Profile of CieZ

Edit: double post.

Honestly t1 is really troublesome for the axis player. Don't find T2 nearly as threatening.

@op watch some cpt. Molo replays, he literally is the guy that 'mastered' this strategy and is pretty effective with it.

Except cpt molo is terrible. His build order isn't even optimized after like 3000 games of doing the exact same thing and his micro is trash tier. If you want good m3 play you have to watch omgpop or sib. Cata was pretty good with m3s too but no longer plays.

I know you have been discussing a lot of the numbers on the tanks Ciez, but what do you think about Allied and Axis Tanks? As someone who is highly-ranked, do you think there are some imbalanced between Axis and Allied AT, particularly tanks?

I think Soviets have the best overall tanks, but only because they get such strong doctrinal tanks in the Is-2/T34 85 and ISU. Sadly Soviet stock tanks are generally lack-luster. Even three T34/76 will struggle to kill an unsupported Tiger despite costing more in raw fuel/manpower even without tech costs included.

USF/OKW both have good stock tanks with Shermans, Jacksons, Scotts, Luchs, jp4 and Panther all being pretty awesome. E8s are probably a bit too weak for their current price (I'd just drop price a little and keep performance the same) while the bulldozer wipes infantry too often but is useless against armor.

Ost T3 is just dead for the most part. Maybe it is viable vs Soviet who goes T3... but you could just get a Tiger for less of a resource investment than your first P4 costs and be basically invincible to T34/76s - plus be able to stand up to Is-2 (something that P4s fail almost as bad against as T34 76 do against Tigers).

On the whole I prefer Allied tanks because of their ability to completely mop up infantry, which the Panther is pretty poor against. With regard to your specific question about Allied vs Axis AT capabilities I think the Jackson and Panther are pretty equivalent in power. Jackson is more fragile but more deadly. The vet 4/5 on OKW panther - whichever gives it 60 range needs to be re-worked because a 60 range panther is super OP. PaK 40 and ZiS are pretty equal, I think the PaK 40 is slightly stronger but ZiS definitely does its job. The USF AT gun could maybe use a 5 man squad, but it is surprisingly strong with the ability popped - fast rate of fire and 70 range is nothing to scoff at. Su85 is just garbage though, which leaves the Soviets having to use normal tanks to fight Axis TDs, which can be awkward at times... but the Soviet call-ins are crazy strong overall.

I guess the TLR version is that all factions have some good stuff and some bad stuff. I'd probably give the overall AT edge to Axis because of PaK 40/schrecks and the durability of the Panther making it easier to duel with. Allies have the overall AI edge when it comes to their tanks though. Soviet and Ost stock tanks need love (or t4 to be cheaper for Ost, or both).

Panther has about 40% chance to win 1v1 with IS2. It's all about RNG but second use for TD is FLANKING.

Panther is a way faster, IS2 turret is very slow, zookr or PTRS are not the problem for Panther, amazing blitzkrieg and smoke. It's already great tank destroyer.

You do realize that zooks have a ONE HUNDRED percent chance to penetrate the rear armor of a panther at all ranges, right? If you're blitzing in to flank something with your Panther, you'll easily be exposing your rear armor to zooks.

Yes, people don't always have them - I actually think they're a little too expensive fuel-wise. Just wanted to point out the obvious flaw in your statement. They are in fact a threat to all Ost armor except for the Tiger (because of higher rear armor than the panther)

Really wanna know where your arbitrary claim of 40% chance for Panther to beat an Is-2 is coming from. It's pretty much a 0% chance for the Panther to score a kill on an Is-2 if a ZiS gun is around, or if the Soviet knows that his munitions can be used to plant mines.

If it is an actual 1v1, with no interference - which will never happen - the Panther has a 100% chance of beating the Is-2 as long as it has an infantry unit spotting for it. Probably a 0% chance of winning in a vacuum 1v1 (doesn't mean anything though).

Same exact logic applies to Jackson vs Tiger.

Post of the year

Obers wreck maxims before maxims do anything.

Maxims in green cover will beat Obers easily. You also have flamer penals which do well, mortars, snipers and tanks. Sure the KV-1 isn't great against other tanks but it is solid against infantry. Although I do think that Obers could use some nerfing, they're pretty stupid strong (but then again LMG paras are even more stronger than vet 5 Obers).

Anyways I think you're missing the entire point of our argument Australian Magic. When one faction is *forced* into a *doctrinal* counter to your *doctrinal* unit, a flaw exists somewhere that needs addressing. CoH 2 should not be a rock-paper-scissors game of commander selection. The stock armies should have the capability of countering any doctrinal units, with commanders adding to variety based on player's preferences and perhaps the map. This same imbalance can be seen with stuff like the Jagdtiger, although more-so in team-games than 1v1 - if your team doesn't have access to P47... good luck ever killing that JT. Similarly if you don't have access to IS2s or T34/85s as Soviet you're going to have a much harder time dealing with Tigers, although ZiS guns are still solid against them.

Long story short, the B4 should not force a doctrinal counter-pick from your opponent. It just doesn't add up to compelling game play. Furthermore the B4 should NOT have the ability to 1-shot KTs from full hp, let alone anything else that happens to be within a screen's width of that nuclear impact.

We (maybe I should say Relic) have proven in the past that some things simply should not exist within this game as veterency buffs. With regard to the B4 these include - increased damage and decreased barrage cooldown. I'd also make the argument that all precision strikes should be re-worked just like Blitz should be re-worked (it's really freaking stupid when you think about it... what... the tank driver just magically grows rocket boosters or some pudding on the back of the tank? c'mon now... why not like a toggle-able muni cost to increase accuracy for 30 sec or something to use during a big push). But anyways, as I've said - Relic has decided that these types of veterency bonuses simply do not fall in line with the rest of the game mechanics and, numerous times in the past, have been removed because of their overly dramatic impact on game play (alpha rifle vet, katyusha/werfer vet bonuses, ML-20/leFH18 vet bonuses are examples of these principles) - so why then should the B4 be the exception to this rule? The Pack Howi also breaks the mold in this regard and, to not surprise, magically becomes completely stupid when it hits vet 2 (although it sucks for its price before vet 2 so re-working the vet 2 would need compensation in other arenas). Furthermore, while I'm on the topic of the Counterattack doctrine in general - For Mother Russia is completely broken because it adds raw damage - and not raw accuracy to units.

People should stop viewing squad wipes as nuisance that is not supposed to be in the game. It's the purpose of artillery. Discussion obsolete...

You should probably re-read the thread before declaring the discussion obsolete. I'll fill you in. No one here is saying that squad wipes shouldn't ever happen, of course they should. What we're saying is that instances of squads getting wiped from full hp to dead in the blink of an eye, with no way to predict or react that that is going to happen should be extremely limited, if not entirely eliminated. I could maybe stomach losing one full health squad per game to something random like a lucky mortar hit - but when numerous squads are lost with no way for me to react every single game... it just gets old. It mostly hurts Wehr with their 4 man squads, but it can have a major impact on the Allies as well, particularly things like the USF 50cal/AT gun. Soviets get off a bit easier in the "oh shit my pudding just got 1 shot department" because of their 6 man squads, but it can happen even to them. You have to admit that losing something like a vet 3 shock squad in the blink of an eye from full health is just game-breaking - like that one second of bad RNG can literally lose you an entire game.

Now don't get me wrong, as some others seem to have in other posts in this thread, I don't want superman invulnerable infantry or anything. Losing squads SHOULD happen because squad preservation is an important part of separating players in terms of skill - but losing a low model or low health squad to a mortar shot is completely different from losing a full health one - because you as the player have chosen to take the risk of keeping that squad on the front lines.