I agree. However I would say that it performs decently against the Ostheer P4 even frontally. Given its price it is better than the Jackson.
There are just to many preconditions to use it. 1v1, Ostheer, T3 spam and a mostly open map (which to be fair most if not all 1v1 maps are)
and very limited timeframe as well. While it is cheaper then m36, the later is so much more cost effective and viable till enemy has no armor on the field and has no means of building it, m10 on the other had is "viable" 'til panther hits the field. Imo if m10 was decent in 1v1, it would be decent in 2v2 as well. You still get lots of medium armor in 2v2, although the flanking opportunities are limited quite a bit though. |
That was my impression as well, but I am not a very versed 1v1 player. I just can say that the M10 does not work well in 2v2 and 3v3. I can imagine it working in 1v1 from my limited experience.
I can just emphasize that I believe it has neither a good niche nor decent timing. It does not generate a power spike itself nor is it THAT cheap or effective that it allows you to push a stronger unit early. Units in the last tech building must have enough power out of the gate to be somewhat effective, but the M10 in that regard falls flat on its face and doesn't do too much before vet1 at which point it becomes a big muni sink.
It is basically the last tier version of the old MobiDef Panic Puma, but without the bite that the Puma offered because of worse timing.
The problem is that it is not even viable against p4 and on top of that gets completely shot down by panther, which has the same range as M10, but substantially more durable. If it was at least viable vs p4, it would have been decent investment. Stug is viable against every battle tank, but comet, kv1 and churchill. Even in those scenarios you can stack Stugs, get them vetted and deny the crap out of heavier targets.
If 380 mp 90 fuel unit can create trouble for more expensive then it medium armor (e.g. t34-85), I don't see a reason why m10 should be so bad against p4. And on top of that I don't see lack of tools from OST and OKW to deal with M10s.
|
I did not compare it to top tier TDs though and I still think it is pretty bad.
It might work okay in 1v1, but if a unit is only okay in one single mode there is probably reason for a redesign. At least that's what this patch should be aiming for: Make more commanders appealing in general, including more modes. The M10 is not the single way to fix those two commanders, but since it doesn't work well against anything else than an Ostheer T3 spam in 1v1, some changes should be done.
With HVAP it performs well for its price, which is one reason why I can see it to be gated behind vet1. On the other hand it makes building a late M10 uninteresting because it does not properly perform.
It's only late game purpose is to use it as a throw-away tank, which is something the game is usually moving away from.
I don't even think it is worth to build in 1v1, unless you are able to build a sherman followed by an m10 and caught p4 out of position. Diving is very problematic in coh 2, because of snares, mines etc, so it is often a gamble with such moves. Because all of this I don't like the unit and avoid building it. Also 60% chance to pen a P4J at far range is pretty bad imo, it is passable with muni sink tho, but only after vet 1. Maybe if HVAP were available with vet0 it would be more viable.
About unit that is effective at numbers - I can't think of a situation when a single jackson is worse then 2 m10. I guess you could sacrifice it to kill a panther or a heavy tank, since a stakes are quite high, but otherwise Jackson is almost always a better investment. It is slightly slower, but the firepower and reliability it provides just overshadows m10. Even with UKF Land Lease I struggled to find a place for it.
|
The M10 Wolverine/Achilles (both versions) need some more love. I will post this here since I think the USF version is in a slightly worse state than the UKF one due to the heavy MUN need of USF infantry that competes with the HVAP ability.
There is a similar vehicle in the game - Stug-G. Stug-G has similar health, similar armor, more pen (esp at far range +20%), slightly more expensive (-20mp, +10 fuel). No idea about ROF tho. Stats say M10's reload is shorter, but there is a wind up and wind down + moving cooldown duration multiplier, which kind of convolute things a little bit for me. Might be a good idea to remove cooldown duration multiplier (set to 1 from 1.2).
Although units are somewhat similar, but adversity they are facing is not, since axis stock armor has generally more armor.
I think increased penetration, especially the at far range may help unit a lot. Maybe even buff HVAP M93 Shells. The target size is definitely pretty high for such vehicle, although with 'Flanking Speed' enabled it is almost identical to that of Stug-G.
No idea what happened to the unit, but I definitely struggle to find a reason to build one, unless a cheap flanking throwaway unit. Not even worth building to fight P4s imo. |
Fully agree to the last part. In fact, if i were up to me I'd probably go for a slight price reduction (maybe around 10%), but that's it. Performance-wise there's no doubt that heavies are decent; they provide good AT paired with excellent AI (with the possible exception of fighting units in heavy cover) and great survivability. A buff to mobility would probably require quite a bit of a rework, as this would eliminate one of their key weaknesses (in particular the slow turret/hull rotation). At the very least the range boost the Tiger and IS-2 get at Vet 2 would have to go in this case. However, I personally see the extra range as kind of a defining trait and would rather not have it replaced by something else.
Not talking about buffing all heavies mobility to medium tank level, just a tad bit of acceleration buff. Maybe by 0.2 max. For example tiger 1 is almost always faces a TD which makes its life miserable. Slight mobility buff means it is more responsive when caught out with AT/TDs.
Also I think slight popcap buff is also welcome. All heavies are very pop cap heavy + they almost always require several squads of engies to keep them in the fight. So slight popcap adjustments (-1 or -2 pop cap) seem like a nice buff. Currently if you have good micro it is better to go for 2 medium tanks then 1 heavy tank. Price and pop cap is near identical, but firepower of 2 mediums is substantially higher. |
|
I actually came to like M26, simply because of its speed and acceleration (similar to that of P4J). You go in, shoot 1 or 2 shots and gtfo. Rinse and repeat. And imo heavy's AOE is pretty good at that. It knocks out a squad out of the fight pretty fast, and if enemy disrespects it, he may receive a nasty wipe.
But the problem is that often 1 or 2 shots is not enough and you already can face a repositioning panther or volley of several AT guns. And if shot misses or got bad scatter, you may face a hefty repair downtime. This especially evident with Tigers, that almost always faces a TD or two, that will most certainly complicates its usage quite a bit.
I think 1 of the ways to improve heavy tank performance is to buff their acceleration and/or speed, so that they could gtfo faster. It also makes them more viable as in assaults, better at rotation etc.
Apart from straight AOE buffs, there are also options like price, pop-cap adjustments, timings etc. Like with almost everything in life, price/performance is a viable metric in COH2 imo. |
thats pretty squiffy imo. did you know the major arty range isnt reduced with suppression? that means you can wealk up to an MG in a building and call in arty even if suppressed .... id be worried if that wasnt punished by focus fire.....
Yeah, it does not, can confirm that and synergy with pathfinders is insane.
I just want the unit to have better usability, because in heated situation you blink twice and major is instantly KIA with all of his homies. |
|
the problem is heavy TDs and map pool. 4v4 map pool is extremely laney that makes flaking hard and Heavy TD can just lock down a valuable chunk of map and make allied armor almost useless. AT guns do not bother them, because of abundance of rocket arty and huge armor of ele/jt and ram+offmap was nerfed last patch. So pretty much there is very few things you can do to deal with them, the few things that work are hard to pull off and are in realm of outplay or armor spam.
I think if heavy TDs to be made less efficient, winrates might look more fair. |
Thread: RK 43 7 May 2021, 08:25 AM
raketen is the worst AT in the game, maybe second worst after SOV baby AT, but that thing is actually great for its price and timing. That does not mean that it is trash, but in terms of usability and survivability raketen clearly is behind other AT.
No idea if OP played enough of OKW, but I suggest him to do it more often. |
|
Is it possible to buff Major's RA a little bit? It is quite hard to use the unit at all without losing it |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
