[Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback

On 1v1 no.

Glad to see we agree. And that was my point all along.

On teamgames it's close to be.

I suspect you mean 3vs3, 4vs4

I you opinion is it less cost efficient in those mods then the Cromwell, Sherman, PzIV?

Glad to see we agree. And that was my point all along.

I suspect you mean 3vs3, 4vs4

I you opinion is it less cost efficient in those mods then the Cromwell, Sherman, PzIV?

In 2s, outside of initial one, you might just as well stick to katys and SU-85s exclusively if you don't have 85 or KV-1, because 76 isn't going to cut it at all, with most engagements being frontal.

The game would be in a much better state if ISU/ELE/JT were removed from the game

I disagree. These units are very interesting to play with and fight against. The more static battles that they encourage is a welcome break from the "run and gun" of 1v1.

I disagree. These units are very interesting to play with and fight against. The more static battles that they encourage is a welcome break from the "run and gun" of 1v1.

These units should never have been implemented into the game, because they create very unhealthy dynamics and pretty much always require doctrinal counters or incomparably larger army push to even stand a chance of destroying one.

Consider yourself lucky if you lose less then 3 T34s while trying to take down JT.

Lets stop playing gmaes here and you can answer a simply question:
In your opinion do you agree with the claim that T-34/76 is useless without ram.

the point of the reference is survivorship bias/selection bias
just that the T-34-76 in wc2019 may not have used ram every 1v1 tourney but that doesnt mean ram is not a crucial component to the viability of the T-34...

in a 1v1 the very existence of T-34s and ram combos already defer the construction of big heavy tanks like the KT JT ele (maybe the panther and brummbar) etc hence the meta being medium tank spam (since heavies are kinda expensive aswell)... therefore ram`s intended targets generally do not appear ram itself does not appear aswell... giving the illusion of ram being an underused ability...


play 2v2s 3v3s and 4v4s and you will see ram used almost every game where u see a panther guaranteed... and when mediums start facing the big heavy boi`s the T-34 struggles even harder if it doesnt get to use ram...

I suspect you mean 3vs3, 4vs4

I you opinion is it less cost efficient in those mods then the Cromwell, Sherman, PzIV?

the T-34 without ram loses to a shootout to a panzer 4 (both g and j) 3v2 and is significantly less efficient against infantry and with lses utility and anti tank than the sherman...

Ram used to destroy the enemy gun and it was op/frustrating. This feels like the rant about Sherman's HE shells, Ram is an extra ability T-34/76 gets it does not have to be a great option in all cases.

The simply do not use the ability is you do not think you will get an advantage out of it.

You first need to keep the t34 alive and vet it up (wich is the most diffecult out off all the mediums) just to suicide it.

Suiciding a unit vetted or not is far from a good option in all scenario's.

Its an extra ability that result in the destruction or crippeling of the unit that preforms it. It should never ever be a vet ability. How you even can compare it to shell switching is just weird.

1. T-70
Target number limit is dumb. it hardly deals against green cover. clumped units should be all dealt. if you don't like it, add to all tanks. sherman, t34, p4.

2. t34 ram
I can see you hates ram+aritility combo.
then nerf artility skill. ram isn't the main problem.
make airbone il2 strafe come later, shoot more vertically or reduce its damge not to kill heavys with only with that or increase munition cost.
if you nerf ram like this and nerf skills in the next patch, i will be really mad.

3.su85
vet2 pen still needs against heavy tank.
And shouldn't vetrang units can't be poweful? why are you making axis tanks can pen allies one easily but why veteran
allies tanks can't? If it isn't no longer need its vet2 penetration bonus, why can't you just leave it?.

4. isu-152
Doctrinal unit. Fianl tech unit. Expensive. Have to cahnge shells. Why shouldn't it have 70 range? ele and jt shoot from 70.
if he has isu, it means axis guys didn't push well with strong commander or societ player defended well. it is right fruit for soviet player in late game.
Nerf its frontal armor is more reasonable.

5. Hq medic shouldn't have aura healing. and upgrade cost should be remain or increased. i posted about this on general feedback.

6. 7men cons
timing is too fast. should lower down it.

These units should never have been implemented into the game, because they create very unhealthy dynamics and pretty much always require doctrinal counters or incomparably larger army push to even stand a chance of destroying one.

Consider yourself lucky if you lose less then 3 T34s while trying to take down JT.

Not at all.

That's part of CoH2's complexity and long lasting appeal. The game doesn't have to be a perfectly balanced mathematical equation. Very few bother with that stuff in their fun time.

What unhealthy dynamics? The game is as balanced and fun as it could be. The upcoming patches are a luxury really. Wording like this implies the game is some kind of trainwreck.


In fact there are many WW2 vehicles and units that I think most players would have liked to see in the game and paid for.

The fact that currently the game is so popular and works so well is a big testament to Relic's ingenuity and the community balance team's efforts.

I suspect you mean 3vs3, 4vs4

I you opinion is it less cost efficient in those mods then the Cromwell, Sherman, PzIV?

Teamgames include 2v2.

The worth of fuel/muni is inversely proportional to the amount of players been added, while manpower is a variable which becomes constant regardless of mode.

If the nerfs to ram goes through, i think all 3 of those tanks brings way more to the table, vanilla or doctrinaly, even if they cost more. At least in what matters and how team games are been played.


Not sure why you always try to reduce everything to a 1on1 comparison of units when the units which supports them around are completely different.

In a world where the ELE/ISU/JT doesn't exist, the Su85 is more than enough to deal with everything else and the T34-76 change is perfectly fine.

I disagree. These units are very interesting to play with and fight against. The more static battles that they encourage is a welcome break from the "run and gun" of 1v1.

Which is fine as long as everyone has enough tools non doctrinaly to deal with those.

USF: AT infantry, mobile smoke with Sherman, turreted TD with AP shells to boost it's performance. As well as utility light vehicle which if they survive mid game can blind/temp immobilise vehicles.

UKF: AT infantry, mobile smoke with tanks, late game tank speedboost, turreted TD with rockets. Same regards in terms of utility stun with light vehicle.

SU: the way they have always dealt with heavy TDs is ram + offmap. or ram + Mark vehicle + mass Su85 and hoping for the best. Before they nerf them: Guards button + offmap or for a short period of time FMT (sprint) + mass Penal satchel.


The ISU152 is getting nerfed and i wouldn't mind even reducing the range of the AT shell to 60 as well. If this means that say both the ELE and JT get their range reduced to 60 and have them need to be "deployed" with heavily reduced speed and only retaining some rotation to gain back that extra range.

IF this is the case, it would still keep your mantra of "static" battles.

The ISU152 is getting nerfed and i wouldn't mind even reducing the range of the AT shell to 60 as well. If this means that say both the ELE and JT get their range reduced to 60 and have them need to be "deployed" with heavily reduced speed and only retaining some rotation to gain back that extra range.

IF this is the case, it would still keep your mantra of "static" battles.

Sounds like less cancerous teamgames i like it

The ISU152 is getting nerfed and i wouldn't mind even reducing the range of the AT shell to 60 as well. If this means that say both the ELE and JT get their range reduced to 60 and have them need to be "deployed" with heavily reduced speed and only retaining some rotation to gain back that extra range.

IF this is the case, it would still keep your mantra of "static" battles.

Comparatively static battles (to other RTS games) based on the interplay between weapon teams, infantry and vehicles are the core of CoH2, they are not a bad thing. There's Blobcraft 2 and Age of Blobs 2 for the alternative.

For example, it's not a good sign that mortar-type units are considered undesirable in top level play.


By Miragefla on the topic of ISU-152 Anti-Infantry:

ISU-152's ability to snipe infantry from behind a wall of AT I would say is more impactful as you stop all ability to capture territory and also can deny VPs for infantry daring to step on that. The JT and Elefant are more devastating to vehicles, but they can't lock out a VP or territory from infantry on their own and bleed the opponent of infantry.

...

You do not have to argue with me, you can argue Elhcino7 who thinks that in 1vs1 the unit is not useless.

Teamgames include 2v2.

The worth of fuel/muni is inversely proportional to the amount of players been added, while manpower is a variable which becomes constant regardless of mode.

If the nerfs to ram goes through, i think all 3 of those tanks brings way more to the table, vanilla or doctrinaly, even if they cost more. At least in what matters and how team games are been played.


Not sure why you always try to reduce everything to a 1on1 comparison of units when the units which supports them around are completely different.

I do not "always try to reduce everything to a 1on1 comparison" and I certainly did not in this case.

The only think I have pointed out is that, contrary to claims T-34/76, does not suck a point you agree (at least in small modes)

In a world where the ELE/ISU/JT doesn't exist, the Su85 is more than enough to deal with everything else and the T34-76 change is perfectly fine.

Why in your opinion T-34/76 any different than Cromwell or Sherman when a Ele/ISU/JT exist?

Comparatively static battles (to other RTS games) based on the interplay between weapon teams, infantry and vehicles are the core of CoH2, they are not a bad thing. There's Blobcraft 2 and Age of Blobs 2 for the alternative.

For example, it's not a good sign that mortar-type units are considered undesirable in top level play.


By Miragefla on the topic of ISU-152 Anti-Infantry:

I've already made a thread regarding late game MG + Infantry + Mortar relationship.


Mirage's says it: the ISU does to infantry what the ELE/JT does to vehicles. If those vehicles were viable on 1v1, it's obvious that the ISU would be the more problematic unit. But on team games you can do with less infantry as the game progresses and just replace that with vehicles and just pios to deal with repairs and cap.

And i said that USF/UKF are way more prepared to deal with those heavies with their core units than whatever SU have atm on this update patch.

I've already made a thread regarding late game MG + Infantry + Mortar relationship.

Indeed and I agree with your views expressed on that thread completely. I apologize for being carried away to off topic in this thread and for my confrontational tone.

Had a few games with sov, 7 men arrive way to early and ostruppen is now not really that strong anymore i feel, Essentially at around 5-8 (Whenever t3 is build really) ostruppen fall into complete irrelvancy since the 7men conscripts will push them out of the map, combined with m42/zis and sandbags makes for a horrid opponent to go up against. And incredibly easy to play for sov. The matchup for wehr is insanely difficult now i think. I will test a few more games but the meta is so incredibly rigid. Ostruppen genuinely feel like the only option when playing vs sov rn.

7 men arrive way to early

no they dont... 7 man takes more fuel/more time than any other weapon upgrade for any mainline ingame bar none....

I do not "always try to reduce everything to a 1on1 comparison" and I certainly did not in this case.

The only think I have pointed out is that, contrary to claims T-34/76, does not suck a point you agree (at least in small modes)

Why in your opinion T-34/76 any different than Cromwell or Sherman when a Ele/ISU/JT exist?

The faction behind the unit, the accessibility and the tools they have to deal with those vehicles.

Worst case scenario as USF: you might be able to yolo with your surviving Stuart using skills, smoke with Shermans, smoke with Scott, push with Jacksons using AP shells or use infantry with zooks.

Worst case scenario UKF: with vet (IIRC free) the AT guns are mobile, AEC stills have the stun, FF with turrets and tulips exist, Cromwell can smoke and unlock turbo, they can get access to Comet, they have PIATs.

SU: PTRS are piss poor AT on late and more so as assault leaving you with short range satchel, you can't flank with SU76/85s and that leaves you with the T3476. You don't have mobile, fast, on demand smoke.


Swap the T3476 with any medium from other faction and the unit is completely fine as they have other tools to complement it with.

Yup. The ram change in it self isn't bad. The bad part is that the soviet now instead of having to trade a 90fu/300mp tank to be able to kill an elefant /JT now no longer have that option or any option. Something has to swing the other way or the t34 nerf will leave the soviet incapable of fighting case mate heavies.

no they dont... 7 man takes more fuel/more time than any other weapon upgrade for any mainline ingame bar none....

Was I drawing comparisons to other weapon upgrades? Also wrong, Ostruppen lmg.