Suggestion on switching PIV with Panzerwerfer

What do you guys think of bringing the PIV to T4 and the Panzerwerfer back to T3.

I think this would make 1v1 matches a lot more fun and diversify build orders. Currently it is not a safe build order for soviets to go for T34 because of the inevitable PIV's and for ostheer T4 is unnecessary because T3 gives you everything you need.

If stug gets a slight cost reduction T3 has anti tank and anti infantry (with ostwind) but without a PIV no means of charging in and chasing all soviet units off the field because the turret less stug is vulnerable that way. In combination with the panzerwerfer T3 would be used to slowly creep up onto the map in a concentrated army.

Building T4 as ostheer would give a more mobile army that is capable of doing raids into enemy territory all over the map at the cost of having to tech up.

For soviets this would mean that T34 is great against ostheer T3, roaming around the map, avoiding the "static" stugs and flanking in if there is an opportunity.

Soviet T4 would be a great counter to the "static" ostheer T3 but vulnerable to the more mobile ostheer T4.

TLDR: Switching PIV and panzerwerfer will give more dynamic gameplay. Ostheer T3 will become more static and require a concentrated army while Ostheer T4 will enable ostheer to move around and control the map more easally. This will make soviet T3 more viable.

Addressing concerns about soviets having a real tank a lot sooner then ostheer: Currently I usually go for an ostwind first supproted by a pak and manage just fine against one T34 or SU-85. The follow up PIV (if there are multiple T34's) would be replaced by stugs.

Bad idea. PzIV is a necessary component. It would never be used in T4 with a Panther competing with it, and Germans will have no backbone in T3 if there's no PzIV.

tbh in this game it would make the p4 the fugly cousin of the panther due to way both play. (ruining any variety of german teir 4 had. (all tanks.) i think p4 needs to stay but tweaking needs to be done i feel if the stug and panther are gonna be viable units.

tbh if this game gets any more campy im going to have to take up knitting or somthing.

Really don't like that idea for numerous reasons. To be honest I highly doubt it will give the dynamic gameplay you are looking for and I would personally feel like being trolled for picking german every single game.

Could you give a an argument as to why PIV is necessary?

It has the (weaker)characteristics (AI and AT)of a stug and ostwind combined. Without PIV T3 would require combined arms, instead of only PIV.

Having PIV and Panther in T4 gives the option for ostheer to skip T3 and go for T4 while still having an AI capable tank. Also PIV is a lot cheaper then panther which has no AI whatsoever.

By skipping T3 you can still go for PIV spam, only difference is that you cant rush them as much. And when you have PIV's you dont need the stug and ostwind.

I say this as a preferably ostheer player, not a soviet player that is fed up with PIV spam

Well..
By the time you reach t3 soviet player can at the same time reach t4. Meaning the pz4 would lose a lot of it's potential presence if moved to t4.

T-70 spam would be frequent and dominant because pak 40 is pretty lousy and stug isn't strong/fast enough to counter them as is. Attempting to catch it with shrecks will most likely end horribly bad.

By the time you finally do get a pz4 you'll presumably find at least 2 SU-85's waiting for you (provided you haven't been pushed back into your base)

TL;DR
I think it would horribly upset the balance around the t3 timer and make the pz4 completely void because at the time it could appear on the field, you would need something a lot stronger.

Anyhow that's just my opinion and fear.

if you buffed stugs and ostwinds hardcore, yes, but other than that, no.

I see your point. Going straight to T4 will have its risk of being overwhelmed by lower tier units, but that's what balances a rush. It is a risk/reward. Maybe the costs of going to T4 should be lowered a bit to balance it properly.

T-70 is wonderfully countered by ostwind. An ostwind is a better counter to T-70 then a PIV is.

My current problem with the PIV is that it gives you an all round great unit, so a great reward, without the risk. In coh1 PIV was also in the latest tier, just as a sherman. You could go for them quickly and have a big advantage, but you had to skip T3 so you were vulnerable for a while. Going T3 for wehrmacht and US gave you a safer option of having AT and AI quicker, but the disadvantage of investing in weaker units then T4 units.

Ostwind wouldnt have to be buffed, its fine as is. Maybe a tiny cost reduction. I usually get an ostwind out or have it already building at the moment a T-70 appears.

Stug only needs a cost reduction and maybe small things like a tiny bit faster turn rate etc.

Panzerwerfer in T3 would have to be nerfed. (lower AOE, less damadge, longer cooldown and maybe higher cost)

Concerning SU-85. Soviet going for T4 usually means not having any AI in the form of vehicles. You should use this by avoiding the SU-85 with your tanks and investing in infantry instead of vehicles. Your infantry can then gain ground and chase the SU-85 around, just denying your opponent use of all the resources that have been invested into the building and SU-85. A mistake a lot of people often make (including me) is that they think they have to kill a SU-85 or any other "big" unit. While denying it any usage will be more cost effective (it will cost you less losses and increase the upkeep of your opponent).

I don't really see the problem of not having a PIV. You can manage just fine with only an ostwind and stugs supported by pak 40 or (pak 43 if you're facing SU-85). You can't dominate the map with that, but can secure a part of it. So again, it's a lower risk, but also smaller reward of having less map control.

In my opinion of course.

I see your point. Going straight to T4 will have its risk of being overwhelmed by lower tier units, but that's what balances a rush. It is a risk/reward. Maybe the costs of going to T4 should be lowered a bit to balance it properly.

T-70 is wonderfully countered by ostwind. An ostwind is a better counter to T-70 then a PIV is.

My current problem with the PIV is that it gives you an all round great unit, so a great reward, without the risk. In coh1 PIV was also in the latest tier, just as a sherman. You could go for them quickly and have a big advantage, but you had to skip T3 so you were vulnerable for a while. Going T3 for wehrmacht and US gave you a safer option of having AT and AI quicker, but the disadvantage of investing in weaker units then T4 units.

Ostwind wouldnt have to be buffed, its fine as is. Maybe a tiny cost reduction. I usually get an ostwind out or have it already building at the moment a T-70 appears.

Stug only needs a cost reduction and maybe small things like a tiny bit faster turn rate etc.

Panzerwerfer in T3 would have to be nerfed. (lower AOE, less damadge, longer cooldown and maybe higher cost)

Concerning SU-85. Soviet going for T4 usually means not having any AI in the form of vehicles. You should use this by avoiding the SU-85 with your tanks and investing in infantry instead of vehicles. Your infantry can then gain ground and chase the SU-85 around, just denying your opponent use of all the resources that have been invested into the building and SU-85. A mistake a lot of people often make (including me) is that they think they have to kill a SU-85 or any other "big" unit. While denying it any usage will be more cost effective (it will cost you less losses and increase the upkeep of your opponent).

I don't really see the problem of not having a PIV. You can manage just fine with only an ostwind and stugs supported by pak 40 or (pak 43 if you're facing SU-85). You can't dominate the map with that, but can secure a part of it. So again, it's a lower risk, but also smaller reward of having less map control.

In my opinion of course.

***This is going to be harsh because sometimes you guys totally neglect the simple realities existing from an objective standpoint.***

First, please don't compare the two games based on balance arguments. Gameplay or technical comparisions are fine, but the two games really cannot be compared. You can't say:

"My current problem with the PIV is that it gives you an all round great unit, so a great reward, without the risk. In coh1 PIV was also in the latest tier, just as a sherman. You could go for them quickly and have a big advantage, but you had to skip T3 so you were vulnerable for a while. Going T3 for wehrmacht and US gave you a safer option of having AT and AI quicker, but the disadvantage of investing in weaker units then T4 units."

without my response being:

Just because you lost to a German player with a p4 does not mean it needs to be nerfed. It simply is the best option for the Germans at the moment. It does have a risk. You lose a P4 quickly and it can be game over. Furthermore, the last two sentences of your above statement aren't saying much for your ability to critique strategy in vcoh. Rarely if ever did you see T3-T4 builds. You usually saw T2-T4 or T1-T3 and sometimes T2-T3 - never T1-T4 unless you had already won by that point. Saying that "you were vulnerable for a while" has me perplexed and confused. Vulnerable from what exactly? Are you saying T1-T4 (which nobody did) made the Germans vulnerable? I'd agree there because it made them vulnerable enough that a. they couldn't do it because they were destitute of resources after being out-teched, overrun, and game over or b. They were playing Scheldt against the easiest of computers. Furthermore, P4's themselves were rarely used in comparison with their use in this version so I'm not entirely sure where that is coming from.

The counter to the SU85 being a "Pak43" is totally pinning the German player into a doctrinal choice from a defensive position rather than being one that can actually help them win a game. You're asking them to play not to lose rather than play to win. Why should a german player have to use a doctrine to counter the most commonly used soviet tank in the game? A tank that can be built by any soviet regardless of their own doctrine choice? That is not a very well thought out statement.

The Stug suggestion is ludicrous. There was just a plea from a community member for people to try to incorporate them into their build. It didn't work. They're simply useless at the moment and provide nothing in the way of "tank" or "destroyer" because of their range vs su 85's or effectiveness to infantry waves. The idea of giving it a quicker turning radius is also not very well thought out as that is the Achilles heel of the stug to begin with, but it's supposed to be a good tank hunter. Right now it's outclassed, overpriced, and never used. 2 Stugs for the price or a tad bit above the price of one p4 would make it more viable, but I'm not sure how that would play out in an actual game.

And in regards to the rest of your statement, no an ostwind is not a better counter to a t70. It just isn't, sorry. Furthermore the P4 is significantly better at destroying the next thing coming from the soviet's T3 - the T34, so it's really a no-brainer to go P4 over ostwind every time.

You also want the Panzerwerfer moved to T3 and then nerfed. This would render it even more useless then it already is and make the Soviets probably win almost 90% of the time with 10% being reserved for people who drop at the start due to P2P issues. What about the Katyushka? I suppose it should just stay the same as it is????!!! It's in the best Tier and highly effective right?

And lastly you do have to kill an SU85. They can see farther than you meaning that they can slowly creep up and kill your units without recourse at the moment until you are pushed over. Unless you're playing against incompetent competition, which I'm actually pretty sure you are if this is your opinion, the SU85 is the most dominant presence on the battlefield when it appears. The entire game changes when it enters, and the Axis player enters into the immediate quandary of countering it.

I see you think that i'm an incompetent whining soviet player, but i'm not. I prefer playing axis by far and think the PIV gives me an unfair advantage in its current state. And about incompetence, i just beat StephennJF who was using SU-85

SU-85 isnt dominant if you avoid it by using shot blockers and truesight. If it is dominant now its more due to bad maps. When there are (comunity made) new maps that are smaller and have more shot blockers SU-85 will be a lot weaker. For example Kholodny now, that map is by far the easiest map to deal with SU-85.

Pak 43 isnt a necessity against SU-85. shrecked up grens and paks do fine as well, but are less cost effective most of the time.

Concerning coh1: I ment T1,T2 and then T3 or T4. Also, i was lvl 16 in coh1 so it's not that i don't know what i'm talking about.

Stugs were never ment as tank destroyers, not in WWII or in coh1. They were used to protect the infantry from vehicles and never had immense range. In WWII the only thing making them good against tanks was their low profile.

Don't think that i am sure my suggestion is the best option, but i still haven heard a normal argument as to why a PIV is so essential.

I really don't get the point of having the P-IV and the Panther in the same building. I'm using Ostwinds quite a lot, StuGs occasionally. P-IV's AI is OK, their AT is quite good but I'm still finding a lot of use for the Ostwind atm. The StuG is kind of suffering from not at all coping with the SU-85 matchup.

Additionally, the old beta Ostheer T-3 of superstug and panzerwerfer is just a bit too versatile and saw too much campy arty play in my view. I kind of like the way T-4 adds in the arty element.

I see you think that i'm an incompetent whining soviet player, but i'm not. I prefer playing axis by far and think the PIV gives me an unfair advantage in its current state. And about incompetence, i just beat StephennJF who was using SU-85

SU-85 isnt dominant if you avoid it by using shot blockers and truesight. If it is dominant now its more due to bad maps. When there are (comunity made) new maps that are smaller and have more shot blockers SU-85 will be a lot weaker. For example Kholodny now, that map is by far the easiest map to deal with SU-85.

Pak 43 isnt a necessity against SU-85. shrecked up grens and paks do fine as well, but are less cost effective most of the time.

Concerning coh1: I ment T1,T2 and then T3 or T4. Also, i was lvl 16 in coh1 so it's not that i don't know what i'm talking about.

Stugs were never ment as tank destroyers, not in WWII or in coh1. They were used to protect the infantry from vehicles and never had immense range. In WWII the only thing making them good against tanks was their low profile.

Don't think that i am sure my suggestion is the best option, but i still haven heard a normal argument as to why a PIV is so essential.

Quite frankly, I don't care who you've beaten or what level you are.

Why the p4 is essential now? Because currently, it is. It's the best option to get a win...it has nothing to do with history or these other out of the ridiculousness theories you have...it's simply statistics and in game viability that dictates this. Why would you create an argument that takes an artillery piece which is simply artillery, situational and useless junk that slows down the pace of a fun game, nerf it so that it's drastically worse than it's soviet counter part, and replace the best and only armor advantage the Axis actually have with it? WHY WOULD ANYONE, ANYONE GO T3 THEN? You can make an argument that the ostwind could be traded with the nebel, but not the p4, at least not currently, which is all you can really talk about unless you know what is about to be changed or implemented in the game like a psychic hotline worker.

The SU85 targets the actual pak and can destroy it from range, until this is changed, the pak, while it is a counter, is slightly less effective. Shreked up grens are too expensive/a liability against an SU85 that's supported. The mechanic where the SU85 can snipe these squads or drop them to the ground over and over at that insane range is hindering this. Your regressive optimism about the maps is nice, but that's all it is. So what you're saying is that the maps besides Kholondy, some like 15 or something, are all NOT good for dealing with SU-85s and we should graciously discuss balance in the theoretical world of amazing user created maps 3 years from today? Until the long off day where the world builder is released, community maps are made, the "good" maps are implemented into the actual game, player map selection is given back, and then some of these awful maps are taken out of the game, your argument of "just wait" carries 0 (that's zero) merit.

Furthermore the actual title of a Stug historically and in COH is Tank Destroyer so....ya. Maybe you played brits or something. Here is the overview from the coh wiki

"Its original role was to provide close infantry support such as destroying bunkers, infantry garrisoned in buildings, and pillboxes, but was later proved to be an effective tank killer."
-http://companyofheroes.wikia.com/wiki/StuG_IV

...you're somewhat correct, I guess? Again, the stug doesn't suck because it can't kill a tank. The stug sucks because it doesn't provide anything that a P4 does not. The main benefit of a stug in the first game, since you like these comparisons, is the frontal armor, cheap cost, and T3 placement. The SU85 (which by the way, there is no comparison to in the first game) completely outclasses it in every way. Ram from a T34 destroys it. Guards, AT nades, AT guns, circle strafe from a T34 which is faster than a sherman.

Very bad idea, unless the Stug is massively buffed to allow it to directly compete against the SU-85. Otherwise SU-85s will hard counter the entire German T3 and a good bit of T4 as well. PAKs and shrecks simply don't cut it unless the Soviet player sucks.

PIV is essential right now because it can tacle a variety of targets. Ostwind suck against armor. Stugs suck period. You need something that can punch holes in tanks in T3, which the StuG simply cannot do right now. So people go for the PIV.

As for nerfing the Panzerwerfer, what? It's also very costly and not really good as well. Germans need more indirect fire but nerfing their only arty is not the answer. Like, at all.

In other words, your suggestion is bad and you should feel bad.

Could you give a an argument as to why PIV is necessary?

It has the (weaker)characteristics (AI and AT)of a stug and ostwind combined.

Well if the PzIV cost me 200 fuel and 500+ Manpower you have an argument.

I already said why it's necessary. PzIV can't compete in T4. You might as well delete it from the game. The reason a PzIV is build is because it's a mid game unit. You entirely cut out T3 by removing it because a StuG gets shit on by infantry, an Ostwind gets shit on by tanks, a PzWerfer adds nothing because the game is still extremely dynamic and there are no static fronts at this point in the game.

If it is dominant now its more due to bad maps. When there are (comunity made) new maps that are smaller and have more shot blockers SU-85 will be a lot weaker.

So, you want to balance the game now based on something that hasn't happened yet and may not even happen, and even if it did wouldn't happen for months?

No. No. And no.