Let's Talk: Sd.Kfz. 222
Posts: 213
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.
Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 2066
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 2075 | Subs: 2
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.
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.
Posts: 2742
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.
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...
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
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.
Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1
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.
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.
Posts: 2742
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.
Posts: 2742
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.
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
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.
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
Livestreams
26 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 | |||||
18 | |||||
5 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.939410.696+5
- 4.35459.857-1
- 5.599234.719+7
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
11 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, xewiy33830
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM