Login

russian armor

Let's Talk: Sd.Kfz. 222

2 Aug 2016, 09:59 AM
#41
avatar of Crumbum

Posts: 213

Why are people making out like the 222 is godlike? The mg should be fixed and the health lowered slightly as the performance is too good for its cost.

T70s, aecs, stuarts, captain zook, guards etc all negate the presence of the 222 and arrive only shortly after the 222 hits the field unless it was rushed.

The damage of the 222 isn't even that great the cannons is inaccurate as all hell but obviously it can still do ok even if its inconsistent.
2 Aug 2016, 10:20 AM
#42
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7

Giving 222 armor of puma, better AOE or accuraccy so it can either be sniper vehicle or AOE type, its up to you, increasing cost to 60 fuel and locking it behind batlle phase 2 (so you have to buy BP2 and tier 2) is a way to give ostheer good "light tank". Also increasing penetration just a litlle bit can be good.

Then give ostheer 222 (with mg only) into tier 2 without any aditional tech at cost of 15 fuel and 190 mp. It vet 1 bonus will be incendiary rounds so it can fight its scout cars counterparts if it manage to get vet 1.

What do you think ?
2 Aug 2016, 10:22 AM
#43
avatar of Crumbum

Posts: 213

Giving 222 armor of puma, better AOE or accuraccy so it can either be sniper vehicle or AOE type, its up to you, increasing cost to 60 fuel and locking it behind batlle phase 2 (so you have to buy BP2 and tier 2) is a way to give ostheer good "light tank". Also increasing penetration just a litlle bit can be good.

Then give ostheer 222 (with mg only) into tier 2 without any aditional tech at cost of 15 fuel and 190 mp. It vet 1 bonus will be incendiary rounds so it can fight its scout cars counterparts if it manage to get vet 1.

What do you think ?


That's pretty unnecessary tbh, you might aswell give them a light tank. Which I why I'm #teampanzer 3.
2 Aug 2016, 10:37 AM
#44
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

Giving 222 armor of puma, better AOE or accuraccy so it can either be sniper vehicle or AOE type, its up to you, increasing cost to 60 fuel and locking it behind batlle phase 2 (so you have to buy BP2 and tier 2) is a way to give ostheer good "light tank". Also increasing penetration just a litlle bit can be good.

Then give ostheer 222 (with mg only) into tier 2 without any aditional tech at cost of 15 fuel and 190 mp. It vet 1 bonus will be incendiary rounds so it can fight its scout cars counterparts if it manage to get vet 1.

What do you think ?


the biggest reason to buy a 222 is to have a vehicle against the stuart, t70, or AEC.

improving the armor(unless it's to medium tank level), machine gun accuracy, or AOE wouldn't improve the 222's effectiveness against vehicle.

Miragefla and your suggestion of improving the 222's machine gun ignore the most important reason why the wehr even buy the 222. In a game where all three allies faction and the okw have access to light tank, wehr is stuck with an eztaz light tank.

trying to buff the 222's anti-infantry capability and make it more expensive would just turn it from an extremely cost effective vehicle hunter into a mediocre generalist vehicle.

Also remember that USF have bazooka and the soviet have guards. Both of those would turn away even the luch pretty quickly. It's not a big issue with 222 currently because people buy them as defense against light vehicle and the odd target of opportunity, but if the 222 got an "improvement" and cost raise it's going to matter.

the current 222 is cost effective enough against vehicle to make it a worth while counter against allied light tank rush, while weak enough against infantry that rifleman and conscript repel them effectively.




USF: Stuart to also only splash 1-2 models max to prevent random wipes in yellow cover or coming around corners also reinforces its role as being more geared to fighting vehicles with some AI. Maybe tweak shell-shock vs other lights so it's not outright death. Fix USF superglue being ridiculous due to it having barely any cost or delay. Possibly raise the cost and research of Captain tech back to 70 for a greater difference between LT and CPT and give USF lower tech cost for back-teching if a Major tech is activated so they're not screwed out of MGs or ATGs.



the stuart isn't even that great against infantry. I would say that it's actually merely "decent". the stuart's greatest strength is its flexibility against infantry, vehicle, and tank. The puma is a better anti-vehicle unit, and the t70 is a better infantry muncher, but the Stuart is decent at both.
2 Aug 2016, 11:19 AM
#46
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



trying to buff the 222's anti-infantry capability and make it more expensive would just turn it from an extremely cost effective vehicle hunter into a mediocre generalist vehicle.

Except, 222 is way over performing for cost effectiveness as it is, being able to beat much more expensive vehicles. Look at greyhound alone, 222 rips it apart effortlessly and look at the cost disparity there.
222 as it is at the moment SHOULD be more expensive.
It might just as well get something more with that.

Also remember that USF have bazooka and the soviet have guards. Both of those would turn away even the luch pretty quickly. It's not a big issue with 222 currently because people buy them as defense against light vehicle and the odd target of opportunity, but if the 222 got an "improvement" and cost raise it's going to matter.

No one is picking zookas in early game, because its a waste. Guards are doctrinal and won't be there always, plus we've already been at place where you had to get guards ASAP to counter ost vehicles or it costed you the game right at the very release. That was hardly a healthy meta.

the current 222 is cost effective enough against vehicle to make it a worth while counter against allied light tank rush, while weak enough against infantry that rifleman and conscript repel them effectively.

Please, compare tech costs and unit costs of 222 and the vehicles it counters.
You don't need to be math genius to tell that something is very off here since 222 got 320hp total.
222 overperforms greatly 40-50 fuel lights for the cost and easily overperforms cost effectiveness of all other scout cars, puma included.
2 Aug 2016, 11:25 AM
#47
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

All those people that want a Panzer III for Ostheer. You know that if Relic even considers it, they will put it in an over the top overpowered commander that needs to sell for at least 30-60 days before slightly nerfing it for another rampage of 30-40 days before finally putting it in its place.

No thanks. I rather have them fix Ostheer with its current units. Either swap the Puma from the panic puma doctrine with the 222 and make it into a double 222 call in for 40 ish fuel, or fix the 222 so that it doesn't die to small arms fire and up its price accordingly.

Edit: You can also make the Ostheer HT more potent, but they need something so that they can survive the early game without an uphill battle from the start.
2 Aug 2016, 12:48 PM
#48
avatar of Zyllen

Posts: 770

Nonsense


Your first mistake is to compare the 222 with the greyhound. that is just as ridiculous as comparing a stug with the ostwind then complain that the stug wins.

And the second mistake is that you are over blowing the effectiveness of the 222. against AA tracks and light tanks the 222 needs to either flank or have support to win.
2 Aug 2016, 12:49 PM
#49
avatar of RiCE

Posts: 284


No one is picking zookas in early game, because its a waste. Guards are doctrinal and won't be there always, plus we've already been at place where you had to get guards ASAP to counter ost vehicles or it costed you the game right at the very release. That was hardly a healthy meta.


How can something be a waste, when you need it for countering a vehicle? Thinking Bazooka like this is actually the old meta. You always praised panzerfaust to the skies, how come an 50MU AT weapon is a waste now?


Please, compare tech costs and unit costs of 222 and the vehicles it counters.
You don't need to be math genius to tell that something is very off here since 222 got 320hp total.
222 overperforms greatly 40-50 fuel lights for the cost and easily overperforms cost effectiveness of all other scout cars, puma included.


I would argue with how it exceeds the pumas performance. Overall i think the 222s performance is good now, but it should be 25FU.
2 Aug 2016, 14:02 PM
#50
avatar of Budwise
Admin Red  Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2075 | Subs: 2

When playing allies in 2v2's and I see a 222 I'm happy to see free vet coming. I usually have a quad and it outranges and literally melts 222's. Unless you over extend badly you should never lose a vehicle to a 222. It really is a pretty meh unit imo, can only be used defensively or maybe to rush a sniper, but thats about it. Sure its good at diving lategame katy's but so is anything else. I remember watching a stream a week or so ago where 4-5 222's rushed 1 Guard squad and surrounded it. Nobody damaged anybody because the Guard was pushed around but the 222's just flopped around like fish out of water doing fuck all. It was pretty hilarious to watch.

What I'd love to see is the ability to upgun it for a cost to a more AT oriented role or a better performing AI role. Yes! Bring back a choice! Right now it does both pretty poorly. Prices would need adjustment of course but for god sakes Ost needs a real midgame light vehicle not this oversized Jeep.
2 Aug 2016, 14:09 PM
#51
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

When playing allies in 2v2's and I see a 222 I'm happy to see free vet coming. I usually have a quad and it outranges and literally melts 222's. Unless you over extend badly you should never lose a vehicle to a 222. It really is a pretty meh unit imo, can only be used defensively or maybe to rush a sniper, but thats about it. Sure its good at diving lategame katy's but so is anything else. I remember watching a stream a week or so ago where 4-5 222's rushed 1 Guard squad and surrounded it. Nobody damaged anybody because the Guard was pushed around but the 222's just flopped around like fish out of water doing fuck all. It was pretty hilarious to watch.

What I'd love to see is the ability to upgun it for a cost to a more AT oriented role or a better performing AI role. Yes! Bring back a choice! Right now it does both pretty poorly. Prices would need adjustment of course but for god sakes Ost needs a real midgame light vehicle not this oversized Jeep.


+1. dunno about 1v1 that much but i never found 222 to be too overbearing. 15 fuel is ridiculously cheap but its more like "eh, its still not a problem" kinda thing.

also +2 to options stated above.
2 Aug 2016, 14:18 PM
#52
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

It's almost as if the faction design of CoH1's Wehrmacht was utterly superior...

Anyway, the 222 never needed 320 health.

I would much rather see it exchange 40 (or even 80) health for more armor, something to the effect of the 251 halftrack.

Giving the 2mm munitions upgrade back would be nice, and (sorta) side steps the MG bug until the 2mm is upgraded, not to mention putting weight on the resource Ostheer is usually starved for: munis.

It's almost kinda jarring how much AI power is lost with the 2mm. It's MG without the 2mm turret is surprisingly powerful.
2 Aug 2016, 14:34 PM
#53
avatar of RiCE

Posts: 284

It's almost as if the faction design of CoH1's Wehrmacht was utterly superior...

Anyway, the 222 never needed 320 health.

I would much rather see it exchange 40 (or even 80) health for more armor, something to the effect of the 251 halftrack.

Giving the 2mm munitions upgrade back would be nice, and (sorta) side steps the MG bug until the 2mm is upgraded, not to mention putting weight on the resource Ostheer is usually starved for: munis.

It's almost kinda jarring how much AI power is lost with the 2mm. It's MG without the 2mm turret is surprisingly powerful.


I think what this unit always needed is the HP buff. The whole vehicle has such a short lifetime, without the HP it has now, no one would ever bother to build it.

I think either a 25FU price or the optional gun upgrade for munition would put this vehicle to the right place.

Change the penetration of the stock gun to 1, and when 50 MU spent on the upgrade increase its penetration to 35. Thats all...
2 Aug 2016, 14:36 PM
#54
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Aug 2016, 14:34 PMRiCE


I think what this unit always needed is the HP buff. The whole vehicle has such a short lifetime, without the HP it has now, no one would ever bother to build it.

M3, WC51, M8 and M20 cry in the corner.

I think either a 25FU price or the optional gun upgrade for munition would put this vehicle to the right place.

Fuel increase is better option, we just dealt with muni starvation for ost.
2 Aug 2016, 14:53 PM
#55
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1

I am hesitant to make any changes to Ost that weaken early game in the slightest right now. 222 is very cost effective and needs to be adjusted but it needs to come with the faction as a whole. As Budwise said, adding in an upgrade option would make this unit more interesting and would add a better role for true light vehicle play. Obviously bug with MG not firing at almost anything needs to be addressed.

It would even be interesting to give it the ability to cap points, and require and upgrade to the 20mm, giving Ost a way to try to retake lost ground quickly while setting up defensively with infantry. Cost of course would need to reflect this.
2 Aug 2016, 14:59 PM
#56
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

Giving the 2mm munitions upgrade back would be nice, and (sorta) side steps the MG bug until the 2mm is upgraded, not to mention putting weight on the resource Ostheer is usually starved for: munis.

It's almost kinda jarring how much AI power is lost with the 2mm. It's MG without the 2mm turret is surprisingly powerful.

You mean the bug didn't happen without the 2cm? Because the MG is definitely still there with a 2cm.
2 Aug 2016, 15:00 PM
#57
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Aug 2016, 14:34 PMRiCE


I think what this unit always needed is the HP buff. The whole vehicle has such a short lifetime, without the HP it has now, no one would ever bother to build it.


It needed a buff for sure, especially from the 200 health it once had, which I think was put to 240 before 320. (Although I don't remember if the 240 health was just a mod I made.) I still think the ideal situation would be 280 health and more halftrack-like armor.

The reason I felt it needed armor is because despite the size of its health pool, it could never avoid being damaged. And currently, everything is still a threat to a 222, it just has more time to take damage. Armor would mean the 222 has a chance of avoiding damage at long(er) ranges, which I find important in an ostensibly scouting vehicle.
2 Aug 2016, 15:02 PM
#58
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Aug 2016, 14:59 PMVuther

You mean the bug didn't happen without the 2cm? Because the MG is definitely still there with a 2cm.


I guess it is still there, there's just an MG gunner instead of a 2cm turret. I'm not actually sure now if that's in addition to, or instead of, the hull MG.

Point is, there's at least one functional MG without the 2cm, and it's actually pretty nice against infantry.
2 Aug 2016, 15:06 PM
#59
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Can we focus on bug fixing/QoL changes first?

As i said before, the unit is supposed to cost 230/20. Imagine if Penals were left with their current performance and they used an old build on next patch and put them at 270mp instead of 300mp. Everyone would cry here and some people would argue that their perf is needed to make T1 relevant at all and any change should only be done with a proper revamp of the tier.

Continuing with the same example, imagine if the flamer only shoot 25% of the time because "reasons". That's how it feels when the 222 MG is not firing.

If the units (specially fuel) cost should go around 20/30 with it's current stats or should it see furthers changes it's up to debate.
2 Aug 2016, 15:13 PM
#60
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1



I guess it is still there, there's just an MG gunner instead of a 2cm turret. I'm not actually sure now if that's in addition to, or instead of, the hull MG.

Point is, there's at least one functional MG without the 2cm, and it's actually pretty nice against infantry.

But my point is there's still an MG with the 2cm as well. Pretty sure it was the exact same gun. The 221 -> 222 upgrade was always an AV upgrade with no cost opportunity aside from munitions - the 2cm can't really hit infantry, but the MG is intact and vehicle maintains the same effectiveness versus infantry.

But I think I figured what you meant on sidestepping the bug thing, but that would depend on whether the old 221's MG's stats are distinct from the 222's, which I certainly couldn't say if it was. The MG definitely fires out of the turret of both vehicles, though.

Can we focus on bug fixing/QoL changes first?

As i said before, the unit is supposed to cost 230/20. Imagine if Penals were left with their current performance and they used an old build on next patch and put them at 270mp instead of 300mp. Everyone would cry here and some people would argue that their perf is needed to make T1 relevant at all and any change should only be done with a proper revamp of the tier.

Continuing with the same example, imagine if the flamer only shoot 25% of the time because "reasons". That's how it feels when the 222 MG is not firing.

If the units (specially fuel) cost should go around 20/30 with it's current stats or should it see furthers changes it's up to debate.

That. Bugs are baaaaaaaaadddddddddddddd
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

701 users are online: 701 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49062
Welcome our newest member, Mclatc16
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM