I hear the new patches have made western allies op?

The StuG nerf has hit Ost lategame harder than some people like to admit. I think the StuG should get a slight buff aswell (even if the cost has to be increased). Churchills and even KV1s hugely profited from the StuG rate of fire nerf. As a result the Churchill and KV1 are incredibly hard to kill.

If you don't want to bring back the rate of fire on the StuG at least give it some decent frontal armor to withstand churchill and medium tank shots. The StuG has less range to dodge shots compared to other TDs.

The StuG nerf has hit Ost lategame harder than some people like to admit. I think the StuG should get a slight buff aswell (even if the cost has to be increased). Churchills and even KV1s hugely profited from the StuG rate of fire nerf. As a result the Churchill and KV1 are incredibly hard to kill.

If you don't want to bring back the rate of fire on the StuG at least give it some decent frontal armor to withstand churchill and medium tank shots. The StuG has less range to dodge shots compared to other TDs.

Agreed, but StuG should also have better penetration. Give the unit some buffs but make it more expensive (100 fuel)

Agreed, but StuG should also have better penetration. Give the unit some buffs but make it more expensive (100 fuel)

That won't be happening as long as panther exists.

I totally agree with a few of the posts. Ost T4 was supposed to be borderline OP but not OP as in the "KT on the field = autowin" days. Ost was called the late game faction but now the late game is nothing to be jealous of.

SU has a better late game than most give credit for. There are more doctrines with doctrinal armor than those without. IS2 is a beast with 375 armor, ISU puts the Brum to shame (not saying ISU needs a nerf), KV2 is also another vastly superior version of the Brum, Brum should be better than the KV8 since it's more expensive than KV8, yet KV8 is better. The KV8 burns pak crew in 4s while Brum needs 2 shots = 7 secs. KV8 is a 7hit kill, Brum is 5 hit kill, KV8 doesn't need to be on attack ground, hold fire to be effective. I believe teh Kv8 even has more armor now, too. KV1 is a Churchill clone with bit less health, but bit more armor. Plus it's cheaper than Churchill and has OP perks like less vet given to enemy units and faster repair. T34-85, hands down best predium tank in the game. Cheaper than OKW p4, yet better. M4C is a glass cannon predium which has an RoF comparable with the old Stug. Highly underrated even after the no tech nerf.

You can see that SU player love to hide behind the excuse "we don't have a strong late game cuz everything's doctrinal." Except almost every doc gives them powerful doc armor. Not a single tank on the list is "meh" or underperforming.

Meanwhile Ost only gets one type of late game doctrinal tank. And the Tiger is a bit underperforming or "meh" at best. Ele is not a tank, highly situational and never used in 1v1. I'd rather use the ISU in a 1v1 than a Ele. But it is a damn good unit, provided that the situation requires it. T4 units are now also just ok, certainly not borderline OP. Panther used to be trash, now it's decent, not great. Brum used to be "borderline OP", but provided u micro every shot like a sniper. Now, it's just ok, which imo means it's a bit overnerfed. I laugh at Cardboard Box telling people to use panzer tac on the Brum to clear at guns. U need a doc to get tank smoke. U know what SU gets for a doctrine? KV8 - the tank better than Brum in EVERY FUCKING WAY. Cheaper, doesn't need T4, offensively better due to less micro, defensively better due to more health and likely more armor. This beast certainly doesn't need panzer tac to clear an at gun due to much more health, LOL. I swear if the old Brum didn't have access to hold fire, attack ground commands and forced to free fire, nobody would complain that it's OP. So both panther and Brum are just ok.

In conclusion, SU late game > Ost late game due to Tiger and Brum being "meh" and panther being just decent while SU doc armor is good to borderline OP.

Same can be said about Brits. Ask any player, they'll tell u they'd prefer to use the op croc over the Tiger anyday. I'd say with the hammer/anvil and doc churchills, Brits late game is on par with Ost.

OKW gets panther in tier 3, LOL, doesn't have a Brum but they have KT stock and at least some units have meaningful vet 5. OKW late game is at least as good as OST if not better.

USF is the ONLY faction with a worse late game than Ost. Ost late game IS NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF. Does Ost still suck early game? Yes, Does Ost still have a meh midgame? Yes. Then there's no time when Ost is strong, only times where Ost is weak. The only tank in T3 worth getting is P4. Ostwinds are NEVER used, Stugs only if you're desperately outnumbered or if your AN EXPERT at using them. T3 is largely UP while T4 is just "useable"

The StuG nerf has hit Ost lategame harder than some people like to admit. I think the StuG should get a slight buff aswell (even if the cost has to be increased). Churchills and even KV1s hugely profited from the StuG rate of fire nerf. As a result the Churchill and KV1 are incredibly hard to kill.

If you don't want to bring back the rate of fire on the StuG at least give it some decent frontal armor to withstand churchill and medium tank shots. The StuG has less range to dodge shots compared to other TDs.

+100 I've said this many times. Stug is overnerfed. It's offense is fine. It lacks survivability. Lower target size to sligthly higher than a Stuart or increase speed.

I really don't get the point of this thread or ones like it. Pick a unit and talk about it. Whining about an entire faction seems wildly unproductive

We have active threads about pgrens, grens, Ostwinds, etc. What is this thread about? How Ost needs help? Well, what needs help? Oh wait, it's pgrens, grens, ostwind....

I really don't get the point of this thread or ones like it. Pick a unit and talk about it. Whining about an entire faction seems wildly unproductive

We have active threads about pgrens, grens, Ostwinds, etc. What is this thread about? How Ost needs help? Well, what needs help? Oh wait, it's pgrens, grens, ostwind....

It's called the OVERALL balance of a faction compared to other factions. It DOESN'T need to focus on a single unit. And when u do focus on a single unit u lose the bigger picture. Many times a unit's performance is based on it's performance IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANOTHER UNIT. For example, grens would be useless at their price without MG42.

It's called the OVERALL balance of a faction compared to other factions. It DOESN'T need to focus on a single unit. And when u do focus on a single unit u lose the bigger picture.

There's losing the bigger picture and then there's including every single thing in the game in one picture. Literally nothing in the game is off-topic to this thread.

I also love how you said you haven't tried the new patches, and then you proceeded to offer all of your thoughts on them and why Ost isn't good enough...

There's losing the bigger picture and then there's including every single thing in the game in one picture. Literally nothing in the game is off-topic to this thread.

I also love how you said you haven't tried the new patches, and then you proceeded to offer all of your thoughts on them and why Ost isn't good enough...

The new patches didn't touch the units with problems ie. Ostwind, pgren, etc. I just made this thread because others who have tried the patch, or at least seen it in action voiced their concerns in the shoutbox about it potentially skewing the balance. You're just hating on me and my threads. That's all u do. U rarely show up to bash delusional allied biased players.

All this talk about buffing Ostheer units but the obvious and easier solution would be to roll back some of the changes that were made in the commander patch in december.

All this talk about buffing Ostheer units but the obvious and easier solution would be to roll back some of the changes that were made in the commander patch in december.

Eh, I disagree. Most of those changes are commander specific and rolling them back would be a terrible idea. Ostheer's weaknesses have less to do with allied commander choice and more due to them being somewhat left behind in terms of their tech / unit structure which hasn't changed all that much since release. They are barely balanced against soviets right now and have a tough time with brits / USF due to your core infantry simply being inferior at nearly all stages of the game, especially vs. brits, and especially if they decide to do advance emplacements and you picked a commander without a LefH to counter it.

The only things I think really need to change are a nerf to assault engineers, and a nerf to pathfinders so they don't come out immediately, make them like IR Pathfinders that have a 50 second cooldown.

The new patches didn't touch the units with problems ie. Ostwind, pgren, etc. I just made this thread because others who have tried the patch, or at least seen it in action voiced their concerns in the shoutbox about it potentially skewing the balance. You're just hating on me and my threads. That's all u do. U rarely show up to bash delusional allied biased players.

Oh my God I'm so tired of you playing the victim. You attack everybody, you attack me even when I propose buffs to Ost units. Just stop

+100 I've said this many times. Stug is overnerfed. It's offense is fine. It lacks survivability. Lower target size to sligthly higher than a Stuart or increase speed.

I’d rather see the stug have more frontal armor, more like coh1.

Eh, I disagree. Most of those changes are commander specific and rolling them back would be a terrible idea. Ostheer's weaknesses have less to do with allied commander choice and more due to them being somewhat left behind in terms of their tech / unit structure which hasn't changed all that much since release. They are barely balanced against soviets right now and have a tough time with brits / USF due to your core infantry simply being inferior at nearly all stages of the game, especially vs. brits, and especially if they decide to do advance emplacements and you picked a commander without a LefH to counter it.

The only things I think really need to change are a nerf to assault engineers, and a nerf to pathfinders so they don't come out immediately, make them like IR Pathfinders that have a 50 second cooldown.

I have never seen Assault Engineers used in 2v2 since the last nerf they got. I also very very rarely see UKF emplacements so it seems weird that you highlight how Ostheer cant counter emplacements without Lefh. But maybe that´s because you mostly play 3v3 which has a different meta to 2v2.

USF got a lot of non-doctrinal changes like the tech revamp and M20 buff. Maybe now that USF got a decent tech structure it would be time to tone down some of their OP units like the Pak Howie, 50 cal, Jackson, Scott and WC51.

USF so powerful in the late game after tech changes, too bad these changes didnt affect usf late game in any way other than making them able to survive till it comes. Suddenly pathfinders are OP even tho they are in their current state for years (or months, dont remember). Scott and jackson "breaking the balance" even tho usf saw minimal use in last team tournament with these units in their current state.

And still if you watch any high level team game, what will you see? Soviet armored assault/mech support with brit buddy vs okw spec ops/overwatch with jager armor support from ost.

This thread is loads of bs.

The statement is self contradicting. Ostheer is the benchmark. If the faction has glaring weakness than other factions are "OP" and should be brought down to Ostheer level.

That's what they tried when they nerfed the repair speeds and forward retreat point of the WFA and both the USF and UKF suffered the most, only when they brought the Penals to WFA level that the Soviets were actually good.

So I would say that your logic is flawed and if we're looking at the reality of things the EFA should be brought up to WFA levels instead of slapping the nerf hammer on everything else and calling it a day which as time has proven was the wrong decision.

I would also like to take the opportunity to say that I believe following the Age of Empires route and making the Armies/factions 90% similar would have been a hell of a lot easier to manage, design and balance instead of going the "unique" route (pic for reference: ) and having a headache of tring to design and balance them.

Everybody having mainline infantry, engineers, MGs, snipers, mortars, AT guns, Medium tanks, light vehicles, rocket arty, forward retreat points, alternative repair options and so on while having different stats, different tech structures perhaps and unique units would have made them play very differently to each other, like the factions of Age of Empires, while still having the basic tools.

So in short, no, I don't agree with you that nerfing everybody down to EFA levels is the way to go, again, as time has proven, but bringing stuff up to WFA has proven to be beneficial.

Ostheer needs help with the first 7 or 8 minutes of the game. Ostheeer's late game is solid.

@A. Solider they buffed penals to WFA levels because having 250mp volks not comparable to 280mp WFA units was an unacceptable route and they CAN'T buff cons so penals were the only option. Power creep is real.

That's what they tried when they nerfed the repair speeds and forward retreat point of the WFA and both the USF and UKF suffered the most, only when they brought the Penals to WFA level that the Soviets were actually good.

So I would say that your logic is flawed and if we're looking at the reality of things the EFA should be brought up to WFA levels instead of slapping the nerf hammer on everything else and calling it a day which as time has proven was the wrong decision.

I would also like to take the opportunity to say that I believe following the Age of Empires route and making the Armies/factions 90% similar would have been a hell of a lot easier to manage, design and balance instead of going the "unique" route ... and having a headache of tring to design and balance them.

Everybody having mainline infantry, engineers, MGs, snipers, mortars, AT guns, Medium tanks, light vehicles, rocket arty, forward retreat points, alternative repair options and so on while having different stats, different tech structures perhaps and unique units would have made them play very differently to each other, like the factions of Age of Empires, while still having the basic tools.

So in short, no, I don't agree with you that nerfing everybody down to EFA levels is the way to go, again, as time has proven, but bringing stuff up to WFA has proven to be beneficial.

You are entitled to your opinion but I have to point out some thing you got wrong, at least imo.

USF have not suffered from repair speed nerfs. They still have some of the best repair speed with crews.

The heavy supper repairing speed was simply broken, they might have overnerfed it but it used to be broken.

Part of the reason it was done was because OKW vehicles where being repaired too fast.

When they brought Penals to "WFA level" they where competently and utterly broken because they combined WFA level weapons, Flamers, ourah and Soviet level veterancy bonuses combining the best of all worlds.

Increasing the power level means that game becomes more about reaction time and less about strategic thinking, so it lose depth.

But you are still missing my point. One has to use a benchmark and balance units around that benchmark. That benchmark is grenadiers so they can not be UP, other thing are simply OP.

You are entitled to your opinion but I have to point out some thing you got wrong, at least imo.

USF have not suffered from repair speed nerfs. They still have some of the best repair speed with crews.

The heavy supper repairing speed was simply broken, they might have overnerfed it but it used to be broken.

Part of the reason it was done was because OKW vehicles where being repaired too fast.

When they brought Penals to "WFA level" they where competently and utterly broken because they combined WFA level weapons, Flamers, ourah and Soviet level veterancy bonuses combining the best of all worlds.

Increasing the power level means that game becomes more about reaction time and less about strategic thinking, so it lose depth.

But you are still missing my point. One has to use a benchmark and balance units around that benchmark. That benchmark is grenadiers so they can not be UP, other thing are simply OP.

Say what you may, my arguments are based upon facts proven as time has gone on, however your "benchmark" is now entirely your own opinion and one could even say that it's biased since I haven't noticed your explanation on it, why not have the Conscripts as a benchmark, why the Grenadiers? Why can't we have the WFA Armies' 5 man squads as a benchmark instead since they seem to be a bit easier to balance?

The Ostheer's 4 man Grenadier squads have low survivability and only lead to balance and design headaches where you're giving them 25% of their firepower in the form of the MG42 upgrade to mimic the 5 rifles shooting at them on the other side and giving them slightly more HP for each model to again mimic the survivability of the other guy's mainline unit, why? Why go through the cheesy and gimmicky route and not instead make them a 5 man squad and balance them another way.

The conscripts on the other hand represent the other extreme of being a 6 man squad but having low utility, scalability and usefulness without a doctrine (Conscript repairs, PPSh packages, etc.). People replaced them with the Maxim MG squads before, now they're being replaced by the Panels, why not just make them a 5 man squad with non-doctrinal upgrade(s) and be done with it, why the need to constantly have a non-doc replacement for them when they're meant to be your mainline infantry unit and not a support such?

It's these reasons that I deem why the EFA are so unpopular compared to the WFA and how their designs are also very flawed, so having them as "your benchmark" means that you're only going to ruin everyone else and get rid of any pleasable gameplay experience.

In the end the EFA are as gimmicky if not more than the WFA relying on unreliable mainline infantry units, no alternative repair methods non-doctrinally, no forward retreat points non-doctrinally, heavily relying on strong commander choices or risk losing the match 90% of the time in the Soviets' case and having to heavily rely on call in infantry units in the case of the Ostheer, why do you think Osttruppen are so popular, or why Ass grens dominated back when they aren't so shit?

This system of seemingly crippling an Army forcing the player to choose the same commander over and over again to plug a huge gap seems to be very detrimental for everybody.