|
I actually used them to good effect in some games. I often choose the doctrine that contains Osttruppen when I go T1 + T2 heavy/only. Inevitably later in the game there will be a huge clash between your mass of infantry and the enemy. You then use the Osttruppen ability and usually I get 2 squads out of it. Just make sure you don´t lose the squad. Try to inflict as much damage as possible with your regular infantry. Sometimes the enemy doesn´t even want to fight while your ability is on. Then cap the map.
- Osttruppen are actually perfect to recrew abandoned weapons, or capping.
- They gain a LARGER BONUS THAN USUAL IN DEFENSIVE POSITIONS, use them in cover
A question aside: What is the reinforcement cost for Osttruppen?
|
Yeah, what Orkfaeller said. It´s not justified for T-34/76 to always effectively go through StuGs and Panzer IVs frontal armor.
- It´s only 4 shells
- Even with this special ammunition the Panzer IV/StuG can engage at longer ranges - 1km
- Old phrase of German tankers: "Don´t worry about the Russian, he will miss the first shot." With 4 effective shells that´s no big threat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8NklsPWX1A#t=7m00s (look form 7:00 to 8:30)
As I said earlier: Flanking should be rewarded for the Russian player. Keeping your tanks at distance and the frontal armor to the enemy should be rewarded for the German player. I don´t see much sense in this, when T-34/76 always/often penetrate the front.
I might agree to some special ammunition on veterancy for the T-34 but that´s it. The thing that is needed is a better penetration of the gun versus the sides of German tanks to encourage flanking. |
that's new, which ammunition, BR-350P1 APCR is capable of penetrating 91mm armor at the range of 500m, PZIV and Stugs are both has flat armor, and yes, in game, hitting power(pen) should slightly increase as you getting closer.
That logic is flawed. I showed you the model with regular ammunition. The BR-350P1 is a rare - and I mean rare - shell that hardly was used with the fifty thousand T-34s deployed. To follow that logic you could say the Panzer IV should beat the IS-2, as it could do so with the (again rare) Panzergranate 40 special ammunition at combat ranges.
To keep this on topic: I think the flanks of German tanks should be more vulnerable to the 76mm gun, not the front. I think the German player should be rewarded if he keeps the frontal armor of his tanks at the enemy and keeps a distance. |
source? T-34/76 can only penetrates STUGIII and PZIV at 300m? T-34/76 is capable of penetrating PZIV and STUG III at a distance of 800, T-34/76 never have problem defeating PZIV and STUG, capable of penetrating enemy armor at only 300m sounds fictional,provide source please.
making T-34 tanks stands no chance head on a PZIV and Stugs is nothing but a bad joke especially it costs 95 fuel not 1/5 or 1/10 fuel of AFVs.
There you go! T-34/76 versus Panzer IV hull.
Okay, I´ll give you the 100m - it´s POSSIBLE to get the Panzer IV/StuG at 400 metres, although a bounce or non penetrating shot can occur. A hit to the turret could also be possible, but the StuG doesn´t have one and thus is a fairly hard nut to crack for the T-34/76. Explains the exorbitant huge losses of those T-34s from 42-44.
Let´s see the Panzer IVs/ StuGs armament in comparison versus the T-34s hull. That´s about 1km, a huge advantage in tank combat if you ask me. We conclude: The Panzer IV can engage the T-34/76s about 600 metres before it can even hope to get a penetrating shot back (if not hitting the weakspot at the turret). But include German optics and we have a winner.
And Panzer IV versus T-34 hull.
We should stop now about the realism. |
|
Panther was vastly superior to any T-34. It could knock them out from 2km frontally, while the T-34/85 couldn´t knock out the Panther from the front at all with regular ammunition.
Arguably Panzer IV and StuG were superior to the T-34/85 also as they could knock it out from about the same range and had better optics, reload time, crews, crew comfort, protection from infantry (skirts), communication, visibility from the vehicle and where used in the defensive. The 80mm front armor of the Panzer IV and StuG could only be penetrated at roughly 300 metres by the 76mm, while again the T-34 could be knocked out from much farther away. |
|
Well realism shouldn´t be totally unimportant. I agree that balance is the main priority, but if you can combine balance with historical accuracy (to the degree it´s possible) that´s even better. T-34s should be present in almost any game and only the T-34/85 should be on the level of Panzer IVs. Their advantage should be mass deployment and flanking maneuvers. Panther should be the hard counter to any T-34 if kept at distance with the front facing the T-34s.
Problems I have with the T-34:
1) Unavailability of the T-34/85 (only some doctrines)
2) Inflexibility of calling in the T-34/85 (I can´t call in one, but have to take two at higher cost)
3) Cost of the T-34/76 is insignificantly lower than that of the Panzer IV
4) Flanking doesn´t get rewarded. (Shots to German tanks´ flank/rear should penetrate more often)
5) Get´s totally outperformed by SU-85
6) Ram
Possible solution:
1) Make the T-34/85 available in the T-3 building next to the T-34/76. A cost of 330 MP 105 fuel could seem appropriate. To not totally make the T-34/76 useless, the unlock for the 85mm version could require some resources being spent
2) The empty commander slot could be filled with a KW-1 76mm (from the campaign), possibly for less cps. Players are flexible as they can build the T-34/85 now in their T-3 building.
3) The cost for the T-34/85 could be lowered to the 105 or so fuel from (I think 260 fuel for 2). The T-34/76 could be tuned down to 85 fuel.
4) Not sure how the damage model works in CoH2. But there always was a front and rear part on tanks in Coh1. So shots to the rear and side should be more likely to penetrate. T-34s should be used for flanking maneuvers.
5) The thing needs a nerf, hands down. See other thread.
6) I think we shouldn´t totally get rid of this ability. After all it´s a creative feature. I think it should be only available on the T-34/76 model and be replaced on the T-34/85 with overdrive. Could show the desperate attempts of an underarmed tank. It would still encourage building the 76 model.
|
|
In the original COH there was a unit that outranged all the tanks and was still balanced. It was the PE´s Marder III. You know why it was balanced? To outrange other tanks it had to deploy. Thus it could actually be flanked. Maybe this is a solution for the Su-85. It could get it´s sight and range increase only when deployed. |
This topic was closed (although you have the same in the west of Unlike the Germans, with their rifle 98K and MP-38, which was the only tank crews and commanders.
Just for your information. I´m quite interested in history and I want to make this false judgement here clear. German squads usually had the fire superiority in infantry engagements. "Why? They were armed with Kar98k?" Well every german squad had a MG34 or 42 at its disposal thus giving them the upper hand versus Garands and Bars in the West and Mosins and even PPSHs in the East. The Kar98k was there to get some accurate shots on the pinned troops, most german infantrymen were busy runnign around getting new ammo belts to the MGs rather tahn shooting. The 42 did the dirty job and this worked quite well.
Also your comment on the KD ratio on the Eastern Front is wrong. The Germans lost 4.5-5.5 million soldiers - ON ALL FRONTS (aka Africa, Italy, France, Balkans, etc.). Soviet losses are stated as 9 - 14 million. So a 3:1 KD for the Germans doesn´t seem totally made up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
Pretty tired of this Russian flaming, why should we even bother to answer, if you aren´t willing to write everything on English? All Russians I´ve met were really nice people, intelligent, kind and polite. How does it come they act so strange on the internet, not only in Coh2? refusing to speak English and spammming you with those letters is only the tip of the iceberg. |
|
I like how people argue that the Su-85 is "balanced" because it´s the only AT-option for Russians. The logic is flawed. An OP unit is an advantage for the faction, despite other options being weak. You can skip the weak ones and use the OP one.
I would gladly have Panzergrenadiers tuned down to the point where they are useless and the damage output, speed, range etc. for regular Grenadiers buffed so no conscript could ever beat them. Then I could say: "It´s balanced. It´s the only viable infantry Germans have."
Germans need something to fire back that is not a PaK and not doctrinal. It´s plain silly that the Su-85 outranges everything by at least 10 metres. StuG should get the same range, Panther needs an identity also. Killing tanks isn´t really what it´s good at if it can´t fire at Su-85s. It´s easily kited. |
|
Well, the title says it all. I´d like to suggest a cost decrease to the German sniper, so we could see some more usage of him. The reasons why I think a cost decrease to 300MP is justified are the following:
1) He is fragile/ one man
2) He is generally less effective than the soviet sniper team, because of 6 men squads and weapon crews/ also because of the higher average reinforcement cost of German infantry at the HQ
3) In CoH1 the sniper already costed 360MP and it was balanced. However units in CoH2 cost generally less MP than in the original CoH - except for the sniper (CoH1: Volks 280, Grens 300, Mortar 270, MG 250MP ---- CoH2 Grens 240, Mortar 240, MG 240MP)
A price decrease to about 300MP would seem appropriate.
Opinions? |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
