Agree with pretty much everything you said in the OP Ninja.
The imbalances are a lot worse in team games since Axis have increased ability to build heavy tanks compared to 1v1.
I think the issues you mentioned re the Jackson are accentuated a hell of a lot in team games too, it makes the late game USF really poor, pretty much being reliant on P47's for all heavy AT needs.
Of course, all these problems could be quite easily fixed (fixing Jackson Pen chance, slightly buffing Jackson armour/HP, increasing su85 pen and adding the Pershing to USF) but I'm sure balancing larger format team games is right down the bottom of Relic's ever-growing "to do list" - which is a shame because of just how many people play 3v3 and 4v4 exclusively.
its easier to see the affects of the situation in 4v4 and 3v3 because there are a lot more tank on tank matchups with heavier german tanks being built. im sure the problem still exists in 1v1 though. I realize the Panther and KT aren't built much in 1v1. However, whenever i see streams of 1v1 and 2v2 players, the Panther and Kt gives ALlies a hard time when they roll onto the field. |
If you think that's a problem than that's your opinion. However, I was responding to the posters opinion. He believes that it's ok for Panzershrecks to perform well against medium tanks, but it shouldn't perform well against Heavy tanks. I looked at the stats and told that I found the current situation in CoH2 is exactly that.
I don't see a problem with doctrinal heavy tanks because what really matters is whether or not you are able to get Heavy tanks. On the field, it doesn't make much of a difference as long as their is a heavy tank.
I agree with you that heavy tanks are more resilient to schrecks. i think in terms of balance though, imo i feel that schrecks shut down allied medium tank play too hard. This jsut fuels the call-in meta even more. |
|
eh its just achievements so i wouldn't pay mind to them. However some of those units are either not very good, or placed on an unpopular doctrine. Also you have to factor in what is considered the meta. Some units are not popular because everyone is doing what is popular at the moment. |
Replacing Panzershrecks with anti tank rifles is a horrible idea. If you want Panzershrecks to be only effective against medium tanks and not effective against Heavy tanks, well it's already like that in CoH2. A Panzershreck has 180 to 160 penetration while the Soviet Heavy armor like IS2, KV1, and ISU152 has around 340 armor. That's only a 50 percent chance of penetrating.
i disagree with your statement because schrecks basically pen anything that's not a soviet heavy (is2, ISU). THose tanks are doctrinal too! Basically all your nondoctrinal stuff for USF and SOviet are countered very well by the panzerschreck. It sees silly that that only an expensive doctrinal tank can reliably survive panzerschreck shots. |
what is "floating"
floating just means saving up a bunch of resources. If i said " i am floating manpower", that just means i currently have a ton of manpower saved up.
I also would listen to Hon3ynuts because he is a highly ranked player |
I know you have been discussing a lot of the numbers on the tanks Ciez, but what do you think about Allied and Axis Tanks? As someone who is highly-ranked, do you think there are some imbalanced between Axis and Allied AT, particularly tanks? |
|
The Raketen does well against Allied mediums actually with good pen. It would probably need its aim time reduced or a buff to the vehicle crew. TOo many buffs and it could end up OP |
I think that the perception that the Jackson is less reliable than the panther manily stems from what they face in a typical game. If we go as far to assume that everyone always builds an is2 in 2v2s (meta) and assume that we always see a tiger from ostheer (because the jackson counters t3 very effectively and most deem t4 as too expensive) and panhters from okw (meta). Then the panther is confronting is2 (extreme case assumed with no t3 or t4), shermans, jacksons and everything bellow. The jackson faces tigers and panthers (no t3 from ost). The panther does very well penetration wise against everything smaller than the is2 (higher than 90%) and penetrates the is2 in 58% of all cases, while the jackson is facing panthers and tigers for which it has a chance of penetrating of 55% or 53% respectively.
It is like you state, the jackson is not a worse tank hunter but it is a bit harder to use and the current favourite strategy pits it almost exclusively against the hardest to crack tanks.
I agree. think the tanks are fine but the matchups between Allies and Axis tanks are different. Not fielding an ISU or IS2 means that Axis AT will penetrate most of the time. |
|
I say the TIger is in a pretty good spot. ANything above it is pretty RNG dependent though |
Tank destoryer should be able to kill tank. Right now "tanks" are better than allied "tank destroyers" at killing tanks.
Jackson would need 7 penetrating shots (160dmg) to kill Tiger and I think 7/11 would be fair ratio for penetrate. Tiger needs only 3 so what's the problem?
Tank destroyer -> Heavy Tank -> Infantry (other tanks as well but without such efficiency like TD) -> Tank destroyer. And the circle is closed.
In coh2 it's like:
Axis TD -> Heavy Tank -> Everything.
you have to take account on how these tank destroyers were conceived and meant to be deployed. The Axis TDs in COH are heavily armored and armed. They can withstand shots from Allied tanks. The Allied TDs such as the SU85, Jackson, and M10 are more suited for ambush roles and hit and run style attacks. They aren't meany to duel other tanks due to their weaker armor values. However, due to the RNG, these vehicles aren't particularly affective at fighting tanks heavier than a Tiger. |
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
