point where OST is a caricature of what it once was, and it's because of the expansion factions.
Basically, if we (well, the balance team) wants/needs to keep the current faction flavors, OST and to a lesser extent, Sov, need to become the limits of "offensive" and "defensive", with every other faction in between. As long as they're not, they can't fill the design roles they're supposed to.
As I have said many times, the time to buff unit/Faction A to balance it has passed, it is time to nerf unit/Faction B to get balance.
I understood what you wrote. Like I said, there are fewer options with those offmaps than there are with leFHs
And as I've already pointed out, this also leaves the soviets out entirely. They are literally the most relevant in this discussion because they are the only allied faction with static howitzers, and are the most effected by counter barrage
Number of commander with Lefh is completely irrelevant, it takes 1 USF/UKF/OKW commander with off map to counter static howitzer with easy regardless which commander an Axis played has chosen.
This doesn't respond to the point again. All leFH commanders give you that reliable counter already. It's built-in. You don't have to consider it at all. Of course you don't go in without one on your loadout, for christs sake
That leaves out the design of the ability itself, which I would love to see you try to justify. Free and no duration? Little to no user-input required? This is balanced in your opinion?
At this point you it seem that you are trying to pick up fight and I am not really interested.
I have point a very simply thing:
Stock reckon sweeps allow USF/UKF/OKW to counter static howitzer easily as long as the pick a commander with off map and they do not require coordination between player to pull off.
If in your opinion it not easy to for USF/UKF/OKW to call in off map on static artillery feel free to argue you opinion, else I suggest you leave me out of it.
It does not. It is not very easy at all, because you don't know the enemies commander in advance
There are more commanders with leFH than there are ways to combine recon and nukes with 1 person. And the soviets can only do that with 1 specific doctrine
Meanwhile every single leFH commander gives you the ability to counter other howitzers. By default. This is not balanced
What I have said and will say it again since you seem to have trouble reading is:
The stock reckon planes allow USF/UKF/OKW to call in off map on static howitzer with little trouble.
One does need to know the enemies commander in advance, one can always pick a commander after his opponent.
Regardless going into a 3vs3 or 4vs4 without a commander with off map or arty is probably a strategical mistake.
That doesn't respond to what they said. With random teammstes it is that hard. Your only chance of coordinating it is through text chat, which is not easy and you don't even know if they speak your language
In arranged teams, not a problem at all. But counter barrage is easy no matter what
It does.
It very easy for a single player to have call both the reckon and the off map.
In team we always use CB for denying allies all arty (mortars, rocket and howi). It need zero input. One Lefh for CB, second for attacks.
As allies one off us use air recon and another set bombning strike. It need voice comunication. But with random team, it is nearly impossible.
USF/UKF/OKW all have stock reckon sweeps ideal for providing vision on enemy static howitzer. Call in a off map in multiplayer game is not really that hard.
I don't think that "ost sucks" - but I do think the expansion factions (OKW/USF/UKF) have pushed OST into a really strange box, design-wise.
The initial premise at launch for OST was an "expensive/tanky defensive" faction to contrast Sov's "cheap/squishy offensive" design - with Sov making up the eHP difference through numbers. Grens were more expensive with 4 models, compared to Sov's cheaper (but weaker) 6 model cons, P4s were more expensive and tankier than T34s, the MG42 was much better than the Maxim (but had 3 models), etc. Additionally, for extra variety, Sov generally had a fairly noticeable advantage at close range, which further pushed OST into it's "defensive" roll. As a result of those trade offs, a single unit loss for OST was always more costly than for Sov, but that single unit was usually more powerful. Overall, I thought this was a pretty good design, if a bit simple in concept.
The problem is, the expansion factions don't fit between SOV/OST in terms of offensive/defensive nature; they actually surround OST (and Sov, but to a lesser degree), which makes balancing them really, really tricky. Take the standard roster of units (i.e. non-doc):
The strongest defensive mainline is UKF's double-bren/bolstered Infantry Sections, not LMG grens.
The strongest offensive mainline is USF's double-BAR Rifle squads, not conscripts.
The most mobile faction is OKW/USF (FRPs, no T0 MGs), not Sov.
The most defensive faction is UKF (cover bonus, emplacements, old MG vet 1 bonus, etc.), not Ost.
So, how do you balance that while keeping each factions initial "flavor"? Do you buffs grens to beat IS' at range? Then you'll melt cons (and rifles) before they can get close. Do you buff cons to be better than Rifles? Then OST will get steamrolled. Do you make USF/OKW less mobile? Now they'll get pinned by Sov/Ost defensive units. Do you make UKF less defensive? Now they'll be overrun by OKW.
What we have right now is probably as close to the best that it can be without massive faction redesigns. Unfortunately, what that means is that Ost's "powerful but expensive units" design flavor has been pushed to the maximum; that single unit loss that was "more costly" than Sov's unit has now turned into "devastatingly costly" while also being more powerful than it used to be. As a result, OST requires an absolute minimum number of losses to use effectively, which can be really hard to do when the game is as RNG-heavy as it is - and even when RNG isn't involved, it means that a single loss early on can decide a match.
I agree with most of the analysis I do not agree identifying the problem.
The problem imo was that when WFA armies where introduced it was the Ostheer/Soviet that ended be adjusted to them and not the other way around.
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
