Panzerwerfer sound/tier

Bunkers? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

4v4 player identified and disregarded.

Doctrinal indirect fire options:

Sov:
-120mm Mortar
-Howitzer

Ost:
-MHT
-Howitzer

Result: Balanced.

Nondoctrinal indirect fire options at 3 tiers:

Sov:
-82mm Mortar
-ZiS Barrage
-SU76 Barrage
-Katyusha

Ost:
-81mm Mortar

Result: Not balanced.

Doctrinal indirect fire options:

Sov:
-120mm Mortar
-Howitzer

Ost:
-MHT
-Howitzer

Result: Balanced.

Nondoctrinal indirect fire options at 3 tiers:

Sov:
-82mm Mortar
-ZiS Barrage
-SU76 Barrage
-Katyusha

Ost:
-81mm Mortar

Result: Not balanced.

@Marxist: I talk about indirect fire options, you talk about bunkers. Gj, kid.

@Corp Shephard: The analysis above includes doctrinals since that seemed to rustle you, though I accounted for them in my last post. Whats your next irrelevant counterargument?

Katyusha is T4, and as stated the ZiS/Su 76 Barrages are low firing abilities with not great range and generally hit buildings/hedges before hitting their target.

I dunno, my "irrelevant point" is asking you to maybe actually responding to my post rather than creating a list and then just pointing at it and saying "WOW LOOK! THERE ARE DIFFERENT ENTRIES!"

It's clear that we don't understand your brilliance. Why not talk through why is is a problem?

Also what is "indirect fire" in your terms? Because the ZiS-3 and the SU-76 fire isn't indirect. As I just posted.

@Marxist: I talk about indirect fire options, you talk about bunkers. Gj, kid.

Which is why Soviets need earlier indirect fire options, kiddo.


Your argument is the only thing ridiculous here.

@VRL: Sov tier is calculated according to how many buildings you build. It is not a linear progression as is Sovs. You CAN build Katyushas by Sov T3. At equivalent tier, Ost can build only 81mm Mortar.

@Marxist: Bunkers are non-existant in 1v1 meta. Disregarded. Go back to 4v4.

@Shephard: "Indirect fire is aiming and firing a projectile without relying on a direct line of sight between the gun and its target, as in the case of direct fire. Aiming is performed by calculating azimuth and elevation angles, and may include correcting aim by observing the fall of shot and calculating new angles." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_fire

Both Barrages are indirect because A) They can be fired without relying on direct line of sight B) They are fired in a parabolic trajectory which can pass over obstacles, depending on line of fire.

I understand the definition of indirect fire. My point was that there is a disparity in the definition and the implementation for these two units: the ZiS-3 and the SU-76.

You do not need to see the target with these two units but realistically you do need a clear "line of sight".

For instance if you tried to barrage an Elephant with these powers you would almost always get shot at because there exists very little terrain that doesn't block the shot. An extreme example but whatever.

The ZiS-3/SU-76 thing is a tangent in the end.

I think your original point was that Ostheer lack to the tools to bust entrenched positions without flanking or higher tech than T3.

I don't really see the problem with this though. The Soviet tools for entrenchment are the ZiS-3, the Maxim and the SU-85. All of these units are very vulnerable without each other (maybe less so with the Maxim, heh). You can exploit their immobility and get more map control and thus extend the game until you unlock a viable artillery counter.

Alternatively you can fight two of their entrenchment tools, the ZiS-3 and the Maxim, with your mortars. The Mortar Haltrack will always kill a ZiS-3 with a direct hit from an incendiary barrage. The improved 81mm can also put significant pressure on these units.

You should not look at the other side's tools when evaluating your problems. The grass on the other side is always greener until you move over and realize you've lost access to the superior main-battle tanks and whatnot.

One of my original points is that the game moves in "phases" where one side has an advantage. Dealing with mid-game tier 4 Soviet strategy could be a hard fight for the Germans but if you can survive and get up Howitzers/an Elephant then you have the advantage in that fight now. Now he's on the back foot until he finds a way to counter those units.

Having the Panzerwerfer at Tier 3 would give Ostheer too much against this strategy and make the Ostwind utterly pointless in it's new position. It is not a great solution.

@VRL: Sov tier is calculated according to how many buildings you build. It is not a linear progression as is Sovs. You CAN build Katyushas by Sov T3. At equivalent tier, Ost can build only 81mm Mortar.

Ost doesn't have to build every building either. So you can get Pwerfers by tier 3, according to your laughable logic.

@Marxist: Bunkers are non-existant in 1v1 meta. Disregarded. Go back to 4v4.

Acting like they don't exist is intellectually dishonest and exemplifies just how weak your argument really is. Keep reaching.

All your options are doctrinal and therefore irrelevant, since they have counterparts also in Sov doctrines (equalled out both quantitatively and qualitatively by 120mm Mortar and Sov Howitzer).

Ost indirect fire is limited to ONE unit, upto and including T3:

-81mm Mortar.

Thats it.

Doctrines are obviously relevant. If you have a problem with the lack of indirect fire you *can* pick a doctrine to give you more indirect fire staying in T-3. Hence, you don't need to wreck Ostwinds and T-4's usefulness to solve a problem that isn't really the one Ostheer players are having (that one being the SU-85 of doom).

@Shephard: None of that refutes a massive imbalance in indirect fire options (no matter how you semantically define that term) between Ost and Sov at equivalent tier and timing.

@Marxist: Ost has to tech linearly. The correct comparison of tierage is number of buildings invested + Osts battlephase cost/time. Even if Ost skips buildings to Panzerwerfer, it still has 2 less indirect fire options in the interim. This is a substantial enough disparity to need attention. I do not disregard the existance of Bunkers, but your implication that the disparity exists to counter Bunkers, is flawed. A) Because nobody builds bunkers in 1v1 B) Because its comparing apples and oranges, as you typically do. You try to derail relevant and founded concerns on one issue by, falsely, implying they are somehow counteracted by something entirely unrelated. Using your logic, I could say that:Bunkers are fine because Pios cant Demopack, therefore Ost indirect fire options are too few. See? Makes no goddam sense. Try again, fanboi.

@Blovski: Doctrine indirect fire options are included in the second updated list. You must have missed that before you clung to that as if it where relevant. Which it isnt. Because as the updated list clearly indicates, both Factions have two Doctrinal indirect fire options, meaning there is no balance disparity in terms of doctrinal indirect fire options, meaning you either deliberstely or accidentally failed to grasp that the issue is non-doctrinal indirect fire option disparity. I would have thought this distinction was obvious and elementary. You furthermore try to somehow extend the discussion to SU85s, Ostwinds or T4s usefulness, which are, again, all irrelevant to the main argument/issue, whixh is that Sov/Ost indirect fire options at T3 are in imbalanced disparity.

Nothing any of you have said has refuted, explained or resolved the objective disparity in indirect fire options between the factions at T3 and timing. Youve tried to argue the semantics of the term "indirect fire", argue that Bunkers have anything to do with it, irrelevantly bring SU85 into the discussion and other assorted derailing and nonsensical waffle.

Fact remains that at T3 timing, Ost has 3 (THREE) less indirect fire options, than Sov.
Until T4, Ost has 1 (ONE) indirect fire option.
Doctrinals are fine, balanced and equal. 2 for both factions. This is about non-doctrinal indirect fire options at T3.

I expect replies to restrict themselves to the issue at hand, as outlined above.

@Shephard: None of that refutes a massive imbalance in indirect fire options (no matter how you semantically define that term) between Ost and Sov at equivalent tier and timing.

@Marxist: Ost has to tech linearly. The correct comparison of tierage is number of buildings invested + Osts battlephase cost/time. Even if Ost skips buildings to Panzerwerfer, it still has 2 less indirect fire options in the interim. This is a substantial enough disparity to need attention. I do not disregard the existance of Bunkers, but your implication that the disparity exists to counter Bunkers, is flawed. A) Because nobody builds bunkers in 1v1 B) Because its comparing apples and oranges, as you typically do. You try to derail relevant and founded concerns on one issue by, falsely, implying they are somehow counteracted by something entirely unrelated. Using your logic, I could say that:Bunkers are fine because Pios cant Demopack, therefore Ost indirect fire options are too few. See? Makes no goddam sense. Try again, fanboi.

@Blovski: Doctrine indirect fire options are included in the second updated list. You must have missed that before you clung to that as if it where relevant. Which it isnt. Because as the updated list clearly indicates, both Factions have two Doctrinal indirect fire options, meaning there is no balance disparity in terms of doctrinal indirect fire options, meaning you either deliberstely or accidentally failed to grasp that the issue is non-doctrinal indirect fire option disparity. I would have thought this distinction was obvious and elementary. You furthermore try to somehow extend the discussion to SU85s, Ostwinds or T4s usefulness, which are, again, all irrelevant to the main argument/issue, whixh is that Sov/Ost indirect fire options at T3 are in imbalanced disparity.

Nothing any of you have said has refuted, explained or resolved the objective disparity in indirect fire options between the factions at T3 and timing. Youve tried to argue the semantics of the term "indirect fire", argue that Bunkers have anything to do with it, irrelevantly bring SU85 into the discussion and other assorted derailing and nonsensical waffle.

Fact remains that at T3 timing, Ost has 3 (THREE) less indirect fire options, than Sov.
Until T4, Ost has 1 (ONE) indirect fire option.
Doctrinals are fine, balanced and equal. 2 for both factions. This is about non-doctrinal indirect fire options at T3.

I expect replies to restrict themselves to the issue at hand, as outlined above.

The point you're wilfully missing on doctrinal options by your numeric equivalency stuff is that Ostheer players can get mobile or heavy artillery without teching to T-4.

If you suggest changing the Ostwind and German T-4 to fix the perceived problem of a lack of German T-3 artillery, then the effect of changing that on the usefulness of those units is obviously pertinent to the discussion.

As you know perfectly well, the people mentioning other things are suggesting that the nature of the asymmetrically balanced game is such that the disparity in indirect fire options at Tier 3 isn't a big enough deal to merit the changes you argue for.

Doctrinal indirect fire options are fine, and are not the issue of discussion.
Howwver since this does not yet seem evident and obvious enough in and of itself, I will elaborate as to "why" they are not relevant.

Both factions carry 2 indirect fire doctrinal options. They are asymetrically balanced, and quantitavely and qualitatively asymetrically balanced:

Ost MHT vs Sov 120mm Mortar:
Asymetrically balanced as a CP2-CP1 indirect fire choice.
The MHT balanced for mobility and the 120mm for AoE/Dmg.

Ost Howitzer vs Sov Howitzer:
Asymetrically balanced as purchaseable without a tier building at CP4.
The Ost variant fires more frequently with lower damage as balanced against the Sov variant firing less frequently with more damage.
Costwise there is no significant disparity.

Now I have demonstrated why doctrinal indirect fire options are not the point of contention, issue, or disparity.

The issue is non-doctrinal indirect fire option availability for both factiosn, respectively, by T3.

Until T4, Ost has only one indirect fire option.
-81mm Mortar
Until T4, Sov has a choice of 3 indirect fire options.
-82mm Mortar
-ZiS Barrage
-SU76 Barrage.
Sov can, however, also get Katyushas within 3 tier purchases.

The grand total of overall, regardless of tier, indirect fire options for Ost and Sov, is:
-Sov= 4 (+2 Doctrinal)
-Ost= 2 (+2 Doctrinal)

This disparity is made worse by the timing requirements.
Ost NEEDS indirect fire in the T3 bracket, which is where Sov has 3 options, whereas Ost has only 1.

This is a blantant, systemic and indisputable disparity in options for indirect fire between the factions.

As to how this can be resolved, the obvious solution is returning Panzerwerfer to T3.
Causal and subsequent issues with Ostwind are not relevant to the primary and over-reaching issue of Ost lack of indirect fire options at this timing/tier.

Ostwind is not the issue of debate. Lack of indirect fire options on Ost, is.

Doctrinal indirect fire options are fine, and are not the issue of discussion.
Howwver since this does not yet seem evident and obvious enough in and of itself, I will elaborate as to "why" they are not relevant.

Both factions carry 2 indirect fire doctrinal options. They are asymetrically balanced, and quantitavely and qualitatively asymetrically balanced:

Ost MHT vs Sov 120mm Mortar:
Asymetrically balanced as a CP2-CP1 indirect fire choice.
The MHT balanced for mobility and the 120mm for AoE/Dmg.

Ost Howitzer vs Sov Howitzer:
Asymetrically balanced as purchaseable without a tier building at CP4.
The Ost variant fires more frequently with lower damage as balanced against the Sov variant firing less frequently with more damage.
Costwise there is no significant disparity.

Now I have demonstrated why doctrinal indirect fire options are not the point of contention, issue, or disparity.

The issue is non-doctrinal indirect fire option availability for both factiosn, respectively, by T3.

Until T4, Ost has only one indirect fire option.
-81mm Mortar
Until T4, Sov has a choice of 3 indirect fire options.
-82mm Mortar
-ZiS Barrage
-SU76 Barrage.
Sov can, however, also get Katyushas within 3 tier purchases.

The grand total of overall, regardless of tier, indirect fire options for Ost and Sov, is:
-Sov= 4 (+2 Doctrinal)
-Ost= 2 (+2 Doctrinal)

This disparity is made worse by the timing requirements.
Ost NEEDS indirect fire in the T3 bracket, which is where Sov has 3 options, whereas Ost has only 1.

This is a blantant, systemic and indisputable disparity in options for indirect fire between the factions.

As to how this can be resolved, the obvious solution is returning Panzerwerfer to T3.
Causal and subsequent issues with Ostwind are not relevant to the primary and over-reaching issue of Ost lack of indirect fire options at this timing/tier.

Ostwind is not the issue of debate. Lack of indirect fire options on Ost, is.

Proposals to move the Ostwind to Tier 4 (as you supported earlier) *obviously* require attention to whether that affects the usefulness of the Ostwind. Proposals to move a unit from Tier 4 obviously require attention to the impact of that change on the usefulness of Tier 4. The doctrinal options don't just balance or cancel one another out, they slot into the general gameplay of the faction - if your concern is the Ostheer need to spend more fuel to have access to better/mobile indirect fire, the Ostheer can compensate for that with a doctrine choice instead of teching up. The ZiS barrage is short range, costs a fair chunk of munitions and has a low angle of fire (so, it's not really an indirect fire unit, if you're honest). The SU-76 and the Katyusha both come from the same building, and require that the Soviets have no serious anti-infantry vehicle or in-field reinforcement available.

I don't really see why the Ostheer *need* T-3 non-doctrinal artillery to deal with that.

Then you don't. Not my problem and certainly not for lack of explaining.

Carry on somewhere else then.

Psh rifle grenade may as well be an indirect option! (if you think Im serious I feel sorry for you)

Sincerely I agree with the assessment at hand and would very much like to see the German's gain an additional indirect option and I think the way to do that could be as simple as moving the werfer to T-3 and giving the brumbar a similar ability to the SU-76 giving Germans 3 to 4. I would like to See the Stug make a reemergence as a threat on the battlefield and possible if the P4 takes a hit the Stug in T-4 with a range and direct fire increase could present a mini SU-85 option.

I do however feel that all things need not be entirely equal as for early game area denial with MGs/Bunkers the Soviets need a slight edge on indirect on the field.

That being said as a primarily soviet player I would not be appalled if the Anti tank gun required a level of vet to access its indirect ability.

While this balance wouldn't be perfect I think it could truly even the playing field on indirect fire options!

A Barrage ability on Stugs would go a long way to returning Stugs to the field, as well as evening the indirect fire options disparity.