Allies suggestion

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2516
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Allies suggestion

Postby Warhawks97 » 21 Sep 2017, 19:26

Nieles wrote:I mean that part where you totally explain how we should buff the US factions is just astonishing.



1. I would rethink the US faction and doctrine design. If its a faction that goes for some sort of quantitative superiority, then make it more as a faction feature via upgrades. Supply yard and the way some vehicles become a slight cost drop on the long hand or by basic cost of certain units.
But just stop making a certain doc being a "one unit spam doc". Such spam types can be too easily dealed with. Spamming one unit is nonsense.
On top of that, the current spam capabilties are far exaggerated. I mean in armor doc you can build almost three e8 for one panther. That is just nonsense and exaggerated.

2. Furthermore give it some killing power and/or survivability. The exaggeration of "spam" at cost of killing power and survivability largely overstrains lots of players.. Right now US needs some sort of combination, lots of abilties and so on just for killing a single medicore unit. It can kill attacking tank IV´s, but attacking them without pershings can become a pain from time to time.

3. US doesnt have to be "always cheaper". If an e8 is as good or better as an tank IV H, fine, why does an e8 has to keep cheaper than an tank IV J while there is no reason to be that way. This leads to unneccessary downgrades of many units and weapons that would and could actually be superior to stuff axis can get. We have lots of examples here. Most important to mention is M1 compared to G43 for example (or K98 as well), 76 mm M1A1/2 compared to 75 mm L/48, armor performence of tanks etc.

For example we could have scenarios in which an 76 sherman cost 460/60 compared to 410/50 for an tank IV J (normalised cost, no more CP and doctrinal based cost drops of certain units). But noooo: US must be cheaper> adding downsides the tank never had (poor resistance to medium AT guns and bad 76 gun). Or wise versa-> adding boosts for axis "weapon systems" for no reason. Let it be rate of fire (at guns, heavy 88 rate of fire, 88mm flak 36 damage).


Can anyone get what i am actually talking about? Anyone can follow my thoughts and understand my critics?

kwok
Posts: 1068
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Allies suggestion

Postby kwok » 21 Sep 2017, 22:35

Warhawks is saying (again) he wants to change the USA "quantity over quality" model. He has voiced this multiple times and even got a huge change to m1 garlands in previous patches (which I literally refer to as "Warhawks gift" to newbies). I don't agree or disagree, just translating.

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 158
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Allies suggestion

Postby mofetagalactica » 22 Sep 2017, 03:17

kwok wrote:Warhawks is saying (again) he wants to change the USA "quantity over quality" model. He has voiced this multiple times and even got a huge change to m1 garlands in previous patches (which I literally refer to as "Warhawks gift" to newbies). I don't agree or disagree, just translating.


You sound like you're making fun of him.

kwok
Posts: 1068
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Allies suggestion

Postby kwok » 22 Sep 2017, 08:26

No I don't intend to. I respect warhawk's mind even if i don't always agree with him. Ive been trying not to convince him to mod coh2 with me but he is too stubborn on his own bk fantasies (<-- okay making fun of him juuust a little bit here, only cuz I want to convert that fucker to ditch corsix and come to coh2).

User avatar
Nieles
Global Moderator
Posts: 73
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 19:43

Re: Allies suggestion

Postby Nieles » 23 Sep 2017, 14:23

Warhawks97 wrote:
Nieles wrote:I mean that part where you totally explain how we should buff the US factions is just astonishing.



1. I would rethink the US faction and doctrine design. If its a faction that goes for some sort of quantitative superiority, then make it more as a faction feature via upgrades. Supply yard and the way some vehicles become a slight cost drop on the long hand or by basic cost of certain units.
But just stop making a certain doc being a "one unit spam doc". Such spam types can be too easily dealed with. Spamming one unit is nonsense.
On top of that, the current spam capabilties are far exaggerated. I mean in armor doc you can build almost three e8 for one panther. That is just nonsense and exaggerated.

2. Furthermore give it some killing power and/or survivability. The exaggeration of "spam" at cost of killing power and survivability largely overstrains lots of players.. Right now US needs some sort of combination, lots of abilties and so on just for killing a single medicore unit. It can kill attacking tank IV´s, but attacking them without pershings can become a pain from time to time.

3. US doesnt have to be "always cheaper". If an e8 is as good or better as an tank IV H, fine, why does an e8 has to keep cheaper than an tank IV J while there is no reason to be that way. This leads to unneccessary downgrades of many units and weapons that would and could actually be superior to stuff axis can get. We have lots of examples here. Most important to mention is M1 compared to G43 for example (or K98 as well), 76 mm M1A1/2 compared to 75 mm L/48, armor performence of tanks etc.

For example we could have scenarios in which an 76 sherman cost 460/60 compared to 410/50 for an tank IV J (normalised cost, no more CP and doctrinal based cost drops of certain units). But noooo: US must be cheaper> adding downsides the tank never had (poor resistance to medium AT guns and bad 76 gun). Or wise versa-> adding boosts for axis "weapon systems" for no reason. Let it be rate of fire (at guns, heavy 88 rate of fire, 88mm flak 36 damage).


Can anyone get what i am actually talking about? Anyone can follow my thoughts and understand my critics?


I understnad you friend, and i've read all your posts. As i stated before you are the only one in this topic making some sense.
The started on the otherhand is just a pinquin....
"Often you're too afraid!"

Image

One guy gets beaten by a better player in PVP and comes and creates threads about a specific unit being OP.

User avatar
sgtToni95
Posts: 489
Joined: 04 May 2016, 09:50
Location: Italy

Re: Allies suggestion

Postby sgtToni95 » 23 Sep 2017, 18:29

Sukin-kot (SVT) wrote:Lets start with Allies

First of all, they have a very powerfull start, Jeep + 2 rifles at the beginning are very flexible, you can cap points extremely fast and make a short job for volks (thx to Garands) if you will manage to close the distance, then you go for recon and sniper in order to secure the center, at the same time, CW can provide awesome def service at the beginning, their Sappers will always take the most valuable position at mid and AT boys, which are available right away, will deny any axis motorized support, rifle section is the best infantry unit of early game stage, specially when supported by Leutnant.


What if axis starts with mg42 and storms? Mg42 can counter and force to retreat everything cw can produce in the first 3 minutes, other units will simply prevent rifles/jeeps from flanking it and with the right timing you'll push that in a pretty decent position. By the time they'll have bren/dingo, pak will be available, and axis infantry has AT nades. With the right combination between wh/pe, axis has everything it needs to deal with everything allies can throw at them.
You didn't mention scout cars, which even after the mountain of complaints on boys i've seen being used to counter them (not every time of course), and they can still cause a huge pain if used on the right spots at the right time.

I hate doing this, because i think theese arguments are not real arguments, presenting situations in this way is just like playing verbal chess where you just present a counter tactic every time, but not a real discussion on balance imo.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests