Spring Update Balance Discussion

1679111216

Comments

  • #242
    1 year ago

    @Sander93 said:

    @Farra13 said:
    Especially when you consider that this iteration of the 222 will force OST's opponent to purchase an early at source, which in turn means one less unit that could be dedicated to fighting the OST infantry, which leads to alot more control in the hands of the OST player from the 5 min mark.

    So what? That works exactly the same for clown cars, M20's and UC's.

    And AEC is a 5min vehicle that Ost has no counter to. Getting a pak at 5 minutes is sometimes a challenge. And AEC is completely bulletproof.

  • #243
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,595
    edited April 2018

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:

    @Sander93 said:

    @Farra13 said:
    Especially when you consider that this iteration of the 222 will force OST's opponent to purchase an early at source, which in turn means one less unit that could be dedicated to fighting the OST infantry, which leads to alot more control in the hands of the OST player from the 5 min mark.

    So what? That works exactly the same for clown cars, M20's and UC's.

    And AEC is a 5min vehicle that Ost has no counter to. Getting a pak at 5 minutes is sometimes a challenge. And AEC is completely bulletproof.

    How to counter AEC:

    Don't build vehicle.
    That 3 pintle DPS isn't going to be much of a threat or bleed.

    Also, HMG42 incendiary rounds rip it apart in 1-2 bursts.

    Another hardcounter is baiting it into a teller, which will OHK it.
    Its easy to do it since you're playing against brits, therefore you should have sniper which AEC can be baited to chase.

    Pair of 222 with minimum micro will also make a short work of AEC and costs less to get then single AEC.

  • #244
    1 year ago

    Some of my ideas for this patch:

    • Change from changelod

    General:
    Munitions and Fuel Caches cost 200 manpower if the are no other caches of your own constructed or going to be constructed. Else, 250 manpower. This encourages players to choose a important sector to secure easily and helps guard against early territory raids. It is also a middle ground between pre and post December balance patch.

    AI Volksgrenadiers: they now will use incendiary grenades on troop clusters or garrisoned infantry.
    AI British Infantry Sections: they now will construct caches when not active in the frontline.
    AI Obersoldaten and Jaeger Infantry: may booby trap territory points.

    Soviet
    Conscripts: can once again pick up 2 heavy weapons on the ground.
    Penal Battalions: can upgrade with a flamethrower for 60 munitions. Requires Mechanized Armor Kampenya and is mutually exclusive from the AT rifle package. Does not grant anti-vehicle satchel charges. This give the unit late-game deployment flexibility.
    T-34/76 and T-34/85 Ramming Ability: at veterancy 1, ramming causes heavy engine damage instead of immobilization. At veterancy 2 and 3, it causes gunner injured instead of main gun destroyed. This makes it more appealing to use ramming maneuvers with experienced tanks.

    Wehrmacht
    Ostruppen: Cost increased to 240 manpower & 7 population and health increased to match Soviet conscripts. Can also hold up to two heavy weapons.

    • 222 Scout Car: cost should remain the same but armor gets increased to 14 in front and 7 in rear.

    USF
    Riflemen: Can construct sandbags at any time, no longer requires defensive operations. This is to compensate for the fact that most basic troops of other factions can lay sandbags.
    Defensive Operations: Sandbag construction bonus removed because Riflemen always have it. Instead, Rear Echelon troops can lay M3 anti-tank mines.
    M36 Jackson Tank Destroyer: Health reduced to 560 and cost reduced to 380 manpower and 135 fuel and 14 population. This returns it a support role but still leaves it less fragile than before December Patch. Basically a middle ground pre and post patch.
    M26 Pershing: Veterancy 1 unlocks self-repair (replaces improved acceleration). Spend 45 munitions to carry out repairs, slowly restoring health for 15 seconds. During that time, it can move but it cannot fire its weapons. Similar to an ability once used by the T-70, this is to compensate for the Pershing's lack of disembarkable crew.
    M3 Halftrack: cost to call in reduced to 270 manpower and 30 fuel.

    OKW
    Sturmpioneer combat package: requires at least one command HQ structure set up.
    Kubelwagens are more vulnerable to certain mines so now they can be on shot by non-anti-personnel mines. This makes mines more effective a deterrence against Kubelwagen raiders.

    British:
    Hammer tactics: infantry sections and engineers can no longer repair sandbags.

    • Vickers HMG: Cost goes to 270 manpower and 3 extra seconds.
    • Anti-Tank Infantry Sections: still benefits from increased squad size.
    • Bren Gun: Cost is 50 munitions
  • #245
    1 year ago

    @Katitof said:

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:

    @Sander93 said:

    @Farra13 said:
    Especially when you consider that this iteration of the 222 will force OST's opponent to purchase an early at source, which in turn means one less unit that could be dedicated to fighting the OST infantry, which leads to alot more control in the hands of the OST player from the 5 min mark.

    So what? That works exactly the same for clown cars, M20's and UC's.

    And AEC is a 5min vehicle that Ost has no counter to. Getting a pak at 5 minutes is sometimes a challenge. And AEC is completely bulletproof.

    How to counter AEC:

    Don't build vehicle.
    That 3 pintle DPS isn't going to be much of a threat or bleed.

    Also, HMG42 incendiary rounds rip it apart in 1-2 bursts.

    Another hardcounter is baiting it into a teller, which will OHK it.
    Its easy to do it since you're playing against brits, therefore you should have sniper which AEC can be baited to chase.

    Pair of 222 with minimum micro will also make a short work of AEC and costs less to get then single AEC.

    LOL do the math 2 222 = 500mp. AEC + tech is less than 500. Relying on tellers and AP rounds. You're telling the Ost player to get lucky or die trying? Who chases snipers with aec, Bren carrier or countersnipe is what brits use.

  • #247
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    On the panther, anyone on board with my suggestion to switch the health buff into a received damage modifier (like kv1)? Keep it at 800 health so repair time stays the same, give it a modifier that "equates it" to something like 960-1080 health.

    I lean towards 1080 (tiger 1 health) if all other changes stay the same. I do not think 160 health is a sufficient defense trade for a nerf of 60 armor, all the while the cost is increased 10 fuel.
  • #248
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,810
    > @SkysTheLimit said:
    > On the panther, anyone on board with my suggestion to switch the health buff into a received damage modifier (like kv1)? Keep it at 800 health so repair time stays the same, give it a modifier that "equates it" to something like 960-1080 health.
    >
    > I lean towards 1080 (tiger 1 health) if all other changes stay the same. I do not think 160 health is a sufficient defense trade for a nerf of 60 armor, all the while the cost is increased 10 fuel.

    im not sure im ok with that... it works for the kv1 because its nothing more than a beefy t34, but the panther is a bit more...
    with its armour nuked i could totally be wrong and it might need it but atm i cant see that being a good change...
  • #249
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    On the panther, anyone on board with my suggestion to switch the health buff into a received damage modifier (like kv1)? Keep it at 800 health so repair time stays the same, give it a modifier that "equates it" to something like 960-1080 health.

    I lean towards 1080 (tiger 1 health) if all other changes stay the same. I do not think 160 health is a sufficient defense trade for a nerf of 60 armor, all the while the cost is increased 10 fuel.

    and here once again we reach the core problem with the Panther.

    If this was just the Ostheer Panther, I'd jump for joy and we'd call it a day because this - largely, would fix the Panther (would make it durable, low armor would reduce RNG, durability would mitigate its awkward dps). Giving this kind of power to OKW though is just too strong. A Panther like that screening for JPIVs or even Pumas would be an ugly thing indeed, and I unfortunately don't think it's the kind of problem you can fix with a price difference (think of OKWs release, where high per purchase costs severely limited your viable fuel purchases and shoehorned them pretty much in to a rush for T3 if they didn't just volks spam).

    OKWs tech structure is just too straightforward to have a Wehrmacht T4 vehicle in it, and having 2 identical vehicles that perform differently enough be meaningful would just be counter intuitive and irritating for players.

    We've just gotta face that the OKW Panther was a mistake, and as long as it is in both factions with such different tech structures it's not going to get better.

    The only solution I see is a buff such as the one you suggested and locking the Panther behind a faux T4 for OKW, but then I fear we'll just see it die in OKW strategies.

  • #250
    1 year ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    I only use 222 because IL2 is so immba.

    Imo relic can return 222 as a scout car originally, you capture points. Or if you throw in the turret upgrade, it no longer cap points. So the 222 bufff seems fairer, you need to pay more ammo if you want some autocannon now but you get more durable scout car
  • #251
    1 year ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    You now got jackson,su85, firefly and ATG, how is OKW panther a mistake now?
  • #252
    1 year ago
    Sander93Sander93 Posts: 49
    edited April 2018

    @Lazarus said:
    If this was just the Ostheer Panther, I'd jump for joy and we'd call it a day because this - largely, would fix the Panther (would make it durable, low armor would reduce RNG, durability would mitigate its awkward dps). Giving this kind of power to OKW though is just too strong. A Panther like that screening for JPIVs or even Pumas would be an ugly thing indeed

    In that case why not just differentiate between Panther A/D (OKW) and G (Wehr) models. Just like the Panzer IV. Wehrmacht could get a Panther G model with sideskirts on vet0 with enhanced stats.
    Fixes Wehrmacht T4 while changing nothing for the OKW.

  • #253
    1 year ago
    @Sander93 Because most people are too intolerant to accept the variety of german tank models... ^^ less obviously differents, but many small advantages in detail.

    The idea is old, but gold.
  • #254
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited April 2018
    @Lazarus In my head I was really only thinking of the Ostheer Panther when I proposed those changes. You're right about OKW not deserving the same, my rec damage modifier idea is sourced from trying to give Ost t4 a little love.

    @thedarkarmadillo fair enough but the panther us also (50 fuel?) more expensive than the kv1 after the price hike, and will have 10 fewer armor as things stand now.
  • #255
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,810
    @skytheLimit but speed, pen, range, and MGs are alot spookier on the panther. Not saying it couldnt work, just that im cautious. It works on the kv because the kv is really only there to tank damage whereas the panther can also deal it and with impunity if there happens to not be a TD alive at the time
  • #256
    1 year ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 950
    edited April 2018
    1. So, today I had some time to play around with alternative hull-down. I tested it on StuG, now the tank is able to do it by its own, also a range indicator will be visible while the tank is in hull-down. I reduced the stats on same effect as in the preview (-25% incoming-damage, 62,5 range).

    Here a small video: https://1drv.ms/v/s!Auba63jVJDDGnLJUIT9JQrBiVr6jZA

    1. I am also working on an alternvative Scope. It works like su-85 cone-loss-toggle, but with less sight. If you have the commander-ability for scope you are able to use it, it will reduce the speed by 50%, gives you sight of 60 range. E.g. If there would be a commander with hull-down and scope it would have same sight as range. Together less op as the normal scope and better baalnced and usefull.

    2. There arme many other things I am testing, a complete overwork of Ostheer. New Grens, Pios, etc.

  • #257
    1 year ago
    OberOber Posts: 101
    edited April 2018
    Thanks to relic and the community for the ideas for this new patch, again going to the right direction, but i have 2 suggestions:

    1.- Can you make the penals nuke bomb more expensive? because in almost every game 2 or 3 unstoppable penals can rush over okw trucks, house (can be destroyed with 1 bomb) or anything that can be destroyed and "boom" 3 or 4 or this nukes bombs and everything blows up by the air like paper... i think that those bombs are sooo cheap and the penals come too early to the front and its so hard to hit them because of recived accuracy buff or something...

    2.- Change obersoldaten to the mech truck and it will less risky to build t2, maybe a price increase would be needed, i say this because actually make a flak truck to get obers is a shame they come too late fighting agains strong lvl 3 inf or tanks...
  • #258
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,595

    @Ober said:
    Thanks to relic and the community for the ideas for this new patch, again going to the right direction, but i have 2 suggestions:

    1.- Can you make the penals nuke bomb more expensive? because in almost every game 2 or 3 unstoppable penals can rush over okw trucks, house (can be destroyed with 1 bomb) or anything that can be destroyed and "boom" 3 or 4 or this nukes bombs and everything blows up by the air like paper... i think that those bombs are sooo cheap and the penals come too early to the front and its so hard to hit them because of recived accuracy buff or something...

    That is exactly the purpose of satchel charge.
    Destroying static buildings and fortifications.
    You're also talking about force of 900+ menpower and 140 muni, if you do not have equal force to defend against it, you kind of don't deserve to survive it.

    Be more careful where you put your trucks. Many pro players do not put them outside of base.

  • #259
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,810
    So fun fact! It takes the same number of demos to kill an okw truck as it does penals but demos cost more, need to be planted, despite the planting have a cooldown AND are on a combat ineffective unit.
    So dont ask the mod team to touch satchels or gammons because you will very likley get a useless shell of what you had before thats beyond less effective than cheaper/more versatile abilities.
  • #260
    1 year ago

    Will there be a balance preview released to the workshop? I couldnt find any, and after ~2 weeks of discussion i think we maybe should give players the opportunity to test their suspicions.Maybe after a first wave of changes?

  • #261
    1 year ago
    EeereEeere Posts: 18

    What if Storm Troopers had stun grenade immunity? The light self damage could offset abusing this potential feature. It could be unique to them over Grenadiers.

  • #262
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    The mp cost should be decreased. 250 for a bullet sponge. While bulletproof luchs, stuart and t70 cost around the same mp, take 2 1/2 at guns shots to kill vs 222 only needs 1 1/2. And the fact that 222 has worse AI than all 3 of these vehicles.

    WHY are you comparing these vehicles? How the hell is costing "around the same" MP relevant if they cost twice as much fuel??? I mean if I go stuart, its 60 fuel in tech costs (sure just like SC) but then its 70 effing fuel for the unit!!!

    Again I will ask, how can you compare a 30 fuel unit to a 70 fuel unit (stuart), if you are literally arguing that 60 fuel is so expensive that it prevents you from getting two scout cars? You are literally comparing these units because they have the word "light" in them. T70, luchs, stuart are all light tanks. The scout car is....brace yourself.....a CAR and that's why its not bulletproof. Stop talking about "bulletproof lights", you are grouping units together that should not be compared.

  • #263
    1 year ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798
    edited May 2018

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    The mp cost should be decreased. 250 for a bullet sponge. While bulletproof luchs, stuart and t70 cost around the same mp, take 2 1/2 at guns shots to kill vs 222 only needs 1 1/2. And the fact that 222 has worse AI than all 3 of these vehicles.

    WHY are you comparing these vehicles? How the hell is costing "around the same" MP relevant if they cost twice as much fuel??? I mean if I go stuart, its 60 fuel in tech costs (sure just like SC) but then its 70 effing fuel for the unit!!!

    Again I will ask, how can you compare a 30 fuel unit to a 70 fuel unit (stuart), if you are literally arguing that 60 fuel is so expensive that it prevents you from getting two scout cars? You are literally comparing these units because they have the word "light" in them. T70, luchs, stuart are all light tanks. The scout car is....brace yourself.....a CAR and that's why its not bulletproof. Stop talking about "bulletproof lights", you are grouping units together that should not be compared.

    Not sure where you read that I think 30 f is too expensive. I think the fuel is fine but the mp SHOULD be reduced to 200 unlike quite a few folks on the forum. Earlier I said that 30 f price allows Ost to get up to 2 222s. And I think it's fair to compare these units with the 222. If you haven't realized already, the NAME of a vehicle doesn't dictate performance in Coh2 - the COST of the vehicles are somewhat similar with the 222. Hence the reason I'm comparing them with the 222. You're getting FAR SUPERIOR units with simply an extra 30-40 fuel with the luchs/T70/Stuart. I've listed all the reasons above already. But since you clearly are too lazy to read I will paste them right here again for u: ****bulletproof luchs, stuart and t70 cost around the same mp, take 2 1/2 at guns shots to kill vs 222 only needs 1 1/2. And the fact that 222 has worse AI than all 3 of these vehicles.** ** That's A LOT of value from just 30-40 fuel. And that's not even mentioning the less repairs you need to maintain bulletproof vehicles.

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:

    > @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    > Yes, the 222s can be repaired and don't inflict bleed, but as some mentioned, these 30 vehicles can disappear in the blink of an eye compared to allied lights.

    Yet you neglect to mention the fuel cost of the lights you're comparing it to. You say 30 fuel is a lot and prevents double SC, yet you have no problem comparing its performance to vehicles that cost 2x as much fuel and arrive later.

    You are really making this a bigger deal than it is. People are saying that the armor buffs is enough and that maybe it's mp cost doesn't need to be decreased. You're acting like they want it nerfed for christs sake, calm down.

    The mp cost should be decreased. 250 for a bullet sponge. While bulletproof luchs, stuart and t70 cost around the same mp, take 2 1/2 at guns shots to kill vs 222 only needs 1 1/2. And the fact that 222 has worse AI than all 3 of these vehicles. Even after the armor buff, it should get mp price decrease. The 222 anti infantry is about on par with AEC. Thats very sad since the AEC is supposed to be a specialist light AT.

    I never said that 30 fuel is too much. I think it's a fair price and will allow Ost to get UP TO 2 222's. You need 2 222's to match the ai performance of one t70. That means you may spend only 60 fuel, but you're spending a whopping 500 mp while a T70 costs half of that.

    And here's the quote where I said I WAS PERFECTLY FINE with the fuel cost but not the mp cost of 222.

  • #264
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,810
    Timing is very important tho. Osts t2 comes sooner and cheaper than the techs required for the light tanks. You can judge the importance of that by comparing soviet and ost halftracks. Same price, same function but the soviet one is more durable. So even if the t70 cost 30 fuel it would likley be more durable. Timing is important. Hell for 20fuel more in UNIT price the soviet can instead of getting a t70 get a full blown medium tank!
  • #265
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited May 2018
    > @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    > Earlier I said that 30 f price allows Ost to get up to 2 222s.

    Actually that is the exact opposite of what you said:

    > @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    > Sick of people think the 222 spam will be back. As long as it costs 30 f, there will be no 222 spam. Fuel is the limiting factor



    And the cost is NOT similar!!! The SC costing 40 fuel less than a stuart and arriving earlier means they are not comparable. I'm well aware that the name of the unit is not what determines performance, you're the one using the word "light" to describe units that are not similar.
  • #266
    1 year ago
    FarlionFarlion Posts: 21

    Stop.Comparing.Fuel.Costs.

    You're ignoring the other half of the picture. Even if the 222 hits the field early, it does not have the same impact light tanks have. So for that reason alone you have to get a second 222, which brings the fuel cost to 60 and thus only 10 less fuel than a light tank, but costing more MP.

  • #267
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited May 2018
    > @Farlion said:
    > You're ignoring the other half of the picture. Even if the 222 hits the field early, it does not have the same impact light tanks have.

    Are you saying it should? What's your argument here? I'm not saying double 222 is viable right now, i just don't want it to be possible.

    Imo in general it doesn't make sense to buff/nerf a units performance and decrease/increase it's cost. Either change the cost to match current performance, or change performance to match current cost.

    And Fuel is inarguably the most important resource in the game. Saying i should stop comparing fu costs when someone is comparing the units performance is ridiculous.
  • #268
    1 year ago
    FarlionFarlion Posts: 21
    edited May 2018

    No, what I'm saying is that the 222 is so utterly ineffective, that if you go for one, you're almost forced to go for two.

    So to argue that the reduced MP cost is going to break the game by unleashing hordes of 222s is preposterous. You just said yourself that fuel is the most important resource ingame. So why are you concerned about the 222s cost reduction?

  • #269
    1 year ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798
    edited May 2018

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    Are you saying it should? What's your argument here? I'm not saying double 222 is viable right now, i just don't want it to be possible.

    Do you realize that you need 2 222's to get the AI capabilities of one T70? So what's wrong with Ost getting double 222? You realize that double 222 still loses to Stuart, try penetrating the front armor with 222s. And you think 2 222s is a "spam?" You obviously forgot the days of 15f 222s. Players (including me) often got THREE 222s to counter the op allied light tanks at the time. Now THAT is a spam.

  • #270
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited May 2018
    @1ncendiary_Rounds When this conversation started, I was talking explicitly about double Scout car, and then you quoted me and said you were tired of people thinking SC spam was coming back......

    @Farlion And it's armor buff hasn't even been tested by the community yet.
  • #271
    1 year ago
    1ncendiary_Rounds1ncendiar… Posts: 798
    edited May 2018

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    @1ncendiary_Rounds When this conversation started, I was talking explicitly about double Scout car, and then you quoted me and said you were tired of people thinking SC spam was coming back......

    Let me tell you once more: getting 2 of one unit is NOT a spam. Most people consider a spam if you get at least 3. So do you call double stug/su76 a "spam", double gren spam? When I say spam is not coming back, I mean that Ost will not get more than 2 222's after the mp reduction.

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.