On behave of the Churchill's May Patch

https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/comment/245956/#Comment_245956

"
Churchill MK. VII Infantry Support Tank

Strategic Diversity

Developer Comments: We felt the Churchill costs too much for its current performance so we are reducing its cost.

• Cost reduced from 540 Manpower and 180 Fuel to 490 Manpower and 160 Fuel.
"

In terms of a more cheaper MP and Fuel, and that for this game the Churchill were classified as a heavy tank role in terms of it's armor, wouldn't it be a bit too difficult for the axis to take it out as the British players will use it's tanks to move forward? Cause me and my friends had tested that when the British pops out the Churchill, the OKW and the Osteer would still struggling to bring out their Panther. Is it a good idea to reduce the price?

And furthermore there's a chance of Churchill spam. Around 3 ~ 4 on the field?

https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/comment/245956/#Comment_245956

"
Churchill MK. VII Infantry Support Tank

Strategic Diversity

Developer Comments: We felt the Churchill costs too much for its current performance so we are reducing its cost.

• Cost reduced from 540 Manpower and 180 Fuel to 490 Manpower and 160 Fuel.
"

In terms of a more cheaper MP and Fuel, and that for this game the Churchill were classified as a heavy tank role in terms of it's armor, wouldn't it be a bit too difficult for the axis to take it out as the British players will use it's tanks to move forward? Cause me and my friends had tested that when the British pops out the Churchill, the OKW and the Osteer would still struggling to bring out their Panther. Is it a good idea to reduce the price?

And furthermore there's a chance of Churchill spam. Around 3 ~ 4 on the field?

The Churchill needs a front, armour buff (and a small HP nerf), and a utility buff. Reducing the price of a slow-moving veterancy-feeder, will still make it behave like a slow-moving veterancy-feeder. Even UP medium tanks (e.g., T-34) are occasionally useful when they manage to pull off a flank on juicy targets (e.g., a Panzerwerfer farm).

However, my gut feeling is that you haven't really played the May Balance Preview patch.

If you would have played the balance preview patch, you would have noticed that the cost of the Churchill has remained the same, despite the note in the changelog.

Panther is not really a good counter to Churchill since it has too much penetration and too little ROF. Stugs or JP work better.

The problem with Churchill is that they can return to field to fast due to fast repairs and that it provides little to infantry as support.

Imo it should have a toggle ability that would reduce speed but negate the cover penalties of infantries around it or even provide light cover.

https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/241794/redesigning-ukf#latest

Is it a good idea to reduce the price?

Yes, because its performance is nowhere close to 180 fuel vehicle.

And furthermore there's a chance of Churchill spam. Around 3 ~ 4 on the field?

It wasn't effective when it had 1600hp and 150 fuel price, it won't be effective now.

I was expecting for an armour buff and probably a buff for the 'fart' smoke ability (Probably make it move a litle bit faster while farting would be nice) rather than a price decrease since it's a heavy tank after all.

The last time I ever used the Churchill was actually a miss-click in research. I really like the Churchill + Firefly combo but the Churchill just kinda meh right now.

LOL nobody ever uses this tank anyway, and now we're talking about spam after a slight cost reduction? Get real.

The Churchill really needed the cost decrease. Seeing and pulling off Comet spam 24/7 was boring. What the Churchill suffered from additionally is the possibility to have the same vehicle + Flamethrower in some doctrines.

Nevertheless the Ostheer Panther also needed something. It´s incredible niche for the cost. A Panzer IV and especially a StuG have way more damage output in any realistic scenario due to sufficient penetration and better rate of fire. This isn´t going to be fixed by cheaper T4.

The Churchill really needed the cost decrease. Seeing and pulling off Comet spam 24/7 was boring. What the Churchill suffered from additionally is the possibility to have the same vehicle + Flamethrower in some doctrines.

Nevertheless the Ostheer Panther also needed something. It´s incredible niche for the cost. A Panzer IV and especially a StuG have way more damage output in any realistic scenario due to sufficient penetration and better rate of fire. This isn´t going to be fixed by cheaper T4.

In realistic scenario, I would choose Panther over Panzer IV or Stug. Better weapon range, better health, superior armor with rotatable turret. Especially when I have to fight with the Churchill.
But it's not topic about Panther so let it slide.

I like both churchill and comet. Comet seems great because it can counter everything, but a Churchill with two atgun backup is even more threatening. And if axis forget to retreat their atgun, a well thrown grenade from Churchill will quickly dislodge and give brit player free atgun to use.

Buff front armor of Churchill, reduce health to 800. Reduces vet feed while promoting flanking. the main gun isn't that good and by the time it hits the field, the panther rolls out 1 min~ later with a direct counter to it unless you have AT guns.

I think giving it that high armor value allows the brits a pushing tool that soaks up shots and allows other units to crawl in behind it. Using the smoke canisters on it would simply cover an infantry push in a perfect world. Currently you simply cant do this as you feed the pak and shrek wall followed by stun rounds.

The cost change simply isnt needed as a better performing unit would be more welcoming.


EDIT: Also if you had 3~5 of them, do you know how long it would take to repair all that lol??

Some people think a Churchill doesn't melt fast enough to the Panther's gun? Yeah, sorry, sometimes even an allied tank should be able to survive against Krupp steel (What heresy! What hubris!) What the hell do you think a Churchill should do? Does it have speed? A good gun? No? Good. Keep calm and if you have a Panther, farm the Churchill for vet until you hit the best vet2 bonus in the entire game, bar none.

Nevertheless the Ostheer Panther also needed something. It´s incredible niche for the cost. A Panzer IV and especially a StuG have way more damage output in any realistic scenario due to sufficient penetration and better rate of fire. This isn´t going to be fixed by cheaper T4.

It's not the P5's fault it was stuck at the top of the most linear teching tree in the game in a relatively useless tier. I think more accessible T4 is the way to go, actually. At any rate I wouldn't call the Panther an incredible niche, it's probably the best tank in the game. The Panther's strength lies in the fact there is literally not a tank in the game that can handle it 1v1 except maybe a hyper-expensive call-in, and if both tanks are supported, well, guess which faction has the better AT support.

The P5 outranges Churchills (and mediums), if both are unsupported you can't use the range advantage, but you're doing it wrong.

It can also react to flanks, and has a good enough armour and health pool to react and tie down an opponent until other AT support (of which Ostheer and OKW have plenty) can arrive.
It can close the distance to Jacksons, Fireflies and SUs easily if unsupported (again, if both are supported, you still have the upper hand).

The fact that the StuG happens to be insanely good against armour does not warrant a Panther buff. The fact the Panther overpenetrates (as someone else stated in the thread) is also not magically a downside that warrants a buff. Faction strengths cannot be listed as weaknesses in order to justify buffs, that's not how it works.

Any Panther buffs would completely destroy teamgame meta starting from 2v2s onward. I realize this is not important to some people.

Buff front armor of Churchill, reduce health to 800. Reduces vet feed while promoting flanking. the main gun isn't that good and by the time it hits the field, the panther rolls out 1 min~ later with a direct counter to it unless you have AT guns.

I think giving it that high armor value allows the brits a pushing tool that soaks up shots and allows other units to crawl in behind it. Using the smoke canisters on it would simply cover an infantry push in a perfect world. Currently you simply cant do this as you feed the pak and shrek wall followed by stun rounds.

The cost change simply isnt needed as a better performing unit would be more welcoming.


EDIT: Also if you had 3~5 of them, do you know how long it would take to repair all that lol??

Its not supposed to be auto deleted when there is ele, panther or JT on field.

If you think its hard to kill now you obviously didn't play Brits at launch when you needed a small army of PAKs to just force it off let alone kill it. You could just YOLO into PAK walls lob off a nuclear nade and then putter back in reverse with more or less impunity.

+1 to Mr. Smith - all this change does it make the Churchill less unappealing. Only reason to go for Anvil next patch is to make use of the buffed Arty flares (especially if Relic gets off their ass and fixes the bugged Advanced Warning)

In realistic scenario, I would choose Panther over Panzer IV or Stug. Better weapon range, better health, superior armor with rotatable turret...

DPS
Panther vs Churchill 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.0 19.0 15.3
Stug Vs Churchill 31.4 30.4 29.5 28.5 27.6 26.7

Stug has allot more DPS than the Panther VS Churchill.

It is also cheaper has the same range and is fast enough to fight the Churchill. I would call it a more cost efficient vehicle when facing a Churchill.

DPS
Panther vs Churchill 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.0 19.0 15.3
Stug Vs Churchill 31.4 30.4 29.5 28.5 27.6 26.7

Stug has allot more DPS than the Panther VS Churchill.

It is also cheaper has the same range and is fast enough to fight the Churchill. I would call it a more cost efficient vehicles when it come to fighting Churchill.

Simply bring in one atgun on both sides which I mention on my post, would you still choose stug for the job?

There is no 1 unit vs 1 unit on the field, and even if it does, Churchill can gain upper hand as soon as true sight is involved.

Buff front armor of Churchill, reduce health to 800.

There are a ton of things on the field by the lategame that completely ignore armour. Thus a 800HP thing with 4 speed will be instantly deletable by:
- Paks (critical shot ignores armour)
- Stugs (critical shot ignores armour)-- Even Stug-E!!
- Elefants/JT/Pak43 (need I say no more?)
- Schreck deflection damage
- LeFH spam
- JU87 loiter (the higher the armour, the higher the chance for a ridiculous deflection critical)
- Sturmtiger (In fact, Sturmtiger will hardcounter a Churchill regardless of the HP, due to the ridiculous crits it gives to surviving tanks).

Plus, something with 4 speed is so trivially flank-able it will melt in under 5 seconds. That's not enough time to give glasscannons the opportunity to punish the enemy. (unless we are thinking of buffing Firefly RoF to Krupp-melting levels).

Firesparks has had the best proposal to date:

310 armour (panther)
1280 HP (King tiger)
Lower penetration
(perhaps) reduce/remove speed penalty with smoke screen
(keep price to a similar level)

Simply bring in one atgun on both sides which I mention on my post, would you still choose stug for the job?

There is no 1 unit vs 1 unit on the field, and even if it does, Churchill can gain upper hand as soon as true sight is involved.

You can have 2 StuGs for the cost of 1 panther.

And yes, even with AT gun involved, StuGs still outperform panther against churchill by a long shot.

Churchill is an INFANTRY SUPPORT TANK. Let me say that again. INFANTRY SUPPORT TANK. Not a heavy tank, not a jack of all trades medium tank, not a TD, an INFANTRY SUPPORT TANK. Its weaknesses are TDs.

FF is a tank destroyer. Its weaknesses are ATGs and hand-held AT or other TDs with faster ROF.

These two units cover each other's weaknesses. Use them together.

I see the Churchill + FF combo the same way I see the panther + brummbarr combo. Dedicated AT + Dedicated AI t4 vehicles.

Brits in the end have better repairing which makes the Churchill sponge strat viable.

You can have 2 StuGs for the cost of 1 panther.

And yes, even with AT gun involved, StuGs still outperform panther against churchill by a long shot.

1. Again, this is not topic about stug vs panther.
2. Two stugs are extremely terrible with pathfinding. On paper, yes, they outperform panther, but in reality, you will start to see two stug blocking each other path as soon as Churchill pull back. With an atgun involved, stug will never charge forward, while with panther it's different story.

You can have 2 StuGs for the cost of 1 panther.

And yes, even with AT gun involved, StuGs still outperform panther against churchill by a long shot.

I can agree with this statement as an Allied player.

Having StuGs against tanks like a Churchill are effective. Even though the assault gun has less armor, its cheap enough to allow multiple tanks like 2-3 which cannot be achieved with a Panther unless that person has enough popcap or enough fuel. The StuG is cheap enough and can perform better dps than the Panther in terms of firepower. Yes, it doesn't have the armor that people want to have against a Churchill, but when it is supported by an AT gun at the rear while there is a 222 with a spotting scope you have a very dangerous tank hunter group against the Churchill.

Churchill is an INFANTRY SUPPORT TANK. Let me say that again. INFANTRY SUPPORT TANK. Not a heavy tank, not a jack of all trades medium tank, not a TD, an INFANTRY SUPPORT TANK. Its weaknesses are TDs.

FF is a tank destroyer. Its weaknesses are ATGs and hand-held AT or other TDs with faster ROF.

These two units cover each other's weaknesses. Use them together.

I see the Churchill + FF combo the same way I see the panther + brummbarr combo. Dedicated AT + Dedicated AI t4 vehicles.

Brits in the end have better repairing which makes the Churchill sponge strat viable.

+1