KV1 and Churchill can take too much damage

1- All mortars fell out of favour when they nerfed them and improved formations.
2- Trust me, Penals only saving grace was a flamer which wouldn't explode and a satchel which would wipe any unit which was on deep snow. I was salty enough in those days that i had the world record on having the CE flamer explode on less than 1s after purchasing it with my first 60 munitions.
4- Not really. Sturms are early units, Volks are midgame and Obers are meant for late.

1. Not the soviet mortar. Its not used less or more. thats the one they did not change.
2. I,m propbably mis remembering then.
4. And yet volks are more numurous throughout the game. Sturms are only replaced when lost for repairs. Obers are a rarity nowadays. So volks are early mid and late game infantry.

If your enemy has enough fuel to spam churchills to the extent that it overwhelms your defences then they could have drowned you in Cromwells long before hand.

The Churchill is really only good at body blocking an assault then trundling back for lengthy repairs. If you want to actually go on the offensive you /leave then rematch as USF/USSR as UKF is a borderline meme faction

I'd honestly like to hear how the primarily allied players would counter a croc backed by a firefly in 1v1. If the "big and slow" heavy tanks should have high rear armor because of that, shouldn't we buff JT rear armor to like 200? I mean it's the slowest tank in the game right?

I'd honestly like to hear how the primarily allied players would counter a croc backed by a firefly in 1v1. If the "big and slow" heavy tanks should have high rear armor because of that, shouldn't we buff JT rear armor to like 200? I mean it's the slowest tank in the game right?

Probably with multiple Stugs with or without smoke, especially late game if there is a croc and a firefly. With OKW, most likely go into JP4 spam into JT if needed.

I'd honestly like to hear how the primarily allied players would counter a croc backed by a firefly in 1v1. If the "big and slow" heavy tanks should have high rear armor because of that, shouldn't we buff JT rear armor to like 200? I mean it's the slowest tank in the game right?

I'd assume with 930 MP 370 FU worth of stuff.

Really? Historical accuracy? Okay. The KV1 is outdated and can be penetrated regularily by a Panzer IV.

KV-1 was outdated because of its gun, which struggled against P4s and better at range and it couldn't close up reliably, so mobility was another issue.
It was completely imprevious to P3 and P4s were upgunned to stand any chance.

Sounds shockingly familiar to CoH2 representation and dynamics.

Was supposed to say "Doctrinal solution to a non-doctrinal problem" but I was in a rush and screwd it up...

I got what you meant(non reptiles can actually understand context of the conversation even if some words are off it still comes right in the whole context instead of picking singular words and decunstructing them to make own argument look good), I've replied to what you've had on mind.

Comet on release was basically a Pershing which could be spam.

Well, it had its own critical flaw, which made it completely useless in common situations - it had no projectile and couldn't engage any vehicle in smoke at all.

I'd honestly like to hear how the primarily allied players would counter a croc backed by a firefly in 1v1. If the "big and slow" heavy tanks should have high rear armor because of that, shouldn't we buff JT rear armor to like 200? I mean it's the slowest tank in the game right?

Contrary to JT, their frontal armor is actually penetrable reliably by most axis AT forms.
In other words: Its impossible to kill JT any other way then flank.
Also, its not like JT/ele guns struggle to penetrate T34s and shermans and KV-1 and churchill most certainly do not have an easy time against P4s, they have advantage, but its still going to be a long brawl.
To kill Churchill/KV-1 you just need to park a Panther in front of it.

And for your question, JT/ele would do the job reliably, fast and with complete impunity.

I'd honestly like to hear how the primarily allied players would counter a croc backed by a firefly in 1v1. If the "big and slow" heavy tanks should have high rear armor because of that, shouldn't we buff JT rear armor to like 200? I mean it's the slowest tank in the game right?

What does the croc+firefly have to do with this thread? It has normal heavy tank health and 290 armor, it's very different from the Churchill. If you ask the same question about firefly+Churchill, just use AT guns and spot

JT has 525 armor. The Churchill has 240. AT guns have far less than a 50% chance frontally on a JT point blank, 80% at max range on a Churchill

That'd change a flanking P4's chance to penetrate a Churchill from 70% to 82%, assuming it's right up in its face.

so ? still standrtized to other heavy tank

Probably with multiple Stugs with or without smoke, especially late game if there is a croc and a firefly. With OKW, most likely go into JP4 spam into JT if needed.

Jp4 spam? In 1v1?

I'd assume with 930 MP 370 FU worth of stuff.

Such as? Try using 50 range raks vs croc...

Contrary to JT, their frontal armor is actually penetrable reliably by most axis AT forms.
In other words: Its impossible to kill JT any other way then flank.
Also, its not like JT/ele guns struggle to penetrate T34s and shermans and KV-1 and churchill most certainly do not have an easy time against P4s, they have advantage, but its still going to be a long brawl.
To kill Churchill/KV-1 you just need to park a Panther in front of it.

And for your question, JT/ele would do the job reliably, fast and with complete impunity.

Non doc vs doc doesn’t sound very fair. JT costs more than the churchills therefore it should have better armor.

What does the croc+firefly have to do with this thread? It has normal heavy tank health and 290 armor, it's very different from the Churchill. If you ask the same question about firefly+Churchill, just use AT guns and spot

JT has 525 armor. The Churchill has 240. AT guns have far less than a 50% chance frontally on a JT point blank, 80% at max range on a Churchill

JT is doctrinal. Churchill and firefly isn’t. How does 50 range at gun work vs 1400 hp and grenades clears?

In a bizarre vacuum where I am allowed to pick with foreknowledge of what my opponents 2 vehicles are, I guess I'd go with 2 panthers or a command panther + 2x puma support.

JT is doctrinal.

You can also say it has no tech costs. And your question started about the Croc.

How does 50 range at gun work vs 1400 hp and grenades clears?

I mean 50>35. If you spot for them rather than just solo cloak creeping the Churchill still has to drive up to it. But OKW also has jp4.

Such as? Try using 50 range raks vs croc...

If it's the Croc rather than a standard Churchill, make that about 1080 MP 385 FU worth of stuff.

Which is easily two Panthers.

You can also say it has no tech costs. And your question started about the Croc.



I mean 50>35. If you spot for them rather than just solo cloak creeping the Churchill still has to drive up to it. But OKW also has jp4.

60>50 though and we still needed a nerf on the KT, JT , brummbar you name it. The Churchill is still cheaper than an OST panther which is just pathetic considering the HP it has and how it’s main gun can actually kill infantry.

The point is, no one unit should be OP axis or allied. If you get flanked you should take some damage instead of bouncing shots.

Outside of repeating like a broken record, we do not have any actual evidence that churchill or kv-1 are op in any way.

We only have looping, endlessly repeating statements that late game damage sponge tanks with bad guns can take a lot of damage compared to units with more armor and much better firepower.

60>50 though and we still needed a nerf on the KT, JT , brummbar you name it.

What is your point here and why is the JT in it? It has greater than 60 range.

What is your point here and why is the JT in it? It has greater than 60 range.

The point is, everyone cried the JT was OP, received a nerf. Now we have a threads about the Churchill and KV-1 and it’s just L2P as a response. Seems pretty dumb.

Outside of repeating like a broken record, we do not have any actual evidence that churchill or kv-1 are op in any way.

We only have looping, endlessly repeating statements that late game damage sponge tanks with bad guns can take a lot of damage compared to units with more armor and much better firepower.

Outside of repeating like a broken record, we do not have any actual evidence that churchill or kv-1 are not op in any way.

The point is, everyone cried the JT was OP, received a nerf. Now we have a threads about the Churchill and KV-1 and it’s just L2P as a response. Seems pretty dumb.

The dumb thing is crowdsourcing balance in the first place.

Outside of repeating like a broken record, we do not have any actual evidence that churchill or kv-1 are not op in any way.

Because, surprise surprise, 'overpowered' is a completely subjective term.

...
Because, surprise surprise, 'overpowered' is a completely subjective term.

No "'overpowered' is a completely subjective term".
JLI where OP
Tiger ACE was op
Assault Grenadier where OP
Win industry was OP
Cancer commander was OP
Penal with flamer where OP
USF mortar was OP
....

This is too much IMO and decreasing it's price is not a good trade-off. It needs stat buffs if you're gonna nerf it's health to other heavy levels while it still has 240 armor. Otherwise it brings nothing to the table.

I don't understand the need for a limit if you've taken away it's only strength

It would be a starting step. We can't balance it all in one go imo. I'd see an armour increase if needed, but something costing as much as a premium medium but the health pool of a heavy tank could be absolutely worth being only 1,even at 240 armour. You would likley see one every anvil game, but only 1 and balance could be tuned for that. Coupled with call in cooldown starting only after unit death instead of on call in and it might balance it out enough. Obviously this is all theory crafting but I think it could be a good 1st step.