Centaur

Basically imagine an MG34 firing 20mm rounds HE.

More accurately a Vickers firing 20mm Fragmentation Proximity Fuze.

@Mr Someguy
The Diameter of the weapon matter very little and is in fact a good indication of someone who knows very little of cannons. While it is true that the 37mm (not 40mm) shell on the Ostwind could hold more explosive the 20mm Polsten fires at almost triple the speed (practical) that the Ostwind does and double the theoretical speed. If you wish to state that the Ostwind should be equal it has no basis in reality. As a gameplay element I disagree that it should be equal to the OSTWIND because the AXIS have a much more numerous and effective supply of AT infantry. I.E. the Shrek spam meta which has prevailed in recent patches.

Further more about balance, I did not hear the Axis player bases concern with balance when they so eloquently demanded that the M36 Jackson be nerfed into near uselessness or that the King Tiger be made stronger on the basis of "Historical Accuracy" so I ask you to hold back on your failed attempt at irony and focus on making a logical point.

The Ostwind needs a slight cost adjustment, that I do agree with. But only a discount to about 80 Fuel and perhaps a manpower increase. This would ensure that it remains useful.

Every faction can counter every faction, it's simply about predicting your opponents strategy. The British can counter the Stug, they can counter the Panzer 4, they can counter everything. However so can the Germans. The Germans can counter emplacement spam, they can counter heavy weapon positions and they definitely can counter the Centaur. StuGs are a great example of this. A stugv+ spotting scope backed up with a sniper or two will bring the British player to tears. Throw in a mortar and grenadier screen and the British wont be able to counter you.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKlnjwzT1IruAZFb0EA-5pQ

More accurately a Vickers firing 20mm Fragmentation Proximity Fuze.

@Mr Someguy
The Diameter of the weapon matter very little and is in fact a good indication of someone who knows very little of cannons. While it is true that the 37mm (not 40mm) shell on the Ostwind could hold more explosive the 20mm Polsten fires at almost triple the speed (practical) that the Ostwind does and double the theoretical speed. If you wish to state that the Ostwind should be equal it has no basis in reality. As a gameplay element I disagree that it should be equal to the OSTWIND because the AXIS have a much more numerous and effective supply of AT infantry. I.E. the Shrek spam meta which has prevailed in recent patches.

Further more about balance, I did not hear the Axis player bases concern with balance when they so eloquently demanded that the M36 Jackson be nerfed into near uselessness or that the King Tiger be made stronger on the basis of "Historical Accuracy" so I ask you to hold back on your failed attempt at irony and focus on making a logical point.

The Ostwind needs a slight cost adjustment, that I do agree with. But only a discount to about 80 Fuel and perhaps a manpower increase. This would ensure that it remains useful.

Every faction can counter every faction, it's simply about predicting your opponents strategy. The British can counter the Stug, they can counter the Panzer 4, they can counter everything. However so can the Germans. The Germans can counter emplacement spam, they can counter heavy weapon positions and they definitely can counter the Centaur. StuGs are a great example of this. A stugv+ spotting scope backed up with a sniper or two will bring the British player to tears. Throw in a mortar and grenadier screen and the British wont be able to counter you.

Dude in no way can you counter an early centaur effectively. It can drive over teller mines without setting them of, it can kill double paks in a matter of seconds, fausting it with your grens will simply lose you a squad.

Balance is needed for all factions, this includes adjusting Axis, but also your precious Allies.

I sense much fanboy in you, which is a pity. Just be realistic, even your favorite Brits and wet dreams need nerfs.

Dude in no way can you counter an early centaur effectively. It can drive over teller mines without setting them of, it can kill double paks in a matter of seconds, fausting it with your grens will simply lose you a squad.

Balance is needed for all factions, this includes adjusting Axis, but also your precious Allies.

I sense much fanboy in you, which is a pity. Just be realistic, even your favorite Brits and wet dreams need nerfs.

Micro? Pfft, who needs micro? Just get a Centaur and 3 6pounders!

Dude in no way can you counter an early centaur effectively. It can drive over teller mines without setting them of, it can kill double paks in a matter of seconds, fausting it with your grens will simply lose you a squad.

I've had my Centaur get engine destroyed by Teller Mines in 2 games so far. It isn't immune to mines.

You can get a Stug out quite fast last time I checked it costs 280 MP and 80 Fuel. That is easily able to be gotten out faster than the Centaur even with teching. Just because infantry can't counter the hard counter to infantry doesn't mean it's unbalance I mean fucking really. Trying to snare a anti infantry vehicle with a Panzerfaust is one of the dumbest things I've read so far... in what universe is it good gameplay to allow a unit to hard counter it's hard counter?

Balance is needed for all factions, this includes adjusting Axis, but also your precious Allies.

My favorite faction is the Ost Heer actually, playing them against the British I know how much they can destroy the British early game and starve them of fuel. Actually I'd agree that their late game is broken, but that's more because of the Churchill tanks than Centaurs. Target weak point destroys Centaurs now because of the stun. It makes Paks and Stugs really strong in a stupid way (stun locking) once they change target weak point to weapon destroyed on penetration I reckon that Paks will continue to be very potent if microd effectively.

I sense much fanboy in you, which is a pity. Just be realistic, even your favorite Brits and wet dreams need nerfs.

I play USF and Ost Heer the most with British starting to replace the USF. I've told you the nerfs it needs but people who think that the Ostwind needs a buff are being unrealistic.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKlnjwzT1IruAZFb0EA-5pQ

Trying to snare a anti infantry vehicle with a Panzerfaust is one of the dumbest things I've read so far... in what universe is it good gameplay to allow a unit to hard counter it's hard counter?

Well then why is it possible to AT Nade an Ostwind? Yet at the same time you stand by saying the Ostwind should not be buffed.


There's also this little nugget of hypocrisy:

I do believe that it should be superior and the fact it hard counters AT guns in my opinion is fine.

In what universe is it good gameplay to allow a unit to hard counter it's hard counter?

So the Centaur should counter its soft counter and its hard counter, so you can only use Tanks against it. But the Ostwind shall be countered by both and remain inferior despite similar cost and role.

Well then why is it possible to AT Nade an Ostwind? Yet at the same time you stand by saying the Ostwind should not be buffed.

The Ostwind should be cheaper, and therefore able to to be inferior. A suggestion you seem to ignore. Rebalancing doesn't just mean nerfing/buffing. That's lazy rebalance and one of the first things you learn in game design both classic and computer.

Last time I checked the Faust also has a longer range.

So the Centaur should counter its soft counter and its hard counter, so you can only use Tanks against it. But the Ostwind shall be countered by both and remain inferior despite similar cost and role.

1) It should be made cheaper I agree with people 100% the Ost is over costed.
2) It's inferior in it's role in the same way a T-34 is not as good as a Panzer IV.
3) The AT gun is a soft counter as it is an Infantry base Anti Tank weapon. The Stug III is the hard counter.
4) Ostwinds are ridiculously good at de-crewing AT guns in my experience. -When the Ostheer actually don't skip and go directly to Panthers. (I understand they do that to get ready for the insanely powerful Churchill/AVRE/Crocodille.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKlnjwzT1IruAZFb0EA-5pQ

The Ostwind should be cheaper, and therefore able to to be inferior. A suggestion you seem to ignore. Rebalancing doesn't just mean nerfing/buffing. That's lazy rebalance and one of the first things you learn in game design both classic and computer.

Last time I checked the Faust also has a longer range.




1) It should be made cheaper I agree with people 100% the Ost is over costed.
2) It's inferior in it's role in the same way a T-34 is not as good as a Panzer IV.
3) The AT gun is a soft counter as it is an Infantry base Anti Tank weapon. The Stug III is the hard counter.
4) Ostwinds are ridiculously good at de-crewing AT guns in my experience. -When the Ostheer actually don't skip and go directly to Panthers. (I understand they do that to get ready for the insanely powerful Churchill/AVRE/Crocodille.

Stop your gibberish and admit that the Centaur isn't borderline op, it is op. It costs the same as the Ostwind, yet deletes squads in mere seconds, can hardcounter double pak 40s frontally by just driving up to them and sniping them. You can't faust the thing, since it will delete the squad who is fausting it.

Whether you like it or not, the thing needs serious nerfs and should not be able to hardcounter its hardcounters. It can deal significant damage to a P4 frontally, which is absurd.

It's damage profile should be tweaked, so it can seriously deter infantry without insta deleting it and not wipe at guns in the blink of an eye. It also comes way to quick with the new September 17th patch, somewhat like 10-12 minutes. Instead of nerfing it to the ground, it should be tweaked slightly and come in later.

As for the Ostwind, don't for the love of god make it like the centaur. Make it either cheaper so it is worth it's cost, or buff it slightly so it gets near the now slightly nerfed Centaur and keep the cost the same.

Stop your gibberish and admit that the Centaur isn't borderline op, it is op. It costs the same as the Ostwind, yet deletes squads in mere seconds, can hardcounter double pak 40s frontally by just driving up to them and sniping them. You can't faust the thing, since it will delete the squad who is fausting it.

Paks can stun the vehicle. That is definitely a micro issue man. Additionally you can't sticky bomb an Ostwind easily (I'll grant the ost doesn't destroy squads though) maybe adding in an AOE suppress but a reduction of AOE damage would be nice.

Whether you like it or not, the thing needs serious nerfs and should not be able to hardcounter its hardcounters. It can deal significant damage to a P4 frontally, which is absurd.

An Infantry AT gun is a soft counter. A StuG/Panzer 4 is the hard counter. I've never seen the Centaur do it done from the front (I've never tried) but from the sides I'm inclined to agree. I'm not sure whether the Ostwind can do the same. A Decrease in it's penetration would balance this.

It's damage profile should be tweaked, so it can seriously deter infantry without insta deleting it and not wipe at guns in the blink of an eye. It also comes way to quick with the new September 17th patch, somewhat like 10-12 minutes. Instead of nerfing it to the ground, it should be tweaked slightly and come in later.

After reading the Sept 17 Patch I have to say... WTF. Relic Plis. If it comes out faster a slight damage reduction is in order, but I am still adamant it should be stronger than the Ost.

As for the Ostwind, don't for the love of god make it like the centaur. Make it either cheaper so it is worth it's cost, or buff it slightly so it gets near the now slightly nerfed Centaur and keep the cost the same.

Agreed making the Ost cheaper is a must.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKlnjwzT1IruAZFb0EA-5pQ

Paks can stun the vehicle. That is definately a micro issue man. Additionally you can't sticky bomb an Ostwind easily (I'll grant the ost doesn't destroy squads though) maybe adding in an AOE suppress but a reduction of AOE damage would be nice.

You need veterancy to reliably counter a stock unit? That doesn't sound really balanced now does it?

An Infantry AT gun is a soft counter. A StuG/Panzer 4 is the hard counter. I've never seen the Centaur do it done from the front (I've never tried) but from the sides I'm inclined to agree. I'm not sure whether the Ostwind can do the same. A Decrease in it's penetration would balance this.

An at gun is not a soft counter, it is a HARD counter. The name itself says it: ANTI-TANK GUN. If Micheal Wittmann feared anti tank guns more than tanks, you can bet safely that they are a hard counter. They were designed to counter tanks. I can't believe you actually stated an at gun is a soft counter lol lol.

The Ostwind should be cheaper, and therefore able to to be inferior. A suggestion you seem to ignore. Rebalancing doesn't just mean nerfing/buffing. That's lazy rebalance and one of the first things you learn in game design both classic and computer.

That's just nonsense, balance is about altering cost and performance so that every faction may be on equal footing. There's no other way to do it, I'm not sure what you're suggesting by saying balance is lazy.

Last time I checked the Faust also has a longer range.

I don't know when you checked, but you were wrong then and you are wrong now. The AT Grenade and Panzerfaust have always had the same range.

4) Ostwinds are ridiculously good at de-crewing AT guns in my experience.

Only if they flank, but the Centaur has no need for flanking.

You need veterancy to reliably counter a stock unit? That doesn't sound really balanced now does it?

Now that sounds like old precision strike to have a chance at getting rid of old HMG42 or turbomortar now, does it?

You don't NEED TWP, but it will make the engagement completely one sided in PaKs favor.

An at gun is not a soft counter, it is a HARD counter. The name itself says it: ANTI-TANK GUN. If Micheal Wittmann feared anti tank guns more than tanks, you can bet safely that they are a hard counter. They were designed to counter tanks. I can't believe you actually stated an at gun is a soft counter lol lol.

Indomitable force vs immovable object paradox.

Yes, AT gun is a hard counter to armored units.
But centaur(or any other AI tank) is hard counter to infantry units and AT gun is an infantry based AT.

They hardcounter each other.

Now that sounds like old precision strike to have a chance at getting rid of old HMG42 or turbomortar now, does it?

You don't NEED TWP, but it will make the engagement completely one sided in PaKs favor.

Katikof, you do need twp to let your double pak 40 even stand a change against a rushed centaur. It can wipe them in seconds.

Yes, AT gun is a hard counter to armored units.
But centaur(or any other AI tank) is hard counter to infantry units and AT gun is an infantry based AT.

They hardcounter each other.

Agreed, which was ny point vs CadianGuardsman. Yet the fact that centaur wipes at guns within the blink of an eye is just right out wrong and should be fixed.

Same with how it just deletes squads, even on retreat

Katikof, you do need twp to let your double pak 40 even stand a change against a rushed centaur. It can wipe them in seconds.

A single Pak 40 with TWP will destroy a Centaur quite rapidly. Without the Centaur having much effect. I've read this ability will be changed to a gun disable soon in which case I do believe the damage against Paks should be reduced. The primary reason why is was against nerfing damage was because of Pak stun terribleness.

Agreed, which was ny point vs CadianGuardsman. Yet the fact that centaur wipes at guns within the blink of an eye is just right out wrong and should be fixed.

See above. The Centaur is a hardcounter to the Pak, the Pak needs an ability to become the hardcounter to the centaur otherwise it's a soft counter when I learned game design I was taught that a soft counter is "a unit that can in certain situations beat it's opposing unit." The Pak is in my view currently a soft counter to the centaur. I feel that the Centaur beating a Pak is ok, given the fact that it has target weak point. Once it looses that then by all means reduce the damage. But I do believe that the Centaur should retain it's hard counter status against AT guns.

Same with how it just deletes squads, even on retreat

This I 100% agree needs to be fixed. But I don't believe the AA gun will be nerfed carefully. Relic has a bad habbit of over nerfing then over buffing. I guess I'm just worried about that.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKlnjwzT1IruAZFb0EA-5pQ

A single Pak 40 with TWP will destroy a Centaur quite rapidly. Without the Centaur having much effect. I've read this ability will be changed to a gun disable soon in which case I do believe the damage against Paks should be reduced. The primary reason why is was against nerfing damage was because of Pak stun terribleness.

So you still need twp, which is a vet 1 ability, to even counter the stock centaur with said pak40. Makes no sense, isn't balanced and should be changed. New twp system will stunn gun for few seconds, which allows the centaur to just plow along and circle the pak40 until its gun is back up.

See above. The Centaur is a hardcounter to the Pak, the Pak needs an ability to become the hardcounter to the centaur otherwise it's a soft counter when I learned game design I was taught that a soft counter is "a unit that can in certain situations beat it's opposing unit." The Pak is in my view currently a soft counter to the centaur. I feel that the Centaur beating a Pak is ok, given the fact that it has target weak point. Once it looses that then by all means reduce the damage. But I do believe that the Centaur should retain it's hard counter status against AT guns.

Again and again and again and freaking again: TWP is a vet 1 ability. It is utter bullshit that a pak40, let alone double pak 40s need veterancy to even have a chance against the stock Centaur. I say chance, because 9/10 times the centaur will rape the pak40s.

Yes it is a soft counter and the Centaur is a hard counter to every weapon crew, infantry unit and anything lower than a P4. Heck it can even damage a p4. No matter what you say to justify the thing, it will still be op.It can just drive over teller mines when vet2, not triggering it. It receives vet 2 after killing a few units.

So you still need twp, which is a vet 1 ability, to even counter the stock centaur with said pak40. Makes no sense, isn't balanced and should be changed. New twp system will stunn gun for few seconds, which allows the centaur to just plow along and circle the pak40 until its gun is back up.

Agreed, but only if you're stupid enough to not back it up with infantry. Just like an Ostwind vs M1/Zis/6pdr.

Again and again and again and freaking again: TWP is a vet 1 ability. It is utter bullshit that a pak40, let alone double pak 40s need veterancy to even have a chance against the stock Centaur. I say chance, because 9/10 times the centaur will rape the pak40s.

So riddle me this Batman, should the Jackson need HVAP rounds to reliably penetrate a King Tiger or Panther? Why Should it be locked to soft counter status? These tanks can both 1v1 beat the Jackson because the Jackson needs vet 1 to stand a chance of scaring them off. Because 9/10 the Jackson will loose to what it should hard counter.

Yes it is a soft counter and the Centaur is a hard counter to every weapon crew, infantry unit and anything lower than a P4.

Have you seen what AA guns can do to lightly armored vehicles? They should be powerful against vehicles that have less armor than a Panzer 4. But I can see your point it hard counters to large a variety of units, maybe removing the strafing fire ability and replacing it with AP/HE round split like the Sherman would mean that this unit can retain it's high damage/pen against vehicles but be nerfed against infantry?

Heck it can even damage a p4. No matter what you say to justify the thing, it will still be op.It can just drive over teller mines when vet2, not triggering it. It receives vet 2 after killing a few units.

Could you provide a video or a replay link of this behavior happening because I've yet to see this at all. I'm genuinely interested in seeing this.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKlnjwzT1IruAZFb0EA-5pQ

just asking, no other reasons here but....why it is OK than an IS2 or a Tiger decrew or even destroy an ATG, but it is not fair if a centaur does the same???

again, just asking, just want to know the reasons, I am not trying to say that centaur is OK because IS2 and Tiger but I want to know why is different.

just asking, no other reasons here but....why it is OK than an IS2 or a Tiger decrew or even destroy an ATG, but it is not fair if a centaur does the same???

again, just asking, just want to know the reasons, I am not trying to say that centaur is OK because IS2 and Tiger but I want to know why is different.

Because the TIger and IS2 come way later in the game, the Centaur will now hit the field at around 8-10 mintues if rushed

So riddle me this Batman, should the Jackson need HVAP rounds to reliably penetrate a King Tiger or Panther? Why Should it be locked to soft counter status? These tanks can both 1v1 beat the Jackson because the Jackson needs vet 1 to stand a chance of scaring them off. Because 9/10 the Jackson will loose to what it should hard counter.

Because Relic can't design factions right and gave the USF a tank destroyer that can't survive more than 3 shreck hits and has paper armor. It is supposed to to fight at the rear end and use its great range, which in this game doesn't really work that well.

But in all honesty you can't just make me liable to defend Relic's design decisions. That is not my fault neither was it my choice. Like I claimed before and will do so again, Centaur is op and should get some serious nerfs that either reduce the instant squad deletes and pak40 just being destroyed in seconds, or it should be uptiered or see a heavy cost increase.

Since you keep defending the Centaur and keep pointing your finger at the TWP ability of a vet 1 pak40, I will give arguments to why I think that it is unfair balance and doesn't make any kind of sense. The fact that USF design does't make sense is pretty common knowledge, and buffs are needed there. But since this is a pak40 vs Centaur discussion, throwing in the dis-functionality of the USF arms of war in this game won't make the Centaur situation any less dire than it is, let alone justify it.

Have you seen what AA guns can do to lightly armored vehicles? They should be powerful against vehicles that have less armor than a Panzer 4. But I can see your point it hard counters to large a variety of units, maybe removing the strafing fire ability and replacing it with AP/HE round split like the Sherman would mean that this unit can retain it's high damage/pen against vehicles but be nerfed against infantry?

Sure I have seen that. Have you seen what a HMG can do against an infantry squad at close range? it wipes them out in seconds. Have you ever seen a pak40 fire in real life? It could certainly one shot a Centaur. Have you seen what a King Tiger could do against pretty much every Allied tank in the game? It could one shot them all, without them even touching it from anything above 300 meters frontally. But it doesn't neither do all the other units since it is a GAME. A game should be fun, balanced and well thought out. Balance is what we need, not what a certain unit can do in real life. If that was the case, we would have a King Tiger one shot all USF, Soviet and Brit tanks. From what I have read from you, that is the last thing you would want to see.

So your argument doesn't hold any value, we must balance based on feedback and aim for the best experience for everyone. We don't want any unbalanced units.

Here the vid from the pak 40 firing. It would rape your pretty Centaur any day:

Could you provide a video or a replay link of this behavior happening because I've yet to see this at all. I'm genuinely interested in seeing this.

I don't have footage. Was on VonIvan's stream with about 150 viewers. The Centaur got to vet 2, drove over 3 teller mines without detonating them. You can ask him, he will verify. Even Cruzzi stated that it was possible in that stream's chat, since vet2 Centaur moves faster, by which it moves so fast that it can go quicker than the teller mine detection can keep up, thus not triggering the mine.

It is extremely potent. Not sure if they should increase the cost or dial down performance.

just asking, no other reasons here but....why it is OK than an IS2 or a Tiger decrew or even destroy an ATG, but it is not fair if a centaur does the same???

again, just asking, just want to know the reasons, I am not trying to say that centaur is OK because IS2 and Tiger but I want to know why is different.

Timing: one unit appear at 10-12. The other on the late game. Centaur will contest at most 1 at gun by that time.
Speed: both from the units and the time it takes to decrew consistently an at gun. You have to pray to RNGesus for the IS2 (or upgrade the gunner and get close) and it takes some shots with the Tiger to do so.
Cost: related to timing also.

Pen and AI are really good on the Centaur. Either the Ostwind is overpriced or the Centaur overperform or is underpriced (and i think the Ostwind is fine).