Company of Heroes: Eastern Front
Eastern Front Mod (Read-Only) => Balance Discussion => Topic started by: krupp steel on February 13, 2013, 10:15:51 PM
-
I have been playing some AI games latley as the Soviet Union (Im having trouble with trying to get multiplayer) and in my experience it appears that PE can have more of a problem against the Soviets than the Soviets do against the Wehrmacht.
In early game, Conscripts that cost 35 less manpower than a PG squad and can simply charge them head on and win, especially the molotovs which devastate PE infantry due to their low health and armor type. Also, it is easy to get early AT gun and tank hunters which could easily counter the AC rush and even a P4 too. Also, in a battle of 2 PGs and 1 Strelky they can take 1 PG squad before they retreat assuming equal cover, not to mention 350 manpower command squad can take on 2 PGs. Even if you stick a inginery squad in a building, it could do some damage against the PG too. I don't know if it is me, or is Soviet Infantry > PE infantry? Not to mention they got access to devastating SMGs and snipers/Guards which would render Assault Grenadiers useless?
-
I find Panzer Grenadiers kill my Strelki. Guards and Snipers no Contest. I find AT guns too weak for AC and the PZIV. I use my Tank Hunters which can get killed by the Panzer Grens. Only time I can win is when I get my first T-34/85s out or 2 Guards, 2 TH and 2 T-90s
-
I played a lot of games Rus vs my friend (EXITIITemplariusz, 16 1v1 PE) and PE is better than Rus. His grens can have 10 kills and don't loose a man. AC's are really strong if your enemy is good.
I don't know if it is me, or is Soviet Infantry > PE infantry?
Not in early, but all infantry > PE infantry. US Riflemans have the best vets on infantry in game. Also riflemans have 6x55 hp, pg's 3x55. Wh have vets, strong storms, cross. Brit have OP blob. Rus have strong cs and guards.
Also, it is easy to get early AT gun and tank hunters which could easily counter the AC rush and even a P4 too.
In next version tank hunters will be delate. Alone ATG can't fight with AC's.
And what are the lvl 1v1 of your opponents?
-
You're getting rid of Tank Hunters!??!?!?!
What is this blasphemy?
-
You're getting rid of Tank Hunters!??!?!?!
What is this blasphemy?
Jupp. Tank hunters are too weak and have no chance to fight armour. The system was changed.
Russian Strelkys will use anti tank grenades. Combination of a "tank stun grenade" - used by your infantry -
will allow your ZiS-anti tank gun to deal with enemy's armour.
When u need "strong anti tank infantry" u can play propaganda doctrine with naval guards.
-
U wont miss TH that much, dont worry :P
-
Do we get a new unit in return for the AT boys?
-
New unit - yes; in return for the AT boys - no
-
You're getting rid of Tank Hunters!??!?!?!
What is this blasphemy?
Jupp. Tank hunters are too weak and have no chance to fight armour. The system was changed.
Russian Strelkys will use anti tank grenades. Combination of a "tank stun grenade" - used by your infantry -
will allow your ZiS-anti tank gun to deal with enemy's armour.
When u need "strong anti tank infantry" u can play propaganda doctrine with naval guards.
what?I use tank hunters most of the time,and ]this is just not true at all, tank hunters are great vs light vehicles,marders, even tanks like stugs when they are upgraded. I even destroyed a panther with 3 squads of tank hunters! 3 or 4 tank hunter squads (upgraded) are serious threat for all enemy armour!they can just blast light tanks and vehicles into shreads very easily!Also,they are cheap, and definetely much much better than idiotic american rangers that cant hit anything,they are just awful anti tank infantry..anyway, if you think that tank hunters are weak, then make them a bit stronger, kicking them out of the game is just not good.
-
Also,they are cheap, and definetely much much better than idiotic american rangers that cant hit anything,they are just awful anti tank infantry..
But rangers are not meant to be AT, they their 'zookas are meant to give the finger to every and all vehicles and light tanks. And let's not forget the Ranger's actual role as anti infantry.
(Now someone please put this back on track. :V)
-
Wow,
yeah, tank hunters are absolute beasts against vehicles with the support of...anything really, and as an added bonus have an uncanny ability to assasinate snipers at range from lucky ptrd shots. I will second that they are insanely cheap and produce really fast! They are also an early, multipurpose and scaling, non-doctrinal answer to enemy bunkers.
They get owned by oswinds and acs(PE PIV's absolutely suck against them though), and will do a poor job of advancing on vehicles that aren't overextended(though with the breakthrough sprint boost or the command squad rush they can often put any big tank trying to run home in its grave). Thankfully they get chewed up by infantry, but if you can gain map superiority(which you should do) before the big tanks start appearing, you can place a few good tank mines and deny the enemy any shock value for that vehicle hitting the field. Bring up an at gun, or a doctrinal SU?(the breakthrough AT option) or an upgraded t-34 or two and your opponent will seriously have a hard time pushing back onto the map, until something big pops like a tiger ace in support of a panther or 2(kt is just so slow it isn't going to have the same impact, especially if it hits a mine).
That said, I'm interested in seeing how the game might play out without them. They were at one time my most hated unit. Cut them though and I'm wondering how exactly you expect russia to handle early PE IHT rushes. You going to force the t-2 tech to the mortar/at gun option? Units that have to get close to throw grenades are going to fail, which is why stickies are not a functional deterrent to the infantry half-track rush with americans. Tank hunters do a very effective job of at least keeping the half-tracks back of the army for nothing more than reinforcement(the rush still feels strong inspite of that).
-
You're getting rid of Tank Hunters!??!?!?!
What is this blasphemy?
Jupp. Tank hunters are too weak and have no chance to fight armour. The system was changed.
Russian Strelkys will use anti tank grenades. Combination of a "tank stun grenade" - used by your infantry -
will allow your ZiS-anti tank gun to deal with enemy's armour.
When u need "strong anti tank infantry" u can play propaganda doctrine with naval guards.
what?I use tank hunters most of the time,and ]this is just not true at all, tank hunters are great vs light vehicles,marders, even tanks like stugs when they are upgraded. I even destroyed a panther with 3 squads of tank hunters! 3 or 4 tank hunter squads (upgraded) are serious threat for all enemy armour!they can just blast light tanks and vehicles into shreads very easily!Also,they are cheap, and definetely much much better than idiotic american rangers that cant hit anything,they are just awful anti tank infantry..anyway, if you think that tank hunters are weak, then make them a bit stronger, kicking them out of the game is just not good.
You almost completle explain why they are OP and why its a good call to remove them ;)
-
I guess I'm not updating EF anymore.
-
When u need anti tank rifles u can still play Propaganda-doctrine and call-in navalguards. This guys can still be equipped with PTRDs.
-
But at 2 command points, that's not a solution against the infantry halftrack rush. You aren't likely to even have 1 cp by that point in the game, so your only bet is to get as fast an at gun as possible. I don't kow that this is bad neccessarily, but it does really seem to lock in your tech choices in this matchup. This will basically be the same and only path against a potential fast armored car. And there's no such thing as stall teching to a t-70 as a counter because it takes longer to get to than the american m-8, by which time the damage should be done.
I know this is all hypothetical because I haven't played this myself, but for those of you who have, you've looked at this in testing and haven't seen a problem with it? If there's not a problem, I won't miss them. My worthy opponent on the other hand, may have quite the hissey fit when he sees the change as they are clearly his favorite unit in the game. Maybe he'll just gravitate to the Ostheer.
-
The last test games showed that there is no problem when red army had no more tank hunters.
U got early enough anti tank (anti tank gun or "something" different) power to counter a half track or an armoured car.
-
U can start the game with building T2 and unlock the AT gun , so you have AT on the field from 1st game minute if you want...
-
ah, I see,
cool! look forward to it, thanks
-
It's sad that more and more units are being removed from EF during these last few patches.
-
When u need anti tank rifles u can still play Propaganda-doctrine and call-in navalguards. This guys can still be equipped with PTRDs.
yeah, but you need to upgrade them, and that cost precious amunition!and not to mention they are doctrine optional, so if you choose other doctrine, you dont have luxury of calling these guys, not to mention that they die like flies in comparison to tank hunters, they are just weaker...
-
U got early enough anti tank (anti tank gun or "something" different) power to counter a half track or an armoured car.
for example?throwing antitank grenades to light vehicles is not always working since they are darn to fast, and even that costs ammo...
-
You're getting rid of Tank Hunters!??!?!?!
What is this blasphemy?
Jupp. Tank hunters are too weak and have no chance to fight armour. The system was changed.
Russian Strelkys will use anti tank grenades. Combination of a "tank stun grenade" - used by your infantry -
will allow your ZiS-anti tank gun to deal with enemy's armour.
When u need "strong anti tank infantry" u can play propaganda doctrine with naval guards.
what?I use tank hunters most of the time,and ]this is just not true at all, tank hunters are great vs light vehicles,marders, even tanks like stugs when they are upgraded. I even destroyed a panther with 3 squads of tank hunters! 3 or 4 tank hunter squads (upgraded) are serious threat for all enemy armour!they can just blast light tanks and vehicles into shreads very easily!Also,they are cheap, and definetely much much better than idiotic american rangers that cant hit anything,they are just awful anti tank infantry..anyway, if you think that tank hunters are weak, then make them a bit stronger, kicking them out of the game is just not good.
You almost completle explain why they are OP and why its a good call to remove them ;)
are you reading these comments?they are removing them because they are "too weak vs armour" not too strong...my point was that they are good as they are and they have important purpose in the game..
-
It's sad that more and more units are being removed from EF during these last few patches.
+ 1
-
But at 2 command points, that's not a solution against the infantry halftrack rush. You aren't likely to even have 1 cp by that point in the game, so your only bet is to get as fast an at gun as possible. I don't kow that this is bad neccessarily, but it does really seem to lock in your tech choices in this matchup. This will basically be the same and only path against a potential fast armored car. And there's no such thing as stall teching to a t-70 as a counter because it takes longer to get to than the american m-8, by which time the damage should be done.
good point +1
-
U can start the game with building T2 and unlock the AT gun , so you have AT on the field from 1st game minute if you want...
Yeah but who starts a game with only AT guns and a CS? You will die very fast. And you could get snipers but buying sniper and at gun is expensive, and you are very vulnerable if u mess up or lose one.
-
5 posts in 7min? Editing post no.1 wasnt possible? 8)
About the anti tank value of the red army:
Like i said; Red army had a lot of anti tank power. The ZiS is one of the strongest early available hard counters. A fast tank hall rush will give u acces for a T-70 or a Su-76 against enemy's armor. And 2 doctrines had lot ep cost anti tank call ins (like the naval guards or the Su85/KV-1).
Removing the tank hunters was decided by our "head balance" devs.
In future u will use the basic combination of at gun ans strelky to defeat enemy's armor.
How this will work; well... we will show u - - - later ;)
And keep in mind; we can implement the tank hunters again when we see that they are really needed.
At the moment all pvp battle we fought or analysed (replay uploads) showed that tank hunters are redundant.
-
Who said that the only one change is removing Tank Hunters...
Guys calm down :)
-
5 posts in 7min? Editing post no.1 wasnt possible? 8)
About the anti tank value of the red army:
Like i said; Red army had a lot of anti tank power. The ZiS is one of the strongest early available hard counters. A fast tank hall rush will give u acces for a T-70 or a Su-76 against enemy's armor. And 2 doctrines had lot ep cost anti tank call ins (like the naval guards or the Su85/KV-1).
Removing the tank hunters was decided by our "head balance" devs.
In future u will use the basic combination of at gun ans strelky to defeat enemy's armor.
How this will work; well... we will show u - - - later ;)
And keep in mind; we can implement the tank hunters again when we see that they are really needed.
At the moment all pvp battle we fought or analysed (replay uploads) showed that tank hunters are redundant.
yeah, but i was going like read/answer, read/answer kind of way :D but i ll try to put this answer in one post ;D I just hate seeing a good balance unit like tank hunters ( at least in my eyes) just go away without any good reason(haven t seen one so far). Tank hunters are as strong as the player who plays with it, not Op(weak vs infantry) or Up(strong vs armor) as i see it. I dont know, i rest my case, i said everything...i m really interested to see how will this effect the balance of the game...
-
No tank hunters mean no non-doctrinal infantry AT. I don't like being forced to go Propaganda just for their infantry AT. It's just like removing the Panzerschreck upgrade for Wehrmacht Grenadiers. If that did happen, Wehr would need to go blitzkrieg for Stormtroopers to get schrecks. Ofcourse Schreck is much more effective than PTRD at tank hunting so I would understand why that would never happen but you get the point I'm trying to make. You know. A better picture and understanding.
-
The USA has no tank hunter too ;)
And it works with the USA.
Think no one will tell me that USA cant counter enemy's armour.
-
The USA has no tank hunter too ;)
And it works with the USA.
Think no one will tell me that USA cant counter enemy's armour.
yeah, and USA cant produce heavy tanks, so let us remove IS 2 , it s just not needed since USA doesnt need it...wait, why dont we make soviets like USA, that will be the best!
-
I am, too, starting to question many of these decisions. I get the feeling that Lord Rommel is getting a large hand in balancing, considering how often he is posting to back up these decisions made by the new balance team, something never down when the previous one was in seat.
I normally have nothing against Devs who want to be balancers, you are more than welcome, but I have never ever seen you play Rommel, nor heard anyone discuss your playing style, etc. As such I don't believe you have the right to decide/defend/attack the actions of any balancer. Let the balancers speak for themselves, in full light.
What I've heard so far from Dreamerbg and Bandaro (who I assume are balancers) is the elimination of Tank Hunters, and addition of some new unit.
Dreamer also mentioned about being able to use SSC (Tier 2) of the bat and as such access the AT Gun, but if memory that has been the case since ~1.4 or so.
There is a mention of a test game, but the general public hasn't seen it, thus no one may agree or disagree to the balancers' decisions.
I will wait and watch, but to me this change of events seems quite a bit like a travesty.
-
I must profess, despite the fact I normally get into balance arguments with many of these ppl, they raise valid points.
-
wait, why dont we make soviets like USA, that will be the best!
I think since they are so similar factions that, Soviets would have made the best skinpack for USA in vCoH :P
Anyways lets get back on topic. So the point was Soviets had an upper hand against PE in infantry battles most of the time. Going back to this earlier statement that has affected this thread in a very topic changing way:
In next version tank hunters will be delate. Alone ATG can't fight with AC's.
:P
-
The problem is that someone said only that the TH are removed... and this is maybe the worst way to introduce something... just wait a bit more and you will see all of the changes , then you wont be so dissapointed :P
-
Meh. I dont use THs anyway that is because I always go propaganda and Naval Infantry look much cooler and they are tougher ;D
-
The only real reason to use TH is their powerful AT mine. And yeah that's all, in old patch, 2 AT nades of them can kill a HMG team instantly but they're quickly patched that ;D
-
I am, too, starting to question many of these decisions. I get the feeling that Lord Rommel is getting a large hand in balancing, considering how often he is posting to back up these decisions made by the new balance team, something never down when the previous one was in seat.
Well. The point is; I'm not balance dev ;D I'm too noob-like to be a balancer ;)
I just talk quiet often with our balance devs (welcome to mumble ^^).
I see the "effectiveness" of the tank hunters ingame. I see a number of replays with the tank hunters.
But the good news is; we will test a lot of new stuff in the beta. This feedback will influence the final decisions
for balance and units. Till this point the dev balancers try to find the best configuration.
-
I'm confused, so there are Devs that are also balancers, and there are just regular Balancers that aren't devs?
Also I like TH. they aren't a must have unit, but they aren't completely useless.
-
I'm confused, so there are Devs that are also balancers, and there are just regular Balancers that aren't devs?
Also I like TH. they aren't a must have unit, but they aren't completely useless.
hej, 132, are you also discussing on this forum maybe? :-)
http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?271151-2v2-America-is-Fundamentally-Flawed&s=db38739d0cb9be6784dd26f92586a954
-
I'm confused, so there are Devs that are also balancers, and there are just regular Balancers that aren't devs?
Pretty much. Ideally we'd all regularly take part in the balance process but we all have different workloads to be taking care of, on the mod and elsewhere, which is why we need dedicated balancers. That said, I think Devs are taking a more active role in balance testing these days, when they can.
-
Will the KV-85 be added again? :D
-
Let's wrap some things for now:
1) Tank Hunters removed: They were never really balanced, either OP or UP, and most of the time they replaced Strelky role because were easier to get and provided AT measures. The addition of the "stun grenade" was because of this inbalance, which added even more AT stuff to the already big Soviet AT stuff (AT nades, Stun AT nades, AT mines, THs, ZiS2s), too much IMO; it wasn't possible to balance THs and we also tried merging them with Strelky, which didn't work very good and needed a lot of tweaks. We removed them for testing and they play fine without it.
2)
The USA has no tank hunter too ;)
And it works with the USA.
Think no one will tell me that USA cant counter enemy's armour.
yeah, and USA cant produce heavy tanks, so let us remove IS 2 , it s just not needed since USA doesnt need it...wait, why dont we make soviets like USA, that will be the best!
Yeah, and because it only has the ZiS2 for AT duties it becomes automatically the new US faction. Because everyone knows US has sturmovie ingenery squads, commissars and Guards as additional infantry, ZiS2 in T2 and no HMGs. Do not confuse an offensive faction with an US cloned faction.
You are entitled to have your opinions but some times I can read a lot of sarcasm being written, and most of the time it doesn't help a topic move forward. The idea of letting everyone know that THs were removed was not a good one, nor something it should have been spoiled right now. Because we still have some time left until the Beta goes live, and players will only speculate unnecessary thoughts/will be concerned due to this. It could have been chosen a more close date to the Beta to say this so they could judge by themselves soon-ish after hearing the news :-\.
I liked THs as well, but I always thought they weren't really needed. The truth is than they have been a problem since 1.0, regardless the changes they got.
Will the KV-85 be added again? :D
I'd hope to, depends of many factors.
-
No tank hunters mean no non-doctrinal infantry AT. I don't like being forced to go Propaganda just for their infantry AT. It's just like removing the Panzerschreck upgrade for Wehrmacht Grenadiers.
Light tanks cost was decreased. Now it is 45 fuel as i remember, not 55. I usually play armor and i don't need propaganda for infantry AT. More, i don't need infantry AT because firstly i have light tanks, then medium tanks/at guns. Also sometimes i go to KW.
Yeah, and because it only has the ZiS2 for AT duties it becomes automatically the new US faction.
You've got light tanks, su-76, doctrinal kw/su-85, doctrinal navals, with russian op on fuel you can have early t-34... (and camping on op and then tanks is really good tactic)
I am, too, starting to question many of these decisions. I get the feeling that Lord Rommel is getting a large hand in balancing, considering how often he is posting to back up these decisions made by the new balance team, something never down when the previous one was in seat.
We're balancers. So we balancing and talking in close-team. Not in forum. I sometimes put post, but i won't always reply about users questions. As i see devs usually do it. Anyway don't worry, the biggest part in balance have people which can play good in CoH.
-
Russians have a big range of AT.
I do sometimes use the TH when AI spams them armoured cars but thats it.
T-34/85 can destroy most tanks with ease while having a decent amount of health and armour to survive encounters long enough with Panthers and Tigers to get away.
Naval Infantry. Much tougher than TH but you dont get the mines and AT grenade (which is okay IMO but I do like the stun AT nade)
IS-2 can destroy any German tank/Vehicle with enough micro. Just close the distance and have slugfests with Tigers/Panthers. Also eats Marders and G-Wagons along with Stugs and Armored Cars for breakfast.
SU-76. Great early AT tank. I support my T-34/85s with these if I didn't go breakthrough, speaking of which....
SU-85. Much better gun than the Hetzer's and has quite good health. Only problem are going to be paks and shrecks (unless you have cage armour) but you don't use TDs for tank destroyers right???
ISU-152. They don't call it beast killer for a reason. (Though the barrage shot right now is utterly useless unless the enemy is on full stop)
Strelki. They have AT nades that are just as effective or better than the PE ones. (IF you went urban)
ZiS-2 AT Gun. Better than all the AT guns. (Except 17 Pdr but that is immobile)
ZiS-3 AT Gun. Good starting AT gun that has same punch with most AT guns (And you could upgrade to the ZiS-2....)
Guards. AT NADES.
Tank Hunters. They do much more damage to tanks than regular inf and I also liked them but it is not like the only change in the upcoming patch.....
*Formerly SU-100. Upgraded Version of the SU-85
*Formerly KV-85 Upgraded Version of the T-34/85
So that is 13 AT units? Technically 11 as of the patch right now and then 10 at later patches.
-
Yeah, aside from my initial concerns about the infantry halftrack rush, I won't be sad to see this many-tooled anti tank unit go, wich inspite of being the earliest at weapon to pop out, often becomes the mainstay anti vehicle unit, backed up by something heavier like an AT gun or mobile AT units. The fact that there is "something" not yet disclosed(I actually think russia has too many unit options as is, but it still does seem to play out okay), coupled with the fact that light vehicles have been reduced in tech cost, allowing for quick cap and stall tactics until a t-70 against pe(theoretically), alleviates my concerns that Russia will be shut down in the early game against PE.
Nixing tank hunters will probably force you to play "better" as a russian player, rather than just popping out an answer to fast vehicles on the fly, and rather than just mine spamming around the map so that you need to build up a serious anti tank response only after an enemy has failed to gain shock value from his initial oswind or panther.
-
Aaaand Soviets are pretty much fucked against PE armour car rush on open maps. Great, just great. You blow of the similarity between the US and the USSR faction to be trivial, but I've seen this worrying trend going on for a long time. The first big step I saw towards making the two factions the one and same was the removal of the sniper team. Was the unit OP? With the artillery strike, yes - Without it? No, not at all. Sure, you couldn't countersnipe it, but guess what - It's called adapting to a new situation. It was very easy to kill using more mobile units. CoH2 also features a Soviet Sniper team, which is far, far, FAR from OP. The removal of THs is sad yes, but what worries me more is that the PTRDs are now NI only. You pretty much have to go Propaganda if you want decent infantry at this point. Partizany are *still* too costly with 3 CPs to get out there, and the rest of the tree is rather poor. Don't give me the "it's a situation command tree", as that's a bullshit lazy excuse (pardon the expression!) for not bothering making a proper command tree. It just shouldn't be that way, no tree should be limited to a few situations and maps.
Soviets have been getting raped for quite some time now, and it's starting to get frustrating.
And what is Urban supposed to do against armour now? Footslog AT guns after their Partizany, who now no longer can be combined with THs to provide some minimal protection from tanks? The slow nade from Strelky is hardly a worthy replacement, seeing it barely does any damage.
-
Aaaand Soviets are pretty much fucked against PE armour car rush on open maps.
Since rr and ptrd missiles phase through armoured cars and Pumas (and we won't change that because of no-changes-to-vanilla policy) Tank Hunters are completely worthless against them. Actually, a single strelky squad deals more damage against an AC than the tank hunter squad. So this is no valid argument for keeping htem.
Great, just great. You blow of the similarity between the US and the USSR faction to be trivial, but I've seen this worrying trend going on for a long time. The first big step I saw towards making the two factions the one and same was the removal of the sniper team. Was the unit OP? With the artillery strike, yes - Without it? No, not at all.
The problem was not that it was op, but that it didn't work properly. Countersniping was impossible if the sniper was in a building (only 50% chance to kill the sniper, so you could be countersniped with a high chance after hitting the spotter in the building). Second point was, that a dual wehr sniper usage could instakill all soviet sniper teams, but it's impossible to kill a whole sniper with only one wehr sniper. 120mp drain wasn't much compared to a countersnipe vs USA, which costs 340mp instead. The camouflage system was flawed also.
Sure, you couldn't countersnipe it, but guess what - It's called adapting to a new situation. It was very easy to kill using more mobile units.
The squad had - because of the 2 man design much more total hitpoints compared to the single sniper squads from other factions. We did around 200 testgames with the old sniperteam, and it was broken. Use 2-3 mines on likely vehicle paths and you could NEVER kill Soviet sniperteams. So it was finally decided to remove it to fix all the problems caused by it.
CoH2 also features a Soviet Sniper team, which is far, far, FAR from OP.
Afaik squads are larger in CoH2 than in CoH 1, so snipers are less of a problem anyways. Plus, it's a different game, with diffrent teching and different gameplay (true sight and blah). Not comparable.
The removal of THs is sad yes, but what worries me more is that the PTRDs are now NI only. You pretty much have to go Propaganda if you want decent infantry at this point. Partizany are *still* too costly with 3 CPs to get out there, and the rest of the tree is rather poor. Don't give me the "it's a situation command tree", as that's a bullshit lazy excuse (pardon the expression!) for not bothering making a proper command tree. It just shouldn't be that way, no tree should be limited to a few situations and maps.
That's why strelky are getting tweaked. They're available at 35 fuel into the game and are cheap, have a similar combat performance like grenadiers and are cheap to maintain. Idk what you would want more?
Soviets have been getting raped for quite some time now, and it's starting to get frustrating.
Afaik soviets pretty much steamrolled most axis players in the last tourney, barton raped everyone by using conscripts only... how do you explain that to yourself?
And what is Urban supposed to do against armour now? Footslog AT guns after their Partizany, who now no longer can be combined with THs to provide some minimal protection from tanks? The slow nade from Strelky is hardly a worthy replacement, seeing it barely does any damage.
Strekly slow nade is getting buffed in terms of damage, at least against armoured cars, halftracks and other units which tankhunters were supposed to be used.
Anyways. Urban with their new CP arrangement is extremely potent at putting pressure on the enemy by throwing nades everywhere, so it should be easy to put back RBS until you can field tanks or AT guns. The AT guns + strelky slow nade are more than enough to kill off tanks or at least scare them away. IS 2 and T34 also receive some changes to perform better against axis t4 units in general and so far it plays out decently.
-
*sigh*
I wrote a long reply, but it got erased somehow.
I'll try to rewrite my points:
About the slow nade - I view it somewhat like the Wehr faust. Everything I know about the faust is that you only use it when a) To finish off an enemy b) You're desperate. The slow nade is supposed to fulfil the entire Soviet infantry capability of destroying tanks outside of NI (which are doctrinal) - This worries me a great deal. It will leave the Soviet's extremely exposed. They have enough weaknesses already, and adding one more will do them no good. I can go along with HT perhaps not being the best solution, but I don't think removing schrecks from Wehr and telling them that they've got to stick to fausts instead would be a fantastic upgrade for that faction either. Cuse that's what being done to the Soviets.
Sniper Team: Seems I can never let this debate go. I simply miss seeing one of the most original units in the Soviet faction. The Soviet sniper team had some things it was better at, and some major flaws. For an example, using a mortar to take them out was extremely easy, seeing that they had to remain stationary to have stealth. You did some scouting, and you pretty much could kill off the team long before it was capable of doing any real damage. CoH2's squad are of comparable size, the Germans remaining fairly similar to their current numbers. The Soviet's feature both squads smaller, larger and equal to yours. While the game plays differently, I still think it serves as a pointer to the fact that it actually works.
The sniper team was remove simply because people fail at adapting. You can excuse it away with whatever you want to, but in the end, it comes down to human inability to adapt, and ability to whine. Use a mortar - It's gone. Walk around it - It's only effective in one location. Also quite easily rushed with MP40 volks.
About the Soviet's being raped: This is more than a balance issue I speak of here - Sure, all early game potential in the faction was obliterated many patches ago, but this is more of a issue of ever decreasing originality and refusal to accept issues like the ones with the Urban doctrine (I'm curious to see what changes were made though!). I'm not sure if there's any point to discussing this. You've got enough with the Ostheer as of now, and you seem fairly set upon the path the Soviets have been taken down the past... year?-ish?
I also have a hard time believing that conscripts did well. I'll take a look at the replays later. What I wonder though is - Why didn't someone just get anything at all that kills infantry? Conscripts die like flies to so many things.
-
*sigh*
I wrote a long reply, but it got erased somehow.
I'll try to rewrite my points:
About the slow nade - I view it somewhat like the Wehr faust. Everything I know about the faust is that you only use it when a) To finish off an enemy b) You're desperate. The slow nade is supposed to fulfil the entire Soviet infantry capability of destroying tanks outside of NI (which are doctrinal) - This worries me a great deal. It will leave the Soviet's extremely exposed. They have enough weaknesses already, and adding one more will do them no good. I can go along with HT perhaps not being the best solution, but I don't think removing schrecks from Wehr and telling them that they've got to stick to fausts instead would be a fantastic upgrade for that faction either.
No. It's used so your enemy cannot flank your at guns. It has fairly large range compared to stickies. So, it's easier to use and has a larger area of denial to your enemy.
About your schreck argument: Schrecks cost ammunition, not manpower like tankhunters. You can upgrade them on any grenadier squad and they are mediocre at fighting light vehicles. Tank hunter PTRDs as always-penetrating AT weapons were never really intended. The tank hunters, albeit their name, should not have been the mainstay of stopping enemy tanks.
And as I already said, Soviet lategame will be slightly buffed again, especially the T34-85 main cannon to deal with axis t4 units. AT guns + a stun nade + t34/IS 2 should be enough to go head-to-head with axis lategame armour.
About the Soviet's being raped: This is more than a balance issue I speak of here - Sure, all early game potential in the faction was obliterated many patches ago, but this is more of a issue of ever decreasing originality and refusal to accept issues like the ones with the Urban doctrine (I'm curious to see what changes were made though!). I'm not sure if there's any point to discussing this. You've got enough with the Ostheer as of now, and you seem fairly set upon the path the Soviets have been taken down the past... year?-ish?
moar originality =/= moar better. You can have 10.000 original, unique ideas and hte gameplay will still suck.
I mean, take a look at PE.
So much original stuff like - shared veterancy! How awesome is that?! Or getting AT vehicles which can damage enemy treads so you can shoot the sitting ducks? Very cool indeed. Or having machine guns after 50 fuel, so much pressuring power for this aggressive gameplay. Early halftracks and mobile mortars!! great!!
And after playing: "Omfg so mcuh broken sh*t wtf is that?! How could someone be as braindead to put stuff like that in a game like CoH? It destroys ze gameplay" - I hope you get my point that originality <<< working gameplay. Sometimes it's better to steal well rather than failing yourself.
So much ranting..
But nontheless, soviets will receive a lot of tweaks with 2.000 also. And maybe... If we remove some units we're putting other units in as a replacement? ;)
-
I think I have a possible solution for reviving the sniper team :D
Make it cost 480 manpower
Set the Reinforcement costs to 340 for sniper (I am not sure if this is possible)
Set the Reinforcement costs to 50 for spotter (I am not sure if this is possible)
Sniper has Sniper Armor (therefore in sniper v sniper fights, the sniper is the priority)
Spotter has Infantry Armor (therefore in sniper v sniper fights, the spotter would get hit after there is no sniper around)
Sniper would be worse at killing infantry than their counterparts by reducing RoF, accuracy, health, etc (but to make up much better veterancy than the others along the way)
Just an idea I had in the back of my mind
-
So basically, Soviet's won't have anti tank infantry any more, unless they go Propaganda. It's all AT gun. You don't even have a MG or any other way of effectively suppressing enemy infantry rushing them.
Eh, I give up. You've never listened to a single one of my suggestions, nor Simuz's suggestions (which are mostly the same as mine), and the faction suffers for it I'd say.
We'll see, the patch sounds interesting.
-
So basically, Soviet's won't have anti tank infantry any more, unless they go Propaganda. It's all AT gun.
At gun + buffed strelky in 2.000.
You don't even have a MG or any other way of effectively suppressing enemy infantry rushing them.
RBS dp28 Strelky supression works in 2.000 compared to now like it was intended at first.
Eh, I give up. You've never listened to a single one of my suggestions, nor Simuz's suggestions (which are mostly the same as mine), and the faction suffers for it I'd say.
We'll see, the patch sounds interesting.
We'll see how the feedback from the first week(s) of beta gameplay.
-
Eh, I give up. You've never listened to a single one of my suggestions, nor Simuz's suggestions (which are mostly the same as mine), and the faction suffers for it I'd say.
I won easily with 16 PE on Ango in beta. Camping on fuel -> light tanks -> atgs -> guardians. -> more tanks. No problem with that. More - Rus was op with early guardians + atg's cuz PE had nothing to counter it. We fixed guardians, they will come later.
One question. Why u don't believe us? We have beta and this is really different than 1.7. For example. Russians has weapon reserves for cons on start, light tankovy are cheaper, t2 pools need 50/35.
-
One question. Why u don't believe us? We have beta and this is really different than 1.7. For example. Russians has weapon reserves for cons on start, light tankovy are cheaper, t2 pools need 50/35.
WE (the community) don't really believe you because you aren't the previous balance team, the guys who got the Soviets into a pretty fair and balanced faction. You'll have to excuse us, but until we see proof of your abilities as balancer many of us will continue to doubt your skills.
-
excuse me for off topic...
@neosdark, Darcreaver is from "old" balancers and afaik now every single balance change need to be approved by him + actually most of the changes are made by him.
So "new" balancers dont have the power to change things on their own and if their suggestions are approved its because they are good :)
-
Eh, I give up. You've never listened to a single one of my suggestions, nor Simuz's suggestions (which are mostly the same as mine), and the faction suffers for it I'd say.
I won easily with 16 PE on Ango in beta. Camping on fuel -> light tanks -> atgs -> guardians. -> more tanks. No problem with that. More - Rus was op with early guardians + atg's cuz PE had nothing to counter it. We fixed guardians, they will come later.
One question. Why u don't believe us? We have beta and this is really different than 1.7. For example. Russians has weapon reserves for cons on start, light tankovy are cheaper, t2 pools need 50/35.
I understand your question as "Why do you doubt our balancing skills" - Simply because me and my mates have beaten devs and balancers without breaking a single sweat. While I haven't played you in particular as of yet, I've been reading some of your posts and I find your attitude particularly troublesome. You're an isolationist, who would rather not listen to outside influences, and that means you'll play the same people over and over, and never take on new challenges.
Furthermore, YES, you do have beta access. This allows you to know more than I do. When I hear things like "Oh by the way we removed Soviet infantry anti tank capabilities" of course I'll get nervous about balance. I still am, as the Soviets will be the only faction without infantry who can tackle tanks. The Soviets are basically screwed if: a) They're on an open map. AT guns will be too easy to flank, and they'll be too slow to support any offensive action. b) They have to pull a AT gun into a city fight. That gun is going to get shot at, bombed, naded and outmanoeuvred in that clumsy environment. At least that's what it sounds like. But we'll see. I have my doubts, I have voiced them and you remain confident in your choices, as always. End of discussion.
-
Which balancers you won I would ask? I won Dreamer too, should I sound a bit ignorant like you?
And from what you wrote, in both close and open terrain, the SU ATG is fucked so you want them to be removed? Or what you wrote is... conflicted?
Now to my view, the balance team work somewhat fine now. I will wait to see what will come more.
-
Which balancers you won I would ask? I won Dreamer too, should I sound a bit ignorant like you?
And from what you wrote, in both close and open terrain, the SU ATG is fucked so you want them to be removed? Or what you wrote is... conflicted?
Now to my view, the balance team work somewhat fine now. I will wait to see what will come more.
*Sigh* You *clearly* did not understand what I meant. Also, just because I don't agree with the balancers you get to call me ignorant? Really? You know what, instead of posting things like that, I would love to see an explanation from you as to why you think I'm wrong.
Furthermore, I NEVER said the AT gun should be removed, do not put words into my mouth. The problem is that the AT gun is now supposed to fill a role it cannot. Not being good enough at something does not automatically demand removal of a unit. I don't see how that is even remotely logical.
I've played most of the devs and balancers who mingle with us commoners. The new balance team I have not however been engaged with as much.
Now, let me repeat myself once more - There's no point in discussing this any further. They've made their changes, they're happy with them. And I'll make up my mind once the patch gets here, but like I said (once more) I've simply voiced my concerns.
-
I think we need to steer this thread into a diffrent direction.
-
Soo much negativity and its because of "rambo" tank hunters ???
As you know there wont be a complete balance, even in COH there is not such thing. PE is an abusive faction :)
Please calm donw and dont be so offensive to each other :)
-
I think the issue here is the balancers have said they are removing THs, but they have not told the public what exactly will change. I know they said Strelky are getting buffed, but what is that buff? An optional AT rifle? AT nades? IIRC they have an AT shot that slows tanks, but what else will happen to them? ANd what will change in regards to the AT gun?
I know the balance team and the devs like to keep things hush hush and closed doors, but given the nature of this mod, and how much they interact with the community, I really do not see the point of such secrecy. If anything it will lead to healthy debate rather than raging every time a patch comes out.
-
I think the issue here is the balancers have said they are removing THs, but they have not told the public what exactly will change. I know they said Strelky are getting buffed, but what is that buff?
- increased Strelky stun nade dmg to 65 (from 35), increased dmg modifier vs AC/other light vehicles to 1.33 (from 1), the stun time is likely to be increased by ~1s also
- Strelky mosin higher accuracy: 0.4/0.4/0.65/0.8
- lowered support pool upgrade costs to 50mp/35f (from 120mp/35f)
- Strelky can use their covering fire ability without teching, increased cost to 35 (from 25), increased cooldown to 25s (from 15)
- Strelky use their own armourtype
- strelky dp28 supression increased slightly
And this is not everything, there are other changes which interact with Strelky and buff them indirectly. Also there are nerfs to other units and some tech swaps inside.
I know the balance team and the devs like to keep things hush hush and closed doors, but given the nature of this mod, and how much they interact with the community, I really do not see the point of such secrecy. If anything it will lead to healthy debate rather than raging every time a patch comes out.
Agree, but it's like with everything: If you post pre-patch changelogs people will only rage and flame even more... Just look at all these ranting about the removal of tank hunters...
Edit: also we often do changes, and then roll them back after some time if they're not working. It makes stuff more complicated for other users if we say one day "ok we remove tankhunters" and 2 days later "oh well we rolled it back because its not working".
That's why it's usually better to keep stuff secret.
-
You BUFFED Strelky rifles and lowered Light Tankovy costs?!
This patch sounds terrible from what I've read but I'll reserve judgement until (if) I play beta. I have to add that hardcaps are not a way to balance. Limiting cons to 3 is reducing possible build orders. It seems to me that a lot of things are heading towards US gameplay, which is what I was trying to prevent before I left. AT + VPGS = AT + Stickies.
-
You BUFFED Strelky rifles and lowered Light Tankovy costs?!
Strelky rifles were only minimal better compared to 7 rifle conscripts at close range. 6x12dmg @ 75% acc against 7x9 @ 80% acc, which is ridiculous anyways and one of the reasons why 5x cons + molos is so ... let's say ... overused.
Cons cost less mp/squad, come earlier, have cheaper reinforce with vet and with full rifles were almost as good as strelky. This is fixed now.
This patch sounds terrible from what I've read but I'll reserve judgement until (if) I play beta. I have to add that hardcaps are not a way to balance. Limiting cons to 3 is reducing possible build orders. It seems to me that a lot of things are heading towards US gameplay, which is what I was trying to prevent before I left. AT + VPGS = AT + Stickies.
Limiting possible buildorders? The only BO I've seen so far in the tourney was 5x cons + molos + light/heavy tankovy + breakthrough. Not really diverse actually. To put it short someone stated about the cons: "If I go vehicles I don't need more infantry than 5 conscripts. Instead I build tanks."
-
Well if you buff Strelky rifles you need to buff guard rifles since vanilla guards would end up doing less than vanilla Strelky.
It seems to me that a lot of things are heading towards US gameplay, which is what I was trying to prevent before I left. AT + VPGS = AT + Stickies.
+99999
-
Well if you buff Strelky rifles you need to buff guard rifles since vanilla guards would end up doing less than vanilla Strelky.
It seems to me that a lot of things are heading towards US gameplay, which is what I was trying to prevent before I left. AT + VPGS = AT + Stickies.
+99999
Guards are getting their own set of changes anyways, so don't worry.
-
Well if you buff Strelky rifles you need to buff guard rifles since vanilla guards would end up doing less than vanilla Strelky.
It seems to me that a lot of things are heading towards US gameplay, which is what I was trying to prevent before I left. AT + VPGS = AT + Stickies.
+99999
Guards are getting their own set of changes anyways, so don't worry.
and guards comes later :P
-
And also cost more too.
-
It seems to me that a lot of things are heading towards US gameplay, which is what I was trying to prevent before I left. AT + VPGS = AT + Stickies.
Finally! Someone feels the same way as me.
-
Dear DEVs, how about increasing cons price to 230 and reinforcement cost to 16, and leaving everything else as is for now? After all you hardly ever see anyone build 5 rifles in regular Coh not because there is a cap, but because it is unsustainable in later game.
Overall, I'd say that a change to a US style AT gameplay would be highly undesirable as the current experiential diversity that the SU brings to the table is much appreciated. If it's 5 cons and BT doctrine that is the current issue then apply the bandages where it's needed.
-
I would just like to say US kinda have a lot of AT potential in each doctrine, airborne, Rangers (kinda) and the Pershing, not even counting the stickies...
Russians have NI now, which are not as tanky as airborne, and have to buy their weaps.
Maybe (and this might be REALLY off-putting) vetted conscripts/ those near the Csquad can rush and board vehicles, tossing a Molotov inside? Failing that, we could keep TH :)