Fall Balance Preview Feedback

1679111216

Comments

  • #242
    1 year ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 950
    edited July 2017
    @SquishyMuffin and they don't buff the Ost-Panther. I don't understand the logic behind this step.

    I know StuG overperformed, BUT:

    Give Ost-Panther 55 range, so it gets 65 in hull-down. Still less range than its counter, in hull-down Paks and Arty can deal with it. So Ost late-game get some buff and hull-down become useful in 4vs4 tank-hunter spam games. Now without Panzerwerfer-stun Penals can easy push Panther out of its def-position, even in late game.

    Other things:

    German trenches are useless. Give them same as Brits. Remove the netting, without mortar garrison the netting with the hole is simply stupid.

    Maybe nerf Zis Arty-ability to SU76 level, make it a 25mun ability. Switch it with clown-car. T1: Penals, Sniper, Zis. T2: Maxim, Mortar, Clown-car. You can transport now your mortar and maxim more early. Flamer-pio-tactic still works. T1 gets its Arty support. T2 becomes less universal.
  • #243
    1 year ago
    capiquacapiqua Posts: 270
    edited July 2017

    There are units that are fully fixed, others are a hotfix, but should be fully fixed because in the following patches again we will repeat the same units:

    1. Centaur. Since launching its slow movements;
      -Easily flankable by any axis medium tank.
      -Units in retreat are faster than the tank itself chasing them.
    2. B4 howitzer. Another patch is needed to distribute damage in two shells?. Guys let's fix all the Howitzers.
    3. IL2 Sturmovick pass is dysfunctional.
    4. Hold the Line BRIT is bugged. Is this out scope or Dunkirk can wait?.
    5. Infrared_searchlight. Should cut your laser range or just detect vehicles to avoid their bug maphack.
    6. In 1.1 it is not fixed abandon Sturmtiger. Therefore ST and KT can be call-in by the same player and both tanks coexist in the field.
    7. AA tested:
      -Smoke does not prevent them from shooting at planes.
      Is possible add a 'roof' to smoke to prevent them from shooting to planes?
  • #244
    1 year ago

    M36 jackson
    i adequte Jackson way it was in the inital notes with only its range reverted
    long range penetartion reduction and less accurracy in long range wil hurt M36 Jackson from its intended role as a tank sniper as M36 is primarily useful for panther tanks now you could say 600 health means M36 will survive lot longer than it still can but that would be wrong m36 in fall patch and M36 in current game still dies to 3 hits from a panther as panther deals 200 damage on its cannon so by reducing its long range pen you giving panther a chance to exploit its high armor value and basicly sodomize M36

    in addition pack howitzer changes are really nice it adresses the main problems with its mainly expensive cost and long barrage cooldowns that can make pack howie an easy target for leig's

    now something i would like say to you about USF
    both offical developer team and unoffical modders contiue to ignore the USFs main problem
    USF has to rely on a one inferior unit comparetively to other infantry that being rifleman

    for reference

    M1 garand
    Damage (min/max)
    8.00 / 8.00
    Accuracy (F/N)
    0.52 / 0.71
    in this game accuracy and damage is what matters not rate of fire

    compare this to KAR98K
    Damage (min/max)
    12.00 / 12.00
    Accuracy (F/N)
    0.68 / 0.75
    its clearly superior
    buff on m1 garand could be useful mainly to its near accuracy and damage
    something like
    damage 10
    near accuracy to 0.80 to make rifleman more dangerous at close distance and this will also balance out problem USF faces when they are starved of munitions

  • #245
    1 year ago
    RiCERiCE Posts: 1,588
    edited July 2017

    @SquishyMuffin said:
    Another Stug nerf essentially? Whermacht's only tank destroyer has to close the range to penetrate now?

    StuG:

    • More durable
    • Better penetration

    Su-76:

    • Better range
    • Cheaper
    • Barrage

    If they nerf the penetration, the range should be increased to 60 as it is for the SU-76. But i think the worst part is how they change the last reliable units, while don't give a f%$k about the useless stuff. OST receive only nerfs. OST P4 is utterly garbage, Ostwind is crap, Panther is not on the right position, Grenediers are crap. People relied on StuG because they barely had any mid/late game options before heavies arrive. Sorry, but i don't like these half-a%$ solutions at all. :/

  • #246
    1 year ago
    ImperialDaneImperialD… Posts: 2,993 mod

    Nerfing the StuG is something i am a bit ambivalent on, i can understand why Ie making it less awesome vs heavy armour. The problem is then the wehrmacht has nothing that really is good that isn't non-doctrinal, pushing us back into having to rely on call ins because nothing else reliably works.

    Since the issue is, the Panther just isn't a very good solution atm.

    I mean a StuG will still be better simply because the StuG is just more cost-efficient, i don't have to tech to tier 4 for a StuG. And for one Panther i can generally get 3 StuGs, hell to go for tier 4 atm you generally need a minimum of 2 StuGs to ensure you don't get overwhelmed by enemy armour because the Panther cannot handle that. And if i can get 3 StuGs easily instead of just one Panther, then 3 StuGs will do an infinitely better job than 1 panther ever will due to sheer RoF. At which point a bit lower pen won't matter much if i get ALOT more firepower on the field than the Panther ever could without having to store up too many resources either.

    At the same time the Panther is in a weird position where neither side really likes it. For the allies obviously in a sense, but when you fight it, it just soaks up a lot of damage which is obviously what matters to the player in question, how much damage is done, and in that regard the Panther just feels a lot less fun because it just soaks up more damage.

    Yet for the axis player who also goes by the metric of "How much damage am i doing" the Panther also feels incredibly unsatisfactory for a Tier 4 tank.. thing (they never quite seem to know what to do with the Panther) because you have to invest so much into it, yet it just feels like it has no real impact.

    Which is a bit of a conundrum, how can the allies hate something the axis also hates ? If the allies hate it, the axis ought to love it.. and vice versa. Yet we end up in a situation where no one really likes the Panther.

    So how do we have the Panther at least be satisfactory to the axis without making it feel so deeply unsatisfactory to fight against ?

    Well i think the key therein lies in the damage metric, which again seems to be how most players evaluate the performance of tanks: How much does it take and how much does it deal.

    And so i'd suggest the following changes for the Panther

    Health Lowered from 800 to 640.
    Range decreased from 50 to 45
    Damage increased from 160 to 200
    Cost lowered from 490M 175F to 450M and 150F.
    Change Blitzkrieg from being a speedboost ability to being a RoF boost ability

    Thusly you get a Tier 4 Medium tank that feels like it is tier 4, like it is a Panther. It becomes less survivable in head on collisions and vs tank destroyers making it feel more satisfactory for the allies to fight against. But for the Germans it gains more damage and with a different ability can be used for inflicting more decisive damage via flanks if necessary, it's armour will still help during such engagements but won't help in a prolonged fight due to the lower health. With that the Panther becomes a premium medium tank that can challenge others but will require sensible handling to get the most out of. And should overall just feel more satisfactory for both sides rather than right now where no one really likes it.

    You'd have more incentive towards rushing for tier 4 as wehrmacht and you'd be less punished for going for it in the first place and the Panther would stand out more in comparison to the Panzer IV and StuG compared to now where both basically do everything better than the Panther. But the opposing player would not find a Panther as much a chore and would be incentivized towards flanking it with it's blitzkrieg ability no longer being able to haul it out of there very very fast in case anything like that happened.

    If something like that was to happen then the StuG change would be acceptable.

  • #247
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,777
    edited July 2017
    Problem with the panther is reliability. Pay 175 fuel and a full tech for a tank that very well might miss a stationary target while stationary itself and waste the next 8 seconds reloading. And while the panther itself can indeed take a few hits, that doesnt matter because you need 3 pio squads to be able to MATCH the brits and usf repairs. Its a mess of an outdated faction that loses by design to the newer ones.

    Edit: also 640 health on the panther and consider it never seen again, 320 armour doesnt offer much when you have the pen of allied TDs. For all the difference itll make you would just have a p4 with +5 range and +40 damage but more expensive AND requiring a full tech (thats still for some reason offers no incentive to build but underperforming units, well that and now a penalty if you dont....
  • #248
    1 year ago
    Selvy289Selvy289 Posts: 172
    edited July 2017
    Again, everyone knows that all factions needs their repair rates normalize so that should (and most likely will) be fixed.

    If TD have reduced accuracy and the Panthers (I don't know about it's target size) decreased, could help it survive more. Perhaps more range while making teching cheaper (you can always consider also just make the panther a little cheaper).

    I have to agree with Dane through, particularly on 3v3 and 4v4 games, the panther is not very enjoyable to fight against nor axis players really enjoy using it (the Ostheer version).

    Wish the scope was slightly bigger.
  • #249
    1 year ago
    RiCERiCE Posts: 1,588
    edited July 2017

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    For all the difference itll make you would just have a p4 with +5 range and +40 damage but more expensive AND requiring a full tech (thats still for some reason offers no incentive to build but underperforming units, well that and now a penalty if you dont....

    If you check the stats of the OST Panzer IV you can see how obsolete it is. It is 40FU more expensive than the T34/76 yet not even a bit more reliable. The whole faction is obsolete and this patch tries to address only the most played metas. But while WFA factions play THE MOST viable meta, old factions playing THE ONLY playable meta.

    Honestly, i think either this patch should address WFA only, or EFA revamp patch should come before this.

  • #250
    1 year ago
    Mr_SmithMr_Smith Posts: 343
    edited July 2017

    @ImperialDane said:
    Nerfing the StuG is something i am a bit ambivalent on, i can understand why Ie making it less awesome vs heavy armour. The problem is then the wehrmacht has nothing that really is good that isn't non-doctrinal, pushing us back into having to rely on call ins because nothing else reliably works.

    The big bet here is that Ostwind buffs will help carry Ostheer when it deals with anti-infantry. Therefore, the Stug doesn't have to be completely insane.

    The stug will still be extremely cost-efficient vs medium tanks, and will still be efficient vs heavies; just don't expect 1 of them to do the job. Sure, every second shot will deflect vs heavies; however the Stug has a high enough rate of fire to compensate, and will still be highly-efficient. It just won't deal insane damage vs heavies anymore. You still get more than what you paid for it though.

    We understand the issues with OST T4, and that's why we went with a less-of-a-drastic change to the Stug than the one we had in mind for our revamp mod. This is a compromise solution between OP and balanced.

    Now, if Stug changes start making Ostheer particularly vulnerable to certain types of heavies, we can close the circle by simply addressing those heavies (which are all in scope, btw).

    For T4, I would start with the basics; such as making T3 & T4 more affordable, and improving Panther accuracy in mid-ranges.

  • #251
    1 year ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    edited July 2017

    @Mr_Smith ha detto:

    @ImperialDane said:
    Nerfing the StuG is something i am a bit ambivalent on, i can understand why Ie making it less awesome vs heavy armour. The problem is then the wehrmacht has nothing that really is good that isn't non-doctrinal, pushing us back into having to rely on call ins because nothing else reliably works.

    The big bet here is that Ostwind buffs will help carry Ostheer when it deals with anti-infantry. Therefore, the Stug doesn't have to be completely insane.

    The stug will still be extremely cost-efficient vs medium tanks, and will still be efficient vs heavies; just don't expect 1 of them to do the job. Sure, every second shot will deflect vs heavies; however the Stug has a high enough rate of fire to compensate, and will still be highly-efficient. It just won't deal insane damage vs heavies anymore. You still get more than what you paid for it though.

    We understand the issues with OST T4, and that's why we went with a less-of-a-drastic change to the Stug than the one we had in mind for our revamp mod. This is a compromise solution between OP and balanced.

    Now, if Stug changes start making Ostheer particularly vulnerable to certain types of heavies, we can close the circle by simply addressing those heavies (which are all in scope, btw).

    For T4, I would start with the basics; such as making T3 & T4 more affordable, and improving Panther accuracy in mid-ranges.

    What's the problem with turning panther into a reliable tunk hunter by giving it 0.75 accuracy modifier on the move, fixing the rof ?

    And increasing the cost of stug, so both are viable counters to enemy armor, one more offensive oriented, the other defensive.

    Finally axis would have an offensive tank destroyer.

    I see no point why a 120 fuel stug with normal rof could not have a old penetration, without needing a huge heavy rework.

    Or maybe...what about panther becoming a premium tank like comet, with actual aoe, good rof, but reduced range and armor ?

    Have those options been explored yet ?

    But one being good against medium, one against heavy and both playing out the same way seems quite a bland design imho.

  • #252
    1 year ago
    RiCERiCE Posts: 1,588

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:
    But you know, "the scope"...

    Sure, but the scope doesn't deny them to leave the EFA armies out of this patch. Except maybe the obviously broken things like the DSHk MG. It could "make place" for a revamp patch. I'm a bit afraid this patch could further decrease the player base behind the EFA armies, and leave us be like that for months. But maybe i'm just overreacting. :-)

  • #253
    1 year ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    edited July 2017

    @RiCE ha detto:

    » show previous quotes
    "Sure, but the scope doesn't deny them to leave the EFA armies out of this patch. Except maybe the obviously broken things like the DSHk MG. It could "make place" for a revamp patch. I'm a bit afraid this patch could further decrease the player base behind the EFA armies, and leave us be like that for months. But maybe i'm just overreacting. :-)"

    You are not.
    It's been ages since community started asking for more viabe tier 4 play, for the panzer 4 of ost and okw to match the AI and cost efficiency of sherman and t34-85 respectively (at least "match", given the price difference), the panther to be actually viable and decent with a solid rework on it's mobility and offensive capabilities (considered mediocre even for okw panther, given the huge cost), isu being again a decent tank destroyer, a non doc ppsh upgrade, maxim suppressing decently again...

    Maybe I was living under a rock, but I don't think the community saw nerfing Heavy TD's a priority over these things.
    The "scope" system is totally out of place, an obstacle to the balance.
    Real cheese and problems in balance usually get ignored or remain unchanged.
    Half baked solution for real problems, that leave things broken for monts until the next patch (look at maxim the last patch) and overcomplicated solutions for stuff regarding "the scope" that mostly break things up rather than fixing it (look at heavies td ttk, than look at community balance team telling you with a straight face they want to end stug spam).

    @thedarkarmadillo ha detto:
    "Problem with the panther is reliability. Pay 175 fuel and a full tech for a tank that very well might miss a stationary target while stationary itself and waste the next 8 seconds reloading. And while the panther itself can indeed take a few hits, that doesnt matter because you need 3 pio squads to be able to MATCH the brits and usf repairs. Its a mess of an outdated faction that loses by design to the newer ones.

    Edit: also 640 health on the panther and consider it never seen again, 320 armour doesnt offer much when you have the pen of allied TDs. For all the difference itll make you would just have a p4 with +5 range and +40 damage but more expensive AND requiring a full tech (thats still for some reason offers no incentive to build but underperforming units, well that and now a penalty if you dont...."

    This is why panther will never be useful if not reworked to be a reliable fast tank hunter (175 fuel) or a premium medium with good ai and at like comet but 45 range (185 - 200 fuel), in both cases with 0.75 accuracy moving multiplier.
    If it keeps playing always like a stug (which is a waste even in terms of gameplay diversity, given panther design) as a long range mediocre version of the unturretted brothers, it would never be considered a valuable alternative.

    Also notice the "they don't use it, let's shove it down their throat" concept of the Panther with good pen while stug becomes uneffective against heavies.

    You want to reduce stug penetration so it bounce half of the time againt heavies, to force OST buing it rather than make it viable and, as i said, make it play differently compared to a stug ?
    Do mr. Smith really think this will make panthers more common ?
    Let me check what shreck and pak 40 think about it.

    @RiCE ha detto:
    "But i think the worst part is how they change the last reliable units, while don't give a f%$k about the useless stuff. OST receive only nerfs. OST P4 is utterly garbage, Ostwind is crap, Panther is not on the right position, Grenediers are crap. People relied on StuG because they barely had any mid/late game options before heavies arrive. Sorry, but i don't like these half-a%$ solutions at all. :/"
    Here, FBP and Revamp mod changes in a nutshells.

  • #254
    1 year ago
    capiquacapiqua Posts: 270

    Tiger
    • Speed from 4.7 to 5.2.
    • Acceleration from 1.5 to 1.8.
    • Deceleration from 1.8 to 2.
    IMO Tiger with Blitz does not need this. Because with the changes it looks like a TigerACE. But I will see this weekend in the tournament.

    Elephant
    • Cost from 720/245 to 680/230 with Battle Phase 3
    This change I see, as a need to lower in 1v1. But the change implies to lower JT and ISU, therefore I do not see necessary the change of elepahnt.

    Everything will look this weekend

  • #255
    1 year ago
    ReichsgardeReichsgar… Bad Tolz, Bayern, GermanyPosts: 121

    Anyone who is suggesting a nerf to the Panther is effectively saying that Wehrmacht should just become a useless faction and a laughing stock. Panthers cost a lot and they are MEANT to be deadly accurate and high-damage dealers. The fact that none of these aspects are reflected in the game really disappoints me.

    Moreover, Wehrmacht and OKW tanks must be revamped overall. What do you mean that Wehrmacht Panzer IV is OP? Have you even seen that thing perform? Its penetration is mediocre and misses at point blank range all too often for a German tank that's supposed to pride itself on accuracy. I know that German tanks did not have gyroscopes so the crew were instructed to stop and fire. At least make their stationary accuracy high enough that they won't miss targets. Also, the fire rate for Panzer IVs and Panthers should also increase.

    I am going to continuously speak against the idea of nerfing the Stug III in any way. Nerfing its abilities and making it more costly in terms of population points seems highly disagreeable. What the Stug III needs is not nerfs but a modest buff to its general combat stats. I don't want CoH 2 to become a Soviet-biased or Allied-biased game where German players, for some inexplicable reason, have to spend a lot more effort to keep their units alive and win the battle. This is why we have talks about brain-dead US Riflemen charges whereas we rarely hear about brain-dead Wehrmacht Grenadier charges. And also, I think it's time to look into why supposedly highly trained German infantrymen get hit so easily behind cover. German infantry received accuracy needs to be looked into.

  • #256
    1 year ago
    TheLeveler83TheLevele… Posts: 684
    @SAY_MY_NAME:
    >>"Problem with the panther is reliability. Pay 175 fuel and a full tech for a tank that very well might miss a stationary target while stationary itself and waste the next 8 seconds reloading. And while the panther itself can indeed take a few hits, that doesnt matter because you need 3 pio squads to be able to MATCH the brits and usf repairs. Its a mess of an outdated faction that loses by design to the newer ones.

    The community already agrees on normelizing the repair speeds. It could still be fixed this patch if we keep bringing it up. If not now next patch. It should be a matter of time.

    >>Edit: also 640 health on the panther and consider it never seen again, 320 armour doesnt offer much when you have the pen of allied TDs. For all the difference itll make you would just have a p4 with +5 range and +40 damage but more expensive AND requiring a full tech (thats still for some reason offers no incentive to build but underperforming units, well that and now a penalty if you dont...."

    The pen buff for allied tds did not come out of the blue. Not being able to deal with late game armour in any relaiable way non doc is just bad design. Yes they overdid it. But this is also because dispite being expensive the kt is encountered quite often esp in bigger modes.

    >>This is why panther will never be useful if not reworked to be a reliable fast tank hunter (175 fuel) or a premium medium with good ai and at like comet but 45 range (185 - 200 fuel), in both cases with 0.75 accuracy moving multiplier.

    Why do they need mirror the comet? The panthers always excelled vs heavies. Why do they need to do the same vs mediums as well?
    All they need is a base acc buff, they are durable and fast and have great pen for dealing with heavies (their intended role)
    Giving them high moving acc and good ai on main gun would make them good vs mediums and heavies and infantry, in other words to good wich many consider the comet to be.

    >>Also notice the "they don't use it, let's shove it down their throat" concept of the Panther with good pen while stug becomes uneffective against heavies.

    They dont use it partly because allies dont have many effective true heavies to field. Limiting its useffulnes. Only is2 comes to mind wich is not used much. The Kv series and churchills imo do not count as such they get penned with ease.

    Also there doing to the stug what they are doing to the su76. Giving them a clear role in their timing. Being a medium td they should not be able to tackle all the tanks. This should give the su85 and panther a role as heavy tds.
  • #257
    1 year ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    edited July 2017

    @TheLeveler83 ha detto:
    @SAY_MY_NAME:
    >>"Problem with the panther is reliability. Pay 175 fuel and a full tech for a tank that very well might miss a stationary target while stationary itself and waste the next 8 seconds reloading. And while the panther itself can indeed take a few hits, that doesnt matter because you need 3 pio squads to be able to MATCH the brits and usf repairs. Its a mess of an outdated faction that loses by design to the newer ones.

    The community already agrees on normelizing the repair speeds. It could still be fixed this patch if we keep bringing it up. If not now next patch. It should be a matter of time.

    >>Edit: also 640 health on the panther and consider it never seen again, 320 armour doesnt offer much when you have the pen of allied TDs. For all the difference itll make you would just have a p4 with +5 range and +40 damage but more expensive AND requiring a full tech (thats still for some reason offers no incentive to build but underperforming units, well that and now a penalty if you dont...."

    The pen buff for allied tds did not come out of the blue. Not being able to deal with late game armour in any relaiable way non doc is just bad design. Yes they overdid it. But this is also because dispite being expensive the kt is encountered quite often esp in bigger modes.

    >>This is why panther will never be useful if not reworked to be a reliable fast tank hunter (175 fuel) or a premium medium with good ai and at like comet but 45 range (185 - 200 fuel), in both cases with 0.75 accuracy moving multiplier.

    Why do they need mirror the comet? The panthers always excelled vs heavies. Why do they need to do the same vs mediums as well?
    All they need is a base acc buff, they are durable and fast and have great pen for dealing with heavies (their intended role)
    Giving them high moving acc and good ai on main gun would make them good vs mediums and heavies and infantry, in other words to good wich many consider the comet to be.

    >>Also notice the "they don't use it, let's shove it down their throat" concept of the Panther with good pen while stug becomes uneffective against heavies.

    They dont use it partly because allies dont have many effective true heavies to field. Limiting its useffulnes. Only is2 comes to mind wich is not used much. The Kv series and churchills imo do not count as such they get penned with ease.

    Also there doing to the stug what they are doing to the su76. Giving them a clear role in their timing. Being a medium td they should not be able to tackle all the tanks. This should give the su85 and panther a role as heavy tds.

    Panther isn't excelling at anything, it's worse vs everything compared to stug/jadgpanzer 4 and extremely ineffective vs everything.

    The "intended role" is something mr Smith made up with his friends....tier 3 and tier 4 were designed to work on their own for wehrmacht.

    Stug/jadg worked and work perfectly even against heavies, especially with raketen and pak + shreck, just like tier 3 su worked perfectly with tier 2.

    There's no such thing as "heavy tank counter" to begin with...half the factions are designed with a single tank destroyer that got buffed to deal with the KT, and originally panther itself was a flanker with soft AI from mg's (badly designed, but still better than live and fbp panther).

    This while on the allies side there is a substantial lack of heavies, the low target size is much more relevant and game changing indeed (that's why new revamp panther will suck even more and start disappearing even from 4vs4).

    You completely missed the point.
    The Panther needs a rework with focus on mobility and accuracy, THE TRUE INTENDED ROLE of late game tank hunter and flanker.
    Another option is making it a premium like Comet (saying it would be mirror of comet would be like saying that panzer 4 is mirror of cromwell), with good ai (because Panther design is perfect for this role, and comet right now is the only premium generalist).

    The allies td pen buff is another incentive in completely reverting the roles, making unturretted more expensive (125-135 fuel) and make them pen heavies, while making Panther shoot accurately on the move and tank hunt at 175 fuel, or make them generalist with aoe for AI and accurate on the move, but give them tank range for a quite expensive price.

    In both cases wehr and okw can deal with most targets with bulky unturretted, but it won't be as cost efficient as mixing up the vehicle fleet, and panther would have a role.

    "Giving them high moving acc and good ai on main gun would make them good vs mediums and heavies and infantry, in other words to good wich many consider the comet to be."

    And what's the point of making it plays exactly like stug, a defensive vehicles, but with such poor reload for such high price ?
    And even if stug gets pen reduced, why would i use panther if i can get a pak ?

    Panther has to be viable, not forced.

    Woud not be viable until it won't be reworked in what both axis factions lack, an offensive tank hunter/generalist.

    Saying that a generalist premium panther for 185 fuel with 45 range would be the only thing you need to build is like saying you only need comet right now, good luck with the infinite kiting.

    Saying it would be interesting to be used and offer new strategies to the axis factions rather than spending all fuel on stug/jadgpanzer and tiger/KT, well that's another thing.

    Ironically, even with low pen, one out of two hits from stug will surely pen heavies anyway, and Panther will still have lower ttk compared to two stugs even against is2.

  • #258
    1 year ago
    thekingsownthekingso… Posts: 446

    The Ostwind is still garbage and misses most of the time even with increased aoe.

    The Stug changes need to be reverted completely, who would ever want a close range tank destroyer?

    The Bofors needs its damage toned down a lot. It also will decimate any retreating light vehicles and infantry in micro seconds giving no time to react. As for the cost .. insanely cheap.

    The M36 needs its cost increased again as you have as you have buffed its accuracy , health, penetration and even reverted its range with no drawbacks. 380/ 135 is far to cost effective.

    280 Damage for the ultra slow + ultra slow firing Elephant and Jagdtiger just makes these units price not worth there performance. If you must nerf the damage then make it 300.

  • #259
    1 year ago
    85MMgun85MMgun Posts: 2

    After I read the article of balance and played several rounds with the mod. I think I have to create account and say something.
    Changing the call-in unit is very strange. After T-3485 was "balanced" in the Mechanized Armor Kampaneya, M4C and other call-in heavy vehicles become the target now. What's the next? Put IS-2,KV-1,KV-2,SU-152,KV-8 in the Mechanized Armor Kampaneya too? Then put the Shock Troops and the Guards Rifle Infantry in the Special Rifle Command, and put both the Dshka HMG Team and the HM-38 120mm Mortar Squad and the M-42 45mm AT Gun in the Support Weapon Kampaneya?
    Is that call "balance" for call-in unit by putting them in the building? No, I don't think so. If this trend continue, next, Command Points system would be vanished. Then we can call this game WWII DLC of Age of Empire 3.

  • #260
    1 year ago
    TheLeveler83TheLevele… Posts: 684
    @SAY_MY_NAME

    I agree the panthers needs to be viable and not forced but in a different way then you suggest.
    If the panther would be a generalist flanker being mobile and accurate like you suggest. What would you do with its over the top armour/hp for such a role and the attached vet bonus? And its pen? It would not need to be so high.

    Clearly you cant have very good armour/hp, high acc across the board with really good pen and high mobility plus with i presume a faster reload and higher aoe then now wrapped in one package even if its a t4 unit.

    How would such a tank even be countered. Deflection damage? Rear armour shots only? Tds will be at its mercy and tanks stand lil chance as well.
  • #261
    1 year ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721

    Simply swap Panther and Tiger.

    Specialized units make much better call-in units.

  • #262
    1 year ago
    TheLeveler83TheLevele… Posts: 684
    @Vipper

    I like that but woudnt that just be a bigger badder p4 only in t4?
  • #263
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,587
    edited July 2017

    @Vipper said:
    Simply swap Panther and Tiger.

    Specialized units make much better call-in units.

    And in which way you want to gut tiger then?
    Because I don't believe even you would be so delusional to believe you'd be able to have a stock tiger with current stats, regardless of tech cost.

  • #264
    1 year ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    > @ ha > @TheLeveler83 ha detto:
    > @SAY_MY_NAME
    >
    > I agree the panthers needs to be viable and not forced but in a different way then you suggest.
    > If the panther would be a generalist flanker being mobile and accurate like you suggest. What would you do with its over the top armour/hp for such a role and the attached vet bonus? And its pen? It would not need to be so high.
    >
    > Clearly you cant have very good armour/hp, high acc across the board with really good pen and high mobility plus with i presume a faster reload and higher aoe then now wrapped in one package even if its a t4 unit.
    >
    > How would such a tank even be countered. Deflection damage? Rear armour shots only? Tds will be at its mercy and tanks stand lil chance as well.

    Armor ?
    You mean the armor that gets penned by any tank destroyer with 60 range ?

    Of course an armor nerf could be given, but i don't see it as an issue.
    If in testing the panther becomes too powerful, a nerf to, well, let's say 300 armor, it's more than reasonable.

    Here, you got interesting late game armor option, not a stug clone that snipe with turret, low roof, more pen.

    Tank hunter option implies higher rof and 0.75 moving accuracy multiplier for a somewhat viable cost of 175 fuel.
    Generalist premium (my favourite) implies 45 range, 0.75 moving accuracy multiplier, increased rof, aoe for killing infantry, reduced pen to 180 (vet 2 increase it), 185-190 fuel.

    Obiviously both options has to be tested with armor and tank destroyers, but keep in mind that allies td have no problem in dealing with king tiger and tiger, armor of comet is only slighly less powerful, comet is actually faster, so it would be kinda balanced with some additional labor limae here and there.

    Fact is...it would be more viable than live panther in 1vs1 and 2vs2, less annoying to be faced in 4vs4 spammed.

    In all this stug and jadgpanze4r 4 could be actually changed to be more expensive but actually pen everything with 240 old panther pen and 60 range (both) for 120 and 140 (jadgpanzer, that has stealth and slightly more armor) fuel.
    But of course reload time of both has to be normalized, so i would say jadgpanzer 4 one for both (here again, open to testing and balancing it).

    Unturretted will be the main tank counter, panzer a generalist, panther a premium generalist, able to deal with all targets (TRUE ai from main gun aoe included) but at tank range, capitalizing on speed and accuracy for flanking and offensive manuvers, as opposed to the defensive tank destroyers with no turrets.

    Finally stug won't be dirty cheap, panther would have a proper role fitting its history and design, that actually makes it play differently from defensive tank destroyers axis surely don't lack.

    Both stug/jadg would be able to deal with any threat, yes, just like jackson and firefly, from sherman to is2 (panzer to king tiger).
    Panther would be able to deal against mediums normally, heavies if flanked or at medium range with 180 pen model.
  • #265
    1 year ago
    filmgeek47filmgeek47 Posts: 81

    I've got some feedback I've been delivering over and over again for years now, and have never gotten any kind of answer for. Very excited about the new potential changes, but can someone from Relic please look at my ONE suggestion below:

    Please take another look at BRIDGE HIT POINT VALUES. It's a bit silly that bridges have very inconsistent hit points from map to map, and it's even more frustrating that the only viable methods for strategically destroying a bridge are clunky, awkward, and unrealistic. You shouldn't have to set a satchel charge, then attack ground on it with a mortar to destroy a bridge.

    Please find some happy medium that allows us to use charges to blow bridges like you could in COH1. Even if you have to increase the setup time by 200%, or only increase charge damage VS bridges.

    This is the only major issue I still have with this game, and I can speak for a bunch of other comp stompers who feel the same way.

  • #266
    1 year ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798
    Yes finally people that agree that nerfing the stug is obviously premature when panther is still trash. Right now stugs handle everything from a Stuart to an is2 and unless we see some noticeable buffs for panther in terms of reliability, the stugs will still be the only option.
  • #267
    1 year ago
    Selvy289Selvy289 Posts: 172

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    Yes finally people that agree that nerfing the stug is obviously premature when panther is still trash. Right now stugs handle everything from a Stuart to an is2 and unless we see some noticeable buffs for panther in terms of reliability, the stugs will still be the only option.

    People have known the issue for a long time, the fact is that lord relic decides what can be changed and what cant. This seems to be the case with overperforming units but are disregarding the drawbacks of nerfing these units (not understanding why they are used).

  • #268
    1 year ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798

    @Mr_Smith said:

    @ImperialDane said:
    Nerfing the StuG is something i am a bit ambivalent on, i can understand why Ie making it less awesome vs heavy armour. The problem is then the wehrmacht has nothing that really is good that isn't non-doctrinal, pushing us back into having to rely on call ins because nothing else reliably works.

    The big bet here is that Ostwind buffs will help carry Ostheer when it deals with anti-infantry. Therefore, the Stug doesn't have to be completely insane.

    The stug will still be extremely cost-efficient vs medium tanks, and will still be efficient vs heavies; just don't expect 1 of them to do the job. Sure, every second shot will deflect vs heavies; however the Stug has a high enough rate of fire to compensate, and will still be highly-efficient. It just won't deal insane damage vs heavies anymore. You still get more than what you paid for it though.

    We understand the issues with OST T4, and that's why we went with a less-of-a-drastic change to the Stug than the one we had in mind for our revamp mod. This is a compromise solution between OP and balanced.

    Now, if Stug changes start making Ostheer particularly vulnerable to certain types of heavies, we can close the circle by simply addressing those heavies (which are all in scope, btw).

    For T4, I would start with the basics; such as making T3 & T4 more affordable, and improving Panther accuracy in mid-ranges.

    I don't know anyone who uses a single stug to fend off allied heavies. Even when you alpha strike with a TWP, it's just a way to buy time for yourself especially when TWP is still bugged sometimes where the enemy tank can still get off a final shot after having its gun disabled. How can you possibly 1v1 a heavy with a stug. It's usually double stugs, or a stug + pak or schrecks or something else for support. In the case of double stugs which has the best chance of actually finishing off a heavy due to having more mobility than the other combinations, that's 560mp and 180f to deal with a heavy. It's slightly cheaper than a heavy but they are useless vs infantry unlike allied heavies. And even if the Stug had far pen of 170, that's only a bit more than 50% chance of penetration for the persh and comet. And still less than 50% vs the is2.

  • #269
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,777
    @1ncendiary_Rounds the price point sounds fine before you consider the nerf that heavies just received. They now require a full tech AND a heap of resources or just a fuck tonne of resources outright. A pair of stugs shouldnt be able to take on an is-2 because the is-2 would be ~ 2x the price. Same as a pair of su76 shouldnt be taking on a tiger easy peasy like. The panthet is the clear choice for ost's heavier armour duties, but the stug should be the go to for mediums (which it WILL remain)
  • #270
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,587

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    Yes finally people that agree that nerfing the stug is obviously premature when panther is still trash. Right now stugs handle everything from a Stuart to an is2 and unless we see some noticeable buffs for panther in terms of reliability, the stugs will still be the only option.

    You seem to be missing the pretty obvious thing to see - ALL allied tanks are getting nerf after nerf recently, which indirectly makes panther better and better option.

    The goal is to keep StuGs oriented against mediums while keeping panther as a heavy counter.
    You do NOT want panther against T34/76 spam, you want it against that IS-2 or comet.

  • #271
    1 year ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721
    edited July 2017

    "StuG-G
    The StuG-G’s Target Weak Point is being moved in-line with units like the Puma. Previously the ability lasted for too long, disabling a targeted vehicle for the majority of the fight. The ability will now need to be used in conjunction with other assets.

    The Target Weak Point ability has received certain QoL changes that will allow the Stug to aim and fire the ability while moving.
    Population from 10 to 9
    Penetration from 200/185/170 to 200/160/150
    Machine Gun Changes (Affects both StuG E and StuG G)
    Machine gun cost from 50 to 30.
    Machine gun range to 40.

    • Target Weak Point duration from 15 to 5.
    • Target Weak Point damage from 160 to 80.
    • Target Weak Point now Blinds the target in addition to disabling the target’s weapons.
    • Target Weak Point will always penetrate."

    The changes to the gun translate:
    DPS vs Medium (22/160):
    Live
    stug_75mm_mp /37.65/37.65/37.65/37.65/36.44/33.13
    Patch
    stug_75mm_mp /37.65/37.65/37.65/37.18/35.08/31.06

    DPS vs Comet (22/290)
    stug_75mm_mp /25.96/25.18/24.41/23.63/22.12/19.42
    Patch
    stug_75mm_mp /25.96/23.89/21.81/20.51/19.35/17.14

    So stug loses around x0.94-0.97 dps to range 50-40 vs mediums and around x0.88-0.95 at ranges 50-10 vs Comet.

    So it still rather strong. (could even have abit lower accuracy or penetration)

    The questions is why Su-76 (penetration 200/190/180) do not see similar changes changes?

    Su-76 should also have a the same pop as Stug so it should go up to 9. (especially since it has more AI)

    DPS vs Medium (22/180):
    su76_76mm_zis-3sh_gun_mp /28.07/28.07/25.73/23.16/20.58/18.01/15.44
    vet 2 (1740xp compared to stug 1510 for vet1 )
    su76_76mm_zis-3sh_gun_mp /32.75/32.75/32.75/32.75/31.22/27.32/23.42

    DPS vs Tiger (26/300)
    su76_76mm_zis-3sh_gun_mp /18.71/18.40/18.09/17.33/15.14/13.01/10.95
    vet 2
    su76_76mm_zis-3sh_gun_mp /21.83/21.47/21.10/20.74/20.38/19.73/16.60

    Note that by vet 2 the SU-76 has better DPS at range 50 vs Tiger (limited to 1) than the Prepatch Stug vs Comet.
    Keep in mind Su-76 tech cost and add AI barrage.

    Imo the XP value of the Su-76 need to go up and close to stugs and the penetration down since it patch is has around x122% more penetration in range down to 25.

    If that makes unit too weak one can buff the base stat a bit but tone down the vet bonuses.

    TWP instead of nerfing to oblivion consider giving Stug cloak since most allied TD out-range it and TWP to JP.

    more about TDs vs mediums here:
    https://www.coh2.org/topic/62537/tds-vs-mediums-in-live-and-in-numbers

This discussion has been closed.

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.