105mm Sherman and Brummbar should be less durable

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

The Brummbar is not a large vehicle, it's just a P4 chassis with a casemate hull. It was barely heavier than a regular P4 and even lower in height. The Jackson was both bigger and heavier. Not that these facts really matter for ingame stats.

It's a late game, expensive and specialist vehicle with short range that needs to expose itself in order to deal damage. That is why it has better durability stats than the Jackson, a highly mobile 60 range TD that can plink away from behind the lines. I have no idea why these two units are being compared, they serve completely different roles.

The Brummbar is not a large vehicle, it's just a P4 chassis with a casemate hull. It was barely heavier than a regular P4 and even lower in height. The Jackson was both bigger and heavier. Not that these facts really matter for ingame stats.

Then I stand corrected. Why is it classified as a heavy tank then? It's lighter than an m36 jackson, less armoured and a bit smaller. Looks bigger and acts bigger ingame. I understand that there is an inherent need that such vehicles in games should be tougher so that their range is not the main weakness, but it could have easily been some sort of a 105mm sherman semi-copy with unique features and not a late game nuke dispenser, especially since 105mm is doctrinal and it's not like OST has problems dealing with blobs or sim-cities (werfer, flame HT, mortar, brummbar, and a couple of doctrinal options). I mean, brummbar is not really OP that it needs some hard nerfs but given how most team game maps are designed in such a way that the lack of a turret is not an issue, and armour/hp are the most important stats, it can be hard to deal with. The count of how many times the double jackson missed or bounced on the brummbar, letting it escape after it just drove up to the capping squad and one hit wiped them, is high. Try that with a 105mm and it's a goner.

The Brummbar is not a large vehicle, it's just a P4 chassis with a casemate hull. It was barely heavier than a regular P4 and even lower in height. The Jackson was both bigger and heavier. Not that these facts really matter for ingame stats.

It's a late game, expensive and specialist vehicle with short range that needs to expose itself in order to deal damage. That is why it has better durability stats than the Jackson, a highly mobile 60 range TD that can plink away from behind the lines. I have no idea why these two units are being compared, they serve completely different roles.

In addition the Brummbar top speed does not really offer good mobility. The combination of low acceleration, low rotation and not turret make the vehicle end up poor mobility overall.

M36 on the other hand has retained the acceleration buff it had received when it was a glass cannon and now has one of highest acceleration, decent speed and rotation ending up with great mobility.

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).

So what's your suggestion then?
Make if more fragile but buff its damage?

Your arguments are fairly incoherent. The target size difference is small to almost negligible for shooting on the move. SOV and UKF have a 0.5 moving modifier, so the actual difference is effectively 1 target size.
Also the "small tiny M10" is actually not that small, I don't know where you get that from.

Yeah both of these tanks are insanely good, especially in big team games. At least the Bulldozer Sherman is doctrine Specific, unlike the Brumbar. I don't understand why the Brumbar has so much health and armor despite being so powerful and not being slow. It feels to me like a case of overbalancing things around competitive 1v1 and not 4v4's, I'm sure the Brumbar is much more balanced in 1v1 where flanks and big dives are much easier and less risky. There's also less risk of skipping Tier 3 and going straight for tier 4 in team games when you have partners to fill in the gaps.

It feels to me like a case of overbalancing things around competitive 1v1 and not 4v4's, I'm sure the Brumbar is much more balanced in 1v1 where flanks and big dives are much easier and less risky. There's also less risk of skipping Tier 3 and going straight for tier 4 in team games when you have partners to fill in the gaps.

Given how T4 is meta in teamgames compared to 1v1s which mostly stick to T3, that is certainly not the case. Ostheer T4 is primarily balanced for teamgames. The Brummbar is a case of a unit performing at a very efficient level, at the edge of being very good to arguably overpowered, which is why it's mostly subjective and down to personal player experience under which category it ultimately falls. In my personal opinion it's very good but not overpowered, and it doesn't need any changes.

Yeah it sometimes is really hard to kill and it kills pretty much any squad or AT-Gun with two shots. Still you can fight it off with TDs and supporting AT tools as long as you are not behind in fuel.

The biggest problem with Brummbar is that it doesn't let you come back if you are behind in fuel. There are no real effective counter meassures without TDs. You just can't fight it somehow cost efficient with meds, ATGs and handheld AT weaponary. An early rushed Brummbar with an axis team leading in fuel can be a nail to your coffin.

Meta hasn't even been developed yet. I played like 6 pvp games and I still don't know all the units, build orders, counters.

Chill... nobody here can pretend they know how to adjust the game or if the game even is unbalanced or improperly designed in the first place.

Give it some time.

Instead of suggesting changes

Meta hasn't even been developed yet. I played like 6 pvp games and I still don't know all the units, build orders, counters.

Chill... nobody here can pretend they know how to adjust the game or if the game even is unbalanced or improperly designed in the first place.

Give it some time.

Instead of suggesting changes

This is a Coh2 thread.

So what's your suggestion then?
Make if more fragile but buff its damage?

Your arguments are fairly incoherent. The target size difference is small to almost negligible for shooting on the move. SOV and UKF have a 0.5 moving modifier, so the actual difference is effectively 1 target size.
Also the "small tiny M10" is actually not that small, I don't know where you get that from.

Mobility. Acceleration/max speed. Comparing 105mm and Brummbar, the 105mm has better mobility and a turret but worse AOE/survivability, so trade-offs are fine. However, given how brummbar can reach 312 armour with 800 hp and a mini nuke dispenser, it should be less mobile. That's all I think.
M10 tiny as in weak/low hp. The whole point of M10 is to be extremely mobile for hit and runs but due to it's slow turret rotation it falls flat hard, but that ain't the point of this thread.

So to sum up, I'd only nerf the acceleration/speed on the brummbar, and in return, buff rotation. That would be a buff for smaller modes and a nerf for larger (where it's more dominant).
Most 3v3+ maps don't care about having a turret or not since they are extremely lane-y and there is a massive lack of flanking pathways, especially given how 222 and pios have dominant sight for any flanking attempts.

EDIT: Shame I didn't put the replay where I did win a game, but it was sort of a Pyrrhic victory. A brummbar just drove up to double AT guns which were spread out for at least 25 range or so (on average we had better map control throughout the game), bounced 5 shots, took out both AT guns and snared outran the zook carrying echelons with low HP. Now that was bad RNG, sure, but it's not some rare RNG. I've had plenty of such scenarios against the brummbar. The only reason why it got out alive was the fact that it could outrun infantry with handheld AT weapons. Panther and P4s should outrun infantry even when snared, but a brummbar/105mm/ST/priest/... should not.

Given how T4 is meta in teamgames compared to 1v1s which mostly stick to T3, that is certainly not the case. Ostheer T4 is primarily balanced for teamgames. The Brummbar is a case of a unit performing at a very efficient level, at the edge of being very good to arguably overpowered, which is why it's mostly subjective and down to personal player experience under which category it ultimately falls. In my personal opinion it's very good but not overpowered, and it doesn't need any changes.

Its because the unit is more balanced on 1vs1 you don't see it often. You don't primarily play with units that are balanced but those very good close to overpowered. Otherwise we wouldn't have see such sudden interest to use the Sturmtiger during 6 months until you finally made it balanced.

Its because the unit is more balanced on 1vs1 you don't see it often. You don't primarily play with units that are balanced but those very good close to overpowered. Otherwise we wouldn't have see such sudden interest to use the Sturmtiger during 6 months until you finally made it balanced.

Conversely, just because a unit is used does not mean it is overpowered. Casemates are rarely used in 1v1 because mobility and flanking is more important. Second, Ostheer needs to tech into T3 because their P4 is very, very good and they'd otherwise break under the medium armor pressure. Staying in T3 is just more cost effective than going up to T4.
You also shouldn't forget though that team games favor beefy units which the Brummbar certainly is. As Ostheer, your option is the PWerfer (which we also regularly see) and the Ostwind. The Ostwind doesn't perform as well though since it needs more time to deal its damage, which you don't have due to higher unit and AT concentration.
Given that your OKW team mate can provide rocket arty, but not a Brummbar, it makes more sense as Ostheer to go for Brummbars than PWerfers.

...

Alright, for this I can see the point.
However, if you want to compare the 105mm and the Brummbar regarding survivability at vet, don't forget that the 105mm also gets 160 HP more. Higher survivability with vet is not a specialty of the Brummbar in this case

Alright, for this I can see the point.
However, if you want to compare the 105mm and the Brummbar regarding survivability at vet, don't forget that the 105mm also gets 160 HP more. Higher survivability with vet is not a specialty of the Brummbar in this case

I don't plan to compare them since both are in opposite factions. One one hand vet3 brummbar has more armour but less hp than 105mm at vet3, but on the other hand, pak40 will penetrate 105mm much more often than jacksons/57mm will the brummbar without spending munitions. So it's pointless to compare them head to head. Both should be unique enough to fit inside the faction and both should not be able to escape infantry snared. Be it zooks, shrecks, PTSR or PIATs. Right now both can.

105mm could accelerate better, and have a cannon and whatnot, but top speed should be nerfed on both. That's my take of the 105mm/Brummbar.

If you compare brummbar/105mm by the role they play, then you can write something like this:

Brummbar has a better cannon and a better nuke and better armour, but it lacks a turret and it's not really mobile.
105mm on the other hand is weaker in the cannon and armour, but it has a 360 turret and is much more mobile than the brummbar.

However, when snared, both should be a bit slower than running infantry.

That's why I would nerf top speed on 105mm and brummbar, buff brummbar rotation and maybe buff 105mm acceleration and nerf brummbar acceleration.

Conversely, just because a unit is used does not mean it is overpowered. Casemates are rarely used in 1v1 because mobility and flanking is more important. Second, Ostheer needs to tech into T3 because their P4 is very, very good and they'd otherwise break under the medium armor pressure. Staying in T3 is just more cost effective than going up to T4.
You also shouldn't forget though that team games favor beefy units which the Brummbar certainly is. As Ostheer, your option is the PWerfer (which we also regularly see) and the Ostwind. The Ostwind doesn't perform as well though since it needs more time to deal its damage, which you don't have due to higher unit and AT concentration.
Given that your OKW team mate can provide rocket arty, but not a Brummbar, it makes more sense as Ostheer to go for Brummbars than PWerfers.

As I was saying, you don't play with balanced units but with very very good units that weight the balance into your favor. P4 is probably as much balance on 4vs4 than Brumbar on 1vs1, the reason why you don't see them often on their "irrespective" mode.

But don't get me wrong it isn't a rant over Axis units, I'm just stating a general rule we're all following. Scott aren't seen much on 1vs1 because you can't realistically mass 3 of them vs a competent player on that mode.

Brummbar is finally a strong balanced unit, no need to touch it.

105mm is nonexistent in real modes because armour company is a meme doctrine.

I haven't mentioned that the Brummbar is an indirect fire artillery unit so it can leverage that for additional survivability. Not always useful but its an option. Makes it harder to counter when you can't shoot at it with an ATG and when you have to risk a medium to 'attempt' to dislodge it.

If I haven't made the point already, having Panther level armour means a single ATG and meds are not an effective counter. Leaving only ATGs which a single one is not effectively able to counter it, meaning double the MP investment in ATGs needed to counter the Brummbar.

While it may be 'balanced' when the Allies player can get their TD(s) out, it is not timing balanced because a resource advantaged Ost player can get it before any Allied TDs or mediums hit the field. Then the Brummbar player can play with a significant MP advantage because of the bleed from the Brummbar and the 2x ATGs needed to counter it.

Hence why I think a -armour nerf or mobility nerf could be good.

Its kind of crazy how a Pz4 variant has Panther level of armour yet dozer blade Shermans somehow need a nerf.

Yeah it sometimes is really hard to kill and it kills pretty much any squad or AT-Gun with two shots. Still you can fight it off with TDs and supporting AT tools as long as you are not behind in fuel.

The biggest problem with Brummbar is that it doesn't let you come back if you are behind in fuel. There are no real effective counter meassures without TDs. You just can't fight it somehow cost efficient with meds, ATGs and handheld AT weaponary. An early rushed Brummbar with an axis team leading in fuel can be a nail to your coffin.

I don't really see that as a problem with the Brummbar. Personally I would like to see it fit more into its role as an AI tank onpar with other dedicated AI tanks like the Centaur/Ostwind/KrautMower. While it doesn't have AA capabilities, it should be able to use its survivability and above average infantry killing capabilities (shooting and scooting). Just not as heavy as it currently is. Cost can be reduced to match.

It should be easier to defend against with a single ATG or Bazooka squad. It shouldn't be Panther level tough as it is now because its a late-game tank, you can get for 150 fuel. Which has a significant impact on the game if the other team doesn't have tanks or TDs of their own. That's where the brokeness of this tank comes in. The problem is made worse in team games when you can build early fuel caches or cap double fuel and get the Brummbar even earlier than it comes online in 1v1s. So maybe reduced cost isn't the best idea.

This tank would be usable if it was a little more fragile, it wouldn't be underpowered or broken. It would just be less powerful early game.

Repair could be adjusted so it takes longer to repair as well. Longer downtime would make the dominance window of a rushed Brummbar less effective.

Here is your single ATG countering Brummbar. Green shield does nothing. Full hp does nothing. Granted range was not used but the same effect could be had with the super long range 105mm barrage.

This is what happens when the counter is also what the unit is made fight against (like AT infantry vs AI tank). Countering your counter.

I like the old Brummbar and 105 bulldozer. slow and clumsy but tough.