There is a flaw in "rack" system and I had pointed out years ago (in 2017) when it could had easily been fixed:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/60230/balancing-dropable-weapons
But there are also solution:
1) units having a modifier for slot weapons
2) units picking different version of weapons
To be honest I hope that CoH3 will feature some generalized "weapon skill" stat per squad that provides a modifier for weapon DPS based. Technically, this could already exist by giving each squad a separate accuracy modifier and somehow exists with different vet bonuses, but basically every unit starts out at a modifier of "1" and only vet creates differences. This is basically what you suggested back then if I understand it correctly, at least broadly categorizing units into three classes.
The current system makes base Conscripts or builder units just as effective with a picked up weapon as alleged elite troops with proper training.
The current solution was to make most weapons non-droppable and force every unit to use mostly unique weapons, so that the weapon accuracy can be tuned instead of the squad's "weapon skill".
Changing the weapon to one with different stats on pick up would solve the issue, but at the cost of high maintenance.
To circle back to topic:
I am fine with CoH2's current approach. It's not elegant, it's not optimal. But at least regarding rear echelons, it is okay. The faction works without them being potent early on. USF's issues are elsewhere, so even if we'd get another patch, I'd probably not touch echelons. |
I also don't think RE are initially worth their 200 MP cost. They are probably the least useful unit in the early game having both bad DPS and little utility. Since USF has crew repairs, they are one of the very few units I do not rebuilt until I really need the sweeper.
I agree with the points that others made: Weapon racks (or better to say bazookas) make them decently efficient. The issue here is obviously that those weapons have to be priced to fit basically any unit of the whole USF faction. So making REs cheaper could result in bazooka/BAR spam tactics, which in turn could only be fixed by increasing the price of the weapon racks and/or weapons themselves. Which then again would affect Riflemen as well.
Since REs are not really needed for USF to work, sacrificing their early game usefulness is the easier (and smarter) choice. |
I find Grens very well balanced at the moment. I think the Gren/Conscript balance is similarly good to what I remember it to be years ago. Start the fight from long range, and your Conscripts will lose, start it mid to close and Conscripts will win.
Haven't played much Brits recently, but as OST I always had the feeling that Sections usually win against my Grens if they are in cover.
Looking at the statistics Ostheer in 1v1 has slightly below 50% winrate, which probably indicates that they are a bit too weak. It would be interesting if the winrate depends on game length and to which extend, but at least generally it is safe to say that Grens do not carry Ostheer to victory. |
Thank you for the answers. I'm aware of this elevation, covers, etc.
This is just one unit very exceptional and dodging hits even though its parked raketeen and P4s (very close both stopped) are unable to hit it.
I'm guessing there's a buff on it size when it hits veterancy? it's almost invincible in vet3 with its speed, acceleration, and sight.
Most of this as Klement Pikhtura said is just skewed perception. Everyone remembers the times they got screwed over by the game, but not the times you got lucky. Most of the shots of that any unit in the game fires do hit the target, so the base expectation is to get at least a hit. That's why misses are much more memorable.
The T70 gets only mobility buffs regarding survivability. The reason why it may seem invincible at high vet is because of the high sight radius in recon mode and good mobility of the unit, making it hard to catch against even mediocre players like me. If it actually gets in range of Axis weaponry, it is not more survivable than other light vehicles. |
As Katukov said, UKF already has gliders/commandos in two of their commanders. They are not real paratroopers, but adding paras to a third one would make the only 9 UKF commanders quite redundant. Especially since they have to fit thematically.
Also, wasn't the issue with Soviet Airborne guards that they for some technical reason could not be airdropped? This issue could be the same with UKF paras. |
Not that I could speak of top tournament level play from experience, but my two cents:
First, we mostly saw especially USF and UKF in tournaments when they had one single strategy for rushing. Either the Jeep/Cav rifle or the UC into AEC combo.
Second, I somehow have the feeling that balancing has shifted a bit away from focusing on 1v1 like the first patches did to rather 2v2 and 3v3. This allowed removing or at least toning down some of the "gimmicks" that made those factions strong to compensate the gaps in their line up. But this might be just a confuse feeling since I can't really think of specific examples. However, I am under the impression that the removal of gimmicks coupled with still having glaring gaps in line up lead to DLC factions being overall worse in 1v1. They were always predictable, but now their predictable path is not as strong anymore. In team games, missing units can be compensated by team mates so they are not AS serious as in 1v1. You can still focus fully on your faction's strengths. I can also imagine that the "one dimensional" design of UKF/USF/OKW leads to very clear counters. You only have 1-2 strategies that you can play, and if you have a good opponent he will know how to give you a hard time.
Lastly, there might be a psychological factor: Soviets and Ostheer are the safest bets because they do not lack any tools. Knowing to have all options at hand relieves pressure when you can actually win something. Why take options away from yourself when you actually don't have that much benefit from it? |
That's intesting, can anyone expand on this? That mechanic could be the solution that we are looking for.
I might have phrased it incorrectly in the thread that MMX is referring to. I cannot remember if this mechanic does 'additional' damage or if only hits get potentially rerolled to a different model. Maybe I tested it, but I cannot remember.
What we know though is that some weapons damage other models than the initially targeted one, too. This depends on some weapon stats, but as a rule of thumb only comes into effect if the enemy models are closely together, e.g. in cover.
|
I thought this whole board's warcry was "consistency!". Target tables are a no go because interaction between squads becomes inconsistent, faction asymmetry is ok but only when everyone has consistent access to the same tools, and so on.
Tell me how consistent it would be for a shell switch changing the target priority on your selected unit? Sure, the M42 won't be doing any damage against tanks with its AI rounds, but neither does the Sherman, and it keeps its prioritization settings anyways.
And if you do make those consistent between each other, then the ISU is the odd man out because its AI shells CAN do damage to tanks (at least as far as I remember, unless I'm mixing it up with the KV-2).
Hell, though, if I am wrong about the ISU then screw it, disable vehicle prioritization while in AI shells mode for all of them. I don't really see the downside.
The first point you make is not about consistency, but putting basic gameplay mechanics into place.
To your point though: it's about putting 'consistency' above everything else and never has been. Consistency helps an awful lot though if there is no intuitive reason that things should be different. A bundle nade being stronger than a normal one? Makes an awful lot of sense intuitively. Elite infantry being better than mainline? A P4H being stronger than a M4A3? Same.
The same weapon doing a different amount of damage against similar units (=target tables)? Oof, in my eyes a far stretch in 95% of cases and there must be good balance reasons to do it like that. It is not intuitive that e.g. a 222 is more accurate vs a sniper than vs a normal model. This is pure balance.
Anyway, regarding the canister shot: As I tried to say in my first paragraph, it should be considered if an automatic firing mode switch ends up to be more confusing or not. It makes sense though that a shell that is primarily targetet vs infantry also targets infantry, or at least has the chance to do so.
We shouldn't forget though that there is no 'target infantry only' button in the games. The canister shot will target tanks if necessary. This is about saving a click for the player. We actually already have a somewhat comparable example: TDs entering the field with and prioritizing vehicles from the start, while all other tanks don't have to. It makes sense intuitively, and saves a click for the plaEr as well. Yet, there are no huge discussions about it apart from some people complaining that they need to get their muscle memory changed. |
Looks like a very minor issue, however automatically setting the engagement mode to all targets would probably be benefitial.
Not sure how well it turns out with other shell switch abilities where the target is not as clearly defined as here. The most important thing is probably to keep it consistent.
No to making it a single shot ability though. That would make it somewhat similar to the ZiS barrage in terms of functionality.
Regarding the cannister shot in general, I think there could be some range regained with vet, so that spamming them is not oppressive since they need to stay in range of small arms themselves at vet. At vet 1-2, when medium tanks arrive and the usability of the M42 diminishes both regarding tanks as well as against better infantry squads and upcoming elites, it could maybe get a small range buff of +5-10 to reinforce the AI role and make it less vulnerable. |
I'd say stick to some streams for a couple of games to get ideas for build orders. Just start playing after that though, not that much more to do.
There has been development on the community site, you can e.h. check coh2stats.com to see which commanders are popular at the moment. |