When Relic call that an anti-tank gun

Most units scale by either getting good veterancy bonuses (like Puma) or gaining utility (like T-70/222 scouting). Likewise a vet 3 StuG for example still has a decent chance to deal damage to an IS-2 due to the various combat bonuses that it gets through veterancy.

That's different from being able to just spam cheap units and avoid teching up to counter an enemy's high tech/unit cost late game unit just by sheer frontal DPM, which would become possible if deflection damage were to be introduced on a large scale.

Scalability of units should come from either vet 3(/5) combat performance or (veteran) utility. Not from stock performance.

Yeah and this is why some factions can litteraly flat fall on their asses if at some point they lose vetted unit.

What about Mediums? Why one call-in unit (which for soviets is awaible just by teching, since you will get T4 no matter what) should be immunte to two mediums? Why Churchills and KV-2 should be almost immune to mediums, dispite costing almost the same. Why PIVJ should be almost immune to mediums. If you get 2 medium tanks, you've pretty much spend as much res as the guy getting this 1 heavy tank, yet you cant do anything.

And even more on this topic, dont you think that getting IS-2 if enemy is spamming StuGs (in a world with defection damage) is just a bad play? Its like saying, well KT is the most espensive super-heavy in the game, why it can be countered by doulble TD units. Or pretty much any heavy tank can be forced away or significantly damaged even by 1 TD unit, dispite it costing more.

I mean, you for some reason only forcus on the cheapest units dealing damage to the most expensive ones, but at the same time completly skipping the midle ground, where not so much cheaper units cant deal with slitghly more expensive ones, just because they are out of their league.

Yeah and this is why some factions can litteraly flat fall on their asses if at some point they lose vetted unit.

Which is exactly the point? Losing vetted units should be a tough loss, and the enemy should be rewarded for killing them. All factions have late game options to deal with heavies.

I mean, you for some reason only forcus on the cheapest units dealing damage to the most expensive ones, but at the same time completly skipping the midle ground, where not so much cheaper units cant deal with slitghly more expensive ones, just because they are out of their league.

Yeah, because what on earth would be the point of heavies if even generalist mediums could take them on frontally? It's exactly the purpose of a heavy tank to be durable enough against generalist medium tanks and other mid tier AT options to force the opponent into specific heavy AT counters if they want to directly counter it.

Which is exactly the point? Losing vetted units should be a tough loss, and the enemy should be rewarded for killing them. All factions have late game options to deal with heavies.

No its not, at least not completly? I mean one thing is having tough loss. Lets say if you have vet 5 obests and you lose them, then sure its a very tough loss, but objectively even getting new ober or even say any new elite inf it fine, because they are strong out of the bat anyway. And loosing vet 5 volks who are just impossible to vet up again or vet 3 rifles who can stand the chance in late game only via vet is completly different thing. But its more true for inf, rather then tanks thats true.

Yeah, because what on earth would be the point of heavies if even generalist mediums could take them on frontally? It's exactly the purpose of a heavy tank to be durable enough against generalist medium tanks and other mid tier AT options to force the opponent into specific heavy AT counters if they want to directly counter it.

Its not about the point of the heavies, its about the fact that heavies still can possibly suck ass because everyone is spamming TDs, for exactly this reason alone. Because if you allow youself to actually think about having more mediums them TDs, then the second enemy brings something that cant be penetrated by mediums, your mediums will have no usage against them.

No-one forces anyone, because everyone just getting TDs, since there is objectively no reason not to against enemy armor, every one is getting double AT because again there is objectively no reason not to do it.

And again, why when you speak about deflection you think that mediums should ALWAYS do deflection damage and it should be 50%? I mean, deflection damage could have had like 25%-30% to happen aswell as maybe deal not 50% of the damage by 25-35%. It still wouldnt be even close to enouth to deal with heavies, especially considering that mediums have to stay in range of the heavy tank and recieve damage in return. There is no way even 4 mediums will be able to deal with heavy tank frontally, if deflection arent 100%.

I just cant see the connection here, how say 2 T34\76 dealing 160 damage in total via deflection which is not happening 100% of the time, going to somehow render heavy tanks useless.

4 mediums hitting a heavy frontally is extreme noob. One of the first lessons Coh1 taught was to TRY to hit the rear. With 4 mediums you should always be hitting rear shots with at least 2 of them. The situation of 4 mediums hitting the front should never really happen unless you're already dead.

...
Its not about the point of the heavies, its about the fact that heavies still can possibly suck ass because everyone is spamming TDs, for exactly this reason alone....

Reason why people spam TD like Panther/Su-85/M36/FF is not because they can take Super heavies but because they can take most vehicles from car to a Super heavy.

I personally I am not against deflection on some unit or abilities as long as there are restriction in play.

As solution for COH3 I suggested testing deflection damage that depends on armor so that heavily armored vehicles take less deflection damage.

This solution would add value to armor.

Reason why people spam TD like Panther/Su-85/M36/FF is not because they can take Super heavies but because they can take most vehicles from car to a Super heavy.

And as I was saying, they can take everything, because their stats\penetration were balanced around the fact that they have to be effective in fighting and penetrating heavy tanks, since other then raw penetration there is litteraly nothing else.

I mean people suggested like increasing damage, lowering rof and so on. But it doesnt really change the core idea, that in terms of CoH2, unit either have reliable penetration against heavy tanks and in return becomes super effective against every other armored target or it is balanced around mediums but in return becomes useless against heavy tanks. And same situation happening with AT guns.

And as I was saying, they can take everything, because their stats\penetration were balanced around the fact that they have to be effective in fighting and penetrating heavy tanks, since other then raw penetration there is litteraly nothing else.

I mean people suggested like increasing damage, lowering rof and so on. But it doesnt really change the core idea, that in terms of CoH2, unit either have reliable penetration against heavy tanks and in return becomes super effective against every other armored target or it is balanced around mediums but in return becomes useless against heavy tanks. And same situation happening with AT guns.

In order for a shot to do damage it must both hit and penetrate.

Thus increasing penetration does not mean that a unit would be good vs everything.

TDs have simply been over buffed and can now score hits very reliably and penetrate even at max range firing to small vehicles and big vehicles.

One can solve current issues even without adding deflection damage. Imo the current issues and deflection damage are separate issues.

In order for a shot to do damage it must both hit and penetrate.

Thus increasing penetration does not mean that a unit would be good vs everything.

TDs have simply been over buffed and can now score hits very reliably and penetrate even at max range firing to small vehicles and big vehicles.

One can solve current issues even without adding deflection damage. Imo the current issues and deflection damage are separate issues.

If you are speaking about accuracy it cant solve this problem. I have no idea what mambo jambo should have been done with target sized and modifiers to ajust TD perfomance against.
I can imagine what could have been done to LVs in order to make them less vulnerable, but I dont think that accuracy and target sizes alone can even slightly fix the issue of how TDs are effective against any other armored units in the game.

Because to stay resonable, TDs chances to hit medium shouldn't be lover then 70% imo and considering that pretty much all scored hits will be penetrating one it would hardly make a difference, at best it will increase chances of medium escaping.

Not to mention that even if TDs were nerfed and some perfect formula would have been found, people would have still used TDs just because you dont really have other options. Its either AT guns and TDs against anything heavier then medium.

If you are speaking about accuracy it cant solve this problem. I have no idea what mambo jambo should have been done with target sized and modifiers to ajust TD perfomance against.
I can imagine what could have been done to LVs in order to make them less vulnerable, but I dont think that accuracy and target sizes alone can even slightly fix the issue of how TDs are effective against any other armored units in the game.

Because to stay resonable, TDs chances to hit medium shouldn't be lover then 70% imo and considering that pretty much all scored hits will be penetrating one it would hardly make a difference, at best it will increase chances of medium escaping.

Not to mention that even if TDs were nerfed and some perfect formula would have been found, people would have still used TDs just because you dont really have other options. Its either AT guns and TDs against anything heavier then medium.

I am in the camp that when they fire they should hit reliably maybe not penetrate but they should be hitting. I personally think ROF should be attribute that ought to be tweaked. If everyone is making 2 AT guns then it makes it hard to react. Same with TD, 2 jacksons can autodelete a P4 fairly without any counterplay aside from smoke. Longer ROF by about 2 secs but increased pen to compensate. That way super heavies don't get to roam free.

If you are speaking about accuracy it cant solve this problem. I have no idea what mambo jambo should have been done with target sized and modifiers to ajust TD perfomance against.
I can imagine what could have been done to LVs in order to make them less vulnerable, but I dont think that accuracy and target sizes alone can even slightly fix the issue of how TDs are effective against any other armored units in the game.

Because to stay resonable, TDs chances to hit medium shouldn't be lover then 70% imo and considering that pretty much all scored hits will be penetrating one it would hardly make a difference, at best it will increase chances of medium escaping.

Not to mention that even if TDs were nerfed and some perfect formula would have been found, people would have still used TDs just because you dont really have other options. Its either AT guns and TDs against anything heavier then medium.

There are plenty of solution and accuracy can be a part of them. Increasing the target size of super heavies by lets say 20% and decreasing the far accuracy of "heavy" TD by the same can contribute in keeping the performance the same vs super heavies but reduce vs all other vehicles.

Removing the accuracy bonuses from "heavy" TDs and fixing thing like firefly having mid range of 45 can also help.

And there are number of other solution like using switchable rounds for certain TDs so that one is designed vs Super heavies and the other mediums.

There are plenty of solution and accuracy can be a part of them. Increasing the target size of super heavies by lets say 20% and decreasing the far accuracy of "heavy" TD by the same can contribute in keeping the performance the same vs super heavies but reduce vs all other vehicles.

Removing the accuracy bonuses from "heavy" TDs and fixing thing like firefly having mid range of 45 can also help.

And there are number of other solution like using switchable rounds for certain TDs so that one is designed vs Super heavies and the other mediums.

Thing is, it might or might not solve the problem of TD overperforming. But I was talking about different problem. What I was talking about is that in CoH2, even with nerfed TDs, people would still play meta with multiple TDs\AT guns, because the only thing that matters is penetration, since non-penetrating shots can be equally considered as misses. Game has no middle ground in this aspect.

This essentially handicaps the balance options and makes armor balance an litteral equivalent of the most basic rock-paper-scissors, where paper cant do anything to rock just because its a rock.

CoH3 now has side-armor, which indeed might help sure. But at the same time we dont know how the game plays, because back in the day Jackson was also made as a "flanking TD", but in reality of CoH2 this concept didnt work, because flanking isnt always easy to do especially in 2v2+.

Thing is, it might or might not solve the problem of TD overperforming. But I was talking about different problem. What I was talking about is that in CoH2, even with nerfed TDs, people would still play meta with multiple TDs\AT guns, because the only thing that matters is penetration, since non-penetrating shots can be equally considered as misses. Game has no middle ground in this aspect.

This essentially handicaps the balance options and makes armor balance an litteral equivalent of the most basic rock-paper-scissors, where paper cant do anything to rock just because its a rock.

CoH3 now has side-armor, which indeed might help sure. But at the same time we dont know how the game plays, because back in the day Jackson was also made as a "flanking TD", but in reality of CoH2 this concept didnt work, because flanking isnt always easy to do especially in 2v2+.

On the flip side when someone pays for armor one should expect to get something in return and deflection damage can negate that.

The fact that armor provide a hit roll might seem important in some cases and might look odd on extreme RNG rolls but in the long run over all the shot fired it works as intended since when enough number of are the odd even out.

As I have already post I am not against limited use of deflection damage and I have even suggested calculating deflection in relationship to armor so that armor would have the additional benefit of acting as damage reduction on deflecting shots.

One has to keep in mind that deflection damage effect different modes differently and in large modes with more unit firing the effects can be bigger.

On the flip side when someone pays for armor one should expect to get something in return and deflection damage can negate that.

You still get something for it: only a fraction of the full damage. Obviously armor is not AS important as before then, but deflection damage does not fully invalidate it.

The fact that armor provide a hit roll might seem important in some cases and might look odd on extreme RNG rolls but in the long run over all the shot fired it works as intended since when enough number of are the odd even out.

The problem is that there rarely is a "over the long run" in CoH2. Single units are highly valuable, losing or keeping one due to some low probability RNG decides games regularly.
Making all tanks one-shottable and just differ in their armor value would also even out in the long run, but not in a single game.
That's why people flock towards higher reliability units. Panther instead of JP4 or StuG. This is why AoE profiles have been broadened on so many units, and also why in general units rather got HP and lost armor than the other way around.
Deflection damage would be another step into that direction. Is it desirable? Debatable, but it surely would make the game more reliable to play.

You still get something for it: only a fraction of the full damage. Obviously armor is not AS important as before then, but deflection damage does not fully invalidate it.


The problem is that there rarely is a "over the long run" in CoH2. Single units are highly valuable, losing or keeping one due to some low probability RNG decides games regularly.
Making all tanks one-shottable and just differ in their armor value would also even out in the long run, but not in a single game.
That's why people flock towards higher reliability units. Panther instead of JP4 or StuG. This is why AoE profiles have been broadened on so many units, and also why in general units rather got HP and lost armor than the other way around.
Deflection damage would be another step into that direction. Is it desirable? Debatable, but it surely would make the game more reliable to play.

Yes there is. If a person plays enough games, he will get both "good" and "bad" RNGs. The problem is perception, since many people tend to remember only the "bad" RNG that "cost" the game they should had won by playing "better" and not the good RNG that give them a victory when they actually played worse.

Random events with great impact like crashing airplanes that destroy whole armies are bad for the game, on the other hand max range shots that always hit and penetrate are actually worse for the game since it does it does not promote different tactics. One can simply stay at max range and snipe at the enemy.

Vehicle warfare should follow small arms design and promote relevant positioning and give specific roles for units so the the perform better according to range and other parameters. Deflection damage could be added to certain unit or abilities that are specialized.

Imo introducing deflection damage on large scale would cause more issues than it would solve.

Yes there is. If a person plays enough game he get both "good" and "bad" RNGs. Problem is perception one since many that people tend to remember only the "bad" RNG that "cost" the game they had won by playing "better" and the good RNG that give them victory when they actually played worse.

This is completely missing the point. Both of these are stupid and should be diminished as much as possible. Your good RNG is your opponent's bad RNG. Either way, the game has been decided by RNG and not by skill.

Anyway, my point is that there rarely are enough "RNG checks" in a single game to even out. You're not going to have 10 Panthers with each of them having 10 engagements so that one or two dying by RNG won't matter as much. You're going to have 1-2. If you lose one of them because every shot is penetrating (insert Hans meme here), that is game changing.

...

No one in this thread seriously suggested otherwise.

This is completely missing the point. Both of these are stupid and should be diminished as much as possible. Your good RNG is your opponent's bad RNG. Either way, the game has been decided by RNG and not by skill.

Just because there is RNG involved that does not mean that there is no skill involved. Coh2 is not like playing the lottery and knowing which risk are worth taking and which are not, is part of that Skill.

Anyway, my point is that there rarely are enough "RNG checks" in a single game to even out. You're not going to have 10 Panthers with each of them having 10 engagements so that one or two dying by RNG won't matter as much. You're going to have 1-2. If you lose one of them because every shot is penetrating (insert Hans meme here), that is game changing.


No one in this thread seriously suggested otherwise.

When it comes to tank combat, one will probably lose as many games as one will win due to RNG and that number will be significantly lower to number of games he will lose or win due to skill level.

RNG is there to make players adapt to the tactical situation else it will become more about the economic skill and less about tactical skill. If one does not like RNG one can play RTS games with little to no RNG factors.

Is the topic still about the M1? Cause I just wrecked a Tiger I frontally with the Sabot shells and 1 AT-nade.

This is easily one of the best AT-guns in the game, with its arc and ROF.

Just because there is RNG involved that does not mean that there is no skill involved. Coh2 is not like playing the lottery and knowing which risk are worth taking and which are not, is part of that Skill.

When it comes to tank combat, one will probably lose as many games as one will win due to RNG and that number will be significantly lower to number of games he will lose or win due to skill level.

RNG is there to make players adapt to the tactical situation else it will become more about the economic skill and less about tactical skill. If one does not like RNG one can play RTS games with little to no RNG factors.

I never said otherwise, so I am not sure which point you are trying to make here.

Fact is, you can make the correct play and use your unit well, yet get no reward at all. This happens regularly. Not all of these events are game deciding, but they enough to notice. These are not one-in-a-thousand occurrences, by far not. Adding deflection damage does not transform CoH2 into chess, not even if it were introduced on every single unit.

As you say, RNG should constantly force you to adapt to and re-evaluate the situation, but it should not decide games on its own.
To come somewhat back to the topic, or at least a previous topic since this is getting out of hand:
Deflection damage on some units can mitigate "unfair" RNG and help them back into meta builds. The existence of deflection damage does not make armor useless, armor still has a great role of reducing damage even against those units. And this was the original point where I quoted you.

You need M36 to counter KT not 270MP AT guns. And even then I’ve lost a KT to M1s. That said, never ever try to slug it out with the biggest bruiser in the game without a heavy numbers advantage.

Now here’s some even more incredible RNG AT for you:

i love how the KT is solo, no help. not even scared. deflecting shots. dodging shots. how many shots do it take to kill it with those tank destroyers if u add the misses the bounces and pens. its going to be ALOOT of shots. they can only really go down if snared or flanked. and only if they dont have troops fighting the army u have attacking the kt. imagine if allies had these and axis had to start microing the f out of the whole game sacrificing units. axis players will quit and cry. but all that said. its fun and who cares about the stress and lose streaks who cares its op. i remember days of allies tanks having alot of armor and u know what happens? axis players complain. and u know what hapens? allies tanks get nerfed instead of armor they get more hp lol. just so axis dont have to struggle and be stress free. 2 atguns will just tickle a kt he really needed 4-5 and some snare and a tank chasing trying to get behind. which is the sacrifice tank

There are 2 issues with the KT, both stemming from the fact that it’s stock:

1) You can go Overwatch/Luftwaffe and push with it and skill planes, which effectively pushes all allied armour off the field unless there’s an AA unit and means the KT can make a beeline for the AT guns to decrew them with no threat of snare because of the HP threshold to allow engine damage.

It’s worth pointing out that while allies also have heavy tanks, none of their heavy tank doctrines have AT loiters and while Brits have Croc and skillplanes, they’re less potent and also target infantry. This means that allies can’t mindlessly drop planes to push back armour then rush the enemy AT guns. This is probably more of a skillplanes than a KT issue imo.

2) HEAT KT with elite armoured which is just hilarious. How anyone thought this was okay is beyond me.