Profile of PanzerGeneralForever

for a similar reason demos are ok, too. if you're so lazy to send minesweepers in unguarded areas, you deserve to be punished. also what's the big gain of this game to encourage running around with single squads everywhere on the map? that's what DoW is there for. One of the best things about coh2 was that it provided more frontline based gameplay. Stupid things like that +16fuel point on the right side on Sturzdorf in coh1 (where you had to harrass all the time with single squads) are almost gone etirely

The big gain for having Single squads running around the map is that it prevents you from having to mass retreat your army off the map if you run into an hmg. Also allows you to know where the enemy is and how best to engage. Demos discourage this since you can't give all your units sweepers. This is mostly and issue in 1v1s and a bit it 2v2s. The higher the game mode the less territory you have to work with per player so less sweepers are needed so there's no excuse there.

Yes, I know how player cards work. Yes, you played about 300 games with one friend who liked Allies. However, you have probably 6x as many games as Axis and your claim to play "as much" allies as axis is really not true. I can also see that all of your allied rankings are on hold so you haven't played any of them in a long time. You are a primarily axis player and claiming to be otherwise should be trolled. Note that I'm not criticizing your player card as a whole (as a whole, it is probably the best for a team player in 2v2 through 4v4 that I've ever seen), just don't pretend to be an allied player.

Also, I probably shouldn't have trolled as much as I did in this thread, but was annoyed because I don't think the OP was genuine in wanting to undo any of the imbalance that the last two patches created. That, plus most of the people who are most vocal are primary axis players and are asking for more allied nerfs, when the win rates in 2v2+ are already lopsided.

You certainly have a good reason to think I'm primarily an axis player based on my player card. I just started playing again after a 9 month Break and I'll be honest ive only played as Brits and ostheer ( my two favorite factions) since I started playing again. On the other hand I know what it was like to play USF 9 months ago and aside from the light vehicle nerfs and slight RM nerf there hasn't been many major changes.

Please try to understand that I played far more often before the WFAs and UKF were released which is why I have so many more Ostheer games than games as Allies. When I played with my friend I always had to play Allies since he was obsessed with the soviets and later the Brits. Nowadays I play axis and Allies equally depending on percent searching each side.

I feel like the majority of people on these threads are ally players but Maybe it's just a feeling... I'm looking for balance on both sides honestly. I don't think the Allies need any more nerfs except maybe a change to the way Brit mortars work.

This suggestion is magic, Why haven't we used it when people were complaining about Comet/Arty cover/Stuart/T70/RM 2xLMG/RM vet3 etc...

Dude you don't coordinate an attack to take out a comet that can super easily drive away safely. You don't coordinate with your team to negate the effects of artillery cover. You don't coordinate with your team to take out a stuart, t70 or OP riflemen. They were over powered in all game modes on all maps so obviously they are seen differently to the elephant which really only shines on certain higher game mode maps.

That's why both units will be given either a cost decrease and/or some anti-infantry capabilities.

Sure, if you always play Brits (because, fuck Soviets/USF) and you always go Hammer (because, fuck Anvil), then, yes. Perhaps you have the right tools to play keep-up with Super-TDs (not 100% sure after Hammer nerfs, though).

So, I'm curious. When you play as Soviets or USF, and you encounter either the Elefant or the JT in 4v4, and somebody else in the team has fielded either a Brummbar or a King Tiger, how do you counter that?

If your only answer is "oh, I don't have to deal with that, because I pick doctrine X", then this proves my point.

If the only counter-pick to a strategy is forcing a particular commander choice, then you have a self-reinforcing dominant meta.

I have nothing against you, if you are OK with using Jaeger Armor Commander, day-in, day-out. However, what's not OK is to expect it's OK to limit other people's choices when they have to face Jaeger Armor.

I wish you would answer the other questions I posed before your own questions but whatever.

If I'm playing 4v4 ransoms I have to be ok with potentially being paired against an arrange team. A commander compliments a faction not defines it. If I pick Jaeger armor or fortified armor and choose my play style, the enemy can decide to pick a commander that directly counters mine, or pick a strategy that forces me to react to there commander. If the Allies can counter my commander units (ex. elephant or Croc) with stock units then it's good design. All commanders should be this way. So far I think we can agree on this.

The next question is whether or not the axis or allies have all the tools to counter both the stock units and doctrinal of the other. It goes without saying that more expensive units should require the same amount of opposition resource wise to counter it(ex. One SU85 can hard counter a p4 and two can counter a tiger). An SU85 is a tank destroyer so it excels at destroying tanks. Mediums are more generalists so they are cheap and decent at many things. Elephants are HEAVY TANK destroyers because heavy tanks have a hard to flanking them. This is not so with medium tanks which are far more mobile, cheaper and with the same HP.

Now to answer your question: "how would I counter the elephant supported by brummbarr with Soviets or USFs stock units?
Assuming I am countering with equal amount of resources and they have a brummbarr and elephant combo = 720mp 245fuel + 420 mp 150fuel I'll have a total of 1140mp and 395 fuel


I'd probably use t34s as soviets = 1200mp and I'd engage other places of the map and force them to react. They'd have the option to either ignore me and suffer map control, send the KT, or send both the KT and elephant. I'd look for a decent opportunity to rush the elephant and get around it with the t34s when the elephant starts moving I'd bring in the SU85 to beginning picking at the KT. I'd do my best to get behind the elephant without taking almuch dmg by using smoke or shot blockers. When a t34 gets low on health I'd use ram.

For the Americans it's much the same using 4 Shermans smoke to screen the elephant and isolate it. And take it down.

Allies need to capitalize on their own mobility and their oppositions lack of it.

I understand there are other factors going on in 4v4s as well but that's the approach I would take. If I could convince my Allies to join in the assault it would greatly increase the chances of winning that battle which would likely lead to winning the match as well. Axis have more expensive quality tanks and Allies have cheaper spammable tanks. Use them the way they were designed.

Also, why would you suggest giving Anti infantry capabilities to a TD?

I'm making this post give a glimpse about how we (the balance team) feel teamgame dominant meta could be changed to be more fun and more diverse.

Part of the reason I'm making this post is to openly declare our intentions to the community and get some feedback.

Highest priority changes

Elefant/Jagdtiger

2-shots -> medium tank/TD dead

Damage needs to go down from 320 to 280 to:
- Prevent these tanks from wiping veterancy left and right
- Keep them relevant vs advanced mediums/heavies
- Reworked to keep remotely relevant for smaller modes (e.g., cheaper, barrage at vet0, etc)

First off: You say "our [the balance team] intentions". How.many people in the balance team care about larger team games?
I respect your input greatly however I feel like you should consider your own bias a bit here as you obviously dislike these units.

Second: you want feedback from the community regarding these issues. Could you add a poll and see what every thinks as opposed to just those who reply to posts? More feedback from the community eliminates the bias of single individuals ( myself included ).

Third: you say both the jagdtiger and elephant are over powered in team games.

I disagree and here's why:
They are purely AT units with zero anti infantry capabilities. All three allied factions have very reliable infantry with tools to deal heavy damage to vehicles including satchels, AT nades, gammon bombs, flares, piats, and zooks.

Other notably useful abilities against these heavy TDs include: mark target, IL2 bomb strike, AEC tread shot, smoke, tulip rockets, most off map artillery units (due to horrible mobility to dodge it), ISU AP rounds (really need to start being used again), calliope actually does good dmg to it and wipes repairing squads, RAM.

Have you considered units with high HP and armor which have huge survivability as is (namely the Churchill's and IS2s).

These are all tools the Allies can use if they are trying to counter these tanks many of which don't require vehicles.

The other option Allies can take is to negate the effectiveness of these vehicles. How? Invest in indirect fire which will wipe infantry and supporting weapons. These units are a huge investment and if the enemy plays their cards right, they can use tanks without ever having to fear these slow moving beasts that can't react to more mobile units.

One reason the axis need these unjts especially ostheer, is because without them they have an even harder time dealing withied tank destroyers which all out range the low health stug and less range panther. Plus they are far more mobile than the heavy TDs.

My final questions to OP are these:
-do the Allies have the tools necessary for taking out heavy TDs?

-must the Allies engage the TDs with TDs of there own or can they play around them on other parts of the map before deciding to attack them outright?

- what's the specific problem with these tank destroyers? Too much dmg? Too much range? Too.much health or armor?

-do you propose straight nerfs or simply changes (ex. Less dmg more ROF or less range but more LOS?).

-are heavy TDs still OP on maps like Lienne forest, Lorch Assault, Montargis Region, La Gleize, Essen Steelworks, ettelbruck station, and many other 2v2 and 3v3 maps? If something is only very effective in specific scenarios then I don't think it's fair to call it OP in general.

I hope you consider my arguments and find some common ground !
I'm open to discussion.