Feedback - Commander Revamp

1568101113

Comments

  • #212
    12 months ago
    > @Romanov написал:
    > @szolnok95 said:
    >
    > @Boris_yeltsin said:
    > Here are my thoughts on what could improve the Lend-lease doctrine, so that it won't need any more changes. Basically, it's all about the Guard rifles call-in:
    > 1. Make it a 3 CP ability.
    > 2. Give them SVTs.
    > 3. Give them 3 options to upgrade their firepower: it could be either 2 Brownings 1919, or 4 Thompsons, or 2 Bazookas and an appropriate grenade choice in accordance with the main weaponry: it could be either the AT greanade, or the frag grenade, or the smoke grenade.
    > 4. Make their manpower cost to be 360 points.
    > And rework Sherman 4c like USF sherman
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Aha and tell me: what kind of german unit has that firepower/upgrade choice?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > For starters Volks, stormtroopers, sturmpioneers and obersoldaten. All with doctrines of course, but since this is a doctrinal unit too it shouldnt matter. Personally i would give the guards M1 carbines ( i am not sure which is better, Para Carbines or Guard SVTs) but generally i feel those upgrade further play into the lend lease feel. the Duschka could also be replaced by a M2 Browing. Altho i personally would replace the m1919s with BARs.
    >
    > Why did this commander even come up? It is not a commander set up to change ( altho i could say the thing with the german infantrty doctrine, seeing how the 250 was probably implemented to buff the other 2 commanders its in rather than the doctrine in question itself)

    The thing is, I wrote all that stuff about this commander assuming, that if they gave the Soviets the USA Sherman, the only thing the doctrine needs to be changed, would be the M5 Assault group
  • #213
    12 months ago
    > @Vipper написал:
    > Urban defense commander from design point of view.
    >
    > The commander thematically seems to designed for specific maps with houses.
    >
    > When changing the commander one has to consider if the commander is designed as a 1vs1 or more of support commander in 2vs2 games and above.
    >
    > Abilities:
    > Forward head quartets (CP 2)
    >
    > M-42 45 mm AT gun (CP 2)
    >
    > Shock troops (CP 2)
    >
    > Booby Trap territory (CP 6)
    >
    > KV-2 Heavy assault tank (CP 14)
    >
    > With the current changes the commander seem to hit a spike at CP 2 by gaining forward healing, elite infantry and ATGs.
    >
    > In addition the KV-2 allows the commander to invest fuel on forward healing, stop teching at T3 and still be in little disadvantage since he can relay on KV-2.
    >
    > So the commander can apply allot of pressure at CP-2 and still have strong late game.
    >
    > Comments:
    > FHQ the ability is strong but situational because it requires suitable buildings. Maybe the FHQ upgrade should repair some of the damage to ambient buildings if they have any.
    > One could also provide tools in dealing with this buildings like abilities to vehicles with flame weapon to set them on fire.
    >
    > Auras imo one should reconsider the aura and especially applying it to allied troops something that was removed from other auras. The aura could become a timed ability.
    >
    > The problem with aura can easily go out hand when multiply auras apply like the "inspiration" from KV-2 (or other in team games like combined arm, command vehicle, advance cover, hold the line, heroic charge etch.)
    >
    > The reinforcement post is simply way to cheap and accessible especially with Soviet faction design and access to elite infantry and to no tech ATG, Ostheer would need 300 mp and 120 MU for the same while OKW would allot more. I have to point out although fuel my set the tech back mu set back in DPS in mid game and even become more important in big modes and late game.
    >
    > M-42 the unit should be designed as stop gap and currently is simply OP for cost. (will go into units in another thread)
    >
    > booby trap would be better to become dot damage so it can delay capping. Maybe move to infantry since currently need little micro to use and lots of micro to counter.
    >
    > KV-2 simply does not belong to the commander. Having a FHQ protect by KV-2 apply 2 aura to units like shock troops and PTRS penals that can sprint to use satchel and have increased DPS due to cooldown is simply asking for trouble.
    >
    > Call-in vehicles are also bad for the commander since the no tech access to vehicles counterweight the investment in fuels for HQ access.
    >
    > The commander could use a strong off map like IL-2 bombing or an ability that increased DPS of garrison troops and/or increased DPS when firing on garrisoned troops that fit the commander thematically.
    >
    > (will edit for typos when I get chance)

    Soviet commander without armored vehicles is a bad commander
  • #214
    11 months ago
    ImperialDaneImperialD… Posts: 3,113 mod

    The Stormtrooper change seems.. Weird, like shifting about non-essential elements on them. The current issue and one i hear much grumbling about remains that the Mp40s.. just aren't that good unless you are absolutely right next to the enemy. And as seeing as pretty much every allied SMG got turned into a Pseudo Assault rifle, its kinda proven to be a bad idea. So i don¨t see why the Stormtroopers need to be foisted upon with it seeing as they're smaller and less bulletproof squads in general.

    Never mind that tactical advance becomes a really bad ability when you have to stand right on top of the enemy as well.

    Overall the Stormtrooper Mp40 needs a better effective range similar to the Pseudo Assault rifle profiles of the allied SMGs or the whole smg bit needs to be trashed and either the assault rifles go back or something else happens.

    I mean if you reallly want to push something else you could try having the assault package be PPSH41s since The germans used MILLIONS of those and it was a handy dandy smg and then give them a 5th man when they upgrade, keep the tactical advance and it'll be a better assault unit that stands out from the Panzergrenadiers but not a complete sack of trash.

  • #215
    11 months ago
    vsrvsr Posts: 93

    Here is the reason why Commisar's forward retreat point breaks the balance,

    Say i managed to build up a massive cons/penals blob (which is super easy) and advance to an enemy held fuel point/VP but i ran into an MG42, which was very well placed and supported. With the commisar's forward retreat point, i will just make a quick retreat, then blob from a different direction before the werhmr/OKW player can react to it. If i dont have commisar's FR point, i need to call in a mortar to use smoke or some form of arty and diversify my strategy. Forcing people to think and not just blind blobbing!

    I strongly support the commisar's support role and abilities. But due to the above reason, his FR point idea will be a bad move for balance of the game.

  • #216
    11 months ago
    > @vsr said:
    > Here is the reason why Commisar's forward retreat point breaks the balance,
    >
    > Say i managed to build up a massive cons/penals blob (which is super easy) and advance to an enemy held fuel point/VP but i ran into an MG42, which was very well placed and supported. With the commisar's forward retreat point, i will just make a quick retreat, then blob from a different direction before the werhmr/OKW player can react to it. If i dont have commisar's FR point, i need to call in a mortar to use smoke or some form of arty and diversify my strategy. Forcing people to think and not just blind blobbing!
    >
    > I strongly support the commisar's support role and abilities. But due to the above reason, his FR point idea will be a bad move for balance of the game.

    That's literally the problem with All FRPs...
  • #217
    11 months ago
    > @vsr said:
    > Here is the reason why Commisar's forward retreat point breaks the balance,
    >
    > Say i managed to build up a massive cons/penals blob (which is super easy) and advance to an enemy held fuel point/VP but i ran into an MG42, which was very well placed and supported. With the commisar's forward retreat point, i will just make a quick retreat, then blob from a different direction before the werhmr/OKW player can react to it. If i dont have commisar's FR point, i need to call in a mortar to use smoke or some form of arty and diversify my strategy. Forcing people to think and not just blind blobbing!
    >
    > I strongly support the commisar's support role and abilities. But due to the above reason, his FR point idea will be a bad move for balance of the game.

    I have always been against forward retreat points, However. Since 3 out 5 factions have FRP its only fair that we find a way to give the Soviets and Ostheer an FRP.
  • #218
    11 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    @SomeguyfromIdaho There's one small problem with that idea, namely Ostheer's ability to build mini-bases (MG bunker complex with Medical bunker & Reinforcement bunker) in any friendly territory for zero population cost. Adding a Forward Retreat Point to that ability would be way too powerful.

    It's true the British can build mini-bases with a Forward Retreat Point using their Forward Assembly structures but, Population points must be expended to build the emplacements needed to protect them.

    The US can also build mini-bases but, they are of a more ad-hoc nature given how vulnerable the Major and the Ambulance are to any attack. Plus, while it is only a small cost, the Ambulance counts against population as well.

    Of all the factions, the Soviets have no abilities with regard to building mini-bases and because of this probably have the strongest claim to a Forward Retreat Point. The logical means to this end is to make it a part of the Forward HQ from Urban Defense, not the Commissar Squad from NKVD. It would not adversely affect the overall balance of the game because, it would be limited to one commander and would only be practical on maps with lots of buildings. Also, destroying the building would destroy the Retreat Point so, it could be tactically countered by opposition players (more easily than other factions' FRP's given that ambient buildings cannot be repaired in any way).

    The new Field Camp is a fly in this ointment but, it need not have the FRP ability or, if it does, then adding a population cost to its construction would go some way toward limiting its abuse. This principle may also need to be looked at with regard to British Forward Assemblies being upgraded to be Retreat Points.

    PS. SomeguyfromIdaho: keep banging the drum on beefed-up Veteran Squad Leaders; you've got my support.

  • #219
    11 months ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    @Boris_yeltsin said:
    Soviet commander without armored vehicles is a bad commander

    If that is true and I am not saying it is, it a faction problem and not a Commander problem. Having to give call-in tanks to all commander would be a badly designed solution.

  • #220
    11 months ago
    vsrvsr Posts: 93

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    > @vsr said:
    > Here is the reason why Commisar's forward retreat point breaks the balance,
    >
    > Say i managed to build up a massive cons/penals blob (which is super easy) and advance to an enemy held fuel point/VP but i ran into an MG42, which was very well placed and supported. With the commisar's forward retreat point, i will just make a quick retreat, then blob from a different direction before the werhmr/OKW player can react to it. If i dont have commisar's FR point, i need to call in a mortar to use smoke or some form of arty and diversify my strategy. Forcing people to think and not just blind blobbing!
    >
    > I strongly support the commisar's support role and abilities. But due to the above reason, his FR point idea will be a bad move for balance of the game.

    That's literally the problem with All FRPs...

    But in this case it is a 6-men FRP though. It is strange why 4-men Ost doesn't have FRP yet while 5-men OKW, Brit (upgrade-able to 5-men) and USF have it, however they have it with reinforce-time penalty.

    Logic says, only 4-men Ost and 4-men brit (without the upgrade) should have access to FRP.

  • #221
    11 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    @Boris_yeltsin @Vipper Soviet commanders without tanks:

    Tank Hunter
    Soviet Shock Army
    Soviet Reserve Army
    Soviet Combined Arms Army
    Partisan
    Defensive

    Urban Defense (Pre-Revamp)
    NKVD Rifle Disruption (Pre-Revamp)

    "Soviet commander without armored vehicles is a bad commander" - this is clearly not true because, the value of any commander depends on the skill and style of the player using it.

  • #222
    11 months ago
    Dangminh25Dangminh25 Posts: 66
    edited September 2018

    if the Sherman 76 have HVAP round does the Sherman E8 and Sherman 4C have the same thing ?

  • #223
    11 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    I believe the issue with Stormtroopers is that they are meant to perform different roles in each of the different doctrines in which they appear. In Breakthrough, they appear as an infiltrating disruption unit, deploying behind enemy lines to capture resource points. In Elite Troops, they're more of an infiltrating envelopment unit, joining an attack from the other side of the lines and bringing pressure from an unexpected quarter. In the German Infantry revamp, they have been reworked into more of a straight-up close assault unit.

    They can perform all these roles but, the problem is that each role requires different equipment. The pre-revamp Stormtroopers were well equipped for an envelopment unit; they were essentially infiltration Panzer Grenadiers and Tactical Advance suited both their weapons and their role. However, they weren't well equipped for disruption; they would have needed silenced MP-40's and booby traps to suit that role and Interrogation is a better ability for this mode of operation.

    The revamped version is well equipped for close assault but, this has come at the cost of their ability to perform other roles. It is also a role for which Tactical Advance is very poorly suited, given their need to quickly close with the enemy to be effective. Tactical Movement can be used in German Infantry doctrine to provide rapid advances, as can the Sprint from Ambush Training in Encirclement doctrine. However, there is no such work-around in Elite Troops and this is where their diminished capacity will be most keenly felt.

    The revamp notes describe the reworked Stormtroopers as a "potent close-range unit, with strong disruption and ambush abilities" and many of the changes seem directed towards this end. The last version has stepped back from this a little by having the unit start with Kar98k's, mostly it seems to prevent them being deployed from ambient buildings close to enemy units and using the MP-40's high rate of fire to overwhelm them. However, it is my belief that, if disruption and ambush are the roles for which Stormtroopers are now being equipped, then the weapons to which they upgrade should be silenced MP-40's.

    If they are being reworked to perform a role similar to that of the Commandos, then they should be equipped in a similar fashion.

  • #224
    11 months ago

    Hi!

    I wanted to share my opinion of the USF Armor Company. I think its going on a good direction to be a cool and usefull doctrine, with one exception: the M10. I found it useless, since you can buy the much stronger Jackson which has the same role as a tank destroyer. The only special in M10, that it is cheaper, so you can swarm them and flank with them. But the problem is, that flanking is always very risky (you can go on mines, go into unexpected AT guns etc.). So it makes no sense to swarm M10s to risk them, when you can buy Jacksons with great penetration and longer range, so don't need to risk them while you can still destroy enemy armor. Therefore, I have 2 suggestions:

    1) Remove M10 at all, and give the doctrine Pershing instead. It would completely suit into the doctrines theme, and at least one more USF doctrine would have a heavy tank, which would be cool.

    2) Make M10 a command tank, similar to Command Panther. It should increase mobility of nearby tanks, and have mark target ability, which would increase the penetration and accurecy against the target.

  • #225
    11 months ago

    Hello,fellows
    We all saw in 1.6 that Soviet Sherman received a APCR Rounds and it makes it good AT unit, but why not to add a BR-365P APC Round to T-34-85 Medium Tank as a switchable ability with increasing Penetration from 140 to 190 and it will didnt cause any damage to infantry units of course. That shells wouldnt come default to T-34-85 and needs to be upgraded to every tank unit for 60-90 Ammo.

  • #226
    11 months ago

    Stormtroopers: The sprint button overlaps with smoke button (Z BUTTON)

    As for their 98k rifles, it would be interesting to be able to switch from 98K to mp40 with the 15s delay, so you can use the unit on long/ short. That way they could be more universal without spamming the option to change their attack orientation too quickly. As for the complains about their lack of mp44. What about making the upgrade possible when hitting vet 3?

    I still think the Shrek Upgrade should make them using mines. One shrek (even with the ability) is not that great on its own behind enemy line.

  • #227
    11 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    @Swirekster Given the Stormtrooper's new role of disruption and ambush, mines would be an excellent addition. Perhaps the Schu-mine would be the best choice. It's different from the Pioneers' mines and it can affect both personnel & vehicles to some degree.

  • #228
    11 months ago

    ELITE ARMOUR DOCTRINE

    This commander would benefit with some form of Anti-Infantry tank to fill this role I suggest additions of a new unit the "Panzer 4 Infantry Support tank" (reuse the Panzer 4 command tank model) have it use the Sherman style High Explosive shells so its only good against soft targets. It could be "built" at the Command HQ but require two half tracks deployed for example: Battlegroup HQ and Mechanized HQ, Battlegroup HQ and Schwerer Panzer HQ, or Mechanized HQ and Schwerer Panzer HQ.

  • #229
    11 months ago

    OVERWATCH

    Jaegar Light Infantry are still need some work and could benefit with access to Infrared StG44 Package and Blendkörper 2H frangible smoke grenade (E)

  • #230
    11 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346
    edited September 2018

    @SomeguyfromIdaho On the Overwatch revamp, here are my thoughts:

    The Light Jaegers seem to be a light disruption unit, given their camouflage and booby trap abilities. It's unfortunate that they are not properly equipped for this role. If the Blendkorper grenade can be used to destroy supply caches, then I'm all in favor of their addition to the Jaegers' equipment (although, what I'd really like to see is an ability to steal caches*). An upgrade to IR StG-44's would also probably help but, only if it locks out their slots. A camouflaged unit with IR StG-44's and a Shrek seems a bit much.

    In addition, I think the 10.5cm LeFH Howitzer needs to be re-thought. The Vet Level 5 Direct Fire mode seems like a waste of time. You'd have to be in a very long game to get it to that level and it's an ability that will get used very rarely. However, the overhaul of this unit needs to go much deeper than simply removing this ability, in my opinion.

    In order to distinguish it from the Wehrmacht version, I would replace Counter-battery with a timed Overwatch ability. This would not only make it more suitable to the doctrine, it would also suit the Fortifications doctrine. Both are defensive doctrines and an artillery piece with a timed overwatch capability fits this type of play nicely. In my opinion, it is an ability that would get used more than either Direct Fire or Counter-battery. Overwatch also brings more purpose to the Early Warning Systems of this commander, giving the player a quick response to enemy incursions and a means to delay the enemy until friendly units can reach the area.

    In my opinion, this change would greatly add to the cohesion of this commander.

    [*This could be done by expanding Salvage to include enemy supply caches.]

  • #231
    11 months ago
    @PanzerFutz I like your suggestions, and one thing that might fit as well would be a sniper.
  • #232
    11 months ago

    @PanzerFutz said:
    @SomeguyfromIdaho On the Overwatch revamp, here are my thoughts:

    The Light Jaegers seem to be a light disruption unit, given their camouflage and booby trap abilities. It's unfortunate that they are not properly equipped for this role. If the Blendkorper grenade can be used to destroy supply caches, then I'm all in favor of their addition to the Jaegers' equipment (although, what I'd really like to see is an ability to steal caches*). An upgrade to IR StG-44's would also probably help but, only if it locks out their slots. A camouflaged unit with IR StG-44's and a Shrek seems a bit much.

    i do not think every 'infiltration unit needs to be an assault squad, we even less so need more Stg upgrades for OKW. Jägers are more of a light infantry support unit given their special marksman g43. a more unique and fitting upgrate would probably be a second special g43 for like 30-40 munitions that has the same one hit kill characteristic on models below 70% health.

    Personally, an ability that i would find extremely interesting would be a 'thermite charge' or something like that which enables you to destroy caches or especially heavy weapons. would definately interesting to be able to destroy a mortar or AT gun for 25 munitions.

  • #233
    11 months ago
    @Romanov you might be right on the STGs, but I think the Jeagers could benefit with IR perhaps an "IR scope" upgrade that gives IR benefits to thier existing weapons. It would be easy to model just add the IR backpacks to the squad.
  • #234
    11 months ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited September 2018

    Urban defense units balance and abilities that where removed.

    The abilities removed from the commander are Incendiary Barrage, Armored Vehicle detection. Since these abilities where in the commander one could claim that they are part of scope and try to Fix them. Incendiary is a rather good spot but Armored Vehicle detection could use a redesign and then become available to more commanders. Some suggestions for those abilities (and other) can be found here:
    https://www.coh2.org/topic/81491/suggestions-for-commanders-revamp.

    Shock troops
    In keeping with the Urban theme of this doctrine, Shock Troops have been added. Furthermore, Shock Troops have received moderate buffs to their mid-range capabilities. Their close-range potency remains unchanged up to 10 meters.
    -Cost from 390 to 360.
    -PPsH-41 mid range accuracy from 0.276 to 0.35
    -PPsH-41 aim-time multiplier from 1.25 to 0.85
    -PPsH-41 cooldown duration multiplier from 1.25 to 0.85
    -PPsH-41 mid burst duration multiplier from 0.325 to 0.65
    -Mid-range from 16 to 17

    Although shock troops are CQC unit they do not necessarily fit the Urban theme since they are not particularly good vs garrison. In addition the performance might be prove problematic with forward reinforce, healing and aura especially if one uses merge to reduce bleed further.
    Shock troops are also one of the most common ability available to 6 commander and making available to one more commander would mean than 1/3 of soviet commander have them.

    Imo the increasing DPS to make unit more attractive is a rather sloppy and ultimately a bad solution. High lethality means that fights last less and there is less room for tactical play since other random factor like being caught out of position have more impact.

    In the specific case increasing mid DPS is bad for a number of additional reasons.
    Weapon profiles and relative positioning was one of the best improvements of this game and the change break both ideas. If SMGs are to be good at mid range that should apply to all of them and not some of them, but that would make assault rifles even less viable than they currently are. Unit with assault rifles are going to have trouble fighting Shock troops since the only good range for them would be long where these weapon are bad.

    About the "Thompson" solution.
    Modeling a something (in this case a weapon) after what another faction has (in this case Thompson)is necessarily a good idea since in most cases the rest of parameters are not the same.
    Thompson are smgs with good mid DPS but there are differences, they become available at CP3 not CP2, they are an expensive weapon upgrade and not default weapons, and units that have them are difficult to spam because of USF design (to many infantry/officers). (imo Thompson/USF elite infantry should be fixed also but that is another story).

    Comments:
    If Shock troops (ST) need better mid DPS and that is a big if, it would a far better solution to give them 4 ppsh +2 SVT, with PPsh being transferable resulting in ST losing their mid DPS after losing 2 models. That would force the unit to close distance with enemy or disengage instead of being able to fight out it in mid to close range against most axis infantry.

    But in my opinion the problem with ST (and other sgms units) has more to do with the bleed and not the actually DPS. So a solution should focus on reducing the bleed and not increasing DPS. Oddly when the Wer officer was faced with the same problem the solution was an ability that reduces bleed and the result are quite good from my experience at least. Adding an ability similar to officer would help balance the unit allot more than an increasing the DPS.

    Alternately one could make the "armor" a squad ability thus available to conscripts merged into Shock thus allowing players to greatly reduce the bleeding effect. That would the bonus affect of weaker team weapon maned by shock troops.

    45mm Anti-Tank Gun
    This unit was underperforming. The following changes attend to make it a more attractive choice with added utility later into the game.
    -Able to swap between AP and Canister rounds; canister rounds are a low damage round that are only effective against infantry. Cannister rounds rely on rate of fire and AOE.
    -Arc from 30 to 40.
    -Rotation speed from 100 to 135.
    -Speed penalty while stealthed from 80% to 50%.
    -Horizontal Tracking speed from 12 to 20.
    -AP round penetration from 140/80/60 to 140/100/80.
    -Now has Ambush Camouflage ability by default; first-strike bonus of +20% accuracy, +20% reload and -25% reload
    -Tracking veteran ability replaced; Vehicle units hit by a veteran 45mm ATG will be temporary visible, even in the FOW

    The 45mm ATG is good ability for the commander since it helps protect the HQ fuel investment from light vehicles rush and as such it should be focus in dealing with light vehicles. In it current implementation the unit is simply way too cost efficient and problematic.

    Comments:
    Ambush camouflage is good addition, on the other hand first strike bonuses are not necessary. The rakketen start getting them from vet 3 and there is little reason for M-42 to get the earlier. If it need to scale better they could be move to veterancy.

    The ability to move while cloaked is bad since the unit can be used for scouting, it should actually be removed from all ATG.

    The change in arc, rotation speed and horizontal trucking are all great and in the right direction since they help the unit deal with light vehicles. If first strike bonuses are removed a small increase in accuracy might be helpful.

    The increase in far penetration is unnecessary especially with the first strike bonus penetration (I guess that is the third first bonus) since the unit has very good chance to penetrate the rear/side armor of PzIV even at max range.

    The vet 1 ability (although I am not sure it is working properly) is over the top since it can probably negate the effect of smoke for free. Such power abilities are locked at higher tier in UKF for a reason and should not be available in 200 MP/2CP unit. One could replace by moving camouflage to vet 1 or some of the first strike bonuses.

    The canister shot is simply problematic, being able to fire on hmg outside their range is simply wrong. In addition the ability is extremely good in destroying buildings and can be used to destroy enemy heavy cover with immunity. The ability is actually unnecessary for a unit that has the role of countering light vehicles but it it stays it should become timed with a munition cost and redesigned.

    My suggestion would to increase damage to 100 so it can kill all light vehicles with 4 hits, move static camo to vet 1, reduce pop to 5 and keep the changes that help it vs light vehicles only.

    Else the unit need to have its price increased.

    Veterancy:
    One should have a look at the vet bonuses and maybe move some of the buffs (that the unit got) to veterancy bonuses. AT vet 3, first strike and max range the unit should currently have around 69% chance to penetrate a PzIV frontally, and 87% at range 30, with a reload of 1.46 Sec! allowing the unit to be very effective when spammed.

  • #235
    11 months ago
    great assessments as always @vipper
    perhaps making the canister shot a timed vet 1 ability instead of a toggle? its frustrating using the unit and forgetting to swap shells as well.
  • #236
    11 months ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    great assessments as always @vipper
    perhaps making the canister shot a timed vet 1 ability instead of a toggle? its frustrating using the unit and forgetting to swap shells as well.

    Thanks for taking the time to read such a long post and for you kind words.

    The ability is currently in weird place since it does not seem to do allot of damage to infantry but i can destroy buildings very fast and it can destroy cover fast. I suspect that it will also damage support weapons allot being able to destroy them. Timed ability sounds allot better.

  • #237
    11 months ago

    45mm pen panzer IV? 87%? Aha..

  • #238
    11 months ago
    Dangminh25Dangminh25 Posts: 66
    edited October 2018

    can we have an AI Improve update after this @Andy ?
    I just want the AI can access to more ability like plant mines random and capture point traps, the soviet AI can built B4 and UK AI can built 17 pounder

  • #239
    11 months ago
    pablonanopablonano YesterdayPosts: 2,549
    edited October 2018

    @Vipper While i agree on some of your points, i dont in others.

    I agree on the fact that giving a better dps on long range to socktroops will break the balance on an unit that has been, somehow, an unit considered balanced since long time ago. However if the balance is made so it fits properly what they had in mind for this doctrine, there is another solution much easier and that, at the same time, is somewhat similar to what you suggested. The unit I mean its Assault guards, that forgotten unit that is left to rotten being a combined call with a completely normal halftrack on lend lease tactics, that holds reliable CQC and mid range dps. This would not only mean that there is less saturation with shocktroops on the soviet commander poll but also means units like this will see more fight.

    On the 45mm gun I share your oppinion about it shooting at that range without any real problem may cause issues, but isntead of making it a gimmick zis 3 by giving yet another anti-infantry timed skills, i would prefer it to have tweaked its range and/or add to it a siege-mode-like, making it to be easily countereable by mortars if used to attack but still being usefull on the defense, since this is the first field gun on the game that actually uses HE shells it would be a shame that it gets completely removed or nerfed to an state that its, again, yet another zis-3.
    -Edit-
    By siege mode i dont mean that it should get the buffs of the siege mode, i mean that to use HE it gets on a siege-mode-like were the unit has a timer to start shooting, gets a timer to get out of the siege mode and can not move.

  • #240
    11 months ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    @pablonano said:
    @Vipper While i agree on some of your points, i dont in others.

    I agree on the fact that giving a better dps on long range to socktroops will break the balance on an unit that has been, somehow, an unit considered balanced since long time ago. However if the balance is made so it fits properly what they had in mind for this doctrine, there is another solution much easier and that, at the same time, is somewhat similar to what you suggested. The unit I mean its Assault guards, that forgotten unit that is left to rotten being a combined call with a completely normal halftrack on lend lease tactics, that holds reliable CQC and mid range dps.

    It nice to see people disagree while the offer alternatives (and not disagree just for disagreeing). Although I understand and agree with what you say about assault guards I doubt people in charge would go for it. It seem some unit are introduced to certain doctrines so that they can expand the scope...

  • #241
    11 months ago
    PanzerFutzPanzerFutz Melbourne, OzPosts: 346

    @pablonano I would also like to see the Guards Assault Troops as a squad on its own, not tied to a half-track. It would give the Soviets a bit more variety in their infantry call-ins. It would also suit some doctrines better than either Shock Troops or Guards Rifles. Shock Troops are good at close quarters and Guards Rifles are good at long range. Guards Assault Troops could be good in the middle ground but, they might need a slight tweak to really suit the role.

    @Romanov I like the idea of a thermite charge but, OKW is better served by salvaging enemy weapons. They should only be destroyed outright as a last resort. As I said, I'd really like to see Salvage being extended to enemy supply caches because, it would bring true meaning to the idea of "disruption". It is truly disruptive to steal your enemy's fuel & ammunition and it's fun too. For a resource-starved faction like the OKW, it also makes a lot of sense.

    The Wacht-am-Rhein operation was planned around stealing Allied supplies to fuel the offensive so, it's very much a part of the OKW's way of doing things.

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.