Profile of Hannibal

Sorry for bumping this up again, it is not my intention to keep "my thread" relevant but:

I have seen that a lot of people downloaded the initial script, whereas so far only three got the updated version.

I can only urge everyone that is using the first version to get the newest one if they use it for forum discussion. While most of the changes are not that important, weapons that had a maximum range greater than the far range will have 0 DPS displayed at long ranges. For some like PPSh this is not a huge deal, but for others it is. This was a coding error on my side, the weapon actually does deal damage. It is fixed in the new version.

Great work!

What do you mean by mixed weapons? Adding lmgs and various should be straightforward as long as range is fixed as those weapons always stay around till the end, so use their DPS for the botton 1-to-2 troops (or am i missing something). The biggest outlier will be non-focus fire weapons which have weird characteristics, which is why Falls sometimes feel bad. But you predict SMG results welll so it looks fine.

Ill be waiting on that script, it'll be nice to have more good tools.

The mixed weapons was a response to the suggestion to calculate the number of bullets needed to kill. But this is hugely complicated especially if there is more than one weapon in a squad. E.g. an LMG and a rifle have different damage values. There is no fixed number of bullets that is necessary to kill, because we don't know how many bullets each weapon will contribute. Therefore we'd need the 'most likely' number of bullets. But to calculate this there are further assumptions etc.
Since my model uses DPS instead everything is simplified. Mixing weapons is no issue and already 'implemented'. I have not cared about focus fire so far because no one really knows how it works. Not just in the sense that some formula is slightly off, but really in the sense of that we only have very small pieces of information.

Regarding the Ostheer Command P4's new "mark vehicle" ability:

1. It needs a different name. While the other mark vehicle ability is for the Soviets for different prices etc, it is still be best to name different abilities differently.
2. Is it supposed to be an "allrounder"? With the target size modifier helping against smaller and the armor reduction against heavier units? Or is it more a temporarily tested ability to see if the CP4 needs something of that kind?
3. Overall it synergizes badly with the Elefant. This unit is already a top tier TD, I don't see why the AT capabilities must be enhanced if you have access to the Elefant since the benefit is marginal.



In general regarding Festung Armor and Fortified Armor:
Hull down and CP4 have similar effects: Enhance the survivability. The CP4 can also do this on the offense, but I have the feeling that I usually want to use either the CP4 OR hull down to make my tanks better. I know it also works for infantry, but regarding tanks both are usually too much.
I also feel that the Elefant and CP4 are not a great combo. The CP4 should be used with tanks/infantry that see frontline action. Yet with the Elefant I bind >20% of my forces to a backline unit that does not need a survivability buff. Elefant and CP4 together eat more than a third of my population, leaving not much pop for further tanks. Again, I know the aura works on infantry too. But if I am supposed to buy both CP4 AND Elefant, that is basically 1-2 tanks less that benefit from the aura. If I am not supposed to get them both, it is probably better to not put them into the same commander.

I removed my post about a minute after I posted it, I had in mind that there was only one with hull down (Elefant Commander). There are also upcoming commander changes. That shows that it has been a while since I played with the railway artillery commander or Hull Down... Personally, I like HullDown, but the commanders are very limiting compared to other available ones that cover a full range of possible 2on2 plays. Thus, I barely chose it, I think the last time I picked it was for a modded patch 2on2 game.

Yeah, I meant artillery that includes off-maps and long-range units/builds. There aren't many commanders out there that add strong mid and end game concerns to the opposite team. I prefer to load out commanders so that the enemy cannot fully be confident that their FRP is safe, their expensive units are safe, and/or skill plans might land on their beloved toys at any time. Hull Down commanders don't really offer that range of play. If Hull down was added to the (for example top 5) most equipped commanders as per coh2stats, only then perhaps it might be considered as stronger than what it is now. But for now, considering it is only in limiting commanders, there is no need to have it redesigned and modified in any way.

(must have been typing then while you were editing, unfortunate timing)

Yes, I agree. The commanders that promote a very slow and steady approach to fighting, but that is the case with quite some OST commanders. I think with some changes to the Command P4 (the planned switch to P4J and whatever adjustment the unit might get) they might get a bit more flexible.

I personally like hull down, for once because it is unique and second because it has a very nice visual and thematic style. Even before the patch notes went live I tried to use it again, but I always felt I could not really get it to work. It just has so many conditions to be useful: You need to know not only that your opponent will make a big push, but also the exact direction of tank forces. You then need an infantry squad nearby to dig in your tank and send the infantry back to its own position. All while hoping that the enemy does not attack. There must be some tradeoff, but if you misjudge any of these points (even if the enemy attacks later than you think) you are probably better of with not digging in in the first place because you wasted the potential of two squads at once. The self-hull down is a good idea in my opinion, but it might indeed need some other changes/potential nerfs to keep it balanced).
Slightly offtopic: For some units as the P4 it is barely worth it since those will still be outranged by Allied TD while losing their biggest asset: mobility. I can only see proper use for the Panther (+StuG and the Elefant on VERY laney maps).

M1 and Jackson suck at penetrating panther with or without vet, I have had vet 2 Jackson with AP round bounce on Panther frontally and that was without hull down. So as I said pushing AT guns will cause bleed right whereas Panther can easily trade well with any TDs allies have and also come out on top. I could say it is so OP that it can go against 2 non vet Jackson and kill one and still get away with low health.

You are experienced enough for me to explain to you how OST fares in 4v4 right, the Allies can barely manage to stay afloat because of their TDs which trade well. This hull down in particular devoids this strat of Allies. I dont know why this hull-down deserved this buff which made vehicles independent to use this strat now it can be easily spammed throughout.

There would hardly be any match in formats 2v2+ where ISU would not be up against Elefant but since you claim that there was no way to counter it with Pak43s and Elefant readily available in OST commanders, what way does the Allies have to counter the Elefant now? Keeping in mind that not everyone can make a 17 pounder.

Jackson has a frontal 85% pen chance at vet0 and 100% at vet3.
The 57mm with sabot rounds still has at least a 81% chance. It's not great, but given the 60 range and good ROF you can force the Panther to move.

I am not sure if the self hull down is necessary, maybe a quicker cast time would be fine too. But compared to other commander abilities at the moment it is a rather weak ability, because it costs a lot of micro and binds infantry, while additionally being quite situational.

A doctrinal unit must be counterable by stock options. If you take doctrinal abilities into the equation you need to discuss offmaps as well. But I think this would lead too far off the actual topic. I think the concern you raise is very valid, but hull down is not uncounterable and it really needs some change to make it more competitive.