Profile of Hannibal

Then hide my posts if a simple “no” isn’t enough. Also put a minimum word count in the guidelines because right now nothing is forcing me to write more than a simple, on topic, “no”.

Or you can stop moderating based on nonsense.

Apparently asking for a reason behind someone's opinion nowadays is considered too much to ask for. Welp, times have changed...

Cool.

When you guys will start deleting all the "balance" threads with the sole argument being "I lost a game to unit X" then that always end up being 10 page circle jerks of other people who have lost a game to unit X without any further explanations, arguments or replays to discuss?

I can assure you that the moderations team spends a lot of time on invising petty comments as you will usually see with your two-digit notification bar.


Now to OPs post before this goe sback and forth with nonesense posts from all of us:
Most of the suggestions will bring back old problems (like 6 men flamers) and need lots of rework in other aspects. The Penal suggestion for example would probably cause a complete vet rework and maybe even base stats.
Others ideas like the caches: I am not sure if this is worth the effort of implementing (if possible) and afterwards bug fixing for an unknown benefit. Caches at the moment are too expensive for 1v1, but too cheap for latge team modes. That's their main issue. And judging from my game experience I did not get the feeling that getting decently defended cut offs is too easy.
I would agree though that the Achilles ciuld use a rework. It is not a bad unit for its price, but I just don't think it has an interesting role in the British lineup.

No thank you, random internet person, I’d rather voice my disagreement without writing a 10K word essay explaining why.

Also skip the personal stuff, that niche is already filled here.

This forum is meant for discussions. If you don't want to discuss a topic, don't write or just go to the steam forums.

i think what hes saying is having a little bit of extra armour on 1 tank over another doesn't make much difference ingame as the chance to pen only changes a little bit, so small its really insignificant. Ther are more important values that make more of a difference like health, accuracy etc.

Look at the panther, it had its armour nerfed and vet 0 health increased and it was a considered a survivability buff for the panther. People need to stop with this myth that allied tanks don't have well armoured tanks. One other reason as to why heavily armoured tanks on allies makes so much more of a difference when on axis, is because axis simply dont have 60 range high pen TD's so they tend to struggle more vs tanks like churchills compared to when allies have to go VS a KT.

And srsly OP, REKETEN IS THE WORST AT GUN IN THE GAME AND MAN WANTS TO NERF IT. srsly OP list for me in order which u think is the best to worst AT gun : (6 pounder, reken, USF m1, PAK, and zis)

EDIT: I wrote this post in two parts due to being busy and did not see achpawels response in between.


This might be, I still disagree with that.

However, OP suggests a nerf, yes, but he does not say that the unit was overpowered. He just said it's a little too hard to kill with infantry.

Performance wise the Raketenwerfer is very good. Decent reload speed, 180 far penetration, decent arch. The only thing that is frustrating is the projectile colliding with walls more often than other AT guns. But stat wise, the unit is absolutely fine and pens everything that the Allies can field with 100% chance. The only vehicles where the Raketenwerfer becomes unreliable are doctrinal units. Currently your the most important trade-off to the standard layout of AT guns is the fifth man and the ability to retreat vs a missing shield and 5 meter range. And adding that the Raketenwerfer is also cheaper, I don't see a point why the unit is bad.

And more to achpawels post:
It obviously depends on the matchup. Against Allied TDs or ATGs in general the extra bit of armor for most units like mediums will not help you at all. Against other mediums however this is a huge difference, and mediums are usually around for the whole match.
I also do not agree that is were a "myth" that Allies have less armor, although I would phrase it differently: Axis vehicles have overall better chances to bounce shells from vehicles of the same class. That's why Axis vehicles are usually more expensive.
What we have to work around though is still the remnants of the initial CoH2 design: Axis were always supposed to get heavy armor out way more frequently than Allies, that's why OKW has a non-doc KT and OST has so many options to get a Tiger, plus the Panther that is still highly armored, but was even heavier back in the time.
This lead to Allies absolutely needing high pen TDs to survive, but since there is usually only one heavy TD unit per faction and Allied mediums are less reliable against Axis mediums than the other way around, Allied TDs get overloaded and suddenly (need to) perform well against everything. This in turn lowered the effective value of Axis mediums again.

However, achpawel said that even if a unit bounces shots somewhat reliably (I'll just assume 10-20% bounce rate, especially considering he responded to a post that had 25% as an example), it would not matter.
Now I don't know which game modes he is talking about. If he talks about 4v4 only where it is fine that you jump from LVs straight to heavy TDs and heavy tanks, then he might be right at least on the armor point and every armor below the heavy TDs far penetration is basically the same. But as long as medium tanks are played regularly, which I assume from his post, this is just not the case. Even a 10% bounce chance lowers your chance of being killed in a 4 shot volley by about a third and halves it for 6 shot vehicles like the Panther.
If range and accuracy were the most important things, I think we'd see way more JPIVs from OKW, since this unit is also able to reliably penetrate almost all Allied stock armor.

I did not read every comment, but i have to say i use it often in teamgames also on big 4vs4 maps and i had never problem with it.

It sounds for me just for a L2P issue. Maybe go in custom and try it out, how it works.

The issue is not that it bugs out or worked inconsistently, but that this is another of the many examples in CoH2 where a single ability functions differently from all other similar abilities for actually no apparent reason.
And for someone playing casually this can be a big drawback because there is simply no time to figure out the quirks of each ability.

If possible, it would be better if it worked like the same two-click process of those recon-smoke commander ability. If this creates balance issues, then at least it should be clearly stated that the planes come from the base (or is it? I can't remember that is would be like this, but I have not played with forward majors often recently).

I am not sure which game version you are talking about and also how good my memory is because I did not play CoH in 2016 and 2017. But from what I remember the TTK in 2015 when I picked up CoH2 was way shorter than it is now. Obersoldaten wrecked everything, and mortars could cause squad wipes on full health squads. Repairing a building under barrage was not a few lost models like it is now, but it was almost a guarantee to throw away a squad if you desperately need to repair that building. Bascially all AoE damage was way stronger even until 2018.
Tanks driving over infantry like crazy and mediums often killing 2-3 decently healthed models with a single shot, not even starting with heavier tanks.

At least compared to that version of CoH2, the game has focused a lot more on consistency. I can't argue about your feeling about "mirror matchups" because I tend to agree. Unless you're talking about even earlier versions that I never played, I don't see where the game has accelerated that much.

Overall I'd like to see a CoH style game that is slower and more tactical than CoH2. You know, where a fortified MG in a small village actually means that you need to rethink your whole approach rather than just getting one or two squads suppressed. I think CoH2 was originally planned like this as we can see from dead features like transport vehicles and the blizzard mechanic. But CoH2's maps are too small for that. There is (especially not in team games) not much space for maneuvering, even infantry traverses the entire map very quickly. If it weren't for base MGs, you could sneak an infantry squad into the enemy base in next to no time. I think this is the main reason why CoH2 must be a faster paced game. If damage was lower and shoot outs took longer, you could just skip the enemy forces and move through them to more important targets and still retreat without major losses. But the small maps and the high density of important targets do not allow this. Also there are not that many units to manage simultaneously, so in order to force mistakes the time you have to react must be comparatively small.