State of the balance according to Imperial Dane

I think the Easy Eight Shermans are fine. They're like the old 76 Sherman of vCoH. They're almost the same as a regular Sherman but with penetration power of a M10. Considering the high CP cost and doctrine specific requirements, I think it's justified.

Vet Rifles do seem to be a problem I think. Maybe move the CP cost to 1.

I think Rear Echelons are kind of fine for what they do, but volley fire needs to be tuned. I think Sturm Pios need to be nerfed though, at least decrease the squad count to 3 so RE's don't get murdered by them. That or switch Vet 1 and 2 so RE's get a 5th man on Vet1.

@ Siberian

Finally someone who publicly acknowledges that the LE18 infantry support guns is extremely accurate!

Regarding USA's M15 AA half-track, the unit is an issue, but maybe instead of nerfing it for being a "strong" unit, shouldn't it's cost be increased? or it's tier changed?

When I play ostheer my problem dealing with it is not that it's too strong; it's that it comes too early when I still don't have a counter, so I have to rush a PAK 40 around the 6 min mark! That means one less infantry squad and less field presence for a faction that struggles on those departments against USA early game. It's second counter is the MG42's incendiary rounds, but most of my MGs haven't hit Vet 1 when the M15 AA Half-track hits the field.

Same goes for OKW having to spend manpower on early raketen werfers.

I just don't like when Relic overnerfs units because players consider that a strong unit = OP. They did that with M3s when a cost increase was sufficient.

Vet 2 riflemen at O CP for no extra cost is OP tough.

To be honest, I think there are a lot of things that could be reshuffled between the tiers for the US - both to fix balance issues and make the US early game a little less one-dimensional.

More than anything else, the pathing and target acquisition issues with the Kubel, Jackson etc need to be fixed. Having to babysit those units constantly so they don't commit suicide or do something equally idiotic is just infuriating.

I'll also echo the sentiment that the OKW inf support gun is too accurate. I've watched that thing gib squad after squad and 2-3 shot halftracks without missing once.

Yeah, I don't think the AA halftrack is OP strong, there are many ways to deal with it. In 1v1 a puma and 1 shreck is sufficient. It may come out a little too fast though. IMO switch it with one of the units from captain tier which will delay it by 30 more fuel. This might be an overnerf but we'll see. OKW flak halftrack comes out too fast as well delay it by more fuel and decrease it's setup and desetup time to compensate.

No, AA Halftrack is over performing by quite a bit. Not only it shreds infantry but and form of armored vehicles as well. This thing can take on Puma.

Regarding the OKW AA Half-Track:

Significantly reduce it's tear down/un-setup time while leaving the setup time as it is. The issue with this unit is it's survivability not it's DPS, it's a potent unit to have witout a reasonable a setup time. It's fuel cost is fine as it is an OKW unit.

Regarding the USA Forces M15 AA Half-Track

Switching the 50.Cal Machine gun from tier 2 to tier 1 with the M15 AA Half-track sounds reasonable, that way the USA has some form of suppression. Maybe this way we could finally see the USA forces use MGs as there's no reason ATM on picking a 50.cal over the M15 AA Halft-rack.

If you charge in a puma at a stationary AA halftrack of course you're going to lose your puma. Use micro and abuse your range advantage. One shreck hit and there's nowhere on the map for the AA halftrack to hide. Use smoke canisters on the puma so you can get out if things don't go your way. US has no other AT options if they go lieutenant and AA halftrack for a long time so use that fact to your advantage.

Regarding the OKW AA Half-Track:

Significantly reduce it's tear down/un-setup time while leaving the setup time as it is. The issue with this unit is it's survivability not it's DPS, it's a potent unit to have witout a reasonable a setup time. It's fuel cost is fine as it is an OKW unit.

Regarding the USA Forces M15 AA Half-Track

Switching the 50.Cal Machine gun from tier 2 to tier 1 with the M15 AA Half-track sounds reasonable, that way the USA has some form of suppression. Maybe this way we could finally see the USA forces use MGs as there's no reason ATM on picking a 50.cal over the M15 AA Halft-rack.

OKW halftrack comes out faster than the AA halftrack so I think it needs to be delayed as well. It definitely needs a buff to it's survivability.

Also .50 cal and AA halftrack is in the same tier.

Woops, you're right about the 50.cal tier!

So switch M15 AA half-track with 57mm AT gun? That way US has some form of AT instead of relying on the M15's auto-canon?

The most underpowered units in the game currently are Panzergrenadiers and Panther. I´m especially tired of only seeing Grens into Tiger these days.

There is a thread about the Panther, and most people agree that it is too expensive for what it does.

A cost decrease to 150-155 fuel is needed. But it's still a good tank destroyer and since nitro boost blitzkrieg is back it's survivability increased too. Maybe a very slight increase in it's rate of fire would be welcome?

Panzer grenadiers are fine it's jut people still want to use them as shock troops or any other heavy assault infantry back in the day when infantry squads had lots of armour and could run around without using cover.

One question to those who are saying shermans and T34s were "superior": Let's say you are going to enter into a deadly tank battle 1v1 - one winner/one survivor type, but you have the liberty to chose between 2 tanks, the other one is for your opponent.

Var 1:
One Tiger - One T34.
Var 2:
One Panther - One sherman.

What would you chose? I'm sure it will be the T34 or the Shermann.... LOL.

And how many shermans or T34s were there for a single Tiger?

It doesn't matter if you have best tank in the world, when you have just a handful of them, while your opponents have tens of thousands of theirs.

And guess what?

WW2 tank battles were not about 1v1 duels.

• M19s need a blatant DPS reduction. They are extremely potent and combined with Defensive Stance, they're worse than the old Hit The Dirt! PPSh combination. The suppression is also problematic and with the high DPS, turns riflemen into proning MG teams with a lot of deadliness.
  

I feel the german unit most comparable to Rifles are Grenadiers. M1919s are basically LMG42s that can suppress (and they shouldn't outside of D-stance). Unlike Grens, Riflemen are honestly all USA has, and they need to be better than other nation's standard infantry.

I was thinking maybe make the M1919s take up two weapon slots, and buff it's DPS to about ~14. This would put it just above the 2xDP-28 damage where it belongs.

I wouldn't do this though, until Americans have been given viable late-game options. And no, the buggy 480hp jackson does not qualify.

• "Easy Eight" Shermans are a huge problem right now in unison with vetted riflemen off the bat. This unit is far too cost effective and offers an extremely strong mid-late game option

One rare doctrine gets tanks that can finally trade shots with overblown german armor and you want it nerfed....

It's essentially the Soviet M4C Sherman with a little bit more penetration (and armor, but neither tanks bounces anything so armor is meaningless). Do you think the M4C Sherman is overperforming as well?

I disagree completely. For a 9cp doctrinal 340(?) manpower and 135 fuel tank, it loses out to anything heavier than a Pz4, which is exactly where it should be.



As for OKW, only units that I have a problem with are the Stuka and Obers. Stuka for obvious reasons.

No unit should get a bonus to retreating units, and you definitely don't give it to a high-dps long range unit. The StG upgrade that ignores cover is baffling, since cover mechanics have been a core concept for CoH since the beginning, and now all of a sudden there's a long-range unit that just ignores it.

yeah easy-eights are fine and so are m19s, but nerf them obers and stukas. hilarious

edit: obers do need looking into tbh, but so do easies and m19. stukas are fine imo

Easy Eight:
fuel: 135f;
manpower: 380f;
armor: 215f
rear_armor: 95f
hitpoints: 640f

So, you say 215 armor bounces nothing? Also that 35% more armor than the Soviet is "a little bit"? As well as 26% more penetration? Let's see what all bounces:

Jagdpanzer:
| | penetration: {
| | | far: 170f;
| | | mid: 185f;
| | | near: 200f;
| | };
=> Can bounce on all ranges

King Tiger:
| | penetration: {
| | | far: 200f;
| | | mid: 220f;
| | | near: 240f;
| | };
=> Can bounce on ranges above 25

PIV Ostheer and Oberkommando:
| | penetration: {
| | | far: 100f;
| | | mid: 110f;
| | | near: 120f;
| | };
=> Bounces on all ranges

PaK:
| | penetration: {
| | | far: 190f;
| | | mid: 200f;
| | | near: 210f;
| | };
=> Bounces on all ranges

Tiger:
| | penetration: {
| | | far: 180f;
| | | mid: 200f;
| | | near: 220f;
| | };
=> Bounces above 25 range

Panther:
| | penetration: {
| | | far: 220f;
| | | mid: 240f;
| | | near: 260f;
| | };
=> Reliably penetrates!!!

So Panther, PaK43, Elefant and Jagdtiger are the only vehicles that reliably penetrate the Easy Eight Sherman. Others, like Tiger and King Tiger penetrate over half of their ranges.

If you compare the tank in general to others of the Allied side which are similar (Soviet Sherman, T34/85) you see it's better than the Soviet Sherman (though slightly slower) for the same price. It's performance is at least similar if not even a bit better than of the T34/85. This tank is 400 manpower and 140 fuel, lower armored, but has more HP. The T34/85 has a slightly faster firing main gun (6.15 instead of 6.6) with 2.5 instead of 2 radius, but far less penetration, especially on long range.

So in general I'd say that tank is definitely not aligned for it's cost. I'd put it at 420 MP and 145 fuel most likely, as I think I'd keep it as strong as it is.

The Jackson is a really strong tank, it's targeting priorities are just a bit weird at times. If you change it to not target infantry (please change that for all TDs), then it's most likely even too good. It's already too good for it's price, it's only the handling problems that make it feel less potent.

No unit should get a bonus to retreating units, and you definitely don't give it to a high-dps long range unit. The StG upgrade that ignores cover is baffling, since cover mechanics have been a core concept for CoH since the beginning, and now all of a sudden there's a long-range unit that just ignores it.

I agree that the bonus damage vs retreating units is bad, but I honestly don't think it's such a gigantic issue. Flamethrowers completely ignore retreating modifiers as do all explosives. Obers have .5 accuracy modifier, other units have .4 - So there is a difference, yet I don't think you feel the difference that much.
The StGs do NOT ignore cover. They perform better vs cover than other weapons, but they still deal less damage vs units in cover. Besides that, they are no long range unit. The Kar-98k and LMG34 are long range, one of each gets replaced for the StG44 and neither of them have that performance vs cover. A Ober+StG44 deals less damage vs units in green cover on 35 range than it does without the upgrade. Unless you get to mid/close range the low dmg of the StG44 means that it's cover ignoring is basically useless

Katitof. Don't start that shit up again please.

you obviously haven't used the tank yourself

the fact that your numbers show the PaK bounces at all ranges is clear proof that you are wrong

E8 has never bounced a shot from a pak gun, nor should it

also, jackson is dogshit on any map that isn't a wide open field, like steppes

The KV-1 is the same price (145 fuel) and doesn't really work as a tank.

Are there any tanks that have an outstanding midrange penetration opposed to just the average of near and far?

Since you don't seem to get it:

215 is bigger than 190
215 is bigger than 200
215 is bigger than 210

That means on all ranges the pack "bounces", which is usually defined as not penetrating all the time.


I've used the tank repeatedly. I do not have the commander in live, yet in the test client we have access to all commanders and my impression is by far not only based on stats. Besides that I faced it several times in live.

Are there any tanks that have an outstanding midrange penetration opposed to just the average of near and far?

Yes, but not that many.

Stuart:
| | penetration: {
| | | far: 40f;
| | | mid: 45f;
| | | near: 60f;
| | }

Sherman HE:
| | penetration: {
| | | far: 25f;
| | | mid: 25f;
| | | near: 25f;
| | };

105mm Sherman:
| | penetration: {
| | | far: 35f;
| | | mid: 35f;
| | | near: 35f;
| | }

Sturmtiger:
| | penetration: {
| | | far: 150f;
| | | mid: 150f;
| | | near: 150f;
| | };

So in general those units who have low velocity HE shells have the same penetration on all ranges. Medium or high velocity HE shells still have higher chances to penetrate at closer distances, it seems, but their dropoff in general is smaller.

Since you don't seem to get it:

215 is bigger than 190
215 is bigger than 200
215 is bigger than 210

That means on all ranges the pack "bounces", which is usually defined as not penetrating all the time.


I've used the tank repeatedly. I do not have the commander in live, yet in the test client we have access to all commanders and my impression is by far not only based on stats. Besides that I faced it several times in live.

has the formula for armour vs penetration changed? pen/armour = chance to penetrate, amirite?