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.
Profile of Doomlord52
Post History of Doomlord52
Thread: Soviet AT Over Watch is too strong.9 Sep 2021, 04:52 AM
Thread: Favourite CoH Rage moments8 Sep 2021, 05:21 AM
Trying to back up a tank only to see is spin 180 degrees far faster than it can normally turn.
In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: important balance stuff for coh3 up front8 Sep 2021, 04:50 AM
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:
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.
Thread: What is up with M8A1(Scott) change?31 Aug 2021, 03:56 AM
31 Aug 2021, 02:43 AMKurobane
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).
Thread: What is up with M8A1(Scott) change?31 Aug 2021, 01:24 AM
29 Aug 2021, 14:41 PMKurobane
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.
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.
Thread: 2v2 - Double OKW vs. UKF Sniper?28 Aug 2021, 04:34 AM
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.
In: OKW Strategies
Thread: CoH2 Summer 2021 Balance Patch - BETA18 Aug 2021, 04:28 AM
17 Aug 2021, 08:00 AMSander93
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.
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.
Thread: CoH2 Summer 2021 Balance Patch - BETA17 Aug 2021, 06:13 AM
13 Aug 2021, 01:14 AMShadowLinkX37
In the current state of the game, UKF is blatantly unfun to play against, while also (somehow) being unfun for many to play as, especially in team games. The core issue, at least in my view, is that UKF has about 3 good units each with 50 different roles, and this patch is just taking that further.
The list of things one infantry section can do is completely comical at this point.
Make the UC the 'detection' unit, similar to OKW's Kubel, move construction to REs, remove some of those grenades or make them exclusive, make bolster an interesting choice, not an upgrade with zero downside, etc.
Thread: Black Prince Poll20 Jul 2021, 01:55 AM
19 Jul 2021, 22:54 PMSeductiveCardbordBox
I think the point people are trying to make is that there's a difference between historical realism in terms of aesthetics and in terms gameplay, and that you can have the former without the later.
CoH isn't a "realistic" game in terms of gameplay; it's based on reality, sure - but it's in no way a simulation. Units are "stylized" to fit the mechanics (ranges are reduced, HP and armor is increased, etc.), but they do remain true to their source material; the Tiger has a lot of HP/Armor, a big cannon, and is slow and expensive. The T-34 is pretty cheap, but not that great, etc. When you look at those units, though, you can say "yea, that's pretty much a [Tiger/T-34/etc.]", and more importantly, the interaction between the units makes sense. The JT doesn't tend to bounce off mediums, air-attacks do a ton of damage to slow/immobilized heavies, and so on.
When you look at CoH1 and CoH2, every single unit and ability is at least plausible. Railway artillery existed and was used - probably not on the battlefield - but if the situation arose there's no reason it couldn't have. The same can be said of the "tactical V1"; it doesn't make a lot of sense historically, but V1s were real, and could be aimed to some degree. There's nothing (at least that I can think of) that immediately jumps out as 'impossible' in either games; there's no Maus or E100, Panther 2, T28/T95 (US), IS3, Tortoise, or any other "slightly too late" late-war or 'never produced paper prototype' in the game.
The BP however, is exactly that; there's simply no reality in which it could've appeared in Italy. The design started in 1943 and the first 6 prototypes were delivered in May 1945 - after the war ended. No commander, no matter how persuasive or powerful, could have summoned these vehicles to Italy, and no incredible chain of events or coincidences could resulted in them appearing, because they simply didn't exist - there was nothing to send.
It opens up the door to other units of this type, which some people (myself included) just don't want.
What's stranger is that most of this could be avoided by simply switching the model to CoH2's "Comet". While it didn't historically serve in Italy, it did first see action in December 1944 in Belgium, during which the Italian campaign was still ongoing. The "ahistorical, but available to the army" idea would actually work with it.
Thread: Is the Black Prince supposed to be some kind of easter egg?15 Jul 2021, 02:42 AM
I kind of have to agree with this sentiment; the "black prince" tank really doesn't fit in the game, and opens up a lot of really strange things to be added.
Wikipedia claims that there were 6 prototypes built, with the earliest completed in May 1945; definitely after the Italian campaign, and also just after the end of the war. The problem is, historically, the project was cancelled because of the success of the Centurion tank, which again according to wiki:
Six prototypes arrived in Belgium less than a month after the war in Europe ended in May 1945
That's quite a coincidence; the same number of prototypes built, completion within the same month, and even being shipped to Belgium (which is further than the BP got). So does that mean the Centurion is a valid tank to add? I wouldn't say so - it was far better than any other WW2-era tank (that served, anyway), and continued to serve until 1972, at which point every vehicle in the game was severely outdated.
Then there's other tanks as well, that existed to some degree or another:
My preference would be to stick with vehicles that existed and saw combat, even if they were incredibly rare.
Latest replays uploaded by Doomlord52
Ladders Top 10