[UKF][All] Anti-Infrantry of Cromwell/Comet = OP

#1
3 years ago
SquishyMuffinSquishyMu… Posts: 434
edited October 2016 in Balance Feedback

Why waste time with a Centaur or Churchill (anti infantry tank) when you can get these over performing units instead?

Problem: They perform too well against infantry compared to P4/Panther. Mimicking the AI power of the stuart/t70's lethality. It is not fair when the Comet matches the Panther in all ways but the latter costs more teching/fuel and that thing sucks vs infrantry. It makes the Churchill anti infantry tank completely useless.

Solution: Reduce the Comet's AI to Panther level; Making it's role more of a tank hunter than a mini faster King Tiger. It will make a much better distinction between Anvil (Churchill - leaning to more AI)/Hammer(Comet/ leaning to more AT).

This is all considering the Axis faction has smaller squad sizes and spacing issues. In addition to Wehrmacht not scaling to UKF infantry at all. Losing out in all situations.

Of course I could be reading it all completely wrong. What do you think?

«1

Comments

  • #2
    3 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    You're comparing apples to oranges a bit. Churchill isn't an anti-infantry tank by any standards, its a meatshield, and of course the Panther is going to do piss-poor against infantry compared to the Comet. Panthers are tank hunters, Comets are generalists.

    Churchills are never used because their pop is too high and centaurs aren't because their acceleration is so poor, so they can't kite before the horde is on top of them and can't escape chasing mediums.

    While I do agree that Comet in particular could use toning down, I think your argument and solution are way off the mark.

  • #3
    3 years ago

    Aqua is right. Your point is valid but your arguement/facts are completely off.

    Personally I think a better way to go about Panther vs Comet is buffing the Panther since this has been debated in many other threads and considering the Comets' cost.

  • #4
    3 years ago

    Brits need buffs not nerfs. Except for team games where relic ignores balance. even in team games, axis is leading.

  • #5
    3 years ago
    SquishyMuffinSquishyMu… Posts: 434
    edited October 2016

    I appreciate the honesty. In game the Churchill under anvil is called a "Churchill mark VII infantry tank" no? That's what I was basing it on. And considering (if it wants to be historically accurate), like I said, the Comet and Cromwell do that job incredible well anyway, with the former having the same armour as a Panther, what's the point.

    I am mainly speaking from a team game perspective. UKF balance in 1v1 is different. But nerfs? really? One mortar emplacement covers 2/3's of a 1v1 map and that's hardly balanced. Have the quickest and cheapest tech to a medium tank at 11 minute mark or something. Infantry that don't die in or even out of cover. Thousand abilities leaving vanilla factions in envy. Not to be off topic of controversial but what needs buffing?

  • #6
    3 years ago

    The Cromwell's speed needs slightly reduced because it is absurdly too fast for a medium tank, but other than that they are quite balanced IMO.

  • #7
    3 years ago

    OK, my opinion is, that ONLY the Ost Panzer IV is balanced if you want AI ability for a battletank. All other tanks are op or up in comparison for price and timing. Also Panther seems fine, only its MG's are working, but some suppression would help too for game-balance. Like in CoH1, my wet dream and wish for CoH2 comes closer.

    Brits are OP, every time I playing them its too easy to win, and I am really not good playing at UKF. ^^ How is it possible that I win or make well versus full-level player? Relic should stop balancing and buff fractions for noobs. That is how UKF was born.

  • #8
    3 years ago

    @ExtraNapkins said:
    The Cromwell's speed needs slightly reduced because it is absurdly too fast for a medium tank, but other than that they are quite balanced IMO.

    @Widerstreit said:
    OK, my opinion is, that ONLY the Ost Panzer IV is balanced if you want AI ability for a battletank. All other tanks are op or up in comparison for price and timing. Also Panther seems fine, only its MG's are working, but some suppression would help too for game-balance. Like in CoH1, my wet dream and wish for CoH2 comes closer.

    Brits are OP, every time I playing them its too easy to win, and I am really not good playing at UKF. ^^ How is it possible that I win or make well versus full-level player? Relic should stop balancing and buff fractions for noobs. That is how UKF was born.

    Agreed.

  • #9
    3 years ago
    @Widerstreit

    I dont think its as simple as brits are OP... sure the comet may be overperforming but thats about it.

    Or that its a faction for "noobs" early to mid game can actually be demanding for brits... if you dont get into cover or arnt constantly dodging grenades or mortars ur squads can be easily punnished.

    Also while having great dps the ukf hmg surpression isnt that great... it allows units in strking range with grenades or flame weapons easily enough.

    I think you need really good micro because the faction is so defense orientated.
  • #10
    3 years ago

    The comet does not over perform. It is perfect the way it is. If you do not go land mattress, what would you use to take out static guns. It takes two comets ,with white phosphorus, to kill an at gun. The panther easily beats the comet with vet. A vet 3 panther is way better than a vet 3 comet in the at department.

  • #11
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    None of the UKF tanks overperform, they've all been nerfed into the ground, and churchill under performs to the point where it's rarely if ever used. This is just wrong.

  • #12
    3 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951
    edited October 2016

    @SquishyMuffin said:
    I appreciate the honesty. In game the Churchill under anvil is called a "Churchill mark VII infantry tank" no?

    "Infantry Tank" isn't an anti-infantry tank, its a tank with relatively heavy armor and low speed to operate in conjunction with infantry.

    And considering (if it wants to be historically accurate), like I said, the Comet and Cromwell do that job incredible well anyway, with the former having the same armour as a Panther, what's the point.

    Its not trying to be historically accurate, and check your facts. Comets have 290 armor while Panthers have 320 and get more with vet.

  • #13
    3 years ago

    @SquishyMuffin said:
    Why waste time with a Centaur or Churchill (anti infantry tank) when you can get these over performing units instead?

    Problem: They perform too well against infantry compared to P4/Panther. Mimicking the AI power of the stuart/t70's lethality. It is not fair when the Comet matches the Panther in all ways but the latter costs more teching/fuel and that thing sucks vs infrantry. It makes the Churchill anti infantry tank completely useless.

    Solution: Reduce the Comet's AI to Panther level; Making it's role more of a tank hunter than a mini faster King Tiger. It will make a much better distinction between Anvil (Churchill - leaning to more AI)/Hammer(Comet/ leaning to more AT).

    This is all considering the Axis faction has smaller squad sizes and spacing issues. In addition to Wehrmacht not scaling to UKF infantry at all. Losing out in all situations.

    Of course I could be reading it all completely wrong. What do you think?

    Agreed.

  • #14
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    The Cromwell isn't over performing, it's right where it should be, the comet isn't either.

  • #15
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    @mcMartel I dont think I agree with that, for its cost it stomps the p4 in every aspect but armour iirc, while the p4 does need adjustment the Cromwell would easily be my choice out of all the mediums for most cost efficient the comet is like a mini tiger but with Sherman utility... When compared especially to vanilla units the comet would be more along the lines of a tiger ace than anything.

    Imo the Cromwell needs to lose at least 8 of its jet engines, from there we can see what its like

    As for the comet, imo it should follow the KT treatment- make it a call in, but limited to one on field at a time.
    After receiving a buff to make it worthy the churchill would follow this template as well.
  • #16
    3 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,062

    @thedarkarmadillo you mean a non-doctrinal call in? (I know you said KT treatment but I'm curious as to how far that goes). I can agree that there's merit to be had in exploring this idea.

    The Cromwell is blatantly overperforming and not JUST because it's so much better than the PIV on the whole (yes, it loses out on armor at vet 2, but between fire on the move accuracy, reload, speed and the fact that the only thing the PIV can actually grind against for decent vet is a Cromwell, the Cromwell is easily the superior of the two in a matchup.) But despite all of this nonsense - this isn't what puts the Cromwell (and indeed all tanks that aren't the Centaur and Churchill) head and shoulders above the competition. It's that patently ridiculous, non-doctrinal, cheap as a grenade tank commander that basically makes Brit tanks immune to stealth ambushes, gives them an absurd vet/sight bonus on top of already low vet requirements, and if I'm not mistaken further increases the reload speed disparity between the Cromwell and its Axis counterparts.

    Before we make any fine tuning adjustments to the British armored arsenal, that tank commander needs to be either removed or completely reworked. Because as it is, it's just not cricket.

  • #17
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    @Lazarus yea, just like that

    Also for the tank commander what about just... Swapping the okw elite armoured and that one? Seriously in my head it makes more sense for the theme of the armies, but make the old okw one use the base howizers instead of an off map. The tank commander the Brits have now would be very fun on the okw armour that struggles to gain vet due to cost (plus, there is alot more vet to gain!)

    Only thing I could MAYBE see being a problem would ve Cromwell dive and arty, but I suppose you could really just sneak a sniper if you really wanted to..
  • #18
    3 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,062

    @thedarkarmadillo Regarding swapping with the OKW elite commander I'm not against that idea per se. If I were to make that swap (given that UK aren't sacrificing a pintle MG slot) the one thing I would want is for it to be tied to Hammer tactics. There's a few reasons for this.

    One, it means you can't just pop it as soon as your first tank comes out. Two, I agree it should come from the base Howitzers rather than an offmap - and just to keep it from being too strong (as you mentioned, Cromwell dive + flare) this means you can't have it + airburst at the same time so you can't just nuke a couple of ATGs easily. Three, and finally, this will encourage people to use warspeed aggressively to artillery a position, rather than just holding on to it as an escape as per Blitz.

  • #19
    3 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    I'm liking the idea of Tank Com swap, its pretty logical. On top of that, I'd say:

    • Bugfixes for Anvil, Churchill Popcap reduced to 16, smoke move penalty reduced.
    • Comet and Cromwell rotation rate reduced so they can't crush so easily, should probably lose the .75 move accuracy. Its logical for USF tanks to have it, but not really for Brits.
    • Cromwell pen -10. The main gun's RoF makes sense considering cost and lack of MG upgrade, but the pen is too high for such a high rate of fire.
    • Comet RoF reduced by half a second.
    • Panther RoF increased by half a second and accuracy + accuracy on the move increased. Its too heavily punished for firing on the move for a unit who's role is to chase down enemy armor.
    • P4 scatter reduction.
  • #20
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    I don't think it's blatantly overpowered at all and I'd rather have a Sherman with it's huge versatility and firepower any day. I think this speaks more to the fact that the P4 needs an adjustement because the cromwell, t-34, and sherman all work pretty well.

  • #21
    3 years ago

    @MCMartel said:
    None of the UKF tanks overperform, they've all been nerfed into the ground, and churchill under performs to the point where it's rarely if ever used. This is just wrong.

    What are u smoking? Nerfed to the ground? Have u used Ostheer armor? Ost p4 is trash, as a Ost player, I'd gladly pay 125 fuel for a cromwell, trust me. Cromwell's pen is great, insanely fast, since it can chase down a 222 ffs. I will take on the move accuracy over slightly better armor anyday.

  • #22
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855
    edited October 2016
    1. Yes, I have used the OST armor, and when I play UKF I'd kill for something as effective and efficient as a Stug.
    2. The churchill got massively nerfed, as did the Comet which lost it's best ability.
  • #23
    3 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    The comet lost its WP?
  • #24
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    The comet lost its WP?

    Last time I used them they only had smoke, not WP, did this get reverted?

  • #25
    3 years ago

    @MCMartel said:
    1. Yes, I have used the OST armor, and when I play UKF I'd kill for something as effective and efficient as a Stug.
    2. The churchill got massively nerfed, as did the Comet which lost it's best ability.

    The Stug is the only good piece of armor for ost. All the other armor is crap. Brum is mediocre but suffers from the same problem as the bulldozer sherman. Shells take too long to land.

  • #26
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855
    edited October 2016

    The stug crushes armor, the panther is fast and incredibly resiliant, the brumbar is excellent blob control post-patch, the PZ4 could maybe use a small tweak ,and only the ostwind really has a problem and I made a thread about that.
    Also, it's hard to take you seriously as an impartial judge of balance with that name.

  • #27
    3 years ago
    SaveAxisFactionsSaveAxisF… Posts: 15
    edited October 2016

    @MCMartel said:
    The stug crushes armor, the panther is fast and incredibly resiliant, the brumbar is excellent blob control post-patch, the PZ4 could maybe use a small tweak ,and only the ostwind really has a problem and I made a thread about that.
    Also, it's hard to take you seriously as an impartial judge of balance with that name.

    My old account 1ncendiary Rounds was banned because I told everyone to boycott omar_emp's posts due to them being beyond outlandish. I chose this screen name because the Ostheer have been underpowered for TOO LONG. Recently OKW have also become slightly underpowered in some regards, but still playable unlike Ost vs USF or UKF.

    The panther is fast but not resilient, you don't need a TD to frontally pen it, T34-85, EZ8 have a good chance of penning it from the front. And the panther struggles offensively as well due to the combination of low RoF and acc on the move (I sound like a broken record saying this). Two distinction from the OKW panther is the mgs are worse (u know that) but the acc on the move is actually even worse than the OKW panther. And with a small health pool for its cost. Brumbar is still too unreliable though it has been improved. P4 is the worst medium tank in the game in terms of bang for buck, and ostwind might as well not exist on Ostheer's line up.

    Meanwhile the Cromwell and Comet are great tanks, and the buff to the RoF of the Firefly was just what the doctor ordered, and its non-doc self spotting. Who cares if the Comet lost its special ability. It performs like a Tiger, non-doc, can get more than one and is noticeably cheaper than a Tiger, with only a smaller health pool. And its fast enough to circle a Tiger. In fact the acc on the move more than makes up for the less health.

  • #28
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    So what you're saying is that two expensive, doctrinal tanks that cost a similar amount to the panther can pen it? The Brumbar deals with blobs pretty well now, the PZ4 is a small bit UP, so maybe add on a couple more points or armor or maybe knock off 10 fuel, and that leaves the Ostwind UP, one armored unit UP, just like the UKF has (the churchill)

  • #29
    3 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,062
    @MCMartel Comet starts with a smoke shell - changes to WP shell at vet 1.
  • #30
    3 years ago
    SaveAxisFactionsSaveAxisF… Posts: 15
    edited October 2016

    @MCMartel said:
    So what you're saying is that two expensive, doctrinal tanks that cost a similar amount to the panther can pen it? The Brumbar deals with blobs pretty well now, the PZ4 is a small bit UP, so maybe add on a couple more points or armor or maybe knock off 10 fuel, and that leaves the Ostwind UP, one armored unit UP, just like the UKF has (the churchill)

    How are t34-85s expensive? They are just a bit more than Ost p4 which is COMPLETELY outclassed by it, same with EZ 8. Since this is the case, can my p4 please completely outclass the sherman and cromwell because its only very slightly more expensive? Relic said no. And don't forget the tech costs to reach tier 4 and the building. Its more than the tech required for the t34. And if u rush tier 4, u have no access to medium armor, unlike for Soviets all options are open.

  • #31
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    @Lazarus said:
    @MCMartel Comet starts with a smoke shell - changes to WP shell at vet 1.

    Ah! That's why I was confused, thank you Laz, I thought it was different before the first huge swathe of UKF nerfs, but I could be misremembering.

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.