Login

russian armor

Units that need help

27 Dec 2014, 03:21 AM
#1
avatar of ☭ Калашникова ☭

Posts: 322

So over the past few weeks there has been a lot of talk on some units that need help so ill make a short list of things that I think really need help and give a reason why.
I am going to leave out doctrine units for now I might add them under a different section later.

United States:



Rear echelon troops, reason:
RE's are a t0 repair unit that USF gets that has 0 combat ability at 160 mp they just don't stack up soviet CE that in themselves are a very weak t0 unit as well. Pios will win almost every time vs RE, I see a average about 2 a game from any given USF. They have no mines and can build Wire/TT's and can build a very weak bunker. there suppressing fire is a joke after it got nerfed. They need something i am just unsure of what.

M2HB Browning 50 BMG:
This is one of the worst MG's in the game and comes out too late to matter most of the time,
I think i would like to see this mg to be less on the suppression side and have way more damage.
But admittedly there are a number of ways to fix this thing.

M1 57mm ATG: This thing is just a joke in penetration defiantly 2nd worst at gun in the game only being beaten out by the raketenwerfer. I think just adding more pen would fix it.

M1 75mm Pack Howie: It's expensive, Comes out late, and is outshined by the scott. it also gets de-crewed way to fast. To make matters worse its in a very weak USF teir. Id say fix the crewing issue and other minor issues it has and maybe lower its manpower cost by 100. Like i will cover with the IG.18 These two units are way too expensive for being a over glorified mortar.

M5A1 Stuart: This unit needs some love, while it has some potent ability's it just falls flat when compared to the T70 and Panzer II. It needs damage, And on the level of T70 and P2 respectively.

Bazooka upgrade: i would like to see it be cheaper, As its one step up from PTRS. It just cant touch the shreck. The bazooka itself could see better penetration as heavy German armor just laughs as it deflects all day. (ever see mass bazooka go up against tiger ace? its pretty sad)

Soviet Union:
(Note i will add a doctrine unit to this section as soviets are crutched on their doctrines.)
Soviet union is plagued by less than ideal units right now.



Conscripts: This is a unit i am kind of torn on, I tend to use them to good effect, but at the same time late game comes around and obers rip them to shreds. They really need a LMG option like a single DP once t3-t4 is made for 50 munitions.

Shtrafbat: a interesting unit that i wish did more, I would jump up and down for joy if they got fixed. At one point the Satchel charge's AOE got nerfed and it feels just lackluster now.
Since they are a close range "Suicide" squad some more armor would do these guys some good with a slight cost increase as well.

"Butterfingers" Gaurds: These guys drop weapons like they are a piñata. and After button got nerfed they really don't have a role anymore. i think there fixes lie in their upgrades and
perhaps have a choice between 4 DP's and 4 PTRS. Also fix those drops rates!

T34/76:
When they had that KV1 firerate bug this was a good unit. I would just put that "Bug" back on.
Sov industry might need a adjustment to account for t34 buff.

T70: Great little harassment unit. Needs some a little more health to meet that of Panzer II.
Maybe a fuel reduction as well.

SU-76M: Dear god were do i start.. This is probably the worst unit in the game right now.
It needs more damage and pen, needs to be cheaper (50 fuel sounds good) and should be akin to
a lightly armored ZIS on wheels.

SU-85: This unit is a monster at vet 2. I think some turn radius on it should be de-nerfed a little and make it not be so overshadowed by the Jackson.


Wehrmacht:
Currently OST is suffering from tech structure problems as well as some units that are less than decent.




MG-42: With things like rifleman smoke and oorah the MG42 suppresses too slow and has crap traverse along with a long setup and teardown time, In addition to being in a deathtrap when inside a building. Needs more reliable suppression and traverse if its going to be so immobile.

Sniper: This unit has been a problem since COH2's release, It just simply needs to be more durable or have more range. it dies way too fast as it is currently to justify a high manpower investment.

222: Another unit that is just garbage and it shouldn't be, M20 overshadows it in every way.
I personally think this unit needs more health. If that's not enough then i would look at damage as well.

251 Flame track: Comes out too late or needs more health (when the upgrade is purchased), As it is T3 is just too late to make use of it. Maybe a upgrade to unlock flametrack in T2 if base T2 is too fast.

Ostwind: Expensive and Panzer IV kills infantry almost as well.
A lot of things could be done to make it more attractive perhaps lower cost?

Panzer IV: Dies to Jackson in 3 hits every time. As it is right now it gets crushed by allied mediums while almost costing as much as said mediums.
(M4C M4E8 T34/85 not including teching costs)
The only way i see fixing it is increasing health, armor or damage.

StuG III: Dies too fast, Has too low penetration and too low damage.
It wouldn't be so bad if its range was better.
Needs general buffs all around to even be worth considering building.

Panzerwerfer: Overshadowed hard by the kat truck, comes out late due to crushingly
high teching costs. Just more rockets would fix it.

Brummbär: Expensive, High teching costs, Low inpact.
Lower its fuel cost. Other than that its a nice unit.


OKW:
Eh this faction is in a very strong spot right now so this list is probably going to be short.




Raketenwerfer: If people get what they want with the volk shreck nerf it this unit needs to be
A reliable AT gun.

IG.18 Light howitzer: Like i said with the pack Howie way too expensive to be a over glorified mortar. Lower cost to bring it more in line with other units.

IR HT: Needs to be more attractive for a faction that is fuel starved.

Well... i think that's all for OKW, hey perhaps they ARE OP :D

If i am missing something Let me know i will add it to the list.
(No doctrine units at this time)

27 Dec 2014, 04:31 AM
#2
avatar of wandererraven

Posts: 353

57 mm AT Increase penetration but reduce damage form 160 to 120 good?
27 Dec 2014, 05:03 AM
#3
avatar of ☭ Калашникова ☭

Posts: 322

Why would the damage need to be reduced for pen?
27 Dec 2014, 05:39 AM
#4
avatar of WhySooSerious

Posts: 1248

bulletins help mg42 suppress Kappa
27 Dec 2014, 06:03 AM
#5
avatar of wandererraven

Posts: 353

Why would the damage need to be reduced for pen?


because 57 mm MP cost lower than other gun like Pak 40 and Zis-3
and Pen value is 140/125/115 but Damage 160 like other gun
want reduce RNG suffer by Increase small pen (sample 180/170/160) it solve
Or Increase pen to equal other gun but deal damage same too impossible for 270 MP gun right
I think reduce Damage good way and 57 mm have good ROF than other gun
Is that all
27 Dec 2014, 06:08 AM
#6
avatar of ☭ Калашникова ☭

Posts: 322

bulletins help mg42 suppress Kappa


It helps but doesn't fix the underlying problem with the unit, Besides you shouldn't have to use bulletins to make MG-42 effective. Honestly its a bandage fix and a bad one at that.
27 Dec 2014, 06:25 AM
#7
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

bulletins help mg42 suppress Kappa


But I don't have 3 MG 42 suppress bulletins D:
27 Dec 2014, 06:46 AM
#8
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

57 mm AT Increase penetration but reduce damage form 160 to 120 good?
That would make it even worse. It wouldn't be able to do enough damage to scare away any tank even if it was more consistent it would just be consistently sucky.

The 57mm itself is fine anyway, it's arc and range at vet 1 is amazing. It the ap ability that isn't holding up. It should be giving it the same pen as the other AT guns.

27 Dec 2014, 06:51 AM
#9
avatar of wandererraven

Posts: 353

That would make it even worse. It wouldn't be able to do enough damage to scare away any tank even if it was more consistent it would just be consistently sucky.

The 57mm itself is fine anyway, it's arc and range at vet 1 is amazing. It the ap ability that isn't holding up. It should be giving it the same pen as the other AT guns.



From 140/125/110 to 200/190/180
Increase MP OK?
27 Dec 2014, 06:58 AM
#10
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053



From 140/125/110 to 200/190/180
Increase MP OK?


The point of the 57mm AT gun is to be different than all the other AT guns, and its going to have lower penetration because it is indeed weaker in calibre than other AT guns (in which i would wish something rational like heavier AT can be called in once the enemy calls in heavy armor because no sane person is going to continue fighting a tougher enemy with a weak weapon)

I think simply AP rounds at vet 0 would be ok.
27 Dec 2014, 07:12 AM
#11
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

the 57mm actually does have the ap rounds at vet 0; the jakson does not. i don't know how much they buff pen or if the ability is the same though.
27 Dec 2014, 07:18 AM
#12
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053

the 57mm actually does have the ap rounds at vet 0; the jakson does not. i don't know how much they buff pen or if the ability is the same though.


I try not to touch the USF AT gun unless i need to...

I guess the Jackson could use vet 0 AP rounds as well, then. The feeling when AP rounds themselves start bouncing in a row...
27 Dec 2014, 07:21 AM
#13
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

The US AT Gun is pretty good though, it has the highest rate of fire with the possible exception of the M-42, and at Vet 1 it can go to 70 range, the longest of any AT Gun excluding the Pak 43.
27 Dec 2014, 07:24 AM
#14
avatar of ☭ Калашникова ☭

Posts: 322



The point of the 57mm AT gun is to be different than all the other AT guns, and its going to have lower penetration because it is indeed weaker in calibre than other AT guns (in which i would wish something rational like heavier AT can be called in once the enemy calls in heavy armor because no sane person is going to continue fighting a tougher enemy with a weak weapon)

I think simply AP rounds at vet 0 would be ok.


It has AP at vet 0, This doesn't help it.
It just simply needs to be a better at gun.
27 Dec 2014, 07:28 AM
#15
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

That feeling when Jackson vet ability bounces
27 Dec 2014, 07:33 AM
#16
avatar of wandererraven

Posts: 353

70 range in pen 115 Bless my RNG luck

Ps. Who know 57mm AP shell Skill bonus value ?
27 Dec 2014, 08:04 AM
#17
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702



The point of the 57mm AT gun is to be different than all the other AT guns, and its going to have lower penetration because it is indeed weaker in calibre than other AT guns (in which i would wish something rational like heavier AT can be called in once the enemy calls in heavy armor because no sane person is going to continue fighting a tougher enemy with a weak weapon)

I think simply AP rounds at vet 0 would be ok.





Just because it has a smaller caliber doesnt mean anything.


The 57mm anti tank gun significantly surpasses the zis-3, and the pak 40 significantly surpassed the 57mm IRL. And this is no surprise, ZIS-3 wasn't even designed as an AT gun but rather as an artillery piece. Soviets had the zis-2 57mm which was comparable to the pak 40 in terms of armor penetration, but for some reason relic decided to give the soviets a zis-3.


The zis-3 IRL was about just somewhat better than the m-42 IRL. The M-42 of course was no where near as bad as it is in game, being able to penetrate 51mm of armor at 1000m. Enough for a panzer IV or a panther from the sides.
27 Dec 2014, 08:16 AM
#18
avatar of ☭ Калашникова ☭

Posts: 322

jump backJump back to quoted post27 Dec 2014, 08:04 AMBurts





Just because it has a smaller caliber doesnt mean anything.


The 57mm anti tank gun significantly surpasses the zis-3, and the pak 40 significantly surpassed the 57mm IRL. And this is no surprise, ZIS-3 wasn't even designed as an AT gun but rather as an artillery piece. Soviets had the zis-2 57mm which was comparable to the pak 40 in terms of armor penetration, but for some reason relic decided to give the soviets a zis-3.


The zis-3 IRL was about just somewhat better than the m-42 IRL. The M-42 of course was no where near as bad as it is in game, being able to penetrate 51mm of armor at 1000m. Enough for a panzer IV or a panther from the sides.


Not to make this a history lesson or a science discussion but hes right. Bore size alone dose not determine strength of said round. Energy is equal to mass times velocity squared divided by two.

Because how Anti tank guns and tank guns interact with armor, Velocity is much more important when it comes to penetration.
27 Dec 2014, 08:24 AM
#19
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053



Not to make this a history lesson or a science discussion but hes right. Bore size alone dose not determine strength of said round. Energy is equal to mass times velocity squared divided by two.

Because how Anti tank guns and tank guns interact with armor, Velocity is much more important when it comes to penetration.


Of course. But small calibre weapons still suck vs. armor in this game. I assumed thats why the USF AT gun was designed to have extremely terrible penetration because it had "trouble penetrating the armor of heavier tanks" (quote which i assume was stereotyped in the gun's design in this game). Its still good against the panzer IV, but anything bigger you shouldnt bother because of how much armor the things have. Range imo isnt that big of an advantage considering the drop in penetration over range and how low penetration would be at max range...

I dont touch it. Low calibre high velocity guns in this game dont seem to take in mind the higher velocity. 2+2=3
27 Dec 2014, 08:29 AM
#20
avatar of ☭ Калашникова ☭

Posts: 322



Of course. But small calibre weapons still suck vs. armor in this game. I assumed thats why the USF AT gun was designed to have extremely terrible penetration because it had "trouble penetrating the armor of heavier tanks" (quote which i assume was stereotyped in the gun's design in this game). Its still good against the panzer IV, but anything bigger you shouldnt bother because of how much armor the things have. Range imo isnt that big of an advantage considering the drop in penetration over range and how low penetration would be at max range...

I dont touch it. Low calibre high velocity guns in this game dont seem to take in mind the higher velocity. 2+2=3


In CoH's world bigger bore = more damage.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

597 users are online: 597 guests
0 post in the last 24h
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48732
Welcome our newest member, strzlagx81
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM