Sturmtiger... why?

AVRE is easier to use but has no suppression and like 2 to 3 times smaller AoE, I would call that a tradeoff

That is a bit inaccurate:

Kill radius is 7.18 avre, 6.47 ST

Far radius is 8 for both units with 44 damage.

ST simply has AOE radius 14 and AVRE 8 (and that is less then 2 bigger.)

The only downside of Sturm compared to Avre is the lack of cannon.
Damage is 580 vs 440
Range is 40 vs 35
Deflection damage is 290 vs 220 (penetration is 1000)
AOE radius is 14 vs 8
Distance near/mid/far is 1/3.75/8 vs 2/4/8 (still with the higher AOE sturm wins)
Damage n/m/f: 580/145/44 vs 440/220/44

Even in friendly fire it wins, deals 10 times less damage on near than AVRE (29 vs 220)

Vet is also better on Sturm. Why do people complain about that unit when they can't use it... well, not surprising really. Most people have L2P issues. Screech on forum after losing one game.

Most of those supposed advantages for the Sturmtiger are irrelevant because the AVRE is already capable of wiping squads with pretty much every shot. Higher stats are overkill.

The good mobility + turret + 30s reload that begins immediately after firing are what makes the AVRE so good. The terrible mobility, casemate design and manual reload are what make the Sturmtiger so bad.

AVRE is easier to use but has no suppression and like 2 to 3 times smaller AoE, I would call that a tradeoff

Yeah a fat piece of shit standing there, needing to turn, and then aiming the big ass cannon at some "unsuspecting" infantry to give them enough time to react and the shell exploding halfway through because it hit a fence post is surely a good enough tradeoff, I'm quite certain of that.

ST simply has AOE 14 and AVRE 8 (and that is less then 2 bigger.)

Well... that's the AoE radius. The area is 3 times bigger.

Why do people complain about that unit when they can't use it... well, not surprising really. Most people have L2P issues. Screech on forum after losing one game.

It's just as bad as defending a unit you've never used yourself in a competitive game.

The reload is the first thing that comes to mind. Getting your crew wiped is really overkill. Consequently pulling it off the front line to absolute safety is a part of the long, long reload time, since it's slow as fuck.

ST simply has AOE 14 and AVRE 8 (and that is less then 2 bigger.)

These values mean that AOE area is over 3 times bigger for ST then AVRE.

πr(square) rings a bell?

Well... that's the AoE radius. The area is 3 times bigger.

Yet it has better kill radius while firing generally at smaller squads being able to get wipes easier.

The difference in area does not really say much other than that ST is has better area that it can deal 44 damage and that as I said comparing only area is a bit inaccurate.

Because Relic made a mess of the Sturmtiger's design (although it should've never been added in the first place) and now we're stuck with it because there's no way to change core functions like animations.

No chance of it being changed into some sort of utility suppression cannon, or even flame spreader rather than an all or nothing squad obliterator, then? Wouldn't take any extra animation work, just changing the properties of the shells (And consequently allowing them to be reloaded and fired much faster). The AVRE could well become somewhat similar.

Or is the Balans team resigning themselves to it remaining pretty much as-is?

It's just as bad as defending a unit you've never used yourself in a competitive game.

The reload is the first thing that comes to mind. Getting your crew wiped is really overkill. Consequently pulling it off the front line to absolute safety is a part of the long, long reload time, since it's slow as fuck.

In competitive, no. But I've had it used against me and more often, against my teammates to great effect. Especially in 3v3s due to the map designs. The lane-y nature of the map dictates that it does not need to turn or do whatever maneuvers people expect it to do.

Less complaining and more improving and 80% of this forum would realize that the game is not badly designed nor are the units UP or OP.

Or is the Balans team resigning themselves to it remaining pretty much as-is?

I'm totally fine with its current state, the usability has gone up a lot in the last few patches. I accept that it will never be competitive, as all or nothing design will never be, but currently it can be very good in automatch if you know how to use it.

We experimented a bit with it in the past and couldn't get satisfactory results, so as we may not get any more patches I don't see much reason to try to totally rebalance it with no idea what we'd end up with and potentially leave it in some kind of broken state when it's good enough right now.

I'm totally fine with its current state, the usability has gone up a lot in the last few patches. I accept that it will never be competitive, as all or nothing design will never be, but currently it can be very good in automatch if you know how to use it.

We experimented a bit with it in the past and couldn't get satisfactory results, so as we may not get any more patches I don't see much reason to try to totally rebalance it with no idea what we'd end up with and potentially leave it in some kind of broken state when it's good enough right now.

While I'm not a fan of the unit itself, I can respect this take. Especially after I spent time exploring the mess that is Sturmtiger.

For anyone interested, I made a thread where I share my findings and possible fixes for the Sturmtiger (and AVRE, to lesser extent). All of them involve risks and side effects (sometimes quite ridiculous ones). Spoiler: there aren't any easy ways out for the Sturmtiger.

While I'm not a fan of the unit itself, I can respect this take. Especially after I spent time exploring the mess that is Sturmtiger.

For anyone interested, I made a thread where I share my findings and possible fixes for the Sturmtiger (and AVRE, to lesser extent). All of them involve risks and side effects (sometimes quite ridiculous ones). Spoiler: there aren't any easy ways out for the Sturmtiger.

Well of course there aren't. This is an arcade game based on WW2. Sturmtiger was like that. It's not a product of somebodies imagination. It's a slow moving hulk that shoots nukes that wipe everything in the radius. AVRE shoots nukes as well, and it has better agility but lower Area of Effect and lower damage. The developers decided to include it and as such all the people calling it OP or UP need to cope with it. Unless you'll go develop your own game, with blackjack and hookers and no sturmtiger, then fine, but as long as it fits in the devs vision of the game, there isn't really anything that can be done. Same as how whereaboos call Calliope OP only based on it's survivability, neglecting price, timing and population. Or allyboos call USF Armour UP (mostly steam forum). Or whatever people complain these days behind the safety net of internet anonymity.

Well of course there aren't. This is an arcade game based on WW2. Sturmtiger was like that. It's not a product of somebodies imagination. It's a slow moving hulk that shoots nukes that wipe everything in the radius. AVRE shoots nukes as well, and it has better agility but lower Area of Effect and lower damage. The developers decided to include it and as such all the people calling it OP or UP need to cope with it. Unless you'll go develop your own game, with blackjack and hookers and no sturmtiger, then fine, but as long as it fits in the devs vision of the game, there isn't really anything that can be done. Same as how whereaboos call Calliope OP only based on it's survivability, neglecting price, timing and population. Or allyboos call USF Armour UP (mostly steam forum). Or whatever people complain these days behind the safety net of internet anonymity.

What does "OP" and "UP" even mean to you, beyond the actual definition of "Overpowered" or "Underpowered", because there are certainly over and undertuned units/factions within the game. Being "in the devs vision" isnt really very meaningful in terms of balance.

What does "OP" and "UP" even mean to you, beyond the actual definition of "Overpowered" or "Underpowered", because there are certainly over and undertuned units/factions within the game. Being "in the devs vision" isnt really very meaningful in terms of balance.

There is this little thing I like to do called thinking:
My thought goes like this: Sturm is slow and clunky to use but has great AOE and can easily nuke anything into oblivion if properly handled. Great veterancy amplifies the usage.
See?
A simple thought. Nothing fancy. No huge brainstorms or mental gymnastics. Just a simple mathematical equation waiting to be equated.


In even simpler terms:
UP - agility and price
OP - Cannon (+ vet)

Therefore, balanced. A nice bowl of OP and UP things. Not broken, not useless.

See, it's easy. Do that for other units and you'll see that the game is quite well balanced.
Want to include the "what the unit is going against?" argument? You'll find that it's even more balanced than the crybabies on this forum cry and weep.

The real problem stems from the notion that this game has some deep and profound philosophy. The variables are complex as fuck but everything can be boiled down to a statistical analysis of win-rates of the general public (all of it, not just the "pros" which constitute a small percentage and have a vastly different approach to the game).

So like Sander said. Some people cry, some people weep. Some want this, some want that, but until you get some obvious deviation from the norm, it's fine. In this case, Sturm can be useful, it can be useless, it does not stand out in any way (except that it's a super heavy tank), ergo, balanced.

Want an argument about the silliness of this forum? People complained that the 10 armor reduction on the fat bumblebee will make it useless. Try to imagine the audacity of such an expression. Just try and you'll see what I'm talking about.
In all it's audacity, that shit can be an axiom:
"This forum is filled with a constant storm of heavy shit-rain."

EDIT: "(devs) not very meaningful in terms of balance".... I agree to some extent, but it's still their game. If they wanted they could have made axis weapons do 100 dmg and Ally only 1 dmg. Nobody would buy the game, so they didn't do that obviously. Don't try to find meaning where there is none. It's a game with a plethora of variables. A final solution exists, and it's symmetrical. You will never achieve your view of balance in a game that is based on asymmetry. Eg.
This faction has this but lacks this and can counter the other faction with this. This faction has this weakness and the other faction has that weakness.

Asymmetry and balance do not go hand in hand in the traditional sense. In less obnoxious terms:
Variables be crazy, we can all go fuck ourselves and take a big large dump on our visions of this game. Not our game to design.


Edit2: "pros" are useful in a fact that they can point you in the right direction. Since ther3 is no scale to call something OP or UP (as opposed to what?), the "pros" will always abuse units they FEEL are most useful. So in terms of the everyday balance, they are useful in that way.

There is this little thing I like to do called thinking:
My thought goes like this: Sturm is slow and clunky to use but has great AOE and can easily nuke anything into oblivion if properly handled. Great veterancy amplifies the usage.
See?
A simple thought. Nothing fancy. No huge brainstorms or mental gymnastics. Just a simple mathematical equation waiting to be equated.


In even simpler terms:
UP - agility and price
OP - Cannon (+ vet)

Therefore, balanced. A nice bowl of OP and UP things. Not broken, not useless.

This is practically the definition of mental gymnastics. "An unit is balanced because it has vaguely defined 'UP' and 'OP' qualities that 'balance out'"

I'm not arguing that the Sturmtiger is over or underpowered, but this kind of "logic" is pretty ludicrous. An unit being overpowered in some areas and underpowered in others doesn't mean it's necessarily balanced.

See, it's easy. Do that for other units and you'll see that the game is quite well balanced.
Want to include the "what the unit is going against?" argument? You'll find that it's even more balanced than the crybabies on this forum cry and weep.

The real problem stems from the notion that this game has some deep and profound philosophy. The variables are complex as fuck but everything can be boiled down to a statistical analysis of win-rates of the general public (all of it, not just the "pros" which constitute a small percentage and have a vastly different approach to the game).

So, what, Live VSL and Ostruppen, along with old Fallschirmjager, the T-70, and UKF as a faction (Among many other examples) are or were balanced?

What are you even talking about with this "notion that this game has some deep and profound philosophy" rubbish? The balance team are making strides to ensure that all factions and units are viable (read: Balanced), what "Deep and profound philosophy" is required, exactly?

EDIT: "(devs) not very meaningful in terms of balance".... I agree to some extent, but it's still their game. If they wanted they could have made axis weapons do 100 dmg and Ally only 1 dmg. Nobody would buy the game, so they didn't do that obviously. Don't try to find meaning where there is none. It's a game with a plethora of variables. A final solution exists, and it's symmetrical.

You'd seriously argue that in a case in which all axis units did a hundred times the damage of allied ones that the Allied factions weren't underpowered, because it's "Relic's game"? The designer's intent or "vision" is completely irrelevant when talking about an unit or faction being under or overpowered.

Asymmetry and balance do not go hand in hand in the traditional sense. In less obnoxious terms:
Variables be crazy, we can all go fuck ourselves and take a big large dump on our visions of this game. Not our game to design.

An asymmetrical game is exceedingly hard to balance, and in some cases impossible to, but this does not translate to it being a completely wasted effort to attempt to balance it as well as possible. A game being asymmetrical does not mean that "balance" is something you can entirely ignore.

It is the Balance Team's "Game to design" in some sense, as they literally have Relic's blessing to produce balance patches to tweak how the game plays, and players of a game (i.e, the people who paid for it) are entirely at liberty to comment on balance.

The vast majority of big-budget AA-AAA developers are primarily motivated by profit, and to this end are interested in making a game/franchise appealing to purchase (Which in terms of a multiplayer game entails ensuring that it is balanced as best as possible)

Edit2: "pros" are useful in a fact that they can point you in the right direction. Since ther3 is no scale to call something OP or UP (as opposed to what?), the "pros" will always abuse units they FEEL are most useful. So in terms of the everyday balance, they are useful in that way.

Pros will abuse the units that ARE the most useful, not merely the ones they "feel" are the most useful. The units that win games for them. This often translates to that unit being overpowered, or the alternate options available being underpowered. This is precisely why the way pros play a game is often looked at by developers, because they know how to abuse broken mechanics/units/factions.

Well of course there aren't. This is an arcade game based on WW2. Sturmtiger was like that. It's not a product of somebodies imagination. It's a slow moving hulk that shoots nukes that wipe everything in the radius. AVRE shoots nukes as well, and it has better agility but lower Area of Effect and lower damage. The developers decided to include it and as such all the people calling it OP or UP need to cope with it. Unless you'll go develop your own game, with blackjack and hookers and no sturmtiger, then fine, but as long as it fits in the devs vision of the game, there isn't really anything that can be done. Same as how whereaboos call Calliope OP only based on it's survivability, neglecting price, timing and population. Or allyboos call USF Armour UP (mostly steam forum). Or whatever people complain these days behind the safety net of internet anonymity.

Just to note - I'm talking about are for projectile collision, so rockets undershooting when fired on slopes and rockets being blocked by environment objects (like wrecks or fountains), not a unit redesign.

There is this little thing I like to do called thinking:
My thought goes like this: Sturm is slow and clunky to use but has great AOE and can easily nuke anything into oblivion if properly handled. Great veterancy amplifies the usage.
See?
A simple thought. Nothing fancy. No huge brainstorms or mental gymnastics. Just a simple mathematical equation waiting to be equated.


In even simpler terms:
UP - agility and price
OP - Cannon (+ vet)

Therefore, balanced. A nice bowl of OP and UP things. Not broken, not useless.

See, it's easy. Do that for other units and you'll see that the game is quite well balanced.
Want to include the "what the unit is going against?" argument? You'll find that it's even more balanced than the crybabies on this forum cry and weep.

The real problem stems from the notion that this game has some deep and profound philosophy. The variables are complex as fuck but everything can be boiled down to a statistical analysis of win-rates of the general public (all of it, not just the "pros" which constitute a small percentage and have a vastly different approach to the game).

So like Sander said. Some people cry, some people weep. Some want this, some want that, but until you get some obvious deviation from the norm, it's fine. In this case, Sturm can be useful, it can be useless, it does not stand out in any way (except that it's a super heavy tank), ergo, balanced.

Want an argument about the silliness of this forum? People complained that the 10 armor reduction on the fat bumblebee will make it useless. Try to imagine the audacity of such an expression. Just try and you'll see what I'm talking about.
In all it's audacity, that shit can be an axiom:
"This forum is filled with a constant storm of heavy shit-rain."

EDIT: "(devs) not very meaningful in terms of balance".... I agree to some extent, but it's still their game. If they wanted they could have made axis weapons do 100 dmg and Ally only 1 dmg. Nobody would buy the game, so they didn't do that obviously. Don't try to find meaning where there is none. It's a game with a plethora of variables. A final solution exists, and it's symmetrical. You will never achieve your view of balance in a game that is based on asymmetry. Eg.
This faction has this but lacks this and can counter the other faction with this. This faction has this weakness and the other faction has that weakness.

Asymmetry and balance do not go hand in hand in the traditional sense. In less obnoxious terms:
Variables be crazy, we can all go fuck ourselves and take a big large dump on our visions of this game. Not our game to design.


Edit2: "pros" are useful in a fact that they can point you in the right direction. Since ther3 is no scale to call something OP or UP (as opposed to what?), the "pros" will always abuse units they FEEL are most useful. So in terms of the everyday balance, they are useful in that way.

Let me recite a story about 'competitive' and 'asymmetrical'.

One of the problems is predisposition.

Warcraft 3. Age of Empires. Starcraft. Command and Conquer.

These are the exact same game. Different theme. They are all "collect resource" and "build base". They are all simple mathematical calculations for units.

X unit has 100 health Y unit does 20 damage. 5 Shots and Unit X is dead. Play death animation.

And there's more than just Warcraft 3, Age of Empires, Starcraft and Command and Conquer. This is 90's system design that still goes on today. Those are just the most popular ones.

So playing Warcraft 3 means you already understand the other 3. Playing any of the four means you understand the other 3. So you've already learnt the same skills but you just have to apply them to different buildings. Different units. Different races.

Company of Heroes is more unique. The only other games like it is Dawn of War 2 (specifically the second one, not the other 2) and Iron Harvest.

I can't speak competitively for anything but Starcraft. But Starcraft isn't dominantly a strategy game. To be more specific. Strategy isn't the dominant skill that determines which player wins. Anyone whose got to gold can understand the first thing you can do to rise in rank is learn how to build. If you build faster than your enemy then you'll have an army quicker and just overwhelm them in the first battle. The game even teaches you with tutorials with build orders. And it's only when two players build at a similar speed, in relation to their respective races, that then strategy and tactics come into play.

It's a lot of clicks. It's a lot of muscle memory. And there's a lot more to explore but shouldn't need to get to answer the question.

Compare this to Company of Heroes. At the start of the match you already need to get out there and control territory. One unit does not necessarily just win against the other. Especially if we are talking Company of Heroes 1, and not 2, positioning has a much larger influence.

Right out the door this means tactics and strategy come into play and this much should be obvious.

I wouldn't say Company of Heroes is harder. It's too 'easy' of an answer. But I would say after a life long time of only being exposed to C&C style games. You will find it tricky to understand that perhaps a Mortar works more like a Mortar and less like a unit that just does AoE damage. Story Time!

My Starcraft 2 Super Fan Boy friend played Company of Heroes and just sat in his base after being told explicility that is not what you do. He purchased 4 mortar squads. Ran them into melee. Said "They aren't fucking doing anything" followed by "This game is fucking dumb" and quit.

I will say though that Company of Heroes is much more REFLECTIVE or strategical and tactical ability. Where as the C&C style games have less emphasis on that.

There's a lot more the average player can do in Company of Heroes on a strategical and tactical level. There's more mind games a low level player can participate with. Where as skills like this in Starcraft are reserved more for very high levels of play where simply building faster and more units no longer cuts it.

Lure your enemies into machine guns. Get your sniper to focus on a super important unit. Hide units and surprise flanks. Charge up a flamethrower to dislodge a fortified enemy position. Protecting your flanks with mines. Maybe your enemy isn't so good at micro managing their units so you just pick more smaller fights knowing you can win 2 out of 3.

...

I think you are confusing strategy vs tactics. All those games you listed with exception of CC (cause my little knowledge only goes as far as how the old Tiberium Wars played) are heavier on the strategy side than COH. COH is mostly a TACTICS games.

As you mentioned before, build order, technologies, adapting to enemy unit composition. COH2 drops most of it and focuses on HOW YOU FIGHT with your units.


I'm curious why you talk about games you don't know nothing about. WC3/SC2/CC/AOE has nothing to do with each other.

WC3 for starters is the middle ground between strategy games and tactical RTS games like COH2. It has heavy RNG elements, the dmg is done in variables and there's less emphasis on resource gathering outside of base expansions (worker line is way more safe and automatised, compared to the harassment done in AOE/SC). Unit preservation is a thing, because you don't want to give XP to enemy heroes (who level up).

AOE2 is the epitome of 90s RTS titles. But it's a golden standard for a reason. I think the beauty is how easy is to understand how to play vs how many things can be learned, optimised and improved.
It's way heavier on the economy micro management compared to other titles but in the same way i think it rewards long thought planning in regards to strategy and resource fighting/positioning.
If i have to describe the game with one word is "ADAPT".

SC2:

And it's only when two players build at a similar speed, in relation to their respective races, that then strategy and tactics come into play.

(IN COH) There's more mind games a low level player can participate with. Where as skills like this in Starcraft are reserved more for very high levels of play where simply building faster and more units no longer cuts it

That's right on point. The biggest problem with SC2 is that if you don't have extensive knowledge about it, it's pretty much impossible to enjoy the intricacies of it. More so when playing, when you have to balance between fighting/economy.

Form me CoH2 is more like a 3rd-person shooter, beeing the commander of Hell-let-loose but the units follow your orders. (more or less) xD

I think you are confusing strategy vs tactics. All those games you listed with exception of CC (cause my little knowledge only goes as far as how the old Tiberium Wars played) are heavier on the strategy side than COH. COH is mostly a TACTICS games.

As you mentioned before, build order, technologies, adapting to enemy unit composition. COH2 drops most of it and focuses on HOW YOU FIGHT with your units.


I'm curious why you talk about games you don't know nothing about. WC3/SC2/CC/AOE has nothing to do with each other.

WC3 for starters is the middle ground between strategy games and tactical RTS games like COH2. It has heavy RNG elements, the dmg is done in variables and there's less emphasis on resource gathering outside of base expansions (worker line is way more safe and automatised, compared to the harassment done in AOE/SC). Unit preservation is a thing, because you don't want to give XP to enemy heroes (who level up).

AOE2 is the epitome of 90s RTS titles. But it's a golden standard for a reason. I think the beauty is how easy is to understand how to play vs how many things can be learned, optimised and improved.
It's way heavier on the economy micro management compared to other titles but in the same way i think it rewards long thought planning in regards to strategy and resource fighting/positioning.
If i have to describe the game with one word is "ADAPT".

SC2:


That's right on point. The biggest problem with SC2 is that if you don't have extensive knowledge about it, it's pretty much impossible to enjoy the intricacies of it. More so when playing, when you have to balance between fighting/economy.

No problemo, just reciting a story of my own views
This is Coh for me and i hope Relic keeps heading that direction. The more variables the better. Set your own standards. Be courageous like Apple.