US Pak Howitzer Is Out Of Control

Care to present clip/rep example or metric that would support that?

+1

Great lets increase the power level of the Leig to the same level for the same reason.


Comparing a T2 unit with T4 unit that cost fuel is rather misleading.

It's an asymmetrical balance. If you want to have an identical unit, go play something else. Pak is US only medium range "arty". By your logics. Panzer IV should be identical to Sherman. Rifles to Grens. Echelons to Pioneers. MG42 to MG Squad. OST mortar to US mortar, etc.

You can compare them. One comes eariler but is very vunerable and slow. Other comes late, can supress and move around quickly and doesn't bleed manpower. On the other hand, you can recrew it while the werfer is gone for good (unless it's also decrewed, rare).
Removing autofire on PAK and reducing barage ability would make it even stronger in team games (weaker in 1v1s but it's super difficult to maintain in that mode).

USF is strong early, that much is true, especially in 1v1. In team modes US is not as strong due to the OKW sturms and OST MG42s and dependent on combinations. However, with the exception of Jackson, USF doesn't really have anything to counter anything axis throws later on (non doctrinal). And even then, Jackson needs microing due to it's non existing armour (+ spotting to take advantage of range).

If you want to mirror every unit/faction... well, I'm just glad you don't get to make any decisions.

By your logics. Panzer IV should be identical to Sherman. .

Wasn't that exactly why the sherman got buff?

Care to present clip/rep example or metric that would support that?

he's right, tho. the leig has much lower scatter on the auto attack and, to a lesser degree, also the barrage. shots may not exactly be 'homing', but much more likeky to connect for at least a bit of damage.

he's right, tho. the leig has much lower scatter on the auto attack and, to a lesser degree, also the barrage. shots may not exactly be 'homing', but much more likeky to connect for at least a bit of damage.

The barrage has less scatter than auto (7 for 8). Now you just have to quantify what is most powerfull between twice the Aoe couple with more dmg (20 for 16) or 3 less scatter, but with all the feedbacks around the Pak howitzer, I think the answer is clear.

everything should be good against blobs

everything? including other blobs?

On topic:
What happened to the idea of removing Pak Howie autofire?

Care to present clip/rep example or metric that would support that?

Yes.

Show Spoiler

It's an asymmetrical balance. If you want to have an identical unit, go play something else. Pak is US only medium range "arty". By your logics. Panzer IV should be identical to Sherman. Rifles to Grens. Echelons to Pioneers. MG42 to MG Squad. OST mortar to US mortar, etc.

Not really it is not asymmetrical balance.

You claimed that:
"(pak's howizter) manuverability and survavibility are offset by their damage"

Well the Leig has a similar "manuverability and survavibility" and far inferior barrage vet bonus on barrage.

You can compare them.

Well you can compare a mouse and Lion but as I said the results will be misleading as I have pointed out.

A mortar type weapon like the pak howitzer have very little to do with a rocket artillery like the weffer.

One comes eariler but is very vunerable and slow. Other comes late, can supress and move around quickly and doesn't bleed manpower. On the other hand, you can recrew it while the werfer is gone for good (unless it's also decrewed, rare).
Removing autofire on PAK and reducing barage ability would make it even stronger in team games (weaker in 1v1s but it's super difficult to maintain in that mode).

USF is strong early, that much is true, especially in 1v1. In team modes US is not as strong due to the OKW sturms and OST MG42s and dependent on combinations. However, with the exception of Jackson, USF doesn't really have anything to counter anything axis throws later on (non doctrinal). And even then, Jackson needs microing due to it's non existing armour (+ spotting to take advantage of range).

If you want to mirror every unit/faction... well, I'm just glad you don't get to make any decisions.

I do not want to mirror anything I simply point out that your argument does not hold water any water at all. Pak howizter is simply OP.

And for your information yes I do not make any decision about the game yet many of my suggestions have made it into the game.

The barrage has less scatter than auto (7 for 8). Now you just have to quantify what is most powerfull between twice the Aoe couple with more dmg (20 for 16) or 3 less scatter, but with all the feedbacks around the Pak howitzer, I think the answer is clear.

the answer is less unambiguous than you might think. at max range (80), both pack howi and leig actually perform very similar against clumped targets

Yes.

Show Spoiler

There is no homing shot, sorry dude.

There is no homing shot, sorry dude.

Nope, there is however scatter so low that pretty much guarantees most hits to land dead center compared to mortars or pack howi.

And for your information yes I do not make any decision about the game yet many of my suggestions have made it into the game.

And yet the forum is spammed by OP this or OP that threads. The last thing I will post here is the question. How old are you? (you do not have to answer if you do not want to)

USF have little reason to have so many stock indirect fire option to begin with, a T0 Mortar, the Pak howitzer, Scott and Major barrage.

SOme of these option should simply be move to doctrines.

The problem is not that they have too many units, the problem is that those units are performing their job in a similar way.

OH while having only 2 units, fulfils equally or more roles than the whole USF non doc roster.

-Dealing dmg against single mobile units.
-Forcing a displacement of a single unit with barrage.
-Providing smoke

They differ on how effective they are but all 3 units provide the same tools. The major barrage is the unique one but it's the most niche in it's role. It would be like saying, we should remove Soviets Katyushas cause they can rely only on the Zis gun and Su76 barrage.

Rocket fire can provide that concentrated high dmg barrage as with the major barrage when closing the distance or deal and soften up a wider area by barraging from far range (which heavier Howitzers perform).

Yes lads, lets iron out all good units in every faction.

Nerf the pak howi to the level of the LEIG.
In return i would like the Pershing to be buffed to the HP and Armor level of the KT since the KT is clearly superior.

And yet the forum is spammed by OP this or OP that threads.

Not really and not by me. I have not started this thread.

You can check the threads I have strated and they are rather few.

The last thing I will post here is the question. How old are you? (you do not have to answer if you do not want to)

That fact that ask such a question in forum about a game is a strong indication that I am actually older than you.

As for pak howizter it has two of strongest barrage available in the game. The WP barrage and "HEAT" barrage. So yea it is OP.

The problem is not that they have too many units, the problem is that those units are performing their job in a similar way.
...

Yes overlap is an issue. And that is why I suggested that at least one of them becomes doctrinal.

Yes overlap is an issue. And that is why I suggested that at least one of them becomes doctrinal.

I know. It's just that we have different views. You prefer to remove things while i rather just add or change.

Think about this way:

-Remove the mortar.
This will never happen, because the reason it was added was to diversify the tools USF has early on, specially when given a min 0 MG42 to OH (which was done with the intention to balance the USF match up). No non doctrinaly flamer and now that smoke is not part of Rifles makes this an idea which will never happen.

-Remove the Pack Howie.
Neither the mortar nor the Scott are suited to be reworked and fulfill the roles the USF roster is missing.

-Remove the Scott.
The unit is not effective nor it's main usage is in indirect fire with barrage. In this way the unit sucks and it's better suited as a mobile lite Stuppa. If you were to improve the barrage, it would still be a mortar HT which arrives at the time other factions get access to medium tanks and rocket artillery.

-Remove Major barrage.
This is the only one which feels really different but only fulfills a niche role of dealing with basically static units as like having a light artillery barrage offmap.


IMO the best way is to swap the Pak Howie with the Scott and rework both units.

I know. It's just that we have different views. You prefer to remove things while i rather just add or change.
...

My original suggestion was different:
Mortar goes to captain but becomes available with no need for further research, that makes reason to unlock Captain first.

In addition make the officer more similar m20 has it armor reduced but comes available without further tech (and adjusted if need). The armor upgrade is locked behind tech and cost fuel/mp.
That also solve many of M20 issues since it increase the window of opportunity of the unit.

Pak howizter or Scott are available in T4 and adjusted accordingly with one of these units become doctrinal.

USF have little reason to have so many stock indirect fire option to begin with, a T0 Mortar, the Pak howitzer, Scott and Major barrage.

SOme of these option should simply be move to doctrines.

Let me just take this words for the sake of my argument. While i agree with this statement (USF has many indirect fire options) and also agree with elchino7 about most of these options overlap their intended roles aswell.

The only design wise objective idea about it would be that USF has an indirect fire tool for each timestamp of a game, super early mortars, midgame powerhouse pakhowies, late game mobile scotts.
The design has some unique aspects and i would like to highlight that, pak howies are solid indirect damage dealers and can outclass but not counter axis mortars. Side note here, since many people mentioned LeiG as an axis analogue of pak howie, i would mainly disagree, but admit that are some common points when comparing 2 LeiG vs 1 pak howie performance. Ideally axis stock indirect fire (OST mortar, OKW LeiG) are early options with some midgame presence, pak howie is a mid game unit with late game presence.
I would rather compare LeiF with pak howies (obviously LeiF as a late game indirect fire unit) even when nothing good can be achieved from the comparison itself.

TL;DR
IMO USF has many options because its design is to have an ideal indirect fire for early/mid/late game
Doctrinal indirect fire tools add even more stages (MTHT, PRIEST)

...
TL;DR
IMO USF has many options because its design is to have an ideal indirect fire for early/mid/late game
Doctrinal indirect fire tools add even more stages (MTHT, PRIEST)

USF used to have desing that was about having the best mainline infatry, good support weapons, good light vehicles, good tanks and hard hitting but fragile TD. One of their "weakness" was the limited access to those support weapons.

Most of the original design has gone out the window so if anyone actually knows what is the current design of the USF I would be more than happy to hear it.

Designing USF as having "ideal indirect support for all stages of the game" would mean that they would be able to beat Ostheer in a static play and that imo would cause a need to redesign Ostheer (or create other weakness in USF line up) so imo is not a suitable design for the USF faction.

If one looks at sheer number of USF weapon used in WC2019 (136 support weapons in 49 games 2.77 per game) compare to ostheer (105 support weapons in 40 games 2.63) one will start to understand the current nature of the problem.

In sort the gap in the superiority of Ostheer support over USF has become smaller and the creates problems for them. Grenadier can not match riflemen, Grenadier and support weapons can not match up riflemen and support weapons so people turned to alternative option like AsG and Ostruppen.