Wrong ATO is not deal damage to all unit in circle in same time in just target 1 unit and switching.
barrage also not multiply by unit in area like zeroing.
how many unit how less its effective.
consider again with this test video.
Yes, I'm aware of how ATO works; however, even with it targeting a single unit at a time, the total damage done to all of the units in the circle is still very high. If you replace those 5 panthers with 1x Vet 3 Panther, 1x Vet 3 Brummbar, and a vet 0 Elephant, as I described in my post, after the barrage all 3 will be well below half HP. That's a significant amount of damage dealt, especially since it starts less than 5 seconds after the smoke appears.
If I'm not mistaken, your concern with ATO is that supporting the retreating heavy tank(s) with other armours to deny vision from enemy dive is not viable, since ATO is likely to drop equally deadly hits to all the armours in the circle resulting you to lost all the tanks.
If this is your concern then I have a tip that hopefully can help you: ATO's total hits are limited and mostly evenly distributed to all valid targets inside the visible area within the ability casting area. Retreating all the armours but the super heavy on the frontline is exactly the most suboptimal strategy to counter ATO since it will result all the ATO hits concentrated on one tank. If you support your front row tanks with your full army like againsting any other normal allies dive, help separating the ATO hits from the super heavies, denying sight by taking out the diving force, the ATO is not going to deal much damage to all your tanks at all.
The total damage done to multiple units is also incredibly high, if you leave multiple in the area. It can easily
drop a vet 3 panther, vet 3 Brummbar and Elephant to half HP (or less) all at the same time.
Additionally, since it's a dive, you're also contending with the enemy tanks - not just the ATO. As a result, leaving the vehicles in the area to spread out the damage will mean that most of your tanks will be left at half HP or less, making it easy for the attacking force to destroy all of them. The only 'viable' option is to retreat everything at the same time
, so that you leave the circle and
the damage is spread out, and the time within it is minimized. However, due to the layout of many of the 3v3 and 4v4 maps, as well as the size of the circle, this isn't always possible.
you are making things up to justify your trash narrative, ATO doesn't fall down instantly and you're going to decimate the enemy dive if you have supporting forces. When you kill the enemy forces ATO wont fire at you anymore.
your scenario is an allies outplay the way you describe it, maybe that should be telling us something
The delay on ATO is around 4.5 seconds, from click
to the first shell; less when you consider the flares drop after
the click. By comparison, the soviet 'PTAB' anti-tank run, which had it's delay increased because it was overpowered, now arrives after 8.5 seconds. The similar JU-87 close air support ability (which also needs LOS and costs 200 muni) arrives after 14
seconds on a typical map. It seems to me that ATO starts far too early, especially considering these abilities all cost about the same.
You counter the ability by not going in the circle. I know its a hard concept for people to understand but Circle = BAD move out of Circle.
The only people who are complaining about this ability are those that have no patience and send their tanks in unsupported. The ability has a role, it does it well and has weaknesses to it. It does not need a change.
Every time an allied player uses the ability against me they are literally just wasting their ammo because it does nothing but force me to move.
If you are having trouble with this ability then you need to start using combined arms more and stop putting yourself into bad situations where it can be used.
This works on some maps; but remember that a lot of the maps, especially in team-games are very 'lane' heavy - this is where the ability is so strong. There are multiple maps where you can't
avoid the circle; your options are to retreat into it, or stay in front of it and fight allied tanks at close range, and both are bad choices. Redball is a great example of this.
As for 'bad situations', that's a massive oversimplification. Axis tanks don't excel close range; you want to keep Panthers, P4s, JP4s, STUGs - and especially ultra-heavies - at max range at all times. Getting any of those tanks into close range fights means getting flanked and losing your armor advantage, as pen increases at close range. As a result, when allied tanks dive on you, especially on a lane map
, you need to reverse; there is no other option.
Are lane maps bad design? Sure, but they're a major part of the game, and we can't remove them all; so abilities need to be balanced around them to some degree.
you can drive throughout the entire duration of ATO if your tank doesn't have engine damage (or is a heavy tank without blitzkrieg) and survive with quite a lot of health. In this scenario, the enemy is clearly forcing a full retreat on your armor, ATO will do no damage if the enemy does not pursue your armor. If they do, then you reverse immediately, ATO has only enough time to hit each tank maybe once, twice, before your tanks get away.
Heavies and engine damaged tanks are going to die to the diving tanks regardless of ATO, there is nothing you can do here.
forum post diagnosis: skill issue
Heavies and engine-damaged tanks won't
die to diving tanks if supported. An Elephant, KT, or JT should never be out by itself, and it usually never is; it's probably supported by P4s, Panthers, or similar.
The problem is, in a dive, those tanks are going to need to reverse; even the ultra-heavies. When reversing, they can still give cover to the heavies which are staying behind, since they only need to stay out of the medium/close range of the diving tanks. However, that range places them within
the ATO, which doesn't work. So that means they need to either retreat more, dropping cover on the ultra-heavy, or stay and fight at close range, where they're at a disadvantage.
The ability to instantly create a massive 'unavoidable damage' area is overpowered; that's why the delay needs to be increased. That way it can't be used to instantly separate retreating units during a dive, but it can still be used defensively (or in dives where the axis player is playing poorly).
I am confused by your statement, are you saying an allied charge when they caught you out of position or they charged your main army. If you are caught out of position you deserve to lose the tanks, its 200 muni plus whatever they threw at you on top of flanking you. If you are talking about your main army you should have snares, mines, shreks, at guns to slow them down. The ability needs sight so even if they call it in behind you it needs sight.
Now in 3v3 or 4v4 where one of them might have recon/flares then there aint much you can do but that is the nature of bigger game modes. If you increase the initial delay you would need to significantly ramp up subsequent drops so DPS stays the same. That would be even worse for a single snared tank or a well timed ram due to the drops focusing on one tank instead of spreading out to all in the circle.
Yes, I should have clarified; it's specifically a problem in 3v3 and 4v4 (and maybe rarely in 2v2). In smaller modes it's actually reasonable. However, I don't think that's an excuse - the game should be balanced for all game modes, and have a "zoned or deleted" ability just isn't good.
The issue isn't the ability itself, it's the synergy with allied units that makes it absurdly strong. When used behind enemy tanks (especially during a dive), it instantly creates what is in effect a 'wall' which retreating vehicles can't cross. This amount of map control on a single ability is just far too much, especially when the 'activation' period is so short (i.e. the time between clicking and the first shell dropping).
Consider that during an allied charge, Axis tanks will usually need to reverse in order to maintain their armor advantage, since long-range pen isn't great on allied mediums, or because they're being zoned out by 60-range TDs. Reversing, however, places them inside the AT Overwatch, which will result in massive amounts of damage taken. Going forward also isn't an option, as it means being surrounded by allied tanks, usually giving flanking advantages - and standing still isn't much better. Even worse, slower axis tanks can effectively be 'deleted' by this ability, with no opportunity for counter play, or even a reaction because of this 'instant wall' effect.
My suggestion would be to keep the stats the same, but increase the delay before the first shell drops by a significant margine. As a result, it keeps its power about the same, and still works well as a defensive ability, but it could no longer create impassable zones instantly during diving attacks.
Trying to back up a tank only to see is spin 180 degrees far faster than it can normally turn.
Those are some core issue in CoH2 that should be addressed in 3. However, I also hope for fewer "gimmicky" units and abilities, i.e. none of these:
- Tanks that can throw grenades / smoke
- Tanks with high armor, speed, and damage vs. both tanks and infantry
- Infantry that can move while cloaked, and only break camo after throwing a grenade
- Mainline Infantry with far too many abilities (no CoH2 UKF-IS' design)
- Mortars that can self-spot (i.e. Sov flare)
- Mortars/Artillery that can auto-counter barrage
- Auto-targeting off-maps ("Skill planes", AT Overwatch, etc.)
- Uncounterable off-map recon (i.e. old spec-ops flares)
- "Convert building to FHQ" abilities
Combined arms should be encouraged, as should positioning and player skill; and I find all of those things go counter to those core principles.
Also, while not a 'balance' issue directly: remove collision with capture-flags/VPs, to help vehicle pathing and prevent 1-way sandbags.
This is wrong on many levels. Assuming both parties are of equal skill Panzer IV should come out before Sherman does or at about the same time. If they choose to go M8 Scott first then they leave themselves open to get dived by my tanks. If the Whermacht player has no tanks out on the field before USF can manage to get Double M8 Scotts then he probably already lost well before that point. I personally have never lost to any USF player who made M8 Scots pre-nerf or not. Are they annoying as hell? Sure but so were Soviet Clown Cars back in the day with Snipers in them and people cried nonstop about how overpowered it was yet it never stopped me from winning. It was a L2P issue. After nerf M8 Scott just tickles my units and is nothing but a glorious smoke thrower.
The issue wasn't USF rushing M8s, it was them getting them later, especially in team games. By mid/late game the dual scotts could be defended by M36s, SU85s, Fireflies, etc. at which point they were untouchable via tank rushes (at least, with favorable econ outcomes). The obvious counter to that defensive tank line was Schrecks and Paks, but double Scotts countered those very well when used correctly. The game needs to be balanced (to some degree, anyway) in all modes, and double scotts were a serious problem in team games.
As for your experience, or sov clown cars; that's fine. However, many other players at both higher and lower levels had problems with it, and more importantly, it was incredibly 'un-fun' to play against; "This is miserably oppressive but I can still win against it" simply isn't good game design.
Second why are people making LMG Grens vs USF without grabbing Ambush Camo, G43 or Veteran Squad Leaders? These are significantly more useful vs USF as they can protect your MG from flanks all game while also being significantly more mobile than LMG Grenadiers. If they are spamming LMG Grenadiers and getting owned by M8 Scotts then they deserve to lose. Different commanders are good/better vs different factions (shocker). Even pre-nerf M8 Scotts were never scary because of the timing that they come into play when you are (should be) shifting to tanks at that point. Mortar Halftrack, Regular Mortar, or even Pak Howitzers are more dangerous than M8 Scotts due to the timing that they arrive.
CoH2 is balanced around stock roster vs. stock roster, with the doctrine abilities adding flavor or countering other doctrine abilities. The goal has always
been to make it possible for the game to be played without specific doctrines being 'required' vs. certain factions. This hasn't always been the case, as we've seen with various units and abilities, but it has been the goal; "the basic mainline unit isn't viable, you must use a doc locked unit" isn't a solution.
As for the comparison to MHTs, Mortars and Paks, the difference there is that all of them require being setup, and react to moving units quite slowly (via rotation). The Scott could fire fairly accurately on the move
, and could easily react to moving units.
The over-all result was that static units, such as the MG42, Pak and LMG-gren were destroyed extremely quickly by the scott, and moving wasn't viable, as none of them can shoot on the move. Yes, there were other choices such as Pgrens and Doc-locked choices, but having effectively the entire
default hard-countered by a stock unit just wasn't good game design.
As a counter example, imagine the impact on USF if the Ostwind did significantly more damage to moving units, to the point where it could wipe a vet 3 squad in less than a second. You'd be safe if you remained stationary, but then could be easily beaten by long-range units such as OST's LMG Grens or Mortars. This would be effectively the same thing in terms of design; horrible, as USF relies heavily on mobility.
Also remember when USF had double LMG and could throw smoke? (Also pre nerf M8 Scott Period) that never really changed Axis win rates as more experienced players just adapted (and made use of mines for the incoming smoke that would eventually come and Panzer Grenadiers)
Double LMG rifles were annoying, but as you said, could be dealt with; however, their existence also didn't counter an entire factions starting roster. In any event, this was also nerfed because it just wasn't fun to play against; blobs aren't interesting.
Everything you mentioned is basically people who are bad at the game and don't know or want to adapt. The fact of the matter is that M8 Scott is a trash unit in a faction that is poorly designed with an arsenal of extremely sub par units held together by bandaids and no amount of stat adjustments will fix it unless they address the root of the problem which is the poor faction design.
Just about every balance issue can be boiled down to "L2P" if you really want to, but it's not good for the game long-term. If the game isn't fun, people stop playing; so over-performing units get nerfed - especially if that performance requires very little user input to attain.
Does USF need a stock arty unit, and some late-game blob control? Sure; but not a form that can delete squads instantly with effectively no cooldown (or user input).
The M8 Scott used to be decent but was nerfed because Dual M8 Scott was too effective yet if you get Dual of anything it will be more effective. How come Katyusha/Panzerwerfer/Stuka weren't nerfed because getting two of those is far more effective than getting one.
Why aren't Panthers/Jacksons/Fireflys nerfed because getting two of them is more effective than just having one.
The issue with the double-scott was that it effectively deleted OST's entire stock roster with very little user input, something that 2x Tanks or 2x Rocket arty couldn't do. OST is entirely designed around static units; the MG42, LMG grens, Pak40s (ost's only 60-range AT) and so on, in addition to being designed around small squads (4 models). That faction design against two fast moving, fast auto-firing artillery units that could usually wipe 1-2 models per hit just wasn't a great experience.
That's not to say that current scott is 'good'; it could probably use some adjustments, especially to the manual barrage. However, returning it to its pre-nerf levels just isn't going to work.
This has happened a few times now, always in 2v2, where I'm on a double-OKW team vs. at least one UKF. The game will go really well early on, and I'll go med truck (my usual pick) for Leigs, FlakHT and the forward reinforcement point, which helps out a ton especially against a defensive UKF player. Then UKF will bring out a sniper, defend it with their IS' (making closing on it with Volks/Kubel impossible), and it will effectively win the game single-handedly due to MP bleed.
I know that the typical counter would be a Luchs, but this always happens after I've teched and invested into med. If my teammate is OST a counter-snipe or 222 can usually solve this, but if it's 2x OKW there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done.
If it were against Sov this also wouldn't be a problem, as it would be supported by Cons, which don't have a lot of long-range DPS (allowing for Volks/Kubels to close). The issue is specifically that it's supported by very strong, long-range infantry.
This is for ~200 rank auto-match with random teammates.
That list is grasping.
From what I can tell, the list is factually accurate. It may not be optimal in terms of gameplay, but it does contain all of the non-doc upgrades and abilities available to a single IS squad, as well as one entry for "doc abilities" - at least all that I'm aware of. If this list is factually
incorrect, I'd be happy to update it.
Nobody in their right mind would equip them with PIATs.
While true, it is still an option. If IS' were incapable of equipping it, I wouldn't have listed it. However, the intent was to list every
ability, utility and upgrade.
Any infantry can benefit from commander buffs, for all factions, there is nothing (anymore) that specifically or permanently buffs IS.
The UKF ability "Defensive Operations" (Adv. Emplacement) grants abilities only to IS and Assault IS (and interestingly not RE's, even though the tooltip says it does), and "Advanced Cover Bonus" (Mobile Assault) buffs only IS - not even Assault IS.
Yes they can build caches, but nobody wants to sacrifice the valuable time of their mainline infantry for that.
Again, much like the Piats, while not optimal it is an option available to them.
They're also lacking one of the most important abilities of a mainline infantry, which is a snare.
I agree, but I don't think missing a snare makes up for their incredible utility in every other area. I would much prefer that their utility was brought inline with other units in exchange for a standard snare.
I'm not a fan of buffing the side tech costs either, but to state that IS have a "comically" long list of utility is simply false. Compared to other mainlines such as Volks, and with the fact in mind that they are more integral to the faction than most other mainlines, it is not that special.
Compared to Volks, I would consider their list of abilities comical.
- StG44 Package (takes all weapon slots)
- Build sandbags
- Flame grenade
- Faust (snare)
- Additional abilities from doctrines
That's 6 'abilities', compare to IS' 11, and doesn't mention that some of the IS' abilities are arguably better. While yes, IS' are core to the faction, I would argue they are no more core than USF's Rifles, which have far less utility. Furthermore, many of the IS' abilities could easily be moved to other units, or could be removed due to redundancy.
Construction could be completely removed with no consequence (short of sandbags), the mills bomb could be made a squad upgrade that replaces the gammon creating a trade-off between the two, the pyro upgrade could be moved to REs and/or snipers (snipers already have coordinated fire), medical supplies could take a weapon slot (trade-off with weapon upgrades), and as I mention later, the stealth detection pyro buff could also be move elsewhere. Doing all of that cuts IS' abilities in half, without a drastic loss in IS' power, while also
encouraging build diversity rather than 5x IS every match. Additionally, it would free up space to add a snare - something UKF could use.
The UC already has stealth detection, but against 18 range faust Grens it is simply not viable to use it in that role against snipers or camo Grens.
Compared to OKW's main detection unit, the Kubel, the UC is quite good (more HP, more armor). However, if the UC isn't viable in all situations, perhaps move the detection to the AEC (similar to the Luchs and 222), or possibly another infantry unit (REs?).
As-is, this massively nerfs Axis camo units such as Storms or Falls, while also allowing IS' to effectively "face check" for camo'd units, due to their high DPS.
Additionally, Axis is currently having massive issues with detecting cloaked Commandos, yet I don't think Ost T4 granting Grens/Pgrens +15 detection would be the right answer.
Construction of caches has already been added to REs.
Yes, and it's still available to IS.
And as much as we'd like to we can not overhaul Bolster, as Relic will not allow any such major changes anymore.
It doesn't need an overhaul, just a trade-off. Perhaps unlocking bolster gives a 'free' (0 resource) upgrade to IS, but it takes one weapon slot when equipped similar to OST's VSL. As-is, there is no reason to not take it every single game, preferably as soon as possible - which will be easier, now that it's less expensive.