Proposal for a small M3 armour buff

Yes, allowing the M3 to die with units inside it is a risk, but all it takes is D, click, and that is avoided, and your garrison functions normally on the field as it otherwise would, whereas when the 222 is destoyed, there goes your Muni too.

222 have a good range with acannon AND mg. Most of the time cons can't run to the point for throwing distance of anades. Still 222 as I saw many times have a faster turning speed then m3.

Maybe, maybe 222 need nerfing the acceleration speed?

222 have a good range with acannon AND mg. Most of the time cons can't run to the point for throwing distance of anades. Still 222 as I saw many times have a faster turning speed then m3. Maybe, maybe 222 need nerfing the acceleration speed?

Dunno, man.
I do know I miss CoH2stats so goddam hard...

yes an M3 armor buff is a great idea, as long as it doesn't change too much the hits it can take from an upgunned 222.

the sc is perfectly balanced and shouldn't be touched

on a sidenote: right now a non-upganned sc is already a heavy counter to the M3, this would tone that down a little too

Lets say M3 armor is increased to 221 stats.

Result? An equally armored open garrison transport, that natively has the .50 cal that, iirc, does atleast around the same AI as the 221s MG, for the less cost.

How is that fair? 221 becomes a POS in comparison. Especially when considering the M3 can be loaded with existing units for DPS AND prtection to the models AND transport, for no additional cost, whereas the 221 is extremly muni expensive to maingun upgrade.

If Vet is a problem, then Vet is the problem, and apparently already in the pipeline.

Otherwise, I dont agree with this proposal in the least. Infact the 221s armor should be INCREASED for equity at cost/function/dps. The current armor differential is already tiny.

Isnt the M3 also faster than the 221?

As to the turret argument, M3 has two fire arcs, and the garrison is omnidirectional.

The problem is that the M3 has trouble effectively fulfilling its role as a counter to Ostheer infantry without AT, especially p-grens and to an extent assault grenadiers, LMG grens and even MG-42s. This is exacerbated by the way some bugfixes have made it far easier for the Ostheer to counter. Vet is the problem with the 221; not the problem with the M3.

Right now the 221 armoured car (and the 222) is a phenomenally cost-effective unit for any player with acceptable micro. The M3, not so much. Speeds are identical, I think.

I disagree almost entirely, but I've already explained why in previous posts, so I wont repeat myself.

You should be comparing the M3 to the 251, not the 222.

The 222 is asymmetrically aligned to the T70. THAT is the correct comparative point.

For the same cost the M3:
-is a transport
-has 2 fire arcs
-the .50 Cal forward arc which is atleast as good AI as the 221 MG
-costs less
-can have its DPS diversified and multiplied by garrisoned units, which can fire in all directions.

In comparison, what does the 221 get:
-Armor that is only marginally better (and accounted for in the higher fuel cost)
-The "opportunity" to sink 120muni into it for a light AT weapon.

M3 is better, absolutely, at cost.

The problem is that the M3 has trouble effectively fulfilling its role as a counter to Ostheer infantry without AT, especially p-grens and to an extent assault grenadiers, LMG grens and even MG-42s. This is exacerbated by the way some bugfixes have made it far easier for the Ostheer to counter. Vet is the problem with the 221; not the problem with the M3.

Right now the 221 armoured car (and the 222) is a phenomenally cost-effective unit for any player with acceptable micro. The M3, not so much. Speeds are identical, I think.

I agree that the M3 may slightly struggle but I think this is primarily due to the way people use them. People need to understand that putting a flame thrower unit inside of the car and drive close to the enemy is a huge risk. This risk can and often does pay off, of course but people need to understand that it isn't the right thing to do in every situation.

I'm sure that when used in conjunction with other units, it does fine: As has been stated in this thread, its DPS is very comparable to the 221's DPS, it costs less etc.
The only reason it has fallen out of FotM is because the SdKfz 222's auto cannon hard counters it and because the buff of AT grenades and the Panzerfaust means the scout cars can no longer luckily survive two of those and will also die faster because it will require nearly 20 shots less to finish it with carbines. However, with guards in it the M3 counters the 222 in itself. So people going T1 will always either have to get guards or have lots of AT grenades around (with a good synergy to Oorah!).
This is the tradeoff you take when going T1: T2 offers staying power and field presence whereas T1 offers high shock potential (M3 flamer, satchel throw) and units that can deal a lot of damage but also need baby sitting (all T1 units).

Considering the M3 should never be hit by a Panzerfaust when used defensively and carefully -like a 221 scout car usually is- its stats and cost are very similar to the 221's stats while also offering additional power/features. The lower fuel cost may be accounted to the cost of the Soviet T1 building and the higher versatility of German T2.

However, I'm still rather curious what and how they change it and I think small changes like a slight armor increase won't make it overpowered in the manner it was a few months back.
I just don't want to see a return to the clown car days (see that comic guy's comic for that).

I agree that the M3 may slightly struggle but I think this is primarily due to the way people use them. People need to understand that putting a flame thrower unit inside of the car and drive close to the enemy is a huge risk. This risk can and often does pay off, of course but people need to understand that it isn't the right thing to do in every situation.

that's true but then you shouldn't have built an M3 in the first place. using it defensively is just a waste. it's a shock unit but because of the high damage it takes from small arms fire you are often unable to maximise the damage you make even in the right situations (ie catching unsupported weapon teams)

it's a shock unit

wat.

looks like a lightly armored transport with an open garrison to me.

I'd say it is certainly a shock unit and also designed to be one, M3 flamer being intentional and T1 having less staying power/poor AT.
However, it being a shock unit doesn't mean that it needs to roam around the map roasting everything as it once did. But if all they do is a slight armor buff then that probably won't be a huge problem.

The current meta really doesn't benefit it: There are many more Grenadiers (or even Osttruppen) around than there used to be, fewer targets (MG42, mortar, sniper) and some conditions were changed.

I think it is still a useful unit but its role has shifted. Now it is more about using it as a vehicle like the 221 to scout and harass infantry rather than only using it for (back then too strong) shock purposes. If there is an opening it certainly can still do a lot of shock damage (e.g. flank unguarded MG42).
And it certainly is no longer the "always get THIS" unit. It used to be the single best option to go T1->T4 (partly due to T2->T3 weakness).

I agree that the M3 may slightly struggle but I think this is primarily due to the way people use them. People need to understand that putting a flame thrower unit inside of the car and drive close to the enemy is a huge risk. This risk can and often does pay off, of course but people need to understand that it isn't the right thing to do in every situation.

I'm sure that when used in conjunction with other units, it does fine: As has been stated in this thread, its DPS is very comparable to the 221's DPS, it costs less etc.
The only reason it has fallen out of FotM is because the SdKfz 222's auto cannon hard counters it and because the buff of AT grenades and the Panzerfaust means the scout cars can no longer luckily survive two of those and will also die faster because it will require nearly 20 shots less to finish it with carbines. However, with guards in it the M3 counters the 222 in itself. So people going T1 will always either have to get guards or have lots of AT grenades around (with a good synergy to Oorah!).
This is the tradeoff you take when going T1: T2 offers staying power and field presence whereas T1 offers high shock potential (M3 flamer, satchel throw) and units that can deal a lot of damage but also need baby sitting (all T1 units).

Considering the M3 should never be hit by a Panzerfaust when used defensively and carefully -like a 221 scout car usually is- its stats and cost are very similar to the 221's stats while also offering additional power/features. The lower fuel cost may be accounted to the cost of the Soviet T1 building and the higher versatility of German T2.

However, I'm still rather curious what and how they change it and I think small changes like a slight armor increase won't make it overpowered in the manner it was a few months back.
I just don't want to see a return to the clown car days (see that comic guy's comic for that).

You can't normally afford to use an M3 defensively, just because the 20 fuel investment means you'll hit Tier 3 or 4 late, leaving you open to a fast Ostwind or P-IV, which you won't have an AT gun to counter. I.e. you need to get some territory control to make up for it, while having 1 less infantry unit early because of the teching cost.

The issue I set out in my post isn't actually the panzerfaust or the scout car (which are fair and reasonable counters and I'm very glad they've been improved) but that it frequently doesn't work as a counter to pgrens (because it just gets focussed down quickly), takes a reasonable amount of damage from HMGs without incendiary rounds or other things it should hard counter on account of the lightish armour of the M3 and fairly high damage of those units. I'd like it to perform a bit better against units without any AV capacity while still having the trouble it does now against real counters to it (or being soft-counterable with grenades if the Soviet player is careless, as it is at the moment).

(On the meta: right now - Ostruppen make tier 1 more or less unviable imo, it's OK but not stellar against grens + MGs, it's alright against assault grens, Scout Cars and Shreks hard counter it, PAKs and vet MGs deny it... i.e. I think there are enough substantial viable counters now that making it a bit better at dealing with pgrens and MGs wouldn't blow the balance).

Nullist, if you're going down that route, the 251 has forward reinforcement (which is obviously a massively powerful ability), far more health (in practical terms, the difference between going down to 1 faust + small arms fire versus taking 3 AT nades is really big) and the double-flamer upgrade, which is extremely strong (and popular). It isn't actually that much more expensive.

If however, you're talking about the 221/2 (I can't really tell, the scout car upgun is only 70 munis rather than 120 btw), it also has a turret and the ability to double as AI/AV with only muni investment. Right now it is extremely useful for the Ostheer, operating as a hard counter to snipers, combat engineers and scout cars and a soft counter to conscripts, shocks, penals and even (with vet) T-70s. I personally suspect it'd get more popular rather than less if the M3 got buffed to be just a little more resilient against small arms fire.

Stats are obviously important but balancing has to consider how a unit actually operates in the context of a real game instead of how two units would operate in a vacuum. Either way, I'm not really talking about whether the M3 is balanced directly compared to the scout car (or the 251) but whether it actually performs adequately in its role (so, against infantry with no specialised AV capability and against lone squads).

@LeWish, you have to spend ages with an engi building tier 1 and then you're down a conscript in the early game thanks to the cost of the building. If you want capping power, I can't see an M3 being a good way to go about it.

I personally suspect it'd get more popular rather than less if the M3 got buffed to be just a little more resilient against small arms fire.

I was thinking the same: SC was a must for me but lately I rarely see an M3 or sniper and it feels a bit useless in those games

222 have a good range with acannon AND mg. Most of the time cons can't run to the point for throwing distance of anades. Still 222 as I saw many times have a faster turning speed then m3.

Maybe, maybe 222 need nerfing the acceleration speed?

the m3 and 222 have identical speed, acceleration and rotation. their weapons also all have 35 range. id honestly say cons have the a advantage thanks to oorah. besides that, it all comes down to micro.

the m3 and 222 have identical speed, acceleration and rotation. their weapons also all have 35 range. id honestly say cons have the a advantage thanks to oorah. besides that, it all comes down to micro.

Any word on how 221/222, M3 and HT AI DPS measure up?

Theres been so many changes to those Ive lost track of the factual basis.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0ApmrrrPr20ncdEpuSHcxNko1VGVFYjczYXpFZWhqOHc&f=true&noheader=true&gid=2

Poke Wooof until he puts in the 250.

Any word on how 221/222, M3 and HT AI DPS measure up?

222:
near 19.641 far 6.492 (before and after upgun)

251:
near 6.54 far 1.917 (front and rear)

m3:
near 18.291 far 4.029 (front)
near 18.77 far 6.951 (rear)

m5:
near 19.723 far 7.413
near 27.384 far 4.394 (quad upgrade)

the quad upgrade looks weaker at range, but it actually adds 10 range. far on m5 before upgun is only 35m. at 35m the quad does 10.96 dps, so its better at all ranges.

Poke Wooof until he puts in the 250.

250 doesnt have a gun? so poke endeav until he learns more about units

Being essentially the same thing as the PE halftrack, sorry for thinking it has a gun.

Bite me.

Also why I tried to reinforce from it; and then vowed to never build another.

Thanks!

So yeah, 222 and M3 are pretty even.
The rear MG stat surprised me, always figured that as far inferior

They probably just forgot the rear MG in some nerf.

Thanks!

So yeah, 222 and M3 are pretty even.
The rear MG stat surprised me, always figured that as far inferior

The catch is that the M3 always try to face the enemy so the rear is only shooting when you are running away, which I presume will give you 0.5 accuracy.

The catch is that the M3 always try to face the enemy so the rear is only shooting when you are running away, which I presume will give you 0.5 accuracy.

I presume that's intentional.