Profile of OZtheWiZARD

So I played few games, number of them being 1v1, almost exclusively as German.
As far as MG42 goes can we all say the unit is in a good place now? Stops everything going frontally unless outnumbers or units going from external sides of the arc? No more Hoorah- molotov madness. Garrison changes helps Germans a lot I think and I am glad to see "the building wars" over.
G43 is to potent to come out so early. Who cares about LMG now if you can get so much better all around weapon and you don't have to stand still to use it. I always loved G43 but you had to play a bit safe as it came out latter in the game but now you can have it almost at the same time you'll get your LMG.

The other thing I've noticed is how effective German mortar is against buildings now with its turbo rate of fire. I know its supposed to have lower accuracy then Soviet one but I really can't see the difference. I think this is something balance team could look at next. I have been using both German and Soviet mortars on attacking and receiving end as well and the difference between these two units in practical use is overwhelming. German seems like dead accurate, auto firing machine gun while Soviet's one struggle to hit everything and you have to wait like a minute between shots (exaggeration for description purpose only, does not represent actual in game stats). I know you get Vet1 ability that changes the unit later but I don't think this is strong enough justification for that of a different in effectiveness between these units. I got this feeling that the only Soviet mortar worth using right now is the 120mm one because when investing in the standard one you may not get your money back. Have no solid idea how to fix this. Maybe increase its stats, make it better but re-work Vet1 ability so its less powerful?

I had a chance to play against Soviet Industry as well. It was 1v1 but hard to tell as this was a strange experience. I know for a fact that SI is not as strong as it used to be but was nerf strong enough? Really hard to tell. I do share Nullist's feeling that profit or shall we say marketing team was involved in balance discussion because the changes done to both doctrines (SI and ET)are strange to say at least.
I managed to win this one but I am afraid I was simply much better then my opponent. On the plus side you can be prepared for T-70 now. I saw commander in my opponents pull before game started and luck of infantry kind of told me he/she is going for it (I didn't know that you can check it now) so I kind of played safe saving munition and teching for AT guns but as I said the game was quite unusual and I suspect my opponent didn't know exactely what to do. He tried to cheese me with T-70 base rape but I got amunition saved up for Panzerfausts and med bunker up and running so I just circle strafed Grenadiers in base and retreated two more squad to double Faust this T-70 Good times I bet he didn't expect this coming

I recommend to both of you, go and spend some time looking at the actual stats of units.
Ask if you have questions, there is no shame in that and many will he glad to answer.

I can provide you with a fairly comprehensive list of stats sites if you so wish.

Also, play some more 1v1s, which is the baseline of balance discussion of it, and also I suggest that you deliberately play some more Ost.

I was told to play Sov, and I did and am. Although it hasnt changed my views much, it has made me more aware of what Sov play is like.

I understand you prefer team matches, but that is a different game to 1v1 in many ways, and really you should try to differentiate between the two instead of generalising.

Hmm I could swear you post looked very much different first time I saw it.

Never mind. I would recommend you to stop rely purely on stats and more often try to gain experience by using the unit in game as this is much better and efficient way o learning. Not to mention that comparing units by comparing their stats means that you are compering these units in vacuum and as many have said on this forum can give false representation or wrong overall balance impression in general. Sometimes something look good on paper but in reality its completely different besides CoH2 is not that complex in terms of its mechanics and rely very much almost purely on rng. Besides I found out that meeting with my mate in game and testing things out by ourselves works the best.

As I said I played 1v1 in CoH almost exclusively and I know the difference between these two modes. I can differentiate between them and saw potential issues for both of these modes. CoH2 is not the first RTS I played so I am rather experienced in this genre.


Also on the topic I would say that in general Germans Anti Tank capabilities are far better then Soviets. Especially in terms of vehicles but even if you compare both AT infantry units.

I don't need stats to know how the unit performs in battle. T-34/85 is close to SU-85 in that respect. The difference is one is a tank one is a tank destroyer. I suspected penetration will be higher on SU-85 as it's only logical. One could say I prefer practical input over pure theoretical one.

Mark Target or not this game was like 6 or 7 T-34/85 against one Tiger at some point. T-34/85 is a beast now and you really can't expect to go 1-6 and still win even with a Tiger.


@ post above:

Why don't you go whine somewhere else and give me a break will ya?
You start attacking and insulting people as per usual and then you will say they attacked you first.

LoL OZ, SU85 with turret. Not really mate, these things chew up inf as well. How do u suppose they are countered?

If I am not mistaken the gun was the same in real life and I think is the same in CoH2.
SU-85 have a bit higher penetration but T-34/85 got a turret? Not sure after the changes.
The point is however they are far better then T-34/76 especially after recent reload time decrease.