[All] Big Boomers postpatch

#1
6 months ago
thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 4,800
edited February 14 in Balance Feedback
Hi all
Right to it, with the changes coming to spacing (good changes imo) we will see a big drop off in already arguably underpowered (due to inconsistency) heavy AI hitters.
These are:
Brumbarr
Kv-2
ISU-152
105 sherman

Added by popular request
m8a1 scott

Currently these units rely on RNG to procure squad wipes, this will be much harder vs moving squads post patch. For the kv-2 and isu this is less of an issue because of the huge range and fairly exclusive nature of only being in 3 doctrines so this thread is MOSTLY aimed at the brum and 105 tho the soviet will feel it too

So my proposal is:
Increase the FAR aoe range one these heavy hitters to allow them to deal damage to the new, wider spaced squads without impacting their performance against units in cover nor increase the rate of wipes that this patch aimed to reduce.

To recap, this is just for expensive high AOE low ROF units that are already arguably under preforming under the current alignment due to their literal hit and wipe or miss and spend the next 20 min reloading.

Aside- this would help reinforce the difference between the ostwind and the brum as AI units by allowong the brum a good extra punch vs blobs that the ostwind lacks
«1

Comments

  • #2
    6 months ago
    BigBearBigBear Posts: 94
    edited February 14

    I agree, seems like a solid change. I feel like it's going to be harder to counter blobs after WPB, especially con blobs, since there will always be that one guy left over who tosses the AT nade and snares my tank. Your change should help kite blobs better since right now the blob only needs a move a little to avoid the AOE damage.

    Another change that could be used is to increase the shell velocity of some of these weapons. It's quite easy to dodge one of these shells.

  • #3
    6 months ago

    I would also include the m8a1. The auto-attacks are fine and do not need to be touched, but the barrage is so weak. I would trade worse auto-attacks for a decent barrage like white phosphorus. Maybe this would help make underplayed usf commanders viable. Using other commander than caliope, Pershing, or armor company is suicide.

  • #4
    6 months ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,395

    @company14u2 said:
    I would also include the m8a1. The auto-attacks are fine and do not need to be touched, but the barrage is so weak. I would trade worse auto-attacks for a decent barrage like white phosphorus. Maybe this would help make underplayed usf commanders viable. Using other commander than caliope, Pershing, or armor company is suicide.

    I have to point out that M8a1 is the only unit that can barrage on the move.

  • #5
    6 months ago

    I'm glad people haven't forgotten about the potential lack of effectiveness with these types of units post patch. I hope changes like this or similar are implemented when the scope widens - right @Mr_Smith ??

  • #6
    6 months ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,007

    @Vipper said:

    @company14u2 said:
    I would also include the m8a1. The auto-attacks are fine and do not need to be touched, but the barrage is so weak. I would trade worse auto-attacks for a decent barrage like white phosphorus. Maybe this would help make underplayed usf commanders viable. Using other commander than caliope, Pershing, or armor company is suicide.

    I have to point out that M8a1 is the only unit that can barrage on the move.

    That's more of a gimmick then actual beneficial feature you can use to your advantage in any way.

    Now, Brummbar and ISU will probably do OK with new patch, its Dozer and KV-2 with abysmal accuracy that won't hit anything ever again as their performance relied solely on this once when the planets align lucky shot between all the misses.

  • #7
    6 months ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 625

    @Katitof said:

    Now, Brummbar and ISU will probably do OK with new patch, its Dozer and KV-2 with abysmal accuracy that won't hit anything ever again as their performance relied solely on this once when the planets align lucky shot between all the misses.

    Except both the Brum and ISU are incredibly high price/top-end units, performing "OK" is not really going to justfiy their costs, Dozer and KV-2 have always needed changes anyway, so in the end Dark's proposal seems sound as a fix for both pairs.

  • #8
    6 months ago
    Mr_SmithMr_Smith Posts: 301

    What the vast majority of the forementioned units need is a fix to their targeting. Their vanilla auto-fire targeting causes most shots to overshoot. However, if you use attack-ground micro with the vast majority of these, you will dominate infantry with them.

    Attack ground micro, however, isn't feasible, since the attk-ground command cannot be used while moving.

    Regarding call-ins, our policy is that we don't want to make them overly too effective. This is because players can use the call-in system to cut corners and evade teching costs. If/when it ever restrictions to call-ins are implemented, we will have to use a different policy.

    Brummbar just needs to belong to a more accessible tier.

  • #9
    6 months ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,007
    edited February 14

    Well, neither dozer nor KV-2 is something you can lean on, these two are additions to your army, not old Tiger, which was your army.
    By getting them you leave a hole in your armor department that needs to be plugged with other units, I honestly can't see single situation where you'd be able to actually rely on them at the time they arrive.

  • #10
    6 months ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 625

    @Mr_Smith What is the mod teams take on call-ins? If given the chance by Relic, what would you change? Would they be tied to tech? Or remain in their current state but with certain limitations to balance them against the fact they bypass aformentioned tech requirements?

  • #11
    6 months ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,395

    @Katitof said:

    That's more of a gimmick then actual beneficial feature you can use to your advantage in any way.

    Actually you can. You can avoid counter fire while barraging something and that is something no other unit can do since the have to stop their barrage if they want to avoid counter fire.

    In addition the barrage of the M8a1 has more range and more penetration than auto attacks.

  • #12
    6 months ago
    Mr_SmithMr_Smith Posts: 301

    @Farra13 said:
    @Mr_Smith What is the mod teams take on call-ins? If given the chance by Relic, what would you change? Would they be tied to tech? Or remain in their current state but with certain limitations to balance them against the fact they bypass aformentioned tech requirements?

    Our plan is to make call-ins cost effective, as long as the player researches all necessary tech to build them (e.g., Tigers might require all 4 tiers down).

    We don't want to completely ban tech-free call-ins, as this will, probably, cause Company of Call-ins to transition to Company of Off-maps (which are also tech-free, and allow you to burn your munitions).

    Experience has taught us not to spend too much effort trying to lay down the details, until a particular item enters scope.

  • #13
    6 months ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 165

    Well tanks hitting each other reduce hp by 1/5 or 1/4 of their max.
    Anti infantry assault tanks should punch more than 1/4 of hp of infantry squad.
    Maybe killing 2+ models every time , despite everything its large caliber tank reloading for so long attacking infantry which cost no fuel. Although we do not want squad wiping these tanks should be buffed in some way , consistency or more firepower against infantry.
    With spacing changes these tanks will receive indirect nerf to their effectiveness making them even more unwilling to get.
    Anyway i am repeating what had been said already.

  • #14
    6 months ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… At TenagraPosts: 1,663

    The Scott should be included here, it also is a pure RNG machine. Even though its not so much of a "big boomer", the way its main gun functions and how squad spacing will effect it makes it definitely relevant to this discussion.

    I'm with this change, especially since all of these units mentioned here have a narrow enough usefulness as is.

  • #15
    6 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 4,800

    i added the scott to the OP

    i really think this is an important issue, for the reasons in said OP, these units are already so meh that they are super rare when they should be the answer to heavy infantry play... unfortunately they can usually be taken head on WITH infantry and come out ontop

  • #16
    6 months ago

    @Vipper said:

    @Katitof said:

    That's more of a gimmick then actual beneficial feature you can use to your advantage in any way.

    Actually you can. You can avoid counter fire while barraging something and that is something no other unit can do since the have to stop their barrage if they want to avoid counter fire.

    In addition the barrage of the M8a1 has more range and more penetration than auto attacks.

    lol, 2 m8a1s can hardly take out a single mg with its barrage. Pwerfer, caliopes, walking stukas, land mattress, and katys are more cost effective. Pointless argument for an almost pointless unit.

  • #17
    6 months ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,395
    edited February 14

    @company14u2 said:
    lol, 2 m8a1s can hardly take out a single mg with its barrage. Pwerfer, caliopes, walking stukas, land mattress, and katys are more cost effective. Pointless argument for an almost pointless unit.

    Well you are comparing a support gun unit with rocket artillery that do not autofire. m8a1 is more like a Pack howi on wheels.

  • #18
    6 months ago

    @Vipper said:

    @company14u2 said:
    lol, 2 m8a1s can hardly take out a single mg with its barrage. Pwerfer, caliopes, walking stukas, land mattress, and katys are more cost effective. Pointless argument for an almost pointless unit.

    Well you are comparing a support gun unit with rocket artillery that do not autofire. m8a1 is more like a Pack howi on wheels.

    They do similar roles. You hit your enemies at range before you bring your army in. You see less of these units than ostheer panthers, so what does that tell you?

  • #19
    6 months ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,395
    edited February 14

    @company14u2 said:
    They do similar roles. You hit your enemies at range before you bring your army in. You see less of these units than ostheer panthers, so what does that tell you?

    Rocket artillery are designed to deliver big payloads at sort time. Howitzer do not.

    If you expect the M8a1 to barrage like a rocket artillery you will always be disappointed, on the other hand it autofires.

    The unit is pretty effective and I have seen it being used extremely effectively. The only issue with it is that it comes rather late.

    I am not sure what you are expecting from a unit that cost 260/75 and has a pop of 10 (edited). Compare it with WBP Stug -E on the direct fire and SU-76 on the barrage.

  • #20
    6 months ago

    @Vipper said:

    @company14u2 said:
    They do similar roles. You hit your enemies at range before you bring your army in. You see less of these units than ostheer panthers, so what does that tell you?

    Rocket artillery are designed to deliver big payloads at sort time. Howitzer do not.

    If you expect the M8a1 to barrage like a rocket artillery you will always be disappointed, on the other hand it autofires.

    The unit is pretty effective and I have seen it being used extremely effectively. The only issue with it is that it comes rather late.

    I am not sure what you are expecting from a unit that cost 260/75 and has a pop of 7. Compare it with WBP Stug -E on the direct fire and SU-76 on the barrage.

    I am expecting to do its job especially for what you pay for it. It has a pop cap of ten, but i think you miss typed. White phosphorus does not make it even close to a rocket arty's potency. If the auto-attacks need to be nerfed in exchange for a better barrage, it would increase its usefulness, and it would open up more commander options. Hopefully, after wpb
    we can look at units that see no use or hardly used. If it remains the way it is, i will continue using caliope or shermans. This unit might as well not exist, but it does.

  • #21
    6 months ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,395

    @company14u2 said:
    I am expecting to do its job especially for what you pay for it. It has a pop cap of ten, but i think you miss typed. White phosphorus does not make it even close to a rocket arty's potency. If the auto-attacks need to be nerfed in exchange for a better barrage, it would increase its usefulness, and it would open up more commander options. Hopefully, after wpb
    we can look at units that see no use or hardly used. If it remains the way it is, i will continue using caliope or shermans. This unit might as well not exist, but it does.

    It does it job for its cost. Calliope is actually over-performing so buffing the M8a1 to Calliope levels it would be a mistake. Any rockets artillery is off topic and M8A1 also.

  • #22
    6 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 4,800
    Comparing the scott to rocket arty is improper, its function is different, however even by howitzer standards its pretty ass. There are many problems with it- usf already has more indirect options than it can wave a flag at ranging in cost and effectivness. Secondly for a bit more you can get a sherman with HE which is more versatile and durable.. As a mobile SMOKE platform . well again the usf have smoke on fucking everything.... It also comes pretty late for its meager impact.. It needs to preform better to EVER be considered worth fuel...
  • #23
    6 months ago
    company14u2company14… Posts: 558
    edited February 14

    @Vipper said:

    @company14u2 said:
    I am expecting to do its job especially for what you pay for it. It has a pop cap of ten, but i think you miss typed. White phosphorus does not make it even close to a rocket arty's potency. If the auto-attacks need to be nerfed in exchange for a better barrage, it would increase its usefulness, and it would open up more commander options. Hopefully, after wpb
    we can look at units that see no use or hardly used. If it remains the way it is, i will continue using caliope or shermans. This unit might as well not exist, but it does.

    It does it job for its cost. Calliope is actually over-performing so buffing the M8a1 to Calliope levels it would be a mistake. Any rockets artillery is off topic and M8A1 also.

    I have a better understanding of the m8a1 and know it is not worth building one. In team games, Caliope is indeed op, but selecting anything other than caliope or priests is like asking to be beaten. Why do you have a tendency to argue against changing unseen, non meta units?
    and i included the m8a1 because the op did not mention it.

  • #24
    6 months ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,395
    edited February 14

    @company14u2 said:
    I have a better understanding of the m8a1 and know it is not worth building one. In team games, Caliope is indeed op, but selecting anything other than caliope or priests is like asking to be beaten. Why do you have a tendency to argue against changing unseen, non meta units?

    I have tendency to disagree with arguments that do not make sense like comparing the barrage of a light indirect fire unit with the barrage of a rocket artillery.

    As I have explained the unit might or might not worth building but that does not mean that it needs a buff to become deadlier. If the unit was available earlier or to another faction it would see allot more action. It cost and performance is inline with the WBP Stug -E and with barrage of the SU76 (Imo performs better than the Stug-E and that the barrage is far better than SU-76's but will not argue about it).

    If on includes the M8a1 one probably needs to include the WBP Stug -E also.

  • #25
    6 months ago
    BigBearBigBear Posts: 94

    Also forgot to mention the fact that the brumbar has an issue hitting stationary vehicles. Now I know this isn't an AT unit, but there is a problem with undershooting. I parked a brumbar and an enemy vehicle in front of each other and the brumbar shell always lands right in front of the vehicle, never scoring a hit. This happens all the time and I can only hit said vehicle if it is moving towards me or I use the very slow barrage ability.

    The interesting thing is that it's not bad when the shell actually connects with the vehicle (it does decent damage), but if I can't hit a tank that isn't moving then what's the point?

  • #26
    6 months ago

    @Vipper said:

    @company14u2 said:
    I have a better understanding of the m8a1 and know it is not worth building one. In team games, Caliope is indeed op, but selecting anything other than caliope or priests is like asking to be beaten. Why do you have a tendency to argue against changing unseen, non meta units?

    I have tendency to disagree with arguments that do not make sense like comparing the barrage of a light indirect fire unit with rocket artillery.

    As I have explained the unit might or might not worth building but that does not mean that it needs a buff to become deadlier. If the unit was available earlier or to another faction it would see allot more action.

    It needs to be deadlier when you manually barrage something and worse when you do not control the unit. If you care about climbing the leader boards, avoid this unit. Good players will often try to incorporate the m8a1 into their army while using rangers or paratroopers, but this leads to losses vs lower skilled opponents, thus they switch back to priests and caliopes in 3's and 4's. Many really good players try messing around with this unit and different doctrines, but we end up regretting it. It just does not work. Auto-attacks bring this unit close to the front where elephant, jagtigers, and pak 43s can hit it. caliope and priest are safe from those threats. You need a shot blocker for the m8a1 to be safe, but this does not help vs ju-87.

  • #27
    6 months ago

    @company14u2 said:

    @Vipper said:

    @company14u2 said:
    lol, 2 m8a1s can hardly take out a single mg with its barrage. Pwerfer, caliopes, walking stukas, land mattress, and katys are more cost effective. Pointless argument for an almost pointless unit.

    Well you are comparing a support gun unit with rocket artillery that do not autofire. m8a1 is more like a Pack howi on wheels.

    They do similar roles. You hit your enemies at range before you bring your army in. You see less of these units than ostheer panthers, so what does that tell you?

    It tells you that the mortar and pak howi are already enough artillery options for USF.

  • #28
    6 months ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,395
    edited February 15

    @company14u2 said:
    It needs to be deadlier when you manually barrage something and worse when you do not control the unit. If you care about climbing the leader boards, avoid this unit. Good players will often try to incorporate the m8a1 into their army while using rangers or paratroopers, but this leads to losses vs lower skilled opponents, thus they switch back to priests and caliopes in 3's and 4's. Many really good players try messing around with this unit and different doctrines, but we end up regretting it. It just does not work. Auto-attacks bring this unit close to the front where elephant, jagtigers, and pak 43s can hit it. caliope and priest are safe from those threats. You need a shot blocker for the m8a1 to be safe, but this does not help vs ju-87.

    M8a1 does not auto fire behind shot blockers.

    For auto fire and barrage one needs vision for better result and thus unit works better with Pathfinders /IR pathfinders.

    If the unit get a deadlier barrage it is going to very difficult to counter that barrage since it has a range of 80 (X130% range vet 3), can barrage on the move and can use defensive smoke, it might work only if the barrage would cost MU.

    The main problem with the unit is overlap and timing not stats.

  • #29
    6 months ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 4,800
    I have never had a satisfactory experience with the m8a1, maybe. A munitions cost on the barrage and apply the proposed buffs to it (and the auto fire) and see how that works
  • #30
    6 months ago

    I think that unit is pretty balanced tbh. Always snipes infantry from the fog of war in my experience and is annoying, but beatable. Thing is no one needs it when you have a Sherman (whose only role is AI HE now) and 'murica everything is fine infantry - zooked up (including RE zooks).

  • #31
    6 months ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 625

    Something I had thought about in terms of the ISU and JT is there ability to shoot through objects, rather than making it a timed ability that is both awkward and unreliable, would it not make more sense for it to effect a said number of shots? For example the JT activats the ability for cost, the next three shots it fires will pass through terrain? A similar mechanic could also be added to the Pak 40 and 43 stun shots, that or make them a target ability like the stug's version. Quality of life changes like that are always appreciated, as the currently implemented designs aren't great.

«1
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.