PTRS now OP?

The other approach in balancing them would be to make so they arrive latter. CP increase basically but PTRS Commander only.

They already arrive late for PTRS.
I can see a cost increase working now that they actually do stuff, anymore CPs and they won't be even possible to counter light armor, because they'll arrive too late. But would be careful with it too, every single ability in the doctrine is muni ability.

A PaK 43 is a hard counter to mediums but gets swarmed. Same with Jagdtigers, Elephants. All hard counters, all get overwhelmed.

And what do you have to do when you OVERWHELM JTs, Elefants or even PaK43s?

You have to move your tanks and flank those hardcounters! What do you think will happen if you drive 5 T-34/76s towards an Elefant and stop in front of it? Do you expect them to kill it by doing nothing?

No, they'll get destroyed.

The same should apply for every blob. If a player moves his blob into an HMG and then does nothing he shouldn't win. Period.

The video that has been posted here is a perfect example: It would have been easy to overwhlem that MG34 by...wait...not blobbing.

The Soviet player could have used one squad as scout and the other 3 squads could have flanked that HMG while it was shooting at the scout.

Even if those Cons didn't have PTRS they could have won simply by splitting up.

An HMG shouldn't win against large numbers of infantry. That'd be a bit OP.

An HMG should win against blobs if the other player doesn't use his advantage (superior numbers) to actually flank it.

And what do you have to do when you OVERWHELM JTs, Elefants or even PaK43s?

You have to move your tanks and flank those hardcounters! What do you think will happen if you drive 5 T-34/76s towards an Elefant and stop in front of it? Do you expect them to kill it by doing nothing?

No, they'll get destroyed.

The same should apply for every blob. If a player moves his blob into an HMG and then does nothing he shouldn't win. Period.

The video that has been posted here is a perfect example: It would have been easy to overwhlem that MG34 by...wait...not blobbing.

The Soviet player could have used one squad as scout and the other 3 squads could have flanked that HMG while it was shooting at the scout.

Even if those Cons didn't have PTRS they could have won simply by splitting up.

An HMG shouldn't win against large numbers of infantry. That'd be a bit OP.

An HMG should win against blobs if the other player doesn't use his advantage (superior numbers) to actually flank it.

Well. 210MP vs 1200MP + 250MU.

So by comparison, we'll need to be bringing approximately 1200 FU worth of T34.

Yeah, that'll probably kill an elephant to the face. Especially if we make it a proper analogy by adding veterancy to the tanks as some of the blob was packing, and then maybe some MU upgrades to the- oh wait CoH2 tanks.



Stop treating HMG's as one man armies. They are support weapons, they offer suppression to hamper armies, not outright stop them.

If you want a HMG that can act in the way people seem to dream of then start petitioning relic to introduce an 800MP HMG squad that set up with about three of them and carry their own sandbags around the battlefield.

A single HMG is not a blob hard counter, it is a support weapon. It suppresses blobs. Even a single gren/volks squad in tow could have naded the centre, caused horrendous MP bleed and both could have retreated fine to the base to enjoy a battlefield advantage to the tune of 100-200MP.

Better yet, it could have fallen back and set up in the next cover with infantry to spot and soak the first volley whilst reinforcements arrived and a flanking manoeuvre was put in place. All viable options to make the most of suppression mechanics without wishing they worked differently and pretending your disillusion represents a balance problem.

Instead, it stood still like a moron and got sniped out. GG for horrible play.

Well. 210MP vs 1200MP + 250MU.

So by comparison, we'll need to be bringing approximately 1200 FU worth of T34.

Yeah, that'll probably kill an elephant to the face. Especially if we make it a proper analogy by adding veterancy to the tanks as some of the blob was packing, and then maybe some MU upgrades to the- oh wait CoH2 tanks.



Stop treating HMG's as one man armies. They are support weapons, they offer suppression to hamper armies, not outright stop them.

If you want a HMG that can act in the way people seem to dream of then start petitioning relic to introduce an 800MP HMG squad that set up with about three of them and carry their own sandbags around the battlefield.

A single HMG is not a blob hard counter, it is a support weapon. It suppresses blobs. Even a single gren/volks squad in tow could have naded the centre, caused horrendous MP bleed and both could have retreated fine to the base to enjoy a battlefield advantage to the tune of 100-200MP.

Better yet, it could have fallen back and set up in the next cover with infantry to spot and soak the first volley whilst reinforcements arrived and a flanking manoeuvre was put in place. All viable options to make the most of suppression mechanics without wishing they worked differently and pretending your disillusion represents a balance problem.

Instead, it stood still like a moron and got sniped out. GG for horrible play.

1200FU worth of T-34s? Yeah...there's pop cap.

I think you missed my point.

1200MP + 250MU could have handled that HMG just fine by simply using the mouse and microing those squads even without investing 250MU.

I never said that single HMGs should win against larger numbers, just that the other player should NOT win if he does nothing and keeps on blobbing.

Of course that HMG stood still, HMGs being able to shoot while moving would be ridiculous.

GG for horrible play indeed. On the Soviet side. Leaving an HMG alone is a mistake, no doubt about it, but being able to win vs HMGs (in green cover) by doing nothing is wrong.

It doesn't matter how many ammo you've invested. PTRS shouldn't hit a weapon itself everytime while being suppressed. You should still need to do something as a player when your entire blob gets suppressed (even if it's just throwing a nade).

1200FU worth of T-34s? Yeah...there's pop cap.

I think you missed my point.

1200MP + 250MU could have handled that HMG just fine by simply using the mouse and microing those squads even without investing 250MU.

I never said that single HMGs should win against larger numbers, just that the other player should NOT win if he does nothing and keeps on blobbing.

Of course that HMG stood still, HMGs being able to shoot while moving would be ridiculous.

GG for horrible play indeed. On the Soviet side. Leaving an HMG alone is a mistake, no doubt about it, but being able to win vs HMGs (in green cover) by doing nothing is wrong.

It doesn't matter how many ammo you've invested. PTRS shouldn't hit a weapon itself everytime while being suppressed. You should still need to do something as a player when your entire blob gets suppressed (even if it's just throwing a nade).

So what you are saying... That at guns should be ably to beat 5+ tanks from the front, unless they actually micro it?

So what you are saying... That at guns should be ably to beat 5+ tanks from the front, unless they actually micro it?

hell yeah burts lets bringback the old VET for AT guns when vet 3 Ziz 76mm/Pak 40 would deal 320dmg per hit, you could 2 shot PZ IV's...oh those were the times

They already arrive late for PTRS.
I can see a cost increase working now that they actually do stuff, anymore CPs and they won't be even possible to counter light armor, because they'll arrive too late. But would be careful with it too, every single ability in the doctrine is muni ability.

The PTRS in con blob numbers is an effective counter for medium armor, but not heavy tanks. It comes in at a fairly early good CP level. You can almost always pen a PIV or Ostwind even frontally, and the high DPS V tanks means you will burn it down fast and force it to retreat.

It only feels eh on guards versus armor because you can't have that many.

For anyone saying PTRS is OP now, can you please post a replay of anyone even close to the top 25 of the ladder winning with this strategy?

No one cares that noobs can faceroll noobs with attack-move. The game isn't balanced around that.

the show? your whining is the show? I came to read and learn and I also read Cpl S's guide, which you clearly have not read. I don't think guards PTRS are OP, its just decent again. I am using guards again almost after a year. In a few weeks people would have figured how to deal with them. there is no need to whine about it because they are not OP. I think a million people before me told you what a PTRs is, oui?

Non...

If you came to "read and learn" either I wasn't clear enough in the post you replied to, or you must've read this thread from the window of a moving car; because, you've missed the point that I and others are making, which I will summarize below:

"Not op, broken is the correct word."(ofield) the biggest issue is outlined by, elchino7: "The problem is the PTRS destroying crewed weapons, not it's DPS vs infantry or vehicles." and elaborated on by Alexzandvar:

"the PTRS is incapable of missing the gun due to it's size. The change made it so it would never ever miss vehicles, and now it never misses... weapons teams. "

LEMON notices how this really becomes an issue, not with GUARDS, but with CONS (as noted in the first damned line in the first post of this god forsaken thread:

the problem with cons blob is that theres always 8 or so cons running around all over the map, and each of them has 2 ptrs' that have the stats meant for elite infantry.

RMMLz, adds upon the context of the broader state of the game:

AT weapons sniping infantry are bad design, no matter if it's Panzerschreck or PTRS. Although, PTRS should have AI capabilities when it's used by Guards or partizans. But a change like this on you main line infantry is bad. Take a look at OKW. Why we are frustrated by SchreckBlob? Because you turn you AI core unit into laser guided tank hunters. Any drastic change to mainline infantry has the potential to break the game, because they are spammable and cheap.

Before I close, once more I rely on the words of elchino7:

Gonna say it again:
-PTRS destroying crewed support weapons is not fine.
-Everything else is fine.

Finally, allow me to repeat myself a third time:

Examine the broader context of this. The PTRS shouldn't be doing what it's doing atm. This isn't intended.

So what you are saying... That at guns should be ably to beat 5+ tanks from the front, unless they actually micro it?

I said HMGs should win vs blobs if the other player is too lazy to use his mouse.

ATGs vs tanks is something completely different than HMG vs blob.

ATGs are harcounters for tanks but they are not designed to fight multiple tanks at once.

Otherwise they'd have some kind of AoE mechanic that effects tanks in a large area making them way less accurate.

HMGs like the MG34/MG42 and M2HB have high AoE suppression, making them hardcounters vs blobs; and blobs shouldn't win a fight vs HMGs IF they run into it, get suppressed and just stay in front of it doing nothing.

I said HMGs should win vs blobs if the other player is too lazy to use his mouse.

ATGs vs tanks is something completely different than HMG vs blob.

ATGs are harcounters for tanks but they are not designed to fight multiple tanks at once.

Otherwise they'd have some kind of AoE mechanic that effects tanks in a large area making them way less accurate.

HMGs like the MG34/MG42 and M2HB have high AoE suppression, making them hardcounters vs blobs; and blobs shouldn't win a fight vs HMGs IF they run into it, get suppressed and just stay in front of it doing nothing.

Sorry, but unfortunately we already tested this and this is not happening. It lead to mg-42 spam being unbeatable and shutting down every soviet strat except snipers which overall lead to very dumb gameplay.



MGs are *Not* supposed to hard counter infantry.

Sorry, but unfortunately we already tested this and this is not happening. It lead to mg-42 spam being unbeatable and shutting down every soviet strat except snipers which overall lead to very dumb gameplay.

What exactly did you test?

Just to be clear: I don't want HMGs to be buffed in any way; I just think that blobs should have a harder time vs HMGs while properly micro'd inf squads should be able to take out unsupported HMG easily.

(That's why I support the idea of reducing grenade range while being suppressed)

PTRS are a problem because they are not affected by suppression and allow players to blob into HMGs and destroy them without any effort.

Why was the title changed from ULTRA OP??

A lot of people seem to enjoy ignoring the fact the PTRS's in the Tank Hunters doctrine aren't the only good thing in it. The anti tank bombing run is a shrapnel bomb on steroids, the salvage blows the OKW one out of the water, and the mines have amazing utility.

The grenade barrage also does an insane amount of damage as well. Really the big problem is that a super massive horde of PTRS cons + all those other things is fairly uncounterable. I often end up with such an insane amount of fuel while playing with it I feel like it's soviet industry pre-nerf.

What exactly did you test?

Just to be clear: I don't want HMGs to be buffed in any way; I just think that blobs should have a harder time vs HMGs while properly micro'd inf squads should be able to take out unsupported HMG easily.

(That's why I support the idea of reducing grenade range while being suppressed)

PTRS are a problem because they are not affected by suppression and allow players to blob into HMGs and destroy them without any effort.

FailFish. By tested i don't mean "We" i mean you know, the testers. (Not me by the way). We actually had this in the live game. And it was terrible.

FailFish. By tested i don't mean "We" i mean you know, the testers. (Not me by the way). We actually had this in the live game. And it was terrible.

Never forget the days of sniper scout car spam followed by MG42 spam countered by maxim spam.


Never forget

Add the Panzerbüchse as an upgrade for Oustruppen and I can bet you that there will be a "Panzerbüchse Ultra OP?" thread up faster than warp 9. The ability to instantly kill support weapons is so insanely good.

Remove the 25% more incoming accuracy for MG crews, I don't know why we still even have it since WFA has come out.

FailFish. By tested i don't mean "We" i mean you know, the testers. (Not me by the way). We actually had this in the live game. And it was terrible.

What did you have in the live game!?

I know there was a time when MG spam was a thing but I never said that I want this to happen again.

I want HMGs to be reliable blob counters while not being too good vs infantry in general.

Is it possible to create some kind of ability that you can only use when there're more than 3 squads in the firing arc of an HMG?

An ability that reduces damage but drastically increases AoE suppresion and RoF to effectively deal with blobs woud be nice. Even a Maxim could be good against blobs then.

It would also be realistically correct. I mean, if HMG crews see waves of soldiers moving towards them they'd definitley try to get as many bullets as possible out of their gun to stop them.

What did you have in the live game!?

I know there was a time when MG spam was a thing but I never said that I want this to happen again.

I want HMGs to be reliable blob counters while not being too good vs infantry in general.

Is it possible to create some kind of ability that you can only use when there're more than 3 squads in the firing arc of an HMG?

An ability that reduces damage but drastically increases AoE suppresion and RoF to effectively deal with blobs woud be nice. Even a Maxim could be good against blobs then.

It would also be realistically correct. I mean, if HMG crews see waves of soldiers moving towards them they'd definitley try to get as many bullets as possible out of their gun to stop them.

'I want HMG's to not be too good against infantry but also want a large amount of infantry in front of a HMG to not be able to kill it'.

Here is your logical flaw in your point of view, enjoy resolving it on your own time.

And the map design and unit arrangement just does not permit scenarios where a HMG is allowed huge buffs to effect because of quantity of units in front of it. Maps like minsk pocket and anything with a bloody bridge involved (semoisky pin, anyone?) just become unbearable. Sometimes you have no -choice- but to have three squads in spitting distance of each other, allowing an MG a free win in that scenario with no support is game breaking.

Regardless. It's one HMG. Stop thinking 'oh well in real life' and use actual in game metrics to judge what's going on. One 240mp support unit. Huge swarm of infantry murdering firepower. Simple maths.