I still hope for seperately buildable Reserve Falls, since that 80 munitions on a such munition hungry Company really kills the ability to field more than 1-2 Falls in bigger game modes (or replace a somehow lost squad).
In addition something still has to be done about Greyhound. It seems they don't want to buff its combat stats, but i can't understand why not exchanging meme canister shot with an useful ability that isn't a buff to combat stats like a recon ability (flares/extended vision...). Would make it useful later on.
I agree about the doctrines that I don't comment, but here are the things I want to remark:
Guard Motor Coordination Tactics - The most boring doctrine of all time. Solid Elite Infantry, Solid Elite Armor, Solid abilities, + 1 meme Mortar. Not being touched in anyway despite being incredibly popular.
This commander will be even more useful because of the buff to the RoF of the 120mm barrage ability and the replacement of its Vet1 ability. I don't think it will be a meme mortar after this patch.
Shock Rifle - Untouched, but it's about to be heavily invalidated by Soviet Shock due to the 85 > KV8 and Incendiary Artillery Barrage being trash. (I wholeheartedly recommend a buff for it in some form.)
I don't thing incendiary is trash, but yeah the commander is less attractive than similar ones. The ATG Ambush could be exchanged for something more interesting or maybe just expanded to the stronger Tank hunter Ambush ability. IS-2 could need a little buff on top.
Lend Lease - Being absolutely gutted horribly. Assault Guards change is a buff but ultimately whatever, but losing the ability to expend excess Munitions for Fuel in "Allied Supply Drop" for a 200 MP Opel Blitz is unusable due to how hard you bleed Manpower as the Soviets, the triple heavy Manpower doctrine abilities (Ass Guards, Opel Blitz, DShK.) and how impossible Opel Blitz are to keep alive against competent players, and if the M4C Sherman is getting the same reload nerf that the 76mm Sherman is getting (Which I think it is since they're the same tank unless I'm mistaken?) then it's probably not worth using over 85's or KV1's. This doctrine has nothing worthwhile now in theory since there's a better way to get DShk's too. (Airbourne)
I can see this Commander at 3vs3/4vs4, a gamemode where allies are really struggling. The fuel drop was a meme there because it got always shot down, so I do think exchanging it for the Supply truck was a good move. Super Bazookas are a nice addition for 3v3/4vs4 too. But I agree about the RoF nerf to 76mm, which makes it even more less potent than the strong T34/85. Vs tanks with high armor it still can use its HVAP shells without loosing efficiency, but the nerf to standard shells obviously made it worse vs low armored vehicles/tanks and infantry. 76mm needs an AOE buff to its standard shells for a partly compensation.
If we really assume that factions with smaller playerbase are in general also of lower skill, Axis should have a win rate of slightly above 50%. However for 4v4 ladder population seems fairly even, on OKW has more players than the others.
I was talking about Soviets Top200 in 4vs4 which are played as often as OKW and almost as often as Ostheer, way more than USF/UKF.
Soviets about 10.600 ranked players
OKW about 10.400 ranked players
Ostheer about 11.700 ranked players
I would assume that there shouldn't be a difference between the Top200 of this three factions. this argument can be applied partly to UKF/USF maybe which only have a ladder about 7100-7600 ranked players.
When it comes to player TOP200 in 4vs4 the number of games for March is 278 and for April 358.
What are those numbers? I see 439 and 506 games for Soviets, so this is slightly below 1000 games in two month. You can't calculate how many games you really had in total, because you don't know how many Soviets were in that games that lost or won together.
The total winrate in both month at average is 41,8%
Can somebody explain why Soviets dropped in 4vs4 Top200 monthly data so drastically? Is there any reason?
march: 45,6% winrate
april: 38,5% winrate
I always thought off Soviets beeing the strongest allied faction in 4vs4, but in average of both month they have the lowest winrate according to coh2stats.com
How so? You dont have downside of having 6 man crews unless you cap weapons. Regular mortar dies when you have 1 model left, meaning you have 4 spare models to have, unlike other mortar teams which have only 2.
Lets say you was attacked and lost 3 or even 4 models, you still have your mortar alive with original crew which is cheap to reinforce. Other faction would have get mortar de-crewed and would requare to re-cap it.
Even if you cap it with the engi squad, it would still cost you more to reinforce 3 models+1 model on the team weapon, then for soviets to reinforce 4 models of the original crew.
If, in your opinion, there is important down side, in having 6 men crews for your mortar, here is tip for you, do not reinforce you mortars to full and leave them at 4 men.
It is an option after all.
Yeah I sometimes only recrew them without reinforcing. Overall having 6 man is a survivability boost, but like I said, it has a downside because it will bleed you more.
This is a big difference to having a squad of 4, 5, 6 or even 7 (late game cons) soldiers since each of them raises your damage output too and drastically raises their frontline combat time.
Having more men at a mortar (behind the front line) does not raise your damage output. It makes you less prone to get fully wiped but more likely to get hit and thus bleed. I want to exaggerate to make it more clear: If you would have a mortar crewed by 30 soldiers, you would have a pretty much non decrewable weapon which still would fire with only one mortar and would be hit by every single counter shell or rocket because you can't miss 30 soldiers spread around a mortar. So six man obviously bleed you more while raising your survivability in indirect fire fights.
Edit: To make it even more clear: I never said having a 6 man crew is a disadvantage, it just isn't. I only said it has a downside.
if i am not wrong, the sov mortar have better survivability too!
This is more important at MGs or ATGs which are more likely to get targeted by small arms fire of infantry. If mortar gets targeted by indirect fire you will still get a small survivability boost vs alpha strike damage (the damage over the time you need o react and retreat or relocate), but on the downside it bleeds you more. You are more likely to loose multiple soldiers to a single attack. So there is a downside to sixth man mortar crews you may not have thought off.
thing is, that 'little' killing power the live B-4 has basically just got increased by a factor of 3 in the beta... at least in cases where you can't leave the killing zone fast enough, such as being shelled by a B-4 barrage upon retreating back to base. i can already feel this potentially becoming an issue in 1v1s and i don't even want to imagine the flood of tears about to drown this forum once multiple B-4s start raining death in 3v3 and higher on a regular basis.
now don't get me wrong, i like the fact that the B-4 might be more than just a meme-cannon in 1v1s if the current changes go live. personally i also couldn't care less about the havok the reworked B-4 may be causing in 4v4s since neither do i play nor enjoy watching games in that mode - but there are a lot of people who do and hence a rework of some sort might turn out necessary. added utility in exchange for raw killing power could be one
one way to approach this without upsetting the balance in solo and team games too much.
You are absolutely right about 3v3/4vs4. Can we just keep it useful and hardcap it a 1? I know there are situations where it will be decrewed and you could build a second one if you wait to crew it again. But spam would be hampered at least. You could further obstruct a decrew mechanic, if you put in a timer, so it can't be build about 60 to 90 sec after you lost your B4 (similar to Heavy Tank call-ins).
In sort Centaur is 23% probable to be penetrate by recon AT
Around x1/2-x1/3 less chance to be penetrate by light Tank.
It will also be penetrate easier by medium tanks
In other words, the armor advantage Centaur has, does matter for a variety of weapons.
It makes no sense to echo what I said again and again. I named the only one and a half matchups were it matters at all, you are just ignoring that by always calling ot a "variety" of weapons, while not proofing that these matchups are of any importance in a normal game. We are arguing in a circle, while having completely different views. So lets end it here. Thx.
Calculate the change of the Puma hitting and penetrating a Centaur and do the same for AEC (or even T-70/Stuart) vs Ostwind.(Want to check how Luch does vs centaur?)
I did it for you for armor. Won't do it for accuracy vs target size because my argument was that its durability comes mainly from target size. So your argument about hitting is invalid, because I never claimed that. I would approve my own statement by taking target size into account. I only claimed that armour adds little to its survivability because there are only some situations were it armor matters at all. Speed/accleration and armor of Ostwind would be plainly better in combination with Centaur target size.
Puma between 100%pen (close) and 50% (far) at 50 range / 120dmg
AEC between 100%pen (close) and 73%(far) at 40 range / 120dmg
Stuart between 68%pen (close) and 50% (far) at 40 range / 80dmg
T-70 between 45% (close) and 36% (far) at 40 range / 40dmg
I don't see a problem, all cosr between 70 and 75 fuel (including side tech). AEC performs better with the exception of range. Puma still performs better than Stuart which is an AT source too if you look at its main gun AOE stats and its abilities. T-70 shoots a second faster than the other three but its performance is still way worse, because its main role is AI. It doesn't make sense to compare with Luchs, which is even cheaper and comes out earlier than these four. T-70 is really bad vs Ostwind already and will get destroyed by Ostwind pretty quickly. This is no problem of course since T-70 has lower cost and timing.
Armor does help Centaur it that simple vs a number of weapons.
Armor does help Centaur it that simple vs a number of weapons which are rarely used vs Centaur or are meant to be AI with the exception of PZIV and maybe Puma at mid to long range
-> corrected it for you. You don't have to give thanks to me :-)
Not really. Ostwind take damage even from light vehicles like T-70/Stuart.
Yes, that are light tanks for 70 fuel, that is a lot for a light tank. Take Puma for example, costs 70 fuel can damage a Centaur too. On the other side Ostwind can damage Stuart / T-70 pretty well by itself since it has a lot more penetration than Centaur. I don't mind that light tanks for 70 fuel have a chance to damage Ostwind/Centaur for 100 fuel.
Centaur is actually harder to hit than Cromwell while having the same armor and Owstind is easier to hit than PzIV while having much less armor.
The target size is the real deal and I never questioned that. I said that the higher armor has little effect since there is only one typical matchup were it helps at all. It is the matchup PZIV shooting at a Centaur. All AT weaponary I talked about penetrates Centaur to 100% at long ranges. So the armor is worth nothing here. Overall the armor adds little survivability, more speed would be better. But of course the target size helps in any combat situation.