DBP Balance Feedback

1568101134

Comments

  • #212
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,674

    @Widerstreit said:
    I wonder, why not give Ostheer a more similar tech-system as Soviets? You have to build T1, then you can build T2, then you can choose between T3 or T4. No useless extra tech in the head-quarter anymore.

    And please! Move the Grens into T0 and MG back to T1 like in Vanilla.

    Because soviets T1 and T2 hold the same tier units, while Ost T3 and T4 is actual tier power difference.

    Moreover, asymmetrical teching means Ost is supposed to get everything if the game goes long enough, slowly transitioning from one tier to another, while soviets are set for yearly game flexibility and then power capped at T4, which is equivalent of Ost T3.

  • #213
    2 years ago

    Please just cancel the "patch" this does more damage to the game than the previous one.

    After testing the m36 I can conclude that there will be no point in building tanks for germans . The M36 has the range , the speed, the armor piericing abilities , the health, can be spammed and does 200 damage to boot.

    Taking away the M36's only weakness is going to tear apart armor play as the current meta is allied tank destroyers vs german tanks which in itself is awful.

  • #214
    2 years ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 950
    edited November 2017

    @Katitof Yea, but the Ost-teching is so dam oldschool and kind of inflated. There has to be a more elegant way.

    And I can't agree, T3 and T4 are nearly the same. Panther = StuG. Brummbär is a mix of Ostwind and Panzer 4. The only advantage of T4 is the Panzerwerfer, but without arty-officer it doesn't worth it. With some price adjustments and some unit-changes Ostheer would become more "gentel" and fluent.

  • #215
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,674

    And that's why its being adjusted now to provide more flexibility, while not ruining basic concept of transitioning from one phase to another.

  • #216
    2 years ago
    KurkinKurkin РоссияPosts: 30

    @Widerstreit said:
    I wonder, why not give Ostheer a more similar tech-system as Soviets? You have to build T1, then you can build T2, then you can choose between T3 or T4. No useless extra tech in the head-quarter anymore.

    And please! Move the Grens into T0 and MG back to T1 (like in Vanilla).

    alternative Tech and Units:

    I agree with everything, except for the Tiger in T4. Let the Panther stay there. And also do not agree with the fact that after T2 you can build on the choice of T3 or T4. At the Red Army at first T3 and only after T4.

  • #217
    2 years ago

    I am astounded that the anti-air changes from the previous patch have not made it to this one. The Flak HQ's AA advantage that it provides vs. all other factions who need to actually pay for their anti-air specifically is so out of hand, particularly in team games. If you're up against double OKW in 2v2 air support is a complete waste of munitions for any allied faction, and I'm very tired of that being the case.

    They have an AA HT, they have pintles, they have doctrinal AA emplacements (who's AA was getting buffed in the fall preview), and the doctrinal Ostwind. They have as many options as anyone for dealing with aircraft, they do not need a potent free one.

  • #218
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    **_British Trench

    • British Trench now capturable by enemy troops
    • Cost reduced from 50 MP to 0 (free)
    • Can only be built in captured territory (also affects OST trench)_**
      This can create a whole new set of problems since they can be used by allies also in multiplier games. It as far better if trenches and sandbags are moved to Ro.E.
  • #219
    2 years ago
    I too think trenches should be moved to royal engineers, possibly even tied to anvil, or even bofors... But that may be too far
  • #220
    2 years ago

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    I too think trenches should be moved to royal engineers, possibly even tied to anvil, or even bofors... But that may be too far

    I was gonna say tie them to at least AEC/Bofors tech. Maybe its an even better idea for reducing trench potency if you make them exclusive to bofors, but I feel like you gotta toss something else in AEC after that.

  • #221
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,096

    I called it back in the FBP. Locked trenches are the only thing that makes them remotely balanced in team games - and they arent even that balanced then.

    Put it behind Anvil and make them free. They're powerful, but as late game green cover for Tommies to defend areas I dont think thats unreasonable at all. Honestly, I'd rather see the Axis trenches become player locked instead.

  • #222
    2 years ago

    @Kurkin said:

    @ubermensch said:
    1) Change The T-34-76
    1-1) to Give an improved 57mm gun for 75 Munitions. (Only on the T-34-76)

    That's not necessary. 57 mm cannon is worse than the 76 mm F-34 gun. It is better to add subcaliber ammunition with greater armor penetration.

    I didn't make this point so Idk why you pinned me to this.

  • #223
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,674

    @Vipper said:
    **_British Trench

    • British Trench now capturable by enemy troops
    • Cost reduced from 50 MP to 0 (free)
    • Can only be built in captured territory (also affects OST trench)_**
      This can create a whole new set of problems since they can be used by allies also in multiplier games. It as far better if trenches and sandbags are moved to Ro.E.

    So can be used ost trenches by OKW infantry.
    Now, how did that messed balance up for them?

  • #224
    2 years ago
    moremegamoremega REDWOOD CITY CA USAPosts: 229

    @Kurkin said:
    1. I propose to arm additional Conscripts or Penal Battalion one machine-gun DP or PTRS to choose from, but to tie this possibility to T2.
    2. Replace the Molotov cocktail at RGD 33.
    3. Guards Riflemen initially equip SVT rifles, and not Mosin rifles.
    4. Anti-tank grenade RPG 43 make accessible to all doctrine infantry squads (guardsmen, shock troopers), if it is open in the field headquarters. Or make guards and shocks cheaper, 320 and 360 respectively.

    no way. Russian inf is supposed to be poorly equipped.

  • #225
    2 years ago

    @Kurkin said:

    @ubermensch said:
    Or maybe just replace Penals with guards and make penals into a call in suicide AT unit that they should've always been? Not the multipurpose terminators they have become over time. I mean seriously somehow these criminals (in soviet standards) are more effective and valued combatants then regular loyal recruits and even the elite tier of the red army? Ok then guy.

    I agree! Penal battalions as elite infantry of the Red Army are nonsense and lie. During the entire war from 41 to 45 years the penal battalions consisted of about 1% of the total troop strength of the Red Army. But I would like to clarify that in the penalty battalions were officers and soldiers who did not comply with the order, deserted, violated the charter. Ordinary civil criminals in the penalty battalion were never taken.
    I agree with you that it will be correct to replace the penaltys for the guards. But leave them with the arms of SVT rifles and additional armament of the DP and PTRS. And also AT grenade RPG 43, if it open in HQ. The penalty battalion is removed from the game and forgotten like a terrible dream.

    In regards to penals I'm glad to see others see the absurdity the current design the penals emanate. Even if they are previous soldiers/officers why the hell would the red army hand these disobedient troopers armaments on par and even exceeding the equipment of the loyal guards? Again soviet criminals are armed with SVTs while guards get mosins. wat?

    Moving On I just want the Penals reduced to suicidal AT glass cannons. What comes after that well heres my take on it.

    • make penals a call in because of their speciality let them keep their stick satchels but remove their base ones.
    • Give the late infantry role to the guards but remove their AT rifles and button ability for balance and stick them in the HQ to be unlocked in tier 3 or 4.
    • Then replace the old slot of the penals in tier 1 with a basic partisan squad who will serve as an additional harassment tool that helps shore up the front line but also a harrasement asset within the back line. They will be a small 4 man squad with the camouflage ability and armed with basic satchel charges and a flare traps.

    Obviously just one way to manage it but overall the overreaching capability of the penals is just a bit ludicrous.

  • #226
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,674

    @raulmagana121707 said:

    @Kurkin said:
    1. I propose to arm additional Conscripts or Penal Battalion one machine-gun DP or PTRS to choose from, but to tie this possibility to T2.
    2. Replace the Molotov cocktail at RGD 33.
    3. Guards Riflemen initially equip SVT rifles, and not Mosin rifles.
    4. Anti-tank grenade RPG 43 make accessible to all doctrine infantry squads (guardsmen, shock troopers), if it is open in the field headquarters. Or make guards and shocks cheaper, 320 and 360 respectively.

    no way. Russian inf is supposed to be poorly equipped.

    And OKW army is supposed to be fuel starved.
    Ost is supposed to be weak early game.
    Your point?

  • #227
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited November 2017

    (removed)

  • #228
    2 years ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 950
    edited November 2017
    @Katitof: Now, how did that messed balance up for them?

    Because German trench is useless. In comparison, worse cover, health and your unit dies if destroyed. Remove the trenches for all fractions instand. We have sand bags and tank traps.

    Edit: improve the sand bags instead. They are way too fragil.
  • #229
    2 years ago
    skipzskipz Posts: 2
    edited November 2017

    Hi,

    I'm a player of COH1 and COH2 from the beginning. I create specially an account to can reply and said what i think about your balance of december.

    So, i'm totaly against this udapte.

    • Why in OKW we can't have MG at start ? like the other factions. You think its balance ? I need to build an expensive truck to have MG ...
    • Why in OKW all tank are expensive ? Panzer 2 or puma ? The price is almost the same of a T34/76... You think its balance to fight a T34 with a Puma ...
    • Why in OKW the backup cost 3OO ? and in UK 200 ? its balance ?
    • Why In Russian and Whermacht we can't have backup on front line like OKW, US and UK ? its balance ?

    I have lot of example like that is you want ...

    You want reduce the powerful of Panzer V (panther), its the best tank in WW2, its not me who says that, but the history...
    You want reduce the powerful of the JagdTiger like an Elephant ? You know the difference between this two tank ? Jagtiger = 128 mm and Elephant = 88 mm Canon gun. So why, the JT is egal to elephant with 300 damage ? You think its realistic or balance ? So check Wikipedia and read the history of WW2 and the specificty of unit. And stop to want change detail because people said the jadgtiger is too stronger. He is stronger because its the most powerful tank in WW2 ! So respect the history :wink:

    Company of Heroes is a realstic game of WW2, so instead of changing details i think its to time to introduce new units.

    Thank you,

  • #230
    2 years ago
    vsrvsr Posts: 93
    edited November 2017

    Critical balance issues:

    1. Nerf Dshka suppression and perhaps increase its range to compensate and its amour piercing ability.

    2. INCREASE THE ACCURACY OF SU-76 PLEASE! When compared to stugs, su-76 has poor armor and accuracy. Given the poor armor please make each shots of the su-76 count.

    3. Buff Maxim suppression.

    4. Please nerf the range of the OKW's stkdf infrared search light! They are OP in recon sense, so nerf the range and maybe you can give them a range boost ability icon for a short time with a small ammunition cost.

    5. Do something to conscripts so they don't get absolutely demolished by Volks spam

    6. Give deflection damage to 152mm guns especially on ISU and give it something like indirect fire that fires like ML-20 rof or slower, but outranges the Axis super TDs. Cost can be adjusted according to performance. For team game sake.

  • #231
    2 years ago
    KurkinKurkin РоссияPosts: 30

    @ubermensch said:
    I didn't make this point so Idk why you pinned me to this.

    Excuse me. It's just my fault. Confused with quotes.

  • #232
    2 years ago
    KurkinKurkin РоссияPosts: 30

    After the DBP test version 1.2.1. against AI noticed that the Wehrmacht infantry became weaker in the early game. I have the following suggestions for the balance:

    Wehrmacht.

    1. When arming grenadiers LMG add in the squad the fifth soldier with LMG. Also, with the arms of the G 43, add a fifth soldier. To get 2 soldiers with G 43 and 3 with 98 K.
    2. When arming panzergrenadiers panzershreks add a fifth soldier in the squad. To get 2 soldiers with panzershreks and 3 with STG 44. Also with weapons G 43.
    3. Assault grenadiers (the doctrine) when you open BP 1 should gain access to panzerfaust like a T1 grenadiers.

    Red Army.

    1. Replace the penaltys for assault guards from the Land Lease doctrine with 3 PPSh and 3 SVT. But without the M5 armored car. Make them a price of 340/27 manpower and 8 popcap. With changes in DBP 1.2.1 for penals. Give them access to RPG 43 if it is open at headquarters. Or leave them only SVT rifles and all the options of penalties, but lower the price and the popcap like a penals now.
      It's just nonsense that penals are the elite of the Red Army. This does not correspond to the history. This must be corrected.
    2. Since the Allies have arms racks and the ability to arm the infantry of LMG and AT weapons, it is necessary to give such an opportunity to the Red Army. After build T2, cons and penals / guardsmen should be able to equip one DP or PTRS with a choice for 60 ammunition.
    3. Guardsmen of the doctrine must be armed with an SVT and not with a Mosin rifle.
    4. Shocks and guards from the doctrine must have access to RPGs 43 if it is open at headquarters. Perhaps for a fee, for 40 ammunition.
  • #233
    2 years ago
    Hesky85Hesky85 Posts: 52
    edited November 2017

    After buffing the last weak infantry squad (conscripts), the Wehrmacht now needs 5 men squads really, really bad. Wehrmacht infantry ist just medicore in the early game and now the situation becomes even worser, especially in lategame (Wehrmacht infantry was never good in lategame).

    And reduce the absurd high reinforce costs!!!!! (30 for grens, 34 for Pgrens and Stormtroopers).

  • #234
    2 years ago
    KurkinKurkin РоссияPosts: 30

    @raulmagana121707 said:
    no way. Russian inf is supposed to be poorly equipped.

    Who supposed? It is a bad myth! The stupid stereotype is common in the west.
    Russian industry produced 795 000 DP. The Germans produced 423,600 MG 42. The Russians produced 6 000 000 PPSh, 2 000 000 SVT, about 7 000 000 Mosin rifles, about 50 million RGD 33 grenades, RG 42 and RPG 43. See the wiki. Increase your knowledge.

  • #235
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,674
    edited November 2017

    @Hesky85 said:
    After buffing the last weak infantry squad (conscripts), the Wehrmacht now needs 5 men squads really, really bad. Wehrmacht infantry ist just medicore in the early game and now the situation becomes even worser, especially in lategame (Wehrmacht infantry was never good in lategame).

    And reduce the absurd high reinforce costs!!!!! (30 for grens, 34 for Pgrens and Stormtroopers).

    Con DPS was not altered.
    They are simply more reliable.

    Start to use these HMGs, like ost is supposed since forever, grenspam against cons is no longer no brainer free win.

    Also, please learn how reinforcing works-its fair for everyone and surprisingly, almost all axis infantry reinforces for less then models are actually worth.

  • #236
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    The DPS of the conscript have increased in the patch from live. They also have their sized reduced in vet 1.

  • #237
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,674
    edited November 2017

    @Vipper said:
    The DPS of the conscript have increased in the patch from live. They also have their sized reduced in vet 1.

    No, it didn't.
    Read latest changelog.

    A bit of rec acc was moved from vet3 to vet1 to help them scale and compete against early game weapon upgrades, that's it.

    If it suddenly makes you lose all infantry engagements, its time to remind yourself that you need support weapons against sov too now.

  • #238
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited November 2017

    The DPS of mosin has been buffed in far ranges. (In some ranges that has been counterweight by the slight overkill similar to VG K98)

    DPS of 6 conscripts squad

  • #239
    2 years ago

    I really hope that the revamping of the Lend-lease doc won't be just based on nerfs of the DshK and the M4C, but will also feature some some buffs of the Shock Guards ability. It used to be useful when a Soviet player did T1/T2->T3/T4, but it's current state makes it's usability really bad

  • #240
    2 years ago
    oRi0noRi0n Posts: 63

    I'm happy to see the last update changed the FRP penalty from a manpower cost to a time delay. That is a definite improvement, but I have to reiterate that locking the FRP tech for the OKW Battlegroup HQ behind a 2nd truck basically renders the ability useless for the vast majority of games, ESPECIALLY teamgames where you can easily end up heavily outnumbered trying to defend not just your retreat point, but your TECH BUILDING.

    It's the T1 tech structure, which means if you want to build it first, and you want to have a FRP at ANY POINT IN THE ENTIRE GAME, you're forced to choose that location super early on (because it's also immobile). The problem is the FRP ability is HUGELY important to actually defending the Battlegroup HQ when it's in that forward position. Without a T0 machine gun the Battlegroup HQ is absurdly vulnerable early on. The allies can set up a machine gun to suppress your squads at the HQ long before your own MG34 can get there for counter-suppression. Without the FRP tech available to trigger a retreat and break that suppression locally, you're forced to retreat to base and leave your tech building undefended.

    The problem here isn't that you're losing your FRP building so much as you're losing your tech too! At the BARE MINIMUM, if you're going to INSIST on locking the FRP tech behind a second converted HQ, the MG34 needs to be available at T0 to make the Battlegroup HQ a bit more defensible.

    The best solution here would be to allow the Battlegroup HQ to be packed up, relocated and re-deployed. This should be a slow process (both packing and unpacking), and as always the truck should remain very vulnerable when not deployed, but at least you wouldn't be forced to risk your tech building in a forward position for a long period of time when it's not providing any advantages by being there. That allows you to keep the FRP tech tied to a second converted HQ without utterly breaking the viability of the mechanic.

    Remember the core design of the faction. The HQs are SUPPOSED to be placed forward (or at least it's supposed to be viable to place them forward) to support your troops. When you make the risk associated with that placement far too great, the whole concept of the faction falters.

    I'm fine with requiring connected territory for reinforcing to work. I'm fine with the prolonged reinforcement time. But the delayed FRP tech, coupled with the immobility of the Battlegroup HQ, coupled with the lack of a T0 machine gun to at least set up some sort of defense prior to deployment is too much. It wouldn't be a problem if the Battlegroup HQ wasn't also the T1 tech structure, but as such this is not a functional design.

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.