Anti-Air disparities

Ost has ZERO indirect fire options in relation to Sovs TWO barrage options.

I am completely and sincerely aware of the vagaries and structure of asymmetric balance, so everyone who insults me in this thread byncalling me a "raging pillock" (mods please?) or tries to discount my concern on the false and irrelevant personal premise that I dont, can stop harping on about that.

Nothing any of the antagonists in this thread has sais actually answers, justifies or explains the lack of indirect Barrage options that Ost has, even in terms of asymmetric balance. The "more nondoctrinal vehicles" argument was a good try, but is rendered irrelevant by the related asymmetric balance of Sov having a TOTAL larger pool of armor options.

Ost needs atleast one additional non-doctrinal indirect fire barrage option before T4, at which point the asymmetry is reconciled due to Panzerwerfer and Katyushas hitting the field at those tiers.

As it stands, Osts only option is the 81mm Mortar, which is acxounted for by Sovs 82mm mortar, and their respective asymmetry in terms of rate of fire vs dmg.

My personal recommendation is a Barrage option onto the Stug for Muni cost.

This asymmetrically places it between the ZiS and Su76 barrage for the following reasons:
-It costs Muni, like the ZiS.
-It is located on armor, like the SU76.
-It reconciles the Barrage disparity by giving Ost one option vs Sovs two options.

Its utterly fucked up that Osts only indirect Barrage option before T4, is a 81mm mortar (which is asymmetrically fine, vs the Sov 82mm).

But having only ONE option before Panzerwerfer, is a flat out disparity and completely unreconciled in terms of asymmetry, no matter how far you attempt to extend the recompense through asymmetric logic to unrelated issues such as armor options.

I laugh, literally, out loud, at people who try to claim Osts lack of a Barrage is somehow asymmetrically ok.

As Dev pointed out, AA is asymmetrically well balanced, vested in M5 with Munis (which incidentally has almost 3x the frontal armor of 251, for the same cost), and Ostwind for fuel.

Now its time to address the Barrage disparity.

Ost needs more than just a mortar for this crucial battlefield function, which leaves it incapable of softening established defenses out of LoS.

I am completely and sincerely aware of the vagaries and structure of asymmetric balance, so everyone who insults me in this thread byncalling me a "raging pillock" (mods please?) or tries to discount my concern on the false and irrelevant personal premise that I dont, can stop harping on about that.

Bit rich given that just about every thread you're in you insult people with no provocation whatsoever then sulkily pretend to rise above the namecalling. You realise that I'm saying you're acting like that not because I disagree with you but because just about every time you raise a point in you're needlessly aggressive, patronising and rude. The mods can read this thread (or the guards nade thread, or basically any other thread) if they want to see that.

Currently the lack of barrage counterparts for the Ostheer doesn't seem to be affecting the (asymmetric) balance negatively, and of the two barrage units you regard as a problem, the SU-76 is almost never used in high level play and the ZiS (which has a muni cost for the barrage) isn't used particularly often and then for its AT function primarily.

That said, a barrage on the StuG might work in making it useful again without the return to the Beta superstug.

You are no longer in any moral position to claim to be more polite than I am. You gave up that priviledge when you called me a "raging pillock". Welcome to my level, enjoy your stay.

Returning to topic:

It doesnt matter whether they are being used or not, from your subjective perspective.

Ive seen many games in which SU76 or/and ZiS Barrage have been used to great effect, and in numbers.
This is not a dispute about the usefulness or popularity of Sov Barrage options, but of the complete lack of them on Ost, which puts the faction at a disadvantage in a core game element, namely indirect fire to soften enemy positions.

Mortars are largely fine and asymmetric in number of choices and quality (both vanilla and doctrine).
-81mm rate of fire vs 82mm AoE
-MHT mobility+vehicle vs 120mm AoE + dmg

Howies are largely fine and asymmetric in quality.
-Ost rate of fire vs Sov AoE

Katyusha/Panzerwerfer are largely fine and asymmetric
- I do think Katyushas are too vulnerable. Perhaps a speed increase?

But the Barrage disparity? 2 vs 0. Not fine and not asymmetric.

Glad to see you nonetheless agree that my suggestion is reasonable.
The motion is now effectively seconded, so its on the table.

Stug with Barrage for Muni.

I'm all for giving the STUG a muni-barrage shot. Maybe more Germans will build them, thereby feeding easy kills to my SU-85's .

I imagine you would still see STUGs as often as you see SU-76's. IE: very, very little.

But at least the option would be there. This game needs more variety. The entire balance of tanks in this game needs a complete rework.

@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?)

numbers of types of unit is not relevant , the thing one is interested is in the number of roles a unit can fill .

Anyway i feel that a panzerwerfer produced form t3 but enabled through the t4 upgrade would fix the problem

Heh, I don't know why you guys even bother arguing with nullist.
Fancy words don't hide the fact that his knowledge of the game is greatly reflected by his record.

Really? You know all that info? Everything you claim is right and everyone else who thinks differently has "irrelevant" opinions or are simply "wrong"? Then let your freakin' knowledge reflect in your record and maybe we'd think you a credible source of info.

Theory is nice but it's a long way from application and that's what you lack. We listen to the opinions of the top tier players because it's obviously what got them to the top. I'd only listen to you if I wanted to be another mediocre-average player but it's really hard not to since you clusterfuk almost every thread.

pffffft..

@MVWhine: Nice ad hominem.

But not a single point refuted by rational argument related to balance.

TLDR: "I cant refute your points, so instead Ill attack your player card"

Also, nice necro.

@Kafiron: Dunno what you mean by "produced from t3, enabled from T4".
And actually I was saying exactly what you said. I wasnt counting unit types, but specifically the roles those perform. See what I mean? Thats exactly why I propose Barrage in Stug, at about half the volley of SU76 and ZiS.

Would provide the role, asymmetrically, at a reduced efficacy, inorder to maintain Sov indirect fire priviledge, but atleast provide Ost with that role, especially on a unit that is universally recognised as underperforming. Basically, two birds with one stone, and in a way that imo improves unilaterql balance.

I like how the soviet prefrenced players will insult someone who doesn't agree that the soviets need to be stronger and have more options because reason x... and think they are still on the moral high ground..oh the irony

guys this isn't about nullist or about who's argument is more/not relevant.

it is however about...

Anti-Air disparities

I'm kind of confused. The only Soviet AA from what I understand is the Quad Cannon on the M5 Halftrack. It takes a long time for those 4 very large guns designed for AA to take aircraft down. So long that it's rarely if ever useful.

In contrast, Germans have 5 sources of AA. The MG42 on a StuG. The MG42 on a PzIV. The MG42 on a Panther. The MG42 on a Tiger. The Ostwind. I also believe the vanilla Scout Car can work as AA, but I've not had one survive long enough to see. So that makes 6 sources. All of these kill aircraft almost instantly. In fact, my MG42 mount kill aircraft so fast the only thing I notice is the plane crashing into my units and killing everything.

Anyhow, there's an extremely obvious disparity here. Germans have 5 different anti-air sources, at least one of which is guaranteed to make a show in any given game, as a supplemental upgrade to a tank. It will kill any aircraft that make a pass, more or less instantly.

The Quad Cannon take so long, abilities can sometimes run their full course when you have it on the field. As the soul source of anti-air, the fact its on a very vulnerable platform, and the fact it has 4 massive guns not make it more in line with German's AA?

I am willing to wager that a few posts will find themselves invised and maybe even a few pms. firstly I will have to sort through all this, please try to stay on topic. and i know its probably impossible but getting along would help. (i wish i could just snip certain parts of posts.

okay on your mark, get set...
Show Spoiler

and as for my opinion on the thread i think your more likely to incorporate an Ostwin than a m3 half track in a 1v1. in a 2v2 or higher it could go both ways.

The quad is good at anti air actually. It is not my experience that this is not worth building for AA, in fact in the 2v2s where I play I always get a quad, sometimes even two. I don't care if the ostwind does it better overall, the quad is worth to get on it's own.

You would be very lucky to take down a plane with a pintle. The chance per shot is <1% I believe. The Ostwind has a 17% chance, although I would have to double check that number to confirm.

The Ostwind has slightly better AA than the Quad, they both should take down planes at a reasonable rate to one another in either event.

It should be that way or it is that way? There's a big difference there.

Tiny bugs make huge differences: a shifted decimal turns 17% into 1.7 or more specifically to the franchise, a 6.5% accidentally becomes 65%. (Hellcat pintle mgs accuracy v snipers in vCoH, IIRC.)

Also, even if there's a small margin that a pintle mg can shoot down a plane, don't they all shoot at a very high rate? Just how many times is that check taken in a single MG burst?

**edit

Did not realize this was a necro'd thread from August. My point is probably undermined as a result.

A good thread to necro, especially with that quote I had tried myself to find again some time ago to confirm AA figures. So thanks for that.

Still relevant, since atleast according to patch notes, nothing has changed in AA since then.

the quad cannon often kills my recon in the first overflight