Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 98 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: A few thoughts on One Hit Kill guns #10294

    Death_Kitty
    Moderator

    Yeah, but you are either have to ignore history (not happening), bring in RNG (no thank you), or water down the difference between the various tanks, which removes variety.

    I don’t think the issue is the vehicles themselves. I think its the rate they can be spammed, and the immobility of certain counters. A good pak 40 will eat most of the tanks in this game instantly, and it is the best AT gun in the mod, but it is so slow to move around the map.

    Also, not only is the t-34-85 very good, it is also very spammable, whereas the panzer IV is much harder to field for how much weaker it is. The three allied tank docs (CW guards armored, US 4th armored division, USSR armored guards) need to be knocked down a couple of pegs, and their mass production upgrades should not be as good as they are. (I also believe the german docs with “super tanks” also should be looked at, namely panzerjager and wunder. ) These docs need to be able to be harassed in order to gimp their production, and this should be done to the fuel depot.

    My suggestion: Route the upgrades through the fuel depot:

    • Tank discounts do not touch the fuel cost… in fact maybe they should even increase it
    • Fuel depot takes much longer to build (to punish you if it dies)
    • Fuel depot allows you to use your discount effectively.

    In effect, the tank spam docs will need 2 upgrades to get their tank spam going which does a couple of things:

    • Delays the tank spam even more
    • Allows players to harass a tank doc player, and rewards clever raid micro
    • Can punish the tank doc player by fuel starving them if they don’t have a depot/it got taken out

    One of my greatest criticisms of coh is that it is very hard to harass, and impossible to tech snipe due to base MG’s. I think its part of the reason that partisan/back-line combat docs struggle so much. I would like to see more docs have actual building they need to build on the map to get to their greatest potential, to allow you to harass instead of the massive stalemates and call-in dueling we see now.

  • in reply to: 50 cal AA buff #10121

    Death_Kitty
    Moderator

    Well, the point in the discord image stands. That said, I don’t think comparing autocannons with the quad 50 is an entirely fair comparison, so ill do it for you:

    The sdkfz 251: has a set up period before it can fire, a slow turret rotation rate, so its balanced because of this

    The luchs: Its a light tank, and requires tier 2 to produce (quad 50 can be rushed tier 1 iirc). It also costs a crap ton, is the weakest light tank in the game in terms of anti-vehicle damage, and has very slow turret rotation

    The centaur: requires tier 3, can be one hit by a panzer 4… and anything heavier.

    So the quad 50 should be compared to other half-tracks, as it lacks any of the other traits that is shared by the above vehicles. This means a buffed 50 cal:

    -Shreds any vehicles in its weight class (and below), so anything other than a light tanks will die almost instantly

    -Will shred any infantry, or pin them, which would allow it to cancel fausts (I believe the animation for faust firing gets canceled when a squad transitions from normal to suppressed?) and unlike russians and US, German AT grenades/AT rifle nades are comparatively rare.

    -Will just become a very annoying and OP general purpose unit. Which is what I would argue it is now. So worse than that.

    So in order to even THINK about buffing the quad 50, the following things must be true:
    -It must be nerfed against other light vehicles, to stop it from killing the instantly

    -Needs a set up period, like the 251

    -SMG assault infantry need some sort of passive resistance to suppression

    -MG’s on other light vehicles need to be looked at: how is it that the MG of a sdkfz 221 is utterly useless?

    That leads to another conversations, and I’m not sure changing all light vehicles is a good idea.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Death_Kitty.
  • in reply to: Can AT actually A the T? #9996

    Death_Kitty
    Moderator

    Ill give you a minor buff that allows suppression of AT teams if they try to rush you. IMO:

    -An AT squad should never be able to run up to a tank from max range and kill it

    -If a lone tank runs into an AT team in the open that is camoed, and that AT team break camo and charges it, that tank should take damage or die. This is called an ambush.

    -If a tank with 1 squad of basic infantry runs into the above situation, then the AT team should be forced to retreat, if the squad has a BAR, Bren, or DP, it should die

    -A tank or a group of tanks should never be able to just HE an AT gun from mad range before the AT gun kills at least one of them

    -An AT gun should never be 1 hit by an HE shell, unless its of massive caliber or in red cover.

     

    So long as those 5 things stay true, or become more true, you will get no opposition from me.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by  Death_Kitty.
  • in reply to: Lacking performance of low calibre HE shells #9993

    Death_Kitty
    Moderator

    My personal suggestion is that give AT shells an AOE, like with KV-1 mazurin, for example, and give the shells low suppression value, so it will suppress with the shot. We need tanks to be able to prevent AT charges, to where supporting infantry can finish off the tanks, but we dont need the “HE tank gunline obliterates infantry everywhere” problem from spearhead to show its head here.


  • Death_Kitty
    Moderator

    OK, I see your balance post, and while I see some good observations and ideas, I also see somethings, when taken into the larger meta, would be game destroying.

    -You point out that CA feels very weak, and the incendiary barrage is too strong, which I agree with. Creeping barrage is also a nifty idea.

    The rest… well…

    -ISU buff. Not needed:

    This tank can one hit anything it penetrates. If it does not, it inflicts stun. It has a MG upgrade that suppresses better than some weapon teams.  It one-hits bunkers. It is part of doc that can inflict criticals like no ones business (Vet AT team, 76mm barrage, suppression immune penals) And you want to buff it? Why? The ISU is already one of the best tanks in the game, coming with support option that are quite frankly broken in strength already.

    -AT rifle buff. A bad idea, sorry:

    AT rifles are available on most soviet infantry. Like conscripts. You know, the default. Now giving every Russian infantry unit the ability to immobilize tanks, in what tends to be an instant, long range ability… Do you see the problem here? Russian AT tends to be weird, yes, but it is VERY strong in its current iteration across all 3 doctrines. (Some pointers: Soviet armor has SOVIET ARMOR. You get the best tanks in the game at a discount, you are fine. Shock guards has superior officers that can cast an aura that makes infantry around them SUPPRESSION IMMUNE. Infantry that can get bazookas, btw. And everything in soviet arty has AT use. But if you want specifics, the veteran AT rifle team gets a very similar ability to what you suggested)

    -Infantry AT abilities: I get your frustration here. But you have to thing beyond a bit. Downgrading german troops from panzerfausts to grenades would be a buff most of the time: Panzerfausts cost munitions to buy AND use, while grenades skip the purchase cost, plus they are cheaper. In addition, the faust animation takes much longer to play, so you can cancel the faust if you back away fast enough. I feel like this might be some rage directed at wunderwaffe and Tank hunter doctrines? (I feel you there if that is the case), but giving infantry mass access to AT options is not the way to go. If tanks can advance up to infantry for fear of grenades (which are much harder to avoid b/c of how fast the animations play) then armor cant do its job. (Also tank hunter infantry might be getting nerfed next update, so hang in there.)

    -KV-2

    I sympathize with you here, but the KV-2 does not full-fill any extra roles that are not already covered in the doc. You have suppression immune shock troops with satchels for assault, and the IS-1 does fine on its own as a spearhead tank. Plus, the KV-2 is being saved for the last soviet doctrine, I believe.

    -Cromwell at tier 2: Another idea I don’t like; I believe (and hope) you meant to suggest Cromwell at tier 3, (i.e. company command post unlock), because otherwise British would get the Cromwell at the same time Germans are fielding luchs light tanks and puma armored cars.

    And while it may seem that some doctrines could maybe use a Cromwell for tier 3 (combined arms and UK lowland infantry) I assure, in the case of the latter, it is fine, and in the case of the former, AFAIK a restructuring is being planned.

    In conclusion, I feel like you play allies more than axis (again, nothing wrong with that) and lot of these ideas, I feel, would ruin balance far more than you think. I agree there are some glaring issue, that will be addressed in time. For now, feel free to join the discord and DM me or anyone else if you are having trouble against some matchup. We will gladly assist you to the best of our ability. Good luck, have fun out there.

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  Death_Kitty.

  • Death_Kitty
    Moderator

    *Reads first part of post*

    *Reaches for bucket helm*

    “BALANCE CRUSADE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE WILL TAKE (buff) JERUSALEM (the pershing)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    *Reads rest of post*

    *Takes off bucket helm*

    *Pats it lightly* “Soon, old friend, soon…”

    • This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by  Death_Kitty.
  • in reply to: Panther Balance? #8361

    Death_Kitty
    Moderator

    Very happy to see this change

     

  • in reply to: Halftrack Armor vs AT guns? #8045

    Death_Kitty
    Moderator

    Puma will win 1v1 vs a soviet quad 50 half-track, as long is there only one, and it hits the HT twice.

  • in reply to: New Mechanized thoughts #7912

    Death_Kitty
    Moderator

    Here is where I would put the current doc structure in terms of tiers:

    OP tier: US and CW armor

    Strong tier: IW (only reason its not OP tier is b/c it’s hard to play), Wunderwaffe, US infantry, US arty, CW arty, Lowland, Mechanized

    Viable Tier: Scorched Earth (OKW early game holds it back)

    Weak Tier: Luftwaffe

    UP Tier: Combined Arms, US airborne.

    You do have a very nice offensive tool midgame: its called the flametrack and pio call in. Rips through any infantry without anti-tank. Kills buildings. You can bum rush a base and de-tech someone who is not ready for it. This doctrine needs aggressive handling early game; with MG’s and StG, panzer fusiliers and grens MELT allied infantry, rifles especially, and can hold off elite units. Without their weapons, put them in a building and they will murder allied infantry anyway. Or keep them at max range. But they are FAR from the worst mainline infantry in the game. With the Puma, AT rifle, and shreck, you are more than equipped to hold off light vehicles.

    Panzer 4’s with vet 1 will hit most of the time, as for the other gripes: just as sluggish as the M4, thought much less maneuverable than the Cromwell, inferior to the E8 and the Comet, no stabilized gun, so worse accuracy on the move… Its just a tank that you need to use defensively, then chase down shermans as they retreat.

    Combined with getting out panzers as fast as armor can get shermans (if you use the 3 fuel cache build) and the tools to fortify are more than there. The main issue here is surviving the tank spam from the 2 allied armor docs. The answer is called a Pak. Seriously, build some sandbags or hedgehogs, 1-2 paks, set to ambush/target vehicle, and let the kills roll in. Use your tiger to deal with problems, like Pershing/Churchill/Comet.

    If anything, armor needs a nerf. But this doc is fine


  • Death_Kitty
    Moderator

    And with MG’s, rushing toward a squad with a flamer usually does not work, unless its an assault squad like rangers or falls, which I can agree, is a little BS. But I agree with your point about the kar. It is a little underwhelming right now, especially in the hands of more experienced infantry

  • in reply to: Balance Ammo Dump #7860

    Death_Kitty
    Moderator

    I like morgoths idea. A well thought out solution. especially giving nade range back at a later vet.

  • in reply to: Centaur AA needs buff against infantry #7856

    Death_Kitty
    Moderator

    I find it really annoying that a 50 cal or an MG with armor piercing rounds blows up vehicles faster than light cannon or 20mm autocannon fire.

     

  • in reply to: Some idea to give a slightly buff for Luftwaffe #7772

    Death_Kitty
    Moderator

    You know, you and me often clash over balance. not as much as me and ordo, but enough. This time however, I like all of these ideas. I don’t really understand the 2nd one, but it seems ok. If the girbs go up to 2, then the sniper has to be a vet upgrade, like UK light infantry (Lowland doc). Alternatively, the sniper gets moved to the officer squad, or they can get a marksman ability, or g43 with supressive volley fire. But yeah, I’m all for buffing Luft.

    Also would like to see some buffs to US airborne. Other than giving them better stealth capability which I suggested in another recent thread, I cant think of anything rn.

  • in reply to: Dead vehicle shot bug #7755

    Death_Kitty
    Moderator

    I believe it was a Sherman variant: I think both the 76 (for sure) and the easy 8.

  • in reply to: Axis early game AT and tiering buffs #7706

    Death_Kitty
    Moderator

    i also like this AT change. I can agree with locking zooks behind later tech-ups.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 98 total)