Its because the unit is more balanced on 1vs1 you don't see it often. You don't primarily play with units that are balanced but those very good close to overpowered. Otherwise we wouldn't have see such sudden interest to use the Sturmtiger during 6 months until you finally made it balanced.
Conversely, just because a unit is used does not mean it is overpowered. Casemates are rarely used in 1v1 because mobility and flanking is more important. Second, Ostheer needs to tech into T3 because their P4 is very, very good and they'd otherwise break under the medium armor pressure. Staying in T3 is just more cost effective than going up to T4.
You also shouldn't forget though that team games favor beefy units which the Brummbar certainly is. As Ostheer, your option is the PWerfer (which we also regularly see) and the Ostwind. The Ostwind doesn't perform as well though since it needs more time to deal its damage, which you don't have due to higher unit and AT concentration.
Given that your OKW team mate can provide rocket arty, but not a Brummbar, it makes more sense as Ostheer to go for Brummbars than PWerfers. |
|
I'd say Soviet T2 build is similarly easy to learn. Late game vehicles are surely easier to use as OKW though, especially in team games. |
Probably sturmpanther played OST and the brummbar didn't bounce 10 shots against a wall of AT guns so they decided "you know, brummbar is UP now"
Brummbar is not OP at the moment, nor is it UP but it's survivability and target size are laughable.
I mean, Jackson has a target size of 24, meaning you can dive it and shoot it on the move. Brummbar, being a fu**ton larger vehicle has a TS of 22, with 260+ armour, ton of HP and not bad mobility considering how heavy/turret-less it is. Heck, it can backpedal faster with the engine damage than infantry can run. At vet3 it has 6.8 max speed, more than Jackson, and closely the same amount as the M10 TD at vet1 (and same target size as the small tiny M10 TD).
So what's your suggestion then?
Make if more fragile but buff its damage?
Your arguments are fairly incoherent. The target size difference is small to almost negligible for shooting on the move. SOV and UKF have a 0.5 moving modifier, so the actual difference is effectively 1 target size.
Also the "small tiny M10" is actually not that small, I don't know where you get that from. |
|
I never said anything about the very vague term of 'impactfulness', nor did I compare the 222 to the T70. Please don't make stuff up that I have not said
I am also not the oracle of CoH2, my opinion is not worth more than any random Joe's opinion.
And most of all, please all go back to topic, this topic is actually about OP claiming some Ostheer units need more accuracy. It is okay and normal to deviate from the main topic over time, but the 'impactfulness' of the 222 and T70 have nothing to do with the topic and this side discussion is dragging on a bit too long.
If you want to discuss that, go to PMs or a different thread. |
Imo 105 mm is pretty susceptible to both mediums (P4s) and AT guns, but Sturmpanzer is a good spot right now, maybe too good to someone's liking.
Also 105mm it is in a tricky spot, because HE sherman is that good, while being more diverse.
Overall I agree.
The Brummbar is in pretty much a perfect spot both for OST as well as for Allies as long as they have a TD. The only issue I'd have design wise is that you are a bit too vulnerable if you lose your TD. It's expensive enough that you can expect the Allied player to have a tank on the field, but also cheap enough that you can't really expect the Allied player to invest in more than one vehicle or more than one dedicated TD for it. If that TD is gone and you can't rebuy quickly, it's almost game.
The position of the 105mm within USF is obviously worse, but probably also a different topic. I'd not call it "pretty" susceptible (pen chance is ~55% at mid-long range, accuracy not included) but still worse than the Brummbar. I think what holds it back apart from the commander is also the existance of the StuG as well as the PaK stun shot on Ostheer. The StuG is such a cheap counter to the 105mm it's not really worth taking it against Ostheer. |
Agreed. Hence why I have been advocating for target tables even if basic ones for units like this. We could maintain current survival rates vs ATGs while being able to be countered by tanks without needing 3-4 Tank Destroyers to ensure a kill.
To be honest I am not a huge fan of target tables. They convolute how units interact. Even if there were some kind of in-game encyclopedia, you can't expect players to read all the pages for each unit and put all the stats into context. But that is another discussion, so I'll leave it at that.
Regarding the Brumm/105mm: We could probably achieve something very similar by slightly nerfing the mobility. An ATG won't outrun it anyway even if it survives. It would make it weaker vs mostly vehicles, and mediums would have a better chance to flank or counter push.
I think there is enough space within the CoH2 engine to achieve this without a target table.
Out of interest though: What modifier would you give? |
These units should be slightly more susceptible to mediums. They're late game tanks, so you can expect that others tanks should be on the field as counters.
But mediums don't counter them well, forcing you into TDs. Allies are forced into TDs anyway, so it is kind of a self-solving problem. But once you lose your only TD and can't re-buy it soon, you are screwed. Especially against the Brummbar, since not even the ATG works reliably here to get that one shot+snare in, USF probably having the most troubles here.
And while it is a minor issue, it also doesn't help that a double snare on the Brummbar usually doesn't work as a last resort to buy yourself time.
I kinda agree with this. Tanks like the 105 Dozer and Brummbär should be a greater threat to AT guns than vice versa. If anything you could argue that they could become a bit more susceptible to tanks as those should be their natural counters. Right now at least the Brum can get out of harms way quite quickly if things go south and hunting it down is rather difficult. I think a slight acceleration nerf, as was proposed in another thread a while ago could go a long way to make overextending with these tanks more punishing. Other than that I'd say their durability is fine.
Basically this.
|
USF?
USF does not have it as bad. Teching on double officers is viable. If I go Captain, I usually don't go for the Lieutenant later on and just neglect the MG which I find a nice bonus, but not as necessary for USF gameplay in team games. I personally Captain the better tech in team games with the ATG and Pak Howitzer, as well as a good AA HT as a suppression platform to make up for not having the MG.
And even if you want to have the full support line up: At some point from the mid game onwards, you'll need to replace a lost Riflemen squad. You can buy the missing officer instead, pay a tiny bit more overall than if you'd just buy another Rifle, but get access to the MG that you wanted. The back tech in this situation has a very low extra cost.
As Soviets, back teching to T2 costs you almost as much, but you don't get any squad from it. You're just down a full squad if you do that. |
|
At this point we're just waiting for the day until MMX will program the rest of CoH2 into an Excel sheet and we finally don't need steam or the Relic servers anymore.
Probably comes with the added bonus of higher stability because Excel does not bugsplat. |
what is this supposed to mean?
I think he means that Soviets are the only faction that lack essential units if they go T1. Mostly because of the ATG. No other faction has that issue, since back teching is usually not viable until the mid game.
Which is basically what Kurobane pointed towards. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
