Dawn of War 2

**Catachan changes** Something you might want to consider small sons

Reply to this topic Start new topic
# 215*General Feb 9 2012, 23:44 PM
QUOTE(RagingJenni @ Feb 8 2012, 05:53 AM) *
Nerf medpack, and catas will be fine (so will 2x cata opening).

Catas are already effective with a well-played Inq as well though from personal experience. Actually, I prefer Catas w/Inq over Catas w/LG tbh.

Posts: 5,304

Game: Dawn of War 2

+
# 22Cursed Feb 10 2012, 02:37 AM
Catachans with lg rock for two reasons.

1. Medi packs

2. Gogogogo

I mean, sure it all costs power, but you've a damn effective fighting force when it's invested.

That and seeing as the nade launcher is anti building on top of both the catachans nade barrages, well, your pretty set for everything except for vs turrets.
1399 1392 1529

Posts: 2,074

Game: Dawn of War 2

+
# 23Nuclear Arbitor Feb 10 2012, 03:24 AM
and LG can, afaik, out range turrets, although I'm not sure how much damage it does.

Posts: 1,909

Game: Dawn of War 2

+
# 24RagingJenni Feb 10 2012, 06:54 AM
Flank with gogogogo! Smoke the turret, IE the turret and you won vs it.
1382 1461 770

Posts: 2,892

Game: Company of Heroes

+
# 25koshey Feb 10 2012, 17:29 PM
You'd figure he'd take someting from it, especially since he is apprently quite reasonably good at it.

Posts: 2,693

Game: Dawn of War 2

+
# 26Jaigen Feb 10 2012, 20:05 PM
Dont the cata sarge and demo use the same weapon as the standard cata? otherwise they have a 12% melee buff when fully upgraded.

Posts: 930

+
# 27Cursed Feb 10 2012, 21:59 PM
im not sure why catachans have so many die last models, they really dont do much for the squad cept sit there and make it more awkard to get into cover....

post-13661-1143531603.gif
1399 1392 1529

Posts: 2,074

Game: Dawn of War 2

+
# 28HARRYY Feb 11 2012, 15:23 PM
I find a bit weird in the next patch that 5 catachans can take it up on 3 ASM, but I think the cata change is for the better balance anyways. medpack catas beat vanilla ASM tho ^^ hmmmm.... it's also better for cover and pathing with only 5 members.
1626 1212 ...

Posts: 5,985

Game: Dawn of War 2

+
# 29Dark Riku Feb 12 2012, 15:09 PM
QUOTE(HARRY RUSS @ Feb 11 2012, 17:23 PM) *

I find a bit weird in the next patch that 5 catachans can take it up on 3 ASM, but I think the cata change is for the better balance anyways. medpack catas beat vanilla ASM tho ^^ hmmmm.... it's also better for cover and pathing with only 5 members.


We could solve this by making space marines squad 1-2 models strong, will be more fluffy, better cover seeking and pathing.
1719 1901 2253

Posts: 1,594

Game: Dawn of War 2

+
# 30PanzerX Feb 12 2012, 18:04 PM
QUOTE(Dark Riku @ Feb 12 2012, 07:09 AM) *

We could solve this by making space marines squad 1-2 models strong, will be more fluffy, better cover seeking and pathing.

Yea makes sense, give them termi armour in t1 as well to fit with fluff, why not throw greyknights as well?

This post has been edited by PanzerX: Feb 12 2012, 18:54 PM

Posts: 461

Game: Dawn of War 2

+
# 31Dullahan Feb 13 2012, 01:45 AM
QUOTE(Caeltos @ Feb 7 2012, 19:27 PM) *

economically pushes other unit purchases/wargear faster in consequence to it as well.


Considering Catachan's currently slow everything WAY THE FUCK DOWN due to their ridiculous cost, a slight upkeep difference is hardly going to matter in the land of fast teching, low power IG builds.

1374 ... ...

Posts: 14,943

Clan: The Rally Point

Game: Dawn of War 2

+
# 32Dark Riku Feb 13 2012, 02:29 AM
QUOTE(PanzerX @ Feb 12 2012, 20:04 PM) *

Yea makes sense, give them termi armour in t1 as well to fit with fluff, why not throw greyknights as well?


Obvious Troll is obvious -.-
1719 1901 2253

Posts: 1,594

Game: Dawn of War 2

+
# 33Nuclear Arbitor Feb 13 2012, 03:47 AM
reducing SM model count while keeping everything else would make it even harder to bleed csm/tacs, which would be fucking stupid. and making them more fluffy would be 5 or 10 models per squad, not 3 or 1 ffs.

fuck, i don't play SM, as you know well, but i know that's not the way to fix them. yes, he was trolling but your comment, when taken at face value, was stupid.

i will admit, that in a straight up data comparison, tacs should either go down in price to 400 or csm should go up to 450. tacs start out insignificantly better and csm end up insignificantly better, ignoring upgrades. of course that doesn't take into account "race economy", as SM players like to use to justify wargear costs.

it seems pretty clear to me that bC is not able to balance this game, for numerous reasons, his fault or not, and maybe the community should make their own patch and get the numbers close enough. it's not like most of the players really give a fuck whether tacs cost 400, 450, or 500.

Posts: 1,909

Game: Dawn of War 2

+
# 34Caeltos Feb 13 2012, 04:08 AM
QUOTE(Dullahan @ Feb 13 2012, 01:45 AM) *

Considering Catachan's currently slow everything WAY THE FUCK DOWN due to their ridiculous cost, a slight upkeep difference is hardly going to matter in the land of fast teching, low power IG builds.

Considering that they're like ~25ish upkeep now for the full wrath of a squad of ramboes (Excluding leaders) , more durable and whatnot- prone to less models dying and etc; It's not a slight difference.

Catachan's were not a bad combat effiency squad, they were a economical disadvantage to invest in, and they've got multiple buffs on pretty much all-ends, and that can really cause a nasty butterfly effect and make or break an implementation of catachan into your build.

The norm of sentinel/cata/cata used to be quite fashionable and strong, up until the point sentinels got the extra requisition cost added to them, which had an impact on the synergy of the cata/cata+ build due to the extensive requisiton cost. So people preferred to sway in the favor of guard/sent useage primarily as their build, since it strained less on their requisition and power(but due to lower req, the opportunity to seize a fast-tech IG play was more or less founded by this )

The problem is, a fast-tech low power build IG play might not have any staying power or strong-point espicially with the supposedly so implementations of the next patch. You're more inclined to have some of T1 investment to pull through in the upcoming patch norm anyway. A cheaper walker can really make a timing appearance and change the whole atmosphere of an fast-tech IG player, and really cause the IG player to play more on the opposite players term, more-so on his own advantage of tier layer. (Since IG got shafted on the walker-changes in this end, which is important to take into consideration)

An fairly good composition of IG play would be sent, cata, hwt to deal with the norm in the upcoming patch, since cata's in general in the upcoming patch will be way more useful, less economical damaging on the IG player + Melta Gun for the "assumed walkerlolololtryhards" in the first like two weeks until they get bored of that shit. (Much like how in Ret beta, everyone and their mother spammed super units, then they realised it was a pretty stupid idea, since people l2played). The combined synergy is not that unfamiliar from the norm of Vanilla of tac,asm/dev,/dev/asm, which used meltas to deal with walkers, then you had tacs with ML's to primarily be the fender-benders. If you plased, the advanced targeting worked as a subsitute. It was a more multi-personal army composition, much like the one I proposed with sent/hwt/cata etc; Cata's becoming overall more suitable, and investing in 70 power(excluding sergeant and wargear) for the unit effiency alongside with army synergy becomes quite valuable for what-is-to come really.

The off-set is of course, a more defensive-oriented play, because you really can't be all that batshit crazy with an sent + default guardsmen (So you're going to have to improvise with your commander and you're adapative-sense on what needs to be done); Much like how back, in again- vanilla; There were multiple and definitive playstyles of peoples playstyle and commander playstyles. Thao was genuially very passive, Stellviax was very defensive-and micro oriented//Umpire used to be very very agressive and probably the only eldar that could pull of gen-bashes with success, I liked to turtle and macro and go for much all-in in the mid-late game, Norni was all-in ork t1 play with mid-game in mind to settle it in, much transitional play, whereas other players like Marioroad liked to keep it simplicity and finess with an ordinary build.

I could go on forever about how their playstyles were, but I believe this is also what this patch will also encourage (Which is why the Walker cost changes are so fucking important, because it's a dynamic and completely changes up the peoples playstyle for the early-mid, and how they're going to adapt propertly).

Teh End )

Posts: 3,270

Game: Dota 2

+
# 35Dark Riku Feb 13 2012, 05:24 AM
QUOTE(Nuclear Arbitor @ Feb 13 2012, 05:47 AM) *

reducing SM model count while keeping everything else would make it even harder to bleed csm/tacs, which would be fucking stupid. and making them more fluffy would be 5 or 10 models per squad, not 3 or 1 ffs.

fuck, i don't play SM, as you know well, but i know that's not the way to fix them. yes, he was trolling but your comment, when taken at face value, was stupid.


I was trolling his retarded way of thinking if that wasn't clear enough -.-

"even harder to bleed csm/tacs"
-- Whut are you smoking? They drop like flies. giving examples are redundant....
1719 1901 2253

Posts: 1,594

Game: Dawn of War 2

+
# 36Nuclear Arbitor Feb 13 2012, 08:31 AM
i really have a hard time telling when you start talking about tacs.

Posts: 1,909

Game: Dawn of War 2

+
# 37PanzerX Feb 13 2012, 09:08 AM
QUOTE(Dark Riku @ Feb 12 2012, 18:29 PM) *

Obvious Troll is obvious -.-

u wish, just a fair assessment of what SM should have, also king of troll title was taken by you long ago wink.gif

To be fair, this implementation will have a good impact on catachans as a whole as well as to there opponent, meaning the opponent will be able to actually get some models and the user will be able to have a full squad in cover without having to worry about 1-2 models poping out and getting killed ^^

Posts: 461

Game: Dawn of War 2

+
# 38Dullahan Feb 13 2012, 12:26 PM
QUOTE(Caeltos @ Feb 12 2012, 22:08 PM) *

Catachan's were not a bad combat effiency squad


You're kidding me right?

Crazy reinforcement costs and bleed rate, crazy high power cost to field + upgrades. There's a reason their model count is being reduced because they're so damn cost inefficient in battle that they're not really viable.

1374 ... ...

Posts: 14,943

Clan: The Rally Point

Game: Dawn of War 2

+
# 39Caeltos Feb 13 2012, 13:33 PM
If kept reading just another part of the sentence, you would have gotten it. You even more or less stated the run-on clarification that I did.

Catachans beat most stuff in melee, they deal great ranged damage- but all at the expense at the moment of being somewhat vulnerable to model losses. That's an economical disadvantage investment.

QUOTE
There's a reason their model count is being reduced because they're so damn cost inefficient in battle that they're not really viable

Combat effiency for starters is not the same as cost effiency. Catachan suffered from the latter, NOT from combat effiency. A unit that suffers from combat effiency is Stikkbommaz for an example, and all that unit ever does really is stay in the back and throw shit to an half-arsed effect. They're a cost-effiency unit for some people, but for the most part, their lacklustering combat effiency is the main purpose as to why they're never really purchased as a melee combatant + Distruption.

The reasoning to the changes was the cry-out for adjustment to their bleed-effects that caused them to be an economical disadvantage due to numerous reinforcement (which is quite high by IG standards). However, this is effectively a diminished thing now due to lower models, better health, better damage(Combat effiency becomes enhanced indirectly due to these changes(!))

I wanted to continue the full-on explanation of the changes, and the outcome + metagame proposition changes and how things will pan out, but I think it's a waste of time. post-13661-1143531603.gif

Posts: 3,270

Game: Dota 2

+
# 40HARRYY Feb 13 2012, 14:01 PM
caeltos, force melee and changing stance is still often leading to catachans not attacking the desired target. it feels inconsistent pretty often, so you dont always get the expected results in a melee, esp. vs. melee units that use a charge on you. its just fucking sluggish. maybe comment later on the other stuff, but the "new catas" will make them finally worthy to get for the power cost. and it will lead to slower tech for IG in general. TBH, if you build catas now, mostly all races out-tech you by 15 already. so I dunno, the upkeep will lead to maybe some more req in the box, but it will not lead to ridic. nid or ork ECO anyways..... not even comparable. as IG = always T2, while ORK/NID tech T3 np np np np np np!
1626 1212 ...

Posts: 5,985

Game: Dawn of War 2

+

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)