Ostheer Puma changes

At this point, you want to just pick a completely different doctrine.

If puma becomes a 5cp call-in unit again, the other skills must be changed accordingly.

It's too OP to have Command pz4, ostruppen, and panzer tactiction with Puma.

The right direction is to save the commander's unique concept by allowing the puma to be used again and changing other skills.

The nightmare will repeat if Puma becomes a 5cp call-in unit again without any changes in other skills.

lets not forget how bad ostruppen call in is. I think they deserve guaranteed lmg(at least for one unit) or reduced cp requirement

Perhaps the only ability left in the game that randomizes equipment. 1 guaranteed lmg sounds reasonable.

(Maybe I would even go as far as to make the other squad an AT squad, equipped with a pair of panzerbüchses, but no panzerfaust and weapon slots. Perhaps able to deploy schu mines instead.)

If puma becomes a 5cp call-in unit again, the other skills must be changed accordingly.

It's too OP to have Command pz4, ostruppen, and panzer tactiction with Puma.

The right direction is to save the commander's unique concept by allowing the puma to be used again and changing other skills.

The nightmare will repeat if Puma becomes a 5cp call-in unit again without any changes in other skills.

This commander was meta shortly after I started CoH again, so correct me if I'm wrong.

But will this really be the case?
USF can go against OST without the need for an AI focussed LV. The Stuart is not great against zhe Puma but it can survive without too much trouble. Against Brits you do not need a Puma, and Brits don't have a reason to counter have problems with a Puma, because their only LV is basically a Puma by iself (concept wise, not total stats).

So the major issue is (and I think also was) against SOV. At the time Soviet T1 was meta because of poor Conscript scaling. Which also means that you are susceptible vs a 251 and 222, so you need a LV to survive the early-mid game, which was usually the T70. And that was completely shut down by the Puma.

Now with Conscript T2 builds all of this works slightly differently due to the available PaK and less need for a LV. Now obviously there can still be huge issues vs T1 builds, but saying it will be as bad as during that time is likely an overexaggeration in my eyes.

This commander was meta shortly after I started CoH again, so correct me if I'm wrong.

But will this really be the case?
USF can go against OST without the need for an AI focussed LV. The Stuart is not great against zhe Puma but it can survive without too much trouble. Against Brits you do not need a Puma, and Brits don't have a reason to counter have problems with a Puma, because their only LV is basically a Puma by iself (concept wise, not total stats).

So the major issue is (and I think also was) against SOV. At the time Soviet T1 was meta because of poor Conscript scaling. Which also means that you are susceptible vs a 251 and 222, so you need a LV to survive the early-mid game, which was usually the T70. And that was completely shut down by the Puma.

Now with Conscript T2 builds all of this works slightly differently due to the available PaK and less need for a LV. Now obviously there can still be huge issues vs T1 builds, but saying it will be as bad as during that time is likely an overexaggeration in my eyes.

This, although the T70 is still 100% essential to survive especially now that heavies are being delayed. However as you said there are Cons with snares and Zis3s out now, which changes things.

But will this really be the case?

Correct me if I'm wrong (I never played 1v1 personally), but the ideal Mobile Defence game looked like this:
1) hyperaggressive light vehicle play with flamer 251(s) (and maybe a 222) to cause severe pressure early game;
2) force Allies to respond with a light vehicle of their own (AEC/Stuart/T-70);
3) immediately counter that vehicle with a call-in (panic) Puma;
4) follow up with the techless Command P4 and finish the game with the huge resource lead caused by the above.

So no, with the Command Panzer IV now requiring tech, a large part of the excellent synergy that the doctrine had is gone. Replacing Panzer Tactician with the Stuka Smoke would further tone down the synergy with the flamer 251 (or 222s).

I genuinely think that with the changes to the Command P4 the Puma should now be balanced (I've always thought that it was the Command P4 and not the Puma that was the problem). However I think the main problem is that the Puma is such a valuable unit for Ostheer (as at 5 CP it was and still would be their only reliable counter to Allied LVs) that making it readily available at 5 CP again might risk Ostheer players overpicking MobiDef again. And people seem to be annoyed by overpopular doctrines more than anything imbalanced.

it was strong too cause before puma could get an extra shoiot worth of HP with 20% damage reduction, now it's 10 %

so they die by 3 shoot instead of 4 as before

Correct me if I'm wrong (I never played 1v1 personally), but the ideal Mobile Defence game looked like this:
1) hyperaggressive light vehicle play with flamer 251(s) (and maybe a 222) to cause severe pressure early game;
2) force Allies to respond with a light vehicle of their own (AEC/Stuart/T-70);
3) immediately counter that vehicle with a call-in (panic) Puma;
4) follow up with the techless Command P4 and finish the game with the huge resource lead caused by the above.

So no, with the Command Panzer IV now requiring tech, a large part of the excellent synergy that the doctrine had is gone. Replacing Panzer Tactician with the Stuka Smoke would further tone down the synergy with the flamer 251 (or 222s).

I genuinely think that with the changes to the Command P4 the Puma should now be balanced (I've always thought that it was the Command P4 and not the Puma that was the problem). However I think the main problem is that the Puma is such a valuable unit for Ostheer (as at 5 CP it was and still would be their only reliable counter to Allied LVs) that making it readily available at 5 CP again might risk Ostheer players overpicking MobiDef again. And people seem to be annoyed by overpopular doctrines more than anything imbalanced.

Basically messed up the other commanders where the C. PzIV is available, instead of removing the PzIV from this one commander.

That makes very little sense especially since number of other unit have been add to commander for no other reason than to enter scope and to be "balanced".

I would suggest instead of radical approach to have a patch that simply fixed commander that have combination that should simply not be there.

well when as the last time u saw someone use the cp4 seriously ?

I can't stress how much of a massive nerf it would be.

Why don't you go ahead and try? I didn't even give specifics on the abilities. Commissar is just being used for reference as style

Commissar is a great unit btw, just on a not great doctrine. Artillery officer is similar style, also very useful

While the unit itself is primarily AI, it doesn't compete with ostwind at all.

That sentence couldn't make less sense. It's a medium AI vehicle, there is absolutely some overlap. Fielding both would be dumb and risky

Basically messed up the other commanders where the C. PzIV is available, instead of removing the PzIV from this one commander.

The Command P4 was changed (reduction of the aura bonus) and standardized (requiring tech as every other medium-heavy call-in vehicle) regardless of its presence in Mobile Defence. It just happens that now that it's no longer techless, there's some new wiggle room for the Puma to return.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I never played 1v1 personally), but the ideal Mobile Defence game looked like this:
1) hyperaggressive light vehicle play with flamer 251(s) (and maybe a 222) to cause severe pressure early game;
2) force Allies to respond with a light vehicle of their own (AEC/Stuart/T-70);
3) immediately counter that vehicle with a call-in (panic) Puma;
4) follow up with the techless Command P4 and finish the game with the huge resource lead caused by the above.

So no, with the Command Panzer IV now requiring tech, a large part of the excellent synergy that the doctrine had is gone. Replacing Panzer Tactician with the Stuka Smoke would further tone down the synergy with the flamer 251 (or 222s).

I genuinely think that with the changes to the Command P4 the Puma should now be balanced (I've always thought that it was the Command P4 and not the Puma that was the problem). However I think the main problem is that the Puma is such a valuable unit for Ostheer (as at 5 CP it was and still would be their only reliable counter to Allied LVs) that making it readily available at 5 CP again might risk Ostheer players overpicking MobiDef again. And people seem to be annoyed by overpopular doctrines more than anything imbalanced.

It was even worse, as the panic puma doctrine let you circumvent even a very bad start as ost.

The Command P4 was changed (reduction of the aura bonus) and standardized (requiring tech as every other medium-heavy call-in vehicle) regardless of its presence in Mobile Defence. It just happens that now that it's no longer techless, there's some new wiggle room for the Puma to return.

No the C. Panzer is not like "every other medium-heavy call-in vehicle". (And actually doctrinal vehicles are currently a mess as described in https://www.coh2.org/topic/103644/doctrinal-vehicles-spawning-system by Osinyagov)

Medium-heavy are CP 0 not CP 7 and are not call in but built from T4. Even the freaking 105 dozer which far more powerful (close to brumbar) and not limited to one is CP 6 and not CP 7.

Ostheer's build-able vehicles on the other hand like 250 and Panzer J are built from base without no CP and as I pointed out the same should apply to the Puma, stug-E and the C. Panzer.

In addition the C. Panzer simply is not a medium-heavy since it inferior to the normal PzIV.
The closest unit currently out there is probably valentine which is CP 5 and no tech.
(Trading the HP/armor of the C. Panzer for speed and a better gun with 120 damage and the penetration of an AEC almost double that of C. PzIV)

Ostruppen reserves - > 250 HT

Counter attack tactics : now vehicles can take point temporarily and infantries capture the neutral territory quickly

I realize that the goal here isn't the redesign Mobile Defense but I could get behind this combination. Especially since you have Puma in the commander that would also benefit from the buffed Counter Attack Tactics (which if we're being honest never gets used)

I realize that the goal here isn't the redesign Mobile Defense but I could get behind this combination. Especially since you have Puma in the commander that would also benefit from the buffed Counter Attack Tactics (which if we're being honest never gets used)

That actually is a great point. A 250 with counter attack tactics would be a really neat combination and fit the theme of Mobile Defense much more than Osttruppen.

That said, I think a 250 would make the combo potent enough without having vehicles be able to de-cap points.

As far as I can remember, the best Mobile Defense players didn't call-in the CP4 unless they absolutely had to. Teching T3 for Panzer 4's was always preferred.

No the C. Panzer is not like "every other medium-heavy call-in vehicle"

Does it or does it not require tech now as every other medium-heavy call-in vehicle?

and standardized (requiring tech as every other medium-heavy call-in vehicle)

The reason the Command P4 has a CP requirement on top of it is because it's a command vehicle with a limit of 1 and a special aura and the reason the 105mm has both is because it shouldn't be available first thing after rushing Major tech. Not that it matters, because that wasn't my point.

And again, these changes had nothing at all to do with Mobile Defence but with the unit itself.

Does it or does it not require tech now as every other medium-heavy call-in vehicle?

Again no it does not because it does not simply has a tech requirement, it has tech requirement AND CP contrary even to Panzer J.

In addition it is not actually a "medium-heavy vehicle" it is much closer to "Valentine".

The reason the Command P4 has a CP requirement on top of it is because it's a command vehicle with a limit of 1 and a special aura and the reason the 105mm has both is because it shouldn't be available first thing after rushing Major tech. Not that it matters, because that wasn't my point.

Valentine is command vehicle limited to one and has only CP requirement.

And the UKF Aura has a CP of 2.

As for the Dozer my point is that it is available at CP 6 and C.Panzer is CP 7 while vastly inferior.

And again, these changes had nothing at all to do with Mobile Defence but with the unit itself.

Nobody would even bother "fixing" the C.Panzer if it was not available in Mobile defense.

We can spend our time here debating endlessly about the tech/CP requirement and but the point would remain the same.

The requirement to get the C. commander panzer on the field has made the unit disappear while the unit has a gun inferior even to Valentine. The requirements of the vehicle should simply changed.

Finally removing the C.Panzer from the commander will make balancing the commander allot easier. There arr simply some combinations that should be avoided.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I never played 1v1 personally), but the ideal Mobile Defence game looked like this:
1) hyperaggressive light vehicle play with flamer 251(s) (and maybe a 222) to cause severe pressure early game;
2) force Allies to respond with a light vehicle of their own (AEC/Stuart/T-70);
3) immediately counter that vehicle with a call-in (panic) Puma;
4) follow up with the techless Command P4 and finish the game with the huge resource lead caused by the above.

So no, with the Command Panzer IV now requiring tech, a large part of the excellent synergy that the doctrine had is gone. Replacing Panzer Tactician with the Stuka Smoke would further tone down the synergy with the flamer 251 (or 222s).

I genuinely think that with the changes to the Command P4 the Puma should now be balanced (I've always thought that it was the Command P4 and not the Puma that was the problem). However I think the main problem is that the Puma is such a valuable unit for Ostheer (as at 5 CP it was and still would be their only reliable counter to Allied LVs) that making it readily available at 5 CP again might risk Ostheer players overpicking MobiDef again. And people seem to be annoyed by overpopular doctrines more than anything imbalanced.

Yes, that's what I also meant. Although I forgot the Command P4. The whole doctrine was basically fail-safe. If you have a decent early game you can rush a Command P4, if you screw up your early game you have a panic Puma to even things out. An earlier Puma will just leave the early game safety. Might be okay, but it is very hard to judge if at all/how many problems this could cause.

Brits are basically the only faction that could do a somewhat similar build like that. Early flame UC (comes earlier but by far not as potent as the 251) plus AEC (Puma).

The main problem is that any change to the Puma risks bringing back the MobiDef meta, as the Puma fills a very crucial gap in Ostheer's line-up.

You said it yourself: “the Puma fills a very crucial gap in Ostheer's line-up”. As long as the Puma is doctrinal, this will never change. If doctrine is made viable again, then it will become a must have in your loadout (in 1v1), thus limiting your choices.

I propose that the puma is made non doctrinal with -10range nerf to prevent it from totally dominating other light tanks (non doctrinal smoke canisters could be added as a compensation)

To reduce the panicy nature of the ostheer puma, maybe instead of a call-in it should remain a buildable vehicle in T2 at CP5, but without the BP2 requirement.
Or take a step further and do something that no other doctrinal abilities do at the moment (if possible): the puma would be a side tech that can be unlocked in T2, similar to the british AEC. Basicly you spend some extra fuel to get access to pumas, but doing so delays the arrival of tanks for the ostheer player. This would bring some extra risk into picking and using pumas.