[1.72]SU vs PE

[Dreamerbg]

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

[Pac-Fish]

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.

[Hendrik 'DarcReaver' S.]

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.

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.

[GodlikeDennis]

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.

[Hendrik 'DarcReaver' S.]

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.

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."

[krupp steel]

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

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

[Hendrik 'DarcReaver' S.]

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

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.

[Alexander 'ApeMen' J.]

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

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

[krupp steel]

And also cost more too.

[Dot.Shadow]

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.

[anakond]

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.

[dragonmith]

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