Mark Target OP

Oh my god. My serious, serious god. Man, I'll have to go search the vCoH replays @ gamereplays and find one where someone started QQing that the Luftwaffle Doctrine's Schwimm mark target was gloriously OP.

My god, I need to hunt you down with some unit, no matter what it is, to DEAL the damage. You're attacking my ATG, which you could usually lololololol and drive past, kill the crew, and continue on. I pop MT, you get boned. Next time, flank the ATG.

I pop MT and attack your P4 with my T-34/76 or pair of them (I personally don't bother ramming unless it's a Tiger or some other nonsense), thus either killing your (superior) P4 or forcing you away from that location. A PaK or Shrecks to guard your vehicle would solve that problem then and there. And if a ZiS is the thing to get the kill, god bless the gun crew and the player--that thing is questionable in worth for 390 (or 360, same diff) MP. More cost than your run of the mill tank for the ability to get rifle-naded, Pgren charged, mortared, derped by any tank or vehicle smart enough to flank it...

I run up my Guards and button your tank and then pop MT, proceeding to let your vehicle take it up the butt sans lube. Where was your support to force off my infantry/unit in general?

In a vacuum, yes, MT is hilariously 'OP'. But in the context of your average team game, no, it's "I want to wipe this vehicle and pray to god my units can hold off the rest of the Ost armor horde". SU-85s are already WTFeffective without MT, using them as an excuse for nerfing it is just bad balance ethics. Yes, it makes my T-34s able to roflstomp your tanks--where, again, is your support for your tanks? Don't your tanks penetrate mine like an L/48 7.5cm gun through cum-soaked tissue paper? A pair of StuGs can still easily do well even on their own, against a pair of T-34/76s with MT, especially if used in the context of a game where they pop a stun shell or just focus fire into the first T-34 that appears. At worst, you come off equal in losses. If you get rammed, back up the other StuG and lel as you kill the non-damaged T-34, and then the damaged one. If you get dual-rammed, ask yourself where your support was if you can't get them repaired and back into the fight.

Context guys. We need context on these forums, there's too much vacuum fighting. See: the 'MG42 overnerfed' esque threads. Why yes, an unsupported MG42 will get rushed by a squad of Cons that strays into its arc of fire and kills the MG before it can suppress them. When, and WHY, would you ever have an MG42 sitting on its thumbs off in the corner of the map, waiting for the nearest god-knows-what to come its way?

When used properly it wins any armor engagement. Period.

Increase to 100 Muni, or reduction to duration, or change to penetration increase are imo all valid options.

Volsky, its ironic that you refer to "vacuum", and then build one sided scenarios that completely neglect what Sov should be doing in them and which represent terrible Sov play.

In your first example of PIV vs ATG, where is your Con ATNade support? Why is your ATG exposed? You expect 1 ATG to counter a PIV?

In your second example, why on earth are you not ramming with 2x T34? Do you not realise that with MT on the PIV, your ramming T34 hits it like a guided missile with a huge warhead attached? The Ram does signficant dmg, and MT increases that too by 50%.

Third example, you are RUNNING UP your Guards to Button? My lols.

Fourth example, "context of team games". MT is even more potent in teamgames where you can bring even more AT to bare for that same 80 Muni cost. Do you not realise that your teammates AT also gets the modifier?

Fifth example, you are FRONTALLY approaching Stugs with your T34s? LOL!

These are your non- vacuum "context"?
Each of them an example of exactly what NOT to do as Sov.

When used properly it wins any armor engagement. Period.

Increase to 100 Muni, or reduction to duration, or change to penetration increase are imo all valid options.

Volsky, its ironic that you refer to "vacuum", and then build one sided scenarios that completely neglect what Sov should be doing in them and which represent terrible Sov play.

In your first example of PIV vs ATG, where is your Con ATNade support? Why is your ATG exposed? You expect 1 ATG to counter a PIV?

In your second example, why on earth are you not ramming with 2x T34? Do you not realise that with MT on the PIV, your ramming T34 hits it like a guided missile with a huge warhead attached? The Ram does signficant dmg, and MT increases that too by 50%.

Third example, you are RUNNING UP your Guards to Button? My lols.

Fourth example, "context of team games". MT is even more potent in teamgames where you can bring even more AT to bare for that same 80 Muni cost. Do you not realise that your teammates AT also gets the modifier?

Fifth example, you are FRONTALLY approaching Stugs with your T34s? LOL!

These are your non- vacuum "context"?
Each of them an example of exactly what NOT to do as Sov.

I think this ability is just roflstronk, ever gone partisan doctrine(the pay one) get 2 su76 and a partisan tank hunter squad? gl hf p4, you wont have any infantry support and those su76's will fuck you up pretty fast with marked vehicle if you dare Kappa

I think this ability is just roflstronk, ever gone partisan doctrine(the pay one) get 2 su76 and a partisan tank hunter squad? gl hf p4, you wont have any infantry support and those su76's will fuck you up pretty fast with marked vehicle if you dare Kappa

Yeah, especially that these SU76 are really robust and hard to flank.

Oh wait...

Seriously.

Yeah, especially that these SU76 are really robust and hard to flank.

Oh wait...

Seriously.

In combination with at-nades and mines a p4 doesn't stand a chance.

In combination with at-nades and mines a p4 doesn't stand a chance.

Yeah, add a whole Soviet army as well. Common. In the end it's all about skill and wise usage of units.
This whole thread is a joke. Let's call everything that can threaten Germans OP and whine for nerf.

Just pop up smoke or blitz. Antiability is cheaper then Mark.

Its OTT, I dont understand how anyone objective can disagree with that.

Its so good, that its already skewing Commander choices especially towards this.

It has a four fold effect.
1) You dominate an armor unit with hard dps.
2) You force it out of the engagement
3) It keeps it out for a full minute
4) You can even track it feom the air.

I think the ability is good, in general, for those 4 factors.
But its OTT in the net result of the combined effect.

I think it would be better balanced at 100 Muni cost and 30s duration.
Its still useful in direct engagements as an instant, but its cost becomes more signficant in early engagements, and its long term effect less significant in later more protracted engagements in late game also, where the Muni cost is not so detrimental.

Its just too good, really, for its cost and what you can leverage out of it.

It needs adjustment.

Its OTT, I dont understand how anyone objective can disagree with that.

Its so good, that its already skewing Commander choices especially towards this.

It has a four fold effect.
1) You dominate an armor unit with hard dps.
2) You force it out of the engagement
3) It keeps it out for a full minute
4) You can even track it feom the air.

I think the ability is good, in general, for those 4 factors.
But its OTT in the net result of the combined effect.

I think it would be better balanced at 100 Muni cost and 30s duration.
Its still useful in direct engagements as an instant, but its cost becomes more signficant in early engagements, and its long term effect less significant in later more protracted engagements in late game also, where the Muni cost is not so detrimental.

Its just too good, really, for its cost and what you can leverage out of it.

It needs adjustment.

MT have no effect if you dont shot. Cover your tanks with paks, use blitz or smoke and you have no problem with mark.
80 is many munition.

Take Mark and give Soviet blitz or smoke. Or armor from second star. :-)))))))))))))

MT has a DIRECT effect even without a single shot fired.

It forces the MT targetted unit OFF THE FIELD. AND you know where it is for 60s.

How is that "no effect"? Seriously, this kind of misrepresentation of the actual effects of MT is almost autistic. Don't you understand what that causes to the opposing Ost player?

The practical result from MT, is it forces one Ost armor unit off the field and out of an engagement. Especially considering the current asymmetric alignment where Sov generally fields more armor units than Ost, that means a huge difference in his onfield force.

In earlygame, that means a PIV has to withdraw and hide vs even a single well positioned ZiS as well as T34. If you went SU85 instead, the initial shot alone forces it off. There is no way a PIV can maintain onfield presence while MTd, vs a SU85. Su85 with MT takes about 50% off the PIVs hp in ONE SHOT. Not to mention how long the PIV will remain off field, not just the 60s of MT, but in order to be repaired from those opening shots.

I cant understand why people dont see that MT is OOT, except as to say you must not be using it enough or properly to leverage it to its full extent.

For the autists and fanbois among you, let me elaborate what MT means to the Ost player.
It means he has to pull that armor RIGHT OUT, immediately, and hide it for the next 60s. It also means he has to repair the dmg you may have managed with the initial shots, for even more off-field time. If Ost had overextended at the time you pop MT, into a deliberate AT ambush, well, he probably lost the Armor right then and there.

No, just no. This ability is OOT, and needs a nerf to atleast one of its functions.

If you cannot understand that, you are either not using MT correctly, or are so Sov biased that you dont understand how serious the effects of this are on Ost.

Sigh. I could smash you in an actual game and you'd find a way to justify my making a mistake somewhere. My point in that massive post is, again, theory crafting and vacuum fighting. Yay, you produced theoretical counters and mistakes on my part. Also, pardon me if I'm playing the Soviets wrong, I'll remember that the next time I'm carrying a pub match by doing exactly that.

The vCoH crowd had no issue dealing with MT, which was used by the Schwimmwagen (easily spammable) when the Luftwaffe Tactics tree was chosen. You see the red glow, you GTFO or suffer getting rolled. It's a DPS booster, but it's also a sort of area denial--forces you to get out of wherever you are or suffer getting beaned in the face with a small tactical nuke--gee, I apologize for not jihading my T-34s at the first sight of an enemy vehicle (with or without MT).

Single AT made can force a unit off the battlefield for the engagement as well and the unit has to be repaired as well afterwards. I call AT nades OOP.

Btw I think it's only fair that you suffer some loses when you overextend.

Yes. Lets compare ATNade to MT.
That makes perfect sense!

Dont worry, none of the changes suggested will save an overextended vehicle.

The effect is the same. AT made can cripple vehicles and make them vulnerable for some time.

The effect is the same. AT made can cripple vehicles and make them vulnerable for some time.

The cost isn't.

The effect is the same.

Oh, so ATNade gives +50% dmg and tracking on a target for 60s, and MT also gives engine crits.

Is this guy for real? Must be a troll.
You overplayed your silliness this time, bro.
Just admit it already. You must be trolling.

Sigh. I could smash you in an actual game and you'd find a way to justify my making a mistake somewhere. My point in that massive post is, again, theory crafting and vacuum fighting. Yay, you produced theoretical counters and mistakes on my part. Also, pardon me if I'm playing the Soviets wrong, I'll remember that the next time I'm carrying a pub match by doing exactly that.

The vCoH crowd had no issue dealing with MT, which was used by the Schwimmwagen (easily spammable) when the Luftwaffe Tactics tree was chosen. You see the red glow, you GTFO or suffer getting rolled. It's a DPS booster, but it's also a sort of area denial--forces you to get out of wherever you are or suffer getting beaned in the face with a small tactical nuke--gee, I apologize for not jihading my T-34s at the first sight of an enemy vehicle (with or without MT).

Sorry but you implying schimwaggen equals any kind of "rolling" you lose all credibility. People who chose the mark target over camouflage were not people who did "rolling". Mark target only slightly increased received accuracy and a few seconds of tracking into fog of war. Those abilities could also be labeled as useless benefit 1 and 2.

I think mark target is fine, there are so many other important issues that need attention.

Oh, so ATNade gives +50% dmg and tracking on a target for 60s, and MT also gives engine crits.

Is this guy for real? Must be a troll.
You overplayed your silliness this time, bro.
Just admit it already. You must be trolling.

You were saying that even if MT doesn't inflict any DMG it still forces unit out of combat. I said that you can gain the same effect using AT made. Ypu can criiple tank and force it out of combat. How's that trolling?