Ostheer T4 Hot garbage or Actually fine?

I think you need to check your maths.

I knew someone would be unable to follow and force me to explain it.

3 StuGs = 270 Fuel

1 Panther + T4 Cost = 235

[...]sn't necessarily the issue. But the Panther is a pure AT unit (don't give me "But the MG1!111!1"), and for the price of one Panther I can almost get 3 Stugs. Are the StuGs reliable IS2 or ISU killers? No.

You can get approx two StuGs for it and save 5 fuel, but pay 70 MP more.

But then the Panther has its own issues (namely its slow ROF and miserable moving accuracy). Again I'd argue that, whatever I'm facing, those 2-3 Stugs will perform much better than a single Panther.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the Panther had about the same ROF as Allied mediums and about half a second longer than a StuG (maybe one)?

I knew someone would be unable to follow and force me to explain it.

3 StuGs = 270 Fuel

1 Panther + T4 Cost = 235

The more likely scenario is that you skip T3 and go for T4 instantly, which would bring the cost of your Panther down to 210 Fuel, and even then you completely neglect MP.
But I agree, assuming you already went for T3 as OST, there will be a big gap until you have a T4 unit which is risky to do.

Imagine being so spoiled and deluded by playing Ost only that you start thinking T4 is bad and Panzerwerfer, Panther and Brummbär are useless units.

That's really all that can be said about this.

And regarding the OP. Why should UKF pay extra for getting Comet or Churchill after having Cromwell and Firefly? At least when you do the extra tech with Ost you unlock three valuable late-game units instead of just one and some abilities that are often of not much use.

Also: Ost T3 is cheaper than highest techs of other factions. OKW pays 135+60 for T4 + T3 and starts with less fuel.

If allied TD's get looked at, t4 wont need buff

I think you need to check your maths.

Well 270 fuel is closer to 235 fuel than 180 fuel is to 235 fuel.

Imagine being so spoiled and deluded by playing Ost only that you start thinking T4 is bad and Panzerwerfer, Panther and Brummbär are useless units.

Outstanding straw man, mate. Literally no one said this. Maybe you should read what people actually wrote.

The more likely scenario is that you skip T3 and go for T4 instantly, which would bring the cost of your Panther down to 210 Fuel, and even then you completely neglect MP.
But I agree, assuming you already went for T3 as OST, there will be a big gap until you have a T4 unit which is risky to do.

Personally, I think skipping T3 and going straight for T4 is a rarity these days, but I take your point.

However, my post was specifically about there not being a benefit of going T4 if I do go T3. As you pointed out, that would get me into deep trouble, especially if I lose a fuel point and/or my T3 tank in that period.

The reason I neglected to mention MP is because it's not influenced by what happens on the field. My MP income doesn't start taking a huge hit just because I lost a fuel point or cutoff.

Prefer ostwinds to stupas. They can get away with mobility and shoot planes on the side. Brumbars need a lot of help and get in trouble pretty easily. Ostwinds can drive off infantry and don't hurt nearly as much to replace

A possible change would be:

T3 tech 105 fuel
T3 building no fuel cost
T4 tech 35 fuel
T4 building no fuel cost

This way only the total cost of T3 building into T4 building would be affected.

Personal ideas for affected doctrinal units:
- Tiger still behind T4 tech. Would come slightly later by 10 fuel.
- Tiger Ace still behind T4 building. Same tech cost as before.
- Osttruppen LMG now requires T3 tech.
- Puma changed to 5 CP call-in limited to 1, similar to the Valentine. The limit of 1 and the lack of techless CP4 follow up means little risk of balance issues.
- Stug E buildable from HQ after T3 is researched. Receives slight combat buff to befit its new timing.

Literally no one said this.

You earlier in this thread: "T4 is hideously bad. It's completely useless in 1v1, and I'd argue just as bad in 2v2."

You literally said it's useless. Then a few minutes later all of a sudden "no one" said it? Holy shit man, get yourself checked.

You earlier in this thread: "T4 is hideously bad. It's completely useless in 1v1, and I'd argue just as bad in 2v2."

You literally said it's useless. Then a few minutes later all of a sudden "no one" said it? Holy shit man, get yourself checked.

It's ok, I'll explain nice and slow so that even you can follow the nuanced point I was making. I know reading comprehension and critical thinking aren't for everyone, which is ok. We all have our limits.

T4 is bad. By that I meant the overall state of it and its viability in 1v1 and 2v2. I never said the units themselves are worthless or even the problem per se.

I follow that up by going into detail about the specific units.

"Panzerwerfer is just woeful compared to other Allied rocket arty. Rockets take forever to land, and it's utterly inferior to either the Katyu or Caliope. "

I say the Werfer is bad by virtue of the performance of its Allied counter-parts.

"Brumbär would be a decent unit if it wasn't coupled with expensive costs. You can get two Ostwinds for the price of one Brum, and I don't see a single situation where a single Brum would be a better option than two Ostwinds. Especially because the Ostwind has a turret and can blitz."

I said the Brum is a decent unit, but the problem is it's cost and that two Ostwinds do the job better and are more flexible at the same time.

"Same with the Panther. It's performance isn't necessarily the issue. But the Panther is a pure AT unit (don't give me "But the MG1!111!1"), and for the price of one Panther I can almost get 3 Stugs. Are the StuGs reliable IS2 or ISU killers? No.
But then the Panther has its own issues (namely its slow ROF and miserable moving accuracy). Again I'd argue that, whatever I'm facing, those 2-3 Stugs will perform much better than a single Panther."

Again, same as above. It's not a bad unit. It's just not as good as what I can get for its price.

So an ELI5 just for you, so that you can comprehend:

T4. Useless because cost.
Werfer. Bad because Allied counterparts = better.
Brum. Decent, but not worth the cost. 2 Ostwinds better.
Panther. Decent. Not worth the cost. 2-3 Stugs do job better.

Should I make it simpler, or can you follow now?

You earlier in this thread: "T4 is hideously bad. It's completely useless in 1v1, and I'd argue just as bad in 2v2."

You literally said it's useless. Then a few minutes later all of a sudden "no one" said it? Holy shit man, get yourself checked.

Relax.

Should I make it simpler, or can you follow now?

Ease up on the condescension

@OP I think the t4 tech + units inside it are extremely complex much more than just fuel price and timing. Short version though is, in 1v1 t4 is essentially useless bar the occassional panther or werfer. Teamgames it's definitly better but I'm curious to see if the community would like to see a slight brummbar armor/hp increase to raise its durability. It currently is the most niche of the tier I'd say and I think a veterancy tune could also be looked at instead.

T4 in teamgames, very much worth it. In 1v1 it is a gamble to get it and it is a gamble I am almost never willing to take. T3 gets the job done and getting t4 after t3 is too much of an investment to justify the units that don't really outperform any T3 unit, of which I can get many more that will help me far more if I don't get t4 at all.

Why would I want one panther when I can have 2 stugs and a Panzer IV? Why would I want one brumble when I can get 2 ostwinds and a Panzer IV? Why would I want T4 for anything in a 1v1?

It's ok, I'll explain nice and slow so that even you can follow the nuanced point I was making. I know reading comprehension and critical thinking aren't for everyone, which is ok. We all have our limits.

T4 is bad. By that I meant the overall state of it and its viability in 1v1 and 2v2. I never said the units themselves are worthless or even the problem per se.

I follow that up by going into detail about the specific units.

"Panzerwerfer is just woeful compared to other Allied rocket arty. Rockets take forever to land, and it's utterly inferior to either the Katyu or Caliope. "

I say the Werfer is bad by virtue of the performance of its Allied counter-parts.

"Brumbär would be a decent unit if it wasn't coupled with expensive costs. You can get two Ostwinds for the price of one Brum, and I don't see a single situation where a single Brum would be a better option than two Ostwinds. Especially because the Ostwind has a turret and can blitz."

I said the Brum is a decent unit, but the problem is it's cost and that two Ostwinds do the job better and are more flexible at the same time.

"Same with the Panther. It's performance isn't necessarily the issue. But the Panther is a pure AT unit (don't give me "But the MG1!111!1"), and for the price of one Panther I can almost get 3 Stugs. Are the StuGs reliable IS2 or ISU killers? No.
But then the Panther has its own issues (namely its slow ROF and miserable moving accuracy). Again I'd argue that, whatever I'm facing, those 2-3 Stugs will perform much better than a single Panther."

Again, same as above. It's not a bad unit. It's just not as good as what I can get for its price.

So an ELI5 just for you, so that you can comprehend:

T4. Useless because cost.
Werfer. Bad because Allied counterparts = better.
Brum. Decent, but not worth the cost. 2 Ostwinds better.
Panther. Decent. Not worth the cost. 2-3 Stugs do job better.

Should I make it simpler, or can you follow now?

I disagree with basically everything you wrote.

Panzerwerfer isn't worse than other rocket arty. It's actually one of the best rocket artillery units in the game. Not sure why you would think it's worse than LM or Katyusha. Calliope is better but also more expensive. Stuka is debatable because they function in different ways.

The 2x cheaper unit > 1 expensive unit argument is pathetic and doesn't say anything about how good the units are. Brummbär could do with a slight buff but 2 Ostwinds being better than one Brummbär has nothing to do with it. It's just like saying two P4s do more damage against infantry than a Tiger, therefore, the Tiger is bad. It makes no sense.

Panther is an excellent tank and in the best spot it has been in since I started playing this game in 2016.

So yeah. How this makes Ost T4 bad and useless (your words) is beyond me.

Relax.

@OP I think the t4 tech + units inside it are extremely complex much more than just fuel price and timing. Short version though is, in 1v1 t4 is essentially useless bar the occassional panther or werfer. Teamgames it's definitly better but I'm curious to see if the community would like to see a slight brummbar armor/hp increase to raise its durability. It currently is the most niche of the tier I'd say and I think a veterancy tune could also be looked at instead.

The problem with T4's 1v1 viability imo is it's almost completely reactive: you don't get a Panther unless there's a vehicle you can't use StuGs on: you don't get a Panzerwerfer unless you're facing AT walls.

The proactive unit in T4 is the Brummbar, and in its current state it's outperformed by the Ostwind.

Personally, I'd like to see its shells sped up like the KV-2. If that's not enough, maybe it could see a durability boost too. It's an Ostheer KV-8: it'd be nice if it were similarly effective without manual targeting.

The problem with T4's 1v1 viability imo is it's almost completely reactive: you don't get a Panther unless there's a vehicle you can't use StuGs on: you don't get a Panzerwerfer unless you're facing AT walls.

The proactive unit in T4 is the Brummbar, and in its current state it's outperformed by the Ostwind.

Personally, I'd like to see its shells sped up like the KV-2. If that's not enough, maybe it could see a durability boost too. It's an Ostheer KV-8: it'd be nice if it were similarly effective without manual targeting.

I agree with this, on top of that though if you go brummbar and didn't tech t3 you're going to be lacking heavy AT for much longer as opposed to going ostwind. I think vunerability and counters are good for the game, but the vunerability seems just too large when you compare it to t3, or even worse a Tiger which can handle basically everything.

Panther is good. If you are already winning that is, so you can afford to sit on your ass, spend some 200 fuel and 700 manpower on teching and getting one instead of going 2 p4s OR just, and get this: Get a panther that actually deals AI damage as well (this version is called tiger and requires no t4)

Also brumbär is great. If you can run around the map microing it attacking single units ground attacking close range like a short sighted drooling quasimodo. This pimped up 222 also gets outranged by AT guns until you get vet1 ability so you both can reach each others.

I disagree with basically everything you wrote.

Panzerwerfer isn't worse than other rocket arty. It's actually one of the best rocket artillery units in the game. Not sure why you would think it's worse than LM or Katyusha. Calliope is better but also more expensive. Stuka is debatable because they function in different ways.

The 2x cheaper unit > 1 expensive unit argument is pathetic and doesn't say anything about how good the units are. Brummbär could do with a slight buff but 2 Ostwinds being better than one Brummbär has nothing to do with it. It's just like saying two P4s do more damage against infantry than a Tiger, therefore, the Tiger is bad. It makes no sense.

Panther is an excellent tank and in the best spot it has been in since I started playing this game in 2016.

So yeah. How this makes Ost T4 bad and useless (your words) is beyond me.

Which is fine, you're free to disagree.

I grant you the Werfer is better than the LM, but that's because that one takes the spot for most worthless rocket arty in the game. The problem with the Werfer comes down to a single thing: Consistency. If I use a Katyu or a caliope I can be certain they're going to kill something. With the Werfer, it's often times either nothing, and then your next volley wipes two squads instantly. It's an RNG cannon much more than the two mentioned above, even if they don't have the same raw wiping potential (which often times isn't fulfilled) that the Werfer has. Agreed on the Stuka zu Fuß, since it doesn't work like the others.

Both Brumbär and Ostwind are dedicated AI units that fall into the same niche. Only the premium version is actually inferior here because it can't fight light vehicles like the Ostwind can and it doesn't shoot down planes either. So the point that two Ostwinds are better is not just relevant, but incredibly important. I can get more and better stuff for the same price. Why then would I ever choose the Brum?

Your Tiger comparison falls flat because the Tiger performs a completely different role. It's your elite unit that will reliably handle anything on the field that's not a heavy tank. By comparison, the Panzer 4 is the ultimate jack of all trades medium that doesn't particularly excel at anything. And personally, I would put my bet that a single Tiger deals better with infantry than two Panzer 4s. Which is exactly what this entire discussion comes down to.

Again, the Panther is a decent tank. In 4v4, they're definitely the better choice than the Stug. But that's not what I was saying. If I invest as many resources and risk as I have to in order to get a Panther, I expect it to solidly out-do my T3 AT units. But it doesn't, which is the problem.

Werfer will always arc up its launcher before shooting, while Katy and Calliope will fire their rockets almost instantly if at close range.

It's what makes the Werfer harder to use because close, mid and long range barrages all take around the same time, giving good players ample time to dodge. You have to predict the opponent's movement perfectly to not waste your strike.

Personally, I'd like to see its shells sped up like the KV-2. If that's not enough, maybe it could see a durability boost too. It's an Ostheer KV-8: it'd be nice if it were similarly effective without manual targeting.

That would be a big QoL change IMO.

Also on Panzerwerfer complaints:

Panzerwerfer shots will not collide with buildings or trees (unless you braindeadly shoot it in absolute pointblank to the tree) and will suppress/pin units in its effected area of fire. So its slow firing is justified around that.