You don't see it? At 0:30 JT is moving forword, gets stunned, and while stunned I ordered to rotate. JT did rotate while stunned, and go back to moving forward as I commanded. Everything while stunned.
I must question your definition of "rotating"... your cursor wasn't even on a different direction of Jagdtiger...
My videos are from 2d ago and yesterday.
It's not about acc or dec. Look at 30s. Crew stunned, yet still rotate. 1:02, JT moving back, order to gor forward, stun, yet still started to move forward but just slower.
At 30 seconds, the Jagdtiger CREW is stunned and slows to a crawl. Crew shock does not mean broken tracks, engine destruction, time stop, or stasis cell.
Last time I killed Jagdtiger was with four T-34/76 after retreating all their infantry with Katusha and incendiary bombing run. I lost one tank during the approach(it was pre-patch in Hurtgen's forest) and until its death I was able to pretty much stunlock it by trapping it between 3 tanks. Once it starts being pounded it cannot really get away.
ISU-152:
- 33% of the shell’s damage is applied on non-penetrating rounds against enemy armor.
- Added a 1 in 3 chance of crew shocked critical on deflections
IS-2:
- 25% of the shell’s damage is applied on non-penetrating rounds against enemy armor. (No longer applies)
- 1 in 6 chance of 5 second crew shocked critical on target deflections
Tiger:
- Added a 1 in 5 chance for a 5 second crew shocked critical on target deflections
Brummbar:
- 50% of the shell’s damage is applied on non-penetrating rounds against enemy armor.
- Added a 1 in 3 chance of 5s crew shocked critical on target deflections
Vehicle Stun Critical
Duration from 3 to 5 seconds; this affects a number of abilities which cause units to become stunned for a set period of times. The Stuart uses a separate critical for its stun and is not affected by this change.
Are your videos from the latest patch? Because in the first video they look like 3 seconds. And even if vehicles are stunned, the tank does not stop dead in its tracks - it decelerates, you know, basic physics.
Second, your panther video shows that the main gun firing right after it gets stunned, because I believe the fire order goes in before the stun happened. If you look at 1:23, as its stunned the MG stops firing right away. I believe the stun at the moment does not stop the tank as if it were a matrix-style timestop stun on a tank.
Holy gardening pudding... Tell me, how units with 40-70 range can stun unit with 85 range?
Holy gardening pudding... Tell me, how can infantry fight MG when it can suppress infantry?
And this stun is not stunnig really. It stuns for 0,5s?
It's fixed at 5 seconds.... your lies do nothing but reduce your own credibility.
Recently I caught alone JT with my Jackson at Lienne Forest behind this huge building that looks like train station. 3 shots, maybe one DVD damage, rest make stun BUT during this "stuns" JT still was able to reverse behind fuel Point, close to first bunker or flak. So this stun thing is not very punishing if in fact you can move.
Crew shocks immobilize the vehicle and render it unable to fire. For 5 seconds. Again, your made-up stories add nothing to the debate on hand. If you believe there was a bug, then bring a replay to prove it.
If only OKW infantry wasn't using terminator armor and plasma bullets and allies, especially soviets had handheld AT able to kill anything above scout car.
Should go back to the 158034th topic with OKW faction design.
Cost is not excuse for overpowered unit to stay overpowered.
You have terrible issue-spotting skills. Penetrating Shot was overpowered, not the unit itself. The overpowered attribute is gone but counterbalancing factors remain, making it pretty useless in 1v1.
Smoke, using true sight, abusing the incredibly long reload and rushing with armor after it shots at infantry ect ect.
Rushing into zis guns and mines? I've watched many top 10 replays and only time ISU fails is when luftwaffe airstrike or some RNG God decides to takes out both zis guns and guards covering the ISU
Also, JT doesn't need to blindly roll forward-it got that range on it for a reason.
Range doesn't matter when it's blind.
And yea, you are right here, extreme lack of skill on OKW players part was one of the reasons why JT was so popular unit before-you didn't even need brain to win the game as long as you could train yourself to sit 2 volks with shrecks, puppchen and 2 obers near it.
So there's a slow-ass tank with 4 infantry squads and you can't think of a single Katusha to fire on it? That's pretty disappointing. In fact, a single P47 strafe can bring it down to 20% health because it is too slow to dodge the rockets...
Maybe if you spent half the time writing over 3000 posts with baseless claims on the forums on actual ranked matches, you might have a more balanced view of the game.
Of course I don't have the specific values for distance, number of units, etc. That is clearly something that would need to be balanced. I am merely talking about the theory of such a debuff. But my short answer would be that it wouldn't. If you put (for example) 3 units within 5 meters of eachother, then you recieve the penalty. That's it. I must again reiterate that it makes logical sense in that if you shoot into a group of people, your chances of hitting something are greater. Also, keep in mind that I am NOT advocating for a 200% penalty. Just a slight increase that I am certain could reach a balance relatively easily.
Uh, ANY sort of debuff that punishes just for having units close? Since when did WW2 battles become squad-duels in random parts of the battlefield??
I can play the same game and claim that would be too difficult to balance, and throw in a "that doesn't make any sense", "my mgs have no problem suppressing blobs, "only players that suck have problems suppressing blobs".
It doesn't really add anything to the discussion does it?
Way to manipulate the argument here. The whole argument is whether blobbing is overpowered in terms of skill investment and combat effectiveness, NOT how evil blobs are. You can whine all you want but what you call "blobbing" is called "concentrated commitment of forces" in military operations and is a valid tactic. Countering one tactic with another is a healthy game system. If there WERE no counters - that would be a problem. Currently, late-game units have more than enough blob control with ISU, rocket artillery, etc. The problem is early game - where MGs fail to be the anti-blobbing weapon. So it adds much to the discussion. You just have to accept the fact that blobbing is not a evil, satanic ideology of communism but a valid tactic in the right circumstances.
I don't think so, I acknowledged that I could do some things differently, however that doesn't negate the fact that I would be required to do those other things (screening troops) whereas my opponent right clicks somewhere.
If you are losing to right-clicked blobs than you haven't prepared adequately for the assault, thats all. Like I said above the opponent seemingly found a weak spot in your lines or an isolated unit and decided to concentrate in that area. You could have reacted via grenades and smokes to cover your retreat and have anti-blobbing capabilities to react to it. If right-clicking was such a rewarding, flawless tactic, then why do we not see it at any top-ranked level? I watch streams and propaganda cast during my spare time - I have yet to see blobbing win a game since AssEngie and Assgren nerf.
It doesn't change on my part, I made a stupid move with my t34 and deserved to loose it. But what I'm talking about atleast provides an incentive for him to spread his troops into tactical positions. How anybody could argue that blobbing is more desirable than posturing your troops is beyond me.
I can't understand the idea that I should be spreading my troops into tactical positions when I'm trying to concentrate a single point, especially when I'm moving my forces. It;s up to YOU to provide an incentive to the opponent to spread his troops out with proper use of anti-blobbing tools available. T34 takes average of 6 hits from a panzershrek to kill. OKW in a normal setting would only have munitions to equip 3~4 volks squad with shreks even in mid-late game so that would mean 2 accurate vollies, 3 if at max range. Shrek reload is like what,4-5 seconds. So you had good 10 seconds to get your t34 out and react with katushas or incendiary barrage. That would have forced him to either lose most of his troops or mass retreat. Thats when you take all their fuel and mine chokepoints.
In fact, I am much more afraid of a single ober and a shrek squad working in pairs than a full volks blob. A huge infantry blob for soviets? Much thanks!
And as far as blobbing being a part of the natural learning curve, that is perfectly fine. And I know some develop out of the poor habits, but why are you so against a moderate debuff to discourage such an action?
Because such debuff would not only be unrealistic but will also penalize players who exercise good micro and tactical movement JUST for having units close by - which is idiotic, to say the least. Why not make cars illegal, as they cause more death than gun accidents and airplane accidents combined?
Secondly, since ISU has HE/AP shells, you know there is ISU on the field and probably it is using HE, you don't charge with inf. Recon, flares etc.. Plenty ways to get knowledge where ISU is atm.
And since HE shells almost cant damage tanks, your pushing with tanks.
Recon, flares etc... none of it available to OKW commanders except for 45 munitions one with short range...
Combined arms. Something very unpopular in Axis players community
By that logic, the pre-nerf Jagdtiger should also not be a problem is it?
Jadgtiger completly denies ISU so problem solved. Keep pushing ISU with JT and it won't kill your inf.
And Jagdtiger costs the soviet equivalent of 435 fuel, not to mention higher cp as well.
Also how do you push something with better spotting? You seem to believe that jagdtiger can blindly roll forward and make it out alive.... with shitty pathing and crew stuns, the Jagdtiger can never afford to be spotted unless the enemy is a retard who throws armor at your jagdtiger in a frontal assault.
Basically, unless dealing with extreme lack of skill, Jagdtiger is not worth it most of the time, but yet is still the only counter to ISU in certain maps. See the flaw here?
Why top player don't use blobbing? Because it's not a good tactic. The more a player will climb the ladder, the more it will find that this tactic is not the winning one.
Blobbing is a lazy reflex that many of us sometime use, only to be defeat when we meet someone who know how to fight it.
Blobbing is part of the natural learning curve of COH2. It's why, COH2 don't need in game mechanism to prevent it.
And sometime depending on many factors (primary the opponents and the maps) blobbing is the way to go.
Example : You did a recon and found a path without HMGs and hopefully no mines, so you blob to flank using that path.
Please don't try to put words i didn't say in my mouth and don't verse into the extremes.
The purpose is to discourage blobbing by punishing it, the most direct way to accomplish that is to apply a penalty for it. If blobbing was adequately discouraged and good micro sufficiently rewarded, then I doubt there would be such a large thread about it, also your last comment comes off as a bit elitist to me, please realize that the vast majority of people who play this game are much more in my experience range than yours. And we are perfectly capable of recognizing that blobbing is a bit on the cheesy side, and in it's current state, can reward lazy play, particularly in the most popular game modes (large team games).
And how would computer recognize the difference between attack-move, and a micro-intensive tactical placement of squads in adjacent area with in a tight formation?
The tools are clearly already there, there will be testing required for any change, so that is a given. My point is that if something needs to be done about blobbing, why wouldn't you address it directly? Not only that, but as far as your balance concerns go, I would be far more hesitant to start making changes to individual units (based on their blobbed strength) that may have negative effects in, for example 1v1s where blobbing is less prevalent.
Without introducing wierd debuff auras, we can fix this by making MGs as potent as they used to be, but guess who complained? The same people who are complaining at blobbing atm.
I think what we have here is a case of your golden-plated rose-smelling shit sliding right through, whereas us simple plebs clog it almost every time.
The better player should win.
Contradict yourself much?
In all honesty, I don't see blobbing as that big of a problem. Though it does piss me off to run up on a surprise volks blob and get a t34 instantly killed, I recognize that maybe I should have sent a screening squad in first, etc. I recognize that there are tons of things I could have done better. But if you are going to do something to combat it, I don't understand your aversion to accomplishing that in a way that rewards good micro and punishes lazy play, as opposed to potentially destroying a unit's effectiveness in other situations.
If that surprise volks blob was in a "tactical, micro-and-skill-required position" that killed your t34 instantly, how does that differ on your part? Your example shows your tactical mistake, not the cheesiness of the other player. In fact, I don't understand how you claim to "reward good micro" while you "lazily" rush your t34 into a antitank group and still somehow making claims in the nuance that your T34 only died because the opponent used a "lazy cheap tactic"
Are you trying to say that "My A-move should beat the other guy's A-move?"
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
