Is the Brummbar perfectly fine?

I haven't said anything like this so learn how to read

I only said they are worse against the Brum than USF or Soviets. That's it

I literally said I'm okay with buffing the brumbarr...... Jesus. Christ.

and i simply said thy do have some more tool, i never said they were as mobile as usf or su, only compared them to ost

i never said they were as mobile as usf or su, only compared them to ost

That's your problem, you responded to my post. Don't respond to my post if you're going to ignore what it's about....

Imma weigh in here and say the brumbar itself is fine and it's the game surrounding it that is problematic. Allied TD meta means it's easily zoned, but there is also the t3/t4 equation. The Ostwind is a monster now and comes much sooner, which... Delays t4, then you need to get ready for enemy tanks... Ect ect

Here's my suggestion for trying to streamline access to the brumbar:

Atm it's sort of set up to be t3 or t4 instead of the transition to t4 if needed

I would balance out the costs between bp3 and t4 building and increase the research time for bp3 substantially BUT give BP3 boons and improvements to the ostheer army that makes getting it more attractive and more of a transition.
Durability buffs/upgrades could be locked behind BP3. armoured skirts for armour that has them and the damage reduction for grens could be pulled from vet and unlocked (either passively or case by case as balance sees fit, preferably bought) and perhaps HEAT shells for the StuG this means even a player that PLANS to be using t3, it helps it scale. T4 is not a requirement to play Ost late game.

How does this help the brumbar? Well, the player is already half (or more?) way to t4 so if they happen to creep ahead and can spare the resources it's no longer a research that does nothing then a building then the unit. The cost of t4 is "cut" and more accessible if needed vs best if rushed.
The long research time on bp3 would be to sort of dissuade a rush in team games, since it takes up a slot in t3 queue, meaning no armour built/replaced while teching up.
I would also perhaps tie the werfer to BP3 but built in t3 to help making t3 a complete build (and make to voice announcer stop lying to me)

Maybe attatch repair dudes to the t4 building just to make it that bit more attractive and I think it could really round out the ostheer and make it easier to use the brumbar without it feeling like it needs to hit like a prenerf sturmtiger because of the costs needed to field it.

Actually it is:
If you go T4 you can either get a Panther to deal with IS-2/Pershing/Croc or a Brumbar to deal with infatry.

A Tiger can deal S-2/Pershing/Croc and with infatry. So there is little reason to go for the T4 option as long as Tigers (and other super heavies) come with good commander abilities.

That's the thing ain't it.
Cost of fielding a panther and brumbar is too heavy.

Now im training with ostwind or stug + tiger. This composition probably matches allies late game costs. As i find having more late game reinforcement buffer.

Panther is sadly not as reliable imo, over hit misses and waiting for its turret to lock and reload.

And brumbar being brumbar here

Panther isn't good support for Brummbar. At 18 pop I'd rather get 2.5 paks for 18pop cap or 2 stugs for 20. Or stug + schrecks for 18. T4 also has the problem that panther and werfer cost too much pop cap for what they do.

So the Brummbar isn't cost effective as an Ostwind, a well balanced unit. Hence you're saying the Brum is not a cost effective unit making T4 the paper tiger that it is right now.

Or conversely it just means Ostwind is a little overtuned. They are somewhat different beasts with Ostwind really excelling at consistent damage over time and chasing down units while the Brumbar is more sturdy and good at splash nuking. It doesn't mean the Brumbar is bad - just that the Ostwind is more accessible (esp. in 1v1) It's like how T70s are really good AI but that doesn't mean that other Soviet Vehicle AI isn't worthwhile in other circumstances.

Or conversely it just means Ostwind is a little overtuned. They are somewhat different beasts with Ostwind really excelling at consistent damage over time and chasing down units while the Brumbar is more sturdy and good at splash nuking. It doesn't mean the Brumbar is bad - just that the Ostwind is more accessible (esp. in 1v1) It's like how T70s are really good AI but that doesn't mean that other Soviet Vehicle AI isn't worthwhile in other circumstances.

??? ostwind can't hit a house while moving

Or conversely it just means Ostwind is a little overtuned. They are somewhat different beasts with Ostwind really excelling at consistent damage over time and chasing down units while the Brumbar is more sturdy and good at splash nuking. It doesn't mean the Brumbar is bad - just that the Ostwind is more accessible (esp. in 1v1) It's like how T70s are really good AI but that doesn't mean that other Soviet Vehicle AI isn't worthwhile in other circumstances.

Ostwind was already nerfed back a bit. And the Ostwind is simply on par with the Centaur, so it's not overtuned.

Ostwind was already nerfed back a bit. And the Ostwind is simply on par with the Centaur, so it's not overtuned.

To be fair though the Centaur is like the UKF's only AI tank aside from the doctrinal crocodile so it has a bit more weight to pull in the grand scheme of faction design

centaur is slower then ostwind though, about the stupa

1vs1 tourney sample has no argument 1vs1 meta is simply about heavy call in, stupa doesnt fit a role in this composition. Its like saying elefand sucks becouse it wasnt seen in 1vs1

so this leads to the discussion of a stupa in 2vs2 and above, stupa has decent speed faster dmg output then something like lets say a kv8. It is mostly a 1 shot tank, you shoot one time anihilate half the sqad and then retreat ( which you can do decently becouse of speed). And it works very good in composition with units like ele. WIth others, less so

the problem in buffing the stupa so it can kill lets say 2 paks, is that ele stupa combo will have no counter becouse TDs get countered by the ele

Centaur is slower than Ostwind, but it's also got more armor that allows it to bounce p4 a decent amount of times. And it has op AA capabilities. About it being the only anti-inf tank for UKF, brits still have better mainlines than Ost that they can rely on into the late game.

Centaur is slower than Ostwind, but it's also got more armor that allows it to bounce p4 a decent amount of times. And it has op AA capabilities.

What? The M5 quadmount is just as good at AA for way way cheaper... Centaur AA is certainly no more OP than OKW getting AA just for making it to t4...

About it being the only anti-inf tank for UKF, brits still have better mainlines than Ost that they can rely on into the late game.

Then its a good thing Ostheer has pgrens to build... Are you really trying to compare the quality of Ost and UKF right now? Only one of these factions is being avoided like the plague

Armadillo even proposed some positive changes for the brumbarr/t4 and you still feel the need to complain about another allied faction that happens to be the worst in the entire game. Why? (worst currently, Brits have been super OP in the past to be sure)

There is so much bias in this “survey” that I want to die

What? The M5 quadmount is just as good at AA for way way cheaper... Centaur AA is certainly no more OP than OKW getting AA just for making it to t4...



Then its a good thing Ostheer has pgrens to build... Are you really trying to compare the quality of Ost and UKF right now? Only one of these factions is being avoided like the plague

Armadillo even proposed some positive changes for the brumbarr/t4 and you still feel the need to complain about another allied faction that happens to be the worst in the entire game. Why? (worst currently, Brits have been super OP in the past to be sure)

90 munis for the quad is cheap? OKW AA is not as effective as the two units mentioned above, and u need to activate it. I'm not complaining about the Brits. I just can't believe people try to argue Ostwind is somehow better than Centaur when the pros and cons of the two units balance themselves out. Ethereal was suggesting that Ostwind is probably OP which is why Brum is not used. Fire and Terror thinks Ostwind > Centaur. And speaking of the Brits being UP, Ost is not far behind. The forum voted Ost to be the second worst faction. The reason why Brits are avoided like the plague is because SU is batshit OP and USF is not far behind so why play Brits when the other two are dominating?

There is so much bias in this “survey” that I want to die

Excellent observation, Sherlock. oH, tHeRE's bIAs iN tHe sUrVEy!!!! Yeah, like 80% of the threads on this website??!!!

There is so much bias in this “survey” that I want to die

Biased surveys are the best, because they tend to blow up right in the ops face, just like this one.

90 munis for the quad is cheap? OKW AA is not as effective as the two units mentioned above, and u need to activate it. I'm not complaining about the Brits. I just can't believe people try to argue Ostwind is somehow better than Centaur when the pros and cons of the two units balance themselves out. Ethereal was suggesting that Ostwind is probably OP which is why Brum is not used. Fire and Terror thinks Ostwind > Centaur. And speaking of the Brits being UP, Ost is not far behind. The forum voted Ost to be the second worst faction. The reason why Brits are avoided like the plague is because SU is batshit OP and USF is not far behind so why play Brits when the other two are dominating?

100, 99, 105, 118, 3.
99 is the 2nd lowest number therefor 3 doesn't need all the attention.
There will always be a 2nd "worst" faction, but IT'S USUALLY subjective. Brits are almost unanimously agreed upon as the worst. They have some good units but lack synergy between them. Their assaulting capabilities are nonexistent and their defenseive capabilities have been all but removed from the game BY DESIGN (I've been told that even in ideal defensive positions Tommies are SUPPOSED to lose with no tactical input from their enemy under the lone condition that the assaulting unit costs more. No other factors are required, no flanking required nor use of cover INTENTIONALLY)

I think it shows that more people voted for some kind of buff (35) than answering the first question saying it was overnerfed (20)

100, 99, 105, 118, 3.
99 is the 2nd lowest number therefor 3 doesn't need all the attention.
There will always be a 2nd "worst" faction, but IT'S USUALLY subjective. Brits are almost unanimously agreed upon as the worst. They have some good units but lack synergy between them. Their assaulting capabilities are nonexistent and their defenseive capabilities have been all but removed from the game BY DESIGN (I've been told that even in ideal defensive positions Tommies are SUPPOSED to lose with no tactical input from their enemy under the lone condition that the assaulting unit costs more. No other factors are required, no flanking required nor use of cover INTENTIONALLY)

Stop exaggerating. Brits are nowhere near unusable. And members of this forum VOTED that Ost is 2nd worst, that's not my opinion or yours.

Biased surveys are the best, because they tend to blow up right in the ops face, just like this one.

Actually, if u look closely, you'll see that there are 35 people that want buffs and a total of 54 people that participated in the survey, as Elchino has pointed out. There may have been a bit of confusion with the first question which is why there were only 21 that though Brum was overnerfed as opposed to 35 who want buffs. That means a total of 54-35=19 people think Brum is fine while 35 want buffs. So, no, this survey did NOT blow up in my face.

In conclusion, THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE FINALLY BELIEVE THE BRUM IS DUE FOR A BUFF(S). You're wrong as usual, Katitof.