Wehr weak penetration

Yes good points all around. Certain attributes are more determinstic than others for certain roles

But i still go for heat ap ammo as a vet bonus for the 3 wehr tanks.

It is a tested out come, easy to implement and a mixture of vipper selectable ammo idea.

Not a bad idea - yet it may simply be too powerful. Still all depends on "how" rather than "what".

Well, I'm not. It could be aquired with vet, done through upgrade (similar to doctrine sherman paid with fuel and mp after last tech, for example). I don't understand why factions that have access to snares such as satchels and ability to equip any unit with hand held at don't have to face 60 range tank destroyers form ostheer side. Having buffed allied armour and not allowing ostheer something so basic is more "delusional".

If you want 60 range Stug, it will have to get a cost and performance increase to be a JPIV 2.0 or it would be made to be as obsolete in current meta Su76 with 120dmg and high rof.

Let's be realistic and suggest things that can actually be implemented and are reasonable to be made, instead of playing victim about how X faction doesn't have Y feature. Because that's a game which all factions can play.

The comparisons should never be "Allies vs OH", rather than each specific allied faction vs OH if that's the comparison you want to bring up.

The real problem is that Ost doesn't have a 60 range TD let alone a 60 range TD with good penetration and RoF like the Su85 and Jackson. OKW basically has a 60 range well armored Stug. The only 200+ pen axis stock tank is a slow shooting 50 range "premium" tank that's locked away in a premium tier for Ost. The Allies have more variety when it comes to heavy armor especially Soviets. In reality, Axis, especially Ost has the most trouble in dealing with heavy allied armor as Stug is only 50 range and panther is locked in T4. OKW has it slightly better as JP4 has 60 range although low pen and panther is much more accessible.

i havent been having problems with allied TDs as OST... the panther is quite balanced against the heavy tank destroyers capable of wrecking them if they push too far and vice versa.... my main issue as OST has been the lack of an analogue to the T-70/stuart/aec... its quite the disadvantage in the midgame and is the point where ost is often bullied by the allied factions...


my suggestion you ask? panzer 3F

Imo one start by reducing the effectiveness all long range TDs.

That might include lower accuracy at max range and lower reload at max range.

Imo one start by reducing the effectiveness all long range TDs.

That might include lower accuracy at max range and lower reload at max range.

And how would allies counter panther then?

And how would allies counter panther then?

Combined arms?

And how would allies counter panther then?

You seem to need some help so visit here.
https://www.coh2.org/topic/6640/ask-the-strategist

You seem to need some help so visit here.
https://www.coh2.org/topic/6640/ask-the-strategist

I'll paraphrase what you want to do to allied TDs:
Lets break their legs and have them run.

If you'd played soviets, you would realize that no amount of "strategy" helps if you play with broken units(cons, maxims).

I know of your die-hard hatered for allied infantries and TDs, but that's not reason to nerf their performance at their only job they are reliably at, not overpowering.

If you struggle, perhaps you should take your own advise and visit that link yourself instead of jumping from thread to thread spamming for nerfs for units you have pretty personal beef with?

If you want 60 range Stug, it will have to get a cost and performance increase to be a JPIV 2.0 or it would be made to be as obsolete in current meta Su76 with 120dmg and high rof.

Let's be realistic and suggest things that can actually be implemented and are reasonable to be made, instead of playing victim about how X faction doesn't have Y feature. Because that's a game which all factions can play.

The comparisons should never be "Allies vs OH", rather than each specific allied faction vs OH if that's the comparison you want to bring up.

Well, it could be another su-76, with a bit better at performance. Su has barrage and would be cheaper and comes earlier.

I don't get the victim card comment. I just feel that buffing the rifles, allied heavies, not nerfing the jackson (5 fuel is laughable), simply means that "wehr weak penetration" could be sth that only sounds crazy but describes well the general balance between the tanks we have now. Allied tanks sort of "pretend" to be weak but whan you look at their battlefield performance it is not the case.

Imo one start by reducing the effectiveness all long range TDs.

That might include lower accuracy at max range and lower reload at max range.

Allied tds are balanced against the panther and nondoc axis armor... nerfing the former without nerfing the latter would absolutely demolish all semblance of allied lategame...

This makes little sense as axis lategame is quite good... where axis factions really lag behind is the midgame since allied LVs significantly outclass axis LVs... as a result most axis players cannot survive the pressure and end up losing the midgame hard enough to prevent a lategame comeback...


If we really want to make changes that make sense according to id start with

introducing a new LV to ost to put its winrate on par with sov

Nerfing usf and okw to put their winrates on par with EFA factions

I'll paraphrase what you want to do to allied TDs:
Lets break their legs and have them run.

You are doing that constantly and I would really appreciated if you stop it.
If you want to respond to me, respond to what I have actually posted not to what you claim that I have posted.

If you'd played soviets, you would realize that no amount of "strategy" helps if you play with broken units(cons, maxims).

I play soviet more than you. Actually if you had played Soviet since the Patch you would know that once upgrade to 7 men they are far "broken.

I know of your die-hard hatered for allied infantries and TDs, but that's not reason to nerf their performance at their only job they are reliably at, not overpowering.

You know nothing about me and I am not the topic of this thread.

If you struggle, perhaps you should take your own advise and visit that link yourself instead of jumping from thread to thread spamming for nerfs for units you have pretty personal beef with?

I do not struggle I am having a great time playing a game I like. You should try playing too it is fun.

Now I would suggest you take a deep breath and relax...

On subject
The high performance of allied TDs is actually bad design since it reduces variety. The USF for instance have a number of great tanks that see little use simply because the M36 is a better choice.

Chance to score a natural hit on Panther at range 60 is:
FF 106%
Su-85 96%
M36 84%

And that is without counting collision hit or the fact that these unit get accuracy bonuses.

Lowering the accuracy of FF and SU-85 at max range would certainly not "break their legs" (M36 has lower chance to hit and has little problem) and would certainly not make Panthers dominate the field as the a user claims.

Allied tds are balanced against the panther and nondoc axis armor...

No they are designed vs KT. They do not need so high penetration to deal with Panther.

nerfing the former without nerfing the latter would absolutely demolish all semblance of allied lategame...

No that is only your speculation. There are many solutions without having allied TDs performing so effectively at range 60.
The current performance of allied TDs has created the meta of infatry blob/TDs.

No they are designed vs KT. They do not need so high penetration to deal with Panther.

They also aren't getting their pen reduced, because to address that, panther got health increase.

No they are designed vs KT. They do not need so high penetration to deal with Panther.


No that is only your speculation. There are many solutions without having allied TDs performing so effectively at range 60.
The current performance of allied TDs has created the meta of infatry blob/TDs.

The balance between allied and axis lategame is fine... i dont see a problem here... if anything what we should be fixing is the midgame... ost and okw drop sharply here and lose soo hard here...

Well, it could be another su-76, with a bit better at performance. Su has barrage and would be cheaper and comes earlier.

I don't get the victim card comment. I just feel that buffing the rifles, allied heavies, not nerfing the jackson (5 fuel is laughable), simply means that "wehr weak penetration" could be sth that only sounds crazy but describes well the general balance between the tanks we have now. Allied tanks sort of "pretend" to be weak but whan you look at their battlefield performance it is not the case.

Because complaining about isolated factors in a 1on1 manner, doesn't account for what other factions lack in other departments to account for those strengths.

OH has been weak and strong without needing a 60 TD on their stock repertoire for 6 years. I don't think this is what they need now or in the future.

I can see the Stug performance been buffed by swapping places on the vet 2 and 3. Replacing the armor increase for HP would make it really strong, something i would like to see tested before been implemented but not before seeing if the swapping vet is enough to improve the unit.
Heat shell AKA TWP, could see it's blinded and disabling component removed and allow the 100% pen buff to last longer (something people don't remember the ability do).

As for the other 2 units, pak-PV, they are fine. At most i could see them taking a look at PV vet, but that would break it more than anything else in the bigger picture of the game.

They also aren't getting their pen reduced, because to address that, panther got health increase.

Glad to see that you agree with me that allied TDs are designed to counter KT and not Panthers.

Here I feel the need to clarify.
Saying that "panther got health increase" is an oversimplification:
The vet 2 health bonus was move to vet 0 while losing lots of armor in the processes. The change made the unit become durable at vet 0 and less durable at vet 2.

The balance between allied and axis lategame is fine... i dont see a problem here... if anything what we should be fixing is the midgame... ost and okw drop sharply here and lose soo hard here...

Balance might or might not be fine but having TDs that can hit and penetrate anything that is not a KT from range 60 with chances close to 100% is bad design resulting in reducing game diversity.

Reducing the effectiveness of long range TDs at max range will be an improvement to the game.

Balance might or might not be fine but having TDs that can hit and penetrate anything that is not a KT from range 60 with chances close to 100% is bad design resulting in reducing game diversity.

Reducing the effectiveness of long range TDs at max range will be an improvement to the game.

If you want rebalance allied TD, the first thing - make KT doctrinal. After that, we will stay with Panther vs Allied TD - and could try to rebalance they match-up. But while KT is non-doctrinal option, allies must have reliable non-doctrinal tool against it.

Bad design decision was non-doctrinal heavy tanks for OKW and Brits. That completely change how works AT for every faction.

Glad to see that you agree with me that allied TDs are designed to counter KT and not Panthers.

Not panthers specifically, I can give you that much.
But that being said, allied TDs are designed to kill everything from P4 and above with the obvious exception of axis super heavy TDs.

Here I feel the need to clarify.
Saying that "panther got health increase" is an oversimplification:
The vet 2 health bonus was move to vet 0 while losing lots of armor in the processes. The change made the unit become durable at vet 0 and less durable at vet 2.

Its armor, as many people mentioned before already wasn't relevant against TDs and health helps tremendously, allowing for more forgiving pushes as you have a buffer of damage instead of unreliable and not in your favor chance to bounce.