[UKF][ALL] Is PIAT Spam a problem?

2»

Comments

  • #32
    2 years ago

    @Vipper said:

    @Mr_Smith said:
    With respect to light-vehicle pushing, nearly every single faction has snares on their mainline infantry, ...

    But axis do not have snares on their AT infantry which mean that the AT infantry would need a snare baby sitter to be able to even fire and additional micro if snare does not do enough damage to cause engine damage.

    Infantry pushing was, imo one of the worse aspect of COH and COH2 has come close enough with removing the snare critical. Really no reason to come any closer in making vehicle pushing a reliable tactic...

    How about only affecting the aim time of handheld AT, when the weapons are aiming further than, say, 20 meters? Aim-times can carry multipliers that are affected by distance (just like accuracy and penetration).

    I think this would both solve the "blink and you've been schreck-sniped" issues, while, not creating issues with pushing (which have to do with the vehicle charging close).

  • #33
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited September 2016

    @Mr_Smith said:
    How about only affecting the aim time of handheld AT, when the weapons are aiming further than, say, 20 meters?

    That is an improvement but creates another issue where AT infantry can not finish off retreating tanks even if they have engine damage because they will move into range and by the time they are rd to fire the vehicle will out of sight and range...

    So AT infantry becomes easy to kite...

    Imo vehicles should not be encouraged to go close to any type of infantries. Their mgs should gain little DPS when closing and they should not be able to fire "point blank" against infantry in cover. In addition hits from AT hand held weapons should cause stun or slow when in point blank range.

    Far accuracy of AT could be reduced to compensate.

    Think that would solve most issue making tank chargers more dangerous maneuvers.

  • #34
    2 years ago
    Mr_SmithMr_Smith Posts: 343
    edited September 2016

    @Vipper said:

    That is an improvement but creates another issue where AT infantry can not finish off retreating tanks even if they have engine damage because they will move into range and by the time they are rd to fire the vehicle will out of sight and range...

    So AT infantry becomes easy to kite...

    Yes; the change will make tanks better able to kite infantry. However, I don't see this as a bad thing; I would actually see this as a positive change for the game.

    Increasing the aim time at far-ranges would encourage the AT-user to invest more micro in their infantry than a-moving. This is because aiming the Panzerschreck at max-range would take prohibitively long (which could lead to the tank running out of range). At the same time, walking in too close before firing would mean the AT blob could get caught in MG fire.

    AT blobs work so great because, with a bit of bad luck (and pathing), they can easily finish off tanks. This comes at a minimal amount of micro, which the AT user can invest to order the rest of the army around.

    Instead, with the change if you want to invest in AT infantry, you might be able to hold your line against tanks; however, don't expect to get any kills. This is similar to how MGs work; they work by discouraging attacks, rather than outright wiping infantry.

    Thus, if you actually want to finish of the damn tank, you will be forced to invest in real, tangible, mobile AT (and, thus, risk having to trade one of your units for one of theirs)

    Then, the advantage AT infantry would have over AT guns is that infantry can actually dodge artillery, and retreat more safely, whereas AT guns would be gifted to the enemy. (I am assuming light tanks will be nerfed before AT infantry becomes "fixed"). Thus, AT infantry will be able to be used more offensively, when the player wants to ambush incoming tanks.

    On the other hand, using AT infantry will mean that you require to flank with them. Since flanking opportunities don't always present themselves, you will only see 1-2 squads, max, setting up an ambushes, in hope it works. You can't have possibly more squads than that dedicated to ambushing tanks.

    This is drastically different to spamming 3+ squads and throwing them at the enemy King Tiger.

  • #35
    2 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855
    1. I've seen a lot of piats but I've yet to see it be a real problem, as piat-heavy infantry blobs are very vulnerable to infantry attacks, combined arms sends them running.
    2. Attack ground with piats is pretty dumb, I think it ought to be removed for piats and a number of things like how people use it to negate tank-smoke.
  • #36
    2 years ago
    A cleaner alternative (or simultaneous Nerf) would be just -5 range for all handy at. That leaves a bit more play for armour. This could be compensated by slightly increased pen or cheaper weapons. Or. Demos for everyone
  • #37
    2 years ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 950
    edited September 2016
    Since this topic has been opened the rate of blobs is significant higher... ^^ its ok in 2v2... but in 4vs4 where one blobs Maxim, one Piats, one mortar and one a early tank we see how op some units are.
  • #38
    2 years ago
    Blobs are never not going to be what 4s is all about. Its a throwback to ww1. Massed infantry charge at mg, win/lose. Rinse. repeat.
  • #39
    2 years ago

    @hallas said:
    1. Received accuracy bonus for vetted infantry.

    That's Danes theory. I don't see how that makes sense.

    The less received accuracy the greater the incentive to blob because the units will be ineffective alone for they will need to retreat to often.

    I'm not saying that received accuracy doesn't make blobs stronger, it just makes infantry stronger and since blobs are composed of infantry....

    Yeah.

  • #40
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,020
    @WunderKatze the theory behind removing the rec accuracy from blobs is it will actually put far more emphasis on correct positioning of units. If your only defemce against bullets is green cover you can't just A-Move a RM blob around the map. You have to find and utilize cover correctly.

    You'll get more out of a lone unit in greem cover then you will out of two walking about in the open.
  • #41
    2 years ago
    RiCERiCE Posts: 1,588
    edited September 2016

    @Lazarus said:
    @WunderKatze the theory behind removing the rec accuracy from blobs is it will actually put far more emphasis on correct positioning of units. If your only defemce against bullets is green cover you can't just A-Move a RM blob around the map. You have to find and utilize cover correctly.

    You'll get more out of a lone unit in greem cover then you will out of two walking about in the open.

    Im not sure about this one, but isn't MGs receive increased accuracy against multiple infantry members close to each other? or is it only the suppression?

    Anyway, im not sure if it would give a proper solution. Not sure if blobbing is the issue here. I mean if you can give two cheap AT weapon on 210MP units, which can damage KT like it can be seen on the video, and in addition the same faction has cheap on field reinforcement and forward retreat. I dont know, its pretty obvious that player will blob their infantry.

    I just wanted to say, forward retreats, cheap units, cheap weapons and cheap reinforcement are all stepping stones toward the problem. Im not sure if received accuracy should be changed to fix the issue.

    I think the first step toward blob control would be the increase of reinforcement cost and speed around forward retreat points. The greatest problem with blobbing, is that the WFA factions do not need to care about the consequences. They dont lose much time with the full retreat, they dont lose much time with the reinforcement costs, and they dont lose much manpower either because of the cheap reinforcement costs.

  • #42
    2 years ago
    Mr_SmithMr_Smith Posts: 343
    edited September 2016

    @Lazarus said:
    @WunderKatze the theory behind removing the rec accuracy from blobs is it will actually put far more emphasis on correct positioning of units. If your only defemce against bullets is green cover you can't just A-Move a RM blob around the map. You have to find and utilize cover correctly.

    You'll get more out of a lone unit in greem cover then you will out of two walking about in the open.

    I keep seeing this suggestion far too often, and I am not entirely convinced by this theory. All this suggestion would do is create invincible A-moving LMG blobs.

    All squads get both accuracy bonuses and received accuracy bonuses. If the accuracy bonuses were enough to cancel out received accuracy bonuses, then the dynamics of the game (lethality) would remain the same as what it was when everybody was vet0.

    ... except for the fact that everyone has had the chance to build way more squads/buy more weapons etc.

    What this means, that somebody that has used all these resources to build an LMG blob has now gained a disgustingly big advantage.

    This is why received accuracy bonuses are, and should remain more powerful than accuracy bonuses. However, these bonuses should probably not remain as significantly more powerful as they are now.

    However, the real reason for this imbalance people are experiencing now, is not that allied squads get more received accuracy bonuses (they do!). This is because slot items (bars etc) -- which are massively stronger than vanilla weapons -- synergize way too good with veterancy bonuses and target size; but nothing else. Since allied infantry receives way stronger such bonuses, we have what we have now.

  • #43
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,020

    @Mr_Smith I'm not suggesting the idea is perfect in its formation, but I would say it's a potential solution if implemented with a few other changes (raising the price on non-AT weapon upgrades, increasing the defensive bonuses of green/yellow cover).

    You're certainly right though in that the major problem these days lies within weapon upgrades. While LMG blobbed grenadiers have certainly been a thing in the past, and people continue to try to use them despite the hilariously bad results, the reason LMG grens don't work in a blob (at least, not as well as the non-OKW blobs) is because of double equipping. You just flat out can't afford to keep spamming LMG 42s because every single one necessitates a new gren squad which is 240 MP and 7 pop cap. A blob of 4 lmgs (and 12 Kar98s) makes up a full quarter of your total allowed popcap, and their higher than average reinforce rate doesn't help.

    For that same popcap I can get 12 Garands and 8 1919s/BARs, or 8 Brens/Vickers and 8 Einfeilds. Granted as a single upgrade they're never as powerful as a single LMG, but as a double upgrade they easily overshadow it and again, they're far more plentiful on the field simply by virtue of the fact that every squad will inevitably get 2 of them.

    The two options that aren't tweaking rec acc. that I see are either do a rebalance of all weapon slot weapons, tweaking the stats of these weapon rack weapons so vanilla weapons can still compete with bad plays, OR re-cost all weapon slot weapons to make them much bigger investments with some serious firepower.

  • #44
    2 years ago
    Mr_SmithMr_Smith Posts: 343
    edited September 2016

    @Lazarus said:
    The two options that aren't tweaking rec acc. that I see are either do a rebalance of all weapon slot weapons, tweaking the stats of these weapon rack weapons so vanilla weapons can still compete with bad plays, OR re-cost all weapon slot weapons to make them much bigger investments with some serious firepower.

    IMO, the biggest issues with slot weapons is the combined fact that:

    • Slot weapons are way more powerful than vanilla weapons
    • In fact, they are more powerful than vanilla weapons at all ranges
    • Slot weapons are transferred over to remaining squad members, thus, the DPS is retained
    • Finally, except for the cost, there's absolutely no disadvantage for buying LMGs/Bars/etc

    Unupgraded 4-man grenadier squad? Crap.
    2-man Grenadier squad with LMG? It has the same damage output as the unupgraded 4-man squad.

    However, if you make those upgrades too crappy, nobody will buy them. If you make them too expensive, it will lead to frustrating player experience when random wipes occur; or frustrating experience when you are on the backfoot, and wipes don't occur (e.g., walking stuka RNG).

    Instead, just make the weapons actually have a weakness. If LMGs are supposed to be the long-range death-rays that they currently are, they should probably be way worse in close range; or they should force the player to seek cover (e.g., remain stationary for X seconds in cover before the debuff goes off), or require some kind of micro tax.

    Relic had some good ideas when they implemented Tommies with:

    • the cover penalties (only really affect LMGs)
    • the Vet3 debuff which causes DPS to drop off significantly when models die
    • The fact that Tommies receive very little offensive veterancy (which is a must for long-range units), in return for received-accuracy veterancy (which they don't really need, since they can't flank).
    • No fausts/useful grenades/smoke/etc

    Contrast this with double-LMG Riflemen squads (even if we let terminator vet aside). What are LMG Riflemen supposed to be vulnerable to, exactly?

    However:

    • Cover is just about everywhere in the late-game
    • Playing around the Vet3 weapon-slot debuff is frustrating as hell

    Similarly, Bars and STGs could lay off the far-ranges, so that auto-upgrading all squads with the same upgrade does not the no-brainer that it currently is.

  • #45
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited September 2016

    Imo the following changes could help:

    Weapon should follow weapons profiles and should be designed to excel in some range only. Weapon upgrades should follow the same rules.

    Weapon upgrades could come with a trade off.
    For instance Grenadier upgrades with lmg? can no longer use Faust or rifle grenade, riflemen picks bazooka? can no longer use At rifle grenade.

  • #46
    2 years ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,302 mod
    edited September 2016

    I would have preferred something along these lines or more elaborated for the whole game - it supports meaningful decisions for game-play purposes than having to auto-buy updates. DoW2 used meaningful updates a lot. It's a bit too late now for that kind of approach.

  • #47
    2 years ago
    ImperialDaneImperialD… Posts: 3,084 mod

    @WunderKatze said:

    @hallas said:
    1. Received accuracy bonus for vetted infantry.

    That's Danes theory. I don't see how that makes sense.

    The less received accuracy the greater the incentive to blob because the units will be ineffective alone for they will need to retreat to often.

    I'm not saying that received accuracy doesn't make blobs stronger, it just makes infantry stronger and since blobs are composed of infantry....

    Yeah.

    Except it does. Bulletproof infantry has no incentive for cover, if you have no incentive for cover. You are encouraged to blob and just apply as much strength as you can at any one point.

    Otherwise we'd see Osttruppen blobs, conscript blobs, Grenadier blobs. Pioneer blobs. List goes on. Yet what sort of blobs are it we see ? Rifle blobs, infantry section blobs, sapper blobs. Blobs composed of reasonably priced infantry that can gain a large amount of received accuracy bonuses so they don't need cover.

    Ergo removing a lot of the Rec. Acc from sappers for example would discourage blobbing.

    It's that or simply giving tanks light suppression so that when infantry just throws themselves at the tanks. They get punished.

  • #48
    2 years ago
    RiCERiCE Posts: 1,588

    @ImperialDane said:
    Except it does. Bulletproof infantry has no incentive for cover, if you have no incentive for cover. You are encouraged to blob and just apply as much strength as you can at any one point.

    Otherwise we'd see Osttruppen blobs, conscript blobs, Grenadier blobs. Pioneer blobs. List goes on. Yet what sort of blobs are it we see ? Rifle blobs, infantry section blobs, sapper blobs. Blobs composed of reasonably priced infantry that can gain a large amount of received accuracy bonuses so they don't need cover.

    Ergo removing a lot of the Rec. Acc from sappers for example would discourage blobbing.

    It's that or simply giving tanks light suppression so that when infantry just throws themselves at the tanks. They get punished.

    Im not sure if removing is the right word.

    Received accuracy and accuracy together gives the % chance an infantry gets hit. Its just gives better control over how infantry units perform against each other during a gun fight. So received accuracy is not a bad thing, its just needs to be rebalanced for certain infantry units.

    Im totally against the tank suppression. Tanks can wipe out infantry so easily already. Adding suppression is just a step towards completely useless handheld AT weapons.

  • #49
    2 years ago
    SquishyMuffinSquishyMu… Posts: 434
    edited September 2016

    @RiCE said:

    Im totally against the tank suppression. Tanks can wipe out infantry so easily already. Adding suppression is just a step towards completely useless handheld AT weapons.

    Even a steady build up to the suppression? Similar to USF engineers ability? And only when upgraded to MG on the tanks for example? Would definitely make the upgrade on the panther worth the munitions.

  • #50
    2 years ago
    RiCERiCE Posts: 1,588

    @SquishyMuffin said:

    @RiCE said:

    Im totally against the tank suppression. Tanks can wipe out infantry so easily already. Adding suppression is just a step towards completely useless handheld AT weapons.

    Even a steady build up to the suppression? Similar to USF engineers ability? And only when upgraded to MG on the tanks for example? Would definitely make the upgrade on the panther worth the munitions.

    Yes, because 90% of Panthers AI is done by its MGs... coaxial and on top. The main gun is not really effective against infantry.

    But in case of a KT? A single maingun shell can kill 3 or 4 member of an infantry squad. Imagine if it would generate suppression too... Im not sure about it...

  • #51
    2 years ago

    @ImperialDane said:

    @WunderKatze said:

    @hallas said:
    1. Received accuracy bonus for vetted infantry.

    That's Danes theory. I don't see how that makes sense.

    The less received accuracy the greater the incentive to blob because the units will be ineffective alone for they will need to retreat to often.

    I'm not saying that received accuracy doesn't make blobs stronger, it just makes infantry stronger and since blobs are composed of infantry....

    Yeah.

    Except it does. Bulletproof infantry has no incentive for cover, if you have no incentive for cover. You are encouraged to blob and just apply as much strength as you can at any one point.

    Otherwise we'd see Osttruppen blobs, conscript blobs, Grenadier blobs. Pioneer blobs. List goes on. Yet what sort of blobs are it we see ? Rifle blobs, infantry section blobs, sapper blobs. Blobs composed of reasonably priced infantry that can gain a large amount of received accuracy bonuses so they don't need cover.

    Ergo removing a lot of the Rec. Acc from sappers for example would discourage blobbing.

    It's that or simply giving tanks light suppression so that when infantry just throws themselves at the tanks. They get punished.

    The reason why certain blobs (e.g., Riflemen) have no incentive to use cover is not because of the received accuracy bonus. It's because, cumulatively, they receive massively more bonuses (e.g., +accuracy in addition to the massive received accuracy bonuses). The reason why people demonize received accuracy bonuses so much is because it was the latest change that tipped the scale.

    Also, it doesn't really help that slot weapons only really care about the veterancy bonuses; not the model that carries them. Ever seen a Conscript squad pick up an LMG34? It's a massacre.

    If you equalize offensive accuracy bonuses (for the defender) and received accuracy bonuses (for the attacker), we'll go back to the era of a-moving LMG blobs (a bit more egalitarian, though).

    I wonder. What would be your answer to this counter-argument:

    @Mr_Smith said:

    @Lazarus said:
    @WunderKatze the theory behind removing the rec accuracy from blobs is it will actually put far more emphasis on correct positioning of units. If your only defemce against bullets is green cover you can't just A-Move a RM blob around the map. You have to find and utilize cover correctly.

    You'll get more out of a lone unit in greem cover then you will out of two walking about in the open.

    I keep seeing this suggestion far too often, and I am not entirely convinced by this theory. All this suggestion would do is create invincible A-moving LMG blobs.

    All squads get both accuracy bonuses and received accuracy bonuses. If the accuracy bonuses were enough to cancel out received accuracy bonuses, then the dynamics of the game (lethality) would remain the same as what it was when everybody was vet0.

    ... except for the fact that everyone has had the chance to build way more squads/buy more weapons etc.

    What this means, that somebody that has used all these resources to build an LMG blob has now gained a disgustingly big advantage.

    This is why received accuracy bonuses are, and should remain more powerful than accuracy bonuses. However, these bonuses should probably not remain as significantly more powerful as they are now.

    However, the real reason for this imbalance people are experiencing now, is not that allied squads get more received accuracy bonuses (they do!). This is because slot items (bars etc) -- which are massively stronger than vanilla weapons -- synergize way too good with veterancy bonuses and target size; but nothing else. Since allied infantry receives way stronger such bonuses, we have what we have now.

  • #52
    2 years ago
    ImperialDaneImperialD… Posts: 3,084 mod

    Err. Current blobs are a counter-argument. Again, high dps, high received acc bonus. Again. Blobs work by units not being punished for running around out in the open and using that concept to just bullrush anything and quickly wrecking it or forcing it to retreat.

    If you lower the Rec. Acc bonuses, then suddenly there is less incentive towards just running around out in the open. It is pretty straightforward. Your LMG blobs would just bleed out.. Unlike the current blobs who can just shrug it off since they're running around with a permanent light cover bonus. Again, why use cover if you get a permanent cover bonus ?

    All you are really saying is also lower Acc bonuses. Which you could just do in a more straight forward way rather than trying to defend Rec. Acc. Why not just do that ? And in another thread rather than hijack a thread about PIAT blobs for that purpose ?

  • #53
    2 years ago
    WunderKatzeWunderKat… Posts: 725
    edited September 2016
    @ImperialDane Why would the LMG blobs bleed out?

    They have the longest range firepower, they would bleed any other closer range unit before they took significant damage. That's the problem.

    Naturally closer range infantry will need lower received accuracy.

    Smoke grenades don't really help, because the pause to throw and the cancelled vision just allow the longer range infantry to retreat to better cover. They only help against MGs which don't slip away as fast.

    Anyways perhaps this should just return to a PIAT thread.
  • #54
    2 years ago
    Lowet range squads would need a bit of RA but they are ALWAYS gifted an extra model as well. So the RA bonus could be reduced.
  • #55
    2 years ago
    ImperialDaneImperialD… Posts: 3,084 mod

    Because they'd be out in the open and the assumption would be you would stick to cover and thusly bleed them out. Never mind we already have the LMG blobs in the form of the british. And the Americans pull them on occasion too. ALl this would do is punish blobbing by punishing standing out in the open.

  • #56
    2 years ago
    @ImperialDane No it wouldn't. The game would need other adjustments.

    Cover is really wonky on a lot of maps, not all infantry can make sandbags, sandbags are destroyed by a gusty breeze, British can freely destroy disadvantagious cover and now squads will go down even faster than they do now.

    I think what needs adjustments is vet scaling on weapon upgrades. In my experience squads with high received accuracy without accuracy boosted weapon upgrades are not a problem. More so they can actually throw grenades and snares without instantly perishing to the many late game threats.

    Received accuracy doesn't defeat cover, it's accurate high DPS weapons that do.
  • #57
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,020

    Indeed, > @thedarkarmadillo said:

    Lowet range squads would need a bit of RA but they are ALWAYS gifted an extra model as well. So the RA bonus could be reduced.

    Crazy idea, but we could regress back to assault squads having armor rather than RA, and give a select handful of squads (Obers, Paras, and everyone else just has snipers) a minor weapon penetration profile that allows them to reliably chew through assault squads at long range.

  • #58
    2 years ago

    @Lazarus said:
    Indeed, > @thedarkarmadillo said:

    Lowet range squads would need a bit of RA but they are ALWAYS gifted an extra model as well. So the RA bonus could be reduced.

    Crazy idea, but we could regress back to assault squads having armor rather than RA, and give a select handful of squads (Obers, Paras, and everyone else just has snipers) a minor weapon penetration profile that allows them to reliably chew through assault squads at long range.

    i think the problem with that is that fights turn into total RNG fests, currently RA is reliable, i mean ive seen shocks drop 3 models on the close and i have seen some that close without taking any damage at all, armour is another roll of the die that makes things a bit messier, imho

    plus its a huge rebalance
    do we buff shock armour?
    what does this mean for WF allies who can buff their AI?
    how much is too much?
    ass grens with sprint and armour at 0cp?

    dont get me wrong i too have considered this, but i think the most simple fix is the obvius one- punish marching out of cover and reward fighting from it more

  • #59
    2 years ago

    I think an easy solution is to limit a squad to one piat. The problem with USF and UKF is that handheld at can be spammed, and be put on any inf and therefore be everywhere. Limiting to one piat is very simple easy to do for Relic as they are quite limited in resources to put it lightly.

  • #60
    2 years ago
    RiCERiCE Posts: 1,588
    edited September 2016

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    I think an easy solution is to limit a squad to one piat. The problem with USF and UKF is that handheld at can be spammed, and be put on any inf and therefore be everywhere. Limiting to one piat is very simple easy to do for Relic as they are quite limited in resources to put it lightly.

    I would rather increase their price to 60MU.

    Also i think 2 slot weapons should make 2 member of the squad fighting with that weapon. For example a 5 men volks squad with a panzerschreck should always been 3 men with KAR and 2 with a single Panzerschreck. Volks could have keep their schreck upgrade like this.

    Things are fubar now... too much step in the wrong direction, and i dont think relic care with CoH2 so much to fix these mess. Specially now when DoW3 is on its way... (tho i hope im wrong about this)

  • #61
    2 years ago

    My only complaint is how cheap it is. 40 munitions? On a rack on any squad? Reevaluate that...

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.