Germans are bad

The germans have better AT options in theory, both their tanks and infantry + paks (even mines too) do the trick well. But in 1v1s im always struggling to counter the russian tanks 'cause of the muni costs.

This is because you choose to spend your munitions on other things.

German units are already on par with their soviet counterparts without munition upgrades. For example, you don't need to upgrade an LMG42 on a gren squad to stand up to a conscript squad. By spending the 60 munitions on an LMG42, you choose to enhance your grenadiers to beat conscripts 1 on 1. The cost of this is 1 Teller Mine that you will not be having. If you find yourself starved for munitions when trying to use a target weak-point, it's not because the germans are always starved for munitions; it's because you choose to use your munitions on getting benefits somewhere else.

This is because you choose to spend your munitions on other things.

German units are already on par with their soviet counterparts without munition upgrades. For example, you don't need to upgrade an LMG42 on a gren squad to stand up to a conscript squad. By spending the 60 munitions on an LMG42, you choose to enhance your grenadiers to beat conscripts 1 on 1. The cost of this is 1 Teller Mine that you will not be having. If you find yourself starved for munitions when trying to use a target weak-point, it's not because the germans are always starved for munitions; it's because you choose to use your munitions on getting benefits somewhere else.

I don't really agree with this.

Conscript PPSHs are 10 Muni (with this, they beat grens hands down), Soviet mines are 30 Muni to stop most flanks, A Maxim in a building tends to be unremovable without the use of a rifle grenade, not building a medic station costs even more in MP in the long run.

Pretty much, if you don't spend the muni early, either your opponent is bad or he will outplay you with infantry. Then you can have as many schrecks as you want, it isn't going to stop the Soviet army.

Lots of things in the German arsenal costs lots and lots of muni.

So your arguement is about personal preference you do not then deny the fact the german faction has better AT.

How do you define better AT? Because they have better raw dps numbers on a spreadsheet? Last I recall this game really isn't all about that.

Fyi at parts cost 250 mp and have a small chance to get a single shrek or a better chance ro get two ptrs. You brought them up i am doing an infantry at comparison. So point being even if i get a lucky roll and dont get ptrs AND i spend the muni for mark target i would still do 40% less damage then german at infantry.

AT partisans come out of unoccupied houses and cost no munitions. Panzergrenadiers cost 110 more manpower, come out of your base, and have to upgrade to shreks with 120 munitions. Why is this comparison even being made? They are completely different units with completely different situations of use.

Also i am glad you decided to bring up burst vs sustained dps. Yes a mark can hurt in surprise by a whole dedicated at force. Bur this is why german armor tends to have higher armor and hps for their relative class.

Last I recall T34s and P4s have the same HP, just the latter has more armor. I don't believe the P4 has enough frontal armor to block a Zis shot but correct me if I'm wrong.

Mark target will instantly cause a tank to have to retreat for the entire duration of the effect unless it wants to get lit the fuck up. Even just by taking it out of the fight for a while and not destroying it immediately allows you to have an advantage over the enemy assuming equivalent starting forces.

I am also glad you brought up target weakpoint as being bugged cahse guess what? So is self repair! Not being abke to cancel it because a pio is attacking you is good times for all!

Learn to position. That is not even close to the same level of "bugged." One involves a need to retreat a bit further, which isn't even a problem considering most Soviet vehicles are very fast, and the other is a non-functioning ability. I have never had a problem with getting caught on self-repair and I wouldn't have even noticed it was "bugged" until I read it in a thread a week or two back.

I am also glad you explained vehicle combat dynamics to me because i was very confused....since losing vehicles is more painful then i am sure you agree having higher hps facing at most equal at and at worst inferior at then having higher hps smoke and blitz is an exponential advantage in the armor game.

If you're going to assume the Germans have smoke, then I'm going to assume that the Soviets have Mark Target. Now refer back to what I said above about Mark Target being useful despite a tank initially getting away and the basic T3 tanks having the same HP.

Also i would like to point out your whole arguement about soviets even having equal at is centered around a single ability that isnt in every doctrine. Me i personally prefer doctrines with shocks...

Soviet play is highly concentrated around picking the right doctrine for the job and using it to gain the advantage by specializing your arsenal. They are not a generalist jack-of-all-trades faction like the Germans. That's just the core faction design of the game and it's not going to change. If you auto-pick shocks at CP1 and decide to use those every game then it's your fault, not mine nor the game's.

Lol you do understand that you were the first to bring up partisans right? Check the thread. They are part of your mythical soviet superior AT arguement. I was just pointing out that they are inferior to your stock AT infantry. They are. Cost balanced sure but inferior.

Numbers on a spreadsheet are fact based. They dont care about player skill. They are objective....your arguements on AT balance however are subjective. Based on this situation or that commander choice.

I also dont recall asking for advice on how to play coh2. My prefernce is shocks. If i feel the need for elite infantry at all. I dont require mark target to win with armor...its merely convienient. In fact i cant remember the last time i used it tbh.

Obviously if the dps numbers dont matter to you on whats better than any other stat wont convience you of the facts either. But it doesnt make it any less a fact.

So again with your logic since the ost have better armor on thier units they can sustain dps longer so they must have better AI than the soviets...LOL

i dont know zis<pak only because they are so hard to kill. true the numbers say pak has better pen etc but it dies so fast against one mortar or two fast t34's even if you get one with a pfaust there is no way that you are going to win. whereas the sov zis with cons/at nade and they can shut down up to 3 p4's cause the damn thing has so many men and with con support reinforce. even mortars have a tough time with the zis. it can arty them back lol. 2 zis with guards will rape german armor. back it up with a su td you can really hurt a armor heavy german player. you can also put your zis right up front in the battle to take ground, something the pak will never be able to do. its a combination of the sov at weapons that is so lethal not one unit itself.

Yep its harder to kill unless your up on it with Pgrens. They literally can kill a full health Zis in 10 seconds. Soviets have more surviability to stay on the field longer in hopes to do the same damage overtime.

Dying to mortors is the price you pay for ultimate power. But instagibbing could be toned down in favor for more base dps on the soviet side imho.

I think you are a little unfair here.

it dies so fast against one mortar or two fast t34's even if you get one with a pfaust there is no way that you are going to win. whereas the sov zis with cons/at nade and they can shut down up to 3 p4's cause the damn thing has so many men and with con support reinforce.

First of all, I agree with the 4vs6 man crew diffrence being a problem in an outright comparison. That said. The T-34 is mainly an AI tank, and therefore should clear paks quite fast. A p4 is mostly an AT tank, and will by definition have more trouble. If you were to throw in an AI tank like an ostwind, taking down a zis isnt much of an issue. Even both the p4 and t34s are medium tanks, outright comparisons dont really work that way.

even mortars have a tough time with the zis. it can arty them back lol.

If you place your mortars that close to a zis, they are seriosly misplaced. Still, it takes some time for a mortar to decrew a zis i give you that. But as stated above, there are other ways of clearing them. PGrens work wonders (assgrens, various flamers etc also do well), Mortar halftrack with flame barrage as well. And I would never spearhead with a zis. Yes it can clear MG42s with barrage, but the unit itself cant handle infantry at all. Barrage is also 60 muni with cooldown and lastly its quite simple to move out of the area of impact.

Lastly, as you said yourself it is the combination of things that make units more or less powerfull. The gun itself isnt all that amazing, even though the 6 man squad makes it stay longer on field.

I agree with the OP.

I know the game has to be balanced but seeing as how the developers flipped the roles and to some extend TOTALLY left out realism is a bit dull.

1) In reality Germans tried to keep the range to enemy tanks and Russians tried to close in to actually hit something or penetrate the armor of heavier German tanks.

Ingame the Germans have to blitzkrieg their Panthers etc. to actually hit a Su85 which otherwise could just sit there and snipe them. This is jsut ridicolous if you have any clue of history.

2) In reality the Elefant could fire around 6-8 rounds per minute, the ISU-152 could fire 1 round every minute and the IS-2 could fire about 1-2 rounds per minute.

Ingame they all have about the same rate of fire. This isn´t only ridicolous form a histroci point of view but the instant squad wipes those heavy splash weapons of the Russian vehicles do, is also a major balance concern. I´m not talking about realistic reload times, but one shot every 15-20 seconds for those vehicles would be appropriate with some slight buffs elsewhere.

3) Panzerfausts were the biggest fear of Soviet tankers.

Ingame they are a nice gimmick to create an engine damage, nothing more.

5) Schrecks were also the most effective hand held anti tank weapon of the war. Ingame Panzergrens get two of them to shoot one salvo on T-34s and then run away. I´m not dissapointed by their performance, but giving them two Schrecks

YOU SAID EVERYTHING

This game isn't a WW2 sim. It's a completely unrealistic computer game. At least in Starcraft, people don't try to use "realism" as reasoning for balance.

Lol you do understand that you were the first to bring up partisans right? Check the thread. They are part of your mythical soviet superior AT arguement. I was just pointing out that they are inferior to your stock AT infantry. They are. Cost balanced sure but inferior.

I didn't bring up partisans as an argument that they are good AT counterparts compared to Pgrens, I was merely listing the doctrines that have Mark Target available and that Partisans also benefit from that ability.

If they are cost balanced as you say, then there is nothing inferior about them.

Numbers on a spreadsheet are fact based. They dont care about player skill. They are objective....your arguements on AT balance however are subjective. Based on this situation or that commander choice.

There are a lot of RNG factors that those raw DPS numbers do not account for, meaning they are not a 100% representation of all that happens in this game.

I don't see anything subjective about this. You say that Germans have better DPS, I say that Soviets have better burst with Mark Target - both are true statements. I also said that Soviets can one shot a tank pretty easily using that burst, something that Germans have a much harder time doing - this is also true.

I also dont recall asking for advice on how to play coh2. My prefernce is shocks. If i feel the need for elite infantry at all. I dont require mark target to win with armor...its merely convienient. In fact i cant remember the last time i used it tbh.

If you don't like to use Market Target, that's your preference. It does not mean that other players do not use it. Just because you happen to not take advantage doesn't mean it isn't part of the Soviet's arsenal.

Obviously if the dps numbers dont matter to you on whats better than any other stat wont convience you of the facts either. But it doesnt make it any less a fact.

DPS, of course, does matter. However, as I said before, the damage in-game is not calculated on a simple DPS basis like in Starcraft - there are misses, bounces, etc. Sometimes, you may get unlucky and have your Pak miss 3 shots in a row; when this happens, your DPS during that period is 0. Hence, DPS sheets can only be used as a reference, not an accurate reflection of every battle in-game ala Starcraft.

So again with your logic since the ost have better armor on thier units they can sustain dps longer so they must have better AI than the soviets...LOL

I'm not sure what you seem to be getting at here, so feel free to clarify in your next post. I'd also like for you to refrain from accusing me of subjectiveness when you yourself base part of your arguments on the fact that you only use Shocks. You also seem to say that German AT is better due to superiority despite admitting that units are cost balanced (ie, not superior or inferior when equal cost is spent). If that is not subjectiveness, I don't know what is.

Also the cheap and early soviet call-ins wreck the german early-late game to dust.

I didn't bring up partisans as an argument that they are good AT counterparts compared to Pgrens, I was merely listing the doctrines that have Mark Target available and that Partisans also benefit from that ability.

If they are cost balanced as you say, then there is nothing inferior about them.



There are a lot of RNG factors that those raw DPS numbers do not account for, meaning they are not a 100% representation of all that happens in this game.

I don't see anything subjective about this. You say that Germans have better DPS, I say that Soviets have better burst with Mark Target - both are true statements. I also said that Soviets can one shot a tank pretty easily using that burst, something that Germans have a much harder time doing - this is also true.



If you don't like to use Market Target, that's your preference. It does not mean that other players do not use it. Just because you happen to not take advantage doesn't mean it isn't part of the Soviet's arsenal.



DPS, of course, does matter. However, as I said before, the damage in-game is not calculated on a simple DPS basis like in Starcraft - there are misses, bounces, etc. Sometimes, you may get unlucky and have your Pak miss 3 shots in a row; when this happens, your DPS during that period is 0. Hence, DPS sheets can only be used as a reference, not an accurate reflection of every battle in-game ala Starcraft.



I'm not sure what you seem to be getting at here, so feel free to clarify in your next post. I'd also like for you to refrain from accusing me of subjectiveness when you yourself base part of your arguments on the fact that you only use Shocks. You also seem to say that German AT is better due to superiority despite admitting that units are cost balanced (ie, not superior or inferior when equal cost is spent). If that is not subjectiveness, I don't know what is.

I dont think you can be accused of subjectiveness or objectivness. Its based on a given action. You either are or arent be objective.

By definition basing something on numbers or other verifiable facts is being objective. Basing things of feelings or observations is subjective. Its not an insult because bothw are used to draw conclusions. Objectivity is just superior in most cases due to its ease to peer review.

You have a valid point on burst dps but it would actually be hurt more by RNG. As a miss on the burst hit is a huge loss rather than a single hit in a series of hits as sustained dps.

The dps numbers i reference do calculate accuracy however so it is an average.

My comment on ai is in response to your opinion on AT. Since it is regarded that soviets generally have superior AI and Germans have better AT.

A kind of Devils advocate if you will. Youll have to forgive my lack of grammer as i am on a mobile device so it makes it challenging to put certain emphasis on things.

On cost balance. Zis is cost balanced against a Pak but it is still inferior at AT. Its balanced by entity count and the barrage gimmick.

So having something cost balanced doesnt make it better or equal to another unit at a given function. Also if you really want to get into the weeds you can look at veterancy bonuses as well but that could fill several threads.

EDIT saying on prefer shocks doeant mean i havent tried yo like Guards. I have probably used Guards in my first hundred or so games before; after trying like hell to find how irreplacable they are; i just learned how i could accomplish most of what they bring ro the table with other units cheaper and more effciently.

I am aware Mark target is a part of the soviet aresenal. But basing the entire Soviet AT on this would be like basing German anti infantry on the availability of G43s.

This game isn't a WW2 sim. It's a completely unrealistic computer game. At least in Starcraft, people don't try to use "realism" as reasoning for balance.

ironically balancing around real life is better than what relic is doing.

isn't it historically accurate for Germans to lose

so if they were to make the game historicly accurate germany wouldnt be able to lose unless outnumbered by like 40 million to one. and also every match would include 16 players and countries vs 1 german player.

isn't it historically accurate for Germans to lose

its historiaclly accurate for germans to conquer half the world before losing cuz op russians and no fair 16vs1

isn't it historically accurate for Germans to lose

In case you are not trolling: Please gtfo with the realism in a multiplayer rts.

I really don't feel a huge disparity between german and soviet AT when utilized correctly.

I think penetration should be made more predictable and ram needs re-evaluated. As it stands now it's not a fun dynamic for either side.

coh2 has a much greater reliance on mortars and light indirect weapons compared to coh1 and AT guns are paying for it.

any sane player will deploy AT guns well behind his lines expecting an armoured charge, but because AT guns are programmed to fire at anything, they always give away their positions and get bombed to hell by mortars and what not. extremely limiting their effectiveness as the element of surprise is their strongest weapon.

in general, AT guns needs a toggle to only target tanks, not infantry. this way, they do not fire shots at infantry charges and keep the enemy guessing. in turn, barrage is balanced because you give away your AT gun position and will be inviting alot of fire from mortars later on.

in general, AT guns needs a toggle to only target tanks, not infantry. this way, they do not fire shots at infantry charges and keep the enemy guessing. in turn, barrage is balanced because you give away your AT gun position and will be inviting alot of fire from mortars later on.

Even when CLOAKED they still fire at infantry. Highly annoying

Also I believe one of the snipers fires at tanks if not on hold fire...


Not read most of this thread but my opinion is that it's relatively balanced at the moment. I have no real complaints and I am actually finding I am able to try different tactics without getting beaten into the ground.

As usal it's most likely just meta meta meta and people need to learn to adapt their playstyle instead of theorising about balance