....
- Penals from 300 to ~280 manpower
- move some DPS from vet 0 to vet 1 accordingly
...
Lower cost to 270 have them start with 3 mosin 3 SVT.
Two upgrade option similar to PF:
3 PTRS now replaces SVTs
or
3 SVTs
- either lower aim time for PTRS
Since there is little reason to have different behavior is the version of PTRS make Guards PTRs similar with little AI and have "Firing Positions" increase the accuracy of the PTRS.
This make sense both from design point of view and realistic point of view.
They'd be given a projectile.
Cool!
|
The first change has nothing to do with the Scott or pack howitzer, and how does the second change accomplish anything related to making the Scott and pack howitzer more balanced units?
The Scott and pack howitzer will still be in a terrible spot with no changes for the reasons I discussed in my post, and I see no reason and you gave no reason for how making the Scott doctrinal and moving the pack howitzer to Major or making the pack howitzer doctrinal would make these units more balanced and viable
Also, how would the Scott in Captain be uncounterable? I gave examples for how it could be countered at captain timing, and even admitted it might need further nerfs so that it would be balanced against Ost.
Imo on the biggest problem of P.H. is its timings
Delaying a unit is nerf and pack howitzer being delayed would amke far more balanced since there would be counter available.
USF already have a plethora of stock indirect fires option like mortar, pack howitzer, Scott, Major barrage and that makes some of them redundant.
So trying to create room for all of them by keeping them stock is in my opinion a waste of time and making some of them doctrinal is a better option. |
My over reaction.
No problem it happens to all of us.
Sapper is my fav unit in my fav faction and i belive i know them in my hand, so im kind of carried away.
There are two points, the fist is the heavy upgrade is not good designed, im agree on this. The secon, which im strongly againt, is that sapper is being described as some kind of cost - effective fighting unit with elite lever stat.
The ideal and proposal on this unit has already been shown, what remain is up to the team now.
Maybe I was not cleat Sapper are fine. It is the sapper with the heavy upgrade in the new that imo the get unreasonable things (3 weapons slots/armor small target combination). |
stop with that, i play with sapper every day, what do you think. And also stop with cutting my post just to deflect the subject in your way. Yes, sapper can be somewhat "durable" but describe them as fighter is just delusional. i already make it clear in the rest of the post, At best they can stand again gren or volk after a DOUBLE or event TRIPLE amound of muni had been spent AFTER THE LASTET TECH OF THE FACTION, but that is pretty much end of the line with them. The fact that they can some what fight with THAT kind of investment isnt event close to broken, any unit with with such a load of muni should be able to dish out some dmg. May be sapper with 3 lmg used to be scary when they have their own version of bren, but is is long gone. Can i ask you for a replay with sapper as late game mainline fighting unit which actually have an impact on the victoy ? In case you deflect it back to me, i can provide some good replay of my own with sapper built as trolling with teammates as carrier, but outside of meme maker, what do you have ?
This sapperphobia need to go.
I am not sure where this hostility comes from my point is that heavy sapper upgrade is currently badly designed, I think you agree to that.
Imo just removing the moving penalty is not going to fix but it will create other issues.
The ability provides things that it simply should not the option for 3 weapons and armor. |
I don't think buffing them directly is a good idea. Mainline inf spam is already too prominent. Why not just remove sandbags from all mainlines. This would be a massive indirect buff for grens (particularly LMG grens) and it would make the early mid game a million times more interesting.
Agree |
I'd like to better understand the thought process that went into the proposed ISU-152 changes. Is it the risk of exposing the tank vs. defeating a target or something else? Could the same logic be applied to the Elephant?
Axis heavy tanks like Tiger, Elephant, JT, Panther and many allied vehicles had their rear armored lowered a long time ago. Certain allied vehicles did not. This is simply a consistency change. |
...
i can say heavy sapper flame will never stand ...
I suggest you try heavy sapper as fighting unit in game.
A 210 unit being more durable than elite infantries is simply wrong any way. |
Double building and repair rate for free ?
Point here is that Vicker K is not the only issue but the armor also. Combined with target size Ro.E. entity get nearly 170 effective HP.
UKF has two nondoctrinal infantry options ...
Yes the are many option. I am simply pointing out that removing the moving penalty for heavy sapper although correct is recipe for disaster.
Heavy sapper get crazy durability while they can equip 3 weapons, including a flamer.
|
Thank you for demonstrating how much you don't understand coh2 stats.
Now you too are projecting your own flaws on to others
They're not set values, range near is 0 and mid is 25, so that entire spectrum goes from 60% to 45% for the Panther (uniform scaling), while for the su85 it goes from 55% to 45% from range 0 to range 30. Panther is clearly superior from range 0 to about range 20ish depending on the math.
Never claimed they are set values stop imagining things.
In other word SU-85 according to you SU-85 is more accurate in range above 20 (where it matters) and on top of that it get 3 times the bonus Panther gets and can self spot to take advantage of that accuracy.
Thanks you for proving my points and admitting that your original claim was false.
(unless you want prove that you do not understand coh2 stats and claim that 0-20 accuracy advantage is more important than 20-60) |
Riles at that late of the game will not very useful, and changing from smg to rifle is just strange.
Actually rifles at late game are more useful than the sten because they do not get destroyed while trying to close the distance.
The easiest way will be just remove the vicker K and reduce the cost down to 45 muni and call it advance engineer training to get rid of the "heavy" part, indicate that they are nolonger slow.
That is also an option. The problem here thou is flamer/armor combination. I would be tempted to removed the mu cost and armor and be done with it. That would make sapper gain repair speed passively.
Or, if possible, let them stat with rifle and can be upgrade to sten gun with ass engi M3's proflie after AEC or boffor tech. This "assault sapper" upgrade should lock out sweeper/heavy sapper and can come with heavy gammon bomb moved from section (you allway want to moved it from sections, no ? i got it). This can also be a path to get to 5th man engineer in case a rework of bolster happen and it nolonger global, along with heavy sapper upgrade also provide a 5th man.
Yes heavy gammon bombs are much better suited for Ro.E. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
