320 damage is too much

realy hope Donnie in here with his signature question,

Playercard plz

Official forums up when rerik?

End of March 2016.

Playercard plz

u made my day bro haha

The point I am trying to make that cliches [Why "fix" something what is not broken?] are not really helpful.

Imo when someone proposes something the only thing one should be debating is whether the benefits from from the change overweight the downside of he change.

One could also suggest other way to improve the suggested idea.

Posts that underline that other people's posts are "useless" are not helpful either. No need for that, especially when there's a general overall feeling that the unit is not problematic at all. No need to fight against windmills, really.

The elephants and jagdt are the only units with clear strengths and clear counters. I am merely unhappy that they can one shoot USF Scots, as they are already underused, but that's more of a USF balance problem than an ele/jagt thing.

It's fine, really.

SO if I propose Penals dps buff to 30 at long-rage, and give satchel rifle nade's range we gonna discuss it?
No we won't case such suggstions are taken from the moon.

The damage should be dropped to something like 280 or 300 so it wouldn't two shot basic medium tanks, this wouldn't really make them more or less effective against heavies but would give a greater chance of your mediums to survive against those units

Lowering the damage to 200 as some people said would be too low, it would take four shots to kill a basic medium tank and that means that a basic at gun will do the same job just as well

no

Gun caliber isn't the sole determining factor in a gun's effectiveness.

It is fine, the damage is what makes those units powerful.

...makes trying to assault these units extremely risky....
I would suggest lowering the damage....

This is where i got problems with this whole topic.

It's supposed to be risky, and you're supposed to (in worst case) throw away a cheap unit to get an expensive one. It's not just about trading manpower & fuel, in the long run you will also be able to regain the same tank way earlier than your opponent.

Example: throwing away some Sherman to get the Ele kill benefits you highly. You can rebuild it way earlier, and in the meanwhile the other ones reign with their doom of HE shells.
Worst case, you lose every single Sherman, and the enemy sits on some heavy TD with no purpose, just casually bleeding manpower.


All the units you mention got several things in common:

• only good for anti tank, and nothing (!) else. And even there only for extra support or against highly armored targets.
  
• stationary or super slow (snare & indirect fire anyone?)
  
• very pricy = you commit to a hard counter in your own punishing way. Which brings me to...
  
• needs support all the time. Unsupported heavy AT will lose against any two mediums easily, in a vacuum even vs. just one. You need a spotter or you can't make use of the range. You need support or you get screwed. You need to constantly repair or the enemy will shell it to death, overrun it with infantry, and so on...

IMHO: those units mentioned are pretty much in a sweet spot right now. You commit a lot to hard counter something the enemy may or may not build.
I would even go the other route, and suggest to buff them a little tiny bit.

The damage should be dropped to something like 280 or 300 so it wouldn't two shot basic medium tanks, this wouldn't really make them more or less effective against heavies but would give a greater chance of your mediums to survive against those units

Yeah, I guess you can also do something like that. It does feel a little artificial in my opinion though.

Lowering the damage to 200 as some people said would be too low, it would take four shots to kill a basic medium tank and that means that a basic at gun will do the same job just as well

In fairness, I don't think anyone has actually agreed with my proposition. So it is only really me who thinks it should be 200. I was trying to increase the rof such that the dps wasn't too badly affected, while simultaneously giving them extra range, so they would out range a normal AT gun (and obviously, they'd be a little hardier too).

Gun caliber isn't the sole determining factor in a gun's effectiveness.

Yeah, I know. But damage isn't the sole determining factor for a gun's effectiveness either. I think caliber and ammunition are probably the best predictors of post penetration damage. And most of the fancier ammunitions come after ww2 (to the best of my knowledge anyway).

This is where i got problems with this whole topic.

It's supposed to be risky, and you're supposed to (in worst case) throw away a cheap unit to get an expensive one. It's not just about trading manpower & fuel, in the long run you will also be able to regain the same tank way earlier than your opponent.

Think this is very good reply. Any changes on the damage should also be followed by changes to make this vehicle less vulnerable to being swarmed.

For instance by removing the stun for JT or increasing the mobility of these units...

SO if I propose Penals dps buff to 30 at long-rage, and give satchel rifle nade's range we gonna discuss it?

we probably not discuss it but I would try to explain to you that this change would make the unit OP. I would try to avoid cliches and "L2P noob" comments or "playcard pls" comments

playercard pls

This is where i got problems with this whole topic.

It's supposed to be risky, and you're supposed to (in worst case) throw away a cheap unit to get an expensive one. It's not just about trading manpower & fuel, in the long run you will also be able to regain the same tank way earlier than your opponent.

Thanks for honestly engaging in the topic.

I get that it is supposed to be risky. But in my opinion, the risk should be centered on a full engagement. Lots can go wrong when you do this (mines, shreck support, etc), but if you catch it off guard, you can kill that very large investment. My problem more lies around the fact that the large tank hunters also make feints and probing of defenses extremely dangerous too. I don't know about you, but those are the battles that I really enjoy, when each player is constantly trying to probe the others defenses, while countering their oppositions moves.

All the units you mention got several things in common:

• only good for anti tank, and nothing (!) else. And even there only for extra support or against highly armored targets.
  
• stationary or super slow (snare & indirect fire anyone?)
  
• very pricy = you commit to a hard counter in your own punishing way. Which brings me to...
  
• needs support all the time. Unsupported heavy AT will lose against any two mediums easily, in a vacuum even vs. just one. You need a spotter or you can't make use of the range. You need support or you get screwed. You need to constantly repair or the enemy will shell it to death, overrun it with infantry, and so on...

Yip, agreed with this whole list. I am not trying to change the units role.

IMHO: those units mentioned are pretty much in a sweet spot right now. You commit a lot to hard counter something the enemy may or may not build.
I would even go the other route, and suggest to buff them a little tiny bit.

So again, I am not trying to nerf the units. I tried to give them buffs that I thought would counter act the reduction in damage and still maintain and cement their role as heavy, dedicated, long range anti tank.

Think this is very good reply. Any changes on the damage should also be followed by changes to make this vehicle less vulnerable to being swarmed.

For instance by removing the stun for JT or increasing the mobility of these units...

Yeah, I hate that stun. I would definitely be in favour of getting rid of that if the unit could be balanced without it. Thats another example where it is technically balanced, but badly designed imo.

The Jagtiger Simply needs a range reduction to 70 like ALL other Heavy AT tanks.
The stun it gets only slows it down, gun isn't locked down, and it gets better movements abilities with vet.

I think dropping it to 250-300 damage would be a more fair approach than to simply drop them to 200. These are super heavy tanks and in 1v1s need to do a lot but the simply should stop all late game armor pushes.

The Jagtiger Simply needs a range reduction to 70 like ALL other Heavy AT tanks.
The stun it gets only slows it down, gun isn't locked down, and it gets better movements abilities with vet.

I think dropping it to 250-300 damage would be a more fair approach than to simply drop them to 200. These are super heavy tanks and in 1v1s need to do a lot but the simply should stop all late game armor pushes.

+1

The only change for heavies could be reducing JT range and removing crew shock.

As far as I know, there are 4 anti tank units that do 320 (Jagdtiger, Elefant, Pak43 88mm, 17 pounder). I think this amount of damage is excessive and is too punishing, especially for the low health Allied tanks. It doesn't give players enough time to react and makes trying to assault these units extremely risky. Having a Jackson 2 shotted, for example, is just depressing.

I would suggest lowering the damage, while compensating by increasing range and decreasing reload time. I realise this is risky. Giving these units extra range will allow them to sit further back in the lines, but at the same time, decreasing the upfront damage they do will allow allied players to feint and assess how assaults are going easier.


For example:

Jagdtiger:
Damage from 320 to 240. Range from 85 to 90. Reload from 8.55s to 7.5s.

Elefant:
Damage from 320 to 200 (edit). Range from 70 to 80. Reload from 8.5s to 6.2s.

Pak43 88mm: Damage from 320 to 200 (edit). Range from 80 to 95. Reload from 3.65s to 3s.

17 Pounder: Damage from 320 to 160 (this is only 76mm gun). Range from 80 to 95. Reload from 7.3s to 5s.

95 range lol. Someone didnt play the 100 range meta. i remember how fucking OP 100 range was. And if you're gonna say next "forget the range changes" you've just made these units 100% useless because they cannot move and dont shoot fast so I'd rather have a normal AT Gun than spend an extra load of manpower for something that has pretty much the same performance of a normal AT Gun because I can actually move it.

Also adding on top that all 4 of these units are rather easy to kill. Unless you're gonna say next increase their durability then we have Sim City from CoH1 back in CoH2.

In CoH1 the 17 lber had some fucking durability but didnt output that much of a punch but it was still scary to go up against because it was like throwing a pebble at the Great Wall of China.

The Flak 88 had some great punch output but could be killed somewhat easily by AT Guns which also made the Flak 88 scary as well.

So do we want to change something that doesnt need fixing? no, in fact this is one of the few things Relic has managed to balanced VERY well.

(there may be some exaggerations)