105mm Sherman and Brummbar should be less durable

These units only have to expose themselves for a briefly to do damage. I don't see why they should be as durable as they are. They should be weaker like the motor carriage because they have to expose themselves very briefly to cause a lot of damage. Cost can be adjusted to match.

Alternately a range decrease could be warranted as longer weapon ranges help the survivability of these units.

The high armour and high HP count means these units are more effective for their cost comparable to other dedicated AI/AA vehicles such as the flak panzer or centaur.

My main problem with Brummbar in team games is its a vehicle that can snowball Ost's resource advantage if given the opportunity. Tanks such as the Pz4 and Sherman can be pushed off easily with a single anti-tank gun (ATG) however the Brummbar is often times able to ignore a single ATG or TD which requires an investment of 2x ATGs/TD. This is especially noticeable with USF who has a worse off ATG. Any faction will bleed MP to invest into 2x ATGs in addition to the MP bleed that the Brummbar will do when on the field.

I think the +armour% should be removed from vet 2 also as having more survivability is very strong on this unit with high survivability. Also haven't mentioned that the ATG shield for green cover is less effective when using attack ground.

I'm not trying to say these units are OP but there are certain situations where this unit is uncounterable or at the very least, require a much higher resource requirement to counter which is usually not possible when playing behind.

The 105mm Sherman is not that durable considering it has the bulldozer blade on the front.

...

Alternately a range decrease could be warranted as longer weapon ranges help the survivability of these units.
...

These vehicles do not have "longer weapon ranges" they actually have sorter range at 35...

...
however the Brummbar is often times able to ignore a single ATG...

It is mean to, Why would anyone invest in these expensive AI units if they could be stopped by single ATG?

It is mean to, Why would anyone invest in these expensive AI units if they could be stopped by single ATG?

I kinda agree with this. Tanks like the 105 Dozer and Brummbär should be a greater threat to AT guns than vice versa. If anything you could argue that they could become a bit more susceptible to tanks as those should be their natural counters. Right now at least the Brum can get out of harms way quite quickly if things go south and hunting it down is rather difficult. I think a slight acceleration nerf, as was proposed in another thread a while ago could go a long way to make overextending with these tanks more punishing. Other than that I'd say their durability is fine.

These units should be slightly more susceptible to mediums. They're late game tanks, so you can expect that others tanks should be on the field as counters.
But mediums don't counter them well, forcing you into TDs. Allies are forced into TDs anyway, so it is kind of a self-solving problem. But once you lose your only TD and can't re-buy it soon, you are screwed. Especially against the Brummbar, since not even the ATG works reliably here to get that one shot+snare in, USF probably having the most troubles here.
And while it is a minor issue, it also doesn't help that a double snare on the Brummbar usually doesn't work as a last resort to buy yourself time.

I kinda agree with this. Tanks like the 105 Dozer and Brummbär should be a greater threat to AT guns than vice versa. If anything you could argue that they could become a bit more susceptible to tanks as those should be their natural counters. Right now at least the Brum can get out of harms way quite quickly if things go south and hunting it down is rather difficult. I think a slight acceleration nerf, as was proposed in another thread a while ago could go a long way to make overextending with these tanks more punishing. Other than that I'd say their durability is fine.

Basically this.

no

By the time you get a brummbar on the field, I hope you have more than a single AT-gun to deal with enemy armor..

Also, the 105 sherman is a doctrinal unit in a doctrine that isn't picked that often (atleast I don't see them used).



Sort of agree with MMX; decrease the accelaration rate (by 10% +/-)
Alternatively; decrease the top speed by 25% and give that to vet 3.

These units should be slightly more susceptible to mediums.

Agreed. Hence why I have been advocating for target tables even if basic ones for units like this. We could maintain current survival rates vs ATGs while being able to be countered by tanks without needing 3-4 Tank Destroyers to ensure a kill.

These units should be slightly more susceptible to mediums. They're late game tanks, so you can expect that others tanks should be on the field as counters.

Imo 105 mm is pretty susceptible to both mediums (P4s) and AT guns, but Sturmpanzer is a good spot right now, maybe too good to someone's liking.
Also 105mm it is in a tricky spot, because HE sherman is that good, while being more diverse.

Agreed. Hence why I have been advocating for target tables even if basic ones for units like this. We could maintain current survival rates vs ATGs while being able to be countered by tanks without needing 3-4 Tank Destroyers to ensure a kill.

To be honest I am not a huge fan of target tables. They convolute how units interact. Even if there were some kind of in-game encyclopedia, you can't expect players to read all the pages for each unit and put all the stats into context. But that is another discussion, so I'll leave it at that.

Regarding the Brumm/105mm: We could probably achieve something very similar by slightly nerfing the mobility. An ATG won't outrun it anyway even if it survives. It would make it weaker vs mostly vehicles, and mediums would have a better chance to flank or counter push.
I think there is enough space within the CoH2 engine to achieve this without a target table.

Out of interest though: What modifier would you give?

Imo 105 mm is pretty susceptible to both mediums (P4s) and AT guns, but Sturmpanzer is a good spot right now, maybe too good to someone's liking.
Also 105mm it is in a tricky spot, because HE sherman is that good, while being more diverse.

Overall I agree.
The Brummbar is in pretty much a perfect spot both for OST as well as for Allies as long as they have a TD. The only issue I'd have design wise is that you are a bit too vulnerable if you lose your TD. It's expensive enough that you can expect the Allied player to have a tank on the field, but also cheap enough that you can't really expect the Allied player to invest in more than one vehicle or more than one dedicated TD for it. If that TD is gone and you can't rebuy quickly, it's almost game.

The position of the 105mm within USF is obviously worse, but probably also a different topic. I'd not call it "pretty" susceptible (pen chance is ~55% at mid-long range, accuracy not included) but still worse than the Brummbar. I think what holds it back apart from the commander is also the existance of the StuG as well as the PaK stun shot on Ostheer. The StuG is such a cheap counter to the 105mm it's not really worth taking it against Ostheer.

Imo 105 mm is pretty susceptible to both mediums (P4s) and AT guns, but Sturmpanzer is a good spot right now, maybe too good to someone's liking.
Also 105mm it is in a tricky spot, because HE sherman is that good, while being more diverse.

The chance of PzIV penetrating a 105mm dozer frontally in pretty low, care to explain why in your opinion it is "susceptible" to it?

The position of the 105mm within USF is obviously worse, but probably also a different topic. I'd not call it "pretty" susceptible (pen chance is ~55% at mid-long range, accuracy not included) but still worse than the Brummbar. I think what holds it back apart from the commander is also the existance of the StuG as well as the PaK stun shot on Ostheer. The StuG is such a cheap counter to the 105mm it's not really worth taking it against Ostheer.

It is because of the USF design as a whole, so most of the time you can be pretty ballsy with P4s vs 105mm pushing engagement distance to medium close range, while I agree the chances are not in the "reliable territory" it is good enough to test your luck repeatedly. As for Sturmpanzer it can deflect some shots, but 105mm's armor is not simply not enough for that. IMO if 105mm was good enough, the commander would have been in much better spot.

It is much better to shoot from a safe distance with a cheaper and nondoctrinal Scott. This is an inherent problem of USF. 105mm would have to be much more tanky to justify taking it. With its current HP+armor+range+mobility it is a mobile coffin, especially in multiplayer game modes.

I kinda agree with this. Tanks like the 105 Dozer and Brummbär should be a greater threat to AT guns than vice versa. If anything you could argue that they could become a bit more susceptible to tanks as those should be their natural counters. Right now at least the Brum can get out of harms way quite quickly if things go south and hunting it down is rather difficult. I think a slight acceleration nerf, as was proposed in another thread a while ago could go a long way to make overextending with these tanks more punishing. Other than that I'd say their durability is fine.

This goes back to my initial point: Brummbar is a snowballing vehicle. If only meds can counter it, there is no counter if the Ost player rushes Brummbar first with a resource advantage. Then it makes it harder to counter compared to similar vehicles and costs.

To illustrate my point better: Say Ost player gets resource advantage either through more points totaling more MP or both fuel points totaling for more fuel. Ost player gets Brummbar with resource advantage. 3 scenarios, either more fuel, more MP or both.

The opposing player has limited options to counter.

1. Get an 2x ATG which is already more MP than the Brummbar and would cost more because Brummbar bleeds MP as an AI unit. Its 640MP for UKF/Sov and 540MP for USF but because of the high armour Brummbar has, USF would end up having to use muni to counter which is not feasible when playing at a resource disadvantage.

2. Get a medium which doesn't counter the Brummbar as well because of high survivability. T-34, Cromwell, and Sherman AP don't do a good job of countering the Brummbar because of their slow shots and having no snare. Not to mention that Brummbar has high hp and high armour for a good bounce rate.

3. Get a TD which is the same cost as a Brummbar. Not possible at a resource disadvantage.

4. Get handheld AT. Not feasible for Soviets as they PTRS's are not enough to deal with the Brummbar because (again) of the high armour. Also not a good option because Brummbar is a AI unit which can counter this counter.

There is no better unit to snowball a resource advantage than the Brummbar and I hate it. I'd argue that part of the reason why German team games win rates are so high is because its easy to gain a resource advantage with MG42 early game and then snowball it with Brummbar.

I like that the Brummbar has a high skill cap because of its attack ground mechanic but its much too forgiving with its high survivability. The high survivability was probably fine when Ost didn't have access to the Panther but now I don't think its warranted.

anyone posting balance takes 6 hours after release has immediately disqualified themselves

edit: im stupid, unless this person is actualyl talking about coh3 which is hard to tell

...

What you describe in an issue of the "rush to last tier" mentality/design and not of the Brumnar itself..

anyone posting balance takes 6 hours after release has immediately disqualified themselves

edit: im retarded, unless this person is actualyl talking about coh3 which is hard to tell

It happens

anyone posting balance takes 6 hours after release has immediately disqualified themselves

edit: im retarded, unless this person is actualyl talking about coh3 which is hard to tell

This is about the Coh2 Brummbar

I've also just noticed that it has 260 armour with a target size of 22 making it one of the most efficient armour/target size ratio vehicle out there. Its better than Tiger and the Easy 8. The only ones beating it are King Tiger, and super heavy tank destroyers. With vet 2, it gets better than the ISU-152.

I would like to hear the reason why the previous 260 to 240 armour nerf on the Brummbar was rolled back. Very rarely do patch changes get rolled back. That one would probably have been for the better. Its too durable and gets even more durable when vetted up.

This is about the Coh2 Brummbar

I've also just noticed that it has 260 armour with a target size of 22 making it one of the most efficient armour/target size ratio vehicle out there. Its better than Tiger and the Easy 8. The only ones beating it are King Tiger, and super heavy tank destroyers. With vet 2, it gets better than the ISU-152.

I would like to hear the reason why the previous 260 to 240 armour nerf on the Brummbar was rolled back. Very rarely do patch changes get rolled back. That one would probably have been for the better. Its too durable and gets even more durable when vetted up.

Probably sturmpanther played OST and the brummbar didn't bounce 10 shots against a wall of AT guns so they decided "you know, brummbar is UP now"
Brummbar is not OP at the moment, nor is it UP but it's survivability and target size are laughable.
I mean, Jackson has a target size of 24, meaning you can dive it and shoot it on the move. Brummbar, being a fu**ton larger vehicle has a TS of 22, with 260+ armour, ton of HP and not bad mobility considering how heavy/turret-less it is. Heck, it can backpedal faster with the engine damage than infantry can run. At vet3 it has 6.8 max speed, more than Jackson, and closely the same amount as the M10 TD at vet1 (and same target size as the small tiny M10 TD).