[UKF] 4v4 - Heavy tanks

#1
1 year ago

Problem:
Both churchill and comet lack proper anti-tank and anti-inf capabilities in 4v4 for their cost. To be more specific:

Churchill is slow and therefore will not be making any flanking maneuvers which forces it to engage against frontal armors of axis tanks. But its gun struggles to penetrate frontal armor of a panther or anything bigger. This causes it to become damage sponge which goes and in and out of the battle constantly while causing little damage to opponents tanks/emplacements/infantry. While doing so it only results free xp to axis/okw anti-tank units.

Comet misses shots too often against infantry which causes its damage to be unpredictable. You will often have to back away even from a single volks squad to avoid getting fausted. Panther also seems to be penetrating comets armor more consistently when engaging frontally even though their cost is similar.

What amplifies the need of UKF player having to rely so much on these units is that UKF lacks proper artillery and tank snares. You are either forced to feed xp to opponents tanks with churchill going in and out or going all-in tank rush. The faults of UKF tanks were previously complemented by incredibly strong call-in strikes like air supremacy, mortar cover or artillery cover which made all-in tank rushes viable. Now that they have been tuned both tanks feel like have been left behind.

Solution:
Both tanks should be able to punish approaching infantry blobs hard. Personally I think churchill should have more anti-inf firepower than comet and comet to be on par with panther.

Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • #2
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,024

    @Temeh said:
    Problem:
    Both churchill and comet lack proper anti-tank and anti-inf capabilities in 4v4 for their cost. To be more specific:

    Churchill is slow and therefore will not be making any flanking maneuvers which forces it to engage against frontal armors of axis tanks. But its gun struggles to penetrate frontal armor of a panther or anything bigger. This causes it to become damage sponge

    This is literally the job description of the Churchill. It is supposed to absorb damage and engage infantry/team weapons to support your infantry push. It is not a tank destroyer.

    @Temeh said:

    Comet misses shots too often against infantry which causes its damage to be unpredictable. You will often have to back away even from a single volks squad to avoid getting fausted. Panther also seems to be penetrating comets armor more consistently when engaging frontally even though their cost is similar.

    This is working as intended. The Comet is not designed to solo Panthers in static environments. It is supposed to use speed and the commander upgrade buff to zip around and leave the Panther in a dangerous position, or to chase a wounded one to secure the kill. The Comet is not designed to be your solution to infantry - though to give it protection against infantry it does have the White Phosphorous shell. Use it to combat infantry blobs, team weapons, to swarm Tigers, invalidate Wehr T3, and to cripple Panthers with the phosphorous.

    @Temeh said:

    What amplifies the need of UKF player having to rely so much on these units is that UKF lacks proper artillery and tank snares. You are either forced to feed xp to opponents tanks with churchill going in and out or going all-in tank rush.

    wat. UKF is the faction with non-doctrinal proper artillery. You're not forced to do anything like feeding exp or going all in. You just need to build more than a single type of tank - throw in a firefly, buy the pyro upgrade for your infantry, lay some mines.

  • #3
    1 year ago
    TemehTemeh Posts: 9

    @Lazarus said:
    This is literally the job description of the Churchill. It is supposed to absorb damage and engage infantry/team weapons to support your infantry push. It is not a tank destroyer.

    In theory that is a great idea but that's is just not how the game is being played in 4v4. Or how often do you see churchill going in with a smoke screen and tommies following in behind with their piats and brens ready to take out bunkers and infantry. This literally never happens because as soon as you step out of the smoke you will get pinned and heavy TD will force the churchill on retreat. In other words it's training dummy for germans tanks to get some xp.

    @Lazarus said:
    This is working as intended. The Comet is not designed to solo Panthers in static environments.

    We can always change the design, nothing is set in stone. If their cost is the same then their performance should be the same if they have the same role.

    @Lazarus said:
    It is supposed to use speed and the commander upgrade buff to zip around and leave the Panther in a dangerous position, or to chase a wounded one to secure the kill. The Comet is not designed to be your solution to infantry - though to give it protection against infantry it does have the White Phosphorous shell. Use it to combat infantry blobs, team weapons, to swarm Tigers, invalidate Wehr T3, and to cripple Panthers with the phosphorous.

    So what you are essentially saying that german player has to make a mistake in order to allied player to even have chance of knocking out a panther with similarly priced tank. What do you do when the victory points become static due to heavy TDs?

    @Lazarus said:
    wat. UKF is the faction with non-doctrinal proper artillery. You're not forced to do anything like feeding exp or going all in. You just need to build more than a single type of tank - throw in a firefly, buy the pyro upgrade for your infantry, lay some mines.

    That's not how 4v4 plays out. When heavy TDs are on the field you are forced to make some radical moves or you won't make any significant impact. As for UKF having a proper artillery is not anyway a valid claim. Sure it's far more potent than ever before but you can't scale it all by building more like other factions. This means that your artillery will snipe few models in early game but becomes a wet paper in the end game.

    I just want to mention here that I have got +2800 hours spend to 4v4 and almost entirely as allies so I'm not entirely new to the game.

  • #4
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,024
    edited July 2018

    @Temeh said:
    This literally never happens because as soon as you step out of the smoke you will get pinned and heavy TD will force the churchill on retreat.

    Yes. If you roll the slow heavy unit in front of a TD, especially a heavy one, it will get killed. It works the same for literally everyone. If you're fighting heavy TDs, Comets with their smoke shell, good pen/fire rate and high speed should be your tank of choice to swarm the enemy TD.

    @Temeh said:
    If their cost is the same then their performance should be the same if they have the same role.

    So you're going to give the Panther better AI performance and white phosphorous shells then, seeings as they should have the same performance?

    @Temeh said:

    So what you are essentially saying that german player has to make a mistake in order to allied player to even have chance of knocking out a panther with similarly priced tank.

    Yes, the person with the AT tank would need to make a mistake to let the generalist tank have a chance of taking it out. If you're having trouble with Panthers, buy fireflies.

    @Temeh said:
    What do you do when the victory points become static due to heavy TDs?

    Flank the TDs with your less expensive more readily available and faster tanks that come with smoke shells would be my first answer. And yes - you might well say "but Panthers" in which case I will ask you what exactly you were doing while they were stockpiling enough resources to get Panthers and a heavy TD out?

    @Temeh said:
    This means that your artillery will snipe few models in early game but becomes a wet paper in the end game.

    Factually incorrect. It's fine for doing what it's supposed to do, which is force big heavy tanks to move, and destroy hard points for a relatively cheap flare throwable by your mainline infantry.

    @Temeh said:
    I just want to mention here that I have got +2800 hours spend to 4v4 and almost entirely as allies so I'm not entirely new to the game.

    I can tell.

  • #5
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,619

    Comet is in terrible state overall.

    Churchill is infantry support tank, its supposed to cover infantry against other infantry and lighter armor, not go up against other tanks, you need to support it preferably with firefly and it'll do ok.

  • #6
    1 year ago
    mrdjjag81mrdjjag81 Posts: 254
    edited July 2018

    They made a misstake with Comet tan, It seamed too effective back when UKF's arty call in where way too poweful, some of them down right broken like the arty cover.. When combined them with Comet and theyer 0.75 accuracy on the move they could pretty much run over any army together with off map arty. Thankfully brits arty been nerfed to decent level now, but meanwhile they nerfed the hell out of the Comet. Many changes has been done since then:

    1: The white phosphorus dosent decrew at guns or mgs longer
    2: The range of the phosphorus been shortened
    3: Tank crew granade been toned down
    4. Accuracy on the move from 0.75 to 0.50

    those are the necessary changes i believe they could had stayed with, but those they could had left untouched is:

    1: Comets range nerf from 50 to 45 is huge deal since stug and Panther can easly outrange it now.
    2. The speed been nerfed so it easlyer get hounted down by Panthers now with its blits
    3. The warspeed been nerfed down to pretty much useless, makes no sence spending time with your eng to upgrade it. If players think that was a free get out of jail thing, we need to take a look at the panzer tactican of the OST as well.
    4. To prevent Comet to cruch inf against players that didnt had brain enought to hit the retreat buttom they nerfed the turning degrees angle of the Comet instead of giving it medium cruch, so what we have now is a tank that choice more to make a 180 degrees turn and get eaten by schreckblobs and cloaking at guns before it start drive the direction u actually gave command for.
    5. They nerfed the aoe against infantry so now we have a Comet that kills inf. wors than an upgrade Panther does with its MG, its one of the worst tank killing inf as its most dedicated for, since it not a tank hunter. It most be good at something at least..

    If those things could be reverted back it wouldnt be an issiu at all in term of unbalance, but it would be worth start using hammer tactic again and spend 185 fuel on a tank that could be the most incosteffective tank right now.

    They need to have a look on this tank, some goes with churchill in some aspect, but the biggest is for sure the Comet tank.

  • #7
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,821
    > @Bogeyfox said:
    > I agree that comets are pretty much broken. And I think the biggesst problem still is the front side pen problem for allied units. While panther can shove off pretty a lot of dmg front side, last game I saw a snared panther with almost 0 health shaving off 3 hits from an at gun front side, it's a regular unit and pretty fast.
    > ATM brits have almost 0 chance in a 4vs4 against a tank rush.
    > The churchill is fins as it is imho.

    The outrage of a 320mp at gun not guaranteeing the kill on a 175fu and 400 (I'll be honest I don't actually remember the MP cost so I'm winging it here) full tech tanks who's main selling point is its ability to deflect AT despite only having ~2/3 chance to deflect AT gun shells. What's next you ask?
    Snipers are killing models of infantry EVERY SHOT!
    The mg42 is slowing infantry it shoots at!
    Mortars are dealing damage to units they can't see!
    Some units are working as intended!

    Also brits are BEST off in team games where they have allies to take the heat off their weaknesses. Snares, lights and indirect fire covered by other players let them do dirty things like have 5 man squads with panzer green dodge and boat loads of Brens and still tech ~quickly (over forcing out an AEC) and last I checked the Firefly was a formidable TD....
  • #8
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,821
    > @Bogeyfox said:
    > @thedarkarmadillo said:
    >
    > The outrage of a 320mp at gun not guaranteeing the kill on a 175fu and 400 (I'll be honest I don't actually remember the MP cost so I'm winging it here) full tech tanks who's main selling point is its ability to deflect AT despite only having ~2/3 chance to deflect AT gun shells. What's next you ask?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > The post is 4vs4. Three shots on visible panther from 1 AT dealing 0 damage - even front side - well I expect at least 1 hit. Temeh has argued that it is almost impossible to kill/destroy a panther. And in my opinion thats true. You argue about costs. What is less costs worth if you are hardly able to kill the enemy. E.g. Consider 2 T34/85 mp760 fu260. Front side they ll lose against the panther. So they'll have to split and flank. It won't work cause they are not faster than a panther...And doctrinal the axis player might even push it further. Chasing it will lead to the destruction of 2 t34 and if lucky 1 panther down but the costs....
    > The problem is 4vs4 or 3vs3...
    > And btw consider the time for reloading and the previous damage. The axis player has to make a mistake to bring the panther down as Temeh argued.

    All allied factions have Very effective TDs to counter units like the panther. And since armour is RNG the panther could have easily fallen without bouncing a single shot. It's the nature of the game. But even that aside you should not be relying on an AT gun alone to bring down heavy armoured targets. 2 t34/85s could fail and it could win, iv seen a panther lose to an,imobilized t34/76 because the panther couldn't land a hit and the T34 never bounced. RNG is RNG and it's not a balance problem (well, like it IS but only from a design perspective, not in this case. The AT gun had a 62% chance to pen, that it didn't is just bad luck
  • #9
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,024

    @Bogeyfox said:

    Temeh has argued that it is almost impossible to kill/destroy a panther. And in my opinion thats true.

    Well, in my opinion, that isn't true. So now we're done waving opinions about, all we can use to decide the truth is facts - and the facts are it is not impossible to kill/destroy Panthers, otherwise the Axis would never lose because they'd have an invincible unit.

    @Bogeyfox said:

    Just a hint. Don't attack people by telling them what they should do.

    "Let me tell you what to do. Don't tell people what to do" - also that's not an attack. That's just advice, and examples to support an argument.

    @Bogeyfox said:
    And now pls tell me the regular good counter for panthers which has pretty much the same MPs and or fuel...

    Literally 1 Firefly
    Literally 1 SU-85
    Literally 1 Jackson

    Pro-tip, if you want something to purpose destroy a tank, pick a tank destroyer. No, that's not an attack, that's just a suggestion.

  • #10
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    @Bogeyfox If you can kill the Panthers engine with AT grenades or mines, you can often kill it with a unit that is significantly less MP and Fuel. And the only way the panther can take on your TD/AT gun is if you have neither of those screening it. And if it's the Jackson the thing still might escape
  • #11
    1 year ago
    TemehTemeh Posts: 9

    @Lazarus said:
    Pro-tip, if you want something to purpose destroy a tank, pick a tank destroyer. No, that's not an attack, that's just a suggestion.

    And this why we and up seeing fireflies being stacked up to 3 or 4 in 4v4, just to have the ability to bring down axis tanks since all the other tanks are rubbish for the task. And mixing units is a lot worse option, not only because you have to pay for teching but you are also lacking in damage if you do that. If I make one comet/churchill and couple it with one firefly the opponent can have 2 panthers with that price. This kind of balance model only encourages spamming one unit for AT and one for AI.

    Also it's quite clear that you aren't playing allies in 4v4 and therefore some units being bad isn't an issue for you.

  • #12
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,024

    @Temeh said:

    @Lazarus said:
    Pro-tip, if you want something to purpose destroy a tank, pick a tank destroyer. No, that's not an attack, that's just a suggestion.

    And this why we and up seeing fireflies being stacked up to 3 or 4 in 4v4, just to have the ability to bring down axis tanks since all the other tanks are rubbish for the task. And mixing units is a lot worse option, not only because you have to pay for teching but you are also lacking in damage if you do that. If I make one comet/churchill and couple it with one firefly the opponent can have 2 panthers with that price. This kind of balance model only encourages spamming one unit for AT and one for AI.

    All of this is correct and true - not just for the Allies but for the Axis too if you give them a go. It's inherent in the game design. Specialist units wipe the floor with generalists every day of the week. That's CoH2.

    @Temeh said:

    Also it's quite clear that you aren't playing allies in 4v4 and therefore some units being bad isn't an issue for you.

    Your opinion is incorrect, though has been noted.

  • #13
    1 year ago
    TemehTemeh Posts: 9

    @Lazarus said:
    All of this is correct and true - not just for the Allies but for the Axis too if you give them a go. It's inherent in the game design. Specialist units wipe the floor with generalists every day of the week. That's CoH2.

    By that definition nothing ever overperforms, rather it's just specialized. Kinda like axis faction was specialized in winning during the first years of coh2.

  • #14
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,024

    @Temeh said:

    @Lazarus said:
    All of this is correct and true - not just for the Allies but for the Axis too if you give them a go. It's inherent in the game design. Specialist units wipe the floor with generalists every day of the week. That's CoH2.

    By that definition nothing ever overperforms, rather it's just specialized. Kinda like axis faction was specialized in winning during the first years of coh2.

    Incorrect on both counts. Reread the sentence and try again. For clarification - specialists can absolutely overperform, and have in the past. Release Obersoldaten are an excellent example - an AI specialist who instead of countering infantry, completely invalidated their existence. This is why they were nerfed, due to them overperforming in their specialization. Another example is Commandos, who were coked up hyper wipe machines before they received a gentle nudge in to nerf town.

    Though yes - it is exactly like the UKF was specialized at winning during its release months (pssst, it's not a secret Nazi coup to revive Hitler with high CoH winrates, it's the nature of an imbalanced game - one side wins more than the other).

  • #15
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,024
    edited August 2018

    @Bogeyfox said:

    So the argument is

    To use the tools you have to kill tanks, to kill tanks. Yes, that's the argument.

    @Bogeyfox said:

    Well in a 4vs4 if u have 1 firefly it ll be killed by the other panther

    Cool - then where's your other Firefly? Or even just an AT gun, or AT infantry to stop vehicles from diving on your TDs? You... you do realize you actually have to play the game and make inputs and stuff right? You aren't supposed to just win by picking Allies.

    @Bogeyfox said:

    Well in a 4vs4 if u have 1 firefly it ll be killed by... ...p4 or maybe even the STUG

    No it won't, unless you make a mistake. You have 10 range on StuGs and 20 on PIVs. There is no excuse for your Firefly ever being in harms way against them.

    @Bogeyfox said:
    In 4vs4 2 panther will just role through your lines front side killing everything esp. infantry on close range. Now the problem is - they are faster than infantry and as fast your tanks. Unfortunately allied tanks are weaker... so they need support for sight or to snare it.... Which on a 4v4 is not possible if you are on the other side....

    Factually incorrect information. Build AT units, especially TDs.

    @Bogeyfox said:

    And OKW's St.Pios can

    This'll be good.

    @Bogeyfox said:
    not only repair

    Yes, engineers repair.

    @Bogeyfox said:
    attack with 60dps in close range

    I don't even care enough to look it up, but whatever.

    @Bogeyfox said:
    they are also very prone

    This doesn't mean anything. Either you're saying they are laying very close to the ground, or they are very predisposed to "and". This is word salad intended to inflate the "list" of strengths Sturms have.

    @Bogeyfox said:
    (They are) durable

    No.

    @Bogeyfox said:
    (they can) be upgraded with shrecks

    Yes.

    @Bogeyfox said:
    So just have 3 St.Pios and 2 panther and your are good

    If you're fighting a garbage Allied team who has no idea what Riflemen, Tommies, Brens, BARs, Jacksons or Fireflies are then yes, I can see how you'd get away with 3 Pios and 2 Panthers. Otherwise no, this is inaccurate.

    My advice is for you to post some replays https://community.companyofheroes.com/categories/coh-2-strategy-discussion at this link. There, experienced players will be able to watch what happens, and will be able to give you advice and teach you how to play the game more successfully - including fixing any strategies you use that don't work (such as not building TDs).

  • #16
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    > @Bogeyfox said:
    > What's the argument? That you can snare units with mines. Oh - wait I never knew it.

    You literally asked for counters to the panther that were off similar or cheaper resource costs. Several squads that cost less than 400mp (many less than 300) can kill the engine of a panther with a variety of tools. If you do that even a t34/76 has a chance of soloing it.

    How about anti-tank guns for crying out loud? All the TDs, even the TD- brawler hybrid that is the panther, are more vulnerable to AT guns than say medium tanks since they can't do much besides avoid them.
  • #17
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,024

    @Bogeyfox said:

    @Lazarus said:

    Sry lazarus but saying no yes no shows how you feel about yourself in my opinion.

    Your opinion is noted, but inaccurate.

    @Bogeyfox said:
    YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE KNOWING COH2. All others have no idea and play bad.

    Incorrect. There are many users here who I respect and who I know are skilled at the game and understand mechanics, several of which have posted in this thread.

    @Bogeyfox said:
    E.g. You use words like correct, incorrect or inaccurate which would apply to numbers but not opinions.

    Incorrect and inaccurate. These words apply to facts - facts include, but are not limited to numbers. You are correct that they do not apply to opinions, but we are not arguing opinion. Otherwise I could just say "in my opinion you're wrong" and you would have no counter and would have to accept that the Panther is fine - because it's just opinion.

    @Bogeyfox said:
    Another strategy of yours: You try to give the impression that the other person is a child as you do here for example:
    "Yes, engineers repair" or "I don't even care enough to look it up, but whatever."

    This is not to give the impression that you are a child. This is one, a statement of fact that yes you are correct - engineers repair, and two, a statement of fact that while I'm relatively certain Sturms don't reach 60 DPS at close range, I don't care enough to check. That you think this is making you look like a child is more to do with you then it is to do with me.

    @Bogeyfox said:

    For me it's a pretty bad behaviour in a discussion about balancing - no matter how many comments you gave or how well you play. Is this how you want a discussion to be? Again this has nothing to do with arguments.

    Yes. I do want the discussion to be fact based rather than what you reckon.

    @Bogeyfox said:

    You don't even answer to questions. I never said it's impossible - I said almost but you won 't reply to that. YOu will just move on like 'I don t care what I said'.

    You are correct - you DID qualify with "almost" impossible - and you are still wrong. It is nowhere near "almost". It is simply, possible.

    @Bogeyfox said:

    It's pretty boring to end everthingn with "You are wrong and I am so much better...".

    I never said I was better - that's on you, and I never end with saying "you are wrong" - I end with a summary of why you are wrong. I'll stop doing it when you stop saying factually incorrect things.

    @Bogeyfox said:

    Funny I don t even find a lazarus on the board...

    What's more likely - that I have been posting since March 2014 on a game that I don't even play, or that my screen name and my steam name are two different things because I value my privacy?

  • #18
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,821
    > @Bogeyfox said:
    > @SkysTheLimit said:
    > > @Bogeyfox said:
    > > What's the argument? That you can snare units with mines. Oh - wait I never knew it.
    >
    > You literally asked for counters to the panther that were off similar or cheaper resource costs. Several squads that cost less than 400mp (many less than 300) can kill the engine of a panther with a variety of tools. If you do that even a t34/76 has a chance of soloing it.
    >
    > How about anti-tank guns for crying out loud? All the TDs, even the TD- brawler hybrid that is the panther, are more vulnerable to AT guns than say medium tanks since they can't do much besides avoid them.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > It wasn't my intention to argue hwo you bring down a panther but what's the counterpart for panthers in allied units. There are none. So you will always have to mix infantry and tank units to counter it. Axis can roam battlefields with tank blobs without support...
    > It's like temeh said: "And this why we and up seeing fireflies being stacked up to 3 or 4 in 4v4, just to have the ability to bring down axis tanks since all the other tanks are rubbish for the task. " Esp. front side...

    The panther has no match because Axis lack the pen of allied TDs. Asymmetric balance. The panther is a hard nut but it's fodder to a supported TD.
    The reason you see allied TDs stacked up in 4s is because you can. That's the reason. You stack your infantry with AI and spend your fuel on AT. That's the meta. I play mostly 4s and its not that panthers are OP its that you will not get more effective AI than you will by slapping weapons on an infantry blob. Players want the easiy way.
  • #19
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,024

    @Bogeyfox said:

    >

    And again you use the word incorrect as if it was a math result... despite the fact that i used the words "in my opnion". Are you now incorrect?

    No. If you say "in my opinion, the sky is water" you are factually wrong - despite holding up your mighty opinion shield. You're talking about facts, so neither your nor my opinion matter - facts do.

    @Bogeyfox said:

    Well I know enough about communication to be an expert.

    No you don't.

    @Bogeyfox said:

    @Bogeyfox said:

    You don't even answer to questions. I never said it's impossible - I said almost but you won 't reply to that. YOu will just move on like 'I don t care what I said'.

    You are correct - you DID qualify with "almost" impossible - and you are still wrong.

    Look you can't even leave one thing as it is. You need to say still wrong!

    Alright - this is where you're starting to get on my nerves. You DEMANDED I comment on this point - you called me out and insisted. Look.

    @Bogeyfox said:

    You don't even answer to questions. I never said it's impossible - I said almost but you won 't reply to that. YOu will just move on like 'I don t care what I said'.

    So, I commented. You can't insist "You're ignoring my questions" and then immediately follow up with "STOP ANALYIZING EVERYTHING". I did what you asked. I acknowledged your "almost" qualifier.

    @Bogeyfox said:

    So do you think a single Firefly against 1 panther will make the kill? Do you? I doubt it? Why? Because sight for the Firefly is limited and after the alpha strike theres nothing left to counter the panther. I pay less for the firefly well ok.- but hey i need to upgrade it a lot and i need at least a second unit to be a spotter. And then in the end i need more reources.

    You don't need to upgrade it. You choose to. Without upgrades it'll still do fine as a TD. You're right - I misspoke, I was under the assumption you had literally any army at all to spot for your Firefly so it could use its range. Perhaps herein lies the problem - are you sending units one at a time in to the enemy hoping for honorable duels? Again I recommend posting your replays in the link I provided where people will be able to teach you strategies and mechanics, and help fix the gaps in your gameplay.

    @Bogeyfox said:

    And "why": "Factually incorrect information. Build AT units, especially TDs." Is this the why it is incorrect or an advice? I don't see numbers or charts or whatever...

    What this is, is you arguing the sky is a carpet painted by seagulls - it's information that's so far from true that the most rudimentary scrutiny is all that is required to debunk it. 2 Panthers can't roll through an entire line IS the fact. Build AT is friendly advice.

    @Bogeyfox said:

    to be honest it's simply stupid. The post was about temeh saying: "In theory that is a great idea but that's is just not how the game is being played in 4v4." And I agree to this: Very simple.

    If that's how you feel, fine. Don't argue for balance changes based on that though, because those feelings aren't based on the reality of the game or its mechanics.

  • #20
    1 year ago
    TemehTemeh Posts: 9

    @Lazarus said:
    Though yes - it is exactly like the UKF was specialized at winning during its release months (pssst, it's not a secret Nazi coup to revive Hitler with high CoH winrates, it's the nature of an imbalanced game - one side wins more than the other).

    This is true and nobody is denying it but considering that axis had been dominating the 4v4 scene for 2 years before the release of brits it was hilarious to see win ratios to flip upside down for a while (funny enough for some odd reason player search ratios went from 100% axis 0% allies to 10% axis 90% allies back then).

    But lets get back to point. You and thedarkarmadillo are arguing for meta to remain the same which is going to mean that there will be only one viable tactic which happens to be stacking of TD's and AI inf right now. The rest of the commenters seem to want some changes to be made so that we can have alternatives to our gameplay.

    I'm also going to point out that having multiple different tanks in your army is going to increase the amount of micro you have to do. When playing axis you can pretty much stack whatever tank you want and right click your enemy and watch how your mobile, well armored and hard hitting tanks are going to win the majority of engagements. This is only made worse by axis having more than one oh shit buttons to escape and engage (blitz, smoke).

    Now when I'm saying that maybe british heavy tanks need some love I come from the perspective where allies have decent tank destroyers to deal with axis tanks but they can't be effective most of the time in 4v4. This is due to them having to back away constantly to avoid getting fausted/panzerschrecked or rushed by panthers. And since you have to stack TD's to deal with axis tanks you don't have decent AI to drive the schreck blobs away.

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    Also brits are BEST off in team games where they have allies to take the heat off their weaknesses. Snares, lights and indirect fire covered by other players let them do dirty things like have 5 man squads with panzer green dodge and boat loads of Brens and still tech ~quickly (over forcing out an AEC) and last I checked the Firefly was a formidable TD....

    What happens when you have 3 or 4 brits? A faction which has to rely on others to provide the means to victory is called being broken. Kinda like 4 OKW or USF in majority of the cases.

  • #21
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,821
    When you have multiple brits you have to communicate. They do the BEST when their weaknesses are covered but still have a potent lineup. Nothing is stopping you from getting piats to fight against those lights knowing your other team mates are going to be bristling with brens.
  • #22
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,024

    @Temeh said:

    But lets get back to point. You and thedarkarmadillo are arguing for meta to remain the same which is going to mean that there will be only one viable tactic which happens to be stacking of TD's and AI inf right now. The rest of the commenters seem to want some changes to be made so that we can have alternatives to our gameplay.

    Yes - but nobody is thinking bigger picture. Any changes we make for 4 v 4 will completely throw the balance for 1 v 1 and 2 v 2. We can't help it, but one of the game modes will end up losing. Also don't get me wrong - I'd love for there to be a better meta then spam AI inf, stack TDs - but the very nature of the game demands it at this point and we're in too deep to change it. We've had numerous units come in to the line up that could do a little bit of this and a little bit of that - hell, the entire USF lineup on release was built around "we can all kind of do both" and in cases like the M15AA (can do both AI and anti-light vehicle very well), that made them ungodly OP, while in cases of the Pack Howitzer (could do both AI and anti-vehicle in a very meh way), it made them completely useless.

    Generalists frankly, are a waste of resources in a game where you can combine your specialists in to roaming death blobs. Once we do tip the scales and make a generalist more cost effective than a specialist unit, that specialist unit completely drops out of the game. The oooooold OKW JPIV and Panther were a good example. You had the JPIV in tier 1! But nobody used it, because the Panther was just more cost effective and with the MGs could sort of perform a generalist role, despite being an entire tech structure away on a faction that had a resource penalty.

    Unfortunately, the way the game works and is balanced - there will always be one optimal infantry unit in each army, and one optimal tank in each army, and that flaw really shines in 4 v 4 where you inevitably end up just smashing in to each other - and things like cover/positioning don't matter so much as who brought the most durability + DPS.

    @Temeh said:

    I'm also going to point out that having multiple different tanks in your army is going to increase the amount of micro you have to do. When playing axis you can pretty much stack whatever tank you want and right click your enemy and watch how your mobile, well armored and hard hitting tanks are going to win the majority of engagements. This is only made worse by axis having more than one oh shit buttons to escape and engage (blitz, smoke).

    I'd only give that badge to Panthers, and maybe - super strong emphasis on the maybe, the OKW PIV. You're also waiting for a critical mass to be able to do that. If we're counting Osts PIV in that lineup you have to concede the same for T34s and Shermans - because yes they don't have oh shit smoke, but they've got other perks (the former being cheap, the latter having crew repair, long ranged smoke, and switchable shell types.)

    @Temeh said:

    Now when I'm saying that maybe british heavy tanks need some love I come from the perspective where allies have decent tank destroyers to deal with axis tanks but they can't be effective most of the time in 4v4. This is due to them having to back away constantly to avoid getting fausted/panzerschrecked or rushed by panthers. And since you have to stack TD's to deal with axis tanks you don't have decent AI to drive the schreck blobs away.

    Well in theory you'd stack 5 man Bren blobs to hold up infantry with maybe a cheeky commando or Vickers in the mix if the enemy has outscaled you in the infantry fight.

  • #23
    1 year ago
    TemehTemeh Posts: 9

    @Lazarus said:
    Well in theory you'd stack 5 man Bren blobs to hold up infantry with maybe a cheeky commando or Vickers in the mix if the enemy has outscaled you in the infantry fight.

    Well that's the root of the issue. There really is no catching up against okw blobs with just brens thus you need something else to spank them. I would prefer if that were either the churchill or comet since they are described to do decently against any targets. Right now however they are forced to flee from much more cost effective shreck blobs.

    If the devs would have been smart from the beginning they would have made it so that units have different stats in different game modes. I wish we still had the win ratio page where we could get some hard evidence on axis winning the majority of the team games and that's not due to them being just better players. Fucking the other gamemodes has also been used as excuse since the beginning of the game and when some patches were so utterly broken people just used said "go play 1v1 or 2v2. 4v4 is just for fun and not meant to be balanced". And that's where people stop playing the game.

    @Lazarus said:
    but they've got other perks (the former being cheap, the latter having crew repair, long ranged smoke, and switchable shell types.)

    The switchable shell types only increases the amount of micro you have to do and are more of a burden than perk. Not that you could you the sherman in majority tank fights anyway As for the ranged smoke they are sometimes handy but will not save you like the german smokes do due to them being too clunky and slow to deploy.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.