Brummbar OP plz nerf!!!!

Just compare the nerfs and buffs with the Ostwind. Ostwind was overbuffed, then it was toned down just slightly with a cost increase. People still use it and it's still a great tank while not being over the top. Brum was thought to be OP, then triple-nerfed and now hardly anyone uses it.

Anyone know what the exact changes to the Brummbar were? Never was that clear to me. So far I know:

- Range reduced from 40 to 35.
- Armor reduced from 260 to 240.
- Vet 2 armor bonus reduced from x1,3 to x1,2.

Is that all concerning the base stats?

And was the bunker barrage changed in any way?

You'll have to town down all heavy tanks as well then. You can't just nerf Allies only counter to heavy armor and then let them get roflstomped by Tigers and Panthers every time a game goes over 20 minutes. If you're bothered by tank destroyers being so strong, look at the reason they have to be strong. That reason is SU-85's and M10's that could not counter a King Tiger.

Those changes rendered the KT and everything below it obsolete
Since those changes also all heavy armour got their rear armour DRASTICALLY lowered and the most common problem tank, the panther traded armour for health. Heavy armour should be a tough nut to Crack not the same nut just an extra whack or 2

To provide adequate reliability for both heavy tank and tank destroyer I'd have deflection damage added so that all shots do more damage, some just do more(or less depends on how you look at it) flanking with cheaper tanks an hand AT are still available and applicable

Heavy armour should be a combined arms event because of cost and upkeep

I was at the forefront of saying allied TDs were inadequate when they were RNG cannons and I'm not afraid to admit they have been over tuned in the other direction. We need a middle ground of armour stopping all damage and armour not doing anything at all but inflating price.

Anyone know what the exact changes to the Brummbar were? Never was that clear to me. So far I know:

- Range reduced from 40 to 35.
- Armor reduced from 260 to 240.
- Vet 2 armor bonus reduced from x1,3 to x1,2.

Is that all concerning the base stats?

And was the bunker barrage changed in any way?

AT first it was buffer with easier access to T4 and :
Cost decreased from 470 manpower and 160 fuel to 420 manpower and 150 fuel
Reload standardized from 7.5/9 seconds to 8.25.
AOE mid modifer from 0.15 to 0.3
Medium crush changed to Heavy Crush.
Veterancy requirements from 2740/5480/10960 to 2040/4080/8160
Added hold fire

then AOE was fixed

Brummbar
The Brummbar is having its AOE adjusted to reduce its ability to wipe out full health units on the first shot, but still able to deal significant damage on misses.
• AOE distance changed from 1.25/2.5/3.75 to 0.625/1.25/6; applies to both auto-attack and bunker-buster
• AOE damage changed from 1/0.3/0.05 to 1/0.35/0.2; applies to both auto-attack and bunker-buster

Then it Nerfed more and the vet1 ability also...

Brumbar

-Armour reduced to 240 from 260
-Veterancy 2 armour bonus from 1.3 to 1.2
-This equates to 288 armour when vetted as opposed to 320

-Bunker Buster Barrage second and third shot scatter distance from 2.5 to 9
-Bunker Buster second and third shot scatter from 6 to 10

-Brumbar Range from 40 to 35

A single engineer unit can wipe 2 AT guns if you don't move them. Nerf engies !

What game mode are we referring to here? KV8 is not worth building in the larger team games.

Would hate to see the needless buffs and nerfs for the sake of the a minority within the minority that is the 1v1 community.

Would hate to see the needless buffs and nerfs for the sake of the a minority within the minority that is the 1v1 community.

Still, the game is and always has been balanced with respect to this very minority of 1v1 and 2v2 players, simply because that's where the competitiveness is at... now i don't mean to say the game shouldn't be as fair and balanced in the higher gamemodes as possible - but i'm glad 4v4s are not the benchmark of which units are due for buffs or nerfs.

To provide adequate reliability for both heavy tank and tank destroyer I'd have deflection damage added so that all shots do more damage, some just do more(or less depends on how you look at it) flanking with cheaper tanks an hand AT are still available and applicable

Heavy armour should be a combined arms event because of cost and upkeep

While this idea sounds good and cold bring more "realism" in game. But there is hidden "poison" inside - snares. Now, snares cripple engine only if you penetrate enemy armor. If deflection damage will be bring for all AT and tanks, it make any armor pushes more risky action than before. You don't need to penetrate armor, just few shots to cripple engine. And i don't mention about balance of handheld AT, now only PTRS could deal deflection damage, if shrecks, piats and zooks will do it, it will also lead us to rebalance of handheld AT too.
And i think shrecks and zooks blobs become more often event than before. You will get "constant" AT damage.

While this idea sounds good and cold bring more "realism" in game. But there is hidden "poison" inside - snares. Now, snares cripple engine only if you penetrate enemy armor. If deflection damage will be bring for all AT and tanks, it make any armor pushes more risky action than before. You don't need to penetrate armor, just few shots to cripple engine. And i don't mention about balance of handheld AT, now only PTRS could deal deflection damage, if shrecks, piats and zooks will do it, it will also lead us to rebalance of handheld AT too.
And i think shrecks and zooks blobs become more often event than before. You will get "constant" AT damage.

Snares is actually pretty important argument.
People praise CoH1 for many things, but they also seem to not remember that exclusively one faction had snares there, vehicle dynamics worked completely differently back then also, deflection damage allowed for light tanks to kill heavy tanks with relative ease and very cost efficiently. Hotchkiss and Tetrarch spam could contest and best any tank in the game for the cost specifically due to deflection damage.

While this idea sounds good and cold bring more "realism" in game. But there is hidden "poison" inside - snares. Now, snares cripple engine only if you penetrate enemy armor. If deflection damage will be bring for all AT and tanks, it make any armor pushes more risky action than before. You don't need to penetrate armor, just few shots to cripple engine. And i don't mention about balance of handheld AT, now only PTRS could deal deflection damage, if shrecks, piats and zooks will do it, it will also lead us to rebalance of handheld AT too.
And i think shrecks and zooks blobs become more often event than before. You will get "constant" AT damage.

Not everything would necessitate deflection damage, just proper hard counters, like the ones that are currently ignoring armour. I don't by any means want mediums and lights to have it, they can flank. But those than can't flank shouldn't be a dice roll (or lack of in the current case) to get through armour.

Think of it as mid way between vcoh and coh2.

Also all hand AT already deals deflection damage.

Snares is actually pretty important argument.
People praise CoH1 for many things, but they also seem to not remember that exclusively one faction had snares there, vehicle dynamics worked completely differently back then also, deflection damage allowed for light tanks to kill heavy tanks with relative ease and very cost efficiently. Hotchkiss and Tetrarch spam could contest and best any tank in the game for the cost specifically due to deflection damage.

Agree that coh1’s handling of it wasn’t the best, but I think coh2 could use deflection damage in medium/heavy tanks. The reason is that in reality a T34:76 could fire at the upper glacis of a Tiger and fail to penetrate, but a couple more shots at the same spot could cause spalling that damages the crew and potentially kills, while armour plates taking shots are then less able to resist more shots coming their way.

The way I’d handle this is to add a 2nd rng roll for deflection damage, such as if you have a 50% chance for your shot to penetrate, you then het a 25% chance for deflection damage if your shot fails to penetrate.

If anything you could make it 50% to pen and 50% for deflection damage. This would allow for higher armour values which would make things more interesting and less arcadey.

Ty, now I'm up to speed.

Not everything would necessitate deflection damage, just proper hard counters, like the ones that are currently ignoring armour. I don't by any means want mediums and lights to have it, they can flank. But those than can't flank shouldn't be a dice roll (or lack of in the current case) to get through armour.

Think of it as mid way between vcoh and coh2.

Also all hand AT already deals deflection damage.

IRC only ISU-152, KV-2 and Brummbar deal deflection. Proper hardcounters for which targets? M-42 proper hardcounter for any lv. Could it deal deflection for mediums? Su-76 could deal deflection to heavies and mediums? I don't see any reason make deflection exclusively for heavy TD while other AT units will be without deflection to their targets. If you have high penetration, you don't need deflection at all. Deflection could be option for units with poor penetration to not become burden for your pop-cap in lategame. Or for units like KV-2 and brum.

Deflection for these guys?
SU: SU-76, M-42 "baby at-gun", Zis-gun, IS-2 ?
USF: AT gun (have pretty high ROF), Jackson, M10, Pershing ?
UKF: M10, 6 pounder, 17 pounder, FF, Churchills, Comet?
OKW: raketen,Puma, JP4, JT, KT ?
OST: Tigers, pak, Elef, Panther, Stug?

In fact, deflection hurts more, units with high armor. While only allied doctrinal heavies have enough armor, Axis will hurt much more from such change. P4 armor skirts will become less workable. P5 armor too. I think, such change just broke entire balance and dynamic of game.

I always wonder, if we give these people the choices in balance directions, will any unit do damage after a while anymore? Nerf everything to the ground lol.

The reason is that in reality a T34:76 could fire at the upper glacis of a Tiger and fail to penetrate, but a couple more shots at the same spot could cause spalling that damages the crew and potentially kills, while armour plates taking shots are then less able to resist more shots coming their way.

If anything you could make it 50% to pen and 50% for deflection damage. This would allow for higher armour values which would make things more interesting and less arcadey.

In reality t-34 will be shoot to barrel of gun or trucks. Because if you hit and destroy track, enemy tank will turn on side and show his side armor (not mention about full immobalize). But it in reality. Problem in game design. What we want? Make more realism or more dynamic and fun in-game? Realism and dynamic with fun always lays in different sides.
Someone lack AT in game that we need deflection? I think every faction now, have enough AT options for every part of game.

What is even worse than Brummbar inspite of beeing doctrinal and filling nearly the exact same role? Yes, the Sherman 105mm. For me it is out of question to buff a non-doctrinal unit that buffs a whole faction while leaving the doctrinal one behind that buffs only one commander. I bet some people around here never thought about the 105mm. Just play all factions, it helps a lot...

There is no reason to nerf or buff Brummbar

Ty, now I'm up to speed.

Glad that I could help.

He is doing shadow boxing and feels superior and happy that he is right.
"I'm playing hard with this difficult and bad faction!"

Wehraboo's ideas are really simple

but i agree KV-8 need nerf(HP 960 -> 800)

He is doing shadow boxing and feels superior and happy that he is right.
"I'm playing hard with this difficult and bad faction!"

Wehraboo's ideas are really simple

but i agree KV-8 need nerf(HP 960 -> 800)

No its simply the damage vs AT-guns that is too much. Allied close range AI tanks like KV8 and 105mm need a health pool because they eat heavy damage from the common Shrek blobs frontally in addition to the damage of other AT weapons. Infantry killing should be their role, they shouldn't be owned by it. If all infantry held At weapons would be flanking weapons (vs medium tanks and up), then you could lower their health or/and tone down their damage. I'm instantly in for that. Imo Shrek and the Super Bazooka variant for elite units need a serious penetration nerf.