The Excessive Amount Of Micro Required For Brummbar

Adding micro to reduce a unit performance is not really "elegant" in my book especially in late game where things happen faster.

Please tell me how do you come to this conclusion. There was no micro added to anything. There was no mention of "we are making it so that Brummbar requires micro now as to reduce it performance" or any dumb shit like that. Micro just exists in every game. And you can have more control over certain things using micro.

Your perseverance on labeling an option to micro things as "disadvantage\nerf\performance reduction" is mind boggling. Not a single player here finds it as such. And you keep pushing and pushing this agenda. It's not happening man.

Can you provide some solid facts plese, that having ability to micro things was intented as a gatekeeping or "unit performance nerfing" mechanic? And not a mechanic that actually gives more control to the player?

Please tell me how do you come to this conclusion. There was no micro added to anything. There was no mention of "we are making it so that Brummbar requires micro now as to reduce it performance" or any dumb shit like that. Micro just exists in every game. And you can have more control over certain things using micro.

Your perseverance on labeling an option to micro things as "disadvantage\nerf\performance reduction" is mind boggling. Not a single player here finds it as such. And you keep pushing and pushing this agenda. It's not happening man.

Can you provide some solid facts plese, that having ability to micro things was intented as a gatekeeping or "unit performance nerfing" mechanic? And not a mechanic that actually gives more control to the player?

If you like you can debate the issue with MMX according to whom the difference in performance between manual and auto aiming is "that this is a rather elegant design quirk" and to whom I responded.

And I am not oen who brought up the issue in the first, there some other users that do not like the amount of "baby sitting" Brummbar need so you can debate the issue with also.

Why so many players here struggle with the concept that units that are being microe'd perform better then ones that aren't and its not a balance issue?

If you like you can debate the issue with MMX according to whom the difference in performance between manual and auto aiming is "that this is a rather elegant design quirk" and to whom I responded.

And I am not oen who brought up the issue in the first, there some other users that do not like the amount of "baby sitting" Brummbar need so you can debate the issue with also.

Yeah he assumed that this gap in performance might have been a design choice. Though you chose to label it as:

Adding micro to reduce a unit performance

Instead as most players see it as:

Adding micro to maximize a unit performance

But it might be glass half full or half empty issue. So not sure what else I can add here what other people haven't mentioned.

Adding micro to reduce a unit performance is not really "elegant" in my book especially in late game where things happen faster. If it was I would have voted for the ISU-152 to get manual reload.

no one - at least not me - claimed that the ability to properly lead shots via ground attack has been implemented to reduce the performance of the brummbär. it's a neat feature that you can squeeze out a bit more consistent damage, especially against moving targets as in the scenario you mentioned, but it is by no means necessary for the unit to perform well. the same applies by the way to other tanks, such as the KT, KV-2 or IS-2, which also benefit from manually targeting the center of a formation rather than engaging some stray entity very far away via auto-attack.
not to mention there are a lot of other situations, like groundattacking with at-guns or flamers into the FoW or through hedgerows, vehicle crushing or pushing, etc., where a bit of extra player input can get you some advantage. but none of these are essential - they're optional.
and while you are of course entitled to agreeing to disagree on whether this is an elegant design feature or not, it seems at least that you're pretty much alone with your view and are fighting windmills at this point.

Why so many players here struggle with the concept that units that are being microe'd perform better then ones that aren't and its not a balance issue?

Because some people get a Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function unit_micro()

no one - at least not me - claimed that the ability to properly lead shots via ground attack has been implemented to reduce the performance of the brummbär. it's a neat feature that you can squeeze out a bit more consistent damage, especially against moving targets as in the scenario you mentioned, but it is by no means necessary for the unit to perform well. the same applies by the way to other tanks, such as the KT, KV-2 or IS-2, which also benefit from manually targeting the center of a formation rather than engaging some stray entity very far away via auto-attack.
not to mention there are a lot of other situations, like groundattacking with at-guns or flamers into the FoW or through hedgerows, vehicle crushing or pushing, etc., where a bit of extra player input can get you some advantage. but none of these are essential - they're optional.
and while you are of course entitled to agreeing to disagree on whether this is an elegant design feature or not, it seems at least that you're pretty much alone with your view and are fighting windmills at this point.

Just to get some perspective on brummbar performance in auto attack:
https://www.coh2.org/file/19305/conscript-vs-brummabr.jpg

This is a simply test, conscript walking straight to brummabr and using AT grenade and retreating after the grenade was thrown, no ourah was used.

out of 9 attacks a total of 4 conscripts kills.

You can try the same if you like iwth KT or IS-2 and see if there is any difference.