|
Never had problems vs any heavy. Your advice is "make heavy tanks medium so they can get countered by medium tanks". The whole point of heavy tanks is "They cost a lot but also there are no direct counters to them". I never had any problems vs Tigers, usually one rifleman squad snares him (sometimes not) and 2 of my bazooka squads and one AT destroy him. I also pop smokes if the Tiger is covered by MGs or sth. The heavy tanks are their own thing, let them be. Panther as a medium tank being able to take on Pershing and KV1 and every other tank-weak heavy tank is enough. Heavies stand on their own regard. Counter with a heavy or anything that is good vs tanks + something else. IS-2 is really slow so if you manage to snare it, bye bye Stalin, it was not nice knowing you. |
|
Removing 1.3 Pershing nerf.
Less "more in line with..." business (cookie-cutting) since it's a basic recoloring of factions (if faction A has this, faction B must have a nearly identical unit stats-wise) -> this is a plea for future updates to bring out the uniqueness of each unit.
All in all, a good patch, good luck with future patches. May the brainstorm be stormy. |
So jackons will wipe inf and at guns and shoot down at strafes any day all day?
Lol just joking.
A wall of anything is a guaranteed loss (if the enemy is not a toddler). Offense is the best defense. Enemy spams tank destroyers? You spam infantry. Enemy spams Flaks or something anti infantry? You build a tank with anti tank capabilities. I just love playing against bunker down types. Not so brilliant strategists build bunkers and put MGs in buildings... Say hello to my mortar friend.
Btw. I seldom see Stug not penetrate Pershing and I almost never see Panther bounce off of Pershing. IS-2 has a bit heavier armour but it's also slower than a Pershing which allows easier snaring and destroying it. |
|
Panthers should not be touched at all, they have HP of Pershing, armour a bit weaker than a pershing, penetration is excellent, speed is excellent (+ blitzkrieg). Axis have enough solutions to any allied tank. And besides, if you see a wall of jackson.... just build infantry...
Most people here like building and spamming one (or 2) unit(s) and when the said units get countered, they complain they are too weak and need buffs. Panther is the best tank currently. Non doctrinal, great stats, super strong for tank hunting with it's speed. I never had any problems playing with panthers vs allied tanks, don't see where the problem is. Tank destroyers destroy tanks, if you have a problem with that, well, tough luck. I literally never had any problems with any unit... except that one time the axis had an elephant and it was supported with infantry and we had nothing to counter it, it was making a slow push with most jackson shells bouncing off it. That was a good play, I lost, big deal. |
|
Just ignore Korney, dweeb, nothing more. The HVAP that pierces buildings is useful only in a handful of situations mainly because it fires really slow. So your best chance is aiming at stationary vehicles being repaired or something, then there is the chance of it missing which I've been witness to plenty of times. Nothing more rage inducing than a KT being repaired, low HP and you fire that long range shot at it and it misses or explodes below it dealing no dmg. It's not worthless but extremely situational (+ randomness) |
Tiger : AOE damage from 1/0.25/0.15 to 0.75/0.25/0.15
AOE distance from 0.25/1.5/3 to 0/1/3
Is2 : AOE damage from 1/0.35/0.175 to 0.75/0.35/0.175
AOE distance from 0/1.35/3 to 0/0.85/3
Pershing : AOE damage near from 1/0.4/0.175 to 0.75/0.4/0.175
AOE distance from 0.25/1.5/3.25 to 0/1/3.25
Pershing is still top against infantry. If you think any of the heavies needed to stay the same then your 500 hours of comp stomping haven't helped you learn shit.
Those are minor differences, 8% and 15%. For a heavy with the lowest amount of armour/hp and no top gunner (like tiger), yeah, I'm calling "more in line with" BS. I love the fact that you call me a comp stomper when the truth couldn't be further. Extracting one data that shows a minor minority advantage and calling it "still top" is laughable. |
Pershing is fully MEANT to be best AI out of all heavies.
Each heavy got its niche, Tiger is best AT, pershing is best AI, IS-2 is best damage sponge.
Agreed, Pershing is meant to be to infantry, what COVID-19 is to humans, a destroyer. The whole "IN LINE WITH" BS needs to stop. |
I'll ask the question I've asked everyone who's said "all the factions are balanced" (or even 'ost OP'):
What's your explanation for the disparity in win rates? You can argue that the sample size for UKF is too small, but what about OST? This is from the recent World Cup Series, which had the same unit stats as the current version, and was played by top-level players.
First thing first:
You're right, you need a good population to be able to extrapolate data.
2nd there is an inherent flaw in this graph:
** How many games in total have been played? **
Other than that, you can then argue about the matches themselves. Were they anything else besides 1v1? The main thing people need to grasp is how fundamentally different a 1v1 game is to any other mode just by looking at the input parameters for each (let's say arbitrarily without any loss of generality) minute of gameplay. CoH2 1v1 is a different game altogether.
So yeah, the graph doesn't really show much, the percentages are there ad-hoc without any background information. If you want to build a good statistical analysis you need a large population, controlled system (tournaments are semi-controlled systems) and you need parameters which you would keep static. All in all, when you get such large disparities, you know something is off and the graph presented should be taken with a big fist of salt.
EDIT: Seen the link, 84 games. Not nearly enough to be able to draw any conclusions. Their statistical analysis is something that would be considered a bad representation/analysis in the scientific community. I mean, I don't blame them, it's a game that has countless parameters... Even though the thorough analysis they concluded is "much wow" effort, it's also waaaaay too much information and extrapolation. Way too much. The whole thing is convoluted, impossible to draw conclusions.
I'd say that the best way you would test the balance is if you had at least 1000 games. Only then can you proceed with an analysis that would not be inherently flawed.
|
I'm not a pro 
But just to show a bit of cherrypicking. You suggested sherman is worse than p4. Sherman has a crew, which, for example, means you don't have to pay for pios to repair it, it also means it can cap. The saved manpower you can spend on infantry or support weapons. The crew will usually mean you can repair it much faster and have much higher battlefield presence. Because of saved manpower you will also have more 'combat' infantry units on the field, which will add up with "free" officer units creating infantry advantage. Sherman has also higher sccuracy on the move, which will mean you can chase and run away more effectively. Sherman is also cheaper than p4. So the conclusion is that it is often a better tank than, for example, p4, especially the one from ost.
No no no, I did not mean panzer was better, I only meant it had the [same same...but differeeeeent] different role. You know, better armour, but that's why Sherman has the crew + smokes, etc.
My point of differentiating was that the OST has a bigger armoured division pool, not that they are stronger in some way. I mean, they are stronger in some but that's why US is more versatile. That's my point. You win some, you lose some. In panzer case, you win one vs one front and center, but you lose the brilliant smoke canisters for retreat/smoking the chokepoints, etc.
EDIT: To conclude, in my honest opinion, all the factions are balanced and well thought out. Pershing didn't need the nerf though, I'll cherrypick that, Pershing needs to be the doom of infantry. |
But tbh how You compared tanks is wrong. Hard to read because of so many inaccuracies, wrong assumptions and simple cherrypicking. Which lvl are You? Maybe You should show some replays?
I never save replays nor do I allow my games to be publicly accessed. Feel free to correct me wherever you see fit. Only thing I will disclose is that I have 533 hours in COH2, whether playing vs experts or playing vs humans. I just made a basic, brute-force comparison of roles. Nothing special nor extensive. Non doctrinal of course. If I've made a factual boo-boo, correct me. I used coh2 stats to compare panzer vet with sherman,rest are just from my experience playing COH2, about how units behave. Do point out the mistakes, I'd appreciate it, it was late when I typed that. |
0
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
