Churchill Durability

The Churchill has 1400 HP and 240 frontal armor. The doctrinal Churchill variants used to be the same.

Prior to DBP, all Churchills had the same durability: they're exactly the same tank with a different armament. However, for some reason the team behind DBP decided to change that, making the doctrinal Churchills 290 frontal armor, 1080 HP instead.

CoH 2 is a game largely 'played by feel', with most of the stats hidden from the players unless you look them up online. Therefore, it's important that the performance of units doesn't differ wildly from the expectations other units set up. If it wants to rely entirely on visual language and player experience to communicate unit performance then it needs that visual language to be consistent.

CoH 2's come a long way in fixing these inconsistencies: the Churchill Crocodile and Churchill now have the same damage on their identical turret, the KV-8 and KV-1 now have similar durability, the Panther's been standardized across factions, et cetera.

So why this step backwards in DBP? Why make the Crocodile (a tank with less armor on the model) have an unaccountably higher armour value? Why make the AVRE and Crocodile both blow up two AT hits faster than someone used to Churchills expects them too?

If it were an oversight I'd get it, but it's clearly deliberate: I just don't understand it. Was it a scope issue and they fixed what they were allowed to, or did they genuinely think it was better that way?

Anyway, should this be fixed? Should the three Churchill variants go back to having the same durability as each other, or should they be different despite the game not communicating this to the player in any way?

It's just a problem with different types of units with varying offensie powers using the same chassis. Giving the AVRE/Croc 1400HP would make them overpowered, but giving the Churchill Mk.VII 1080HP would make it a piece of shite and would remove its only role (soak damage for the TDs).

I don't think it's such a big issue for the Churchill variants though since they are easy to distinguish from eachother. The KVs and Panthers needed standardization because they all look the same.

As someone who hates the inaccessibility for new players of shadow stats I think they should be the same. Or at the very least a tool tip in the unit card to let new players know that the churchill they just called in isn't the same durability as the churchills they have been building.

No, because they have different visual armor. AVRE doesnt have armor on the front treads and Croc doesnt have armor on treads at all.

It's just a problem with different types of units with varying offensie powers using the same chassis. Giving the AVRE/Croc 1400HP would make them overpowered, but giving the Churchill Mk.VII 1080HP would make it a piece of shite and would remove its only role (soak damage for the TDs).

I don't think it's such a big issue for the Churchill variants though since they are easy to distinguish from eachother. The KVs and Panthers needed standardization because they all look the same.

You wouldn't just change one attribute. An HP buff would come with an armor nerf. An armor buff would come with an HP nerf.

No, because they have different visual armor. AVRE doesnt have armor on the front treads and Croc doesnt have armor on treads at all.

I'd agree on this one were it not for the fact that it's backwards. The AVRE and Churchill have substantially more mechanical armour.

The reason the croc and AVRE were changed to lower HP pools was because they were unstoppable at their old HP values. Current churchills face a similar problem. The difference is the stock churchill doesn't have an instagib mortar or a flame thrower that can wipe any AT gun it walks into. The old croc could run into 3 cloaked raks, clear them all, and then leave without it even being remotely close to death, and that is just so many problems rolled into 1 unit.

Currently churchills are one of the most difficult units to handle in lower player gamemodes. AT sources are more rare and punishments are far greater. If anything is going to be done about these units it's far more likely we're going to see a stock churchill HP nerf than anything.

The reason the croc and AVRE were changed to lower HP pools was because they were unstoppable at their old HP values. Current churchills face a similar problem. The difference is the stock churchill doesn't have an instagib mortar or a flame thrower that can wipe any AT gun it walks into. The old croc could run into 3 cloaked raks, clear them all, and then leave without it even being remotely close to death, and that is just so many problems rolled into 1 unit.

Currently churchills are one of the most difficult units to handle in lower player gamemodes. AT sources are more rare and punishments are far greater. If anything is going to be done about these units it's far more likely we're going to see a stock churchill HP nerf than anything.

Agree 100%. Lowering HP and raising armor for high DPS (and especially tanks that can dish out damage in a very short time period) tanks like the doctrinal Churchill variants will allow them to be countered by high pen, low dps units like panther, ele, jt, etc. It used to be that 2 Stugs or a JP4 can counter a croc but with nerfs to the Stug, there isn't really a good way to punish a high HP croc from overextending.

One thing to consider is that the standard Churchill is kind of a veterancy piñata. It would be nice if it had higher armor or damage reduction instead of a huge health pool.

If churchills get normalised, so should be many other units. Ostwinds and centaurs to name a few

I would be alright with the non-doc Churchill being a little more expensive. 490 manpower 175 fuel would probably be reasonable for it's performance. Comet should probably be lowered to the same cost point.

If churchills get normalised, so should be many other units. Ostwinds and centaurs to name a few

It may come as a massive surprise, but ostwinds and centaurs do not use the same hulls as opposed to churchills.

Also, it actually does make sense for AVRE to have lower durability as it used earlier variant of churchill(up to mark IV).

Most armored one, Mark VII(brit stock one) was adapted to crocodile.

Balance overrides historic accuracy.

Having that said there is little reason both balance and historical for Ostwind to be so much less durable than PzIV and Centaur to be so durable.