Profile of porkloin

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 356

General Information


Thread: Short barreled p4 for OST?12 Oct 2019, 00:19 AM This is all coming from a 1v1 perspective. I don't think any of this would dramatically affect team games, but I'd welcome input from team game players. Right now OST is in a somewhat rough spot. In most matchups the MG42 is the only saving grace for the first 15 minutes or so as a lack of a strong LV at means a heavy investment in some sort of infantry AT to deal with light tank threats. OST already has weak infantry hence good MG 42 play is the only thing that will keep you from being overrun by both strong infantry and light vehicles. The 222 seems to be in a good spot in timing and role (although i think it should have a slight edge over AA halftracks with suppression). Buffing it to an anti-light tank vehicle would be too much of a change, but OST's vulnerability to early game pressure still needs some sort of solution. Another issue is that t4 is rarely used in 1v1, as you really really need the p4s to have any sort of map presence in a game that isn't already won. My thought is to bring in the short barreled p4 as a trump card to the stuart, t70, and AEC. It in turn should be trumped by any of the other mediums, but can still serve as AI, and a secondary AT source. I have three possible implementations in mind: Simple option: Some of the fuel from battlephase 2 (t3 tech) is moved to the building, and the short-barreled p4 can be built from the hq at a moderate fuel cost after battlephase 2. This gives you a quicker option for light mobile AT that can buy you some breathing room from LV oppression, but delays your long barrel p4. With a heavy AT investment, stalling until t4 becomes a more feasible strategy. You also might be able to skip t2 entirely and rely on an early p4 to hold you over for heavy t3 investment. Having the shortbarreled p4 also helps open up more possibilities for stug usage. Greater symmetry option: Ost tech is brought more in line with the other armies. T3 is reduced in cost, but long barrel p4 is moved to t4. Ost effectively has a choice between a T2 or T3 midgame. While I don't think it's necessary, units could be moved around the tiers, perhaps with tech unlocks for vehicles. Maximum chaos(greater asymmetry) option: Long-barreled p4 is removed from the non-doctrinal options, and short-barreled p4 is the default tank. T3 can be reduced in cost. Opens up larger role for stug(s), and gives OST a weaker, but earlier medium vehicle window that is more in-line with the armies character. Perhaps a long-barreled upgrade can be added after finishing battle-phase 3, but I think I'd ideally like to see an "earlier" weaker version of the panther being OST's lategame battle tank, but with veterancy bonuses reflecting improvements on a tank that had a lot of problems at first. Doctrinal command tanks switch models (i.e. changed to command long-barreled p4). Thoughts? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Soviet tanks are garbage11 Oct 2019, 21:46 PM Jump back to quoted post11 Oct 2019, 14:45 PMT.R. Stormjäger Here’s a very nice video explaining how that’s not the case: https://youtu.be/JnWNnI6YlQQ Just because the soviet officer corps did eventually recover doesn't mean the purges didn't greatly affect the early war years. Perhaps without the purges the soviets would have held in 1941. OTOH they might have tried harder to hold the line, and been encircled instead of retreating into the logistical nightmare that was the soviet heartland. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Soviet tanks are garbage11 Oct 2019, 06:28 AM Jump back to quoted post11 Oct 2019, 06:21 AMKatitof That applies to early war, not late. Late war soviet army was full of experienced veterans. That's why everyone considers it pretty damn stupid that we have conscripts in multiplayer, which happens in 44-45 years despite there being strelky in game(soviet campaign). 5 tier vet would make sense for soviets for the game context, but I think it's a little late for that. E: the first mission in the campaign is Stalingrad, so it's more like late 42-45 In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Soviet tanks are garbage11 Oct 2019, 06:15 AM Soviets were vastly undertrained and had a very depleted officer corps as a result of the purges. Even though units might have had modern equipment, the few officers around were terrified to train with it as any major breakdowns or losses could result in a trial for sabotage. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Axis armor bounce a little to often11 Oct 2019, 03:05 AM Jump back to quoted post11 Oct 2019, 02:04 AMelchino7 About the test, while any effort brought to test anything is appreciated, i think anyone will be skeptical when there is human input on a small sample size. But the results are close enough to what you would expect TBH. I guess you didn't use Bliz/Combat Blitz (they are different) neither, which i would say count as part of what constitutes mobility for several Axis tanks. Anyway, i'm not opposed to the idea that under perfect circumstances, on specific cases (fastest RoF vet 3 USF AT gun) PIVs will be shot more times on avg than T76/Cromwell/M4. Because i think this will be dragging for too long i want to make my point in the subject simple in a TLR; format. 1- OP complaining about bouncing shots, is as pointless as complaining about small mobility (speed, acceleration, rotation) discrepancies or penetration values. 2- In the mobility department, speed is the less important of values. You need a really big difference for it to be noticeable. I didn't account for blitz because it's too subjective of a thing. Obviously it helps axis, but it's not on all vehicles, it costs munitions, and it's veterancy gated. If we go down that road we have to explore smoke on allied tanks etc. My point is simply that losing a tank tends to happen very fast. While the numbers might seem small, allied tanks can get away from that 4th penetrating shot that much faster than axis tanks who will have to roll the dice on whether or not it penetrates. They can skirt a snare attempt that much easier also. In any situation, I'd prefer my tank getting shot at 3 times with a high penetration chance, than 4 times with a lower penetration chance, as some of the time all 4 of those shots will hit, but 3 will never kill the tank. I too think complaining about penetration differences is stupid, and I don't like seeing generic "axis has too much armor!" threads. It's just that I think those threads are stupid because vehicles are equivalent in survivability, but reach that equivalence through different means. If people don't realize allied tanks can avoid more shots they'll continue to think axis is OP because of higher armor values. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Axis armor bounce a little to often10 Oct 2019, 23:15 PM Jump back to quoted post10 Oct 2019, 16:38 PMelchino7 To give you some perspective, on the test range, over 200m range (2 sniper diametre or basically from middle of the map) the difference in speed between a PIV, a M4A3 and a T3476 is less than 5/10m respectively. Tested 5 times with slight difference depending on small adjustment done at the start when the vehicles juggle a bit depending how perfectly i oriented and later gave the order (with a right click drag they keep formation pretty well). You start to notice a difference with the Cromwell. So i'll say that's the bare minimum for long ranges and values above that for short ranges. 5m is basically the lenght of the tank. 150m is around the distance between the exits from each base on Langres. In any real game, top speed is not as important as it's hard to maintain that value constant. Acceleration and rotation are IMO more important values. I'm going to keep asking you these two questions until you answer them: As a rule are allied tanks faster than axis tanks? At what point does speed difference become meaningful? I'm asking you these questions because you've first insulted my reasoning with : Jump back to quoted post10 Oct 2019, 16:38 PMelchino7 In the same way OP post is bad, the counter argument you brought is equally bad. Mobility and size are equivalent for similar vehicles categories. and second I'm not sure you know what equivalent means Jump back to quoted post10 Oct 2019, 16:38 PMelchino7 Mobility is equivalent for similar vehicles Here's the definition for equivalent provided by webster equal in force, amount, or value Now I too have test mod. Since my point is that axis tanks are slower, and therefore get hit more, I've set up a course. First we have a tank trap slalom watched by a vet 3 57 mil to test rotation and acceleration. Next we have an open field watched by another vet3 57 mil to test acc and top speed. I took all the mediums for each faction and ran them through the course twice at vet 0, and once at vet 3. There are two trials for vet 0 since it's the more common situation. We get the following table of shots fired at the tanks: The allied adjusted field is the sum of shots *2/3 to reflect that there are three allied armies. We find that the axis tanks are shot at 14% more times. A number I'd say is significant, but you've yet to answer when exactly mobility differences become significant. For giggles I've looked at the average pen chances of allied vs axis tanks at the medium range pen value. Here is the table: Ost p4 armor values are weighted twice towards vet 0, and once towards vet 2. We find that axis tanks on average bounce 12% more shots than their counterparts. Huh. That's interesting. Allied tanks managed to avoid 14% more shots than the axis tanks. Axis tanks bounced around 12% more shots than allied tanks. I bet those numbers would be even closer if I ran more trials! It's almost as if the game is designed around units having asymmetrical strengths that balance each other out! E: realized that, in my haste, I added back and front armor instead of averaging them for the penetration differences. Avg axis medium tank will pen around 24% more often if armor values are averaged at a 2:1 ratio of front and back. Unsure of a fair way to determine accuracy values. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Axis armor bounce a little to often10 Oct 2019, 06:30 AM Jump back to quoted post10 Oct 2019, 02:40 AMelchino7 There's no cherry picking. I specifically said: "Mobility is equivalent for similar vehicles". When the values are so low and close to each other, you are not gonna notice the difference. The only outlier in the whole category is the Cromwell at 7.0 (+0.7) / 2.6 (+0.5) which is the only thing it has going for it atm, while the rotation is equal to PIV. That's for sure a way to avoid crushing units with ease, when both of the vehicles with same rotations values can gain access to a heavy speed/acce buff. But they are faster with the exception of blitz yes? I.e. if an axis tank can't blitz then it can't escape a pursuing counterpart, nor can it chase one down. E: Since you want to claim the differences are so small so as to be meaningless, at what point would speed differences be meaningful? 10%? 20%? 30? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Axis armor bounce a little to often9 Oct 2019, 23:37 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Oct 2019, 23:18 PMelchino7 Gonna use coh2db for values which i guess didn't change: 0.1 on speed and 0.1 on acceleration doesn't have a meaningful impact in how a vehicle compares with another (M4 vs PIV), rotation is equal to Cromwell (while this is the fastest of them which is fine cause is lacking in several other departments) and 76 is both slightly faster 0.2/0.2 and rotates better (32 vs 36). Luckily for the PIV, it has a more impactful vet 1 ability which let's it gains more mobility when needed (Cromwell requiring Hammer). If that's not similar, well i guess they don't have similar armor values neither. Su76 is between a Puma and a Stug, role wise (Anti light, soft anti medium). It's funny you mention the Su76 cause everyone knows it has one of the worst mobilities due to pathing. Tiger is faster than IS2. You might have seen TA or KT, both of which are in a different category. KV2 is a low freaking tank as well and might be comparable to KT as it was made to be less and less reliant on artillery mode to be useful. JT hasn't been updated. (3/1.2/16) so it's closer to the Ele (3.3/1.4/16). ISU (4.5/1.4/16). If i may say something: the most important value to look at vehicles is acceleration >= rotation >>> speed. Most of the time, vehicles are not able to use their max speed unless running away through roads or during long straight chases. Rotation is what enables vehicles to maneuver and actually be able to roadkill models. There are things which are equivalents and others which are "premium" or slightly above or below each category. The // separation denotes a slight change in role/weight/cost/Vet requirement/etc. Light: Stuart, Aec, // Valentine, Puma, Su76, Medium TD: M10, Stug // JPIV, Su85, Jackson, FF Medium: T3476, Cromwell, M4A3, PIV, M4C-76mm, // OKW PIV Premium/Advanced Medium: E8, Bulldozer, T3485, Brummbear, Comet // Panther, KV1 // Pershing Heavies: Tiger, IS2, TA, KV2 // Churchill // KT Super heavies: ISU152, Ele, JT Might have miss some vehicle (i didn't count Kv8, Scott, Centaur, Ostwind, etc. on purpose). So, as a rule, they are in fact faster. Even in your cherry picked closest comparison of unvetted m4 vs OST p4. I'll admit I was wrong about the IS-2 being overall better than the tiger. I looked at the stats for the tiger ace assuming it would be faster than the normal one to save myself some time. IS-2 is marginally slower, but has significantly better rotation. E: I confused SU-76 for SU-85. Even then comparison holds against the jagdpanzer. Stug is a bit more mobile; however, it's still a stug.... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Axis armor bounce a little to often9 Oct 2019, 21:56 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Oct 2019, 14:37 PMelchino7 In the same way OP post is bad, the counter argument you brought is equally bad. Mobility and size are equivalent for similar vehicles categories. Pershing been the smallest and most mobile has something to do with how it is priced and vet been equivalent of a heavy tank while having the smallest HP pool as well (same as Panther). ??? I agree that that the target sizes are similar for comparable vehicles(kaitof was claiming otherwise), but mobility is clearly not. The p4s are slower and have less rotation than cromwells, shermans, and t34s. The jagdpanzer is slower and has less rotation than the su-76 and so is the stug on https://coh2db.com/stats/. Not sure if it's been updated to new stug. The tigers are slower and have less rotation than the IS-2, and Pershing. The regular tiger does have a better top speed than the churchill, but otherwise they are both less mobile than it. The ISU has a higher top speed than the elephant, and has better everything compared to the jagdtiger. The panther is the only exceptionally mobile tank on the axis side, and this is not even a true exception as the comet is faster in all but acceleration. Soviet and USF simply lack a comparable role tank. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Axis armor bounce a little to often9 Oct 2019, 09:59 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Oct 2019, 09:12 AMGrim You can see which part he was responding to as they are within quotation boxes. An alt account...? I mentioned the panther in my post. The other quote is referencing target size. Oh no an extra .06 percent chance for a direct hit. Exclusively to the Sherman as far as mediums go. The pershing has the smallest of the heavy target sizes. Imba! IIIIIIImmmmmmbbbbbbaaaaa! In: COH2 Balance