I don't think that "ost sucks" - but I do think the expansion factions (OKW/USF/UKF) have pushed OST into a really strange box, design-wise.
The initial premise at launch for OST was an "expensive/tanky defensive" faction to contrast Sov's "cheap/squishy offensive" design - with Sov making up the eHP difference through numbers. Grens were more expensive with 4 models, compared to Sov's cheaper (but weaker) 6 model cons, P4s were more expensive and tankier than T34s, the MG42 was much better than the Maxim (but had 3 models), etc. Additionally, for extra variety, Sov generally had a fairly noticeable advantage at close range, which further pushed OST into it's "defensive" roll. As a result of those trade offs, a single unit loss for OST was always more costly than for Sov, but that single unit was usually more powerful. Overall, I thought this was a pretty good design, if a bit simple in concept.
The problem is, the expansion factions don't fit between SOV/OST in terms of offensive/defensive nature; they actually surround OST (and Sov, but to a lesser degree), which makes balancing them really, really tricky. Take the standard roster of units (i.e. non-doc):
The strongest defensive mainline is UKF's double-bren/bolstered Infantry Sections, not LMG grens.
The strongest offensive mainline is USF's double-BAR Rifle squads, not conscripts.
The most mobile faction is OKW/USF (FRPs, no T0 MGs), not Sov.
The most defensive faction is UKF (cover bonus, emplacements, old MG vet 1 bonus, etc.), not Ost.
So, how do you balance that while keeping each factions initial "flavor"? Do you buffs grens to beat IS' at range? Then you'll melt cons (and rifles) before they can get close. Do you buff cons to be better than Rifles? Then OST will get steamrolled. Do you make USF/OKW less mobile? Now they'll get pinned by Sov/Ost defensive units. Do you make UKF less defensive? Now they'll be overrun by OKW.
What we have right now is probably as close to the best that it can be without massive faction redesigns. Unfortunately, what that means is that Ost's "powerful but expensive units" design flavor has been pushed to the maximum; that single unit loss that was "more costly" than Sov's unit has now turned into "devastatingly costly" while also being more powerful than it used to be. As a result, OST requires an absolute minimum number of losses to use effectively, which can be really hard to do when the game is as RNG-heavy as it is - and even when RNG isn't involved, it means that a single loss early on can decide a match.
I agree with most of the analysis I do not agree identifying the problem.
The problem imo was that when WFA armies where introduced it was the Ostheer/Soviet that ended be adjusted to them and not the other way around. |
So coming back from all these numbers to the core. It just was about adding a medium option thas has more AT capability than M4A3 and more AI than Jackson. I proposed the 76mm because it would fill this gap while beeing inferior at AI compared to M4A3 and AT compared to Jackson. That was the point as Stormjäger claimed 76mm would be op (especially with Calliope) which lead to the discussion about stats and numbers. My goal was to show that 76mm hasn't universal shells, it just has a really strong RoF (noone questioned that). If a Sherman has universal rounds right from the start it is the E8, because it has a decent penetration.
The problem is that 76mm in its current implementation is op for stock unit. I 76mm Sherman supported by Paras for instance.
This what I had suggested over a year ago:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/104125/a-redesign-of-sherman
I doubt that Mod would be wiling to for such a change.
The core problem of USF T4 tank roster is that there is nothing to choose from.
That is diversity issue and not a balance problem.
Alternate medium tanks are only in one-out-of-three Companies and that are mainly less used Companies. So it basically comes down to M4A3+M36 every game. I still do think 76mm would be a good alternative, it neither up nor op, just a fine tank with its ups and downs. It would lead to some decision makng finally.
The problem has little to do with access to doctrinal tanks since USF have more option than other faction:
Easy8
76mm
Dozer upgrade
Dozer 105
The diversity issue is that M4A3 is one of the most cost efficient Main battle tanks with exeptional AI and M36 is one of the most cost efficient TDs vs any vehicle making the alternatives unnecessary. |
Just to be clear, Stormjäger always talked about the „universal“ shell which would be way to strong. HVAP wasn’t part of the discussion, it would get clearly the highest reduction in RoF with vet and radio net but wouldn’t have any AI value at all.
“Universal shell” with radio net + full vetted (stacked):
E8: -1,76 seconds
76mm: -1,59 seconds
M4A3: -1,62 seconds
I said in my original post E8 gets the most out of it, while 76mm and M4A3 get out pretty even. Whats wrong about that? If you subtract 10% and then 20% (M4A3/E8) or 30% (for 76mm) that are the numbers I do get.
But the comparison was never between E8 and 76mm, this was just an example to show that longer reload can result in getting more reduction in absolute numbers with less reload reduction bonus. It was about the combo of Jackson+M4A3 versus multiple 76mm, since Stormjäger claimed they would be op with "universal" shells especially in combination with Calliope.
Never questioned that.
Are you number from in game tests or theoretical?
Bottom line remains that 76mm Sherman fire faster than other Shermans regardless how each unit gains in "absolute number".
Overall E8 is the best Sherman (if we leave aside dozer blade upgrade for M4A3). Its higher survivability (armor+hp) results in having the highest chance to get to vet3 actually and stay there.
You are entitled to your opinion but I doubt people will agree with you. On the other hand it is more expensive.
Shermans/E8 get +30% accuracy at vet2 which isn't as bad as you want to tell us. In addition I wish you good luck by stop move a "blob" of vet3 76mm which have a firerate about 3 seconds. Staggering movement with total micro control, sounds totally realistic if you ask me.
If you one is fighting vehicles HVAP is already more accurate than Sherman gun.
If you one fighting soft target accuracy does not mean a thing.
Bottom line is that currently 76mm can face PzIV on equal grounds. |
What he is saying is that both EZ8 and 76mm save about 1,3 seconds due to veterancy.
Sherman 76mm
AP from 4.55->3.26 = 1.29 gain
HVAP from 6.35->4.52 = 1.83 gain
Easy8
From 6.55->5.29 = 1.26 gain
I don't see how.
And in absolute terms, the EZ8 profits more from radio net than the 76mm due to higher reload time.
Again I don't see how.
76mm has one of the fastest reload with AP and in "absolute" numbers one of the highest gains with HVAP. No matter how one choose to look at (and one should look thing in %) the 76mm gain more both from vet and radio net.
76mm has very good base stat and scale better than other Shermans. Imo vet 3 76mm with radio net are borderline broken.
One has also to keep in mind that the reload bonus is vet 2 for 76mm and vet 3 Easy8.
(unless there is bug in radio net resulting to different bonus in game) |
i think this is kind of a groundhog day moment, but i still don't get why it should be a problem that a unit performs better with manual targeting? i mean the brummbär isn't even bad if left on auto attack exclusively, so the tiny bit of user input required to make it shoot where you want is rather the icing on the cake than a strict necessity (in most situations, i agree hitting moving targets at max range without leading your shots is rather difficult).
in any case, the brum is a unit that rewards getting micro'ed properly and i see nothing wrong with that. if you need an ai-tank that is able chase running infantry squads without much babysitting then maybe an ostwind is the unit for you.
The gap is simply to big.
Sent a conscript full frontally to throw a AT grenade in Brumbar in auto fire without out even using ourah and see what happen.
Actually there is little reason for the unit to have a projectile moving at 1/3 of the speeds of other projectiles (if I remember correctly), to me it is simply the same inconsistency with having Stuka rocket with zero penetration and high AOE penetration. |
Plz don't suggest removing vehicle crews from m20 (if you are suggesting it).
If m20 is actually OP then there are better ways to nerf it than how jeep was nerfed
M20 should not lose the crew I agree.
Micro light vehicles are mess thou.
Unless an overhaul micro light happens M20 should have its base armored reduced and move to the upgrade, its range reduce to 35 and DPS/Accuracy adjusted be closer other micro light of its timing.
The armor upgrade should cost MP/Fuel similar to 223 upgrade and be locked behind tech. |
I wouldn't say they are far superior, because the 76mm gets no +30% accuracy bonus like the other Sherman variants. This is especially important while beeing on the move.
Not really.
USF vehicle already have only 25% penalty on the move and on top of that the 76mm has the option of the HAVP that have higher accuracy than the vanilla Sherman.
One can always stop when shooting to avoid moving penalties.
Collision hits than are quite often in sort range further reduce the importance of the accuracy bonus.
About radio net and vet reload bonus: The other Shermans with lower RoF profit more from radio net 10% less reload in numbers because they have a longer reload.
Not when the modifier is multiplied, the effect on TTk of faster ROF bonuses are the same.
Even if was true again 76mm would profit more due to HVAP.
76mm 30% reload vet bonus is pretty much the same reload reduction as 20% reload vet bonus at E8 in numbers. When adding radio net, the E8 has the highest reload reduction in seconds of all Shermans. The MA43 and the 76mm come out quite even if you combine the boni of vet and radio net.
Have you tested this in game? because the number do not add up.
Easy8 gets *80% reload at vet 3 and should have a ROF of 5.29 without radio net.
76mm get *70% at vet 2 and should have a ROF of 3.26 and 4.52 with HVAP without radio net so I do not see how Easy8 has higher ROF. (unless something is bugged)
Combined Arms: Onlx exists at Mechanized, which has the combination of 76mm and Combined arms right now too, and at Heavy Cavalary. But at Heavy Cavalary it affects all other tanks like Jackson, Pershing or M4A3 in the same way. It is a straight buff to all units. Since it isn't exclusively to 76mm I don't see the point here.
76mm has one of the fastest firing guns and with HVAP it has excellent penetration/accuracy.
Its fun of course but what is has to do with making the 76mm available nondoc?
I have little issues of making 76mm stock and M4A3 doctrinal, I have actually suggested that myself but no in its current state. The unit is simply extremely cost efficient.
|
Imo the problem wth the Brumbar is the lack of reliable soft counter to it. If you don't have a hard counter to it aka premium medium tank or heavier unit, soft counters are completely obliterated by the said brumbar.
There is a reason it is popular to simply rush it as first tank unit in team game, because you can stale with a team weapon wall during early game as Ostheer to get the brumbar super fast for maximum efficiency.
The problem is probably that it is too easily accessible.
This is a problem of the "rush to last tier" mentality that the Mod team is promoting (and I have already pointed out several times) (which is also part of the problem with light/micro light vehicles) but I doubt they would like to change that.
(edited so that it would be clear what mean) |
Do you mean the Brummbar?
Iirc, Sanders already showed this gap does not exist.
Yes I mean Brumbar's performance gab between auto attack and manual shots. Even thou the unit uses the same stat in auto and manual shots, there is a big gap in performance.
Projectile speed which is lower than most weapons has do with it especially vs moving targets.
|
Need reduced damage versus numbers of models (max 3) as ISU have (if i remember all changes correctly).
Too much easy wipes.
I am forced every game versus OST pick T34/85 doc.
ISU-152 performance should not be used a benchmark for Brumbar.
There is little reason to hard cap number of kill for brumbar (there are very few unit with such modifier and ISU is not one of them).
I would rather see the unit have faster projectile speed and lower AOE so that the gap in the performance between auto aim and manual aim is reduced. |