pzgren should be wehr's dedicated tank hunters
Posts: 615
Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1
Well, if someone REALLY feels like he needs it, that's kind of the exact point why doctrines exist.
Its a bit off-putting that OST is technically forced into a doctrine for a competent light vehicle, I always considered Doctrines to be more of a supporting role than a faction defining role. Being locked into a doctrine because of a faction weakness is bad design IMO.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Its a bit off-putting that OST is technically forced into a doctrine for a competent light vehicle, I always considered Doctrines to be more of a supporting role than a faction defining role. Being locked into a doctrine because of a faction weakness is bad design IMO.
As mostly soviet player since the release and being forced for 4 years for a doctrine to have an infantry that actually can compete and a tank that actually is worth its cost, I am really struggling to understand your point here.
Anyway, doctrines are supporting, especially for wehr, who had everything pretty decent as a stock units, you feel you need something extra, you pick a doctrine featuring it - if its a light vehicle, then it is one, if its heavy tank, go for another.
Everyone needs to make a choices and needs to sacrifice something else to get it-the game works like that since forever but only recently all core armies actually can stand firm on their own legs without mandatory doctrine picks.
Light armor is not ost strength, if you want to diminish that weakness, pick correct doctrine, but a pair of PaKs or a PaK and shreck PG squad will successfully diminish light vehicle presence of allied factions without the need to go for puma, its a choice you make if you REALLY want to use vehicle to counter vehicle.
Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1
snip
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the current doctrine system should be revamped to be more of upgrades/flavor than meta defining for all factions. It's not just an Ost issue but an overall issue for all factions in which instead of meta defining aka more diversity in doctrine picks.
Eh, probably more of a hope for Coh3 than coh2, and ur right it feels like the baseline units for all the factions are actually performing correctly instead of crutches and cheese bringing the faction into a usable point.
Posts: 5279
Ive always said that the factions should be balanced without doctrines as a baseline. Then doctrines individually can be balanced/tweaked and all made viable because they wouldn't be used to prop up a faction. Ive said it since the soviet call in design and i say it now. A strong foundation (non doc faction) to build on makes the game strong, not over perfoming this or that thats op by necessity do make the doctrine attractive over ones that are needed to fill holes
Posts: 1930
Well, if someone REALLY feels like he needs it, that's kind of the exact point why doctrines exist.
the wehr always needs it.
that's why panzergrenadier should see changes. It's not about turning the pzgren into a "mobile atg", it's about turning the pzgren into an alternative to the puma.
@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
1) how about this:
the wehr get their (cheaper)221 in t1 but the 222 upgrade is lock behind the t2 building
the panzergrenadier get downscaled (300mp) and the schreck is turned into a single schreck 75 mu upgrade. (no buff to the weapon itself)
2) The allied infantry does need tank.
Before the terminator buff, the USF late game was severely bleeding mp because they were relying too much on their rifleman late game. Even if you don't get squad wipe you're still going to need to pay for the reinforcement.
this problem was fixed by giving the USF the best defensive vet among the line infantry and even now it's still one of the best.
If the allied infantry scaled too much, it's because people keep giving them over powering buff to compensate for their weaker armor.
Posts: 414
If the allied infantry scaled too much, it's because people keep giving them over powering buff to compensate for their weaker armor.
I don't think that they have weaker armour anymore
Posts: 5279
I don't think that they have weaker armour anymore
well, the p4 has 25 more pen close and 30 more pen far and 20 more armour than the t34 for only 30 more fuel meaning 30 fuel gives a 69% chance to pen and only a 44% chance to be penned so i mean i PERSONALLY would say thats stronger armour...
and i mean, every tank that isnt a light vehicle in the okw lineup has a MINIMUM of 230 armour, and half of which are over 300.
just because there exists tools to combat the strong armour doesnt mean its not an advantage, sure the SU's have a bit too much pen and the jackson has all the tools to survive being squishy without actually being squishy but outside that the german armour has higher pen and armour values almost across the board. outside of actually designed hard counters (who again, ARE over performing slightly) the axis tanks DO have an advantage undeniably..
Posts: 414
snip.
That assessment doesn't consider the whole. At any point during the match, allies will have more sources of AT on the field than axis will. Allies have more sources of handheld AT and tend to spam AT guns.
Many of the TDs also out range axis armoured units. Which turns peaking with a tank into literally getting obliterated on the spot and losing a tank hurts way more for an axis player than an allied player.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
tend to spam AT guns.
This argument I consider extremely stupid.
Why can't you spam ATGs as well?
Why axis players insist that once they field Panther, all allied armor should just implode?
Why it is good for allies to use both, dedicated TDs and ATGs, but for axis its "hard"?
Bleed is comparable for both sides and so are costs.
Many of the TDs also out range axis armoured units. Which turns peaking with a tank into literally getting obliterated on the spot and losing a tank hurts way more for an axis player than an allied player.
That's kind of the point of TDs, they outrange or outlast(panther) armor they face while reliably dealing damage to it.
You seem to want to have tanks a fighting chance against TDs without having to use ATGs.
Why?
Posts: 1527
Permanently BannedPosts: 1930
Speaking of puma, it doesn't come fast enough at 5 cp. I think 4 cp is balanced. The rest of the doc is quite weak so the puma better come on time
while it would make the doctrine better, I still believe it's necessary to lower the wehr's dependency on the doctrine.
Posts: 4474
for how much more fuel does the t 34 85 does get more hp, pen and aoe ?
well, the p4 has 25 more pen close and 30 more pen far and 20 more armour than the t34 for only 30 more fuel meaning 30 fuel gives a 69% chance to pen and only a 44% chance to be penned so i mean i PERSONALLY would say thats stronger armour...
and i mean, every tank that isnt a light vehicle in the okw lineup has a MINIMUM of 230 armour, and half of which are over 300.
just because there exists tools to combat the strong armour doesnt mean its not an advantage, sure the SU's have a bit too much pen and the jackson has all the tools to survive being squishy without actually being squishy but outside that the german armour has higher pen and armour values almost across the board. outside of actually designed hard counters (who again, ARE over performing slightly) the axis tanks DO have an advantage undeniably..
Posts: 4474
yea if only at guns out ranged td
This argument I consider extremely stupid.
Why can't you spam ATGs as well?
Why axis players insist that once they field Panther, all allied armor should just implode?
Why it is good for allies to use both, dedicated TDs and ATGs, but for axis its "hard"?
Bleed is comparable for both sides and so are costs.
That's kind of the point of TDs, they outrange or outlast(panther) armor they face while reliably dealing damage to it.
You seem to want to have tanks a fighting chance against TDs without having to use ATGs.
Why?
Posts: 1930
stuff like that deserve a thread of its own.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
yea if only at guns out ranged td
Handheld AT not outranging med tanks somehow does not prevent them from being effective.
And placing these ATGs create a no-go zones for TDs, which you can exploit to creep with your army.
I might blow your mind on this one, but you don't need to play axis like they actually did in WW2 with unsupported armor rush everywhere.
the thread is getting off topic with the discussion on medium tank, td, and atg.
stuff like that deserve a thread of its own.
ATGs and TDs are very relevant for the discussion as some people seem to be under the false impression that handheld AT should be main source of AT damage instead of only supportive one.
AT which is as easy to use and preserve as infantry handheld AT will never be on pair with TDs and ATGs and will always serve as deterrent or some help during pushes, but will never take the role of main AV unless you really spam it like mad-the only "issue" in this thread is that axis handheld AT can not be spammed to a-move like zook noob blobs in 4v4 can.
Posts: 1930
ATGs and TDs are very relevant for the discussion as some people seem to be under the false impression that handheld AT should be main source of AT damage instead of only supportive one.
AT which is as easy to use and preserve as infantry handheld AT will never be on pair with TDs and ATGs and will always serve as deterrent or some help during pushes, but will never take the role of main AV unless you really spam it like mad-the only "issue" in this thread is that axis handheld AT can not be spammed to a-move like zook noob blobs in 4v4 can.
Changing the panzgrenadier isn't just about handheld AT, it is about mobile at.
mobile at provide flank protection and strategic initiative. Without a suitable mobile at, the wehr is stuck on the defensive during t2. This allow the allies to get a considerable lead on the wehr.
The pak40 is great no doubt, but it is only one piece of the puzzle. it is still an atg how the usual weakness. It is vulnerable and slow to deploy. A decent setup require the pak to work with a "weaker" but more mobile at to protect it. A mobile AT is also more forgiving since it can retreat more easily. This allow the player to be more bold.
and the faust isn't enough. it's a great ward against flanker but it's a compliment, not a substitute for mobile at or atg.
You can managed with just faust and atg, but that leaves you at a considerable disadvantage in the t2 phase against the USF and sov, who can bring light tank, inf atw, snare, and atg on the field. The variety provide considerable advantage. since they cover each other's weakness (aka combined arms)
Posts: 4474
cause handheld at can fire on the move with no set up time and generally (looking at u m 36) have enough speed to keep up with a reversing TD
Handheld AT not outranging med tanks somehow does not prevent them from being effective.
And placing these ATGs create a no-go zones for TDs, which you can exploit to creep with your army.
I might blow your mind on this one, but you don't need to play axis like they actually did in WW2 with unsupported armor rush everywhere.
at guns (apart for vet 1 6 pounder) lack the mobility to do so
Posts: 414
This argument I consider extremely stupid.
Why can't you spam ATGs as well?
Why axis players insist that once they field Panther, all allied armor should just implode?
Why it is good for allies to use both, dedicated TDs and ATGs, but for axis its "hard"?
Bleed is comparable for both sides and so are costs.
That's kind of the point of TDs, they outrange or outlast(panther) armor they face while reliably dealing damage to it.
You seem to want to have tanks a fighting chance against TDs without having to use ATGs.
Why?
Allies do tend to spam AT guns. It's so axis can't push in to get the katy, mortar pit, bofors, or what ever other high value target they like to keep behind the lines is. Panthers can't even reasonably 1v1 what they are supposed to be effective against.
TDs are intended to have the penetration to take out super heavies not be the one size fits all answer to axis armour.
Posts: 414
Handheld AT not outranging med tanks somehow does not prevent them from being effective.
And placing these ATGs create a no-go zones for TDs, which you can exploit to creep with your army.
I might blow your mind on this one, but you don't need to play axis like they actually did in WW2 with unsupported armor rush everywhere.
ATGs and TDs are very relevant for the discussion as some people seem to be under the false impression that handheld AT should be main source of AT damage instead of only supportive one.
AT which is as easy to use and preserve as infantry handheld AT will never be on pair with TDs and ATGs and will always serve as deterrent or some help during pushes, but will never take the role of main AV unless you really spam it like mad-the only "issue" in this thread is that axis handheld AT can not be spammed to a-move like zook noob blobs in 4v4 can.
It seems as if handheld AT is enough for allied armies. Guards, penals, rifles and british IS all have the capability to take out most armour on their own. It's for some reason only ok to hamstring handheld AT in the axis factions.
Livestreams
104 | |||||
26 | |||||
1 | |||||
65 | |||||
58 | |||||
12 | |||||
11 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34857.859+13
- 3.587233.716+3
- 4.1095612.641+19
- 5.882398.689+4
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.996645.607+4
- 8.379114.769+1
- 9.300113.726-1
- 10.717439.620+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
4 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, asherllc
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM