Profile of FelixTHM

I think it's bad that my 900 rank has anything to do with my input. Maybe we need to have a minimum rank to contribute, since the experiences of the best players are the only ones welcome.

The problems with most of these arguments would be better served by making changes to axis units. The armor change to m36, doesn't matter to me. However, I used to think that the problem I had with all other USF AT weapons was they had shit penetration, but that's not the actual problem. When I grab an axis weapon, they suck too. Axis armor values are just not balanced. Maybe some allied heavies have this problem too. The fact is, regardless of whether I am using an allied or axis anti tank gun, they all bounce on axis stuff. Pak and raketen bounce on panthers and tigers. Frequently too. The sherman is pretty bad, even vs p4. You think p4 vs m36 is unfair because 1 shot may ping off or it has lower range? Try sherman vs puma, that's an even worse matchup. Puma can kite the sherman all day long, massively outrange it, seems faster(doesn't matter anyway, since it's firing out the fog most of the time). Sherman gets wrecked by a cheaper unit. Stug vs Sherman is almost the same thing(have to flank duh).

I don't think that lowering axis armor values will affect 1v1 much either. I don't think the players at the top are risking their games on bounced shots, they are making better calculated assaults and flanks. Am I wrong? Are top players back there talking after a game "good thing my panther bounced those two atg shots, that could have cost me the game." The unbalanced armor values allow people to play lazier when they play as axis, which is exactly what I do when I play axis. I'm lazy af and usually still win with relative ease. It's boring, that's why I don't play axis. In coh1, axis was difficult, even with the cool tanks. However, I couldn't just park my shit in front of atg's and look back 10 seconds later and expect them to not be a burning wreck. I still had to flank. I had to think. I don't have to think when I play axis in coh2. There is no challenge I don't have a tool for as axis in coh2. When I get beat as axis in coh2, it's because the other guys had much more cumulative skill than my team.

While it's not the case that your opinion isn't welcome, you have to bear in mind that as a very low-skill player, you're really not in a position to suggest that far more skillful players are "not using their tools right".

The other problem that you don't seem to realise is that as a player of really low skill, you aren't exactly privy to the issues that players face in competitive ranked games. Your constant poo-pooing of these issues belies a grotesquely over-inflated self-assessment of your own understanding of the game.

There's plenty of terrible misconceptions you have - the first of which being "unbalanced" armour values. All units pay for their armour. It's factored into their cost, and considered along with all of its other stats like accuracy, range, penetration, reload, speed, hp, to name a few. A Sherman with AP rounds is almost 50-50 vs an Ost P4 while it has vastly superior anti-infantry performance with HE shells. The Ost P4 is far more user-friendly even though statistically the Sherman is a far superior unit. I think that's one of the major points of confusion you have - You're confusing ease of use with combat potential.

And yes top players are risking their games on bounced shots, just like everyone else. Because that's the design of the game. A T34-76 can frontally pen a KT and its shots can also bounce off of a Tiger's rear armour. AT guns have neither guaranteed pen on heavy tanks nor guaranteed hits on medium and light vehicles - we live and die by the RNG.

Lastly - if you "usually win with relative ease as Axis", it'd show. We'd be looking at a top 50 1v1 Axis main instead of a bottom 10 to 20% ranked USF-only 4v4 player.

Honestly at your skill level I'd always hesitate to attribute either wins or losses to balance. If you win it's because your opponents were really bad at the game. If you lose it's because you are really bad at the game. And honestly it's impossible to separate player skill from the value of their input. I'd much rather listen to a chess grandmaster (or at least someone with 2000 elo) than to the ramblings of an 800 elo novice.

I don't have time to watch 1 hour worth of bad plays, but I'll tell you what I saw in the first 25 minutes.

Opening T2 with a single Con is going to be a very slow start. What made it slower was the fact that you had no interest in capping territory.

While some players favour VP over resources, it was simply shocking that at the 3:30 mark you had neither your fuel nor your muni. This was against an opponent who made virtually no effort to pressure you.

You built a mortar as your 5th unit. This early, against an opponent who has neither utilised the garrisons nor built hmgs, leaves the mortar with few meaningful targets.

From 4:30 to 7:30 your territories weren't connected. You left an engineer idling in base for ages, and your opponent wasn't pressuring your cutoff. You simply left your territories unconnected for what felt to me like an hour (but was actually 3 minutes).

At the 8th minute you send a 5% health squad with 2 models to cap your enemy's fuel. No surprise that it got wiped.

It's Arnheim Checkpoint and you finally got a flamethrower at 8:20.

At 9:30 you're floating 600 manpower and your mainline consists of 1 Conscript and 2 maxims.

By the 11 minute mark your refusal to acquire fuel has resulted in a serious fuel disadvantage. Your opponent fielded a Flak HT at the 8 min mark and you're on track for a 13 minute T70.

The 13 minute mark: Your opponent is floating 900 manpower and 180 fuel. His play has been similarly atrocious - by this point he could have overrun you with 4 x Luchs if he had so desired.

Also worthwhile to note that in 10 minutes on the field your mortar (a disastrous unit choice) has done a total of nothing. 0 kills and virtually no contribution at all.

Your T70 arrives at the 14 minute mark. Basically Ost P4 timing.

14:30 -> What are you doing? A single Volk model on 5% hp is retreating from your muni point, needing just one off centre-hit from the T70 to kill. You have the church and vision of a large chunk of that entire retreat path. There is literally no excuse to not chase that Volks squad.

15:30 -> Your opponent is saving to build the Maus, apparently.

He has 1250 manpower and 240 fuel.

You've just run over a mine. With 600 mp in the bank and almost no field presence, engineers with sweepers would be a prudent choice.

16:40 -> You did the exact same bloody thing!!!!! Your opponent stupidly attempted to decap your fuel with 2 Volks on 20% health.

When your opponent finally retreated the single 5% health Volk from your T70 (after a long delay) you reversed instead of driving forward 10 distance to finish off the squad.

18:20 -> You finally realised you've been cutoff from your fuel for 3 minutes. There was literally no pressure on this side of the map and you simply didn't do anything.

19:30 -> finally rebuilt the engineer you lost ages ago. You need a sweeper and a flamer engie, ideally.

Fuel caches are one of the worst things you can spend on in 1 v 1. But you've been floating 900 manpower up till now, even with the fuel cache purchase.


Top 3 things to improve upon

1) Learn the maps: Identify the cutoffs, and do something about it when you're cutoff! Especially when your opponent isn't even pressuring your cutoff.

2) Build units: 2 maxims 1 con doesn't cut it as a frontline. You were floating crazy amounts of manpower and not building sufficient combat units. You were also building the wrong units. Mortar was a disastrous choice, and flamethrower engineers are a very high priority on a garrison-heavy map.

3) Capture territory. You're not paying attention to capturing territory points in the early game (and all throughout, really), which delays your teching and unit-timing by horrible amounts. Capturing territory gives you more resource income, which allows you to use powerful abilities and to build more powerful units.

I believe some of the people complaining of Jackson superiority are really just not using their tools well when playing as Axis. We also have some playing 1v1 and others on teams. I play more teams and most players I lose to have little trouble with Jackson.

Jacksons do not penetrate panther and above 100%. I've bounced 2 and 3 consecutive shots on panthers and tigers. I've bounced shells off the back of tigers.

Also, the raketen doesn't not melt against double bar rifles. It is extremely common in team games for okw players to send raketen in to heavily gaurded positions to get shots off on armor and usually they can get 2 or 3 rockets off before retreating or dying. Usually done with 2 of them, it's kind of cheap actually. I've had people send 2 raketen into range of an m2hb, shoot off the shots it needs, retreat and both survive. Allied DPS just isn't sufficient. Sending 2 57mm would be a pathetic disaster for a USF player in the same scenario. Even if an mg42 didn't kill the crew, the shots will likely bounce off the target. It just wouldn't work.

.

You're rank 900+ in 4 v 4. And your insinuation is that players who are way more skilled than you "aren't using their tools properly".

Tiger has like 140? rear armour. The chance for a Jackson to bounce a shot on Tiger's rear armour is literally ZERO PERCENT. You can't even tell the difference between rear armour and front armour, Christ.

Double BAR Rifles have more DPS than every other mainline at most ranges, and can defeat lower vet elite infantry. Raketens don't have gun shields and have 1.25 RA AND have less range than the Jackson.

I have a radical hypothesis - maybe the rank 900+ 4 v 4 player who doesn't understand half of the game mechanics is the one who "isn't using the tools properly". Most players you face off don't have trouble with your Jacksons because they are significantly more skilled than you.


Units should be balanced based on the assumption of competent play.

You're listing what has been purposely balanced to be supportive to tanks in their battle, for each factions.
But if you're so much in the theory that ATgun and Infantry AT are enough to counter mediums, why don't you apply your own logic and use ATgun and pgshrek and mines vs Jackson. What the purpose of this thread in fact, If Pz4 bounce once every 8-9 shots, where were your atgun and pgshrek group to seal the deal? enlight us.

Because the Jackson has 60 range. Wtf dude that's like the first thing we've described and you've suddenly "forgotten" it again.

AT gun + Infantry AT does in fact counter medium battle tanks, as it should. But the Jackson isn't a medium battles tank. It's a 60 range high pen tank destroyer which somehow has the speed, acceleration, and rotation of a medium tank. That's the whole issue that all the competent players are screaming at you about and you're pretending not to get it. Medium tanks have 35?/40? range, which allows an AT gun to sit comfortably out of danger when shooting the medium tank.


The Jackson simply can't be countered - Jackson hits p4 from 60 range. P4 can't return fire. Raketen needs to be 5 range ahead of the frontline and PAK40 needs to be directly in the frontline to hit the Jackson. Good luck trying that against vetted double BAR riflemen who decrew the rak before it even manages to set up and aim. Panzershrecks being a counter to Jacksons only applies in Stalingrad or at CODGUY ranks. 30 range, 4-man team needs to waltz in 30 distance past enemy infantry, HMGs, and mainline battle tanks like T34s and Shermans (assuming that the Jackson somehow doesn't move), just to scratch the Jackson? In your opinion that makes the Jackson totally counterable.

Actual medium tanks get countered by AT guns and AT infantry - P4 fires from 35?/40? range. Allied AT gun fires at it from 60 range away. P4 can't attack the AT gun without closing at least 20 distance, which leaves it vulnerable to snares, enemy tanks, infantry AT, and makes it super hard to escape from the situation because you have now moved forward 20 distance.

I don't understand why you keep insisting that the two situations are even remotely comparable.

The whole reason the Jackson is too OP right now is that it's a high pen tank destroyer with the mobility stats of a medium tank.

The counters to medium tanks (AT Guns, AT infantry) only counter the Jackson at rank 500+ where people only retreat their Jacksons after leaving it on the frontline for 30 seconds.

The counter to tank destroyers like SU85 and JP4 (basically flanking) doesn't work on the Jackson because it has the mobility of a medium tank. Again, the stand-still-for-30-seconds-rule doesn't apply at higher elo levels.

Escaping from SU85/JP4/Firefly is easy because all you need to do is reverse. Escaping from the Jackson is difficult because it moves like a medium tank and can keep chasing after you as long as it has vision.

yes It is, also you are over looking the fact the IS2 is crap, cant even go toe to toe with a panther, plus Its stuck behind crap commander choices.

If your IS2 is losing toe to toe against a Panther, there's not enough L2P juice left to save you. It's literally the second best heavy tank in the game atm, behind the OKW artillery Tiger (which almost everyone agrees to be ridiculous because of the artillery ability).

The IS2 currently has 375 armour to the Panther's 260, more health, and both have similar pen and RoF. At your level it's unlikely that your opponents are utilising the Panther's 50 range to kite you perfectly. While the Panther is a good soft-counter to the IS2, it can virtually never beat it 1 vs 1 unless there's a significant skill or luck disparity involved.

Shock Rifle and Armoured Assault are both excellent commanders chock-full of good abilities. But apparently anything Soviet in your hands becomes crap - it's never about your countless terrible misplays and non-stop mistakes throughout the game.