Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Talk about CoH1 or BKMOD1 in general.
Akrean
Posts: 14
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 19:36

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Akrean » 14 Sep 2016, 15:35

well - could you add an ability that simply orders the squad in the building to focus a special target?

in vcoh at least 17pdr emplacements could be ordered - i think 88 & bofors as well

20160914163342_1.jpg

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1877
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby MarKr » 14 Sep 2016, 15:46

The "attack ground" ability would be an option but it allows for a bug when the gun under such a command can fire through certain obstacles - certain types of treelines, while the target cannot fire throught it back at the emplacement. That is the reason why it was removed in the firstplace.

Eh...there were any 88 and bofors emplacements in vCoH? I thought there were only "naked" versions of these guns :?
Image

Akrean
Posts: 14
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 19:36

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Akrean » 14 Sep 2016, 15:50

Eh...there were any 88 and bofors emplacements in vCoH? I thought there were only "naked" versions of these guns


sorry i meant the naked guns - you are right.

maybe this would be an option: treat all emplacements like the naked guns in vcoh (i assume they are units that can't move instead of buildings)

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1877
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby MarKr » 14 Sep 2016, 15:59

If I understand what you mean by "treat them like" then it is not possible. It is as I said - basically when you build an emplacement, the engineers build a building (the model of those sandbags in circle-like shape) and when they are finished building, the game "puts" into the building regular AT gun team - they are "garrisoned" inside but unlike normal infantry inside houses they cannot leave the building.
Image

Akrean
Posts: 14
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 19:36

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Akrean » 14 Sep 2016, 16:07

and what if you make the selection circle for the "filling" greater than the selection circle of the emplacement? then it should be possible to select the gun and order it

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1877
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby MarKr » 14 Sep 2016, 16:49

Again not possible I think...game detects units inside buildings and those are not possible to select in the normal way as units in the open space. The gun is visible by human eye but for the game engine it is the same as if the emplacement had solid roof, just as normal houses, so it is not a matter of "selection circles".
Image

Akrean
Posts: 14
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 19:36

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Akrean » 14 Sep 2016, 20:30

and if you flip it? so you declare the gun as building and the emplacement as filling? - i assume this would also not work
-> custom ability in lua to pass the attack-order from the building to the filling

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1877
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby MarKr » 14 Sep 2016, 22:33

and if you flip it? so you declare the gun as building and the emplacement as filling? - i assume this would also not work
I don't think that would work because of the order in which the two entities are built.
-> custom ability in lua to pass the attack-order from the building to the filling
I don't know the lua coding language and thus have no idea how to do that.
I think this is simply engine limitation...if it were possible to do, I guess relic would have implemented it in vCoH to the original 17pounder emplacement.
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3210
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Tiger1996 » 15 Sep 2016, 05:41

MarKr wrote:I tried that not that long ago with 17pounder and US 76mm emplacements...there were two enemy tanks within range and I could click like crazy to either one and they still kept shooting wherever they wanted...

My bad, you are right. I've recently made a precise test considering this matter.. and I have actually found out that you can't order them.
However that it's also unfortunate to say, that during my test.. i have actually discovered some REALLY serious bugs by a coincidence... Will be sending you a PM regarding those bugs very soon!

thank you tiger - could you please elaborte more?

Now, back to Akrean's list... Specifically to this point, which is related to bugs and fails;
Akrean wrote:- some units have higer attack range than target aquisition range (e.g. brummbar)

So wait a sec, what did you mean here?

And now to this point from suggestions;
Akrean wrote:- give all sandbags, barbed wire, tank barriers the ability to be removed via [del] by their owner (same as with cw wire already possible)

Thumbs up.

And well, i gotta give you my viewpoint about the majority of your points, in short...
-Removing PanzerSchreck from Reg 5 is NOT a good idea at all, and i am totally against it.
PE is already having problems with only few PanzerSchrecks available, compared to WH on the other hand! Except in TH doc.
But i agree that their defensive bonus shouldn't be applied while on the move...

-Canister shot is fine.

-SAS are fine.
They are VERY strong after both the defensive and the offensive upgrades of the RAF doc.

-Applying shorter sprint time for AT teams is not a good idea.
Why should the AT teams have less sprint.. while other normal infantry squads still have longer sprint? ALL infantry units can be equipped with AT weapons or LMGs. Of which are both heavy weapons that require soldiers to first stop in order to start fire... So, watching a normal squad with 6 men having 4 Bazookas sprinting longer than an AT team consisting of only 4 men with 2 Bazookas is quite unfair. Unless we also do this to ALL other squads whenever quipped with any kind of handheld AT weapons or LMGs as well... Which is inconvenient to be honest.
Same way, it isn't a good idea to remove the sprint ability from AT teams only, while seeing all other squads still able to be equipped with AT weapons in return.. yet able to sprint too!

I would say absolutely no further changes should be made into this case. The amount of handheld AT weapons (specifically AT teams) were already tuned along the recent patches.. they shouldn't be any problematic anymore in my opinion.

I guess that's all i can elaborate for now regarding your list :)

Akrean
Posts: 14
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 19:36

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Akrean » 15 Sep 2016, 10:39

Akrean wrote:
- some units have higer attack range than target aquisition range (e.g. brummbar)


So wait a sec, what did you mean here?


all units have a maximum attack range - they are able to shoot anyone inside that range, but not outside :D
they have also a target aquisition range - this is the range in which they will look for targets and shoot them by themselves; you don't need to give them explicit orders, the unit-ai does that for you

there are now 3 cases:
aquisition range > attack range - e.g. melee units: troops will have move until their target is in range in order to attack the target
aquisition range = attack range - should be common case: units simply attack an target within their range
aquisition range < attack range - fail case: units will only attack targets inside aquisition range, but are able to shoot targets further away. they just will not do it by themselves, as they are not considering these when they evaluated their situation. needless to say, that this is inconvenient, as you have to give them always orders in order to utilize their full range

SAS are fine.
They are VERY strong after both the defensive and the offensive upgrades of the RAF doc.


to clarify: i did not mean the sas you get from the glider, i meant those that come via parachute - IF they get the upgrades they are fine, but i doubt it

Canister shot is fine.

effect yes, cost maybe decrease by 5 or reduce cooldown, as it is just a one time ability compared to the timed ability of the axis pak

Applying shorter sprint time for AT teams is not a good idea.
Why should the AT teams have less sprint.. while other normal infantry squads still have longer sprint? ALL infantry units can be equipped with AT weapons or LMGs. Of which are both heavy weapons that require soldiers to first stop in order to start fire... So, watching a normal squad with 6 men having 4 Bazookas sprinting longer than an AT team consisting of only 4 men with 2 Bazookas is quite unfair. Unless we also do this to ALL other squads whenever quipped with any kind of handheld AT weapons or LMGs as well... Which is inconvenient to be honest.
Same way, it isn't a good idea to remove the sprint ability from AT teams only, while seeing all other squads still able to be equipped with AT weapons in return.. yet able to sprint too!


they should have less sprint, because a shrek weights 11kg and they carry 2 of them (pe has a panzerfaust instead of second shrek).
from a game play point of view: at squads become invisible in cover (normal infantry not) and are usually used to rush tanks (sprint - shoot - retreat).
at first glance, there is nothing wrong with that.
At second glance, trying to keep them off your precious tanks becomes interesting.

initial situation 1: 1 medium tank (pz4/f2/h/j, sherman w, cromwell), 1 squad infantry (terror grens, pe sturmgrens with stg44, rangers with thompsons, cw infantry with brens) vs 2 at squads
result: at squads charge and fire before the infantry was able to fend them off -> tank lost or heavily damaged
initial situation 2: 1 medium tank (pz4/f2/h/j, sherman , cromwell), 1 shredder (crusader, ostwind, wirbelwind) vs 2 at squads
result: at squads charge, get pinned, die/retreat -> nothing damaged

so a squad trained for fighting tanks/vehicles "wins" against infantry escort, but "fails" agains vehicle escort!

but as you said, a us ranger/we panzergren/pe assault gren -squad that picked 3 shreks (easy in late game) is superior to specialized at squads.
you where also right when you said, just removing/reducing sprint would be unfair.


therefore i'd say to reduce the sprint of the at-squad (disadvantage in scenario 1), but in order to mitigate this (and keep them from beeing outperformed) i'd give them a devensive bonus against tanks (less damage/suppression from tanks/vehicles + immunity/reduced duration from tank shock abilities [tiger/churchill]) (advantage in scenario 2).


edit:
found further fails: wher defensive 105mm arty has at vet3 more range with normal than with high range munition and kt has wrong symbols when put out of stationary mode

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3210
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Tiger1996 » 15 Sep 2016, 17:37

all units have a maximum attack range - they are able to shoot anyone inside that range, but not outside :D
they have also a target aquisition range - this is the range in which they will look for targets and shoot them by themselves; you don't need to give them explicit orders, the unit-ai does that for you

there are now 3 cases:
aquisition range > attack range - e.g. melee units: troops will have move until their target is in range in order to attack the target
aquisition range = attack range - should be common case: units simply attack an target within their range
aquisition range < attack range - fail case: units will only attack targets inside aquisition range, but are able to shoot targets further away. they just will not do it by themselves, as they are not considering these when they evaluated their situation. needless to say, that this is inconvenient, as you have to give them always orders in order to utilize their full range

Got it, i already excepted that this is what you meant in the first place.. but thanks for the clarification... So that anyone who reads could also understand what we are talking about here.

to clarify: i did not mean the sas you get from the glider, i meant those that come via parachute - IF they get the upgrades they are fine, but i doubt it

I also meant those dropped via parachutes... And yes, they are almost impossible to suppress even with HMG42s after both the defensive and the offensive upgrades of the RAF doc.

effect yes, cost maybe decrease by 5 or reduce cooldown, as it is just a one time ability compared to the timed ability of the axis pak

You shouldn't compare it that way.. for example... Axis 75mm paks don't have HE rounds, but the US 76mm AT guns can be equipped with HE rounds; and it's fine.
Also, the US 37mm AT gun crew are actually harder to kill than the Axis 37mm AT gun crew btw... They are better protected with their own heavy cover provided by their gun shield.


they should have less sprint, because a shrek weights 11kg and they carry 2 of them (pe has a panzerfaust instead of second shrek).
from a game play point of view: at squads become invisible in cover (normal infantry not) and are usually used to rush tanks (sprint - shoot - retreat).
at first glance, there is nothing wrong with that.
At second glance, trying to keep them off your precious tanks becomes interesting.

initial situation 1: 1 medium tank (pz4/f2/h/j, sherman w, cromwell), 1 squad infantry (terror grens, pe sturmgrens with stg44, rangers with thompsons, cw infantry with brens) vs 2 at squads
result: at squads charge and fire before the infantry was able to fend them off -> tank lost or heavily damaged
initial situation 2: 1 medium tank (pz4/f2/h/j, sherman , cromwell), 1 shredder (crusader, ostwind, wirbelwind) vs 2 at squads
result: at squads charge, get pinned, die/retreat -> nothing damaged

so a squad trained for fighting tanks/vehicles "wins" against infantry escort, but "fails" agains vehicle escort!

but as you said, a us ranger/we panzergren/pe assault gren -squad that picked 3 shreks (easy in late game) is superior to specialized at squads.
you where also right when you said, just removing/reducing sprint would be unfair.


therefore i'd say to reduce the sprint of the at-squad (disadvantage in scenario 1), but in order to mitigate this (and keep them from beeing outperformed) i'd give them a devensive bonus against tanks (less damage/suppression from tanks/vehicles + immunity/reduced duration from tank shock abilities [tiger/churchill]) (advantage in scenario 2).

SAS squads are limited to 2. Each of them provide 2 Brens and 2 upgraded Bazookas in 2 different packages...
Now, imagine a SAS squad equipped by 4 Brens.. and another equipped by 4 Bazookas. Keeping in mind that they are 7 men. And can also ambush, and are later almost invincible after the RAF doc upgrades! So, if you remove or even reduce the durability of the sprint ability of AT teams. This would make no sense, since that such other squads like the SAS as an example... Are later in fact much deadlier than AT teams against tanks.

One option would be to remove the sprint ability from ANY squad whenever equipped by handheld AT weapons... Or to reduce its durability.. but as I said, countering handheld AT weapons is not that hard as for now. And they were already nerfed in recent patches! So, currently everything should be fine.

Akrean
Posts: 14
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 19:36

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Akrean » 16 Sep 2016, 00:35

sas/reg5/gebirgsjagers are a differnt story - they are elite inf

Are later in fact much deadlier than AT teams against tanks

yes, therfore i changed my idea

make the at squads more resilient against tanks (evasion/damage reduction/whatever) but weaker against/easier to fend of with infantry (shorter sprint)

as for the emplacement thing:
emplacements with the attack ground ability can be ordered by clicking to attack a specific target (check with the .50 emplacement of us inf doc)
i'm not sure what happens when you add a requirement to the attack ground ability that can't be fulfilled - maybe one of the devs could verify it (I'd do it myself, but i have absolutly no ideo on how to modify the game)

oh - and found another fail (maybe just a wrong text)
sas sten commando thomson upgrade states that they could be bought near the cw main truck, but they need to be near the glider in order to purchase it

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3210
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Tiger1996 » 16 Sep 2016, 03:50

and kt has wrong symbols when put out of stationary mode

Which KT? The expensive or the cheap version? And what kind of wrong symbols?

Akrean
Posts: 14
Joined: 10 Sep 2016, 19:36

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Akrean » 16 Sep 2016, 13:47

never used the cheap one, therefore i have only observed it on the expensive one

it's the symbol displayed above the tank when in/out of rapid fire mode (we had a wide variety of symbols displayed here, including anti air mode, but the tank works as expected)

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3210
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Tiger1996 » 22 Sep 2016, 23:00

Hmm, back to this topic for one more time.. i would like to discuss about the AB planes again, specifically the bombing run airstrike.

I know that increasing their prices has already been taken into consideration for the next patch... But recently, i came to realize that increasing the cost won't help as much. As I believe they would be still easily affordable! Especially throughout 3vs3 and 4vs4 games. Even during some 2vs2 games.. thanks to supply drops.

So, how about not to touch the price.. while to make the airstrike drop only 1 bomb instead of 2?
I noticed that 1 bomb is actually enough to kill a KT with a direct hit currently, so.. it wouldn't be a problem at all i think.
The cost shall be the same.


1 more thing, i am aware that V1 was buffed already.. but even though, it still seem to be not doing enough damage against some certain targets. Or actually no damage at all against the SP, neither the Croc Churchill. Those specific 2 tanks can literally survive V1 almost always!

And once again, i would like to remind with what i have previously mentioned on the first page.. both the CW Crusaders and US Quad half-trucks seem to be absolutely over-performing against Henschels.
These type of planes should have much more HP... They should be more resistant to AA.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 1877
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby MarKr » 23 Sep 2016, 01:17

So...you suggest to make US bombing rung half as effective while keeping the same price? Seems a bit off. We have tuned down a little bit the AoE of the US bombs while inreasing the price a little bit too, let's see how that will work and then we can talk further.

We noticed the Henschels being too vulnerable to AA and some boost is being considered too.

As for V1...what does "can literally survive V1 almost always" mean? "Literally almost always" means "exactaly not every time"? :D I would like to remind that people always remember better the "one time out of ten" when a tank survives such a strike rather than those nine out of ten when it doesn't...if we consider that this is the first time anybody mentions this since I don't know how long...isn't this the case too?
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3210
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Tiger1996 » 23 Sep 2016, 01:41

So...you suggest to make US bombing rung half as effective while keeping the same price? Seems a bit off. We have tuned down a little bit the AoE of the US bombs while inreasing the price a little bit too, let's see how that will work and then we can talk further.

if so, then that's alright.. and yes; will have to be tested for sure.

We noticed the Henschels being too vulnerable to AA and some boost is being considered too.

Great!

As for V1...what does "can literally survive V1 almost always" mean? "Literally almost always" means "exactaly not every time"? :D I would like to remind that people always remember better the "one time out of ten" when a tank survives such a strike rather than those nine out of ten when it doesn't...if we consider that this is the first time anybody mentions this since I don't know how long...isn't this the case too?

Hmm, well i am not really sure to be honest.. but i have recently dropped the V1 right above the SP... It took no damage at all.. but all the other units nearby were totally wiped out! 2 ambushed Hellcats, 1 Scott, and 1 Sherman. Should have recorded that as an unlisted video so that you could probably see it.. but unfortunately, i lost the replay.
Same happened with a Croc, not long ago...

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 292
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Jalis » 23 Sep 2016, 07:23

Tiger1996 wrote: i have recently dropped the V1 right above the SP... It took no damage at all.. but all the other units nearby were totally wiped out! 2 ambushed Hellcats, 1 Scott, and 1 Sherman.


You dont need évidences. It is a normal feature. SP is not a normal tank. It s an ace / Armour_elite. Aces are sometime able to completly escape damages.

Point it seems at bk the jagdpanther is still an ace, depiste I warned of it years ago. It gained this status from a copy/paste from Vcoh. Ace was forgoten and not removed.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3210
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Tiger1996 » 23 Sep 2016, 07:36

The JagdPanther is too expensive already. So, i guess there is absolutely no problem if so! Although i honestly doubt.
Since it easily dies to Long Tom and airstrikes!
Anyway; if the JP isn't supposed to be an Ace.. then the SP isn't supposed to be as such either... Or well, we are even still discussing to remove the SP entirely from the game after all.
Only 2 tanks should be Ace though, Pershing Ace and Tiger Ace. But I guess the JagdPanther is far from being an Ace currently anyhow...

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 292
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Jalis » 23 Sep 2016, 18:30

answer core was to explain why your SP survived the V1 attak when everything around died.

Jadgpanther story is an anecdote.

Now to be accurate ACE is a player point of view. It include a pack where you have a big tank with experienced tank commander.
Technically it is a critical type, so correct word would be TP_armour_elite. closest comparaison would be former KCH that had an elite critical Like. (critical infantry_heroic)

Once more main answer is the first sentence, here. below are only some détails.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3210
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Tiger1996 » 28 Sep 2016, 02:17

Tiger1996 wrote:-{I think I mentioned this on another topic} But again, CW shouldn't be able to build 17p emplacements as default or before picking any doctrine. This way you can currently build 17p emplacements then choose RAF doc afterwards!

One more thing i really NEED to add there, 50.cal Quads should be possible to construct only with AB engineers!
Because currently, AB doc could literally build the emplaced version of this thing even as soon as Barracks using normal Engineers.. which is a huge advantage btw.

And Luft doc can't build the equivalent 20mm flaks except with Luft Pios...

Yafa
Posts: 105
Joined: 25 Jun 2015, 00:26

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Yafa » 28 Sep 2016, 11:17

Tiger1996 wrote:
Tiger1996 wrote:-{I think I mentioned this on another topic} But again, CW shouldn't be able to build 17p emplacements as default or before picking any doctrine. This way you can currently build 17p emplacements then choose RAF doc afterwards!

One more thing i really NEED to add there, 50.cal Quads should be possible to construct only with AB engineers!
Because currently, AB doc could literally build the emplaced version of this thing even as soon as Barracks using normal Engineers.. which is a huge advantage btw.

And Luft doc can't build the equivalent 20mm flaks except with Luft Pios...

yes
airborne can build it too early

User avatar
Frost
Posts: 94
Joined: 25 Sep 2016, 20:25

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Frost » 28 Sep 2016, 12:14

Yafa wrote:
Tiger1996 wrote:
Tiger1996 wrote:-{I think I mentioned this on another topic} But again, CW shouldn't be able to build 17p emplacements as default or before picking any doctrine. This way you can currently build 17p emplacements then choose RAF doc afterwards!

One more thing i really NEED to add there, 50.cal Quads should be possible to construct only with AB engineers!
Because currently, AB doc could literally build the emplaced version of this thing even as soon as Barracks using normal Engineers.. which is a huge advantage btw.

And Luft doc can't build the equivalent 20mm flaks except with Luft Pios...

yes
airborne can build it too early

what do you mean in late game your squads are way powerful than airborne so basically i don't see a problem in that giving them an advantage

also you can make mortar fast )
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3210
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Tiger1996 » 28 Sep 2016, 12:19

RAF and AB docs have best inf in late game... Such low upkeep cost.. and plenty of squads rolling everywhere!

in maps such as Linden for example; AB doc player would simply block the city part in the first 3 minutes of the game with this Quad 50 emplacements, which is not fine of course.
Last edited by Tiger1996 on 28 Sep 2016, 12:24, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Frost
Posts: 94
Joined: 25 Sep 2016, 20:25

Re: Feedback about balance in 4.9.5

Postby Frost » 28 Sep 2016, 12:23

Tiger1996 wrote:RAF and AB docs have best inf in late game... Such low upkeep cost.. and plenty of squads rolling everywhere!

in maps such as Linden for example; AB doc player would simply block the city part in the first 3 minutes of the game, which is not fine of course.

whaaat raf??? 1 terror grenadiers with mg42 can kill up to 3 squads and also stormtropppers with vit and mg34 as well

and AB xD if they didnt throw a fire grande gl surviving

and raf as well need to many command points to be eff unlike Germans they need 2 or 4 max
Image


Return to “General - CoH1 / BKMOD1”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest