[AXIS] [All modes] [PIV should be on par with Ez8/t3485]

Ost PZ IV should be 120 fuel given the new Cromwell sets the curve for what a med tank should cost. OKW PZ IV should stay the same since it comes with skirts.

Did anyone on the tournament use M4C? Same with 85s.

Jep. Definitively saw the Lend-Lease Shermans used at least once by Cruzz IIRC, and I did not watch too many games.

Invisied post 81 for flaming.

Jep. Definitively saw the Lend-Lease Shermans used at least once by Cruzz IIRC, and I did not watch too many games.

On what round? On serious R4 and from then on it was Shock Rifle most of the time. I think i saw Theodosios using Guard Motor, but it wasn't on most of the players loadouts. To tell you the truth, i saw more Armored assault.

This is from coh2org, Atruh and computerheat cast on yt and from today's game.

E8 +5 Fuel/Panzer IV -5 Fuel sounds good to me.

Then reassess and consider a penetration buff.

Pz4 is a good generalist tank requiring far less micro than a M4E3 Sherman with its two types of shell. You don't need to think of what you are facing, what is the biggest threat and select your shell like you do with a sherman.
The Pz4 price includes this parameter. you also have much better support tools with it. Looking at the Pz4 only in a vacuum with the other medium tank, not considering that you always have a Pak behind, best Mg in game + best mortar, is stupid. USF, simply to be able to align 1 MG + 1 Atgun need to pay much more fuel and make the sherman much more expensive than the Pz4.

EZ8 doesn't have great AI power, it is more a 75% TD 25% generalist medium tank.
EZ8 counter Pz4? for a low price? What about Stug countering the Ez8 for an even more lower price? or Pz+Shreck? If you see RM + flamer and still build a Pz4, that's your problem. USF doesn't counter Stug with shermans which following your reasoning should be the right thing to do, Sherman more expensive than stug so sherman must win vs stug.

If the Pz4 isn't meta today, that's not the fault of the players, but the meta. Change the meta, make the rifle company less meta and you'll see less Ez8 and so use more your Pz4. But I guess you'll need to redesign USF to do that.

EZ8 counter Pz4? for a low price? What about Stug countering the Ez8 for an even more lower price?

E8 is a tank, stug is a tank destroyer and the only tank destroyer the Ost gets without doctrinal choices..

How about SU76 reliably penetrating Ost and OKW p4, Panther and Tiger for a way lower price?

E8 can easily deal with a p4.

Pz4 is a good generalist tank requiring far less micro than a M4E3 Sherman with its two types of shell. You don't need to think of what you are facing, what is the biggest threat and select your shell like you do with a sherman.
The Pz4 price includes this parameter. you also have much better support tools with it. Looking at the Pz4 only in a vacuum with the other medium tank, not considering that you always have a Pak behind, best Mg in game + best mortar, is stupid. USF, simply to be able to align 1 MG + 1 Atgun need to pay much more fuel and make the sherman much more expensive than the Pz4.

EZ8 doesn't have great AI power, it is more a 75% TD 25% generalist medium tank.
EZ8 counter Pz4? for a low price? What about Stug countering the Ez8 for an even more lower price? or Pz+Shreck? If you see RM + flamer and still build a Pz4, that's your problem. USF doesn't counter Stug with shermans which following your reasoning should be the right thing to do, Sherman more expensive than stug so sherman must win vs stug.

If the Pz4 isn't meta today, that's not the fault of the players, but the meta. Change the meta, make the rifle company less meta and you'll see less Ez8 and so use more your Pz4. But I guess you'll need to redesign USF to do that.

It seems you don't know sherman and EZ8.Its common shell(named AP shell) has both AI and AT power.They just have slightly smaller AOE than Pz4,and they both have MGs,so they both have good AI power,if you want to wipe out the enemy's infantry,then switch to HE shells.So stop saying that the two sherman AP shells don't have great AI power.

Pz4 is a good generalist tank requiring far less micro than a M4E3 Sherman with its two types of shell. You don't need to think of what you are facing, what is the biggest threat and select your shell like you do with a sherman.

Actually the Panzer IV and Sherman AP have roughly the same effectiveness vs Infantry. Sherman HE is an optional strong-man choice to force-retreat infantry rather than just push them around. The Panzer IV is only better in its stock machine guns, but the Sherman has a superior MG Upgrade.

Actually the Panzer IV and Sherman AP have roughly the same effectiveness vs Infantry. Sherman HE is an optional strong-man choice to force-retreat infantry rather than just push them around. The Panzer IV is only better in its stock machine guns, but the Sherman has a superior MG Upgrade.

USF sherman pintle costs more munis and have less dps.

Just saying.

And if you people want P4 to be on pair with ez8 and 34/85, then do so, but lock it behind a doctrine as well. If you have problems with ez8 and 34/85, then don't spam P4s like an idiot and supplement them with StuGs.

USF sherman pintle costs more munis and have less dps.

Just saying.

Ah yes, that whopping 1 higher DPS at mid and long range, as opposed to the 2 DPS difference at close range. But I was more thinking of the near-double penetration, which makes it much more effective vs light vehicles. I've seen the top-mounted M2 kill more Pumas and Half-Tracks than I've seen the MG 42 vs anything with an engine.

And if you people want P4 to be on pair with ez8 and 34/85, then do so, but lock it behind a doctrine as well. If you have problems with ez8 and 34/85, then don't spam P4s like an idiot and supplement them with StuGs.

That doesn't fix the fact that it's underperforming per-cost. I'd buff the penetration or lower the cost to 115 - 120. And raise the Easy Eight cost by 5 or 10 now that it's got bonus health.

.... are you sure you want to underline greater pintle MG penetration as an advantage vs light vehicles?

.... you do remember that sherman is a tank and can use its cannon to take out light vehicles and penetration on pintle is 100% irrelevant unless you're chasing 20% hp pwerfer, firing at its rear armor with main cannon destroyed.

And no, I don't find P4 underperforming at all, spamming them is a bad idea, but one supported by StuG and then whatever is needed more performs well for the cost and scales amazingly compared to any allied tank.

.... are you sure you want to underline greater pintle MG penetration as an advantage vs light vehicles?

.... you do remember that sherman is a tank and can use its cannon to take out light vehicles and penetration on pintle is 100% irrelevant unless you're chasing 20% hp pwerfer, firing at its rear armor with main cannon destroyed.

And no, I don't find P4 underperforming at all, spamming them is a bad idea, but one supported by StuG and then whatever is needed more performs well for the cost and scales amazingly compared to any allied tank.

A 125 fuel P4 gets beaten by a 110 fuel Cromwell outright.

A 125 fuel P4 is a close fight with the 110 fuel Sherman.

A 125 fuel P4 will win vs a T34, but the T34 costs 45 fuel less.

A 125 fuel P4 gets hopelessly mocked by the EZ8 / M4C / T34/85.

The solution? Either reduce the cost to 110 fuel or buff its pen. There is absolutely no reason for it to cost 125 with its current performance.

Actually the Panzer IV and Sherman AP have roughly the same effectiveness vs Infantry. Sherman HE is an optional strong-man choice to force-retreat infantry rather than just push them around. The Panzer IV is only better in its stock machine guns, but the Sherman has a superior MG Upgrade.

But they are not facing the same type forces. You have to check incoming fire and outcoming fire, and a Pz4 has much less incoming threat than a sherman.

If you don't see a M20 you are pretty sure there is no mine on the field.
Zook are much less effective than shreck.
Atgun57mm is less performing than Pak.

If you see a M20 + atgun, you know you are not going to see a sherman sooner than your Pz4 etc...

But they are not facing the same type forces. You have to check incoming fire and outcoming fire, and a Pz4 has much less incoming threat than a sherman.

If you don't see a M20 you are pretty sure there is no mine on the field.
Zook are much less effective than shreck.
Atgun57mm is less performing than Pak.

If you see a M20 + atgun, you know you are not going to see a sherman sooner than your Pz4 etc...

Well considering you can get more Zooks than Shreks now with the munitions change, can get AT mines are you basic infantry unit, and pretty much every USF tank now comes with decent penetration (with more on the way) I think we can finally put the meme of "USF has no good AT" to rest.

Bottom line the PIV has no justification for it's current cost in the context of the prohibitive teching required for it in a 1v1 or 2v2 scenario. Either bring the cost down or give it some better pen or scatter to make it worth the cost more.

My suggestion in the change in cost since the Cromwell is basically just a PIV just put it at 115 and put the OKW PIV at 125.

A 125 fuel P4 gets beaten by a 110 fuel Cromwell outright.

A 125 fuel P4 is a close fight with the 110 fuel Sherman.

A 125 fuel P4 will win vs a T34, but the T34 costs 45 fuel less.

A 125 fuel P4 gets hopelessly mocked by the EZ8 / M4C / T34/85.

The solution? Either reduce the cost to 110 fuel or buff its pen. There is absolutely no reason for it to cost 125 with its current performance.

Reduce cost instead of buff. For 110 fuel maybe it would be worth considering...

ps: OKW PZ4 also overpriced, same issue.

KV2, Flak Halftrack, Panzer II, KT, M5 halftrack/251 halftrack, Brummbar, M8A1...

give it 25 more pen all ranges, problem solved.

A 125 fuel P4 gets beaten by a 110 fuel Cromwell outright.

A 125 fuel P4 is a close fight with the 110 fuel Sherman.

A 125 fuel P4 will win vs a T34, but the T34 costs 45 fuel less.

A 125 fuel P4 gets hopelessly mocked by the EZ8 / M4C / T34/85.

The solution? Either reduce the cost to 110 fuel or buff its pen. There is absolutely no reason for it to cost 125 with its current performance.

the panzer 4 still have superior tank to the cromwell's slightly superior gun. It's a close fight with result mainly down to RNG and skill

the 34 76 is purposely under priced for its performance. I don't like the idea to begin with but don't use the t34 76 as a comparison.

give it 25 more pen all ranges, problem solved.

this is just going to lead to power creep. the main reason the t34 76 cost got lowered and the sherman pen got buffed was to make them competitive to the panzer. Buffing the panzer 4 is defeating the purpose of buffing other units.

Ah yes, that whopping 1 higher DPS at mid and long range, as opposed to the 2 DPS difference at close range. But I was more thinking of the near-double penetration, which makes it much more effective vs light vehicles. I've seen the top-mounted M2 kill more Pumas and Half-Tracks than I've seen the MG 42 vs anything with an engine.

http://www.coh2-stats.com/small_arms/sherman_m10_m36_m2hb_50cal_mounted_tank_mp

http://www.coh2-stats.com/small_arms/mg42_turret_mounted_pziv_mp

that penetration difference is completely insignificant. 4/3/2 vs 2.2/1.8/1.4 is a tiny advantage. The main gun on a medium already wreck light vehicle anyway. At best the mg can kill a vehicle that's already near death.

that tiny penetration advantage is not worth a 25 munition difference between the .50cal (70mu) and the mg42 (45mu). It's a rip off.

[double post by mistake. Moderator please delete this post]

[moderator please delete this post]