Kinda hard to believe that a p4 would beat a Jackson in a 1 on 1 fight. Are we assuming that the Jackson is just going to stand still and not move? |
Yeah, honestly the changes were a buff and a nerf.
Jackson went from 480 to 640 hp which is honestly needed because this is USF main way to deal w/ Tigers, Kings, Jagtigers, Panthers... at 480 hp it was just hilariously underpowered.
The more curious change was the damage and pen, while it lost 40 damage, to drop to 160 (from 200) it gained penetration to be able to fight heavies more reliably.
So what has this caused? Well dueling mediums is dicey as fuck, as the jacksons increased penetration doesn't matter vs mediums, it never had a problem penetrating them. But losing 40 damage is a big deal, as it used to put some serious hurt on STUG's and other mediums..
Just think about all the times those pesky germans tanks slipped away?! That was the 40 damage you no longer have.
Actually medium tanks have 640hp. Number of hits/time needed by Jackson to kill a P4 is still the same. It does matter against vehicles which don't have the standard 640hp, though, or when you're combining with an AT nade.
But the HP buff was huge. It used to survive 2 hits vs now it survives 3 hits is +50% survivability. It also matters a lot when fighting JT/KT/Elefant.
*in case people are wondering, 3rd hit kills a 480hp tank, so a 480hp tank only survives 2 hits. So while the buff to HP is 33%, the actual buff to survivability is 50%. |
- Wehr Mortar can easy 1 shot the Soviet Sniper team.
- The soviet Mortar team CANNOT 1 shot the Wehr Sniper. That's why it got the extra health.
So it would be un-1 shottable by mortars.
T70 rarely hits vet 3. T34 rarely hits vet 3.
Germans however do, regularly.
I am at work. So can't verify what vet requirements do. But we often do comparisons.
Soviet has Bolt action scoped rifle. German has G41 scoped rifle. aims, fires, kills way faster.
As a result German hits vet 3 about 3x faster than Soviet snipers do.
I am saying German sniper is superior in SO many cases.
And yet you still want the underdog to be nerfed even more?
Honestly you lost all credibility here with "T70 rarely hits vet 3".
Soviet Sniper teams face off against small squad, high exp value Axis infantry. Wehr sniper gains crap ton of exp against Brits, but gains tiny amount vs conscript models. It's important to consider what the unit faces against when considering its value. It's definitely true the Wehr sniper has superior stats, but the argument you've completely failed to address is that 2man squads are far too advantageous when it comes to Sniper vs Sniper play. |
OKW is fine, just #adapt.
Enemy has more fuel than you whole game? go t2 and get a puma. You can kill any tank with Puma and raketen.
HAHAHAHA.
If the opponent is bad enough for me to kill his tanks with raketen and Puma, I wouldn't even be behind on fuel in the first place.
If my opponent is strong enough to maintain a healthy fuel advantage over me, how could I possibly fend off his tanks with raketen and Puma? |
It was batshit OP last patch. It's simply in the "incredibly strong" category now that the damage has been reduced significantly. Last patch it could face-melt raketens before they even fired once.
People often talk about countering the Croc in isolation, forgetting that it will come along with a FF and the best Allied AT gun. Fausting the Croc used to be a deathwish, lol. I've had a Vet 5 full health Volks die before the faust even got fired. It's far harder to counter than some of you are claiming it to be. |
This armor does not help, because almost all hits on the IS-2 are penetration. But at the same time he has a disgusting gun. That's why he has disgusting performance. Because this "armor" IS-2 does not buffed. Reduce the armor (it's almost always penetrated) and improve the performance of the gun. That's why I think Pershing is a very good tank: I don't expect armor protection, but great mobility and gun. IS-2: armor almost penetrated (it is rather a miracle that the armor is not penetrated), main gun is terrible, low mobility.
I call BS on this. IS2 has superb armour. I tried to counter an IS2 with double raketen because I went p4 instead of Panther. Raketens have 40% chance to pen and P4 like 30%. It did not end well. I couldn't faust him to stop him diving for my p4 because the first 6 shots bounced.
I had a moment of bad luck - but you don't see me claiming the IS2 is invulnerable?
In any case, IS2 has much higher armour than Tiger, and I personally like the IS2 far more than the Tiger.
But I think the reason why people always hate on the IS2 is that the Tiger actually comes together with useful Commanders, while most of the good Soviet commanders don't have IS2.
The other reason is that they only play one side and need to find an explanation for why they keep getting beaten. People who keep claiming a faction is OP should try actually playing it - then we could have a more rational discussion. |
Literally as soon as a raketen is revealed, it is dead. The crew cannot take any damage, not from tanks and not from infantry with small arms. Retreat doesnt change that.
It would actually be okay if it weren't for the high chance for the whole thing to stop because one guy died and they need to rearrange the way they carry the gun.
Many team weapon retreat wipes happen when the "main dude" carrying the thing dies. |
The IS2 isn't as good as the KT (which is entirely reasonable since it has no tech requirements and is much cheaper), but it still has pretty good AOE and armour. Panthers bounce often against IS2, which reduces repair burden compared to T34-85 spam. The main appeal of the IS2 is getting to skip teching costs, which are pretty substantial.
IS2 has very decent stats, which are quite similar to those of the Tiger. Comparing it to the strongest unit in the game and claiming that "IS2 is useless" is intellectually dishonest.
Crecer13 scatter is very RNG dependent, even when stationary.
I've had games where Panther bounced twice vs KV1 while the KV1 penned the Panther 3 consecutive times. That doesn't make Panthers bad - my luck was bad. Nothing you can do about that, just play harder and pray harder to RNGesus. |
Everyone's getting off-track, shouldn't we be focusing on the OP's incorrect statistics and bad arguments?
"This unit is capable of effectively rushing and trading with any other engineer unit at a maximum loss of 2 models in exchange for a squad wipe. So, the effective trade in resources is 75MP for 170-210 MP."
<-- What a ridiculous scenario - the last time I saw this happen was when I played vs Normal AI. This already shows the OP is simply a very weak player. Not only do most players support their CE/RE with their first Penal/Rifle, but the fact that he's getting squad wiped when there's only 2 squads to micro really shows he shouldn't be making balance claims/arguments.
Few players are bad enough to lose their starting CE by fighting point-blank with a Sturmpioneer squad. But overall the OP totally fails to understand the overburdened Sturmpioneer role. They are costly, slow and expensive to reinforce, whilst every other faction can easily get multiple engineer squads if desired/necessary. Sturms simply aren't compared to other engineers 1 vs 1 because of the asymmetric design. He also completely ignores the benefits of the weaker engineers - there's usually only 1 sturm to do mine-laying, sweeping, wiring, and repairing, but those same tasks can be cheaply and more efficiently spread across 2 CE squads.
This is a dude who doesn't believe that Infantry Sections wreck Grens/Volks and he "needs proof" that Allied infantry are stronger, even though a quick look at the dps curve for Penals or Riflemen will show that they simply are. I don't think any experienced player "needs proof" to know that the Infantry Sections get superb bonuses when in cover. Playing as both Ost and Brits I've never seen Grens ever beat IS in a 1v1 fight. Unless you count "Grens standing in green cover while IS runs across a road" fights.
He's also losing his team-weapons early-mid game to random infantry and giving his opponents plenty of time and space to salvage - salvage takes a fair chunk of time and the squad salvaging suffers insane received accuracy. Which implies that he's leaving team-weapons unsupported AND retreating them very late, while not sending squads to re-capture what he lost.
The only valid point is that KT is too good - but overall the OP's perspective is that of a very lowly-skilled player, which greatly reduces the validity of his input on balance arguments. And those faulty stats...120 dmg on Pershing, wut??!!! |
Tbh I often have the same problem. I find myself dominating my opponent for the early-mid game in most games in the 4 key areas.
1) squad and vehicle preservation
2) taking better engagements/mp attrition war
3) resource control/income
4) VPs
I'm constantly ahead in vehicles/tech/upgrades against my opponent, but once I reach 25 to 30mins or so things can go south easily. In fact, once Shermans/p4s are out the threat of lone-capping squads being wiped is very high. A moment of two of carelessness can lose you an upgraded max-vet squad, and as USF, drop some BARs for your enemy. I once gave my opponent a double-barred Vet 5 Volks.
Below are ways I try to minimise my late-game unraveling.
1) Remember to watch out for what your opponent has. If I know he has a vet 2 t70 sending lone squads to cap the side vps can be suicidal. Vetted Panzergrens are a unit that can melt solo squads really fast, as are Brit units who have the light Gammon bomb. Basically be wary if he has "super squad wiping" units
2) Put important units in control groups (snipers/vehicles)
3) Learn the retreat paths - on many maps there's certain danger spots where your squad will end up taking a suicidal/stupid retreat path
4) As mentioned by Romeo, limit the number of engagements. You can do this by focusing on defending/securing a key area first before making a push for another key area. You don't necessarily have to a-move with 5 squads, you can try to push for territory in pairs or small groups while keeping the larger force for defense or holding the middle.
5) Manage your army composition - in the late game, pop cap often becomes an issue. Infantry fights become less important, and most green cover will have been destroyed, so the combat dynamics change a lot. What won you the early game doesn't really work anymore. The late game transition to armour should be supplemented by by investments in indirect fire. Rocket artillery is really devastating, because it can dislodge or even decrew AT guns and hmgs, and wipe retreating squads. He needs to escape every single time you barrage, but you only need one moment of luck to take out his max vetted squads.
Having the wrong army composition will cause you to lose the late game. I've done it many times - I made the wrong late game strategic choices in army composition, and end up losing a game in which I had a commanding lead throughout. |