US Balance discussion and doctrines

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[EliteGren]

so what % buff are ATGs getting now from TR?

[Tachibana]

Once the patch is live, it should be +25% dmg, acc and pen along with +9% range.

[Hicks58]

Words and numbers about the Bazooka.

Math checks out, and I agree with Skaffa that an accuracy buff alone would be a good thing for Bazookas in TR. Penetration buff didn't do much but the damage buff made for some hilarious as fuck damage stacking.

[skaffa]

What do we all think about BARs with top T4 inf doc, Operation Overlord?
Top t4 gives +1 BAR, sounds nice but it isnt really great imo. I know no1 ever takes this T4, so. What if that Improved Officer Aura from that T4 applies to BARs as well? Would that be OP or worth a try?

---

The T3 before it, called Oversupplied, gives a tank aura, but not sure if its working or not. Ingame there is no indicator on your inf (I had m10/hellcat next to unit). No white glow or gold stars. Other auras do have this. Should prolly add this in.

---

The US officer is 3 man squad right, or was it 2? Anyway iirc if u kill the officerguy of the team u lose the aura buff, and if u kill the radioman (rifledude carrying radio on his back) u lose the smoke offmap. Imo we should change this, its too annoying, u easily lose one of the buffs u paid for.
So imo we should change it so that even if u have 1 guy left in squad u should still be able to do smoke offmap AND get the aura.

[Hicks58]

FYI All Officers operate on the same system as the US one, in that the loss of the Officer means the loss of the buff and any abilities. The US one actually has it easier as there is still partial usage even if one of the members dies.

Also, the thing is that 3 BAR Riflemen squads actually have a pretty crazy level of firepower, even 2 BAR's is pretty high up there... It's just that Riflemen are extremely brittle and rely on cover or transport to not die to a passing breeze. Attempts to use smoke to get around this completely kill the lethality gained from it as BAR's rely on putting a load of bullets on target, where 0.25 acc from smoke means they'll no longer hit worth a damn.

It's a bit of a touchy area.

Buff the damage output via more BAR's or Improved Officer Aura being applied to the BAR's? Riflemen become murder machines if they get themselves into good circumstances. Give Riflemen some more survivability? Well, imagine Rangers with BAR's and you'll get a fair idea of how that'd pan out.

I can't say I know the best solution for Riflemen, BAR's, and that T4. Riflemen require an exquisitely fine hand to out perform other infantry, a constant 100% level of focus in every engagement with complete situational awareness... I know I can't do it consistently, which is why I avoid using Riflemen as front liners myself. I wouldn't quite know what would need to be done, which wouldn't have them end up with the sort of hilarity that G43's ended up with, facerolling all they meet.

[Scotzmen]

So rangers do have the increased accuracy on their  zooks btw guys.

Also, I'll let people get a shoe in on rifleman, as hicks said, it's difficult to change them to preform

[aeroblade56]

Riflemen would be fine if there was you know a middle unit like the gren but there isn't so i guess we have to make due with rifles.

i think the biggest problem with riflemen is outside of Infantry doctrine and specifically 1 tree rifles get almost 0 buffs. 

im talking strictly riflemen not doctrinal riflemen like Airborne have.

Armor has a aura provided which gives +20% accuracy in a tiny aura. and guess whats thats it for armor.

Airborne is almost entirely dedicated towards you guessed it airborne rifles and airborne.

if you like at all wehr doctrines, they buff infantry. sometimes it is pretty big like elite armor on grens or something like that or just a measly -10% accuracy in cover. but all wehr coys have it.


the only thing i can suggest for riflemen is giving them grease guns x4 available for all US factions. and maybe buff the bar and make that a unlock instead?.

[nikomas]

Grease guns riflemen are almost worthless without the smoke greandes, extra health and protection, triages, revives and other stuff given from infantry doctrine. In all honestly, the only way rifleme were ever combat compeditive were in the delicious Oversupplied + Allied grit days (3x bars/6x grease + allied grit). Now that was some useful riflemen. Not murder machines exactly, but useful combat troops.

[Hicks58]

Grenade Riflemen make excellent disposable assault troops on the cheap.

The problem is, you'll expend the Riflemen in the process as they WILL take too many losses in the squad to do anything further in a combat role besides cap.

Grenadiers, PzGrenadiers, Tommies, etc, they can all do the same thing (Tommies with grenade unlock) and still be pretty combat capable afterwards.

It's a very fine line with Riflemen due to the capacity of what they CAN do, but how difficult it usually is.

[Scotzmen]

The T3 before it, called Oversupplied, gives a tank aura, but not sure if its working or not. Ingame there is no indicator on your inf (I had m10/hellcat next to unit). No white glow or gold stars. Other auras do have this. Should prolly add this in.

So i took a look, and there's nothing in the RGD's about it. Not on infantry squads or the tanks. No abilities no nothing.

So I'll modify the churchill one from RSE and get that shit working with a aura display.

[Tachibana]

Perhaps we should consider moving the +25% atg health from locked and loaded to TR, since the ATG is basically the backbone of TR T4 now?

[aeroblade56]

Perhaps we should consider moving the +25% atg health from locked and loaded to TR, since the ATG is basically the backbone of TR T4 now?

Man locked and loaded looking shittier by the day.

[Tachibana]

Just give it a jumbo or lmg/smoke nade buff.

[Dauntless07]

I've been playing mostly US since the Doctrine wipe; mind I am one of the worst US players, so take it with a grain of salt. (Also, can I not make Spoilers here?)


In terms of base faction design, US is easily the worst for many reasons.

Reasons
[spoiler]
First off, Thank God for Zooks on Rifles. While it doesn't do much against Axis armor, at least their light vehicle spam is being kept in check. Thanks for that Tank. The problem remains that US is pretty weak in terms of Anti-Tank ability. 57mm ATGs are okay, but can only do so much. The WM/PE vehicles easily move out of the way as they awkwardly move into position, and without cloak, they are incredibly vulnerable to enemy snipers. Once they are removed, the US doesn't have many other options. One is the Tank Destroyer vehicles of course, but the Wolverine and Hellcat are so inferior to Axis armor, that I almost don't count them as a form of AT. The only reason they are in every Coy is because we have a ton of FU to spend that non-doc US will never use otherwise.

That leaves Sticky Bombs as the only other form of AT. Even so, I can't help but feel they aren't reliable. Even if you stick the enemy vehicle, it won't stop them from shooting, and the Rifles squad will die long before the painfully slow timer recharges. All that time, the enemy vehicle is still doing its thing like nothing happened, and once it is finished raping your army, it can easily fall back to repair. And that's assuming you can throw one off with the tiny throwing range of stickies in the first place. With infantry supporting that armor, those squishy Rifles are often cut down long before they get into range, making any sort of offensive next to impossible.

The defensive isn't much better. Little things like the longer range of the WM mortar turn any siege decisively into the Axis favor. Not to mention the US MG is just flat out bad. If the enemy wanders into the tiny cone of fire, it will take some time to suppress, meanwhile the enemy is still moving in. They are also incredibly vulnerable to snipers. I am convinced there is no counter to the Sniper but a skilled counter-snipe. Like I mentioned before, going on the offensive with the US is pretty much impossible because they have no dedicated assault infantry. The Axis defense makes US offense next to impossible. The hard sniper counter, the Jeep, is next to useless as a sniper hunter. I'd say with 3 Jeeps and 2 Quads you could rush through the Axis AT to kill the sniper, but at that point, I'd say the sniper paid for itself.

Finally, the infantry themselves, wow. Rifles die so fast and kill no one. They are not worth even 200 MP. While the flexibility in what the squad can do (in theory) is impressive, in practice, they are so weak they die long before they are able to do much of anything. The only thing that made these losses acceptable before was the first aid option, that revived wounded soldiers, but now, with the weakest infantry in the game, and no non-doc healing available, of course Rifles get raped. Next, Marines were recently added as non-doctrinal. Knowing the old form would be too strong, they've been given Garands, with some buffs, and it took less than a day to realize they were not worth the 280 MP. An so, I hear they are getting their old Springfield back with an Enfield performance model. The real problem for US here seems obvious; that Garands are the shittiest Rifles in the game, at least that's my impression. Also, for a unit that is supposed to be the heavy mainline infantry for US it doesn't do much to aid in offense. They are a better grenade platform than rifles, but the LMG is the real upgrade you want, making them solid defenders in the sieges that overwhelmingly favor Axis.
[/spoiler]

Suggestions:
That wall of text being said, here's some ideas I've had in the past days to make the plight of the US a little better. Mostly it's stuff i haven't put much thought into yet, but just some ideas of things that could be done, some of which are already shot own, I know, but just explaining my reasoning.

-Straight up make Garands better
Rifles remain, in my opinion, not worth their base 200 MP cost. If they are intended to move in close and beat down the enemy hit points with their superior fire rate, they need to be dealing more damage. Whether that should take the form of increased damage per shot or increased fire rate is up for debate. in practice, Rifles are little more than weak grenade throwers.

-Make Garands better, but an Upgrade
200 MP too low for a squad with decent guns? (Not that they couldn't be modified to cost more to begin with) Okay, what if they were equipped with Springfield surplus rifles by default, (only really crappy ones,) and the Garands were a MU upgrade that were about as good at long range, but could fire much faster in medium or close range situations? They would not suppress, you'd need the BAR for that, they would simply be a clear improvement over the originals for a low MU cost to balance it out.

-Flamethrower option on Marines
Is anyone really scared when they see Engineers with a Flamethrower? That squad can easily be targeted, and the Flamethrower isn't a weapon that gets dropped to be reused. US lacks a viable infantry platform for assaulting enemy defenses, and the obvious choice in driving the enemy out of green cover is Flames. With this upgrade, you would choose to equip the Marines with an LMG for defense, OR the Flamethrower for offense.

-Reduce the cooldown on Stickies
Because hitting an enemy vehicle with a sticky will not stop them from murdering your guys, they need more incentive to GTFO. Reducing the cooldown on Stickies to the point where enemies that stick around will get stuck again is a powerful way to encourage said avoiding. Currently, stickies are not worth the 60 MU cost. The lazy thing to do would be to lower cost, which encourages putting Stickies on more squads, which we don't want.

-As for ATGs, I don't think giving them cloak is the way to go. I actually think the weapon is fine as is. Perhaps upping the crew to 4 men instead of 3 could compensate for the added vulnerability to snipers, and give them added staying power unique to the US. If they would have too many hitpoints, just lower them. This idea is intended only to protect against snipers. I can't think of anything else to help the situation there. If it is a good idea, maybe the same courtesy could be spread to the US MG and Mortar as well, since each are already far inferior to their Axis counterparts in every way.

That's all for now; may post more as I play/observe.

[Hicks58]

First off Dauntless, I'd like to say I appreciate that you've took the time to present your findings coherently. Correct or not, you've backed your points with some reasoning, rather than simply shout US IS UNDERPOWERED, BUFF BUFF!

People should take note of his presentation, as it sets a fairly good example of how to get your voice heard.

Reasons...

First off, I need to break down your reasoning before I approach your suggestions.

Zook rifles are intended explicitly for giving US a universally accessible option against LV's. They CAN do some damage vs medium armour and above on a flank, but that is a target of opportunity situation, not full design intention.

57mm ATG's are fine as they are, they are the hardest hitting non-doctrinal piece of AT in the game pulling 150 damage per shot and 187.5 when using AP rounds with guaranteed penetration vs any tank currently in the mod. Even when they bounce, they have a 50% deflection modifier, dealing 75 damage, which is pretty much a medium tank shell (87.5 damage). Protection from Snipers is on the player, careless use of 57mm's will result in your main AT supply dwindling fast, careful use will see you dominating the field.

The idea that the Wolverine and Hellcat are inferior to Axis armour is simply incorrect. To put it in perspective, an M10 can sit in front of a PzIV and win a straight up slugging fight, losing only if it misses at any point. If ANY form of secondary AT is present, the M10 will shine. The M18 will simply wreck anything the Axis can currently field due to it's very high penetration, and can pose a legitimate threat to even Panthers, should the Panther take even light damage before engaging. Again, keeping your M10's and M18's out of handheld AT and ATG fire is down to the player, this is where good scouting and picking your engagement comes in - which is not a problem with the unit.

Now sticky bombs are a defensive weapon. You CANNOT assault with them, and you'll only ever pull it off if the enemy is blatantly not paying attention. Their design is as a deterrent, to prevent tanks and LV's from simply lol-charging into your more static or fragile AT pieces... Such as ATG's. You need to adjust your use of the weapon, rather than request the weapon is adjusted to your use.

The longer range of the WM mortar is a myth, the range of the US and WM mortar were equalised about a year ago, something that few people seemed to take notice of. Even then, the US mortar is still better as a smoke dispenser, which the Allies can benefit from more than the Axis. The US MG has the same firing arc as the WM MG, and will suppress anything quite decently, just not on your first burst at max range like the WM MG can. Again, something you need to adjust your play style to.

I will give you one thing though, there is a notable problem with the US's ability to take down a well covered Sniper. Smoke can heavily tip the odds in your favour, but we are looking at ways to provide the US with a way to deal with Snipers better, or deal with it's support better so it can more effectively use it's current Sniper counters.

Now, I've already put a massive amount in to each point on your reasoning, and this is a massive post as it stands so I'll break down your infantry analysis in tandem with the rest of your points.

You're trying to play the US like it's WM. It simply isn't. You either need to massively adjust your play style, or try different factions which may be more naturally suited to the directly aggressive style of play you want to enact.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for your suggestions.

-Straight up make Garands better
Rifles remain, in my opinion, not worth their base 200 MP cost. If they are intended to move in close and beat down the enemy hit points with their superior fire rate, they need to be dealing more damage. Whether that should take the form of increased damage per shot or increased fire rate is up for debate. in practice, Rifles are little more than weak grenade throwers.

If you want strong line infantry, grab Marines. If you want utility and recrew infantry, grab Riflemen. Marines are in constant adjustment for the moment, until they reach a level of performance we are comfortable with.

-Flamethrower option on Marines
Is anyone really scared when they see Engineers with a Flamethrower? That squad can easily be targeted, and the Flamethrower isn't a weapon that gets dropped to be reused. US lacks a viable infantry platform for assaulting enemy defenses, and the obvious choice in driving the enemy out of green cover is Flames. With this upgrade, you would choose to equip the Marines with an LMG for defense, OR the Flamethrower for offense.

Engineers with flamethrowers are extremely effective units, particularly when used in either multiples or alongside smoke. A lot of US aggressive play revolves around one of two areas, solid smoke/transport use, or elite infantry. Elite infantry will come with doctrines, but for the moment, if you want Riflemen to not turn into a smudge in an assault, be smart.

-Reduce the cooldown on Stickies
Because hitting an enemy vehicle with a sticky will not stop them from murdering your guys, they need more incentive to GTFO. Reducing the cooldown on Stickies to the point where enemies that stick around will get stuck again is a powerful way to encourage said avoiding. Currently, stickies are not worth the 60 MU cost. The lazy thing to do would be to lower cost, which encourages putting Stickies on more squads, which we don't want.

Whilst stickies are a defensive weapon, alterations to them ARE on the cards. Standardising the range to vet 2 range without needing vet 2 in the first place is looking like the promising option, so that they remain potent and reasonably priced. This of course, is subject to change.

-As for ATGs, I don't think giving them cloak is the way to go. I actually think the weapon is fine as is. Perhaps upping the crew to 4 men instead of 3 could compensate for the added vulnerability to snipers, and give them added staying power unique to the US. If they would have too many hitpoints, just lower them. This idea is intended only to protect against snipers. I can't think of anything else to help the situation there. If it is a good idea, maybe the same courtesy could be spread to the US MG and Mortar as well, since each are already far inferior to their Axis counterparts in every way.

Methods of dealing with Snipers will be seen to soon, but upping crew to 4 man is an interesting proposition. However, it is not an immediate priority, as the US support weapons function fine as they stand. It could be an idea that comes back with doctrines, for those that want really solid support weapon play.

Keep the input flowing, and I'll keep the responses coming.

[Scotzmen]

Giving flamethrowers to frontline infatry are a bad idea.

Just look at Rifle company commander in COH2. (being removed in december ;()

[AlphaTIG]

Giving flamethrowers to frontline infatry are a bad idea.

Just look at Rifle company commander in COH2. (being removed in december ;()

i think it at least worth discussing.

first of all there already is flamethrower assault infantry in the game for the PE and secondly flamers work work a little different in coh2, as in theyre far more deadly.

anyways i dont think it should be on marines, maybe a doctrinal unlock for rifleman?

[XIIcorps]

i think it at least worth discussing.

first of all there already is flamethrower assault infantry in the game for the PE and secondly flamers work work a little different in coh2, as in theyre far more deadly.

anyways i dont think it should be on marines, maybe a doctrinal unlock for rifleman?

trench busters have Flamers, and apart from the lol phase of being stuck in a Bren, see little to no use.

Sticking Flamers on mainline inf would just see spam, and irrc assault flamens grens area doctrinal unlock and rather expensive compared to what you would pay to arm rifles.

[tank130]

Marines will not get flamers.

Dauntless07 heard us talking about it in our last dev meeting - that's where he got the idea from.

[Dauntless07]

First off Dauntless, I'd like to say I appreciate that you've took the time to present your findings coherently. Correct or not, you've backed your points with some reasoning, rather than simply shout US IS UNDERPOWERED, BUFF BUFF!

People should take note of his presentation, as it sets a fairly good example of how to get your voice heard.

...

I will give you one thing though, there is a notable problem with the US's ability to take down a well covered Sniper. Smoke can heavily tip the odds in your favour, but we are looking at ways to provide the US with a way to deal with Snipers better, or deal with it's support better so it can more effectively use it's current Sniper counters.

...

Methods of dealing with Snipers will be seen to soon, but upping crew to 4 man is an interesting proposition. However, it is not an immediate priority, as the US support weapons function fine as they stand. It could be an idea that comes back with doctrines, for those that want really solid support weapon play.

Keep the input flowing, and I'll keep the responses coming.

Good to know I got at least one thing right. Are there any ideas on dealing with Snipers as US by the way? I was in a game just yesterday, where I was facing another untouchable sniper, because Ostwind +2 Shrek Grens said "No." to every sniper counter like Jeep, Shreks stop any and all American Tanks to counter Ostwind, (in fact, I think another player threw in a Pak38 for good measure,) and sniper said "No." to counters of that like ATG and MGs. I actually managed to get off a counter-snipe at one point, but would you believe my guy missed?

I don't think Ostwind or Grens with Shreks are a problem, but the sniper just puts the combo over the top. Not sure what, if anything, can be done.

Oh, and as for your last point there, WM already had fatherland defense that does essentially the same thing, (I assume this will make another appearance,) so I don't see why the US shouldn't have the same option at least. The thing is, once an ATG loses just one guy, it's really hard to protect an ATG with 2 men from instant sniper decrew, and the only reliable protection of planting a building between the sniper and your support crews renders them useless anyway.

This isn't meant to be a rant comment, I really would like to field US companies with lots of support. MGs ATGs and Mortars are far more effective than Rifles, but I know it is a waste of time as long as snipers are untouchable, and I'm just pointing out how it is limiting my US company design to the largest amount of cannon fodder Rifles as possible to keep the damage to a minimum.