The Unit Balance Thread

Ask, comment, read.
Adronio
Colonel
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:05 pm

The Unit Balance Thread

Unread postby Adronio » Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:39 am

I think we need a place for all the players to put their complaints about balance in, and for the devs to respond to, so here goes.

Generally I'm very happy with the unit balance in UoC2. The 6+3 division composition for the allies and 7+1 for the axis works well, giving them a nice, distinct feel, and the specialists all have their own niche. However, there is one specialist I feel might be too good, especially for the price: The US SP anti-tank specialist. Cheap, coming in at only 10 prestige, reasonably well protected within the division and with very nice stats. 6 attack 8 defense is very reasonable for that price, being the same as most special forces, even without the +3* Armour Shift. The specialist has a ton of milage in my games, from being used in its intended role of stopping panzers from completely smashing my infantry, to infantry support in order to break through tough targets entrenched in cities and forests where artillery alone can't win, to being used in US armoured divisions in order to combat German Panzer divisions with ease. They get used everywhere, for good reason, while the poor US tank specialists, the Sherman's, barely get bought at all! At 25 prestige, 8 attack 6 defense and +1 armour doesn't seem very impressive. For infantry support its both very expensive and not much better then just using the tank destroyers, since the +1 armour will probably be negated by the organic anti-tank of German infantry. In armoured divisions you'll probably see the effects of the extra armoured shift, but at the same time with their higher base stats they don't need the extra attack the specialist brings as much, and they can get better support in form of the SP artillery specialist, which gives +2 artillery shift that'll apply in more circumstances.

In short I think the US TD specialist needs a nerf, and the US tank specialists could maybe use a small buff. Reducing the TD stats to something like 4 attack 6 defense and +2* armour, bringing it closer to the SU-76 we had in UoC1 could probably work. If you're still concerned about what that 1 extra armoured shift German panzers might get you could give US infantry organic anti-tank of their own to match the Germans. They DID have bazookas after all, and even without the anti-tank specialists US infantry would probably have some anti tank guns of their own, too.
If that doesn't tickle your fancy you could also increase the price of the specialist to 15 prestige, although that won't do much alone imo. Maybe some combination of the two if you'd like

genBrooks
Brigadier General
Posts: 392
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2019 8:47 pm

Re: The Unit Balance Thread

Unread postby genBrooks » Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:41 pm

US TDs were primarily artillery support for infantry units but I agree M10 should have slightly worse stats but price (10) at the same level, and Devs should introduce M36 Jackson SP TD later, which should cost 25-30 and should have better stats IMHO

JBerg2021
Captain
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:01 pm

Re: The Unit Balance Thread

Unread postby JBerg2021 » Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:05 pm

I would counter that recommendation a bit. I think the SP AT for the US is actually fine, especially considering the raw attack power of German Panzer units - the Allied player needs something that potent and prolific to play effectively, especially in Classic mode or harder.

I would actually recommend that the US and British Armor support have a higher Armor shift, at least if paired with infantry. I often find myself wishing I could have an infantry division equipped with Engineers, Artillery, and Armor to make a potent assault division, but removing the SP AT loses so many armor shifts that they're actually less effective divisions, even against German Infantry. I'm not sure if there's a way to treat support to infantry and armor differently, but I really do feel that the armor support should be much more potent when attached to Infantry.

I also have a hard time conceptualizing what the M4 is supposed to be, whether just a base M4 Sherman battalion (of which there were many), or as specialized M4 equipment (the 105mm for infantry or the 76mm for Armor, boosting the killing power of US Armor divisions). The Firefly's place in the British armor makes much more sense to me historically, as does the Cromwell, since those represent specialized equipment that boosted British Armor Division power.

And yes, I do think adding the M36 starting in the Fall 1944 Campaign period would be excellent, bringing those 90mm guns to bear (maybe just give it the same stats as the Firefly). If you really want to nerf the M10 at all, I would say just reduce its attack to 4 instead of 6.

Adronio
Colonel
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:05 pm

Re: The Unit Balance Thread

Unread postby Adronio » Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:39 pm

JBerg2021 wrote:I would actually recommend that the US and British Armor support have a higher Armor shift, at least if paired with infantry. I often find myself wishing I could have an infantry division equipped with Engineers, Artillery, and Armor to make a potent assault division, but removing the SP AT loses so many armor shifts that they're actually less effective divisions, even against German Infantry.


SP AT doesn't give armour shifts, it just reduces the opponents armour shifts, so when attacking German Infantry it doesn't so anything apart from increasing attack by 6, which while significant is less then a tank specialists which gives 8. When attacking tanks with infantry SP AT doesn't help more then Tanks either, since the defending division doesn't get armoured shifts anyways.

kvnrthr
Captain
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: The Unit Balance Thread

Unread postby kvnrthr » Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:15 am

Why nerf TD specialists? All Allied infantry are far, far too weak to German tanks as is.

Now the Sherman tank specialist really does need a buff. +1 armor essentially disappears against the German AT value, so it is worthless most of the time attached to the infantry. Same with the Cromwell. The armor effect only really kicks in when you attach this to tanks, as their existing armor value is enough to negate the German infantry AT value. Doubly so if the German infantry actually has AT support attached.

It's the same problem as the original UOC: I'm encouraged to strip infantry of any tank support and cram it into my armor divisions instead, in order to actually use the combat shift.

In fact I always take the Greyhound instead. 7 attack, 4 defense, +1 armor AND recon ability, all for the cheap price of 15 points! Who would ever take the Sherman instead of these? Pay more for less capability?

Churchills I find marginally more useful just by the fact that the tank bonus doesn't completely disappear. Although, once again I much prefer to stick them on armored divisions who can make better use of the shifts.

Perhaps we could have an extra +1 attack/defense shift for the presence of any armor support in infantry units, irrespective of enemy AT value.

kvnrthr
Captain
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: The Unit Balance Thread

Unread postby kvnrthr » Fri Dec 06, 2019 6:20 am

On a separate note, I find the use of the Hobart tanks quite sad. Historically this unit had bulldozers, heavy cannons and flamethrowers to crack through defensive positions, while in game their only special ability is to hang around during amphibious landings and river crossings, both of which are quite rare. Otherwise they function like the regular Churchills.

It would be awesome to see these get the engineer capability, perhaps with a reduced armor shift to compensate. Although this might necessitate the reduction of available engineer units for the British.

Ritalingamer
Colonel
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:05 pm

Re: The Unit Balance Thread

Unread postby Ritalingamer » Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:51 pm

kvnrthr wrote:On a separate note, I find the use of the Hobart tanks quite sad. Historically this unit had bulldozers, heavy cannons and flamethrowers to crack through defensive positions, while in game their only special ability is to hang around during amphibious landings and river crossings, both of which are quite rare. Otherwise they function like the regular Churchills.

It would be awesome to see these get the engineer capability, perhaps with a reduced armor shift to compensate. Although this might necessitate the reduction of available engineer units for the British.


That would be amazing, but it would also be OP and possible damage the game balance at this late stage.

Adronio
Colonel
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:05 pm

Re: The Unit Balance Thread

Unread postby Adronio » Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:09 pm

Ritalingamer wrote:
kvnrthr wrote:On a separate note, I find the use of the Hobart tanks quite sad. Historically this unit had bulldozers, heavy cannons and flamethrowers to crack through defensive positions, while in game their only special ability is to hang around during amphibious landings and river crossings, both of which are quite rare. Otherwise they function like the regular Churchills.

It would be awesome to see these get the engineer capability, perhaps with a reduced armor shift to compensate. Although this might necessitate the reduction of available engineer units for the British.


That would be amazing, but it would also be OP and possible damage the game balance at this late stage.


It would absolutely do both of those things. Just add an engineer to the division together with the HF-tank for the best Hobart's Funnies experience.

User avatar
Danielefc
2x2 Games
Posts: 1142
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: The Unit Balance Thread

Unread postby Danielefc » Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:22 am

kvnrthr wrote:On a separate note, I find the use of the Hobart tanks quite sad. Historically this unit had bulldozers, heavy cannons and flamethrowers to crack through defensive positions, while in game their only special ability is to hang around during amphibious landings and river crossings, both of which are quite rare. Otherwise they function like the regular Churchills.

It would be awesome to see these get the engineer capability, perhaps with a reduced armor shift to compensate. Although this might necessitate the reduction of available engineer units for the British.


*cough* - They do have engineering capability. And they are super OP :lol: (which is why you can't buy them ;) )

kvnrthr
Captain
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: The Unit Balance Thread

Unread postby kvnrthr » Mon Dec 09, 2019 5:17 am

Yeah, I usually try to stick Churchills/Priests/Engineers to some British infantry divisions so I don't have to rely on towed equipment all the time. A Hobart with armor and engineers would definitely ruin balance as well, although that won't stop me from modding it in myself in single player :D

Back to the first point though, hoping the Shermans see some change for usefulness. Too pricey for what it offers as armor gets cancelled by the bulk of infantry units.