Anti-Air disparities

-Panzerwerfer has lower cooldown and fires all it's missiles in one go > more damage and higher AoE
-German howitzer is VASTLY superior to Sovjet one. Sovjet fires only 8/9 shells while the german fires a lot more and has only ~30 sec cooldown. That is a lot more damage total
-German mortar might be balanced against soviet one but feels stronger, let's say they are balanced

What? No."feels" a bit stronger? Are you really trying to have a credible argument based on your feelings? AoE really matters little in the realities of the game. The nebel isn't even being used. The katyushka is essentially a stronger unit atm because of where it lies in the Meta. There's no place for Ostheer T4 anywhere accept in a failed strat or a troll game where you've won anyways. All buildings for Soviets work and are useful in some way to some strat. There is nothing useful at the moment about German T4. Not even in team games tbh.

And stop spelling it "Sovjet".

Nice reading skills Dave

What? No."feels" a bit stronger? Are you really trying to have a credible argument based on your feelings?

I said they are balanced

AoE really matters little in the realities of the game.

Agreed, which I said earlier

The nebel isn't even being used. The katyushka is essentially a stronger unit atm because of where it lies in the Meta. There's no place for Ostheer T4 anywhere accept in a failed strat or a troll game where you've won anyways. All buildings for Soviets work and are useful in some way to some strat.

Quote Nullist:
Your "rarely seen" argument was irrelevant, because its subjective.

Plus that's what I'm saying all the time, let's look at the meta:
Guards+PPSh doctrine
Sovjet mortar: Not used
At gun: Not used, maybe really late in game when backteched but not for the barrage...
Su76: Not used
katyusha: Used

There is nothing useful at the moment about German T4. Not even in team games tbh.

Are you really trying to have a credible argument based on your feelings?

And stop spelling it "Sovjet".

Sovjet

This is fun

Nice reading skills Dave

I said they are balanced

Agreed, which I said earlier

Quote Nullist:
Your "rarely seen" argument was irrelevant, because its subjective.

Plus that's what I'm saying all the time, let's look at the meta:
Guards+PPSh doctrine
Sovjet mortar: Not used
At gun: Not used, maybe really late in game when backteched but not for the barrage...
Su76: Not used
katyusha: Used

Are you really trying to have a credible argument based on your feelings?


Sovjet

This is fun

Except my arguments are based on factual proof and something like 500+ games. Check out Hans vs Sym for the most recent and best example of the Metagame at high levels. I doubt you're anywhere near this so you don't understand.

Nice, cherrypicking your arguments. I only said that because you used that "argument" yourself. I can say StephennJF thinks the german mortar is better. He is high level.
T4 IS useful on prypjat in teamgames, there you goes your factual proof. Actually on most chokey maps
Can you get in your head that I agree that most indirect fire units arent used in meta? I only said that the german counterparts are VASTlY superior than the sovjets which makes up for the lesser amount of units.
Also nice ad hominem bro.

No insult there.

Your tier argument was irrelevant, because overall, Ost still has less, regardless of tier selection.

Your "rarely seen" argument was irrelevant, because its subjective.

Your German Panzerwerfer/Mortar/Howitzer "indirect" fire rate of fire and cooldowns argument was irrelevant, because it is accounted for commensurately by Sov alternatives having asymmetric equivalence in terms of more damage and AoE.

Your argument of RNade as an indirect fire option is irrelevant because a Molotov can also be thrown indirectly, and furthermore is asymmetrically balanced due to no minimum range and superiority vs buildings as well as potential to crit the armor reliant Ost troops.

So no insult there. Just an observation that your post really meant absolutely nothing at all.

Surely you're not serious? The factions are designed to be asymmetrical. Not only that, but comparing the amount of artillery options each side possesses has nothing to do with their efficiency or viability. You cannot argue that something is 'asymmetrically balanced' because another ability fulfills approximately the same role as the former (i.e. rifle nades and molotovs) while ignoring how this 'glaring disparity' would then for example be 'asymmetrically balanced' by Germans having access to a larger assortment of non-doctrinal tanks.

I don't even know what the SU-76 is really meant to do. I've bought it a few times to use on light vehicles like Halftracks and it doesn't even damage those consistently.

Germans having access to a larger assortment of non-doctrinal tanks.

lol

T70
T34
SU-85
SU-76

StuG III
PzIV
Panther

Now;

ISU-152
IS-2
KV-8
T34/85
T34/76
T70
SU-85
SU-76

Tiger
StuG III
PzIV
Panther
PzIV Command Tank

You might actually want to read what I said. non-doctrinal. You also missed a whole lot of units.

You forgot the Ostwind and Brummbar.

You forgot the Elefant when it comes to doctrinal units.

The SU-76 is in almost no way a tank.

I think we can all agree that the SU-85, StuG and Brummbar, despite not actually being tanks are consider to be.

We have :

T-34/75
SU-85
T-70 (arguably, doesn't work as a tank in-game)

StuG 3
Panzer 4
Brummbar
Ostwind
Panther

Please at least think for more than a few second before replying 'lol'

@Purlictor: Then where/how is the disparity I indicated reconciled to Ostheer, asymmetrically?

Note: I already demonstrated, quality wise, 81mm mortars rate of fire is asymmetrically balanced to 82mm larger AoE and dmg, as is also the asymmetric relationship between the Howitzers, Doctrine mortars, and (in a more complex system of asymmetry) between katyusha/panzerwerfer.

"Please at least think for more than a few second before replying"

WHERE/HOW is the asymmetric balance vested for these superfluos barrage options which have no current equivalency on Ost?

@Purlictor: Then where/how is the disparity I indicated reconciled to Ostheer, asymmetrically?

Note: I already demonstrated, quality wise, 81mm mortars rate of fire is asymmetrically balanced to 82mm larger AoE and dmg, as is also the asymmetric relationship between the Howitzers, Doctrine mortars, and (in a more complex system of asymmetry) between katyusha/panzerwerfer.

"Please at least think for more than a few second before replying"

WHERE/HOW is the asymmetric balance vested for these superfluos barrage options which have no current equivalency on Ost?

You demonstrated? You demonstrated nothing. You gave no statistics whatsoever to back up your claims that certain units' traits balance out. Take for example both faction's howitzers. You said here

Your German Panzerwerfer/Mortar/Howitzer "indirect" fire rate of fire and cooldowns argument was irrelevant, because it is accounted for commensurately by Sov alternatives having asymmetric equivalence in terms of more damage and AoE.

That the German howitzer/mortar's lower cooldown is balanced out by the increased AoE and damage of the Soviet one.

You simply stated them as fact. You have given no comparison between the units other than a vague summation of their relative strengths and weaknesses and your subjective conclusion on why these balance each other out. How are you supposed to argue balance when you provide no factual evidence to your point?

It's not as simple as saying that the broader availability of indirect fire is compensated for by only a few things. That's the whole point of factions which have no units, buildings or commanders in common whatsoever. Nevertheless I stated the larger amount of non-doctrinal heavier tanks as an example of where the Ostheer would be at an advantage (which is true either way, whether you count the SU-85/SU-76/Brummbar/StuG (assault guns/tank destroyers) as tanks or not). I could even argue that the Ostheer mortar halftrack compensates for the lack of barrage abilites due to its unique nature.

You didn't answer the question, nor provide any "factual evidence" (as you called it) to support your argument that there is not a disparity in the lack of these indirect/barrage options for Ost.

Ignored and disregarded.

I expected more from you, but you turned out to be just another waffler.

You didn't answer the question.

Ignored and disregarded.

Read my final paragraph, especially the 2nd part.

Irrelevant.

Does not resolve, explain or justify the disparity in indirect fire options for the two factions at equivalent tiers.

That comment regarding Mortar HT made me laugh out loud, for real. Are you incapable of the logic and pattern recognition required to recognise the immediate and apparent asymmetric relationship between the Mortar HT and 120mm as doctrinal options?

Mortar HT has absolutely nothing to do with either of the non-doctrinal Barrage options Sov has. Do I have to draw you a fucking schematic?

Purlicitor

I honestly stopped reading once you qualified the Ostwind as a tank.

Irrelevant.

Does not resolve, explain or justify the disparity in indirect fire options for the two factions at equivalent tiers.

That comment regarding Mortar HT made me laugh out loud, for real. Are you incapable of the logic and pattern recognition required to recognise the immediate and apparent asymmetric relationship between the Mortar HT and 120mm as doctrinal options?

Mortar HT has absolutely nothing to do with either of the non-doctrinal Barrage options Sov has. Do I have to draw you a fucking schematic?

Please do. What "immediate and apparent asymmetric relationship" reads like is "they obviously have something in common but they're still different" which pretty much says fuck all.

My point is still that you cannot simply compare a single part of the faction in a vacuum when they are so different. Since you apparently do not agree, comparing only a small group of units with a precise role to each other (indirect fire options) and single units and abilities (such as the molotov and rifle nade), I gave you an example of how the disparity in tank options for the two factions at equivalent tiers could balance out the indirect fire options. This I backed up with statistics, did I not? I did actually count the amount of tanks available.

Nice ad hominem btw. Appreciate it.


@Dave: good for you. iirc the Ostwind does decent damage to even the T-34, so why shouldn't I count it as one if I count the T-70 too?

You're not classifying the 76 as a tank so...

Anti-air disparities devolved into barraging ability into tank disparity?

@Purlictor: You disqualified your own argument by showing, with your own counting, that Sov does infact have a larger armor pool to draw from, as WELL as a larger infantry pool and (as is my argument) ALSO a larger indirect fire pool.

What part of your brain is incapable of understanding that Ost is lacking asymmetrically in indirect fire options in comparison to Sov's variants to perform indirect fire?

What part of your rationale in anyway, shape or form justifies/explains/reconciles that Ost do not have Barrage equivalents (Note: EQUIVALENTS, not EQUALS. Do you understand the fucking difference?)

Nullist you can't simply compare the armor or artillery options available to each faction with out looking at the big picture, it's clear you're incapable for some reason of doing it yourself. Take a deep breath a step back and relax, remember if balance stresses you out there's always 1v1 mirror matches against the AI.

You might actually want to read what I said. non-doctrinal. You also missed a whole lot of units.

You forgot the Ostwind and Brummbar.

You forgot the Elefant when it comes to doctrinal units.

Wow, I actually DID forget them lol

Disagree with pretty much anything else you said. If it has armor small arms can't penetrate, it's a tank.

This has become a very silly thread.

Nullist, you're both being a raging pillock and pointlessly rude, like you are in almost every thread, and also wilfully ignoring that having a discrepancy in the options available can actually be part of the asymmetric balance. The things that make the good Soviet players generally beat Germans atm don't actually seem to include the artillery options.

ZiS guns aren't especially popular, noone bothers with the SU-76 (I like it but the SU-85 is unarguably more competitive) and the 82mm mortar is hardly used either (the German one sees a little more use). The Katyusha and to an extent the 120mm see a reasonable amount of use. I think to some extent you tend to see Katyushas quite often is just because the SU-85 is so good against armour that a Soviet T4 player often needs to only build one SU-85 and there's almost never any point in having more than 2, so the Katyusha is the obvious next fuel purchase.