Has anyone had any experience with the Stuart or M15 AAHT? Ive used the Stuart a few times, and it feels mostly the same, but not quite as potent as it used to be against infantry, which I feel it may have been slightly over-nerfed on. Reducing main gun damage is fine but the MG Accuracy nerfs were a bit much. Isnt AI the CoAx and Hull MGs purpose? Im not sure it needed increased pen, as I cant remember bounces on light vehicles it is intended to counter. Maybe more damage would have been better? What is your experience?
Also, has anyone used the new AAHT yet? I havent gotten around to it yet, but I wonder about what its main gun is meant for now. Before, I used it like an ass-backward luchs with less armor but an MG to make up for it. Now, with the Main gun damage vs infantry set to -50% change, I cant be sure why it exists. Can it hit/pen/damage anything outside of a Kubelwagon. Is there ever a reason to attempt to use it against any vehicle? Its nice that accuracy of both the MG and Main gun seem to increase with vet, and vet reqs are lowered, but I often have trouble keeping it alive that long vs a 222, Luchs, or god forbid a Puma, all three of which come out about the same time.
IMO, the Stuart and M15 were badly overnerfed. I've tried both since the patch and don't like either. I'd save the fuel and try to get a Sherman out quicker. |
Thats irrelevant since we talk about team games here and because good players dont go Bofors. Doesnt mean the commander is okay though.
Even in team games, this commander isn't that good. I'd much rather play against it than Tactical Support, Vanguard, Mobile Assault, even Royal Engineer or Royal Arty. The best thing about it is the engineers from the forward assembly. They have good repair speed and synergize with Comets quite well (but then, what doesn't?).
|
|
Did anyone use this commander in the GCS and win? |
If you remove the crush from the Cromwell and M10 you should also remove it from the Panther.
There have been many cases where a Panther with Blitz/Combat Blitz made short work of blobs in front of it.
And don't give me the excuse "But the Allied blobs are more OP than the Axis blobs!", you either get a fair trial or no trial at all.
Plus historically the M10 and M36 had no pintle mounted MGs because of their open topped turrets, at least in most cases, plus they'd need to modify the in-game models, which believe me is not going to happen.
The M18 Hellcat had a pintle mounted .50 cal on top of it's turret tho.
And yes I agree that they should be kept unique, Ost P4 should be... well Idk to be honest, OKW P4 should be the best armored but slowest medium tank, the UKF Cromwell should be the fastest and hardest to hit due to it's lower profile and the Sherman... well Idk, I don't use it anymore since I got the Rifle Company commander with the sweet M4A3E8s, those things are beasts when in numbers. The T-34/76 should be the 2nd fastest and 2nd best Armor due to it's sloped Armor.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/the-m10-tank-destroyer-in-wwii-in-18-pictures.html
multiple pictures of M10 with pintle |
One of the major issues of contention across players seems to be the utility of all factions' medium tanks. The T34 is too cheap, P4 is too expensive, Cromwell is too crushy, and Sherman is too little armour. Does any one think that bringing the cost and performance of mediums tanks closer together would adress a number of the balance issues experianced across all players?
T34 is okay, P4 is too expensive, Cromwell probably shouldn't have crush. M10 definitely shouldn't have crush, but should probably be compensated by adding a pintle MG or HE and/or smoke shells. However, I doubt any of these things are contributing to any balance issues. Also, if you made them all the same, what would be the point? It would be just like 1995 again with Warcraft 2, where everything is mostly the same but with different skins and a few different abilities. |
Him winning as soviets won't matter at all, because he won both games. I was just running the numbers on games where both players won one game, because otherwise I'd have to actually look at every single player involved and decide whether the skill gap was too high to include the games.
That said, the new games did improve stats for allies anyway as every single one of the newest 10 games was won by allies.
Ost OKW Soviets USF Brits
Count 20 42 20 27 15
Wins: 10 25 6 13 8
Losses: 10 17 14 14 7
Win % 50,0% 59,5% 30,0% 48,1% 53,3%
Faymonville Approach and Kholodny really good for UKF (maybe allies in general). I haven't looked at any of the replays but think a mortar pit on Faymonville could cover a huge chunk of the map from just outside of the base. |
So if you take the games where both players won a game (so as to ignore matchups that might have been determined purely by skill gap), the win rates for factions are, assuming I didn't enter anything wrong:
Ost OKW Soviets USF Brits
Count 15 37 17 25 10
Wins: 10 25 3 11 3
Losses: 5 12 14 14 7
Win % 66,7% 67,6% 17,6% 44,0% 30,0%
Soviets looking pretty good there. Brits not too shabby either.
Korean army doubled the Soviet winrate by wining all four of his matches including both as Soviets, at least until your sorting method is applied. Then Soviets back to being on life support. |
Maybe it would be balanced, but it would be incredibly boring. Asymetry is one of the best things about coh2, mirror matches would make coh a terrible game.
It wouldn't be boring. I'm not suggesting making all of the units the same. Each game (particularly 1v1's) would start with infantry. From there, the player could choose team weapons or light vehicles (basic armored cars or half tracks). Light vehicles would give an advantage in mobility but would delay T3, so the decision would have to be a tactical one. It would certainly have more depth than four rifles into Captain every game. |
Look like brits and soviets won´t deal problems anymore. Now you can finally see that whole allied side was winning games only because of their cheese and they are actually badly designed and stand no chance against better designed axis factions once you remove their cheese.
COH2 would've been better if all factions were designed with T0 having infantry, T1 & T2 being team weapons or light vehicles, T3 for regular vehicles (P4, Cromwell, Sherman) and T4 for advanced. Trying to make 4 equal to 3 across multiple factions is a recipe for what we have right now.
If penal flamers were still around, Soviet win rates would have looked like the Ost win rates. |
You want grens at t0? They are the weakest mainline infantry after cons. Noo thanks I'll keep my t0 mg42.
Then fix grens, instead of some genius idea like giving USF a T0 mortar....... |
Relic Entertainment
