KV1 and Churchill can take too much damage

We shouldn't balance Churchill unless we address Comet tank first. What is the alternative to late armor for Brits if Churchill is nerfed to the ground and Comet is still in crappy position? Cromwell spam?

both don't need huge changes, chrichuil should lose some of rear armor so it's around 140 and comter should get a reload buff at vet 1

Then I feel the need to question why medium tanks are getting long range shots on your Panther's rear armour in the first place.

You do know rear armor is 50% of the tank. It is 100% possible and very much happening that even panther is taking 160 damages from the side by med tanks.

Okay, steering this conversation back on track and out of 'red units op' and 'my opinions are facts' territory...

For:

• The Churchill's huge HP pool means it can slug it out even with its dedicated counters for quite a long time.
  
• The Churchill's high rear armour means flanking manevers aren't rewarded much, so no matter how cleverly you maneuver you still need to get Panthers or doctrinal super TDs.

Against:

• The Churchill needs this giant HP pool to do its job: all its abilities are geared towards close combat so it's got to survive in close combat. If you nerf its survivability, you kill it as a viable option.

The best way I can see to reconcile these are to tone down the Churchill's durability to normal heavy tank levels, then give it abilities to support its breakthrough tank role.

Make it worse at sitting there getting shot, then make it better at making space for infantry.

Show Spoiler

I knew that there's not going to be a single rebuttal directed at the core argument. That a tank destroyer more expensive than the unit it's supposed to counter fails at countering it

Can anyone imagine the ass blast the forum would erupt into if a Panther could just ignore an SU-85 or a Jackson? What about a Firefly? The tears generated on the forum would be enough to terraform Mars. Holy shit, imagine a vetted SU 85 bouncing of the rear of a P4. Imagine it bouncing on a Panther even, or a KT. It would be a tornado of tears.

But this actually a bad example, because of course a Panther is more expensive than Firefly, Jackson and SU-85. Even much more so for Wehrmacht, because tech for Wehrmacht is much, MUCH more prohibitive than for other factions.

I have no idea about unit values since all related sites are down, and I have no interest in diving in game files. But I think the general direction of introducing units as easy to use as the Churchill is bad for the game.

The very notion of high rear armour values was early on in COHs life cycle recognized as a fundamental no-no. Together with things such as high survivability units+out of jail free cards, or spammable, potent units with both AT and AI, or also units with AT weapons AND snares.

I knew that there's not going to be a single rebuttal directed at the core argument. That a tank destroyer more expensive than the unit it's supposed to counter fails at countering it

Can anyone imagine the ass blast the forum would erupt into if a Panther could just ignore an SU-85 or a Jackson? What about a Firefly? The tears generated on the forum would be enough to terraform Mars. Holy shit, imagine a vetted SU 85 bouncing of the rear of a P4. Imagine it bouncing on a Panther even, or a KT. It would be a tornado of tears.

But this actually a bad example, because of course a Panther is more expensive than Firefly, Jackson and SU-85. Even much more so for Wehrmacht, because tech for Wehrmacht is much, MUCH more prohibitive than for other factions.

I have no idea about unit values since all related sites are down, and I have no interest in diving in game files. But I think the general direction of introducing units as easy to use as the Churchill is bad for the game.

The very notion of high rear armour values was early on in COHs life cycle recognized as a fundamental no-no. Together with things such as high survivability units+out of jail free cards, or spammable, potent units with both AT and AI, or also units with AT weapons AND snares.

A Panther doesn't need to ignore the Jackson, Firefly and the SU-85. Since its HP buff, it can just outright kill them. It's a 50 range, heavily armoured tank destroyer that can take six hits.

The Churchill may take its dear sweet time exploding when under Panther bombardment, but it's not going to win that fight unless you're up against a player who advances with the Reverse key.

A Panther doesn't need to ignore the Jackson, Firefly and the SU-85. Since its HP buff, it can just outright kill them. It's a 50 range, heavily armoured tank destroyer that can take six hits.

The Churchill may take its dear sweet time exploding when under Panther bombardment, but it's not going to win that fight unless you're up against a player who advances with the Reverse key.

Aha, so I suppose the SU-85 requires just as many shots as a Firefly, in your calculation?

It's also a 185 fuel tank destroyer, which is more than any of these vehicles. The difference between a Jackson and a Panther is almost the difference between a Panther and an IS 2(if you just conveniently ignore tech costs)

Aha, so I suppose the SU-85 requires just as many shots as a Firefly, in your calculation?

It's also a 185 fuel tank destroyer, which is more than any of these vehicles. The difference between a Jackson and a Panther is almost the difference between a Panther and an IS 2(if you just conveniently ignore tech costs)

You think the SU-85 costs 185 FU? When did you last play the game?

But this actually a bad example, because of course a Panther is more expensive than Firefly, Jackson and SU-85. Even much more so for Wehrmacht, because tech for Wehrmacht is much, MUCH more prohibitive than for other factions.

Are you several patches behind? Ostheers tech costs were fixed ages ago. And what faction are you comparing them too? If its the soviets, its not true. If you add up all the Soviet techs (including mollys and at nades) it costs more than Ost tech.

If your comparing it to western factions, then Ostheer has an extra tier of vehicles that they dont have. Yeah, you have to spend more fuel to unlock more units.

I have no idea about unit values since all related sites are down

Not true: https://coh2db.com/stats/

Its not 100% up to date, but if you cross-reference with the patchnotes, you'll have all the info you need

Okay, steering this conversation back on track and out of 'red units op' and 'my opinions are facts' territory...

For:

• The Churchill's huge HP pool means it can slug it out even with its dedicated counters for quite a long time.
  
• The Churchill's high rear armour means flanking manevers aren't rewarded much, so no matter how cleverly you maneuver you still need to get Panthers or doctrinal super TDs.

Against:

• The Churchill needs this giant HP pool to do its job: all its abilities are geared towards close combat so it's got to survive in close combat. If you nerf its survivability, you kill it as a viable option.

The best way I can see to reconcile these are to tone down the Churchill's durability to normal heavy tank levels, then give it abilities to support its breakthrough tank role.

Make it worse at sitting there getting shot, then make it better at making space for infantry.

I actually disagree with the analysis.

Problem is that the units it too effective vs a number of targets. It can take out ATG even in pairs, it can fight 2 Ostheer PzIV, it can stock smoke to escape...

It's rotation and acceleration are abnormally high while its vet bonuses does not fit a heavy tank or provide too much:

Vet1
Crew will defend tank from inside with Small arms

vet2
Turret rotation +35% (makes flanking ever less rewarding)
-30% reload time (a vet 3 bonus for some other tanks)

vet3
MAXIMUM Speed increased by 20%
Rotation speed increased by 25% (why increase already high rotation)
Engine criticals currently active will disappear upon reaching vet 3,and engine criticals received therein after take 15 seconds to repair. (even more durability vs snares)


The claim:all its abilities are geared towards close combat so it's got to survive in close combat does not hold water, the only ability that CQC is the grenade which is also available to Comet or Persing and I do not see anyone claiming that they are CQC tanks.

Churchill does not need to close to be effective it's damage output is comparable to other tanks even at long range. It's penetration is only 5 less than that of PzIV at max range and it can kill a Pak/rak at max range.

The unit should simply be redesign having specific role and weakness and it should be a part of army and not an army on its own forcing.

I say get rid of that smoke (free of doctrine like Wher) and call it a day for Churchill.

The difference between the Churchill and the other heavies is that the other heavies need specific commanders, while the Churchill is a stock unit. Croc comes close since it’s on so many commanders, but it’s still a commander unit,

Since the churchill is a stock unit there is no argument for Elephants/Jagdtigers whatsoever. The axis player should under no circumstances be forced into a commander pick solution to counter a stock unit.

The difference between the Churchill and the other heavies is that the other heavies need specific commanders, while the Churchill is a stock unit. Croc comes close since it’s on so many commanders, but it’s still a commander unit,

Since the churchill is a stock unit there is no argument for Elephants/Jagdtigers whatsoever. The axis player should under no circumstances be forced into a commander pick solution to counter a stock unit.

Bad design but that is the reality for an entire army like Soviets.

The difference between the Churchill and the other heavies is that the other heavies need specific commanders, while the Churchill is a stock unit. Croc comes close since it’s on so many commanders, but it’s still a commander unit,

Since the churchill is a stock unit there is no argument for Elephants/Jagdtigers whatsoever. The axis player should under no circumstances be forced into a commander pick solution to counter a stock unit.

Panther.

Panther.

That’s a soft counter, not a hard counter. Hard counter is Panther vs medium tanks. Hard counter is also Elephant/Jagdtiger vs heavy tanks, but it’s commander dependent.

That’s a soft counter, not a hard counter. Hard counter is Panther vs medium tanks. Hard counter is also Elephant/Jagdtiger vs heavy tanks, but it’s commander dependent

A Panther's a hard counter. It always wins that fight.

Soft counters are stuff like blowing up a T-70 with panzerfausts.

You think the SU-85 costs 185 FU? When did you last play the game?

I was referring to the Panther. But nice job evading addressing literally any statement made.

Are you several patches behind? Ostheers tech costs were fixed ages ago. And what faction are you comparing them too? If its the soviets, its not true. If you add up all the Soviet techs (including mollys and at nades) it costs more than Ost tech.

If your comparing it to western factions, then Ostheer has an extra tier of vehicles that they dont have. Yeah, you have to spend more fuel to unlock more units.



Not true: https://coh2db.com/stats/

Its not 100% up to date, but if you cross-reference with the patchnotes, you'll have all the info you need

Since when do people count side tech into tech equations? Do we count OKW Medtruck + Medics, Mechanized + Repair engineers and then FlakHQ + Panther prize for the Panther as well? Big, big think.

Show Spoiler

I understand your point, but Ostheer rushing for their only "counter" to Churchill will have nothing else, no Pgrens, no light vehicles, no nothing.

A Panther's a hard counter. It always wins that fight.

Soft counters are stuff like blowing up a T-70 with panzerfausts.

A "hard counter" is generally seen as something that will quickly and with little chances of failure dispose of a unit. M20 is a hard counter to Kubel, for example. T-70 will always win vs Luchs, but it's not a Hard counter, since the Luchs has enough time to retreat.

An SU-85 is not a hard counter to a King Tiger, for example.

A "hard counter" is generally seen as something that will quickly and with little chances of failure dispose of a unit. M20 is a hard counter to Kubel, for example. T-70 will always win vs Luchs, but it's not a Hard counter, since the Luchs has enough time to retreat.

An SU-85 is not a hard counter to a King Tiger, for example.

If you use that definition, then the game has so few that the term is irrelevant.

A Panther doesn't need to ignore the Jackson, Firefly and the SU-85. Since its HP buff, it can just outright kill them. It's a 50 range, heavily armoured tank destroyer that can take six hits.

The Churchill may take its dear sweet time exploding when under Panther bombardment, but it's not going to win that fight unless you're up against a player who advances with the Reverse key.

Firstly, there is no HP buff to Panther. It was moved forwards because the buffed Allies td are killing expensive unvet panthers easily. Of course moving forward the HP, Relic for some reason further nerfed Panther armor, so it is vulnerable to med tanks and yes Churchill! Going full circle of nothingness imo.

Secondly 90-99 rear armor, aka 50% of the tank, is not considered heavily armor now, up against buffed TD, med tanks evn. Churchill, KV1 on the other hand, are considered heavily armor, made worse than Wehr do not have hard counter except doctrine elefant, of which is very expensive.

A Panther's a hard counter. It always wins that fight.

Soft counters are stuff like blowing up a T-70 with panzerfausts.

A Su-76 always wins the fight vs a KT, is a Su-76 a hard counter to the KT?

How "hard" a counter must take more into account than just if it wins in a 1 v 1 fight. IMO right now the panther doesn't have the requisite DPS to stop the Churchill from driving up, throwing a grenade on a weapon team, and reversing back to base. Sure the Church would die if it stayed in the fight and would take damage, but it has fulfilled its objective of killing a unit.