The imbalance between Allied and Axis Infantry Anti-tank

I think if you'd want to make a proper analysis, you should've compared time to kill, instead of shots to kill - since bazookas and PTRS are shooting faster than panzerschrecks.

Not that it will change the results (panzerschrecks >> everything else), but it would be more "correct".

Currently though, Allied armor and AT performance is poorly reflected in their cost and their pop-cap.

I agree with your conclusion.

im fine with the schrek being superior to the bazooka and PTRS, but considering Axis have the better tanks, AT, AND handhelt-AT (and better infantry), it becomes a big problem

Yea I agree, the term asymetric balance is poorly understood by a lot of people on this forum. The information provided here is similar to even the tank guns. You have a lot of instances where axis penetration on allied tanks is 100%, while allied penetration is not 100%. The infantry argument usually goes something to the tune of, axis has smaller squads, so needs better accuracy/fire rate. The armor situation is that tanks are cheaper for allies, so should not be as good. What you end up with is that allies end up requiring significantly more resources to have a good chance of getting the job done. Right now, panzershreks are about the same cost as poorly performing bazookas. So even taking into consideration the popular viewpoints of how coh2 operation should occur, the bazooka is either 2x too expensive or the shrek is too good for it's cost (maybe even both).

Asymmetrical balance means different factions have different means to deal with opponents, not weaker. This argument of yours is extremely popular within axis player lobby as they are the ones ending up with superior equipment, which isn't really justified enough by cost or performance difference.

Wehr shrecks cost 120mun, USF zookas too, its not asymmetrical balance, its bad balance.

Something else I find quite interesting

Hand-held Infantry Anti-Tank weapons vs Dedicated Anti-Tank Infantry

Unit/Damage/Penetration/Reload/Range

Pak40: Dmg 160 Pene: 210/200/190/Reload: 3.5-4.1 Range:60
Zis-3: Dmg 160 Pene: 200/190/180/Reload: 4.425 Range: 60
Raketen: Dmg 160 Pene: 200/190/180/Reload: 3.0-3.6 Range: 50

Panzerschreck: Dmg 120 Pene: 180/170/160 Reload: 7.75 Range: 35
Bazooka: Dmg 80 Pene: 130/130/110 Reload: 5.75 Range: 35
PTRS: Dmg 40 Pene: 100/85/70 Reload: 3 Range: 40

Panzerschreck has 75% the damage, 90% (85% of pak40) the penetration of the dedicated AT guns.
Bazooka has 50% the damage, 65% (61% of pak40) the penetration of the dedicated AT guns.
PTRS has 25% the damage, 50% (48% of pak40) the penetration of the dedicated AT guns.

Using the AT guns as a benchmark you can see how well panzerschrecks perform in comparison to bazookas. (Only using as a benchmark, dedicated AT guns have much better reload and range, I am not saying panzerschreck is nearly as good. Do bear in mind you have the advantage of retreat, 360 degrees firing and a less stationary unit with hand-held infantry AT though).

Something I thought of, what if instead of having Panzerschrecks, you could upgrade one guy to just throw RPG-43's at vehicles? Half the range for a slightly higher rate of fire (rate of throwing?)?

Yea I agree, the term asymetric balance is poorly understood by a lot of people on this forum. The information provided here is similar to even the tank guns. You have a lot of instances where axis penetration on allied tanks is 100%, while allied penetration is not 100%. The infantry argument usually goes something to the tune of, axis has smaller squads, so needs better accuracy/fire rate. The armor situation is that tanks are cheaper for allies, so should not be as good. What you end up with is that allies end up requiring significantly more resources to have a good chance of getting the job done. Right now, panzershreks are about the same cost as poorly performing bazookas. So even taking into consideration the popular viewpoints of how coh2 operation should occur, the bazooka is either 2x too expensive or the shrek is too good for it's cost (maybe even both).

My god i am sick of that word "asymmetric balance" and how it is used on this damn forum

Really, like Katitof said, it is accomplishing the same goal with different means. A good example of this is the OStheer and Soviet mortar. They both kill units fairly well. The Soviet mortar is a little bit more accurate while the Ostheer mortar shoots faster.

What we have now, it seems, is the Axis fanboys here using the word "asymmetric balance" to justify Axis units having better EVERYTHING. If, god forbid, that they have a unit that is similar or worse than an allied counterpart, they will say it isn't asymmetric balance.

When Allied units need buff, they will say "asymmetric balance!". When Axis units need nerfs, Axis lobby will say "Axis units were better in real life!".

I don't think it's a case of the PanzerShrek being overpowered as it's rather inline with the strength of AT guns and tanks. It has a role and purpose in the counter system and dynamic which it fills... completely unlike Allied handheld AT. It's an issue of Bazookas and PTRS really underperforming and being completely not viable.

I disagree. I'd rather see the axis infantry AT toned down to the level of the allies than see the allies buffed. Otherwise both factions will be able to blob infantry right into enemy tanks no problem, rather than just one of them.

I disagree. I'd rather see the axis infantry AT toned down to the level of the allies than see the allies buffed. Otherwise both factions will be able to blob infantry right into enemy tanks no problem, rather than just one of them.

Well I disagree with you as well. Right now I find that investing in allied infantry AT to be a waste of resources. They are almost useless once any real tanks start coming out and only serve to lower anti-infantry power. Bringing axis infantry AT to that level would just leave all infantry AT options unused and underpowered. Leaving infantry in general rather useless by the late game.

just make the panzerschreck like in vCOH. bad accuracy at far, and good accuracy on mid and near. in its current state its just A-move schreck blob into allied tanks. with the far accuracy nerf will need more micro from the player to actually get somehow near enemy tanks

I guess that was an exaggeration. The shreck should definitely not be nerfed to the level of the PTRS.

Mostly I just meant that shreck shots should bounce off of allied armor occasionally, the way bazookas do. If bazooka shots penetrated axis armor 100% reliably they would be absurdly overpowered.

Show Spoiler

I disagree. I'd rather see the axis infantry AT toned down to the level of the allies than see the allies buffed. Otherwise both factions will be able to blob infantry right into enemy tanks no problem, rather than just one of them.

I'd rather nerf blobbing than nerf everything that benefits it, which includes pretty much every heavy weapon in the game. By the time we're done a Panzerschreck will be a Bazooka and an LMG42 will be a DP, and then the meta will just be vehicle rushing because anything without an engine sucks at it's job.

And even then blobbing will persist, because units with shitty DPS are moved in groups to increase DPS and survivability. So you'd just end up with blobs of crappy infantry while you rush for some sort of armour so you can hold out until Tigers.

I agree with romeo. if zooks were as strong as shreks. its would encourage blobbing.

I agree that shreks need a nerf

This buzz word from Relic ''asymmetrical balance'' is used a lot on these forums. What justifies the disparity in handheld AT between the factions? What advantage in terms of dealing with tanks do the Allies have in comparison? What disadvantages do the Axis have?

USF can equip more AT but at a higher cost (more zooks are needed to get similar AT capability) and you will be giving up anti-infantry capability for this either in munitions that could be used for BARs or just giving up a rifle for a bazooka. Either way as USF you will have to spend more munitions to get comparable AT.

In regards to the Soviets, I agree to an extent. Yes mines are very useful against Axis armour but what about when you are pushing forward? Once that Axis heavy sets up in an area it will be very hard to shift it, think about as Soviet AT gun is your best option against something like the Jagdtiger. If the Jagdtiger is unsupported then yes you can flank with tanks but if there are a few schrecks around let alone a pak no dice.

Basically I would just like to know what the AT advantages of the Allies are to give Axis such a huge bonus in terms of the panzerschrecks AT capability.

I agree with you. Currently the allied factions don't have much if any advantage in AT over the axis factions. I feel like I need better micro, have better prediction and a lot of mines to break the Axis steel tide.

So what justifies the handheld AT disparity in this build? Nothing. On paper, Allies were supposed to have superior numbers and somehow that never materialized in the actual game.

What could justify it is if Allied dedicated AT was actually good. That's why I brought up allied AT guns in my previous post.

Why would this work? The short answer is, vCoh did it that way, it was satisfying and it worked.

The long answer:
For USF:
Riflemen are already strong AI units. Allowing them to upgrade with reliable AT weaponry would just create another Volks generalist monster. Generalist units in strategy games, suck. They require nothing more than a right-click-to-win mentality.

If they're introduced in a game, they need to be weak otherwise they end up spammed, like Volks.

Currently, rifles are very strong AI units and a potential soft AT deterrent. That means they need support to tackle armor (combined arms). That's a good design principle if you ask me.

If the USF AT-gun could be made to reliably penetrate super heavies (ie. better AP rounds) then:
-The AT gun would actually become useful throughout all stages of the game.
-Generalist Axis heavies (Tigers, KT and Panthers to a lesser extent) will have a reliable counter and require some combined arms of their own.

For Soviets:
As far as guards are concerned, the answer is similar to that of the riflemen. If they were better, they would be spammed because you would need less of other units. The PTRS does ok. It could see its DPS increased, but very little.

I would rather increase the Zis penetration values so they can counter heavies more reliably.

I would also increase the SU-85 turn rate.

So to conclude, I don't think handheld AT should be improved for the Allied factions because it would create strong generalist units. Improving support AT would be more beneficial to overall gameplay and balance because it promotes combined arms.

Volks with shreks are a problem that should be addressed by adjusting the DPS of Volks with shreks.

I agree with you. Currently the allied factions don't have much if any advantage in AT over the axis factions. I feel like I need better micro, have better prediction and a lot of mines to break the Axis steel tide.

So what justifies the handheld AT disparity in this build? Nothing. On paper, Allies were supposed to have superior numbers and somehow that never materialized in the actual game.

What could justify it is if Allied dedicated AT was actually good. That's why I brought up allied AT guns in my previous post.

Why would this work? The short answer is, vCoh did it that way, it was satisfying and it worked.

The long answer:
For USF:
Riflemen are already strong AI units. Allowing them to upgrade with reliable AT weaponry would just create another Volks generalist monster. Generalist units in strategy games, suck. They require nothing more than a right-click-to-win mentality.

If they're introduced in a game, they need to be weak otherwise they end up spammed, like Volks.

Currently, rifles are very strong AI units and a potential soft AT deterrent. That means they need support to tackle armor (combined arms). That's a good design principle if you ask me.

If the USF AT-gun could be made to reliably penetrate super heavies (ie. better AP rounds) then:
-The AT gun would actually become useful throughout all stages of the game.
-Generalist Axis heavies (Tigers, KT and Panthers to a lesser extent) will have a reliable counter and require some combined arms of their own.

For Soviets:
As far as guards are concerned, the answer is similar to that of the riflemen. If they were better, they would be spammed because you would need less of other units. The PTRS does ok. It could see its DPS increased, but very little.

I would rather increase the Zis penetration values so they can counter heavies more reliably.

I would also increase the SU-85 turn rate.

So to conclude, I don't think handheld AT should be improved for the Allied factions because it would create strong generalist units. Improving support AT would be more beneficial to overall gameplay and balance because it promotes combined arms.

Volks with shreks are a problem that should be addressed by adjusting the DPS of Volks with shreks.

Yeah I don't want to turn Rifles or Guards into infantry that negate vehicles. I agree with Romeo and you in that I want less blobbing with all-round generalist infantry.
In one of my previous posts I made a comparison of the panzerschreck to the dedicated anti-tank guns, if you look at it you will be surprised by the similarity between damage and penetration values.

I was thinking along the lines of it's long range accuracy, after-all when describing the Raketenwerfer in one of the bulletins it talks about the Raketen being more accurate and being able to fire further due to being mounted.

Interesting and surprisingly focused and bile free thread so far.

My 2 cents regarding 1v1s:
I think there a distinction needs to be made between schrecks and the units that use them:

In 1v1 PGs seem to be rarely used against me. Playing OST I only get a squad occasionally to have schrecks as an option. Even then they are very powerful glass cannons lacking AI (except for their grenade ofc).

Now those roaming OKW schreck blobs - nerf their accuracy? Yes please!

Buffing zooks substantially would undoubtedly lead to riflemen blobs which hardy makes for interesting games.

Interesting and surprisingly focused and bile free thread so far.

My 2 cents regarding 1v1s:
I think there a distinction needs to be made between schrecks and the units that use them:

In 1v1 PGs seem to be rarely used against me. Playing OST I only get a squad occasionally to have schrecks as an option. Even then they are very powerful glass cannons lacking AI (except for their grenade ofc).

Now those roaming OKW schreck blobs - nerf their accuracy? Yes please!

Buffing zooks substantially would undoubtedly lead to riflemen blobs which hardy makes for interesting games.

Yes these are the lines I've been thinking along in terms of changes I would make. Basically reduce the long range accuracy of the panzerschreck and see from there.

In regards to OST vs. OKW panzerschrecks I have found the same. Volks are a cheap staple core infantry with 5 men allowing them to be more aggressive than the 4 man PG glass cannon squad.

Don't get me wrong I definitely don't want hordes of zook rifles roaming around. I just think there is enough room in the disparity between allied and axis infantry AT that a middle gorund could be reached. Maybe reducing schrecks effectiveness at range while also buffing zooks and PTRSs a little at the same time.

It's just that allied infantry AT is hardly a deterrent at the moment. I've seen panthers charge through a squad of double zooked infantry to get at a M36, succeed, and still have time to get away far too often.

Don't get me wrong I definitely don't want hordes of zook rifles roaming around. I just think there is enough room in the disparity between allied and axis infantry AT that a middle gorund could be reached. Maybe reducing schrecks effectiveness at range while also buffing zooks and PTRSs a little at the same time.

It's just that allied infantry AT is hardly a deterrent at the moment. I've seen panthers charge through a squad of double zooked infantry to get at a M36, succeed, and still have time to get away far too often.

This. I don't want to see bazooka blobs either but there's room to buff them. Two zooks on a rifle squad makes them fairly meh against infantry anyway.

There is always the authenticity standpoint. Yes, German tanks were heavier and yes, Schrecks were a heavier weapon than a zook. To bring the two to be on par would not feel very authentic and would cheapen the game.

But the realism/authenticity argument cuts both ways. There is absolutely nothing ww2esque about a group of infantry attacking a Sherman or a t34 head on over open terrain, releasing a salvo and destroying it.

The problem remains that Schrecks are too powerful, and Axis would stand on its own two legs without Schrecks just fine.

While I feel a bazooka is worth no less and no more than 60 munis, and buffing it would lead to even more rifleblobs, Schrecks actually feel underpriced. At 90 for 1 + cold immunity or at two for 120, they are too spammable, period.
As a rough estimate based on zook @ 60 ammo, they should cost 120 for Volks package (or just have 66% ammo income for OKW), and 150-160 ammo for Pzgren double package.

In regard of balance with the Us faction, We should not forget that they can go over popcap easily by getting the driver out of their mobile units, call a easy8 they get back into those units. That feature is a must to actually have a edge with the US.

I'm more concerned about the Soviet lack quality in AT-options and their lack of mobile units... Especially because the way tanks kill infantry fast these days.

Example of Axis vs Soviets :

Axis scout positions, then us walking stuka(s) then send heavy tanks supported by Obers and Pgs. Without a ISU-152 or a surviving B-4, they should be crushed. US faction using it's mobility, arty and overcap ability can better response to those assaults.

Food for thoughts !