Brummbär overperforming

My suggestion ---> coordinate with your team or play smaller game modes if elephant brummbarr combo is too rough.

This suggestion is magic, Why haven't we used it when people were complaining about Comet/Arty cover/Stuart/T70/RM 2xLMG/RM vet3 etc...

Because elephant is only one (1) slow, expensive unit. I had it so often in teamgames, when the enemy see's that there is an elephant, they attack somewhere else. The elephant can't reach the fight , cause he is too slow, he can only defend 1 position of the map.

Elephant is in the game since beginning and was nerfed several times, there were never complains in the last years, don't know why it should suddenly be op.

And Brummbär penetrating medium tanks: This is negligible, vs fast attacking mediums it fires 1 shot, which misses, and get circled. No one will place his sherman or T34 in front of the Brummbär and wait, till it gets shot.

If Brummbär would get changed to do no damage vs tanks, it wouldn't make any different, cause it is not his job to fight tanks.

First off, are we assuming 4v4s here? Are we assuming the best case scenarios for the elephant and brummbarr? Because I can think of countless maps where elephant and brummbarr are terrible.

In a head to head battle these units are unmatchable. In reality, they have many weaknesses number being poor mobility combined with a front facing turret.

In 4v4 they can seem OP because they're weaknesses can be covered by their allies. On the other hand, they're weaknesses can also be exploited by the enemy.

For example, a single player can't take out a brummbarr elephant combo on his own because if he tries to dive them he'll get taken out by the other axis players also passively defending the flanks and rear.

On the other hand, the Allies can also observe the elephant and brummbarr sitting defending one point and decide to all rush it together with one fell swoop and the elephant won't be able to retreat to safety fast enough.

Why do people never get elephant and brummbarr in 1v1s and only get elephants and brummbarr on very specific 2v2 maps? It's because the elephant is slow, cant react to the movements of the enemy and therefore requires a skinny open map with few shot blocks so that it can be easily bababay sat by the commander and his ally.


The problem here isn't the elephant or the brummbarr, it's the lack of coordination in 4v4 randoms.

My suggestion ---> coordinate with your team or play smaller game modes if elephant brummbarr combo is too rough.

This strategy falls flat on its head if the Elefant team has, collectively, half a braincell to pitch in with mine-laying. Infantry, simply, cannot move fast enough to clear the mines, and if you fail the YOLOrush, you have just handed the Elefant team the game.

This is entirely because of map design.

With veterancy on your tanks gone, you're gone. That's what makes Elefant/JT/Calliope so OP; they are such good veterancy-wipers. It simply doesn't matter how well you preserved your army until the moment they arrive. Those units don't care.

Since we are bound by the following constraints:
- Teamgames should be more fun and diverse to play
- 90% of the maps in the map-pool are either favouring or heavily favouring heavy-TD play (the other 10% are La Gleize and Hill 400)
- There is simply not enough map output to replace the problematic maps; thus Elefants being OP is no longer a map-design problem; it's a mode-design problem
- If you are facing an overwhelming strategy, you have to go full-tryhard to counter it. This completely sucks out strategic diversity

We will have to find a way to rebalance the Elefant to be:
- More appropriate for 4v4 maps (since that's where it's causing problems)
- Potentially more viable elsewhere

Mines vs allied artillery... (they are better than each minesweeper)
Not worth the ammo near the frontline.

Mines vs allied artillery... (they are better than each minesweeper)
Not worth the ammo near the frontline.

Good thing I never place mines on frontline, but actually keep troops with snares there. Mines cover retreat paths and the few left flanks there are.

I am all for nerfing the elephant and Jagdtiger, but we should think about giving them some utility, so they should have a reason to be built in 1vs1. Heavy Tank Destroyers should be the counter to mass allied TDs, IS2 and Churchills but not two-shoot medium Vehicles. And in this duty also be viable in a 1vs1 scenario.
I think the Barrage ability from the Jagdtiger is the right way to go, or any other utility ability. If they have more utility and are no longer super specialised in their role they can be nerfed hard. Their range should go down as well as their damage and lastly adjust the price accordingly to their new role. But I have fate in Mr.Smith and the balance team so lets hope and see.

I am all for nerfing the elephant and Jagdtiger, but we should think about giving them some utility, so they should have a reason to be built in 1vs1. Heavy Tank Destroyers should be the counter to mass allied TDs, IS2 and Churchills but not two-shoot medium Vehicles. And in this duty also be viable in a 1vs1 scenario.
I think the Barrage ability from the Jagdtiger is the right way to go, or any other utility ability. If they have more utility and are no longer super specialised in their role they can be nerfed hard. Their range should go down as well as their damage and lastly adjust the price accordingly to their new role. But I have fate in Mr.Smith and the balance team so lets hope and see.

An idea for the Jagdtiger is to give it its Vet1 barrage ability already at Vet0, and allow it to fire projectiles in an arc, so that they don't hit obstacles that often.

I can't think of anything else for the Elefant except for:
- Giving it the same ability (copy paste)
- Making it cheaper
- Making it more mobile
- Moving penetrating shells from JT to Elefant (OST is considerably more muni-hungry than OKW)

PS: The bottomline is we are going to put both Elefant and JT and their abilities down and do a reshuffle. That way, each unit is going to have an advantage over the other one, as opposed to the Elefant being a cheaper but crappier version of the JT.

Firefly > JT/ELE


If there is need to balance heavy TDs and AT in game in general, then we should start from the FF and USF/UKF handheld AT.

Tweaking a 280Fuel Slow TD's barrage ability is far from creative. The ability is useless anyway.


Once that is done, then it would make sense to bring their (JT/ELE) damage down to 240-260, increase their mobility and reduce their cost.

Firefly > JT/ELE
Tweaking a 280Fuel Slow TD's barrage ability is far from creative. The ability is useless anyway.

You ignorant fool.

You ignorant fool.

your mom.


Stay civilized.

1. JT ability is great
2. Brumbar punishes infantry, as it should. Late game tends to be allied infantry walking around carelessly/blobbing. Especially the brits/Americans, so it's nice to have something to keep them in check
3. Brumbar I can see doing a nerf to the AT department
4. If you nerf the brumbar AI, then buff the panthers/panzer 4/oswtind AI to a decent level. Because all of those tanks are just terrible vs infantry
5. As for those 4v4 players, it is mostly random noobs. Since we are talking super late game here, due to having tier 4, and expensive unit, and on top of that a super expensive call in heavy TD, and we all know OH has to build t1/t2. Allies have plenty of options. As mentioned they still have arty cover, multiple different types of off map abilities. It's coordinated assaults.

My suggestion is make Elefant as moving Pak 43.
1. Elefant gets stationary mode. It works like KV-2 siege mode.
2. In mobile mode it moves like in live game, or even slower. It's rate of fire lowered, shooting range lowerer, and it can't shoot throw buildings.
3. In stationary mode it gets buffed rate of fire, range and can shoot throw buildings (last statememnt can be made as Jagdtiger abilllity, or even rejected).

What it will give:
1. 1v1 player can choose doctrines between Pak 43 and Elefants.
1.1 Pak 43 cheaper in terms of fuel and can be builded more that 1 at the moment. But vunerable to infantry and RLS.
1.2 Elefant gives player mobile version of pak 43, but it is more expensive and can't be massed. It is not effective in mobile mode and can be flanked by mediums.
2. In 3V3 or 4V4 it will be more vunerable, because will be effective only in stationary mode, but still deadly if placed in right place.
3. Give it some difference with Jagdtiger.

What to do with Jagdtiger? Obvious desicion is rebalance it as multi-role assault gun, with reduced range, AT-role main gun, but with AI abillities. But i am not sure it will make it more usable in 1v1. King Tiger is still will be better choice.

Comparing the elephant and brumbar to the comet and artillery cover imo is completely irrelevant

My 4v4 team hardly went elephants. Not never but hardly

Arty cover was legit a push to win button that any retard can use it legit required 0 skill

Comet was an anti everything tank that drove freeway speeds with heavy armour excellent range and mobility that you would see EVERY GAME ON EVERY MODE. It was stupid not to go comet.

It's sad too how it was mentioned that 4 commander choices would be picked due to 1 guy picking his. I think this is a bit over statement,

Now on the other hand how often is OH reacting to the opponents strats and commanders??

T34/Sherman/katusha/landmattress/calliope/comet(still) and countless others wipe squads effortlessly, and they are found in nearly every game. I would love to see 2 panzerwerfers Shit even maybe just 1 in a 1v1 2v2.

I don't think this would solve it. Elephants are rarely seen in 1vs1 because they cost more than a Tiger and have a very specialised role. They can do one thing very good, so they best thing to counter them is stop building tanks, and build more infantry, to which the elephant can do nothing.
The reason Pak43 works sometimes in 1vs1,(and would more often if stupid one click delete abilities get a nerf) is, it costs no fuel. You mostly build a pak 43 if your opponent has more tanks than you, because he had more map control and so on. In this case, you have no fuel and just manpower so its a good Idea to build the pak, because you cant counter his tanks with your own tanks.
If we now made the Elephant in a mobile Pak43 which costs a ton of fuel, why would you ever want to build it in a 1vs1? It has the same role as before, it just has become better in it. In a 1vs1 scenario you will never go for an elephant if you can go for a Tiger, which is cheaper, does amazing infantry damage as well as good anti-tank. So to solve this problem, you have to give the Elephant more utility so it has a use outside of pure AT. Ideally, it should be your go to tank if your facing allied tank destroyers or heavys.

I think a barrage would be the best thing, even if its just copy paste. Maybe add with vet a second type of barrage similar to the pack Howie, there it fires AT rounds which do heavy damage to vehicles only. This way the elephant would keep some sort of long range At, but this time it's avoidable by the opponent.

To avoid derailing the thread any further, I've created the following thread where you can give feedback on teamgame meta:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/61106/teamgame-dominant-meta

On topic:
- Sure, Brummbar could use nerf vs medium tanks
- Maybe it could trade a tiny amount of AI-potency (scatter) in exchange for ease-of-use
- 80-range bunker buster ability, could definitely be made a lot less accurate
- Brummbar should still act as a high-reward infantry-demolisher
- I still believe it's Heavy-TD potency that makes Brummbar broken
- T4 could be made to require T3 to avoid tier-skipping (for teamgame's sake).
- However T3 & T4 should be made considerably cheaper (for 1v1's sake)

•  
  

  0

  VS

  Brodomir situsima astoroiya ruka0love

  Sponge Bob Rene LimaOscarMike 深渊神话

  bloody tank madness

  by: LimaOscarMike map: Steppes

  1

  -

like what mr.smith said it either go try hard or go home in team game

in my replay im create tripple cap situation so they sent all their two heavy tank destroyer to the island ,then he realize i've still dominate by infantry ;so he sent his blob to the island and a while later im communicated with my team to get rid of the other 2 on mid and right side without tank destroyer cover them

First off, are we assuming 4v4s here? Are we assuming the best case scenarios for the elephant and brummbarr? Because I can think of countless maps where elephant and brummbarr are terrible.

In a head to head battle these units are unmatchable. In reality, they have many weaknesses number being poor mobility combined with a front facing turret.

In 4v4 they can seem OP because they're weaknesses can be covered by their allies. On the other hand, they're weaknesses can also be exploited by the enemy.

For example, a single player can't take out a brummbarr elephant combo on his own because if he tries to dive them he'll get taken out by the other axis players also passively defending the flanks and rear.

On the other hand, the Allies can also observe the elephant and brummbarr sitting defending one point and decide to all rush it together with one fell swoop and the elephant won't be able to retreat to safety fast enough.

Why do people never get elephant and brummbarr in 1v1s and only get elephants and brummbarr on very specific 2v2 maps? It's because the elephant is slow, cant react to the movements of the enemy and therefore requires a skinny open map with few shot blocks so that it can be easily bababay sat by the commander and his ally.


The problem here isn't the elephant or the brummbarr, it's the lack of coordination in 4v4 randoms.

My suggestion ---> coordinate with your team or play smaller game modes if elephant brummbarr combo is too rough.

Finally someone who gets it!

First off, are we assuming 4v4s here? Are we assuming the best case scenarios for the elephant and brummbarr? Because I can think of countless maps where elephant and brummbarr are terrible.

In a head to head battle these units are unmatchable. In reality, they have many weaknesses number being poor mobility combined with a front facing turret.

In 4v4 they can seem OP because they're weaknesses can be covered by their allies. On the other hand, they're weaknesses can also be exploited by the enemy.

For example, a single player can't take out a brummbarr elephant combo on his own because if he tries to dive them he'll get taken out by the other axis players also passively defending the flanks and rear.

On the other hand, the Allies can also observe the elephant and brummbarr sitting defending one point and decide to all rush it together with one fell swoop and the elephant won't be able to retreat to safety fast enough.

Why do people never get elephant and brummbarr in 1v1s and only get elephants and brummbarr on very specific 2v2 maps? It's because the elephant is slow, cant react to the movements of the enemy and therefore requires a skinny open map with few shot blocks so that it can be easily bababay sat by the commander and his ally.


The problem here isn't the elephant or the brummbarr, it's the lack of coordination in 4v4 randoms.

My suggestion ---> coordinate with your team or play smaller game modes if elephant brummbarr combo is too rough.

Most of what you said is true and very valid, except I kind of take issue with a couple of points.

1. The statement that some maps are terrible for the elefant/brummbar. This is because it basically validates things like, say, double 1919s because there are some maps that are awful for that too.

2. The statement that allies should just coordinate better with their teams. It's sort of a double standard in the situation, as the axis team just has to be not idiots to defend the heavy td on their team, while the allied players have to be both competent players and pretty well coordinated to take it out. You say it yourself at one point: "because if he tries to dive them he'll get taken out by the other axis players also passively defending the flanks and rear." The axis just have to passively keep playing the game and doing their own thing, while the allies have to coordinate a large, high risk tank assault that also leaves their own territory open to attack.

2. The statement that allies should just coordinate better with their teams. It's sort of a double standard in the situation, as the axis team just has to be not idiots to defend the heavy td on their team, while the allied players have to be both competent players and pretty well coordinated to take it out. You say it yourself at one point: "because if he tries to dive them he'll get taken out by the other axis players also passively defending the flanks and rear." The axis just have to passively keep playing the game and doing their own thing, while the allies have to coordinate a large, high risk tank assault that also leaves their own territory open to attack.

I agree it's not easy. I guess what I'm trying to prove here is that it's very difficult to balance things for 4v4 since there are so many other variables at play.

If the Allies do succeed in am all out assault (assuming the elephant player never gets greedy and they have to do one in the first place), the outcome would Basit decide the winner. High risk high reward.

This suggestion is magic, Why haven't we used it when people were complaining about Comet/Arty cover/Stuart/T70/RM 2xLMG/RM vet3 etc...

Dude you don't coordinate an attack to take out a comet that can super easily drive away safely. You don't coordinate with your team to negate the effects of artillery cover. You don't coordinate with your team to take out a stuart, t70 or OP riflemen. They were over powered in all game modes on all maps so obviously they are seen differently to the elephant which really only shines on certain higher game mode maps.