Brummbar change

I refer you back to the rest of that post. If manual targeting is overpowered, then it needs toning down.

My entire argument is the Brummbar shouldn't have this massive power spike when you manually target it. The difference between its autofire and attack ground performance should be comparable to other AI tanks.

Manual targetting is as effective as units scatter.
If you nerf manual targeting, you're nerfing autofire equally as well.

There is no power spike with manual targetting, manual targetting simply assures the squad is centered in the scatter box while autofire can put it at the edges of the squad due to targetting models on the sides.

Manual targetting is as effective as units scatter.
If you nerf manual targeting, you're nerfing autofire equally as well.

There is no power spike with manual targetting, manual targetting simply assures the squad is centered in the scatter box while autofire can put it at the edges of the squad due to targetting models on the sides.

The power spike is the shells actually hit.

With the Brummbar, the shells are so slow that if you fire at a moving target, they'll barely hit at all. The targeting algorithm doesn't lead shots, so you have to manually target them to hit.

This isn't a problem for units with faster shells because the travel time is that much shorter.

Speeding up the Brummbar's shells to a speed more like the KV-2 mitigates that. It doesn't buff manually targeted shots (which are led), but closes the gap between its manually targeted performance and its autofire performance to something more comparable to a normal tank.

That viewpoint is simplistic to the point of being outright wrong. The Volksblob wasn't removed because it was underpriced, it was removed because it was a bad design.

So is a unit that requires its autofire to be manually aimed. It's not a case of buffing it or nerfing it: it's making the unit not require a disproportinate amount of babysitting compared to similar units.


If a unit is meant to be manually targeted, it typically gets a long cooldown so it doesn't demand constant attention. The ZiS's barrage ability is a good example.

A unit that requires manual targeting but has the fire rate of an autofire unit in a strategy game where attention is divided amongst multiple units is really bad game design.

It's so easy to fix, and it baffles me why people are defending it.

Volks got nerfs, because of bad Preisleistungsverhältnis, that is the meaning of it. Bad designs are allowed, but they need micro tools or handy-caps. e.g. PnzGrens with Panzerschreck. Expensive and overprices grenade in comparion.

Brummbär isn't good designed, it was when it had more range and more armor. The bad design of it was, that it wasn't changes with StuG E as doc-vehicle. Then the balance-team killed the unit, destroyed the tank-play and overbuffed alliis AT-guns. Having same same pen, more or same crew but fighting versus stock-units with less range. That is bad design. Overall OKW and Brits are bad designed as a hole fraction.

So giving Brummbär same cool-down as Zis? OK, that is a buff. That is also a good target of Preisleistungsverhältnis. Simply compare the Price/effect and the counters. There isn't much germans have doesn't need more micro than enemeys stuff.

Could just give some of the old range back to make it more effective versus ATGs. I thought about it for a while and agree projectile speed increases may be problematic. But surely a range increase on the autofire wouldnt make this thing too beastly versus its intended targets, particularly considering its unit cost and T4 cost.

Flat armor buff would be too much too since this thing is already tough enough for most AT sources to kill and ATGs are the most susceptable to its current weaponry anyway.

Could just give some of the old range back to make it more effective versus ATGs. I thought about it for a while and agree projectile speed increases may be problematic. But surely a range increase on the autofire wouldnt make this thing too beastly versus its intended targets, particularly considering its unit cost and T4 cost.

give it faster coold down and it will be more effective. It is good it got nerfed in range. But bunker-burst is a joke. 60 range some luck to kill some crew-mebers and then cool-down of doom. Every scot is better in that job.

Could just give some of the old range back to make it more effective versus ATGs. I thought about it for a while and agree projectile speed increases may be problematic. But surely a range increase on the autofire wouldnt make this thing too beastly versus its intended targets, particularly considering its unit cost and T4 cost.

Flat armor buff would be too much too since this thing is already tough enough for most AT sources to kill and ATGs are the most susceptable to its current weaponry anyway.

All increasing the projectile speed does is make the autofire accuracy closer to the manual targeting accuracy.

If that makes it too accurate, it's already too accurate.

give it faster coold down and it will be more effective. It is good it got nerfed in range. But bunker-burst is a joke. 60 range some luck to kill some crew-mebers and then cool-down of doom. Every scot is better in that job.

Scott HE barrage isnt really comparable, but I support barrage ability recharge reductions across the board tbh. No argument there.

I dont think the autoattack cooldown should be reduced though. Brummbar is already an instant retreat for infantry and Id fear overbuffing it against them.

Scott HE barrage isnt really comparable, but I support barrage ability recharge reductions across the board tbh. No argument there.

I dont think the autoattack cooldown should be reduced though. Brummbar is already an instant retreat for infantry and Id fear overbuffing it against them.

The unit is more easy to use, in good hands more effective than Brummbär, because of range and good performance. A good example of Preisleistungsverhältnis.

Elefant is also a good example, not much better than ISU152, but it also fights verus units with more regular pen and range. Its Preisleistungsverhältnis is worse than ISU152.

Or look at Luchs/T70. Which units worth it more?

What I mean is, it is ok an unit is worse than an other. But since years hole fraction get worse, while other get buffed or get passive buffes as hell.

EDIT: And I am the first wanting HMG42 be nerfed or get a doctrinal unit. All to give a resosn to bring the rest fraction into balance.

EDIT: Preisleistungsverhältnis of call-in-abilities. Oh god... balancing noob-level +++.

The unit is more easy to use, in good hands more effective than Brummbär, because of range and good performance. A good example of Preisleistungsverhältnis.

Brummbar is a close-quarters shock unit. Scott is a support unit at range. I really don't see much of a comparison as the damage and AOE values involved are not similar. The only relation is both are used versus team weapons, range being the method allowing the Scott to accomplish this and range most likely being the best way to make the Brummbar more capable in this task, imo. One could argue the Scott becomes more cost-efficient at this task particularly against a mass of anti-tank guns which might overpower the Brummbar by virtue of firing from a stand-off range, but a Scott barrage is much easier to escape wipes from than a single powerful Stupa shot.

EDIT: And I am the first wanting HMG42 be nerfed or get a doctrinal unit. All to give a resosn to bring the rest fraction into balance.

I am of the opinion the HMG42 needs to be buffed, not nerfed, but this is another topic.

EDIT: Preisleistungsverhältnis of call-in-abilities. Oh god... balancing noob-level +++.

I did not mean things like off-maps, just stuff like mortar barrages.

All increasing the projectile speed does is make the autofire accuracy closer to the manual targeting accuracy.

If that makes it too accurate, it's already too accurate.

Sorry, I did not see your post.

I agree with this, and I would think that most Ostheer players would rather a consistent but slow projectile rather than a fast but scattered one. Slower projectile speed makes the Brummbar worse versus responsive units like infantry (or light vehicles tbh) which can dodge or attempt to dodge its shells. ATGs and MGs, however, cannot move so quickly, and so the consistency of the Brummbar's shot comes in handy and projectile speed becomes less important.

I am of the opinion the Brummbar is mostly an anti-TW unit, since the Ostheer roster already has two very capable anti-infantry tanks in it. I'm curious as to what others may think, but that should be kept in mind.

And there are lots of manually targeted abilities designed to work that way. Zis barrages. Sturmtigers. The skillshots on the Pershing and Firefly. They all require manual aim and careful judgement.

And they all have cooldowns.

The Brummbar demands disproportionate attention to perform compared to other direct fire anti-infantry tanks, and that's a bad thing that's very easily fixed.

Except the brummbar bunker busting barrage has basically the same functionality as the zis barrage. It's not a question of "cooldown" but rather one of how much management and its perfectly fine to have some units (such as t70) take a lot more player management then others.

I see no reason not to have the brummbar be micro intensive to get the most out of it, except to lower the skill ceiling to make it more accessible to worse players while reducing performance cap.

I'm ok with a range increase to 40, if most people think that this is a better idea. Like I said, the Brummbar is just lacking. Even the 20 armor buff wasn't even a full revert back to the original armor as the skirts still only provide +20% instead of the +30%.

I think the brum is going to be problematic to balance with ever increasing accessibility. The easier t4 gets the more lack luster the brum will need to be for potentially come a minute after a p4 would.

I'm ok with a range increase to 40, if most people think that this is a better idea. Like I said, the Brummbar is just lacking. Even the 20 armor buff wasn't even a full revert back to the original armor as the skirts still only provide +20% instead of the +30%.

Nay 40 will be back to old cancer brumbar. Outside the range of infantry. Nope.

Nay 40 will be back to old cancer brumbar. Outside the range of infantry. Nope.

Where's your playercard?

Where's your playercard?

You're not so good, why are you so proud of your rank?

I fundamentally disagree with the concept of a higher micro unit being bad design.


One of the resources in rts which isnt as tangible as manpower, gold, or minerals is player apm and multitasking. Knowing how to distribute that among all the tasks you have to do is a very important part of rts, and some units requiring more just means you have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of using too many of those micro or apm heavy units.

Knowing how to tax your opponents multitasking and apm is just as important.

couldn't have said it any better. in addition, this is not only limited to the brummbär, but a lot of other units benefit greatly from manual targeting/attack ground and are far from useless without manual input. being able to squeeze out that tiny bit more micro than your ooponent should be rewarded by a slight edge in performance - and that is good game design in my books.

I think the brum is going to be problematic to balance with ever increasing accessibility. The easier t4 gets the more lack luster the brum will need to be for potentially come a minute after a p4 would.

That is a also a problem since more powerful unit seem to become accessible earlier in the game.

I think the brum is going to be problematic to balance with ever increasing accessibility. The easier t4 gets the more lack luster the brum will need to be for potentially come a minute after a p4 would.

That is a also a problem since more powerful unit seem to become accessible earlier in the game.

The tech changes only make a transition from T3 into T4 cheaper. Rushing T4 (rushing a Brummbar) will cost exactly the same as it does now (90+25+25 = 105+35 = 140). The Brummbar does not become accessible any earlier.

The tech changes only make a transition from T3 into T4 cheaper. Rushing T4 (rushing a Brummbar) will cost exactly the same as it does now (90+25+25 = 105+35 = 140). The Brummbar does not become accessible any earlier.

I was talking more about a general trend not about the preview changes.

Actually the changes delay T3 which will probably also end delaying T4.

The reason is that Owstind will lose some its shock value and people building T3 will probably have to produce a PzIV thus T4 will probably be pushed back.

Given that Ostheer are being bullied in T1 T2 phase I do not really see how this is helpful to them.

The tech changes only make a transition from T3 into T4 cheaper.

I don't get the point of this. It was super cheap to go T4 after T3 already. The problem was never the price of T4 but Ost T4 units being bad in 1v1. Seems like a weird change to me to be honest.