Ostwind does not perform in its role [OST] [All modes]

#1
1 month ago

Problem: the Ostwind is meant to counter infantry, it does not do this, and is easily overwhelmed by infantry of all types, unlike the the centaur.
Solution: Either add supression like the centaur, or increase DPS. Increase fuel costs to compensate, maybe to 110 or so. The current Ostwind, no matter how cheap it is, does not perform in it's role.

«1

Comments

  • #2
    1 month ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,278

    Centaur does not suppress.

  • #3
    1 month ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,847

    Really? Then it's DPS must just be such that it seems like it, either way, it performs far better than 33% better than the ostwind, despite the cost difference.

  • #4
    1 month ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,278

    Centaur has high dps ignores yellow cover and has some of the lowest penalties vs Heavy cover.

  • #5
    1 month ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 3,545

    The Vet 1 centaur ability does so that's probably where you get that from.

    I'd say either improve the AoE profile so that near misses don't just scratch infantry models for 10 points of damage, or increase accuracy so that you're more likely to actually hit an infantry model.

  • #6
    1 month ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 414

    Look, everyone knows that the Ostwind sucks. But Relic's "team" is busy on the so-called winter (I mean spring) patch. The community has already pointed out exactly how to fix the Ostwind. It's all up to Relic to do it.

  • #7
    1 month ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 731
    edited March 15

    Ostwind isn' that bad. With the pin-spoil and a doctrinal scope it become really good. The problem is, that it need more pen, like the OKW T3 or Bofors. So it hasn't to be scared of Stuart or Centaur. Maybe give a decent suppression effect on it main gun too. But, remove the reload effect in hull-down, or it becomes OP with a pen-buff.

    Maybe put it into T4 and move the Brummbär to T3. That would also fix other Ost problems. And Ostwind can become a mobile suppression platform for Ost late-game.

  • #8
    1 month ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 414

    @Widerstreit said:
    Ostwind isn' that bad. With the pin-spoil and a doctrinal scope it become really good. The problem is, that it need more pen, like the OKW T3 or Bofors. So it hasn't to be scared of Stuart or Centaur. Maybe give a decent suppression effect on it main gun too. But, remove the reload effect in hull-down, or it becomes OP with a pen-buff.

    Maybe put it into T4 and move the Brummbär to T3. That would also fix other Ost problems. And Ostwind can become a mobile suppression platform for Ost late-game.

    And that requires a doctrine and the "massacre" bulletin for the ostwind to be somewhat effective.

  • #9
    1 month ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,886

    Technically the OKW t4 gun is the same 37mm flak as the Ostwind. Maybe if they had identical stats it would be a viable alternative to Panzer4 and StuG?

    I do agree with Lazarus, the Ostwind's gun doesn't seem to be frightening compared to something like Centaur, which shreds infantry to bits via fire rate.

    I personally don't mind adding suppression effect, but Ostheer already has T0 HMG and bunker, ;plus Panzerwerfer rockets suppress infantry when hit, so I think a better idea is to either up the AOE or up the damage/ penetration.

    There is however the issue of what roles it plays. If we're talking good anti-air as well then I think a fair justification for its poor AI performance is to easily down planes. But I think I recall people saying anti-air damage is by chance to down rather than damage against hitpoints. Maybe even give it an AA toggle like the USF's AA halftrack used to have?

  • #10
    1 month ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,847

    So, instead of suppression, increase ostwind's DPS.

  • #11
    1 month ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 520

    But then it would overlap with the Brumbar, giving it a seperate role through utility like supression helps distinguish the unit, otherwise if the Ostwind was hitting hard and handling Ai well, why would players be encouraged to hit t4 and grab a brumbar?

  • #12
    1 month ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,847

    Because the Ostwind is compartively fragile and therefore is good for blobs attacking into the teeth of OST defenses ,but if you want to break through the enemy line, you need a big boomer with lots of armor and health, like the Brumbar. The way I always saw it was Ostwind is a blob counter to absorb infantry blobs assaulting you middle/late game, and brumbar is what you use to smash into the enemy with.

  • #13
    1 month ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 161

    Make ostwind somewhat different from Centaur , maybe more dmg vs vehicles and light AI.
    Ostwind could be long range kiting tank which dmg does not drop off on range but its not too high so its different from brumbar and centaur.

  • #14
    1 month ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 1,883
    edited March 17
    The Ostwind AT is irrelevant. Nobody builds an Ostwind to counter vehicles. Buff its AI. Either increase the RoF and make it bursty and / or give it suppression and / or make it more accurate.
  • #15
    1 month ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 4,580
    I always thought ost t3 should be all generalist vehicles, but with slight refinment- p4 being the middle ground but ostwind being acceptable vs tanks, and the stug would definatly be a threat to infantry but not as much as a p4. T4 wpuld then be a further refinment of roles- with panther being the AT master it should be (with some ai from those mgs) the brumbar knocking infantry into next week but still a support vs armour if needed and the pwerfer doing what it does now.

    Ostwind absolutely needs its AI buffed, but some more pen wouldnt be a miss either given its price and the army it is in (even if it WAS like a centaur, thats too much fuel for an AI only machine as the ost)
  • #16
    1 month ago
    MakcumMakcum Posts: 68
    edited March 18

    In realism ostwind's gun shoots faster than in game. So need up attack speed but not dps and also for balance increase recharge rate.

  • #17
    1 month ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 161

    @Makcum said:
    In realism ostwind's gun shoots faster than in game. So need up attack speed but not dps and also for balance increase recharge rate.

    DUDE, stop comparing coh2 to real world.

  • #18
    1 month ago
    MakcumMakcum Posts: 68

    @Meow написал:

    @Makcum said:
    In realism ostwind's gun shoots faster than in game. So need up attack speed but not dps and also for balance increase recharge rate.

    DUDE, stop comparing coh2 to real world.

    In this post discuss about increasing ostwind and what defference little increase damage or little increase attack speed?

  • #19
    1 month ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 161

    It makes no difference if we want to increase DPS , attackspeed or dmg who cares , that's true but your tendency for wanting this game to be realistic as possible makes me think that you don't understand gameplay part of game so it's balanced when it comes to realism-gameplay combination.

  • #20
    1 month ago
    MakcumMakcum Posts: 68

    @Meow написал:
    It makes no difference if we want to increase DPS , attackspeed or dmg who cares , that's true but your tendency for wanting this game to be realistic as possible makes me think that you don't understand gameplay part of game so it's balanced when it comes to realism-gameplay combination.

    But realistic characteristics looks more interesting than just programmer's design

  • #21
    1 month ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 161

    @Makcum said:

    But realistic characteristics looks more interesting than just programmer's design

    Healhty dose of realism is positive for game such as coh2 but full realism destroys gameplay and fun of this RTS.

    If we want ISU152 to be heavy TD as you suggest we would be required to remove AI potential.
    Soivets would have 3 turretless TDs which makes a stupid design 3 units with same role same playstyle , different costs and firepower , armor values but all doing same job.
    ISU152 is unique as it is right now does not need a change.

    We don't care whats more interesting this is a balance forum. ISU-152 is balanced for its price/performance when it comes for its intended role.

  • #22
    1 month ago
    MakcumMakcum Posts: 68
    edited March 19

    @Meow написал:

    @Makcum said:

    But realistic characteristics looks more interesting than just programmer's design

    Healhty dose of realism is positive for game such as coh2 but full realism destroys gameplay and fun of this RTS.

    If we want ISU152 to be heavy TD as you suggest we would be required to remove AI potential.
    Soivets would have 3 turretless TDs which makes a stupid design 3 units with same role same playstyle , different costs and firepower , armor values but all doing same job.
    ISU152 is unique as it is right now does not need a change.

    We don't care whats more interesting this is a balance forum. ISU-152 is balanced for its price/performance when it comes for its intended role.

    Little increase for ostwind's attack speed will not destroys gameplay and fun or balance, if ostwind really needs upgrade

  • #23
    1 month ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 731

    If we are speaking about attack speed... nerf the speed of Bofors! xD

  • #24
    1 month ago
    SilleSille Posts: 70

    Maybe use a machine gun to support it?

  • #25
    1 month ago
    MeowMeow Posts: 161

    @Sille said:
    Maybe use a machine gun to support it?

    Anti infantry tank needing machine gun for support to counter infantry makes tank absurd. Why would you ever want to support dedicated anti infantry tank with MG? Asking such question says that ostwind can't fight infantry on its own , clearly it can't to a level it's price demands it.

  • #26
    1 month ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 4,580
    Shouldnt need an mg for the ostwind to be a threat, at 100 fuel its should be damn scary. Obviously it has other traits that need considered but i would even take a mobility hit if that meant a lone zook squad wasnt going to make it flee.
  • #27
    1 month ago
    TheLeveler83TheLevele… Posts: 454
    edited March 20
    This reminds me of the t34 76. It was usseles after its stats were thrown up and down, and finaly nutered.
    Its main gun did very poorly vs tanks and inf alike. It whas suposed to be better on ai then the p4. But it wasent to be. It remained usseles at 100 and 80 fuel

    Now they buffed the mg and its finaly worth 80 fuel. it kan kill relaiably finaly. In a sense the hull mg became its main gun.

    So yes for the ostwind it can help a lot imo. Not that such a aproach should be taken though.
  • #28
    1 month ago
    ImperialDaneImperialD… Posts: 2,216 mod

    Well i'd say make the Ostwind cheaper. It does alright as long as it stands still. Problem is it is easily outperformed by the Centaur which largely costs the same and can do more damage on the move. So either we improve the ostwind on the move, or we make it cheaper.

    But making it better on the move would be a bit dull to me as it would just reward poor understanding of the accuracy mechanics, so i'd rather say just make it cheaper. Maybe 50 fuel or so.

  • #29
    1 month ago
    TheLeveler83TheLevele… Posts: 454
    50 is to cheap imo. Its good when stationary. 65 or 70 fuel sounds more reasonable to me.
  • #30
    1 month ago
    ImperialDaneImperialD… Posts: 2,216 mod

    Well i won't deny that 50 is a bit too cheap. But 60, 70 would be a good price. As long as they don't change the price tag of the OKW one as that would just make that one busted.

  • #31
    1 month ago
    TheLeveler83TheLevele… Posts: 454
    How much is the okw one again?
«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.