Unbiased Balance Proposals top 100 Both Factions

The last thing the Zis needs is a buff. Jesus those things rip me to shreds all the time. They're worse than the US AT guns from COH1. Especially with the frankly ridiculous accuracy of tanks. In a 1v1 the Zis will win every time, even if you flank it.

The last thing the Zis needs is a buff. Jesus those things rip me to shreds all the time. They're worse than the US AT guns from COH1. Especially with the frankly ridiculous accuracy of tanks. In a 1v1 the Zis will win every time, even if you flank it.

wat. It has pathetic accuracy and a Tiger can circle starfe it if it comes close. It should get an accuracy buff, in exchange for losing 2 men. Any tank that stays inside an anti-tank gun's firing line should by all rights be ripped to shreds. Currently you can simply waltz an Ostwind to it, it'll get 1 shot off (if it even hits) then die.

T-34 do indeed need an AV buff. I dunno if the ram nerf is sufficient, by personally I won't be satisfied until this stupid ability is removed.

Also, nothing for StuGs? Wher T4? Penal squads don't need a build time decrease, they need not to die as fast as conscripts for 1.5x the price while having less versatility.

Buffing the 120mm mortar? Why would you? It's innacurrate but very powerful, that's kind of the point. The 81mm one does need some love however.

wat. It has pathetic accuracy and a Tiger can circle starfe it if it comes close. It should get an accuracy buff, in exchange for losing 2 men. Any tank that stays inside an anti-tank gun's firing line should by all rights be ripped to shreds. Currently you can simply waltz an Ostwind to it, it'll get 1 shot off (if it even hits) then die.

T-34 do indeed need an AV buff. I dunno if the ram nerf is sufficient, by personally I won't be satisfied until this stupid ability is removed.

Also, nothing for StuGs? Wher T4? Penal squads don't need a build time decrease, they need not to die as fast as conscripts for 1.5x the price while having less versatility.

Buffing the 120mm mortar? Why would you? It's innacurrate but very powerful, that's kind of the point. The 81mm one does need some love however.

Both exaggerating.

Any turreted tank that gets near enough to an AT gun can circlestrafe it to death (which is fine. An ZiS gun backed with AT nades is more than capable of dealing with a P-IV), the AT guns are generally reasonably accurate right now (except vs. T-70s... I had one just sitting in a PAK-43's arc earlier dodging everything).

The Ostwind is a hard AI vehicle with pretty lousy AT. If you're against an Ostwind, you need to support an AT gun, preferably with armour. That's not really an indictment of AT guns.

The main thing with the ZiS is aside from the very solid barrage that the 6 crewmen and merge make you far more capable of keeping it alive, retreating with it intact and gaining vet with it than the PAK against the Soviet T3.

top 100 ?

Shit, I'm not in top 100.

Both exaggerating.

Any turreted tank that gets near enough to an AT gun can circlestrafe it to death (which is fine. An ZiS gun backed with AT nades is more than capable of dealing with a P-IV), the AT guns are generally reasonably accurate right now (except vs. T-70s... I had one just sitting in a PAK-43's arc earlier dodging everything).

The Ostwind is a hard AI vehicle with pretty lousy AT. If you're against an Ostwind, you need to support an AT gun, preferably with armour. That's not really an indictment of AT guns.

The main thing with the ZiS is aside from the very solid barrage that the 6 crewmen and merge make you far more capable of keeping it alive, retreating with it intact and gaining vet with it than the PAK against the Soviet T3.

Which is why I want it brought down to 4 men, with an accuracy increase. The PaK shuld also get it; I find that it's just not punishing enough to get your tanks into an AT gun's field of fire right now. They miss too much, especially at long range.

As for Ostwinds, you mean you need SU-85s. ''lousy'' AT or not, it still owns the T70 and can almost reliably pen the T-34. Said T-34s cannot kill them fast enough; there's always the ram option of course, but short of using that risky ability you have very little that can actually kill T3 tanks short of the overpowered SU-85. That's a big problem with Soviets right now; SU-85s + guards + snipers is OP, but deviate from that and you have gaping holes in your tech, because only the SU-85 can reliably engage enemy armor. AT guns get decrewed easily and are too innacurate, mines rely on luck, Guards cant pen, T-34 might as well not exist against tanks if it doesn't ram. I've had several Ostwinds waltz into the range of two AT guns and decrew them both after dodging 2-3 shots while my Conscripts were busy stemming the tide of the grenspam. I've had T-70s do similar things. It infuriates me, as in VCOH any tank save a doctrinal heavy that attacked 2 AT guns without flanking was turned into scrap in short order. In this game half the tanks can laugh at their presence if they don't have heavy support.

I like the proposed changes overall. For the German sniper, I'd go with the health increase option - the vet 1 ability is too good to be a default ability. It's a bit like giving a Stuart cannister shot at sniper range from the start of the game. I'm not sure about the Stug changes. I think the Stug/PIV and the T34/SU-85 issue is a problem mainly because the Germans can have both from the same building in the same window while as Soviets you're only going to be getting one or the other. I'm interested to see how Relic is going to handle any changes. It's a tough one just due to the building/tech differences.

Which is why I want it brought down to 4 men, with an accuracy increase. The PaK shuld also get it; I find that it's just not punishing enough to get your tanks into an AT gun's field of fire right now. They miss too much, especially at long range.

As for Ostwinds, you mean you need SU-85s. ''lousy'' AT or not, it still owns the T70 and can almost reliably pen the T-34. Said T-34s cannot kill them fast enough; there's always the ram option of course, but short of using that risky ability you have very little that can actually kill T3 tanks short of the overpowered SU-85. That's a big problem with Soviets right now; SU-85s + guards + snipers is OP, but deviate from that and you have gaping holes in your tech, because only the SU-85 can reliably engage enemy armor. AT guns get decrewed easily and are too innacurate, mines rely on luck, Guards cant pen, T-34 might as well not exist against tanks if it doesn't ram. I've had several Ostwinds waltz into the range of two AT guns and decrew them both after dodging 2-3 shots while my Conscripts were busy stemming the tide of the grenspam. I've had T-70s do similar things. It infuriates me, as in VCOH any tank save a doctrinal heavy that attacked 2 AT guns without flanking was turned into scrap in short order. In this game half the tanks can laugh at their presence if they don't have heavy support.

I'm OK with an asymmetry of survivability vs. accuracy in the AT guns (i.e. with them being less vcohey).

T-34s work fine against an Ostwind (unless the Ostwind reaches vet 2). They don't instagib them like an SU-85 does but they will reliably push one off, and kill a damaged one not too slowly. After the T-34 rebalancing they'll probably be a bit more of a serious threat 1 on 1.

I'm playing Soviets as T2-T3 (sometimes even T1 + guard motor doctrine - T3) on Kholodny at the moment. The T-70/34 pack can trample infantry and stop an Ostwind from running around doing damage, 1 or 2 AT-guns discourage P-IVs, maxims hold back grens. Everything works pretty well, and the presence of AT-guns and the lack of squishy snipers means you don't necessarily need guards.

I kind of think people are underestimating Soviet T3 by comparing it to Soviet T4 (or, basically just SU-85s) right now. Don't think it's in that terrible a position, though a small T-34 buff would help it against P-IVs.

Edit: this said, I absolutely agree that StuGs and Ostheer T4 need to be more attractive relative to P-IVs. The Brummbar is maybe even in a less useful position than the StuG right now.

Cant buff T34 AV without nerfing its very powerful AI, imo. I think people have forgotten how good its AI is in all the recent SU85 spamming.

Protip: Attack Ground with SU76 during Barrage cooldown. Reducing the Barrage time would further worsen the indirect fire option disparity between the factions.

Mortars, both 82mm and 120mm are both fine. Infact I think the 120mm needs some AoE reduction on account of its range and dmg.

HTs die from AT nade and some small arms. Guard are not necessary vs HTs. ACs, perhaps, but not HTs. The HTs vet 2 is fine, especially consdering that M5 has 3x the frontal armor for exactly the same price. Id argue that HT is so far the unit that has received most nerfs, it does not require anymore.

Your proposal does very little for Ost T4, and does not offer the diversity and incentive to use unpopular units such as Stug, though that is your incentive for Sov changes.

By making Soviet T3 stronger and Increasing Range of Stug I thnk it makes the Stug a much better option.

I admit I don't have much experience with German T4, but a cost reduction and Brum and small buff to panther seems about right to me. The halftrack you might be right about,

I don't know about COH AT guns having less survivability, I'd trade that extra man on my PaK for a cloak in a heartbeat. And I'd rather have AP rounds that can put a dent into anything than a barrage that is rather easily dodged. But of course, different games, different units. Still, the accuracy meant that they were proper glass cannons. Now they are in a weird spot where they have too many men to be fragile, but not enough accuracy/ROF to be real threats. They're kinda useful as deterrents but unless your opponent is a complete noob you will never kill a tank with AT guns, and I find T-34 unsufficient as a finishing unit; their penetration/damage is too low to reliably destroy P4s/StuGs even when they're crippled if they have a modicum of support, as they need to flank and get close. It should really get 120 dmg and + 10-15 penetration, along with a ram nerf. The best thing with the SU-85 is that it can finish off its prey. Too easily, as it's OP, but still.

Shit, I'm not in top 100.

with the new ladder feature (thx for that btw),everyone´s starting to present his epenis

T2: Reduce Maxim to 4 man, increase suppression. Increase fire rate of 83mm Mortar b/w current value and pre-nerf value (slight buff), increase penetration of Zis Field Gun

Yes. HMGs that don't supress are useless per definition.

with the new ladder feature (thx for that btw),everyone´s starting to present his epenis

I'm not trying to brag here, just trying to express that I have played enough to understand game mechanics and that the changes I propose are not just NOOB IMBA rant.

Yes. HMGs that don't supress are useless per definition.

HMGs are also a force multiplier, due to DPS.
Suppression is not the only function, especially not for the faster setup, higher DPS Maxim.

The asymmetric balance Relic has set up between the two suggests that MG42 has a suppression arc for subduing massed Sov infantry, whereas the Maxim has a faster deployment and DPS intended to cause attrition and support small arms fire.

Perhaps Maxim could use a small DPS increase?

As to the 82mm, Ost setup teams operate at 3/4 survival of Sov equivalents. This needs to be represented in asymmetric mortar equivalency by a Ost mortar that can handle the extra 2 men in the setup teams and infantry squads it is intended to counter.

TLDR: Ost Mortar needs to be a bit "better" than Sov, because it has to deal with 2 additional men on its targets.

HMGs are also a force multiplier, due to DPS.
Suppression is not the only function, especially not for the faster setup, higher DPS Maxim.

The asymmetric balance Relic has set up between the two suggests that MG42 has a suppression arc for subduing massed Sov infantry, whereas the Maxim has a faster deployment and DPS intended to cause attrition and support small arms fire.

Perhaps Maxim could use a small DPS increase?

As long as clown cars are effectively required because of the insane performance of mg42s the maxim is doomed to being useless in 1vs1. Maybe if snipers and mortars were switched around after the maxim got buffed, it would atleast be a choice that people entertained. In team games as long as the suppression on them is so bad that they can't reliably control a single squad they're only useful at garrisoning up buildings, and this in turn is only because germans are so bad at getting stuff out of said buildings rather than due to any real merit on the maxims part.

As to the 82mm, Ost setup teams operate at 3/4 survival of Sov equivalents. This needs to be represented in asymmetric mortar equivalency by a Ost mortar that can handle the extra 2 men in the setup teams and infantry squads it is intended to counter.

TLDR: Ost Mortar needs to be a bit "better" than Sov, because it has to deal with 2 additional men on its targets.

Can we please have 2man mortar teams on the soviet side then? Honestly the extra crew members are just in the way (making the mortar take losses from a far larger area of hits because of how they're spread out), and I've love to have better stats where it counts. If the mortar actually had atleast as good stats as the axis mortar then it might actually get to vet1 and start being useful a bit faster.

Generally speaking I don't find the extra crewmembers on the zis and mortars to be useful against anything except infantry small arms. Any explosive effects from tanks, artillery, mortars will kill them just as fast as the german equivalents, and these are the primary threats to them.

In team games

Sorry, but I stopped reading there.

HMGs are also a force multiplier, due to DPS.

I don't build HMGs to "multiply my force". You're better off getting another Guard Rifle with SMG upgrade or a Sniper. Especially maxim HMGs are simply not useful when its "just about DPS", they require too much micro and aren't flexible enough so in the end they deal less effective DPS than other units from all the repositioning and pressing the retreat button.

Add that to the fact that the entire german army is equipped to gracefully deal with maxims, bundle nades, gren nade from the edge of the maxim's attack range, FLHTs, scout cars...

The same is true for the german HMG but the wider arc obviously helps to actually get that damage on the target. Still, I don't build MG42's just so they can rape infantry, I use them to deny space and stall advances. If I want to deal damage I equip a Gren with an LMG or use a Pgren.

That is why HMGs that don't supress are useless. Just like tanks that can't kill other tanks.

Maxims suppress just fine. They just take longer to pin.

You are confusing concepts.

As to DPS, the Maxim has slightly better DPS than a Guard squad, fyi.

As to capability of the Ost army to deal with Maxims, this is mirrored by Sovs Oorah, Molotov, M3s with/out Garrison and Shocks Nade. This is a false argument.

The two equivalents are asymmetrically mirrored and balanced.
MG wider arc vs Maxim faster de/setup.
MG better pinning vs Maxims greater DPS.
MGs 3/4 survival vs Maxims more frequent redeplyment need.

Sounds like a pretty functional comparison to me.
If MG42s suppression rate is reduced, Sov will Oorah it in the face.
If its arc is reduced, it fails to Maxims setup time.
If Mg42s crew is reduced, it will be even more vulnerable than it already is in model comparison.

What exactly are you suggesting as a change to MG42s and Maxim?
Please, be as specific as you can.

As to capability of the Ost army to deal with Maxims, this is mirrored by Sovs Oorah, Molotov, M3s with/out Garrison and Shocks Nade. This is a false argument.

This isn't even argument. I build HMGs to deny space and stall attacks. The maxim MG fails at this job, therefore I don't build it. I don't build HMGs for DPS purposes, because there are other units that are better at DPS.

This isn't even argument. I build HMGs to deny space and stall attacks. The maxim MG fails at this job, therefore I don't build it. I don't build HMGs for DPS purposes, because there are other units that are better at DPS.

I use maxims for exactly that. Depending on the map, they work alright. They make up for the weaker suppression and field of fire by being much harder to decrew and much lower risk, as well as the very quick turning. They can usually suppress infantry reasonably fast, and they aren't up against molotovs and oorah, nor are they 4-man squads against better Soviet snipers. In a narrow lane, they're really just as good as an MG-42 on balance. In a building they're better than one.