A laudatio on the T70, the Puma, 251 and 222

Besides the more topic specific discussions that are going on at the moment, I wanted to take a different approach and open a discussion about a phrase that is often thrown around the forum (me included) without the broader community having an actual reference or agreement of some sort: Good unit design.

For the sake of focus I'd like to narrow it down to vehicle design more specifically, and that's where I want to start:
A laudatio on the T70, the Puma, the 251 and the 222, because I think they belong to the best designed light vehicles and vehicles in general in the game. And yes, I include the T70 despite all the controversy that sparks in every thread about it.

Now why are these units in general very well designed? the simple answer is: They have a place in every army at every phase of the game.

The 251 and 222 are Ostheers light vehicles. The 251 is a pure utility vehicle. At the time of arrival (~5 min mark) it can act as a decent replacement for Ostheers early medic bunker, establish a forward soft retreat point to help an othrrwise highly static and defensive army get more field power. A well microed 251 micro allows Ostheer to adapt a quite different play style. And if you manage to vet it, it can even lay mines for you and take a bit of pressure of your pioneers from the mid game onwards. Alternatively, you can trade all this in for a flame vehicle with very high shock value at a time were no mobile counter is available. However, this also means that your 251 needs to push to the front line and therefore will become obsolete by the mid game. But however your choice is - you will get your money back, but only with good micro.

Similarly, the 222: designed as Ostheers counter for super lights with okay AI capabilities, it can even fight against a T70 if it needs to. It does not win, but makes it not worthwhile for the Soviet player to shoot at it. and all this for small money! through veterancy or via doctrinal spotting scopes, it scales into the late game as a scouting vehicle for all your tanks and can take some flank defense duty to punish lone infantry squads. Although it rarely makes sense to build a 222 in the late game a vetted one from the early game will be useful at any stage.

Slightly different by design and timing are the Puma and T70. Both units offer high shock value but also come at high price and a shorter window until mediums arrive. What protects them during the early mid-game is their armor. This is subsequently replaced by mobility from the mid game onwards and emphasized by their veterancy bonusses. also the general power level even at vet0 is high enough to make them a decent choice for later game stages. Additionally, both units have abilities that let them scale very well: Recon abilities (toggle for the T70 or standard higher sight range for the Puma), or the Pumas smoke that compensates for lower health and the aimed shot to support actual damage dealers. The Puma especially has an interesting veterancy: Increased damage to 160, which makes it a fearsome opponent for medium tanks in combination with its ROF, penetration and high range.

And this is also where other vehicles fall short despite being similar: The Luchs is very good AI value for its timing, but the ability to camo is questionable and it has not much to scale to the late game: No recon, no other ability. The AEC is, like the Puma, an AT vehicle with increased sight and even a stun shot. Yet it does not scale as well due to the lacking penetration that make it hard to fight against mediums and the lacking range that force it to always get shot back at. The Stuart is an even worse offender: Despite two abilities, its scaling fails. Its armor makes it almost untouchable for light vehicles, but again lack of penetration, damage and range do not allow it to fight against mediums. On top of that, it will always need support due to not being a scout unit. OKWs and USFs flak half tracks fulfill an important role on the battlefield especially in team games: shoot down skill planes. The low HP and lack of veterancy and utility do not allow them to play a big role in the late game though, even when vetted up. They are just expensive anti air with no other purpose than being parked in the back. The M5 halftrack has a general design problem of coming late and not really being useful for Soviets, the SU76, while being a decent LV in the late game, suffers from better options and not being needed at any point of the game

Alright, this was my long summary of what bugs me with the light vehicles and their design in the game.

Hannibal

Shoutout to the Valentine, I always build it even if I have tanks on the field already. Great unit. Just wish it didn’t cancel its smoke half the time I used it.

Thank you for providing this analysis on key LV units.

And this is also where other vehicles fall short despite being similar: The Luchs is very good AI value for its timing, but the ability to camo is questionable and it has not much to scale to the late game: No recon, no other ability.

I do think the Luchs has a vastly superior damage profile compared to the T-70 in terms of balance. The Luchs has enough firepower to force off any squad, it has the ability to chase down and wipe badly mispositioned squads, and it can deal devastating damage point-blank creating an interesting risk-reward mechanic, but it does not have enough DPM to wipe units left and right like the T-70 regularly does and it's worse against retreating squads because it uses accuracy over AOE.

So although the T-70 has better scalability, I do consider the Luchs to be a much more balanced vehicle regarding combat power. Fighting against the Luchs always feels fair, while fighting against the T-70 usually doesn't.

Although I do not really disagree I feel the need to correct some facts:

Puma does not have have high penetration:
Penetration near 160 Penetration mid 120 Penetration far 80
nor does is have good accuracy and it becomes good vs mediums only at mid range.

Puma has rather low armor and it can be damage by HMGs.

Imo Puma does not have a shock value but "counter shock" value since getting a Puma when you opponent has no vehicles will have little effect but it can counter many enemy vehicles.

AEC does not have bad penetration but rather inline with cost and ability with 1.000 penetration.
Penetration near 120 Penetration mid 100enetration far 80

Stuart can reckon since it get bonus sight as vet with a sight of 58.5

Luch also get bonus sight with sight of 45.5

Finally I would like to point that there is difference between having a good design and being balanced.

A unit can have great design but be UP or OP and units can have poor design but be balanced.

Although I do not really disagree I feel the need to correct some facts:

Puma does not have have high penetration:
Penetration near 160 Penetration mid 120 Penetration far 80
nor does is have good accuracy and it becomes good vs mediums only at mid range.

Puma has rather low armor and it can be damage by HMGs.

Imo Puma does not have a shock value but "counter shock" value since getting a Puma when you opponent has no vehicles will have little effect but it can counter many enemy vehicles.

AEC does not have bad penetration but rather inline with cost and ability with 1.000 penetration.
Penetration near 120 Penetration mid 100enetration far 80

Stuart can reckon since it get bonus sight as vet with a sight of 58.5

Luch also get bonus sight with sight of 45.5

Finally I would like to point that there is difference between having a good design and being balanced.

A unit can have great design but be UP or OP and units can have poor design but be balanced.

I'd like to do some corrections on that as well, or better to say provide better context.
I agree on the Luchs and Stuart sight range. While the Stuarts sight range is quite large, the Stuart remains pretty shitty against mediums and does also not burst against infantry because it was never intended to. The Luchs sight range is nice but barely enough to really provide a huge benefit.

I disagree on Puma and AEC though. Puma has enough penetration to push Allied mediums and can stay in a safe zone to kite while the AEC is very unreliable even at close range. And the 1000 penetration shot is misleading in this context. The ability foes even lower damage 80 IIRC) and not even help the AEC against mediums from a shots to kill perspective. Yes, it is a good support shot for the Firefly or a ATG to do the job, but the AECs overall power and utility have declined rapidly at this point of the game. At least this is the impression that I got from my games, althpugh I am (very) far from top level CoH2.

I do think the Luchs has a vastly superior damage profile compared to the T-70 in terms of balance. The Luchs has enough firepower to force off any squad, it has the ability to chase down and wipe badly mispositioned squads, and it can deal devastating damage point-blank creating an interesting risk-reward mechanic, but it does not have enough DPM to wipe units left and right like the T-70 regularly does and it's worse against retreating squads because it uses accuracy over AOE.

So although the T-70 has better scalability, I do consider the Luchs to be a much more balanced vehicle regarding combat power. Fighting against the Luchs always feels fair, while fighting against the T-70 usually doesn't.

I agree on this, but my main post focused on the scalability. Sometimes even a late T70 is a decent choice although mediums are already around. I never had the feeling to get a late game Luchs though, it just would be a burden to the army.

... Puma has enough penetration to push Allied mediums...

Run the number on Puma vs mediums you will find them pretty low unless at medium range and bellow.

The unit better used as flanker attacking side/rear armor.

The AEC ability is very powerful once vetted, the 7 second stun is very powerful and I am also under impression that both shot do full damage.

I would also add AEC to the well balanced lights, specifically its firepower, I do like how its main gun is pretty much AT only, but its AI is still decent thanks to strong coax, this is how I would try to balance tanks too, with gun being oriented at fighting other vehicles and all the MGs beefed up to be a real threat to infantry, but no one shot squad wipe potential, unless specialist vehicle is involved.

Great OP, read it carefully and agreed with many things said.
I found out with it that there are many fields of view of each unit performance. From timing and opportunity window, design, balance, efficient performance, tier scaling, core or counter, niche or meta and maybe more.

I think that the better placed LV have an overall better score in each field. Therefore the common sense tells us that its a good unit and the metagame adapts into or around it.

Run the number on Puma vs mediums you will find them pretty low unless at medium range and bellow.

The unit better used as flanker attacking side/rear armor.

The AEC ability is very powerful once vetted, the 7 second stun is very powerful and I am also under impression that both shot do full damage.

I know the numbers. AEC is very unreliable and horrible at worst even against OST P4 and even at range 0. And then there is OKW P4. You are forced to flank with it because your only chance are rear armor shots(which by itself is not bad). But from my games I got the impression that the AEC is not really worth much in the late game. Yes, the stun is nice but nothing that really urges me to build an AEC potentially even after the LV phase or make it so valuable that the AEC becomes a great tool in my army composition. The sight range is nice but can be achieved by pyro sections as well, also many vehicles can be upgraded with the commander for more sight. The damage is okay but relies on (I'll call them that) bad penetration values for the mid-late game And for flanking you must be willing to potentially dive and throw your AEC, because anytime the AEC can shoot at the enemy, the enemy has enough range to shoot back. In the UKF army composition, the AEC does not bring much to the table that would be unique or at least very synergetic in that special combination.
Compare that to the Puma: Against mediums you have two options: Take shots from a safe range that will be relatively unreliable, or get very close, risk your Puma and pen every time. Risk-reward works perfectly. Additionally you have better sight range, something that OKW lacks for it's units unless you vet your Volks (and even then it is a conditional bonus). Plus stun shot plus smoke for itself or other units. Plus the vet 160 damage that can really put fear into a medium if the first max range shot penned. It's overall scaling and utility brings so much more to the table both for the game overall as well as for OKW. Yes, the Puma is 10 fuel more expensive and it should be reflected in the performance, but I just want to highlight why I personally think the Puma is well designed and the AEC is not.

I would also add AEC to the well balanced lights, specifically its firepower, I do like how its main gun is pretty much AT only, but its AI is still decent thanks to strong coax, this is how I would try to balance tanks too, with gun being oriented at fighting other vehicles and all the MGs beefed up to be a real threat to infantry, but no one shot squad wipe potential, unless specialist vehicle is involved.

I have to really disagree with that approach of balancing. All units and especially generalist ones must have a trade off between shooting at infantry or shooting at tanks. Moving the AI DPS to the MG only would cause issues in balance and game design. Every vehicle should instantly be set to prioritize vehicles only, because the MG will already pick the right target anyway and the cannon shot would be a waste. The player should make a trade to shoot at infantry and then not being able to target a tank until the gun is reloaded. It would take so many decisions away from the player and honestly just dumb down the gameplay. Yes, there are/were issues with one shot wipes, but most have been adressed by AoE reworks.
In that regard I really like the approach of the Sherman with switchable rounds. This forces real decisions to be made prior to an offensive. If you miscalculated the strength composition and what type of damage you needed your attack might fall flat because your Sherman can't support that well for a full reload. On the other hand you are rewarded very well if you make the right calls. And as a cherry it also simulates the crew having to chose between HE and AP rounds and checks that bit of authenticity that CoH aims for and makes it quite appealing.

...

I find AEC's stun shot extremely good vs Super heavies.

Think the units is worth building in late game if you are facing Ele/JT/Tiger in 2vs2.

Another use is that of command vehicle.

Imo Puma is also situational in late game and people will avoid building one at that stage.

But that is just me, and other people might feel different about building Pumas and AECs

Shoutout to the Valentine, I always build it even if I have tanks on the field already. Great unit. Just wish it didn’t cancel its smoke half the time I used it.

+1

Smoke probably cancels because you go out of max range with it.

mmhhh hannibal,puma has same damage as aec, but gives up penetration and 10 range for armor (more than double puma armor) so it does not suffer from MGs damage
+ better accuracy long range and moving acc

mmhhh hannibal,puma has same damage as aec, but gives up penetration and 10 range for armor (more than double puma armor) so it does not suffer from MGs damage
+ better accuracy long range and moving acc

Well, puma scales into 160dmg, AEC does not.
Its quite a significant difference.

Well, puma scales into 160dmg, AEC does not.
Its quite a significant difference.

well that could be arranged instead of the + 30% reload at vet 3

mmhhh hannibal,puma has same damage as aec, but gives up penetration and 10 range for armor (more than double puma armor) so it does not suffer from MGs damage
+ better accuracy long range and moving acc

Actually I do not want to discuss single stats but about what people think good (light) vehicle design is and why. Do you think the AEC is a well designed vehicle then?

I don't think the OKW Puma is well design. Rather than OKW is badly design and the PUMA making it for it.

Puma is
Highly mobile
Long range
But as smoke so it also can dive and flee

Name it M36 and you'll have half of the forum asking for nerf.

I don't think the OKW Puma is well design. Rather than OKW is badly design and the PUMA making it for it.

Puma is
Highly mobile
Long range
But as smoke so it also can dive and flee

Name it M36 and you'll have half of the forum asking for nerf.

The comparison of the Puma and M36 is completely of mark.

Puma performance at max range is horrible while M36 max range is nearly as good as point blank.

Puma is much closer to the M10 than to M36.

You can find more about comparing Puma and M36 in this old thread:

https://www.coh2.org/topic/68243/the-okw-puma

where there is graph and you can see the difference in DPS profile.

The comparison of the Puma and M36 is completely of mark.

Puma performance at max range is horrible while M36 max range is nearly as good as point blank.

Puma is much closer to the M10 than to M36.

You can find more about comparing Puma and M36 in this old thread:

https://www.coh2.org/topic/68243/the-okw-puma

where there is graph and you can see the difference in DPS profile.

You just didn't understood what I said.

You just didn't understood what I said.

Did you or did not compare the design with M36?

If I have misunderstood you feel free to clarify exactly what you want to say.