Buff Allied "Heavy Tanks"

I think the 45% win rate in team games is what makes them less fun to play...

Generally a 10% differential means there is something systematically problematic. Though I'll bet some of that has to do with maps. Redball and Whiteball need to be played less, as they REALLY incentivize MG42 into cache games. Though 2v2 also has the same divide. Statistically, the strongest Axis team is a 50/50 mix of OKW and OST, in every game mode. Still, this 10% differential is cross all team games. Something is systematically wrong.

Interestingly, UKF was the highest winrate faction in 1v1 for the month of June, I really want to see those winning builds.

I do love whiteball, I think it's a phenominal map. Redball on the other hand is blatantly axis favored. Now don't get me wrong, vetoes should have their uses, but I've seen many times before from "top teamgame players" who are also members of the balance team simply say "just veto redball as allies 4Head" as their argument against it. I'm not saying I can do any better or there aren't other factors in play, but for "top members" of ladder and the balance team to give such trash arguments is really... damaging to coh2 overall.

.
Interestingly, UKF was the highest winrate faction in 1v1 for the month of June, I really want to see those winning builds.

Look at the match count.

That being said, go for Lend Lease commander with assault IS. Build 3 AIS and upgrade them. Go for m5 with AA upgrade.
Focus on disconnecting enemy territory, no AEC + fast cromwell.

Pretty solid tactic against non top 20.

Pershing isnt bad but is overpriced i think. Should cost 200 fuel

I do love whiteball, I think it's a phenominal map. Redball on the other hand is blatantly axis favored. Now don't get me wrong, vetoes should have their uses, but I've seen many times before from "top teamgame players" who are also members of the balance team simply say "just veto redball as allies 4Head" as their argument against it. I'm not saying I can do any better or there aren't other factors in play, but for "top members" of ladder and the balance team to give such trash arguments is really... damaging to coh2 overall.

If you veto Redball, is that because you want to play Vielsalm, Lorch or Mud? There just isn't enough vetoes.

I mean no disrespect to the creators of maps like Redball Express, but they don't belong in the map list for automatch. They cannot be even remotely considered balanced. They are tiny and prevent any sort of flanking. The amount of units present in 4v4 is big enough even in maps that have a lots of space like Nordwind.

I wish Relic had a few proper map templates and reskinned them so we had at least a base besides the ones added over the years but here we are with a random collection.

I don't get why this kind off assymetrical balance is fine , these commanders are barely being picked for how underperforming the actual heavy units are that are supposed to be the sole reason you pick them in the first place. Compared to what the Allies already have , these heavies are literally meme tanks for the cost at this point bringing no benefit to the frontline anyway.

The balance off these is literally giving these things a overburdance off AI power , while keeping the sole thing it's supposed to do under the radar as a heavy tank soaking up damaging and being able to atleast keep most armour at bay.

Meanwhile Axis throwing Sturm & KT on the field at the same time , a tiger tank that beats any off the Allied heavy tanks anyway in terms off combined performance armour and fire power , while on top having a panther that is supposed to be just a AT Tank that beats Comets consistently because you know we gave them smoke and a nade ability so it has to underperform in the very thing it's supposed to do , is decent against AI with the MG34 upgrade and on top can go 1 v 1 the heaviest tanks we are able to put out.

Meanwhile , people tell me Allies are so amazing cause they can throw out TD like no tomorrow for cheap , while they are literally paper thin and Panther being able to just rush stomp and bounce these things while the only thing being useable to deal with it being the "T30E16 HVAP-T Armor Piercing Rounds" when needed anyway. Go figure a m36 jackson costs 140 fuel and 400 MP and the only redeeming thing is that it has 10 more range , the panther is even faster has double the armour rating and health for a extra 40 Fuel and 70 MP.

SU-85 being literally the only TD i think is OverPowered for the cost on the allies side and the only sole reason the M36 Jacksons ability exists on top off the SU-85 having such sight ranges is purely because off the Elephant/Jagdtigers/KT being available in game as there is already barely any counter outside the One on One plays , where the whole balance part is focused on anyway , cause you know "Map size".

i see no problem to give axis tank clones from firefly and Comets. than u can take out panthers.

having a panther that is supposed to be just a AT Tank that beats Comets consistently because you know we gave them smoke and a nade ability so it has to underperform in the very thing it's supposed to do , is decent against AI with the MG34 upgrade and on top can go 1 v 1 the heaviest tanks we are able to put out.

Comets don't just have smoke shells and grenades, but the spammable white phosphorous rounds and a blitz ability. It's way more useful than a Panther as it can fight both infantry and vehicles effectively and has extra utilities. It's the best heavy tank for me.

i see no problem to give axis tank clones from firefly and Comets. than u can take out panthers.

I don't either why don't we get a Elefant & Jagdtiger , seems like a fine trade to me? only costing even less over the SU-152 , that has laughable front armour "Get's almost beaten by panther from the front" and reloads almost 3 seconds longer compared to a elefant or jagdtiger , while costing way more fuel and just a bit less MP coming in at the same time at 14 CP , supposed to be half decent at infantry but sucks anyway.

Comets don't just have smoke shells and grenades, but the spammable white phosphorous rounds and a blitz ability. It's way more useful than a Panther as it can fight both infantry and vehicles effectively and has extra utilities. It's the best heavy tank for me.

The whole thing that bothers me , is that the allied balance is based on uneven buckets off water just puring it all into all kinds off unrelevant stats for the role it's supposed to do , while not performing for the cost.

This assymetrical part is literally just giving Axis pure amazing Raw Stats and the Allies just a bunch off extra utilities and abilities to counter these so said armoured axis units on the field , keep in mind that almost every single ability costs a bunch off "Ammo" and are all situational aswell.

This bias is enormous.

Leaving out half the abilities of many allied vehicles and only focussing on their weaknesses and pointing those out is not getting you anything.

I don't either why don't we get a Elefant & Jagdtiger , seems like a fine trade to me? only costing even less over the SU-152 , that has laughable front armour "Get's almost beaten by panther from the front" and reloads almost 3 seconds longer compared to a elefant or jagdtiger , while costing way more fuel and just a bit less MP coming in at the same time at 14 CP , supposed to be half decent at infantry but sucks anyway.

I would trade an elefant or jagdtiger every time for a ISU. EVERY GOD DAMNED TIME. without blinking with the eye. i would give you the kubel on top of this.

This bias is enormous.

Leaving out half the abilities of many allied vehicles and only focussing on their weaknesses and pointing those out is not getting you anything.

Although they do have the abilities, these do add a extra micro tax and in most cases cost ammo just to be on par. These give advantidges yes but at a cost, its not al fun and joy.
Axis tanks have better raw stats wich makes them safer and far easier to use.

Although they do have the abilities, these do add a extra micro tax and in most cases cost ammo just to be on par. These give advantidges yes but at a cost, its not al fun and joy.
Axis tanks have better raw stats wich makes them safer and far easier to use.

True, tho allied TD's have 60 range while no stock whermacht unit has 60 range. OP is simply comparing the wrong vehicles, comparing a TD unit vs non-TD units, he should compare the Panther to tanks like the Jackson, Firefly or SU85.

True, tho allied TD's have 60 range while no stock whermacht unit has 60 range. OP is simply comparing the wrong vehicles, comparing a TD unit vs non-TD units, he should compare the Panther to tanks like the Jackson, Firefly or SU85.

Meanwhile i get told that a increase off 5 range makes no difference when going panther vs pershing but somehow 10 does , how does that even compare? Meanwhile you can just go spotting scope doctrine and put it on par with all other allied TD's while having double the armour and double the health with on top good reload and mobility.

Meanwhile i get told that a increase off 5 range makes no difference when going panther vs pershing but somehow 10 does , how does that even compare? Meanwhile you can just go spotting scope doctrine and put it on par with all other allied TD's while having double the armour and double the health with on top good reload and mobility.

50-60 range difference gives you the ability to kite, as well as a good chance to not constantly get fired at by enemy ATGs
45-50 range difference means you get the first shot off, but unless you have godly micro you won't be able to kite your opponent. You will also always be in the range of ATGs.

And while Panthers are an issue in team games, for most modes your points are exaggerated. The Panther is a dedicated AT counter, obviously it should be able to go toe to toe with generalist tanks that cost more.

50-60 range difference gives you the ability to kite, as well as a good chance to not constantly get fired at by enemy ATGs
45-50 range difference means you get the first shot off, but unless you have godly micro you won't be able to kite your opponent. You will also always be in the range of ATGs.

And while Panthers are an issue in team games, for most modes your points are exaggerated. The Panther is a dedicated AT counter, obviously it should be able to go toe to toe with generalist tanks that cost more.

All while The Tiger I seems to do the same as the cheapest generalist tank off the Axis roster. While Allied Heavy tanks get consistently beaten by the Tiger I itself.

Even when i agree on the range part , still seems just because off the extra range every single Allied tank get's dunked and penalized in stats into oblivion while adding some extra utility/abilities to balance out the part that they are so heavily penalized as because without it do not even stand a chance against the Axis roster in terms off raw stats.

This kind off assymetrical design is just stupid , we even overpay on these abilities just to be able to counter what's coming. These is no fair distribution in these rosters when it comes to raw stats/ability balance just Axis ridiculously high Raw stats > Alllies abilities & utility , nothing in between.

Meanwhile people seem to agree here that it's completely fine to just dump every single stat into AI & AOE for a heavy tank and call it balanced cause you know it's oh so effective against AI so it should lose against every AT & Heavy AT on the battlefield. No , just no ... this is wrong just stupid from my point off view.

If this is the case then i advocate to have the sturmtiger do almost no damage against AT or lower health/armour values to a point every single AT has 50/50 chance to pen , cause you know it overperforms on the AI side off things i mean look at those stats?

I mean could even add in Allied "Heavy tanks" as non-doctrinal 11 CP extra's just like the KT , i mean does it even matter , just a glorified worse Tiger 1 anyway? It's that bad , that the cost for it is laughable and is told to be balanced cause it's good at A) but not at B) so it should completely suck at C) cause when doing the math it seems to have even numbers if i just add a couple off abilities on top.

Allied heavy tanks suck, EXCEPT the KV-2. I don't really play with the pershing, but its basically an IS-2 but worse
however...
the IS-2 is basically an obese t-34-85, except without any benefit whatsoever. The damage is that of a medium tank, the penetration flops, the accuracy is abysmal. The tiger 1 is a straight up superior heavy tank, the extra armor (which isn't a lot) apparently matters (against factions with the best AT in the game). Historically, the IS-2 would shit on each and every axis armored vehicle in the game (and be a threat to even king tigers and JTs), but in game, it doesn't do so, because heavy tanks like the KT didn't exist yet.

Thematically to the game, it should be a king tiger clone, but then forum warriors will pull out stats that show how "balanced" the tank is, ignoring in game performance. Mainly because people use the is-2, see how two panthers shit on it (or a simple ele/JT), maybe they even see how it misses a few shots on blobs, and then simply never use it again.

50-60 range difference gives you the ability to kite, as well as a good chance to not constantly get fired at by enemy ATGs
45-50 range difference means you get the first shot off, but unless you have godly micro you won't be able to kite your opponent. You will also always be in the range of ATGs.

And while Panthers are an issue in team games, for most modes your points are exaggerated. The Panther is a dedicated AT counter, obviously it should be able to go toe to toe with generalist tanks that cost more.

Kitting is really map dependant and Axis have overall better access to extra range vision on their basic units:

Pioneer
Kubel
222

Then Axis also have better doctrinal tools/units to provide vision.

Imo the problem of balance is overall centered on Allied TDs being heavily dependent on RNG to penetrate Axis counter-part. We can all praise the Jackson's stat on paper but when it fails to pen the OKW Pz4 (sometime multiple time in a raw) and the Pz4 can't fail to penetrate it in return, here we have a balance issue.

USF is particularly impacted here, how many times I've lost simply because the ATG or Jackson simply didn't penetrate because of RNG.

Kitting is really map dependant and Axis have overall better access to extra range vision on their basic units:

Pioneer
Kubel
222

Then Axis also have better doctrinal tools/units to provide vision.

I agree on this. However, at least for larger team games, I have the feeling that sight range does not matter as much since tanks do not operate on their own as often. To put it easily: Unit density is so high that there is always an infantry squad in front of your tank, rendering the tank sight less important.

Imo the problem of balance is overall centered on Allied TDs being heavily dependent on RNG to penetrate Axis counter-part. We can all praise the Jackson's stat on paper but when it fails to pen the OKW Pz4 (sometime multiple time in a raw) and the Pz4 can't fail to penetrate it in return, here we have a balance issue.

USF is particularly impacted here, how many times I've lost simply because the ATG or Jackson simply didn't penetrate because of RNG.

To be honest, that's at the very heart of how CoH is supposed to work. Unless there will be special code for "after two misses the next shot is a guaranteed hit" or so, all RNG based games will have occasions of the game itself screwing you (or your opponent) seriously over. These games are not about who was able to precisely estimate the power discrepancy between two armies, but who was able to estimate the most likely outcome by gut feeling.
Too much RNG will never feel rewarding. On the other hand, it adds an additional layer of constantly being forced to re-evaluate your situation based on single events within that fight. Unfair outcomes will always happen, but their frequency should be minimized. In your example, a Jackson failing to penetrate a P4 even twice is less than 0.4% even on max range. It WILL happen if you play often enough, but if this system really bugs someone then CoH is probably the wrong franchise.
To what it's worth, CoH2 does a decent job of balancing out RNG and tactics. Because the scale is so small and tanks worth so much, there will always be issues with games being decided by just "that last shot" penetrating or not. Sometimes I knew that I was being screwed over or actually my opponent was being screwed over by the game itself, but we shouldn't forget that people will always attribute a great move and won fight to their own great tactics, whereas that loss of a tank is always due to shitty RNG. This in the end leaves everyone with the assumption that they are a good commander but the game screws them over regularly, forgetting all the times they were a shitty commander but the game got them the victory (which is also bad), and most of all forgetting all the times where they played well or badly but regardless got what they deserved.