September Balance Patch preview [SPBP] - general discussion

kv1 and churchills should be comparable but in the game one is crap and the other works great, don't make straw men.

And yet, KV-1 survivability is being buffed over and over, not the gun.
KV-1 at the moment isn't far behind churchill, especially since last vet change.

I destroy tiger with churchills *.

Imagine when I take more than one, or even if I carry a firefly behind.

And how is that any special?
A pair of T34/76 WILL destroy Tiger as well.
Is it so much of a surprise for you that 300+ fuel investment beats 230 fuel? You might have just as well said that sun is hot or water is wet and used it as an argument.

To say that carrying a firefly behind a churchill demonstrates how bad a cannon is like saying that the tiger is bad because it needs infantry with faust because otherwise any light AT vehicle could destroy it, again do not make straw men.

Being inadequate =! being bad.
Your analogy doesn't make any sense so I'm not even going to address it.

again obvious that that chromwell cannon is in a very resistant chassis that is capable of destroying heavy tanks with many shots, will not penetrate many shots? Yes, will you deflect many shots? Yes, can you take the tiger 1 vs 1 to the limit? quite provable.

2 Cromwells can destroy a tiger.
2 Churchills most certainly will.
2 KV-1 will destroy it.
So will 2 T34/76.
All of them will lose 1v1 fights.
Not a single of them has overperforming gun in any way shape or form.
Your argument doesn't really have anything to stand on.

I reiterate what makes the churchill great is the capacity of very high armor and health with a medium cannon that can have the trouble of taking time and penetrating and destroying tanks, with a very good price of fuel and the ability to take more than one.

Yes, that's what makes is great. No, its armor isn't anything special, especially compared to axis armor, OKW P4 got only 6 armor less then churchill.
No, it doesn't make it too strong post recent changes.
Stop acting like its not slow, easily kite-able tank.
Ability to make more then 1 got severely reduced with latest preview update, so you don't have that argument anymore.

no more straw men pls

Oh the irony....
I'm glad you've learned new phrase, but perhaps you should also learn the meaning behind it, so you can apply it correctly. I highly advise you to do so, because some forum goers struggle extremely with context of some words.

Exactly strawman much. Problems is worse for Wehr, at least okw have jp4 and previously camo rak. If we talking rng, panthers poor moving accuracy also problem dealing with heavy armor allies.

I don't see how Churchill main gun is crap dealing same 160 damage, but strawman. Something like a p4 will want to try flanking which exposes it sides armor which Churchill can pen. For most part, ukf and usf t4 locks out wehr t3. Yet wehr t4 can still be vulnerable to allies t3

What i don't understand is why allies armor is still so strong at rear? There was a big push cum changes to axis heavy armor, from lowering to buffing pen to penalise cost.

Yet Wehr is now terrible in handling late game allies armor protect by td

What i don't understand is why allies armor is still so strong at rear? There was a big push cum changes to axis heavy armor, from lowering to buffing pen to penalise cost.

Yet Wehr is now terrible in handling late game allies armor protect by td

Rear armor values are completely irrelevant to your last sentence.
Perhaps think about what you want to say first, because you've said a whooping nothing here nor made any point.

And yet, KV-1 survivability is being buffed over and over, not the gun.
KV-1 at the moment isn't far behind churchill, especially since last vet change.



And how is that any special?
A pair of T34/76 WILL destroy Tiger as well.
Is it so much of a surprise for you that 300+ fuel investment beats 230 fuel? You might have just as well said that sun is hot or water is wet and used it as an argument.



Being inadequate =! being bad.
Your analogy doesn't make any sense so I'm not even going to address it.


2 Cromwells can destroy a tiger.
2 Churchills most certainly will.
2 KV-1 will destroy it.
So will 2 T34/76.
All of them will lose 1v1 fights.
Not a single of them has overperforming gun in any way shape or form.
Your argument doesn't really have anything to stand on.


Yes, that's what makes is great. No, its armor isn't anything special, especially compared to axis armor, OKW P4 got only 6 armor less then churchill.
No, it doesn't make it too strong post recent changes.
Stop acting like its not slow, easily kite-able tank.
Ability to make more then 1 got severely reduced with latest preview update, so you don't have that argument anymore.


Oh the irony....
I'm glad you've learned new phrase, but perhaps you should also learn the meaning behind it, so you can apply it correctly. I highly advise you to do so, because some forum goers struggle extremely with context of some words.

the difference of all the examples you have put is that churchil can defeat a tiger 1 vs 1

precisely my analogy is perfect, the churchill should not be adequate to challenge a tiger and much less be spam.
its function (it is supposed) is to resist the shots to cover the infantry or the tank destroyers

2 Cromwells can destroy a tiger.
2 Churchills most certainly will.
2 KV-1 will destroy it.
So will 2 T34/76.
All of them will lose 1v1 fights.
Not a single of them has overperforming gun in any way shape or form.
Your argument doesn't really have anything to stand on.

again with this? I reiterate that none can 1 vs 1 BUT CHURCHIL CAN DEFEAT A TIGER 1 VS 1.
then you will say that they lose tigers because they have no support or l2p .. same with churchills

That churchill's armor is nothing special?
nothing more to say here

I still remember the nonsense you said about dushkha and mg42

in my country the meaning is that, I'm glad you understood it the same


Will you continue to divert to get right?

Churchill rear armor is 180, is just decent and nothing special.
Take a look at wehr tanks pen, lol.

As 2v2 Wehr player, i have struggled late games against jackson and Churchill for over a year. At least the sbp makes ukf more attentive to their popcap. Thats the bright side. Will still struggle late games

In fact, i rather swap panther for Jackson totally.
That's the counter against is,kv and Churchill. I think i can gamble with comet and Pershing with my Wehr Jackson

the difference of all the examples you have put is that churchil can defeat a tiger 1 vs 1

again with this? I reiterate that none can 1 vs 1 BUT CHURCHIL CAN DEFEAT A TIGER 1 VS 1.
then you will say that they lose tigers because they have no support or l2p .. same with churchills

Only if extremely lucky RNG string happens.
Out of 21 tests at all ranges I did, Churchill won ONCE at mid range.(I took my sweet time just to prove the bullshit you're spitting here)

precisely my analogy is perfect, the churchill should not be adequate to challenge a tiger and much less be spam.

It doesn't challenge tiger at all and it was just soft-capped from being spammed. If you want to spam them, it'll be the only unit you'll have as you won't afford actual army.

its function (it is supposed) is to resist the shots to cover the infantry or the tank destroyers

Resisting shots doesn't translate to not being able to hurt anything above 222. Comparing ALL vehicles at this price point, its extremely clear that Churchill sacrifices firepower for durability.

That churchill's armor is nothing special?
nothing more to say here

Nothing to say here, because you're completely clueless about armor values on units, therefore can add nothing of value to do anything about my statement.
Its armor is 240.
OKW P4 and ost vet2 P4 is 234.
Panther is 260.
Tiger is 300.
KV-1 is 300.
Allied meds are 160
Heavies and super heavies are 300 to 500.
Its armor is higher then med tanks, but lower then all of heavies by a long shot, therefore its armor is nothing special for a heavy tank.

I still remember the nonsense you said about dushkha and mg42

And we can still see the nonsense you produce about churchill here. Your point?

Will you continue to divert to get right?

Will you stop running in circles with ears closed?

I find the dynamics wrong, to be concerned and label churchhill as a lousy gun with its pen and 160 damage to 640-960 units.

Yet we gloss over its counter pen that have does 160 damage to its 240/180/1400 survivability and strong vet bonus..

I find the dynamics wrong, to be concerned and label churchhill as a lousy gun with its pen and 160 damage to 640-960 units.

A generalist tank got its gun performance consistent with any other generalist tank OH IMBALANCE!

Yet we gloss over its counter pen that have does 160 damage to its 240/180/1400 survivability and strong vet bonus..

What strong vet bonus?
Its vet is comparable to any other vehicle, it got nice gimmick at vet3, in fact, its combat vet related to tank fighting is LOWER then any other generalist tank with churchill lowest turret rotation and least reload bonuses.

Only if extremely lucky RNG string happens.
Out of 21 tests at all ranges I did, Churchill won ONCE at mid range.(I took my sweet time just to prove the bullshit you're spitting here)


It doesn't challenge tiger at all and it was just soft-capped from being spammed. If you want to spam them, it'll be the only unit you'll have as you won't afford actual army.


Resisting shots doesn't translate to not being able to hurt anything above 222. Comparing ALL vehicles at this price point, its extremely clear that Churchill sacrifices firepower for durability.


Nothing to say here, because you're completely clueless about armor values on units, therefore can add nothing of value to do anything about my statement.
Its armor is 240.
OKW P4 and ost vet2 P4 is 234.
Panther is 260.
Tiger is 300.
KV-1 is 300.
Allied meds are 160
Heavies and super heavies are 300 to 500.
Its armor is higher then med tanks, but lower then all of heavies by a long shot, therefore its armor is nothing special for a heavy tank.


And we can still see the nonsense you produce about churchill here. Your point?


Will you stop running in circles with ears closed?

I have read everything and basically it was all straw men and "you more"
I will only answer one of those typical inventions of yours,
What did you do churchils vs tigers 1 vs 1 casually before? because at this time it could not be

Nothing to say here, because you're completely clueless about armor values on units, therefore can add nothing of value to do anything about my statement.
Its armor is 240.
OKW P4 and ost vet2 P4 is 234.
Panther is 260.
Tiger is 300.
KV-1 is 300.
Allied meds are 160
Heavies and super heavies are 300 to 500.
Its armor is higher then med tanks, but lower then all of heavies by a long shot, therefore its armor is nothing special for a heavy tank.

all this falls apart as soon as we talk about the allied penetration, which you have casually missed, oh boy katitof again ...

And allies heavy tanks have much stronger armor now than axis rear...oh kat...

And allies heavy tanks have much stronger armor now than axis rear...oh kat...

You've said that already, but didn't managed to produce any argument still. You have any point to that or just want to post random facts?

You've said that already, but didn't managed to produce any argument still. You have any point to that or just want to post random facts?

What is the difference between someone who does not argument to another who arguments halfway by diverting what suits him?

I have read everything and basically it was all straw men and "you more"

I really like that you're expanding your english vocabulary, but I don't think you know what that phrase means, so I'll help you:
Show Spoiler
I haven't twisted nor swapped any of your arguments, I've picked them apart one by one and debunked them with you chasing your tail in circles and repeating same thing over and over.
Sorry, but repeating one thing enough times will not make it a valid point.

I will only answer one of those typical inventions of yours,
What did you do churchils vs tigers 1 vs 1 casually before? because at this time it could not be

You do realize there are test maps there and you can set up multiple instances all at once(as many as the map fits) and just run them? It takes about 5 minutes, including turning coh2 on and loading map in. Assuming that's what you've meant, because I can see you felt asleep during that sentence and didn't finished it up.

all this falls apart as soon as we talk about the allied penetration, which you have casually missed, oh boy katitof again ...

That's not an argument.
THAT'S a strawman.
We never talked about it, you ignored the part where I debunked your "high armor" argument and are now twisting it to allied penetration one without mentioning any examples.
That's the very definition of a strawman.

I really like that you're expanding your english vocabulary, but I don't think you know what that phrase means, so I'll help you:
Show Spoiler

I haven't twisted nor swapped any of your arguments, I've picked them apart one by one and debunked them with you chasing your tail in circles and repeating same thing over and over.
Sorry, but repeating one thing enough times will not make it a valid point.




You do realize there are test maps there and you can set up multiple instances all at once(as many as the map fits) and just run them? It takes about 5 minutes, including turning coh2 on and loading map in. Assuming that's what you've meant, because I can see you felt asleep during that sentence and didn't finished it up.




That's not an argument.
THAT'S a strawman.
We never talked about it, you ignored the part where I debunked your "high armor" argument and are now twisting it to allied penetration one without mentioning any examples.
That's the very definition of a strawman.

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

Isn't that what you've always been doing, even in the dowIII forum?

I haven't twisted nor swapped any of your arguments, I've picked them apart one by one and debunked them with you chasing your tail in circles and repeating same thing over and over.
Sorry, but repeating one thing enough times will not make it a valid point.

You say that when you move to a mediocre canyon, it goes to the middle canyon, that my opinion is based on problems of l2p and that you simply divert everything possible to take the reason that you do not carry? even more, invent that you've been testing churchill vs tiger 1 vs 1 when it's not true?

do it really, not with the mod no, in the live game

all this falls apart as soon as we talk about the allied penetration, which you have casually missed, oh boy katitof again ...

That's not an argument.
THAT'S a strawman.
We never talked about it, you ignored the part where I debunked your "high armor" argument and are now twisting it to allied penetration one without mentioning any examples.
That's the very definition of a strawman.

good you said that.
I'm glad it's just what you've always been doing

Katitof:
One patch later:

mrgame2 - NERF ALLIED PANTHER!!!! TOO MUCH HP< PEN< MOBILITY< RANGE!!!! TOO SPAMMABLE!!!!

this.

nothing more to say

And yet mrgame2 complains heavy tanks and panthers trolled by AECs... while screetching out blatant lies about axis heavies having less armor than allied heavies...

Mrgame2 no amount of balancing will ever fix the problem... you need to go to youtube and l2p

StuG Ausf. E
The StuG E is being moved into tech like other call-in vehicles. We have reduced the amount of CPs to compensate to encourage teching.
- CP requirement from 7 to 5
- Now requires Battlephase 2

M4 Sherman 105mm Dozer
To allow players to purchase this unit when they have teched up to Major, we are reducing the CP cost. Additional CP changes will take effect when the patch hits live.
- Now requires Major tech
- CP requirement from 10 to 7; will be reduced to 6 for live patch

Can we reduce the number of unique solutions?

Either add a CP requirement to ALL call in vehicles that require tech or limit to Super heavies.

It make very little sense that some call in vehicles with built tech have CP requirement while either do not.

You've said that already, but didn't managed to produce any argument still. You have any point to that or just want to post random facts?

what? its on coh2db, allies heavy tanks have stronger rear armor now.

rear armor = 50% of a tank, so flanking is not as rewarding for axis.

SEPTEMBER 2019 PATCH PREVIEW - VERSION 1.3

This will likely be the last mod preview for this patch. The mod preview feedback has been useful, and we feel the update is in a Good Spot™. There will be some minor adjustments prior to the official release.

Imo it is time have a better look at the "heavy tanks" role usage and counters, especially since the buff KV-1 has received.

Currently this units can be used in the same role as medium mainline line tanks having enough AI and AT to deal with both PzIV and AT infantry and even ATGs.

They sort of make PzIV unable to counter them even if better positioned while they force the opponent to invest heavily in AT units leaving him with little AI so that he might actually find himself in disadvantage even if he manages to defeat them.

In addition one should also do an veterancy overhaul especially to KV-1 that does not scale as heavy tank but as medium.

Actually could move allot of the base stats to vet bonuses allowing reducing the shock value of these unit and allowing enough counter to be built or one could move so of their power to timed abilities.

Sander already explained why it will never be touched.

Here's what Sander actually said just 5 posts above.

"So for now, availability will be more limited to see if that alone works, and if ultimately it doesn't work, performance can still also be nerfed later. But the first option is preferred.

Right now they want to see how it will be affected by indirect nerfs, but performance nerfs will still be on the table if they are found to be necessary.

You really like making definitive statements about what definitely will happen, but it doesn't work at all when there's evidence to the contrary just 5 posts away.