[FBP STEM][ALL] Fuel AT platforms

#1
2 years ago
Hi all, seems the FBP has been somewhat derailed with discussion of fuel AT platforms (namely stug and ost panther with natural deviation to others) and figured we should pop open its own thread before recon gets mad at us (this IS seperate from the panther discussion as it is far broader)

Here we can discuss the differences between the stug, puma, su76 as well as the "heavy TDs" such as the su85, FF, and jackson


I want to direct the discussion in a similar fashion to what started it in the FBP thread:

Should there be seperate intended platforms for medium armour and heavy armour?

Now i say yes. In my opinion ome size fits all AT is a horrible direction to go that will lead to *ahem* rifle syndrome where since you only have one tool so you just build them until you you can drone over the enemy (see su76 and stug spam for more practical examples)

Now the idea is that your su76 shouldnt be your go to if the enemy starts building panthers or vs a tiger, unfortunately they very much ARE capable of taking on the big cats en masse (which, with the fuel you save not teching is a very real possibility) similarily with stugs.


Anyways, how do you feel about more defined TD roles?
«13

Comments

  • #2
    2 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    I agree, TDs should have a clear target type that they prefer. Combined arms is the name of the game and it makes sense to apply it here too. It already works well the faction design as most already have a light AT and heavy AT option and the two that don't have robust mediums, can make any squad they want an AT squad and have light vehicles that specialize in AT.

  • #3
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,020
    Flat out agree plain and simple - they need defined roles that dont stretch across stages of the game. I should not be able to counter an escalating varied force by buying more of the one thing I have.
  • #4
    2 years ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    edited August 2017

    Sooo...usin logic, stug is going to be more effective at countering mediums and TD like jadgpanzer do, leaving heavies to pak and panther ?
    Is it gonna get 60 range ?
    Leaving for a moment piats and zooks, are firefly and jackson going to be the counterparts of stug or are gonna keep themselfs oriented against both and be a middle ground between panther pen and jadgpanzer 4/stug range ?
    I think that leaving usf only with stuart i look at this more like puma counterpart.. stuart is tied nontheless to a specific teching choice.

    And if we give usf a stock m10 to counter mediums and turn jackson into the anti heavies ?

  • #5
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,817
    The jackson fills both roles because of the power of HVAP letting it increase both its damage and its pen, outside that the sherman has above average pen and it is IMPOSSIBLE to ignore the flexibility of weapon racks.
    The stuart is nothing like the puma, nor does it need to be what it is is a fantastic tank capable of shutting down enemy lights and support against mediums/heavies with its abilities
  • #6
    2 years ago
    Why is the penetration of the JP4 so low? Is it not a tank destroyer?
  • #7
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited August 2017

    JP suffers from identity issues.

    Too expensive and too much pop compared to Stug/Su-76 too low penetration compared to Su-85/ff/M36.

  • #8
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,602

    @SquishyMuffin said:
    Why is the penetration of the JP4 so low? Is it not a tank destroyer?

    Because JP4 has durability going for it + allied armor isn't known for having 200+ armor at vet2 on everything with 640 hp or more as well as with higher pen it would step on Panthers toes, which is intended to fight high armor unit.

  • #9
    2 years ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    edited August 2017
    145 fuel is definetly too much for a su 85 (130 fuel/230 pen) with armor and horribad penetration.
  • #10
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited August 2017
    > @thedarkarmadillo said:
    > The jackson fills both roles because of the power of HVAP letting it increase both its damage and its pen, outside that the sherman has above average pen and it is IMPOSSIBLE to ignore the flexibility of weapon racks.

    I gotta disagree on that last part, it's very possible to ignore it for me. It's not flexible that I'm forced to use zooks if I don't go captain, flexible is having your AT gun no matter what tech you pick (3 factions). Or your MG no matter what tech you pick (3 factions).

    Sovs might choose not to have both, but at least their first 2 Techs are less fuel combined than 1 US one, AND they can often hold-out for a Su76 if they only build t1.

    The weapon racks make Rifles and RE roles more flexible, but that's currently a crutch for the lack of the US flexibility overall. I will never understand why there's 2 suppression options in 1 tier and 2 AT options in the other, but to me that's the opposite of flexibility. The m20s heavy mines are nice, but at the end of the day you still need something that can shoot.
  • #11
    2 years ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    edited August 2017
    Well, it's clear that, regardless of zooks and whatever, mods aknowledge that wfa allies have a single td.
    Keeping those td at 60 range but simply reducing penetration so to deal more consistant damage to heavies they would need to close in like a 50 range panther would do is a well made change actually.

    That was actually a good move.
    Now jackson and firefly are LITTERALLY half jadgpanzer 4 and half panther.

    Now, no brainer list

    1) give stug 60 range like jadgpanzer 4, so ost can retaluate against those td's, while the penetration lowered will make ost need panther or at for heavy
    2) buff panther moving accuracy and accuracy, the dps curve is horribad.
    Even firefly has 0.75 moving accuracy, and it's a tank sniper with 60 range.
    3) rather than buffing rof (which is a viable option anyway) mods want to give the panther firefly damage.
    Anyway one of those has to be done BUT the higher rof could make, togheter with higher accuracy the panther too strong.
    The 200 damage seems a good option, as the long reload will still keep panther performances somewhat reasonable against fast mediums meant to flank it.
    4)standardization between 2 panther in terms of cost and mg's

    Feel free to add anything or present another point of view/opinion.
  • #12
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited August 2017

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:
    Keeping those td at 60 range but simply reducing penetration so to deal more consistant damage to heavies they would need to close in like a 50 range panther would do is a well made change actually.

    That was actually a good move.

    This is from a post by miragefla (one of the modders) on coh2.org, and it suggests these are the next changes for the Jackson in v1.2:

    Upcoming Changes for 1.2:

    -Cost from 380/135 to 400/145
    -Accuracy for standard and HVAP from 0.06/0.05/0.03 to 0.055/0.04/0.03
    -Far penetration from 180 to 200.

    They're going with lower accuracy and same penetration as now. The lower accuracy is fine now that the Jackson has a better health cushion for when it misses a shot. This will prevent it from dominating mediums too hard, and prevent mediums from doing the same to it, since before they could kill it in 3 shots.

  • #13
    2 years ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    edited August 2017
    Obiviously...for that price jackson needed to be nerfed in anti mediums.
    No better way than this.

    A more expensive jackson would have messed up with timing.

    It is still defined as middle ground between anti medium and anti heavy, the two opposites that are stug/jadgpanzer 4 and panther.

    I also think that jadgpanzer 4 price should be reduced, giving that it won't work alone against everything, especially after stealth nerf (again) and veterancy nerf.
    Now okw will need both jadgpanzer 4 and panther to work.

    135 seems a fair price, and 110 for a 60 range stug, if 145 was the fair price of a non meta unit BEFORE stealth and vet nerf.
  • #14
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,020

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    I will never understand why there's 2 suppression options in 1 tier and 2 AT options in the other, but to me that's the opposite of flexibility. The m20s heavy mines are nice, but at the end of the day you still need something that can shoot.

    I think at the end of the day it was supposed to be a matter of "Go T1 and invest in Zooks" or "Go T2 and invest in RE volley fire" - but of course we've changed both of those significantly (as well as the tier structure) since release so you're right that it falls flat.

  • #15
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,817
    I think the option for the racks is still there as a mid game solution to armour (at least anything that will turn up bwfore you get your own armour out) its not perfect, not by anymeans. But its the intended route. We can discuss how its failing and how to tweak it to make it better fill that role, but by design lieutenant seems to be more geared toward not being able to get the fuel and holding back an agressive opponent, letting you hold the ground you have rather than use your limited fuel to push for more. Thats how i feel (and play them) anyways.

    Perhaps giving RE a passive that allows them to deal more damage on rear armour hits could make that more attractive and add tactical depth? But moving the AT gun the lieu would make it too static, and moving the stuart would require either nerfs or a heafty prince increase. IDK

    i do however maintain that zooks are a viable alternative to a "light TD" from a design standpoint, better in ways, worse in others of course
  • #16
    2 years ago
    Of course zooks are viable...
    But restricting tier 1 to only them and mines while cap has a total of three at options is a terrible design choice.
    At gun on liutenent and aaht to captain seems reasonable, as there would be no timing problems regarding vehicles.
  • #17
    2 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited August 2017

    During EFA Ostheer had to defend until they could get T3 and use their armor to push. With the WFA the PzIV become a bad investment since its "superior" armor means little vs allied TDs.

    Either Ostheer need a redesign or the PzIV needs to become viable even if it means towing down allied TD vs mediums.

  • #18
    2 years ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    edited August 2017
    2 simple soft buff to aoe and penetration would do the trick.
    110 pen is ridicolously low, even sherman has higher pen.
    The aoe is quite poor.

    The poor main gun is shared with okw panzer 4, which is mediocre nontheless except for having stock skirts the ost panzer 4 gets by vetting.

    Also..
    Am I the only one who would pull to any EFA medium including doctrinal premiums 0.65 moving accuracy multipliers and tone down brits mediums (but not comet) to 0.65, leaving only usf with 0.75 ?

    And don't tell me ukf is reliant on vehicles more than OST and SU because it's simply not true.
    Ukf has a lot of ai and at options by mid game.
  • #19
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,602
    edited August 2017

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:
    2 simple soft buff to aoe and penetration would do the trick.
    110 pen is ridicolously low, even sherman has higher pen.

    And lower armor with no possibility to get over 230 armor.
    Stop saying how bad its pen is if you're not going to say what it goes against.
    P4 is on pair against all allied meds, except T34, which it beats, vet2 onward, P4 will stomp all other stock mediums because of its armor, which already is higher by default.

    The aoe is quite poor.

    The poor main gun is shared with okw panzer 4, which is mediocre nontheless except for having stock skirts the ost panzer 4 gets by vetting.

    AoE is comparable to every other medium tank in game.
    In fact, its largest out of all medium tanks, excluding HE sherman shells.

    edit:
    3 people are arguing stats

  • #20
    2 years ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    edited August 2017
    ^
    Objectively wrong...
    The panzer 4 main gun is the worst of all mediums both in aoe and anti tank.

    AND you somehow forgot the pricetags.
    AND generally high moving accuracy.
    AND speed.
    AND cost efficiency.
    AND smoke smoke for sherman
    AND cromwell emergency warspeed which is better than OST blits.
  • #21
    2 years ago
    The fact that allies had no relaiable answer for the king tiger and okw panther was the cause of the current tds. The problem lies with okw's armour nothing else. When it hits its at 300 plus armour values. The exception being the p4 but its already skirted and i dont see it used much.

    Su76/85 and jackson and even at guns stood very little chance against that.

    Putting all the heavy armour or bye far the most of it plus the best AT on one side was a weird design choice.
  • #22
    2 years ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    edited August 2017
    @TheLeveler83
    The Okw armor was nerfed a lot ago and allies have several tools to take those out, especially newly buffed TD's
    The armor has nothing to do with panzer 4 mediocre gun, with the ridicolously low 0.5 moving accuracy multiplier as opposed to 0.75 (let's leave 0.75 of usf out, they are somewhat meant to perform better on the move) of ukf, with the low speed compared to crushwell and even t34/85.

    You said correctly, they "stood" little chance.

    And as best at you mean raketenwerfer ( :D ) ?
    The only difference between 6 pounder and raketenwerfer is that 6 pounder has more penetration, higher range and the crew is in green cover.
  • #23
    2 years ago
    @SAY_MY_NAME

    No i mean pak 40 and stug with twp. Jagdpanzer 4 both panthers and shrecks. The raketten with its ambush potential against light armour is underestimated. Its missing is a balance choice imo. And dont forget elephant jagd tiger and pak 43.
  • #24
    2 years ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    edited August 2017
    @TheLeveler83

    ALL good, but both Panthers are overarmored trash right now.
    Pak 43 is the bad version of 17 pounder.

    Raketen stealth doesn't make up for squishy crew and low range...light vehicles eats it alive and countering light vehicles is one of the main issues of okw as one hit of raketen isn't enough to kill even halftracks (and raketen itself miss a lot).
  • #25
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited August 2017

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:
    Objectively wrong...
    The panzer 4 main gun is the worst of all mediums both in aoe and anti tank.

    That's incorrect too, the p4 has better AOE and than the 34/76 and the Cromwell. The Sherman HE has higher AOE, and its AP does have higher penetration.

    The P4s AI is sometimes amazing, sometimes terrible. Unlike the t34 whose AI is just always solid due to MG dps, the P4 relies on the RNG of its main gun to be good against infantry.

    @thedarkarmadillo Please don't mistake me for thinking weapon racks aren't good enough, the last thing I want is for them to get buffed. My complaints are design related more than anything else. I just think Relic was a little lazy in their design of the WFAs.

    You look at how much Volks and Rifles have changed since launch and its hard to understand what Relic was thinking in terms of putting so much responsibility for the factions' power into its mainlines. Rifles have changed a little less, but there was also an entire new unit added to their building so we've moved very far from whatever ideas the devs initially had, as @Lazarus mentioned.

    I mean the Jackson is unrecognizable from the POS it was at WFA launch. Its health, movement, damage, accuracy, penetration, sight range, and turret rotation have all been adjusted during its existence. Might as well of made a new unit altogether, and that tells you that Relic had no plan for expecting the US to participate in the late game. This is only further shown by them hot-dropping the Pershing in out of nowhere when they had specifically said they wouldn't.

  • #26
    2 years ago
    TheLeveler83TheLevele… Posts: 692
    edited August 2017
    > @SAY_MY_NAME said:
    > @TheLeveler83
    >
    > ALL good, but both Panthers are overarmored trash right now.
    > Pak 43 is the bad version of 17 pounder.
    >
    > Raketen stealth doesn't make up for squishy crew and low range...light vehicles eats it alive and countering light vehicles is one of the main issues of okw as one hit of raketen isn't enough to kill even halftracks (and raketen itself miss a lot).

    Its t0 it can retreat garrison and go stealth and even full speed when stealthed with vet. So being squishy and being less accurate is balanced in this case

    If panthers are over armored trash why dont we take down the armour for some dps or acc? So then the tds can better alligned and the panther goes into the medium catagory instead of nearly heavy.

    Pak43 can be placed behind shot blockers and shoot trhough it. The 17lbs needs a squad for that.
  • #27
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,602

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:
    ^
    Objectively wrong...
    The panzer 4 main gun is the worst of all mediums both in aoe and anti tank.

    Ok, show the stats, prove that P4 gun is worst, because anyone can prove its one of the best.
    There was no balance patch since I've posted above comment, so the stats are exactly the same as 2 hours ago when I've checked them.

    AND you somehow forgot the pricetags.

    You're not getting the gun alone, you're getting the whole tank, with its veterancy, additional upgrades and abilities.
    Price is fair, especially considering the fact that the allied tanks got price increases.

    AND generally high moving accuracy.

    If you always shoot on the move, sorry to say, but you can't micro tanks.
    I'm hardly a top player and I'm still capable of stopping the tank between shots for no penalty.

    AND speed.

    Blitz & combat blitz + allied tanks speed isn't high enough to warrant chasing down or escaping from P4.

    AND cost efficiency.

    Do you even know what that means?

    AND smoke smoke for sherman

    Panzer tactician, which is instant and ON tank.

    AND cromwell emergency warspeed which is better than OST blits.

    That's purely subjective, EWS does not decrease target size, blitz is heaps and miles better.
    Only thing EWS got is availability and still requires additional unit as well as specific, exclusive tech.

  • #28
    2 years ago
    SAY_MY_NAMESAY_MY_NA… Posts: 257
    edited August 2017
    @SkysTheLimit
    Main gun /=/ aoe
    Main gun takes into consideration:
    1) aoe (worst among all mediums except t34, similar to cromwell aka crushwell that has a cheesy way to kill infantry anyway)
    2) penetration (worst among all mediums except t34)
    3) moving accuracy (worst among all mediums)

    The sentence "the panzer 4 main gun is the worst of all mediums" is actually correct, well except for t34

    Surely the tank isn't in a good spot at all, especially given the price, and there is so much truth in your post regarding rng...

    @TheLeveler83

    The point it isn't being balanced, the point is how the unit synergies in the faction.

    You can cloak (any at gun has an ability, like ap shells, barrage, twp, self spotting...but nevermind).
    You can garrison, and target infantry automatically so the enemy knows where not to go with vehicles.

    To "balance" you get:
    1) horribad accuracy until vet
    2) no cover
    3) low range

    Add that all togheter.
    What I see...

    0) You need to find out where ht will appear, otherwise you need to keep it busy by losing mp as raketen get closer
    1) First shot over medium range missing for halftrack and uc ALWAYS.
    2) No at snare for some reason while OST do
    3) penals m3 circle trolling raketen as it gets minimal damage from rifles.
    4) the best cqb mainline.

    It's like giving mg34 to OST and saying it's balanced because cost, it simply won't work, regardless of cost and abilities.

    Call me crazy, but m3 rush against okw with penals WAS META.

    Kubel was nerfed because cheesy nontheless, so last thing people can use is the l2p issue.

    Add that WBP gave volks grens faist because of how easy was to garden up the game of okw with early lights..and the only reason it was restored to requiring tier 1 was kubels giving same issues to allies and soft countering halftracks and dodge.

    @Katitof

    http://www.stat.coh2.hu/weapon.php?filename=panzer_4_75mm_mp

    http://www.stat.coh2.hu/weapon.php?filename=cromwell_75mm_mp

    What do we have here
    1) Area damage multiplier (Cromwell advantage)
    2) Moving accuracy multiplier (Cromwell advantage)
    3) Penetration (Cromwell advantage)
    4) Deflection damage (Cromwell does it, Panzer 4 doesn't)
    5) Reload time (Panzer 4 reload is 0,3 seconds shorter, barely a difference..but)
    6) Crush infantry (Crushwell dominates here)
    7) Smoke to avoid at and infantry at (Cromwell gets it regardless of doctrine at vet 1, can fire it wherever and use it to blind at and push, or escape. Panzer 4 got panzer tactician in doctrines, only fired on the tank)

    ding ding we have a winner....

    The Cromwell, for 10 less fuel is way better both in AI and AT role.

    "Do you even know what that means?"

    You do ?
    Everybody do here and agrees with me on allies medium.

    "Panzer tactician, which is instant and ON tank."

    And how is that an advantage you can cover more area for more, cap support infantry....
    And panzer tactician is doctrinal...

    "Blitz & combat blitz + allied tanks speed isn't high enough to warrant chasing down or escaping from P4."

    Talking about cost efficienty, but to have a decent speed panzer 4 needs to pay constantly muni...
  • #29
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,817
    > @TheLeveler83 said:
    > The fact that allies had no relaiable answer for the king tiger and okw panther was the cause of the current tds. The problem lies with okw's armour nothing else. When it hits its at 300 plus armour values. The exception being the p4 but its already skirted and i dont see it used much.
    >
    > Su76/85 and jackson and even at guns stood very little chance against that.
    >
    > Putting all the heavy armour or bye far the most of it plus the best AT on one side was a weird design choice.

    If i recall when allied TDs were buffed heavy tanks still had more ass armour than mediums had front armour, meaning ONLY way to take them on was frontally and from out of range. With flanking a viable option now i think pen values can drop
  • #30
    2 years ago
    > @thedarkarmadillo said:
    >
    > If i recall when allied TDs were buffed heavy tanks still had more ass armour than mediums had front armour, meaning ONLY way to take them on was frontally and from out of range. With flanking a viable option now i think pen values can drop.

    Indeed. As long as the tds can shine within their intended role of med of heavy tds.
  • #31
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited August 2017

    @SAY_MY_NAME said:
    1) aoe (worst among all mediums except t34, similar to cromwell aka crushwell that has a cheesy way to kill infantry anyway)
    2) penetration (worst among all mediums except t34)
    3) moving accuracy (worst among all mediums)

    1. Crushing is not the main gun. You said its main gun has the worst AOE out of all of them, there are 2 tanks with a worse AOE.
    2. Not by much, and its difference in pen is less than the difference in armor it has over all of the other mediums (and then there's that vet2 bonus). It also doesn't have Panthers and KTs to shoot at every game.
    3. The Sherman is the only stock medium (TDs not included) that has better than a .5 moving accuracy multiplier, so the p4 shares that title with 3 other tanks.

    I think the P4 needs something, but IMO its just overpriced. Maybe it could be a bit more reliable but I don't think it needs much more than a cost decrease.

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.