Well, if someone REALLY feels like he needs it, that's kind of the exact point why doctrines exist.
the wehr always needs it.
that's why panzergrenadier should see changes. It's not about turning the pzgren into a "mobile atg", it's about turning the pzgren into an alternative to the puma.
@firesparks i disagree. Obviously it would require playtesting but an earlier 221 would help against snipers (ideally) and assuming you built one being able to upgrade it to a 222 if you chose to when the battle phase is researched (just the tech, not the building) gives a more organic flow to light vehicle play- while ost still wont have a t70 of thwir own they will be able to apply some pressure sooner without bleed. They will be able to force reactionary AT (theres no reason for the allies not to be able to get AT somehow) which in turn reduces their AI. Its all conmected, look at how even simply moving the mg42 from insta built t1 to t0 changed the game, literally SECONDS sooner but one of the best changes seen imo
This is why i think the BIGGEST issue in balance is that allied infantry get too much from the start and then scale so much better ontop of it
Allied infantry dont NEED tank support tp fight the enemy, the can usually make due with attack move and minimal support, this means that fuel can be dumped into TDs to negate the actually needed ost support armour. Weaker (or more appropriately slower momentum) allied infantry would mean more medium tanks, would mean less TD spam. Ideally of course. Its all connected
1) how about this:
the wehr get their (cheaper)221 in t1 but the 222 upgrade is lock behind the t2 building
the panzergrenadier get downscaled (300mp) and the schreck is turned into a single schreck 75 mu upgrade. (no buff to the weapon itself)
2) The allied infantry does need tank.
Before the terminator buff, the USF late game was severely bleeding mp because they were relying too much on their rifleman late game. Even if you don't get squad wipe you're still going to need to pay for the reinforcement.
this problem was fixed by giving the USF the best defensive vet among the line infantry and even now it's still one of the best.
If the allied infantry scaled too much, it's because people keep giving them over powering buff to compensate for their weaker armor.
|
Its called puma, use it sometimes.
if only it wasn't restricted to one doctrine only.
222 window is a bit small, i would much rather a 221 in t1 (mg42 was moved to t0, so there is a "slot" to help with sniper cheese with the 222 upgrade at bp1- 2 birds 1 stone)
Wehr's most effective option, like ost themselves is defensive - the teller.
Because ost lacks a great vehicle allied players over extend and can lose their tank in an instant.
But what ever changes are needed a 360 degree no set up retreatable AT gun sure as shit is not it.
(Also i agree in part about AT penals, imo the AI and AT need to be a choice, not a progression so the choice can be exploited)
@stug life, i forgot about that big lad so point. However the only times i HAVE seen it (even post buff) it was smashed long before it could 2 tap, but yes, you are correct
while moving the 221 to t1 have some merit in making the unit itself more useful, it's not going to help the wehr against light vehicle beyond improve the general tactical situation.
What plague the wehr isn't a complete absence of anti-tank weapon, it is the inadequate of what they do have. The wehr is capable of fighting with their ATG, faust, and mine, but the selection leave them at a disadvantage against the allies, who's selection is better at this stage.
And mine isn't a reliable mean of anti-tank in the early game when you munition stock is still low. Its advantage in the late game is the cost your stock of munition make the munition cost less prohibitive, and how it scale against late game tank.
It also further force the wehr to go on the defense and cede map control to the allies.
I felt it was rather direct. And soviet T2 on garrison heavy maps is often rather passive. And I see players of all factions play too passively against ostheer regardless. The inverse of it is that ostheer has to be pressured all game.
And yes, British emplacements are very much in the vein of what ostheer can actually punish. And really that's been where ostheer has always considered to retain an advantage:against brits.
But my point was less about faction fundamentals and more about player choice and gameplay.
This point seems to be lost in a lot of the theoretical discussion that takes place.
For every time I see someone say "unit x is bad" on these fora or in twitch, I notice at least one game where my team mates or my opponents use said unit and it seems to work out just fine.
Also, it is bizarre to me how absolutely deterministic a lot of people's minds are regarding "if you do x, then you are bad" or "if you don't do y, then you are bad".
There's some obvious cases, ofc -- like never making an AT gun at all in a game where you are being outmatched by enemy armor, but the thing I refer to is less obvious and more a display of the person's attitude than the probability of the game's progress.
Not all choices are equal, it is foolish to assume such.
A soviet/USF have the option of going static and passive and risk fighting the stronger wehr late game or going aggressive to strike at the wehr before they reach t3.
this is a variation on prisoner's dilemma. To a soviet/USF who's well versed in the game, going aggressive against the wehr is the better/rational choice because it leads to a bigger chance of success.
The player is "free" to chose what they want, but that doesn't change the realities and consequence of those choices.
Balance isn't about what player's choice, it is about the situation that created those option in the first place.
|
If the 222 were an ACTUAL ARMORED CAR like EVERY OTHER armored car in the game, and if it completely outranged light tanks like it should (as a scout car with a precision AA gun on it), it would be fine.
But as long as the complete and total farce that the 222 taking damage from rifle fire remains, there will simply be no reason to use it, either against infantry or against light armor.
We're right back to the overarching problem in CoH2: Axis units never pose a threat to Allies, but Allied units all pose extreme threats to Axis -- blatant bias/favoritism at its finest.
a large part of why 222 has not been that good is probably because it was an lightly armed and armored car IRL. The stuarts, t70, and the AEC were all significantly better armed and armored than the 222. (the AEC were heavy weight in terms of A/C).
It would seriously stretch the suspension of belief, and the Puma is basically the Axis' light tank.
a better comparsion to the 221/2 would be the m20/8. the 20mm and thin armor just doesn't lend itself to fighting light tanks.
The only thing Wehr/Ostheer can punish is passive and static play.
They cannot, however, rush this punishment.
that's just a very roundabout way to say wehr only get strong if the USF and sov let it.
the only allied faction that would actually use passive and static play is the british.
I use mainly PZRgrenadiers for their AI power so this is a no go for me.
This could also lead to potential blobbing because quote:
''This allow the panzergrenadier to retain more of their original firepower after the tank hunter upgrade, and the overall unit+upgrade are cheaper but still potent.''
Having 2- 3 squads for 900 mp with STG's, bundle grenades and 3 panzershrecks... nope. Not for me.
the bazooka and PIAT are not that great at blobbing, neither is the stormpio.
I think it's all down to the specific of their stats. The old volks schreck just manage to hit the right note for blobbing. |
Or OR. now hear me out, they use their AT gun. Its kinda like AT infantry, but with more range, more pen, more damage AND has the added benifit of not being gameplay cancer! Seriously why does there need to be a squad that can attack move armour? Is THE best AT mines not enough to snare up (or outright destroy light tanks) armour without fear of the support infantry detonating it good enough? If the pak40 isnt spooky enough for you you can pick a doctrine with the only weapon in the entire game that can 2 tap medium tanks. Use ambush camo and try more than attack moving across open ground and see how formitable a pair of shreks are then.
Seriously... Askn for a fucking attack movable, retreatable AT gun because the umpteen FANTASTIC anti-tank options ost already has requires more that a toddlers grasp of mouse control.... I have not the foggiest clue how you would survive playing OKW, with half the shreks (on a squishier squad) and a lesser AT gun and multi triggering mines. Or did you drop OKW when shreks were taken from volks because the faction was rendered unplayable?
Against light tanks, the wehr atg isn't really better than what the allies are using.
On top of that, all three allies player have light tank of their own and Inf atw as well. ( I still dislike PTRS penal but zooka and PIAT are fine).
the wehr technically have atg, snare, light vehicle, and inf ATW, but both snare and light vehicle are poorly implement. The 222 only have a very short window of opportunity before it's completely outclassed by the light tanks. The schreck is impractical as an option.
Snares and Atg alone are not enough. This put the wehr on the backfoot before stugs. In a 1v1 it's also where the allies effectively win the game against a wehr player.
in terms of early game the types of anti-tank weapons are: snare, ATG, light vehicle, inf ATW.
a faction should have at least three types of early anti-tank weapon to be considered acceptably defended against vehicle rush.
The game release british only had the Light vehicle and ATG, and that's why they suffered before the PIAT change.
right now the wehr effectively only have the snare and ATG. Neither the 222 nor the panzergrenadier are practical. Making the panzergrenadier practical would give the wehr three different type of anti-tank vehicle. |
Ive always felt that pgrens die so easily,
Three words: four man squads.
It's not as simple as number of men.
even the commandos would be cut down if they just rush the enemy. They are effective through the use of cloak and surprise nade.
The shocktrooper are extremely tough but they will still have trouble in an extremely open map.
(then there's also the ass grenadier who get the ass end of the deal).
The panzergrenadier theoretically have decent overall firepower, but in practice they end up being kind of meh in most combat situation.
ultimately the wehr need a practical anti-tank squad more than it needs the anti-infantry firepower. Without a common light tank of their own they suffer severely in t2 when the stuart and t70 come out.
|
Nice to see we agree.
Although your view seem a bit unclear to me, Imo 221 should be a soft counter to light trucks like the WC, M3A1, WC51 which is rather difficult to chase around the map in the early game. Do you agree with that?
unless the 221 arrive in the first minute it's impractical as the counter to the light truck.
For that matter you can simply build a halftrack and it would serve the same purpose.
the 222 is just not practical as the wehr's answer to allied light vehicle. It's too late for the trucks and too weak for the light tank.
That's ultimately the source of the armored care's problem. The people buy it to counter the allied vehicle. For a while it was actually kind of cost-effective for that purpose, but then the mg42 fix raised its price so now it's impractical again. |
Also, ostwind actually counters t-70, but in more of a coh1 sense, when counters always come with further tech, leaving quite a big window of opportunity for every unit to shine in.
the wehr's "meta" of not having early at vehicle leave them at a serious disadvantage and it doesn't work. (222 barely count)
the historically most popular doctrine for the wehr in 1v1 have been either the Puma or the stug E, both for the same reason of wehr needing an early and decent AT vehicle against the t-70/stuart.
(the stugE also have the added advantage of the tiger, but the stug E put the doctrine above the other tiger doctrine).
The 222 is simply not up to the task.
This could also lead to potential blobbing because quote:
''This allow the panzergrenadier to retain more of their original firepower after the tank hunter upgrade, and the overall unit+upgrade are cheaper but still potent.''
Having 2- 3 squads for 900 mp with STG's, bundle grenades and 3 panzershrecks... nope. Not for me.
ultimately the most important detail is down scaling the panzergrenadier, so it is less of a self-mutilation when you're buying the schreck.
maybe even just 1 single schreck for 75-60 mu would work |
Btw. Ostheer doesn't have a light tank but they have a cheap and pretty early ostwind that does everything any light tank does better and is only slightly more expensive than for example a t-70. In recent patch it got buffed both when it comes to cost and when it comes to penetration which made it really good.
the ostwind doesn't arrive early enough to actually counter stuff like the stuart or t70. It's also not really a light tank, it have 640 hp. It's not more of a light tank than the centaur is.
Soooooo, you want anti tank gun with no setup, no arc of fire, retreat and only lower range?
Something tells me it is not a good idea.
currently it's 2 x 120 damage. 1 x 160 damage is less .
|
I'll let you on a little secret:
Mortars are not exactly meant to be a damage sponges.
If offensive capabilities of indirect weapon fall short, then that indirect weapon is shit.
Perfect example ie MEME PACK howitzer. Only thing keeping sov mortar in game was precision strike, the moment it was removed, the weapon became utter shit. Only recently it begun to be decent-ish with flare, which indeed is a great ability.
Crew size is irrelevant when opposing ordnance fires 3 times faster.
Only way how sov mortar could win mortar duel was precision strike. Both of them firing at each other in similar conditions, sov mortar will lose ever single time, excluding lucky first shots. Again, flare balances that a tiny bit, but that's still a munition usage just to stand a chance.
If durability was an actual factor, dual ost mortar would not obliterate mortar pit and I'm talking about pre-nerfs pit.
IR halftruck anyone? Exactly the same thing, but on a much wider scale and muni free.
Only difference is, no scatter penalty in flare case, but very low RoF balances it out perfectly.
You have never used dual ost mortar or pwerfer firing from half range or closer, have you?
Artillery is as potent as its rate of fire is. Volume of barrage is much more important then precision of it, now that we do not have precision strikes in game anymore and soviet artillery does not stand up to that, unless we talk about massed SU-76 barrages.
Anything preventing axis factions to use that?
What scouting of brits you are talking about here?
Excluding axis lights, its the soviet mortar that provides best scouting in game.
Mortar still take damage. They are primary target for counter-barrage and the inevitable counter attack. You can say that people will always retreat when in danger, but having those two extra crew member allow the soviet to play use mortar more aggressively.
the pack howitzer is another kind of mess.
the 81mm doesn't fire "3x faster" than the 82mm
81mm: 4 sec reload + 4 wind down/up + .5 fire aim time = 8.5
barrage: 0 reload + 4 w d/u + .125 FAT = 4.125
82mm: 7.5 sec reload + 3.125 windw down/up + .5 fire aim time = 11.125
barrage: 3.575 reload + 3.125 windw down/up + .125 FAT = 6.825
11.125/ 8.5 = 1.30
the 82mm auto fire is 30% slower and the barrage fire is 70% slower. A better buff to the 82mm would have been to buff the rof of the 82mm to reward micro.
the IR halftrack is a dedicated scouting unit. It has no weapon and no other purpose than to "paint" target for artillery.
british pyro upgrade increase their sight by 15 and the bonus stack with their vet 1. This mean a vet 1 pyro tommies get 60 sight in cover. The cover being kind of trivial since they can build sandbag. If you are far enough to use the 60 sight you are far enough to build sandbags.
The Scatter bonus/penalty are there to reward faction who use frontline and support unit together.
Anything preventing axis factions to use that?
the point is that axis have to use that, but the flare means the soviet don't |
|
the panzer grenadier struggle to hold a relevant role.
They have great short to mid range dps but in effect they are not useful. It is far more practical to use gren with g43 if the map call for mid-short range combat.
On most map, mid-long range combat dominate the meta. The more useful short range combatant have means to get close without getting shot up. Commandos have cloak while the shock troops have smoke and armor. (the lmg upgrade are far more prevalent on Ober and paratrooper)
Their other role, tank-hunter, have too much huddle to be practical. 340 mp 120 mu and 9 pop is a pretty steep cost in the early part of the match. This put the wehr in a rough spot because they also have the weakest light vehicle-line unless they went for puma. the 222 and the halftrack is thoroughly outclassed against any light tank used by the three allies faction. The pak40 is easily flanked and killed.
Then, the solution to the impracticality of the panzergrenadier and the wehr's early game problem is to make pzgrenadier more practical as the faction's tank hunter:
lower pzgren mp44 dps (something similar to 2.0- 10.0)
lower pzgren cost to 300 mp 8 pop
wehr schreck get a make over. damage increased to 160, but the upgrade only grant one schreck and cost 75 munition.
This allow the panzergrenadier to retain more of their original firepower after the tank hunter upgrade, and the overall unit+upgrade are cheaper but still potent.
This would make the panzergrenadier more similar to the penal, but the wehr by design lack the light vehicle that allow the soviet to snowball from penal to the t-70. |
Firesparks
CPU - Easy
Firesparks
Relic Entertainment
