|
Linear teching is terrible and a lazy approach to balance. Unit timing imbalances are a good thing so long as it works both ways. That said, swapping P4 with Panzerwerfer is interesting.
@Festive what ways did Soviet tech become less restrictive? To me it feels more restrictive with T3 units coming every game and T4 units being used less. Are you are talking about a shift away from the T34/85 call-in meta? Personally I would sometimes rush Soviet T4, but as long as T3 is this good and a requirement I don't think 4 is very worthwhile. Ost T4 could use some love too. |
I agree with Basilone. Right now there is no decision making involved in the soviet teching process. You decide whether to go T1 or T2 and after that you just follow their linear tech tree.
However such a change would require an increase to the price of the T4 building. To avoid recreating the situation we had in the last patch where you never built both T3 and T4 I would suggest to give a "discount" on T4 when T3 is already built.
Rushing T3 and upgrading T4 later is ok, but building T4 then downgrading doesn't make much sense. I would in vcoh downgrade for AT guns but since they come in T2 now that isn't needed.
No.
Completely undermines the point of changing things around and opening up sandbox.
As a reminder T34 still comes before P4, do the math.
Well the point, whatever it was, is dumb. And doesn't matter that one factions unit arrives faster than a similar unit in another faction, those back and forth time windows are interesting. That said maybe Ostheer T3 should cost a little less, a faction should get a good shock unit tank at around 10-12 minutes when they fast tech it and have had a fuel advantage.
Removing t3 requirement would also destroy the "light vehicle play phase" that Relic wants to extend.
Light vehicle now or better vehicle later choice existed. The change removed the choice of skipping a building and holding off for something more expensive (which can back fire if you build the T4 and lose map control before getting a tank).
|
|
It only makes sense to require one late game tier before the next if it is like Ostheer (research in order but you choose what to build and they cost less). You shouldn't be required to make 2 armor tech buildings if you just want to produce from one of them. Not only does it make teching more linear (making good T3 units like Quad and SU76 are fucking no brainers when you are forced to make that building anyway), but it delays T34 too much for only being medium armor. If you want to rush T34 you should get at least some shock value from that, only a complete fucktard can be caught unprepared for medium armor when it doesn't hit until around 15 minutes or later.
I know some Axis fanboy is going to say "but Soviets are already too strong blah blah blah" but this change would only decrease the frequency you are seeing some of their current strongest units, and in the next patch they might not be the best faction anymore. |
So, 3 AI units in Soviet T3? Tech through T2 or lose to first tank and gtfo?
No, thanks. I like variety.
If it was like that it should be moved back to T4. |
|
They need a little less penetration, that said they shouldn't be nerfed to complete shit against heavy armor unless they get proportionally buffed in the anti infantry department because the barrage is kinda shitty and auto attack misses inf all the time. IMO SU76 would be best if it was basically a cheaper, slightly more agile, but less durable Brumbar (no barrage ability but fired explosive aoe rounds by default). The SU76 isn't a insanely broken unit right now. It is a good unit, and the reason people are spamming them is because they are forced in to the same tier building now. Why tech T34 or SU85, even though they are still better vs infantry and tanks respectively, when you have to make an additional building to get them and the SU76 is just slightly inferior. By the time you can get 1 SU85 you could have 2 almost 3 SU76s. |
OK but two points here:
1) IMO there should always have been a reverse button in CoH1, and while it may be easier now to do that sort of thing than it was, that doesn't in itself mean that it is too easy.
2) There are question about the possible over-effectiveness of the Su-76; if this was an issue that applied to assault guns simply by virtue of being able to reverse etc., then the same problem would arise with StuG's, but I haven't seen nearly as much concern about them.
Right now SU76 is standing out, but since beta every assault gun has been way too good at one point, and the huge range and super easy kiting has played a big part. |
I don't understand Basilone's argument. Sure assault guns are more conservative in function, and sure a deep flank with proper tanks is inherently more risky, but that's precisely why those tanks have heavier armour and turrets. That is literally their design spec.
Whether or not there are issues around the Su-76, I don't think this has a bearing on the question of the defence of tank spam, which I think was really aimed at the T-34. The general thrust that too many people are too willing to cry 'spam' as soon as anyone builds more than one of a unit type is, IMO, quite correct.
It SHOULD be viable to use strength in numbers as a tactic. It only becomes problematic when it is such a good tactic that everyone does it at every opportunity, and it does not appear to me that this is the case.
Next up, some brave heretic needs to mount a defence of blobbing...
TLDR
-"spam" is not inherently bad
-In vcoh assault gun spam was harder to execute. Longer range + reverse button makes it really easy to kite targets (now anyone can do it well, it used to a high level player thing), opposed to vcoh where there wasn't a huge range advantage but the frontal armor was much more durable. That stuff isn't going to be changed though, so the better solution is just make turreted tanks a bit more appealing. |
|
I'll take units that are defensive and nature and require virtually little to no micro any day over a more offensive force (provided the defensive units aren't drastically inferior). Of course this requires having decent map control to begin with, its hard to recover a bad early-mid game with a defensive playstyle. But that is almost another topic, I'm talking mostly about tanks. Just because they are long range directional units doesn't make them bad offensive units, they just don't require much micro. You can use turreted tanks defensively too, but the point is you rarely see an assault gun doing aggressive flanking. |
|
"Spamming" a unit does not make someone a bad player. Some of the most elite CoH1 2v2 players spammed M10s, and to do it successfully and not leave a graveyard of free munitions for a Wehrmacht player took a lot of micro and careful planning/positioning. But the SU76, SU85, or anything else without a turret takes a lot less skill since you are basically sitting at range at choosing a unit to fire at, and if you ever get in danger you can reverse all unit simultaneously (doing the same thing w/ 5+ tanks in vcoh took god tier micro). Spamming an assault gun type vehicle will always be fairly easy compared to making offensive manuevers with turreted tanks, but since we have so many more assault guns in coh2 will just have to deal with it and hope its different in the next game. In the mean time they could cut down on SU76 spam by getting rid of the T3 requirement for T4. I like SU76s because I already made the building anyway and I don't want to build another expensive structure for T34 when I can immediately start getting another powerful unit. |
|
Nothing wrong with the spawn building mechanic, but if they made it so they paratrooped when not called in from a building (on open maps with lack of buildings for example) that would be a nice change. Increasing effectiveness would be nice but I don't see a need for any redesign other than maybe a short and inexpensive (50mun?) FG42 upgrade to prevent it from popping out of a building and instantly melting a high value unit like a sniper. |
United States
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
