PAK 40 is overperforming when compared to other AT guns

How do the issues you describe with USF not apply to sov as well? because they have access to heavy tanks?

SOV possess a lot more utility than USF when in comes to displacing or killing support weapon teams including HMG and ATG.

• Sniper forces the unit to immediately move or risk squad wipe.
  
• Mortar is significantly cheaper than pack howizter and provides more reliable high angle fire. Not to mention it provides smoke for free to cover tanks if your not sure where exactly to barrage.
  
• Zis-3 has the potential to be a threat with barrage.
  
• Access to on-map artillery is more readily available to SOV via T4 (katuysha/SU-76) and doctrines.
  
• Both T70 and T34 can easily survive from a pak40 as long as you do not over commit. T70 also has recon run which can more easily determine the exact location of a pak40.
  
• Heavy tanks can destroy pak40 outright.
  

There is probably even more reasons that I can't think of, but yeah SOV have heaps to deal with it. USF has few that does not result in a risk in losing MP and catching the pak40 out of position for an easy flank with infantry/armour. The chance of pak40 being poorly placed in the hands of a good player an a high LMG gren army (more vision control) composition is low.

Stephenn you're always so level headed in your analysis. Gotta say I respect your opinions a lot. I agree with what you said.

Thanks.

As I always say though, being calm and clear minded is the only way you can consistantly learn to break the meta-game and acknowledge the true imbalances of the game.

SOV possess a lot more utility than USF when in comes to displacing or killing support weapon teams including HMG and ATG.

• Sniper forces the unit to immediately move or risk squad wipe.
  
• Mortar is significantly cheaper than pack howizter and provides more reliable high angle fire. Not to mention it provides smoke for free to cover tanks if your not sure where exactly to barrage.
  
• Zis-3 has the potential to be a threat with barrage.
  
• Access to on-map artillery is more readily available to SOV via T4 (katuysha/SU-76) and doctrines.
  
• Both T70 and T34 can easily survive from a pak40 as long as you do not over commit. T70 also has recon run which can more easily determine the exact location of a pak40.
  
• Heavy tanks can destroy pak40 outright.
  

There is probably even more reasons that I can't think of, but yeah SOV have heaps to deal with it. USF has few that does not result in a risk in losing MP and catching the pak40 out of position for an easy flank with infantry/armour. The chance of pak40 being poorly placed in the hands of a good player an a high LMG gren army (more vision control) composition is low.

I'd certainly like to engage on a few points:

1. I would argue this only the case if the pak is by itself, which would then then your statement true for any infantry squad catching it by itself.
2. This is true, however the pack howitzer at vet1 has the phosphorus smoke, which blocks vision AND does damage over time, over a much longer range. Although, I'll concede that it's cost is a major deterrent to anyone even getting this unit in the first place.
3. I agree with this point.
4. The point about T4 I agree with, although it's kind of part of the problem. If you had went T3 instead then you wouldn't have this option. I'll concede off map artillery being more readily available.
5. In this sentence, could you not replace "T70 and T34" with "stuart and sherman"? They don't have any more survivability, and I'd argue the sherman is in a better spot because it has smoke.
6. I'll concede this point.

What am I missing in my analysis?

I appreciate the back and forth stephenn, very interesting.

SOV possess a lot more utility than USF when in comes to displacing or killing support weapon teams including HMG and ATG.

• Sniper forces the unit to immediately move or risk squad wipe.
  
• Mortar is significantly cheaper than pack howizter and provides more reliable high angle fire. Not to mention it provides smoke for free to cover tanks if your not sure where exactly to barrage.
  
• Zis-3 has the potential to be a threat with barrage.
  
• Access to on-map artillery is more readily available to SOV via T4 (katuysha/SU-76) and doctrines.
  
• Both T70 and T34 can easily survive from a pak40 as long as you do not over commit. T70 also has recon run which can more easily determine the exact location of a pak40.
  
• Heavy tanks can destroy pak40 outright.
  

There is probably even more reasons that I can't think of, but yeah SOV have heaps to deal with it. USF has few that does not result in a risk in losing MP and catching the pak40 out of position for an easy flank with infantry/armour. The chance of pak40 being poorly placed in the hands of a good player an a high LMG gren army (more vision control) composition is low.

i dont quite agree with all that you say except snipers. snipers are the only thing holding off german support teams. however, german teams are still superior to soviet ones, the mortar has good accuracy and high rate of fire, often always displacing soviet mortars 1st before soviet mortar can land a hit on it, mg42s suppresses over a larger area and is much more difficult to flank than a maxim.

this is coming from a 2v2 perspective. the earliest artillery is still the stuka, which is still amazing. t4 takes too much fuel to tech to and buying kats/su85s means no call ins that can go toe to toe with early german armour. get caught offguard by a puma/pz4 and you are going to lose that kat/su85, because smoke/blitz + abysmal soviet infantry/ATG support. the closest thing for soviets to flank a stuka is the t34/76, no escape ability, often a suicide mission and stuka having twice the hp as a katyusha doesnt help too.

heavy tanks vs pak40 is pretty much rng and luck. you can take half a is2 hp to just land a single hit on the pak, not a very good arguement. unless you were talking about isu152, then i agree. barrage is also a hit or miss, huge spread, slow projectiles, easily dodged and cost 60munitions per use. while useful, more often than not, its not a very reliable counter and thats 60munitions down the drain.

germans units are designed around quality and superiority, but no necessarily more expensive to deploy or reinforced, this is where the imbalance is. combat effectiveness is just a much better advantage to have than just having more meatbags to shoot at.

Pak40 is balanced verse SOV.

Pak40 is unbalanced verse USF for the reasons including:

• It kills a Stuart tank in 2 shots and forces the Stuart to be used extremely cautiously otherwise you lose a major fuel investment. It is incredibly easy to kill the Stuart on the majority of 1v1 maps as Ostheer if you listen in the fog of war and have a sense of timing. If the Stuart is within a certain position of the Pak40, even at full health it will die unless the pak40 misses (rare).
  
• USF can only win the infantry MP war currently through good vehicle play due to weakness of Rifles transitioning in the mid/late game. The pak40 can completely shut this down on the majority of 1v1 maps and you end up losing both the infantry and armour wars as USF purely from LMG grens/pak40 and maybe one P4.
  

My balance suggestion would not be to nerf the pak40 at all but buff other USF units to compensate as otherwise you will effect the Soviet match up. Suggested changes include:

• Buff Stuart health so that it can withstand 2 Pak40 shots. 2 Pak40 shots + panzerfaust should result in a kill though.
  
• Buff BAR upgrades so LMG grens can actually be countered without armour or burning through munitions on smoke/pineapple grenades at every single engagement.
  

At the moment I believe OST is incredibly easy to play verse USF once you handle the early AAHT/M20 from them on the majority of maps. LMG gren, pak40 and P4 is all you need. The suggested changes will also permit USF to actually use T3 verse OST opposed to having to go T2 every single game! I am sick and tired of the USF meta where only 1 stratergy is viable on the majority of maps. Boring.

I approve of this. Often, a simple LMG grens + MG42 + PaK composition can completely neuter US apart from a handful of units, most of them doctrinal (Priest, dozer sherman, pack howie if you get lucky). US in general sucks at beaking through a determined defense, the latter being something Ostheer excels at. ''But flank'', folks say. Would be a good idea if almost all of the USF's units weren't so fragile, so while a good flank can go a long way towards victory, one that goes poorly can turn into a general rout and cost you a few units very, very fast. Plus, late game, there are so many units skipping around doing a flank unseen is 1) very map-dependant and 2) hard to pull off even if you can. The fact that good Ostheer players will plant Tellers everywhere they can doesn't help either. And one misclick on anything but a dozer sherman will result in your tanks being blown to pieces bu the PaK wall.

It's time Relic abandons the ''fragile vehicles'' BS and give US something other than papier mache on wheels. Up their cost a bit if need be, but the Stuart, Sherman and Jackson need more durability.

Buffing AT guns + basic infantry having crippling vehicle snares + vehicle lethality of CoH2 compared to CoH1 + massive focus on unit vet and smaller armies compared to CoH1 = Really bad time for light vehicles.

AKA all the USF ones

PaK 40 is just the king of basic AT guns as it happens.

I generally agree with Stephen's points. I don't understand why the luchs is so durable, yet other light tanks might as well have the hp of a kubel. The kubel is taking 2 at gun hits to destroy as well. The fact that the pak 40 shoots so fast just makes it even worse. To top it off, coh2 has been plagued with massive pathfinding issues (Not long ago tonight I order a sherman to move in the opposite direction instead of using reverse, and it makes a 270 degree turn and blows up).

What I think should be done is to make the pak40 less accurate. This would reduce performance against light/med vehicles without compromising it's performance against heavies.

Honestly, instead of nerfing anything to the Pak40, why not beef up the other AT guns and give them one thing that would set it apart from the Pak. Like make the Zis make up for its pen and small cone with a really good ROF, make the 57 pen more with a bit less damage.


Oh, the panzershreck on wheels, I don't know what you guys are talking about that it sucks, I find it a god-sent when playing as Russia with heavy conscripts. High amount of serviceability and you can place it in a building and it pretty much defends itself from enemy armor? Yes please, I would take that over the pak any day of the week.

i don't know why people think this but the pen of the zis is not significantly lower than that of the pak.

Honestly, instead of nerfing anything to the Pak40, why not beef up the other AT guns and give them one thing that would set it apart from the Pak. Like make the Zis make up for its pen and small cone with a really good ROF, make the 57 pen more with a bit less damage.


Oh, the panzershreck on wheels, I don't know what you guys are talking about that it sucks, I find it a god-sent when playing as Russia with heavy conscripts. High amount of serviceability and you can place it in a building and it pretty much defends itself from enemy armor? Yes please, I would take that over the pak any day of the week.

The issue is that because it fires rockets it will often hit things that would otherwise simply get pathed through.

No the issue is that the crew die to the wind blowing too hard, and has to expose itself to fire to shoot. The damn thing is way too clunky and short ranged to be that fragile.

does the ZIS still have that 25 percent received accuracy penalty thing going? Relic really has to get rid of that. It is the only AT gun in the game that has it I think

I'd certainly like to engage on a few points:

1. I would argue this only the case if the pak is by itself, which would then then your statement true for any infantry squad catching it by itself.
2. This is true, however the pack howitzer at vet1 has the phosphorus smoke, which blocks vision AND does damage over time, over a much longer range. Although, I'll concede that it's cost is a major deterrent to anyone even getting this unit in the first place.
3. I agree with this point.
4. The point about T4 I agree with, although it's kind of part of the problem. If you had went T3 instead then you wouldn't have this option. I'll concede off map artillery being more readily available.
5. In this sentence, could you not replace "T70 and T34" with "stuart and sherman"? They don't have any more survivability, and I'd argue the sherman is in a better spot because it has smoke.
6. I'll concede this point.

What am I missing in my analysis?

I appreciate the back and forth stephenn, very interesting.

• Even if a pak40 is supported by LMG grens, you just shoot at the grens instead of the pak40 and that will indirectly help out your other infantry in just swarming the pak40. Therefore, you gain map control anyway because your opponent has to forefit ground or leave their units over extended.
  
• Phosphorus is good yes, but I do not like particulary like waiting for an RNG unit to get to vet1 before I can expect to utilize a specific tactical combination.
  
• T70 has by far more survivability than the Stuart in the case of a pak40, even though they have the same health. The T70 has double the fire rate than the Stuart so you can still typically slow (kill 1-2 members) or kill the crew entirely. Not to mention the T70 has a higher acceleration and smaller target box. There is a part of the pak40 cone of fire that if the Stuart gets into, it is simply dead.
  
  Yes, the T34 and Sherman are more even but these tanks are less problematic when comparing against the pak40 since they got a lot of health. I think the difference lies in that USF is fucked if they lose that first tank, where as Soviet can get back into the game just with their T2 when they lose their T34 fuel investment.
  

i don't know why people think this but the pen of the zis is not significantly lower than that of the pak.

Because it is lower than that of the PaK by a reasonable margin and most german tanks are substantially better armoured than soviet ones. Compound problem- PaK is better and faster and shoots thinner targets, ZiS is worse and slower and shoots thicker ones.

i don't know why people think this but the pen of the zis is not significantly lower than that of the pak.

Well, allow me to use some "German math" here.


Not only does the Pak have a higher penetration value than the Zis3, it fights tanks with lower armor, ergo it has way more pen than a soviet ATG.

Because it is lower than that of the PaK by a reasonable margin and most german tanks are substantially better armoured than soviet ones. Compound problem- PaK is better and faster and shoots thinner targets but numerous, ZiS is worse and slower and shoots thicker ones but verry few.

Some building capabilities added to this explanation. Quite realistic and historical accurate in fact, huh?

Some building capabilities added to this explanation. Quite realistic and historical accurate in fact, huh?

Cool, when can I expect a further 30% cost discount on all allied vehicles to atleast partially make up for the actual difference in dps compared to effective HP?

OK, PAK is the best ATG. and ZIS is not bad ATG. It has a arty ability and more crews

but, USF ATG and OKW RL... It's sucks... USF ATG -> low penetration, OKW RL -> low range...

OK I know It's cheap. but I think, always expensive thing is better.