Stuart and Quad rush are pretty retarded,but....

Just tone down penetration on the M5 so it wont tear apart 222s. it's only OP against light vehicles, versus infantry its the only thing soviets have that kills infantry quickly

That isn't even near true. The Soviets have tons of options to kill infantry quickly. From Shocktroops, and Guards, to mortars, the maxim slays pretty quickly, Penals can be brutal until encountering assault rifle wielding units and elite troops. The T-70 is an infantry slayer.

T-34/76 and 85 crush and kill infantry moderately fast.

The Soviets also have the Katyusha and tons of artillery options to kill infantry quickly. The M5 quad-mount as it is, is unforgivable. So don't even try to use the lame excuse that the Soviets are so desperate to kill infantry that they need something as ludicrous as the M5 Halftrack as it is.

Never had trouble with quad rush... L2P and anticipate your opponents move. If you are struggling, go doctrinal puma.. win... god damn.

Maybe you never faced an opponenet which is very good with M5 or didnt play 2vs2 where you had to face 4 of them. L2P is not valid argument. M5 can be game changer early on killing infantry and light vehicles. It can counter everything except heavy tanks which is not good for balance.

How can you let your Puma be destroyed by M5? Stuart is perfectly fine.

It has really low pen, it's DPS is what the problem is.

or 222 paper armor is the problem , even double riflemen can scare it off

How can you let your Puma be destroyed by M5? Stuart is perfectly fine.

It's not actually impossible, the M5 causes main gun destroyed on all light vehicles at 25% health so if it catches the Puma when at low health it can kill it. Now if you have multiple M5's....

or 222 paper armor is the problem , even double riflemen can scare it off

Pretty much every light vehicle except the Luch's get's penned by the M5 because of the M5's insane fire rate. But yes the 222 has retardly thin armor.

Feeling this M5 is more powerful than a panther. Kappa.

Oh please you have mines shreks and paks to deal with light vehicals, yes the m5 is a pain but its not going to be a game changer if you know what you are doing

+1 its rly not hard to build an early pak gun as Ost as well as a reketn.

The 222 is pretty bad against the M5 but it makes sense as the 120 muni input makes it fair. Just reduce its damage by 3~ and see where that gets us, we dont need anything to dramatic as its 4 quad guns. Its suppression needs to be kept as well as a little bit of damage.

+1 its rly not hard to build an early pak gun as Ost as well as a reketn.

The 222 is pretty bad against the M5 but it makes sense as the 120 muni input makes it fair. Just reduce its damage by 3~ and see where that gets us, we dont need anything to dramatic as its 4 quad guns. Its suppression needs to be kept as well as a little bit of damage.

Why not just buff the 222 to be on par or slightly less than the Luchs in armor? Historically it had the same armor integrity as the Panzer II (except for the 2cm gunmount, that was normally covered with a canvas instead of armor.) and to balance it, make it so that it becomes far less maneuverable off-road since it is better suited for urban environments while the Panzer II with its tracks were meant for off-road performance.

The M3 and the M5 were also better suited to rougher terrain than the 222 was. (Although truth be told that coming stock with the 2cm upgun is annoying since it performs worse against infantry with it equipped.)

or 222 paper armor is the problem , even double riflemen can scare it off

I actually miss coh1 version 222 when I look at M5 in these days.
If accuracy can go back to the old 222, it can have shitty armor as it always did.

Why not just buff the 222 to be on par or slightly less than the Luchs in armor? Historically it had the same armor integrity as the Panzer II (except for the 2cm gunmount,

This is a flat out lie: 222 had 5-8mm of armour Luch had 14.5-30mm.

Even the early production Pz II variants (A,B,C) had 14.5mm as a basis. (excluding roof and belly which was 10mm).

This is a flat out lie: 222 had 5-8mm of armour Luch had 14.5-30mm.

Even the early production Pz II variants (A,B,C) had 14.5mm as a basis. (excluding roof and belly which was 10mm).

Nope I'm wrong Ausf B 222 (1942) had a 30cm frontal armour.

Stupid poll

Kwed is Ope, Wi ell nu des

Never had trouble with quad rush... L2P and anticipate your opponents move. If you are struggling, go doctrinal puma.. win... god damn.

There are 20 doctrines for Ostheer and your answer to a balance problem is to rely solely on one doctrine every game. That's not fun, the game should not be balanced around one super-meta doctrine.

(Although truth be told that coming stock with the 2cm upgun is annoying since it performs worse against infantry with it equipped.)

Uh, it doesn't lose the old gun, it gains a new gun. It still has the old gun.

There are 20 doctrines for Ostheer and your answer to a balance problem is to rely solely on one doctrine every game. That's not fun, the game should not be balanced around one super-meta doctrine.




Uh, it doesn't lose the old gun, it gains a new gun. It still has the old gun.

He was offering a way to deal with it if you can't find an answer in your tech tree. Puma is a nice hard counter that offers some amazing love in a reasonably priced package.

The M5 appears to out class the 222 to such a degree that the 222's window is about 10 seconds long. Either the 222 should get buffs to help it fight the quad, or the quad should be brought down in effectiveness. As nerfing the quad would make it less attractive late game because of its high cost and vulnerability, I would say buff the 222. Right now, smart play and one pak should allow you to hold the line against the quad, but it is too difficult for Osteer to take on this vehicle effectively. The issue is that when Ost gets T3 to try to deal with quad they are already faced with SU76 which provides excellent cover for the quad.

However, if we buff 222 we run into an issue where Ost is very, very vulnerable to sniper spam and M3 spam. That was why the 222 originally had an upgrade so you could use it to deal with snipers or cars and save your munitions if possible.

This is a tough nut to crack.

I feel sov T3 is a tiny bit too cheap whichever way you slice it. But the Quad is what makes it game winning.

Its ability to pretty much instantly wreck any other light vehicle and mow down full retreating squads in 2 bursts is just over the top.

+1 its rly not hard to build an early pak gun as Ost as well as a reketn.

The 222 is pretty bad against the M5 but it makes sense as the 120 muni input makes it fair. Just reduce its damage by 3~ and see where that gets us, we dont need anything to dramatic as its 4 quad guns. Its suppression needs to be kept as well as a little bit of damage.

By this logic the ost flame HT should have a range increase, instantly kill/suppress squads and light vehicles beacause its 120 ammo

Flame HT is 120 ammo working as intended.
Quad is 120 ammo to win the game.


Quad needs an AP and Dmg decrease. Quite badly. Im fine with the suppression but when it can mow down retreating squads in 2 bursts, or kill light vehicles in 1... thats just game breaking. Anyone who thinks otherwise need to l2p without relying on abusing this unit.

Axis pay somthing for You protective activity ? .

What about you, Katitof, aaa and pussyking?

They need to increase the XP required for vet on the M5. Too bursts from the quad mount and its vet 1

With all the arguing, have we overlooked something else about the M5 that is very disturbing? When its main gun is destroyed, it just keeps on going.

With all the arguing, have we overlooked something else about the M5 that is very disturbing? When its main gun is destroyed, it just keeps on going.

the "maingun" is an upgrade.

Maybe you never faced an opponenet which is very good with M5 or didnt play 2vs2 where you had to face 4 of them. L2P is not valid argument. M5 can be game changer early on killing infantry and light vehicles. It can counter everything except heavy tanks which is not good for balance.

Played against top tier players (and lost) but the quad was never the problem. I will admit I don't play 2v2s anymore just 1v1s, but I can see it being incredibly annoying in 2v2s... However it only takes 2 pak shots to take it out.. So some well placed ambushes will work..

And your commanders should cover a gamet of strats... I am not saying the answer to that quad is a puma, but if you are struggling and know he is going to beat you to the punch, answer with a commander... I usually have an air commander, tank commander, and infantry commander as my choices, that way I can respond to threats or be proactive and keep my opponent on his toes...

I think the soviets are in an amazing place right now... They are the best combined arms army in the game! You can literally build everything from that faction and not feel like anything is a waste... Ost has bummbar and rocket arty which still nobody uses, usf is in need of help, and Okw is in a pretty good place right now..

But soviets, please don't nerf or buff, just fix other factions.