|
Honestly I think the IS-2 could use a boost to 240 damage to make it in-between the Tiger I and Tiger II. It used to have 240 damage, but it was dropped (along with the awful 10 second reload) to make it more in-line with the Tiger I. With the Tiger II being a thing, I'd like to see it have a heavily armored large caliber challenger. |
When standard ST44 is replaced with MP-40 maybe.
For what purpose? |
The fact it has more range than other Heavies is what I take issue with, and it makes no sense either.
It doesn't unless you account for Veterancy, then the IS-2 and Tiger I both get 50 Range; the Tiger II and Pershing do not get range bonuses.
IS-2: 40
Tiger: 45
Tiger II: 45
Pershing: 45
The IS-2 actually starts with less range than default. |
Anything but reload and penetration. No way should a vehicle as fast and mobile as a Jackson have 338 near pen with the regular rounds or 325 far pen with HVAP. Same as SU 85 with its 286 far pen and 312 near pen. What would you suggest to replace it for? Reload would made it even stronger (as it was before).
Current alternatives:
-30% reload, -30% scatter
+30% armour, -10% reload
-20% reload, +20% speed, +20% rotation speed, +20% ac/de-celeration
-+10% armour, +25% HP, +35% sight range
+20% speed, +20% rotation speed, -20% reload
-25% reload, Weapon rotation+ 35%
As far as the Su85 goes, more rotation rate and/or a more forgiving moving accuracy penalty would always be nice. It already has good sight, pen and reload.
The Allies have to contend with Axis having Panthers stock, lethal tank hunters with great armor, and OKW has the Tiger II as a stock unit. This means the SU-85 and M36 Jackson must be able to contend with both of these effectively, as it is the allies strongest defence. The King Tiger is highly effective in it's Spearhead mode, and the Panther is the undeniable Dive champion. If the SU-85 and M36 cannot shock these units, then the SU-85 and M36 themselves will fall prey to the vehicles they exist to counter. |
I think they went with "emplacements" for 3 reasons.
First off, "nostalgia". CoH's Brits also heavily relied on emplacements.
Second is "uniqueness". The most retarded thing that destroys both balance and game design but hey, at least they're not similar, right?
Third I'm guessing is because they could be garrisoned only when done in such a way. You could even put MGs inside them before but it proved too buggy so they removed it.
To be honest I would be fine if they removed the British emplacements altogether altho it's nice to have an Allied Pak 43 once in a while on open terrain maps as well as the Bofors, however situational it may be.
I never bother with the mortar pit and so do other people from what I've noticed, especially after the new British Commander.
The Brits are definitely modeled off their Company of Heroes 1 rendition, but heavily toned down to be more playable. They still have powerful but expensive infantry with upgrades alter that unit's role, they're still defense oriented, they have an emphasis on artillery as the only faction with stock howitzers, they've got their emplacements with fireproof and bomb proof crews, and even the same emplacements; Mortar Pit/Bofors Gun/17 Pounder. They don't have the trucks anymore because OKW has that now (should've been USF imo), but they do have one as a static building.
Removing emplacements feels like the wrong way to go for me though, making them less "binary" seems better. Make them more vulnerable to anti-fortification weapons, they can receive Crew Shock from heavy bombings or Assaults, or be decrewed at low health, or from Incendiary attacks. Then Brace could be reworked to prevent crew shock from bombings or decrew from incendiary weapons, but reduce or remove the damage resistance. Also it feels weird and gamey to me that the best counters to these fortifications are anti-tank weapons firing AP shells, rather than anti-fortification units firing HE; weapons that do big booms should cause more damage like you'd expect. A StuG III E should hurt them more than a StuG III G, an LeIG should hurt more than a Pak 40, etc. |
As far as I'm aware it's what the Germans did only but I'm not 100% sure so don't quote me on it. Soviets didn't really care to put in much effort since they had a lot of them, Germans tried to improve their effectiveness.
Plus if you just Google for captured T-34s you'll see a lot with either Armored Skirts or the PzIII/IV commander cupola like I mentioned but only models with both sadly.
P.S.
Speaking of German T34s, you might wanna Google for VK3002 or DB Panther, you'll see something very interesting.
Yeah as far as I know, the Armored Skirts were a German addition, which would be the perfect Vet 2 bonus for this doctrine's tank. There's something on the back too which could have been used, not sure what it is though. Always a shame to see good assets like that go to waste.
And I've seen that Panther before, it always amused me how closely they followed the T-34's design with that prototype, rather than the more familiar design they ultimately chose!
|
|
If changing the gimmick is out of the question, then make infiltration grenades give high received accuracy / damage to the thrower. That way you have to use them in ambush (as intended) or risk heavy losses and reduced effect. |
|
Emplacements being "vehicles" is kind of iffy as it is, it means they rely on a single rigid healthbar and do not have to worry about being decrewed even under heavy bombardment, only being destroyed if the bombardment is not dealt with in a timely manner.
Nobody is as concerned about the Pak 43 or Flak 38 as they are with the 17 Pounder or Bofors, and I think that's because the former are so easy to bleed and eventually destroy, while the latter you either destroy it, or it gets repaired and you achieve nothing.
If they're going to stay as "vehicles", then maybe they could be given criticals like crew shocked and abandon when attacked by anti-fortification weaponry like Artillery, Sturmpanzers, and Incendiary Bombings. |
|
DShK anti-armor could use a boost, it's the largest caliber machine gun of any faction and yet it's barely better than an MG 42 (which makes up for the lower penetration with a high rate of fire). The DShK and M2 with Armor Piercing rounds are both inferior to the MG 34 with Armor Piercing Incendiary, and the MG 42 is in a league of it's own with that shit. |
The back gunner cowers when he cant shoot (Jeep is driving away in combat).
This is used in CoH2 on the rare occasion a Kubelwagen or WC 51 get the Gun Destroyed critical. |
0
Relic Entertainment
ll1stll Revolution 
T.R. Expensive Runner 
