Profile of Mazianni

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 785

General Information


Thread: On the M4A3E81 Nov 2019, 00:46 AM Jump back to quoted post1 Nov 2019, 00:20 AMHon3ynuts It's good against vehicles, but only some vehicles where the high armor is helpful. The reload is 6.55 seconds and the Penetration is only ~165 which is horrible and above average respectively. I don't think it's terrible but I think it could have some lateral adjustments so it can find a niche where it fits better. Making it more like the Comet or Panther with increase price and performance would probably be the easiest way to provide a more interesting choice for USF players. If you leave the Price as is it's probably going to be overshadowed by the AI sherman or the AT Jackson if its performance is "Balanced" Jump back to quoted post1 Nov 2019, 00:32 AMOutsider_Sidaroth E8 is good. Just that the stock Sherman is better AI and Jackson is better AT, so it's not worth a doctrinal pic unless you want to use it, since doctrinally you could get a Sturmsherman, Pershing or Rocket Artillery. The sole vehicle that this unit is effectively better at countering than the M4A3 is the Panzer IV, which it will still fail to consistently penetrate at realistic combat ranges. Because it has a far lower ROF it is worse versus anything with less armor, like a Stug, and it has worse mobility to boot. And the AI is not simply "not as good" as P4 or M4A3, it is horrible and barely beats out the Panther in tests. This is not the mark of an effective general medium tank and I am bewildered than anyone would defend this thing for anything other than being able to tank a single extra shot (80hp, so from almost anything: snare, mine, hhAT, etc) I am going to remove spoilers from the images so people are forced to see them and say this is good performance.. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: On the M4A3E831 Oct 2019, 23:37 PM Jump back to quoted post31 Oct 2019, 23:34 PMStug life Try any tank on the move then try the easy 8, u will see normal tanks can barely hit so something Normal tanks also have better AOE distance, and the scatter is still worse than standing still, which produced the results pictured above. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: On the M4A3E831 Oct 2019, 23:33 PM Jump back to quoted post31 Oct 2019, 23:32 PMStug life Try it on the move it has almost no scatter making it a wipe machine on retreat , normal tanks have 2,0 scatter And it has better scatter standing still and had the performance pictured here. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: On the M4A3E831 Oct 2019, 23:14 PM Jump back to quoted post31 Oct 2019, 23:07 PMShadowLinkX37 From a 1v1 perspective primarily: I'm not attacking you, but for the entireity of my time on this forum, I have said USF tanks have been good, too good, or the top meta picks of tanks. I honestly cannot remember a single USF medium+ class tank that I can actually call not worth it in every situation possible, where something else may be better. And the entire time I've thought this people have always said they're worse than axis counterparts. I feel like it is always a case of "the grass is greener" in my eyes. The game has received nothing but absolute powercreep for the last 3 years. The reworking of doctrines to have everything you could ever want, consistant buffs to USF for 3 straight years to the point where the faction has become OP and nothing but buffs and more toys for the WFA + UKF in general. The EZ8 is honestly a good tank that can slug it out and win vs an OKW p4 and win consistantly for the same price in fuel. I'm not really sure what you want it to do. Be as good in the AI department and better in AT than the OKW p4 at the same price? The 34/85 already does that at cheaper, which is why it can seem lackluster. The HE sherman is the pinacle of AI medium tank that can still tussel with armor, and the jackson is the undisputed king of TDs, despite its nonexistant nerf. So what I'm trying to say is, other stuff gets buffed so much that things like the EZ8 get left behind, and then we try and buff the original stuff up to those levels, then buff the stock units etc and it's just a awful cycle of playing wack-a-mole. The E8/P4 matchup is highlighted in this thread and in my last few paragraphs. I'm sorry if you feel USF is OP, but I'll be damned if the E8 was ever a meta pick in this game and I have already highlighted that it has worse AI performance and middling AT performance, particularly compared to the 140 fuel P4 it competes with. That in itself has absolutely nothing to do with the real or supposed OP-ness of the M4A3 or M36 - it has to do with this tank not being good, and until evidence is delivered to the contrary, that will remain my position. I mean, building a tank directly to combat the P4, even if it was particularly good at that, sounds a lot like the role of a tank destroyer, regardless of how good the M36 is right now. And yet, compared to a M4A3, this vehicle is no better versus any other Axis armor. It is also miles worse than any of the medium tanks besides perhaps the Cromwell versus infantry, so I could hardly say it has an effective reserve use versus infantry to go with it's dedicated anti-P4 role. All this you can test yourself. If this thing had the exact same gun as the PIV, I think people would actually buy it, even if that means an overall nerf to near penetration on the gun, just because it would actually function as the generalist it supposedly is. Right now it is not good regardless of its in-roster competition, and that is exactly the point I attempted to illustrate with these tests. I want this unit to actually be a viable generalist and not the "Panzer IV and nothing else" counter it apparently is presently, as that does not sound like a particularly sturdy position for a 140 fuel investment. It doesn't have to have better AI than the M4A3, or as good AT as the M36, just has to be able to actually do its job. I would welcome making this an OKW P4 clone if that makes it actually useful. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: On the M4A3E831 Oct 2019, 22:47 PM I had a big long thread typed up, hit F5 by accident and lost everything. I'm not going to waste another 30 or so minutes of my life today typing it up again, so I will make this quick. This tank has been brought up a ton recently, was nerfed several patches ago, and quite frankly is not good. It is described as a generalist tank, but cannot function like one, as its reload time is the worst of any medium tank in the game by a good margin and also it has the worst AOE distance values of any medium tank besides the Panther. The typical responses given are "muh armor" and "muh 720 HP" I have tested this unit against the OKW P4, which costs the exact same, and in every engagement the M4A3E8 wins by the grace of God or the devil alone, since both vehicles bounce off of each other so constantly. But this wouldn't be a generalist tank if we didn't examine anti-infantry capability, so here you are. Anti-infantry tests Panzer 4J: T-34/76: Panther: (finally fucking hit something) Panther (MGs upgraded. Note the M4A3E8's MG attachment costs more than even any of the other Sherman MGs despite being the exact same thing. Epic.): Versus P4 head on (tank v tank) Highlights: Rifle company is actually half-decent, and so I'm tired of hearing that as the stupid excuse for why people say they never see this tank, or because "everything else is too good and needs nerfing etc". This tank cannot kill infantry effectively, it is slower and more sluggish handling than any of the tanks it competes against, and banks on it having 80 hp more and a higher chance of bouncing P4 shots when it comes to buying this thing (a Panther will still penetrate it at all ranges 100% of the time, not to mention outfight it in general with better health, armor, and ROF.) It's saving grace would be that it is at least better than the regular M4A3 at fighting Panzer IVs, but it is still only barely capable of doing that. If they could at least lower the gun's reload time to be equal to the M4 Sherman, that'd be nice. As it is there is no point in building the E8 since it's about as effective as an upgraded Panther is versus infantry, and barely any more effective versus armored targets than a M4A3. One could also raise the AOE distance; you could even nerf the scatter in such a way to make the shot be identical to the Panzer IV's. That would be an improvement. The idea of this being some hidden gem in the USF roster overshadowed by the M4A3 and M36 respectively is a joke, no matter what you think of those two units. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Ostheer T4 Hot garbage or Actually fine?30 Oct 2019, 02:36 AM Jump back to quoted post30 Oct 2019, 00:05 AMporkloin OST t4 isn't viable in 1v1 because there is no light tank that you can use to pivot into t4. You really need that p4 to give you some breathing room against the other light vehicles that dominate the 222, and man-handle the MGs you need to keep pace with the infantry fight. I've suggested earlier bringing in the short-barreled p4 into the light tank role. I've also suggested bringing the stug into t2 with or without battlephase 2 requirements. As is there's no reason to go t4. Two p4s, or a tiger are going to be a better choice in all situations. I think building a panther in 1v1 will lose you far more games than you win because of it's pop. You won't be able to field the panther, and a AI vehicle, and all the infantry and team weapons you need in 1v1. Even with a huge tempo advantage, you'll just get slowly pushed off the field while sitting on 1,000 something manpower that you can't put to good use because your pop-capped. E:battlephase 2 not 3 Jump back to quoted post30 Oct 2019, 00:08 AMT.R. Stormjäger Agreed on the light vehicle. It’s a huge shame there’s no panzer III in the game in Leichte Mechanized HQ, it would have made a huge positive difference for Ostheer. I want the Stug III E to be a relatively early nondoc unit and LT analogue tbh. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: How to counter Ostheer mg spam as Usf28 Oct 2019, 22:45 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Oct 2019, 18:36 PMStug life snip Jump back to quoted post28 Oct 2019, 18:47 PMachpawel snip What, am I not allowed to say the USF mortar is shit at dealing damage? Is that a rule? This was an advice thread on how to deal with Ostheer MGs, and I gave my advice and knowledge. The forum doesn't need the Ostheer fan club brigading every counterstrategy thread telling everyone how pitiful ostheer is or whatever. The USF mortar is an unreliable component in most game's USF builds and an ineffective damage-dealer. Me saying that doesnt demand buffs or bemoan balance, it's just saying things how they are. You can say it ought to be horrible because muh 4-man squads or whatnot, but that is completely immaterial to the subject of this thread. If you think it deserves nerfs or removal, make a balance thread. I happen to think it's a waste of mp and popcap most of the time, but can be useful for providing smoke or clearing garrisons on certain maps and modes against certain builds. If you think the opposite feel free to say so, just leave the ostheer pity-party shtick out and keep on topic. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: HMG Explosive Vulnerability28 Oct 2019, 17:39 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Oct 2019, 17:27 PMBlueKnight Agreed with Stug Life, mortar is a tool that should be used vs static infantry or team weapons. Denying enemy cover with mortar barrage makes sense and is part of combined arms synergy. Imho reduce the barrage scatter on the 2nd and the following shots. 1st shot can be as is now, if enemy decides not to move his HMG, he will suffer from the consequences of the following mortar barrage shots being more precise. Players should be encouraged to use barrage over autofire, barrage cooldown reduction could help a bit too. If I could, I'd have the autofire removed on everything and the barrage recharge time reduced to nearly nothing at all, certainly under 10s. Then the barrage damage, scatter, AOE or all of it could be buffed and if you don't move your units after the shells start falling then fuck you. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: 120mm mortars underperform!28 Oct 2019, 17:34 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Oct 2019, 17:20 PMmrgame2 That will make it too strong imo. Vet0 flare on 82mm is already a cheap map hack. Wehr cannot counter until their mortar reach vet1 for counterbarrage. Actually the grw34 should most likely win in a mortar trade due to its substantially higher ROF, especially in barrage. Haven't tested, obviously, but the numbers are pretty clear-cut IMO. Only trouble vs 120mm is barrage range discrepancy. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: HMG Explosive Vulnerability28 Oct 2019, 16:48 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Oct 2019, 16:38 PMLago The nerfs to indirect fire did an excellent job of stopping mortars being an all-powerful bleed and wipe tool. However, they also weakened the mortar against the unit it's meant to counter: the HMG. What do people think of putting an Obersoldaten-esque explosive damage malus on weapon teams (excluding the ATG because of the blast shield) so they're more vulnerable to mortar fire? That'd help the now somewhat off-meta mortar fill its intended role without returning it to its prior undesirable state. Yes please. Alternatively increase the AOE of most indirect weapons and lower the effective minimum damage, so that indirect weapons will nearly always be applying at least some splash damage with near misses. (Let's say 10-16 damage min. Maybe even 8. Total AOE size doubled or near-doubled.) Just posted about mortars in another thread and was about to make a thread on the unreliability of indirect overall what with the recent 120mm thread. Thanks for making one instead. In: COH2 Gameplay