Profile of general_gawain

So, whats next? -> The answer is pretty easy: Iron Harvest in semptember.

CoH2 really was my favorite game in the past few years and Imo the community dev team did a very good job since they took over. But there are some major flaws they can't change like ressource inflation in bigger game modes or awful vehicle pathfinding. Iron Harvest looks a lot like a CoH3 in an alternative timeline and will do better regarding the major flaws hopefully. I'm triggered.

Medium tanks have more range (40) than handheld AT (35). They are faster and have quicker aim time. It's pretty easy to kite AT infantry with medium tanks and kill models while taking next to no damage.

Handheld AT blobs are quite easily punished by players who know what they are doing. There are plenty of counters: kiting, mines, rocket artillery, HMGs, AI infantry, etc. Blobbing AT infantry is generally absent from higher ranked games. I can understand lower ranked players might struggle, but ultimately it is a strategy game where there are counters available (both on a micro-level and on a rock paper scissors level), and if players can't or won't use those then there is a certain point beyond which balance itself can't help anymore.

Im mainly playing with friends from 2vs2 to 4vs4, we are going up and down in rank usually somewhere between 200 and 600, the best rank I ever achieved was about 120. There it is a problem. So it seems at 2vs2 and up lower rank starts below Top200 already. Thats a hell lot of players. I know it is much less of a problem in 1vs1.

In theory there is always a counter, although the most important next to MG (rocket artillery) isn't available non-doc for all factions.

My main argument in my last post was that med tanks get useless in lategame because they just can't get into frontal fights with heavies and TDs while flanking/diving in gets denied by AT-blob, which does needs way less micro than defending with mines and PAKs. You don't need 5 or 6 squads for that. Given the potency of AT handheld atm, you just need two squads with triple super zook or double shrek and you will force off or destroy every medium that tries to close in.

Even if you used recon before the attack the blob surely comes just in time back out of the base when you start to flank. When you are driving forward you can't stop your tank fast enough to not get hit with an At handheld aiming time of 0.63 seconds.

So it mainly comes down to TDs and heavies in lategame, it could be so much more. Strong handheld AT restricts lategame tank diversity.

Edit: I have seen a lot of complains that it always comes down to TD/heavies. So, there has to be something wrong, when meds have no real place anymore. I'm just saying what is the reason for that imo.

Fussies do also exist, and they are the exception. You don't base balance around exception you either accept them or you balance them.

But the exceptions are a big part of the problem. Fussies/Rangers are both doctrinal on two commanders.

Elite zooks also get increased pen than normal zooks and retain their rof.
I'd argue a super zook as roughly equal to a shrek. It's less reliable but has more potential.

Super zook is halfway between zook and shrek regarding pentration. So nothing is wrong about my statement that shreks penetrate more often than super zooks. Or is it, then tell me please. That allied medium armor is commonly less armored seems also true to me. So Shreks pen more often as a result of it. That in turn results in more damage, because deflection damage is only 1/4. Thats the reason I say triple super zook is roughly comparable with double shrek in outcome. Imo this is pretty simple maths.


Regarding rof it is 5,75 seconds reload at zook and 7,75 at shrek. I hope neither of this two weapons hit you twice (unless vehicle pathfinding f...ed you up, yes then it happens). I don't think a second volley is such a big problem, mainly its the first volley already.

Additionally super zooks are on more durable squads meaning even though they are less capable of penning they will stick around longer and shoot more on top of already simply shooting more. No good axis player is going to gamble a dive through super zooks any more than an allied player would shreks.

Thats what I'm saying the whole time. Neither an axis player would dive through triple super zooks nor an allied player through double shreks. They are both just too good versus armor, can't be circumvented like a pak and so on...

Are you bargaining a bren buff because shreks are bundled to an elite infantry and NO OTHER INFANTRY CAN GET IT STOCK? Srlsy? Not even grens or volks can stack up snare+AT but poor man R.E. can do it and no one points that out.

I repeat myself and highlight the most interesting part: "Then make a 70mun double bren upgrade for IS, or a 110mun triple Super Bazooka upgrade for Rangers. You know what? That would be hilarious, i really don't want that."

-> So no, I don't want a bren buff, I just said that bundles shouldn't be cheaper.
-> About the R.E. thing: Man they are carrying PIATs for 50mun each. Lets repeat it: PIATs. That alone should be bad enough already. In addition their not that elite (like Rangers/Pzgrens), and will go down more quickly in firefights.

Pgren lose 50% of their AI potential to get a couple of "bundled" shreks. Unless you see pgren that can stow away their AT like sturmpios do with minesweepers, the AI lost is part of the cost. No axis unit have weapon racks to "choose" wether to pick 1 or 2 "bundleshreks" so thats a big fallacy there.

-> Rangers loose even more than 1/2 of their AI power to have roughly the same AT peformance with triple Super Bazooka as Panzergrenadiers/Panzerfusiliers have with double Shrek. And they pay a lot more for it. Still it is not okay! If the counter is so powerful plus so much more easy to play than the unit that gets countered by it that is nuts. A pak is completely fair. It clearly can't hold its ground on its own and it can be circumvented by tanks, the unit it is meant to counter. You needs foresight/recon and suporting units and you can't retreat it with the exception of raketen of course.

By comparison: What is so tactical about putting 2-3 double-shreks or Rangers with Super Bazooka together? You just a-move them where you need them. And if you really got them in a fucked up situation just hit the retreat button and bring them back.

This thread is not about their cost (I made a different thread about that), its more about tactical use of handheld AT. With the exception of AT rifles all of them have a pretty low aim time. This in addition to high penetration of especially Super Bazooka and Shrek makes them quite offensive "a-click" tools.

I mean we all know it: We have a tank, an AT-Blob emerges at the edge of our vision and we try to drive backwards until we hit an invisible obstacle, start turning and get vaporised. Shitty vehicle pathfinding really drives the annoyance of AT-Blob over the top.

I myself had to shoot with a Panzerfaust at a moving wooden Tank-Panel after I sprinted up to a trench and I know how hard it is to hit when you are heavily breathing. And that happend without beeing under real fire while chasing a real tank of course.

So why not applying a stance that takes a few seconds to toggle.

Stance normal: Unit moves normally, but can't fire AT-weapons or only with drastically higher aim time.

Stance defensive: Unit can move only very slowly or not at all and has normal aim time. Maybe you could add camouflage in cover when they are not allowed to move.


This way it would be way more tactical and realistic. Laying mines on roads next to them and finishing of careless tanks. Or just defend your flanks when they are set up. No easy chasing tanks anymore while not hampering or even buffing defensive abilities (camouflage).