Login

russian armor

adjustment for puma

28 Jun 2018, 19:18 PM
#21
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



OP was starting this comparing.
And puma is a t3 unit when iam play as OKW.

M3a3 clown car is t3 unit when I play Soviet pls buff
28 Jun 2018, 20:33 PM
#22
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

A slight sight nerf to the puma that goes away with veterancy wouldn’t be a bad idea. In return, an accuracy buff would be ok. This way the puma remains viable in a combined arms team, but is less effective as a spamable and self sufficient unit.

Realistically, the only type of unit that should be self sufficient and a jack of all trades type requiring no support are the baseline infantry squads. Not that they don’t perform better with support, but because they are the basic foundation that all factions are built around, they must be somewhat competent at any task and able to fight any threat. The thing that prevents spam of them are hard counters to blobs and intangibles like upkeep costs and manpower bleed from casualties.
29 Jun 2018, 00:17 AM
#23
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

The puma is hardly spam viable. It's stop gap AT at best. It's an armored Zook that costs about as much fuel as an su76 or stug with more micro and less punch with less potency vs infantry than either of em... Hardly a problem
29 Jun 2018, 01:06 AM
#24
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260



OP was starting this comparing.
And puma is a t3 unit when iam play as OKW.


Mechanized Regiment Headquarters is T2. The starting building is always T0.
29 Jun 2018, 02:07 AM
#25
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930


thw major point is that he uses his own max range by himself. none of units can do like that w/ penalties.
ps. tbh puma's low penetration doesnt be a problem much. BECAUSE he fight agaisnt low armored allies tank (except the heavy tank)


the Puma is great against light tank but its penetration is mediocre against even the mediums. The puma have 80-100 penetration at 50-35, and even that is weak against the 150-160 on the allied medium. The puma also only have ~55% accuracy at long range and the regular 50% moving penalty. It would shot its shot regularly.

If you can't micro the Puma well enough, it will die in the late game. it have very little armor to speak and not that much HP at 400. The range of 50 puts it under the 60m of opposing TD well offering a scant 10 safety buffer against medium. The puma will lose against most medium in a slug fight.

The Puma is also poor against infantry, it probably have the worst anti-infantry power among the light tanks (AEC is probably a bit better). It can't shock at all so its sole use is to counter enemy vehicle. It is an extremely defensive unit designed as the anti-shock unit.

By comparison both the Stuart and t-70 are much better than killing infantry.


The jackson got a sight nerf because it got a hp buff to 640. I do think the jackson should have been buff to be similar to the puma and the Unit is a mess atm.
29 Jun 2018, 06:19 AM
#26
avatar of FelixTHM

Posts: 503 | Subs: 1

If people think call-ins are the problem, maybe Pumas can be built from T2 building?
29 Jun 2018, 08:07 AM
#27
avatar of RollingStone

Posts: 173

Even after lurking in tread, cant really understand, why Puma is compared to God-Almighty-M36?
Almost every game i got with USF, M36 is acting like mainline tank alongside with blobs of riflemens.
Puma is more like soft counter to some of "early" mechanised units like AEC, t70 and maybe cromwell. But she clearly cant stand a chance aganist t-34s or shermans, cause it can be penetrated even with Shermans HMG from rear and sides, while trying to flank.

I personally use puma as "Deny" button for light tanks and hard flanking/spotting - because it is called in off-map, u dont have to wait and watch as your vetted grens get slaughtered by these unkillable T-70s. Buy as soon as soviets get their AT-nades or USF/Brits pull out their Zooks/PIATs, puma is no more viable.

As long as it is spamable, it is good. If she would be transferred to T3 prod, it will be no longer viable - why get almost useless puma, when you can get STuG or Ostwind for almost same price?
29 Jun 2018, 23:48 PM
#28
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

Even after lurking in tread, cant really understand, why Puma is compared to God-Almighty-M36?


the m36 used to have 480 hp, meaning that it was a 3hk similar to the puma.
30 Jun 2018, 02:25 AM
#29
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



the m36 USED TO have 480 hp, meaning that it was a 3hk similar to the puma.

no longer. The only things it has in common is that they both have all the tools needed to survive being a 3hk while 1 is not, and hits harder, and further away, and self heals, and gets further damage/pen shells with vet.
The only remaining similarities are that they are mobile units designed to fight tanks.
30 Jun 2018, 03:10 AM
#30
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930


no longer. The only things it has in common is that they both have all the tools needed to survive being a 3hk while 1 is not, and hits harder, and further away, and self heals, and gets further damage/pen shells with vet.
The only remaining similarities are that they are mobile units designed to fight tanks.


the current m36 is non contiguous at all. Tank destroyers should have some type of crippling disadvantage to justify its range and hitting power.

Stug, su85, and jpz4 are casemate AFV. The Firefly have to deal with slow turret, slow reload(low dps), and slow chassis.

The current m36 have no such exploitable weakness. Its used to be fragile but no longer.

Instead of boosting the m36's hp, it should have been given smoke, along with a buff to its size, speed and maybe speed. The puma is a good example of how to make a 3 hk afv survivable and the jackson should have been buffed using the puma as a guideline. That hp buff was just about the worst way to buff the m36.
30 Jun 2018, 06:15 AM
#31
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



the current m36 is non contiguous at all. Tank destroyers should have some type of crippling disadvantage to justify its range and hitting power.

Stug, su85, and jpz4 are casemate AFV. The Firefly have to deal with slow turret, slow reload(low dps), and slow chassis.

The current m36 have no such exploitable weakness. Its used to be fragile but no longer.

Instead of boosting the m36's hp, it should have been given smoke, along with a buff to its size, speed and maybe speed. The puma is a good example of how to make a 3 hk afv survivable and the jackson should have been buffed using the puma as a guideline. That hp buff was just about the worst way to buff the m36.

I think we're in agreement here. You can't take a glass cannon, remove the glass and call it a day. Imo if they wanted a non doc brawler (as they made) they should have swapped the m10 so there was a unique TD option instead of the very best and a doctrinal downgrade (right now its like having non doc t34-85s and doctrinal 76s...)
30 Jun 2018, 09:24 AM
#32
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

You can't simply swap the M10 for the M36 as it doesn't have the firepower needed to fight heavy tanks and USF's other nondoc tank is the 75mm Sherman.

So long as USF has only one anti-tank vehicle that vehicle has to be able to deal with every other vehicle in the game. Otherwise the vehicle it can't counter counters USF's entire armour pool.
30 Jun 2018, 10:06 AM
#33
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Jun 2018, 09:24 AMLago
You can't simply swap the M10 for the M36 as it doesn't have the firepower needed to fight heavy tanks and USF's other nondoc tank is the 75mm Sherman.


Stats can be buffed you know. The CoH1 USF did fine with M10s and without an OP TD while having the same lineup of vehicles. Except in CoH1 the USF actually had to make an effort to overrun German heavy armor instead of just kiting it at max range.

Though I would rather see the M10 being an Su-76 type of light TD.
But we digress.
30 Jun 2018, 10:08 AM
#34
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260



Stats can be buffed you know. The CoH1 USF did fine with M10s and without an OP TD while having the same lineup of vehicles. Except in CoH1 the USF actually had to make an effort to overrun German heavy armor instead of just kiting it at max range.

Though I would rather see the M10 being an Su-76 type of light TD.


If you buff the M10 how is it different to the Jackson?
30 Jun 2018, 10:15 AM
#35
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

The M10 would be the adequate TD that is cheap and might require flanking but can generally hold the line, like in CoH1. The M36 would then be the doctrinal heavy TD with performance similar to what it has now, to counter an opponent who invests in heavy vehicles.

While USF's need for a great TD to compensate gaps in the faction line up is certainly a good point, there's no denying that the Jackson is still too good at too many things right now.
30 Jun 2018, 10:26 AM
#36
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17891 | Subs: 8



Stats can be buffed you know. The CoH1 USF did fine with M10s and without an OP TD while having the same lineup of vehicles. Except in CoH1 the USF actually had to make an effort to overrun German heavy armor instead of just kiting it at max range.

Though I would rather see the M10 being an Su-76 type of light TD.
But we digress.


CoH1 had deflection damage on anything, bounced attacks still dealt damage.
You're comparing apples to oranges, 2 completely different damage systems.
30 Jun 2018, 10:37 AM
#37
avatar of blvckdream

Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1

It´s weird for me how people claim Jacksons are OP while JP4 is actually way better if you know how to use it right. Allied medium tanks struggle to even penetrate it with his 230 armour. Plus it has 800HP at vet 2. Plus it has a small target size. It fucking drives around the map invisible in camo mode. It has smaller pop than Jackson (15 vs Jacksons 16) It´s a beast. Also wins any 1v1 vs allied TDs because of ROF, especially after vet 2. Meanwhile Jacksons have a big target size and only bounces shots from P4s once every blue moon.

I personally even prefer SU85 to Jacksons just because of self spotting and costing less.

It´s almost like people want USF to be completly useless again instead of semi-useless like they are now. M36 is the only thing USF has to counter tanks. Their at gun cant even counter a OKW P4 properly without spending munitions non-stop. Zooks on 5 men RE are nice but hardly enough.
30 Jun 2018, 14:33 PM
#38
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Jun 2018, 09:24 AMLago
You can't simply swap the M10 for the M36 as it doesn't have the firepower needed to fight heavy tanks and USF's other nondoc tank is the 75mm Sherman.

So long as USF has only one anti-tank vehicle that vehicle has to be able to deal with every other vehicle in the game. Otherwise the vehicle it can't counter counters USF's entire armour pool.

Non vet HVAP. Above average pen on the sherman. That thing the usf doesn't know because their army is built around 2 units that are supposed to counter every other unit with godly effecinecy called combined arms. Hell give it deflection damage if it has to.
30 Jun 2018, 17:19 PM
#39
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930


I think we're in agreement here. You can't take a glass cannon, remove the glass and call it a day. Imo if they wanted a non doc brawler (as they made) they should have swapped the m10 so there was a unique TD option instead of the very best and a doctrinal downgrade (right now its like having non doc t34-85s and doctrinal 76s...)


jump backJump back to quoted post30 Jun 2018, 09:24 AMLago
You can't simply swap the M10 for the M36 as it doesn't have the firepower needed to fight heavy tanks and USF's other nondoc tank is the 75mm Sherman.

So long as USF has only one anti-tank vehicle that vehicle has to be able to deal with every other vehicle in the game. Otherwise the vehicle it can't counter counters USF's entire armour pool.

The 75mm Sherman could have been given a buff to 800 hp to suit the USF's need for brawler. It would encourage player to use both unit instead of the current situation where it's just jackson.

Yes, medium normally have 640 hp, but asymmetric balancing demand that such rules be given exception. The sherman already have a larger than normal size for a medium tank (23 vs 22)

and the m10 shouldn't be moved to tech tree. It would just crowd the tech tree with redundant units instead of buffing underused units.
30 Jun 2018, 18:53 PM
#40
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

The 75mm Sherman could have been given a buff to 800 hp to suit the USF's need for brawler. It would encourage player to use both unit instead of the current situation where it's just jackson.


That's simply untrue.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

528 users are online: 1 member and 527 guests
Farlon
9 posts in the last 24h
39 posts in the last week
152 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45059
Welcome our newest member, mickreyt42
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM