pzgren should be wehr's dedicated tank hunters

Or OR. now hear me out, they use their AT gun. Its kinda like AT infantry, but with more range, more pen, more damage AND has the added benifit of not being gameplay cancer! Seriously why does there need to be a squad that can attack move armour? Is THE best AT mines not enough to snare up (or outright destroy light tanks) armour without fear of the support infantry detonating it good enough? If the pak40 isnt spooky enough for you you can pick a doctrine with the only weapon in the entire game that can 2 tap medium tanks. Use ambush camo and try more than attack moving across open ground and see how formitable a pair of shreks are then.


Seriously... Askn for a fucking attack movable, retreatable AT gun because the umpteen FANTASTIC anti-tank options ost already has requires more that a toddlers grasp of mouse control.... I have not the foggiest clue how you would survive playing OKW, with half the shreks (on a squishier squad) and a lesser AT gun and multi triggering mines. Or did you drop OKW when shreks were taken from volks because the faction was rendered unplayable?

i guess 17 pounder soesnt exist

Or OR. now hear me out, they use their AT gun. Its kinda like AT infantry, but with more range, more pen, more damage AND has the added benifit of not being gameplay cancer! Seriously why does there need to be a squad that can attack move armour? Is THE best AT mines not enough to snare up (or outright destroy light tanks) armour without fear of the support infantry detonating it good enough? If the pak40 isnt spooky enough for you you can pick a doctrine with the only weapon in the entire game that can 2 tap medium tanks. Use ambush camo and try more than attack moving across open ground and see how formitable a pair of shreks are then.


Seriously... Askn for a fucking attack movable, retreatable AT gun because the umpteen FANTASTIC anti-tank options ost already has requires more that a toddlers grasp of mouse control.... I have not the foggiest clue how you would survive playing OKW, with half the shreks (on a squishier squad) and a lesser AT gun and multi triggering mines. Or did you drop OKW when shreks were taken from volks because the faction was rendered unplayable?

Against light tanks, the wehr atg isn't really better than what the allies are using.

On top of that, all three allies player have light tank of their own and Inf atw as well. ( I still dislike PTRS penal but zooka and PIAT are fine).

the wehr technically have atg, snare, light vehicle, and inf ATW, but both snare and light vehicle are poorly implement. The 222 only have a very short window of opportunity before it's completely outclassed by the light tanks. The schreck is impractical as an option.

Snares and Atg alone are not enough. This put the wehr on the backfoot before stugs. In a 1v1 it's also where the allies effectively win the game against a wehr player.

in terms of early game the types of anti-tank weapons are: snare, ATG, light vehicle, inf ATW.

a faction should have at least three types of early anti-tank weapon to be considered acceptably defended against vehicle rush.

The game release british only had the Light vehicle and ATG, and that's why they suffered before the PIAT change.

right now the wehr effectively only have the snare and ATG. Neither the 222 nor the panzergrenadier are practical. Making the panzergrenadier practical would give the wehr three different type of anti-tank vehicle.

If the 222 were an ACTUAL ARMORED CAR like EVERY OTHER armored car in the game, and if it completely outranged light tanks like it should (as a scout car with a precision AA gun on it), it would be fine.

But as long as the complete and total farce that the 222 taking damage from rifle fire remains, there will simply be no reason to use it, either against infantry or against light armor.

We're right back to the overarching problem in CoH2: Axis units never pose a threat to Allies, but Allied units all pose extreme threats to Axis -- blatant bias/favoritism at its finest.

The only thing Wehr/Ostheer can punish is passive and static play.

They cannot, however, rush this punishment.

If the 222 were an ACTUAL ARMORED CAR like EVERY OTHER armored car in the game, and if it completely outranged light tanks like it should (as a scout car with a precision AA gun on it), it would be fine.

But as long as the complete and total farce that the 222 taking damage from rifle fire remains, there will simply be no reason to use it, either against infantry or against light armor.

We're right back to the overarching problem in CoH2: Axis units never pose a threat to Allies, but Allied units all pose extreme threats to Axis -- blatant bias/favoritism at its finest.

a large part of why 222 has not been that good is probably because it was an lightly armed and armored car IRL. The stuarts, t70, and the AEC were all significantly better armed and armored than the 222. (the AEC were heavy weight in terms of A/C).

It would seriously stretch the suspension of belief, and the Puma is basically the Axis' light tank.

a better comparsion to the 221/2 would be the m20/8. the 20mm and thin armor just doesn't lend itself to fighting light tanks.

The only thing Wehr/Ostheer can punish is passive and static play.

They cannot, however, rush this punishment.

that's just a very roundabout way to say wehr only get strong if the USF and sov let it.

the only allied faction that would actually use passive and static play is the british.

I use mainly PZRgrenadiers for their AI power so this is a no go for me.

This could also lead to potential blobbing because quote:

''This allow the panzergrenadier to retain more of their original firepower after the tank hunter upgrade, and the overall unit+upgrade are cheaper but still potent.''

Having 2- 3 squads for 900 mp with STG's, bundle grenades and 3 panzershrecks... nope. Not for me.

the bazooka and PIAT are not that great at blobbing, neither is the stormpio.

I think it's all down to the specific of their stats. The old volks schreck just manage to hit the right note for blobbing.

If the 222 were an ACTUAL ARMORED CAR like EVERY OTHER armored car in the game, and if it completely outranged light tanks like it should (as a scout car with a precision AA gun on it), it would be fine.

But as long as the complete and total farce that the 222 taking damage from rifle fire remains, there will simply be no reason to use it, either against infantry or against light armor.

We're right back to the overarching problem in CoH2: Axis units never pose a threat to Allies, but Allied units all pose extreme threats to Axis -- blatant bias/favoritism at its finest.

Its called puma, use it sometimes.

Against light tanks, the wehr atg isn't really better than what the allies are using.

On top of that, all three allies player have light tank of their own and Inf atw as well. ( I still dislike PTRS penal but zooka and PIAT are fine).

the wehr technically have atg, snare, light vehicle, and inf ATW, but both snare and light vehicle are poorly implement. The 222 only have a very short window of opportunity before it's completely outclassed by the light tanks. The schreck is impractical as an option.

Snares and Atg alone are not enough. This put the wehr on the backfoot before stugs. In a 1v1 it's also where the allies effectively win the game against a wehr player.

in terms of early game the types of anti-tank weapons are: snare, ATG, light vehicle, inf ATW.

a faction should have at least three types of early anti-tank weapon to be considered acceptably defended against vehicle rush.

The game release british only had the Light vehicle and ATG, and that's why they suffered before the PIAT change.

right now the wehr effectively only have the snare and ATG. Neither the 222 nor the panzergrenadier are practical. Making the panzergrenadier practical would give the wehr three different type of anti-tank vehicle.

222 window is a bit small, i would much rather a 221 in t1 (mg42 was moved to t0, so there is a "slot" to help with sniper cheese with the 222 upgrade at bp1- 2 birds 1 stone)

Wehr's most effective option, like ost themselves is defensive - the teller.
Because ost lacks a great vehicle allied players over extend and can lose their tank in an instant.

But what ever changes are needed a 360 degree no set up retreatable AT gun sure as shit is not it.

(Also i agree in part about AT penals, imo the AI and AT need to be a choice, not a progression so the choice can be exploited)

@stug life, i forgot about that big lad so point. However the only times i HAVE seen it (even post buff) it was smashed long before it could 2 tap, but yes, you are correct

For someone who spams this and the official forums with an absurd # of posts, many of them quite controversial and others being outright incorrect, it's highly cowardly of you to hide behind anonymity. You should post your playercard not because sinthe asked you, but because it appears you live for CoH2 seeing that you have nearly 10000 posts on this forum. You claim a while ago that your top 150 in OKW 2v2, well show us your playercard then. I recall Imperial Dane casted a 2v2 a while ago with a player named Katitoff and nobody was impressed by that player's performance according to the comments section.

You can check his uploaded replays to see his playercard

You can check his uploaded replays to see his playercard

Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately his latest replay was in 2015 and indeed his username is Katitoff. That playercard is now unranked. He must be using another spoof account if he's still playing the game.

that's just a very roundabout way to say wehr only get strong if the USF and sov let it.

the only allied faction that would actually use passive and static play is the british.

I felt it was rather direct. And soviet T2 on garrison heavy maps is often rather passive. And I see players of all factions play too passively against ostheer regardless. The inverse of it is that ostheer has to be pressured all game.

And yes, British emplacements are very much in the vein of what ostheer can actually punish. And really that's been where ostheer has always considered to retain an advantage:against brits.

But my point was less about faction fundamentals and more about player choice and gameplay.

But my point was less about faction fundamentals and more about player choice and gameplay.

This point seems to be lost in a lot of the theoretical discussion that takes place.

For every time I see someone say "unit x is bad" on these fora or in twitch, I notice at least one game where my team mates or my opponents use said unit and it seems to work out just fine.

Also, it is bizarre to me how absolutely deterministic a lot of people's minds are regarding "if you do x, then you are bad" or "if you don't do y, then you are bad".

There's some obvious cases, ofc -- like never making an AT gun at all in a game where you are being outmatched by enemy armor, but the thing I refer to is less obvious and more a display of the person's attitude than the probability of the game's progress.

Thanks for the tip. Unfortunately his latest replay was in 2015 and indeed his username is Katitoff. That playercard is now unranked. He must be using another spoof account if he's still playing the game.

I still use that one in 2v2 if it makes you feel better and 2s with Zarok are pretty recent.
And since you want to measure playercard weewees, how are you going to respond on me having 84% win ratio as axis while you consistently struggle to keep 50% everywhere?

FFS there needs to be a specific forum where people can compare girth since it is rarely, if ever, relevant to virtually any balance or gameplay discussion.

Win ratio on their own mean very little, about anything, currently there players in the top 10 with a win rate bellow 60%.

Actually the majority of smurf have good win rate and great streaks.

Biased opinions you say?

Oh dear. We can't have that, now can we?

Its called puma, use it sometimes.

if only it wasn't restricted to one doctrine only.

222 window is a bit small, i would much rather a 221 in t1 (mg42 was moved to t0, so there is a "slot" to help with sniper cheese with the 222 upgrade at bp1- 2 birds 1 stone)

Wehr's most effective option, like ost themselves is defensive - the teller.
Because ost lacks a great vehicle allied players over extend and can lose their tank in an instant.

But what ever changes are needed a 360 degree no set up retreatable AT gun sure as shit is not it.

(Also i agree in part about AT penals, imo the AI and AT need to be a choice, not a progression so the choice can be exploited)

@stug life, i forgot about that big lad so point. However the only times i HAVE seen it (even post buff) it was smashed long before it could 2 tap, but yes, you are correct

while moving the 221 to t1 have some merit in making the unit itself more useful, it's not going to help the wehr against light vehicle beyond improve the general tactical situation.

What plague the wehr isn't a complete absence of anti-tank weapon, it is the inadequate of what they do have. The wehr is capable of fighting with their ATG, faust, and mine, but the selection leave them at a disadvantage against the allies, who's selection is better at this stage.

And mine isn't a reliable mean of anti-tank in the early game when you munition stock is still low. Its advantage in the late game is the cost your stock of munition make the munition cost less prohibitive, and how it scale against late game tank.

It also further force the wehr to go on the defense and cede map control to the allies.

I felt it was rather direct. And soviet T2 on garrison heavy maps is often rather passive. And I see players of all factions play too passively against ostheer regardless. The inverse of it is that ostheer has to be pressured all game.

And yes, British emplacements are very much in the vein of what ostheer can actually punish. And really that's been where ostheer has always considered to retain an advantage:against brits.

But my point was less about faction fundamentals and more about player choice and gameplay.

This point seems to be lost in a lot of the theoretical discussion that takes place.

For every time I see someone say "unit x is bad" on these fora or in twitch, I notice at least one game where my team mates or my opponents use said unit and it seems to work out just fine.

Also, it is bizarre to me how absolutely deterministic a lot of people's minds are regarding "if you do x, then you are bad" or "if you don't do y, then you are bad".

There's some obvious cases, ofc -- like never making an AT gun at all in a game where you are being outmatched by enemy armor, but the thing I refer to is less obvious and more a display of the person's attitude than the probability of the game's progress.

Not all choices are equal, it is foolish to assume such.

A soviet/USF have the option of going static and passive and risk fighting the stronger wehr late game or going aggressive to strike at the wehr before they reach t3.

this is a variation on prisoner's dilemma. To a soviet/USF who's well versed in the game, going aggressive against the wehr is the better/rational choice because it leads to a bigger chance of success.

The player is "free" to chose what they want, but that doesn't change the realities and consequence of those choices.

Balance isn't about what player's choice, it is about the situation that created those option in the first place.

@firesparks i disagree. Obviously it would require playtesting but an earlier 221 would help against snipers (ideally) and assuming you built one being able to upgrade it to a 222 if you chose to when the battle phase is researched (just the tech, not the building) gives a more organic flow to light vehicle play- while ost still wont have a t70 of thwir own they will be able to apply some pressure sooner without bleed. They will be able to force reactionary AT (theres no reason for the allies not to be able to get AT somehow) which in turn reduces their AI. Its all conmected, look at how even simply moving the mg42 from insta built t1 to t0 changed the game, literally SECONDS sooner but one of the best changes seen imo

This is why i think the BIGGEST issue in balance is that allied infantry get too much from the start and then scale so much better ontop of it

Allied infantry dont NEED tank support tp fight the enemy, the can usually make due with attack move and minimal support, this means that fuel can be dumped into TDs to negate the actually needed ost support armour. Weaker (or more appropriately slower momentum) allied infantry would mean more medium tanks, would mean less TD spam. Ideally of course. Its all connected

if only it wasn't restricted to one doctrine only.

Well, if someone REALLY feels like he needs it, that's kind of the exact point why doctrines exist.