[1.72]SU vs PE

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.

Dot.Shadow wrote:
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.

QuoteYou 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.

Quote
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.

QuoteEh, 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.

Bandaro wrote:
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 :)

Bandaro wrote:

QuoteEh, 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.

Last edited February 24, 2013 at 12:04 PM by Dot.Shadow

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.

Dann88 wrote:
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.

Last edited February 24, 2013 at 2:10 PM by Dot.Shadow

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.

Last edited February 24, 2013 at 4:06 PM by Pac-Fish

Pac-Fish wrote:
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.

Quote
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.

Last edited February 24, 2013 at 8:25 PM by dArCReAvEr

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.

Last edited February 27, 2013 at 2:07 PM by GodlikeDennis

GodlikeDennis wrote:
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.

Quote
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."

Last edited February 27, 2013 at 3:31 PM by dArCReAvEr

Well if you buff Strelky rifles you need to buff guard rifles since vanilla guards would end up doing less than vanilla Strelky.

Quote 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

132 wrote:

Well if you buff Strelky rifles you need to buff guard rifles since vanilla guards would end up doing less than vanilla Strelky.

Quote 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.

dArCReAvEr wrote:

132 wrote:

Well if you buff Strelky rifles you need to buff guard rifles since vanilla guards would end up doing less than vanilla Strelky.

Quote 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.

GodlikeDennis wrote:
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.

Last edited April 24, 2013 at 3:20 PM by anakond

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 :)