It is just simply frustrating to use. I do not like the way and how it functions although I know how it should be used. It should not be the case. It should be less frustrating as all other AT guns and should have more of a supportive impact. That is all!
Camo is just for recon purposes, not a real AT ability like what the others have. It would be if it had the same range as others. If even the camo function was nerfed in exchange for better range, than it would have a somewhat better impact but currently it does not as the others do.
OKW has already, too much recon. Should be changed.
Camo is also very good for unsuspected rear armor shots, contesting dangerous points to force the enemy out and allows you to offensively open against Soviet and USF armor. Also with vet it gets a guaranteed pen and bonus damage when shooting out of camo.
But this post is about ZiS and PaK:
Basically there's still the old CoH2 design in there: Highly effective specialized German PaK vs a more jack-of-all-trades Soviet ZiS.
Honestly Sturmpionierr have one of the most interesting transitions from a strong push unit at the beginning to a utility unit (repair, mines, sweeping and light AT) in the late game.
OKWs early AT deficit is one thing, but I don't think that Sturmpios should be the first factor to fix that.
They do repair very quickly when upgraded (only Brits come near this) and still have some okay firepower in a 1v1 on the flanks in the mid to late game.
I think they are fine for their price.
and
"How to perform incompetent data analysis on tanks"
I'll make this as quick as possible, so probably bullet points will do best.
Version 1.0 as of 19.06.19
(not sure if I missed some changes of the new patch though)
What is this?
Where did I get it from?
But why?
Structure of the file
IMPORTANT! Read before you complain: Weaknesses of the calculation:
I will not put this into spoilers for obvious reasons.
Sheet 1:
- Due to my incapability of getting some data from the files (like the reference points for accuracy/penetration far/mid/near etc, this calculation will always compare performance at max range. If you compare a SU76 vs a P4, then you scew your data to the disadvantage of the SU76, as it has better accuracy and pen than used in the calculation.
- It does not take into account anti-infantry capability. So if a unit performs bad in the analysis, then ask yourself if it makes up for it in some other category, like AI, but also speed etc
- Rate of fire is a bit buggy, since there are more factors to the units than raw reload time and I don't know where to get them from. But it can be an okay-ish estimate. If you know where to find them in the Tools-App, please write me a PM.
Sheet 2:
Oh boy, where do I begin?
- no weighting of stats that might objectively be more important
- no weighting of extreme outliers (i.e. a tank with 0 damage will not be punished as hard by the model as it should be)
- negligence of marginal utility (e.g. the damage increase from 159->160is objectively better than the increase form 160->161, but the model does not account for that)
- negligence of anti infantry performance
- model quality depends on the number of stats used
- negligence of positioning/flanking and utility abilities
- negligence of alpha damage, time-to-kill etc
- negligence of collision-based hits
How about the community patchers stop using the live game as their testing guinea pigs especially for one side only tipping the balance so unfair?
Or or how about they actually look at what they put in the game and how it works with balance..
(ostheer commander is blatantly op lets be real here, if soviets had 0cp PPSH cons, penals with smokes and HF point and a IS-2 ace with t-34/85 in the same doctrine everyone would be crying)
How about decently phrasing your complaints for something that other people made for you with good intentions in their own free time?
There are complaints to be made, and rightfully so, but there's no reason to violate Wheaton's law.
Many people in 4vs4 skip as allies light vehicles to get fast arty or tank out.
Also many people just camp, when they have half the map, which is also bad idea now.
--> As allies get vehicles out and push.
And it depends on the map.
On Steppe i don't care for a tiger rush for example. But you can't do that anyway there. Same on redball.
Where this tactic works well is:
liene forest, vielsam and lanzerath ambush. Because there you have a save fuel income.
But yes we need to make 1 more stuff to avoid this fast rush.
The balance team is thinking atm.
But the plan was to get away from CP needed.
Well, it's either make counters better by performance or availability (which would be horrible for the rest of the gameplay) or add additional time to the heavy tank. This could be a long build time (2-3 minutes) or additional cost by directly increasing the cost of the tank (which would make only the first tank perform cost-effective) or a side-tech that enables heavies.
I advocate for the build time. The Tiger etc are priced okay-ish to their performance. And since resource income is heavily depending on the match mode, altering the build cost will have next to no effect in 4v4 while completely screwing 1v1. Build time is equal in all modes
But actually why is that so?
If Axis are able to buy a 230 fuel unit after teching to T4, Allies should be able to get a 130-140 fuel unit out as well. Unless you really screwed up your early to mid game, but then it's okay if the opponent fortifies a strong position.
If there only was something as currency drops, making you pick whatever you want with time if you don't want to buy it.
So, to keep the style:
If there only was something like basic maths, making you able to calculate and back up whatever claim you make if you don't want to spread bullshit.
Sarcasm off:
To back it up:
You need 15000 supply for a standard commander, or 30 drops with 500 supply each. For one drop you need 6000 victory points or 30*6000 = 180 000 victory points in total. You earn 1750 points on average per game (50% win-rate), equals 103 played matches. If a match lasts 30 min (usually, it's probably longer), this would make it 51,5 hours of playtime. Assuming every drop is a supply drop, which it is not. Probably every 2nd to 3rd time (depending on how many items you already have) is a supply drop, since there are probably hundreds of skins and bulletins.
So please Relic, don't implement this shitty system again in CoH3.
I also just remembered that you can get supply from Bot-matches, which I played quite a lot very long time ago.
So the rate at which you get commanders is actually waaaaaaaay worse than 50 hours/
If there only was something as currency drops, making you pick whatever you want with time if you don't want to buy it.
I do know your passive-aggressive style of writing, but before you do that, you should probably properly read the post first, otherwise it makes you look like a moron.
I covered supply drops.
The monetization model. How you get commanders is horrible. I played 400 hours and got 3 commanders by random drops. And here I was super lucky since two of them were very usable. Also I can buy 2-3 Commanders with supply. I need to play 50+ hours to get one single commander. This is bullshit. You need to pay if you want to get anywhere. And if you buy one, it might be unusable because they don't rebalance old commanders with new patches, so it just might be money thrown away.
For CoH3, please Relic, fix this stupid model.