Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

too ridiculous

wow, so many informations.
I can fully understand your arguments...

Was the brumbauer buffed after arty changes accidntly?

Warhawks97 wrote:wow, so many informations.
I can fully understand your arguments...

Let's talk in PM

Also, when beta will be released?

mofetagalactica wrote:Was the brumbauer buffed after arty changes accidntly?

Can you specify what behavior you mean? I mean, it hasn't been touched so I'm quite curious what you mean...

MarKr wrote:

mofetagalactica wrote:Was the brumbauer buffed after arty changes accidntly?

Can you specify what behavior you mean? I mean, it hasn't been touched so I'm quite curious what you mean...

Hi, I have a question: Why sherman can't be equivalent of Stug 4, but a bit less of penetration power against it?

By "sherman equivalent to StuG IV" you mean that Sherman should have no turret, should have camo, should cost 400MP 40F, should have its HP lowered to 636 form the current 700? And what exactly do you mean "a bit less of penetration power against it"?

Don't be so agressive big man, I just wanted to say that sherman historicaly could penetrate Stug reliable, why not to make Sherman in something more useful when its being compared to mighty stug that can do in AT and AI, when sherman only in AI

Sorry if I took an agressive attitude but it is simply because I said these things many times and it gets boring to keep saying it over and over.

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:Don't be so agressive big man, I just wanted to say that sherman historicaly could penetrate Stug reliable, why not to make Sherman in something more useful when its being compared to mighty stug that can do in AT and AI, when sherman only in AI

the sherman 75 mm can destroy panzer "H" ... you want more power than that?

Everything seems aggressive to you ... are you a girl or what?

Shanks wrote:

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:Don't be so agressive big man, I just wanted to say that sherman historicaly could penetrate Stug reliable, why not to make Sherman in something more useful when its being compared to mighty stug that can do in AT and AI, when sherman only in AI

the sherman 75 mm can destroy panzer "H" ... you want more power than that?

Everything seems aggressive to you ... are you a girl or what?

Why you bully me mate? :C
Do I need to piss on your chest to make it smell like a sea?

Also, I just wanted to Sherman being able penetrate Stug more frequently, as his gun should allowed it to do. Since you have a long cooldown between changing from HE to AP rounds on sherman, this could actually work!

I do not need that you to urinate in my chest, anyway I respect your sexual orientation friend ..... Also, when I said that the Sherman 75 mm can destroy the panzer "H", I meant that obviously it can also destroy the "stug" "..believe me, and I think it's fine right now

No, believe me, it's not alright. In sense of US vs PE it's good, because on same tier with Sherman it could be specilized tank Hetzer or Panzer 4.
While WM has a BETTER multi-role tank Stug 4 or 3, that could do same things as Shermans, but just with better penetration against it.
Also, is MG stats on Shermans 76mm is worse than on 75mm? Was always wondering

the problem is that doc armor can mass produce the sherman M4 + M10 without unblocking CP, you would have quite good units in the middle stage of the game, it would be a big problem for WM, not to mention that you can bring the jumbo only with MP ... but I'm not really against it, but it could cause a huge imbalance

Shanks wrote:the problem is that doc armor can mass produce the sherman M4 + M10 without unblocking CP, you would have quite good units in the middle stage of the game, it would be a big problem for WM, not to mention that you can bring the jumbo only with MP ... but I'm not really against it, but it could cause a huge imbalance

what? where is a mass production for 0 CP? havent found it yet. All i know is that stugs can mass produce.


Big Problem for WM? What? Perhaps consider def doc when expecting lots of armor?


Dont get me wrong now, i am fine with the 75 mm sherman and its 15-20% frontal pen vs stugs.

Just your statment is wrong. There is no 0 CP mass prod in game (except for stugs that are kind of mass production thing at default which isnt such a big deal for me) and WM does not struggle when the enemie armor consists only of tanks.

Stug IV with AP blows jumbos anyway...

Warhawks97 wrote:

Shanks wrote:the problem is that doc armor can mass produce the sherman M4 + M10 without unblocking CP, you would have quite good units in the middle stage of the game, it would be a big problem for WM, not to mention that you can bring the jumbo only with MP ... but I'm not really against it, but it could cause a huge imbalance

what? where is a mass production for 0 CP? havent found it yet. All i know is that stugs can mass produce.


Big Problem for WM? What? Perhaps consider def doc when expecting lots of armor?


Dont get me wrong now, i am fine with the 75 mm sherman and its 15-20% frontal pen vs stugs.

Just your statment is wrong. There is no 0 CP mass prod in game (except for stugs that are kind of mass production thing at default which isnt such a big deal for me) and WM does not struggle when the enemie armor consists only of tanks.

after the "+" sign, I was talking only about the M10... by the way, the jumbo is very efficient, more when you have engineers who repair at the speed of light

Alright, but even with mass prod upgrade the sherman costs as much as a stug III. Just saying and shermans cost a lot of upkeep while stugs does not.

As i said, i dont want any changes, just correcting statments.


And WH does not fear tanks alone except you go BK doc.

Warhawks97 wrote:Alright, but even with mass prod upgrade the sherman costs as much as a stug III. Just saying and shermans cost a lot of upkeep while stugs does not.

As i said, i dont want any changes, just correcting statments.


And WH does not fear tanks alone except you go BK doc.

What is the reason for limiting US upkeep to then force player buying supply yard upgrades?

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:What is the reason for limiting US upkeep to then force player buying supply yard upgrades?

It is simply inherited from vcoh.

May we could see a symbolic representation of USA growing force during the WW2. US Army size was around 1.400.000 in 1941 and 8.000.000 in 1944. during the same time navy X its size by 10.

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:

Warhawks97 wrote:Alright, but even with mass prod upgrade the sherman costs as much as a stug III. Just saying and shermans cost a lot of upkeep while stugs does not.

As i said, i dont want any changes, just correcting statments.


And WH does not fear tanks alone except you go BK doc.

What is the reason for limiting US upkeep to then force player buying supply yard upgrades?

that way you can adjust factions to be either good in early or mid stage. In current set up the US would die without supply yard in the late stage.

Thats also a reason (one of many) why US faction sucks in coh2. You share the same upkeep but you dont get competetive units.


So simple logic: Axis have "one more tier up", us gets more units later and easier army maintanance.

Warhawks97 wrote:

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:

Warhawks97 wrote:Alright, but even with mass prod upgrade the sherman costs as much as a stug III. Just saying and shermans cost a lot of upkeep while stugs does not.

As i said, i dont want any changes, just correcting statments.


And WH does not fear tanks alone except you go BK doc.

What is the reason for limiting US upkeep to then force player buying supply yard upgrades?

that way you can adjust factions to be either good in early or mid stage. In current set up the US would die without supply yard in the late stage.

Thats also a reason (one of many) why US faction sucks in coh2. You share the same upkeep but you dont get competetive units.


So simple logic: Axis have "one more tier up", us gets more units later and easier army maintanance.

I don't get that. While axis getting stronger and bringing better units on field as game progress, while US just solving problems with upkeep?

One thing we could thing to fix things like this would be to increase the MP income instead of upkeep everytime you upgrade your supply yard, since it just changing upkeep and having a low amount of units in PVP its the common thing for usa in the mid-late game wich isn't really a huge benefict and waste of res since your units get blow up so easily because of the extensive axis arsenal.

Also, Sherman 75mm could easily penetrate Panzer 4 H armor, as it lowered plate was only 50mm.
While Jumbo was inpenetratable even by Tigers and Panthers in the frontal armor. So I don't get why shermans here are really underperforming, crushing even jumbo with AP rounds by Stugs

mofetagalactica wrote:One thing we could thing to fix things like this would be to increase the MP income instead of upkeep everytime you upgrade your supply yard, since it just changing upkeep and having a low amount of units in PVP its the common thing for usa in the mid-late game wich isn't really a huge benefict and waste of res since your units get blow up so easily because of the extensive axis arsenal.

i also thought about something like that but believe me, at the very end you gain more from lower upkeep bc here the ressource advantage is technically endless when both sides field the same ammount of units/popcap or technically speaking, when both sides field the same ammount of "Upkeep values".Calculation would be like this: You would get 50 MP "cash" from supply yard upgrade that is gone after 4 shermans with each lets say 11-14 upkeep. Two Panthers would lets say eat 16 MP per min each (32 in total) but are better than 4 shermans. So Axis have the better ratio here even with your +50 Mp cash bonus. The current system allows you to get for example 5 shermans for each 4 MP ukpeep and thus still gaining more than the guy with 2 Panthers.

Having a fixed boost of like, lets say + 50 per min would be quite OP in the early- mid stage bc there you can bunker all that ressources but in the long term, when the res advantage is most needed, it will be minimum bc when each sherman would eat up roughly 11-14 MP per min this boost is gone. The concept of the supply yard is to boost US economy in the long term, not for a short mid game boost.

+50 MP per min but a sherman would cost 12 MP upkeep... add support units and right after 5 or less units on the field you have no advantage anymore over lets say a single KT with its 20 MP upkeep or Jagdpanther bc these 5 units have eaten up this 50 MP boost veery quickly......or even Jagdpanzer IV/70 or stug. So axis would have the upkeep advantage bc they dont have to field as many units.


So US would be able to replace units easier bc with all supply yard upgrades you gain like 100-150 MP more than your axis enemie, but when it comes to the ammount of units fielded at once needed to break through defenses while gathering enough ressources at the same time to replace losses, the current system is the best possible.
One of my prefered long term strategy against heavy campy axis with tons of elite units or heavy tanks is too siege them and to bleed them out in attrition bc you simply cant go a head on attack with 5 shermans and rifles against a KT or whatever with inf support. Blocking all possible paths, building up a back up defense and units that can attack at the right time. This wouldnt be possible bc such long term attrition wars woud not be possible with fixed MP boosts that doesnt allow superior numbers.
And thats what matters... not the replacment rate is most important, but that you can steadily build up an army for the final battles and having a back up defense/logisitics.


Thats why the "correct" balance would be that US has a slight quality advantage or parity from early to mid stage with axis bc of the better equipment (M1 vs K98) and design and gun power (57 vs 50 mm, sherman 76 vs tank IV H/J) but paying a bit more (build and/or upkeep cost). Towards late game axis would field more of their elite forces (more panthers and stuff) while US invests into logistics and thus more units on the field at once.


In the past patches we have got closer towards this goal (eg rifles as main and only non doc unit for US).

Flaws in this idea that are still present:

1. Unit balance between "pre supply yard stage" is not correct afterall. Mainly the 76 gun issue against the Tank IV H/J, stugs in terms of penetration.
2. The concept of Panther as being the "successor of the Tiger" and single unit elite Tank instead of being a seperate unlock from Tank IV which it was intended to replace (1944 Panther production was higher than Tank IV production).
3. Certain upkeep errors on axis side. Mainly Panthers. They cost as much fuel upkpeep as shermans after supply yard upgrade while it should be the same as standard shermans have (4-5 per min). Also Jagdpanther with its 9 or what it was MP per min. In one replay here in forum i got asked if the high income of the PE player is correct despite the fact that he had two JP´s on the field and other td and inf.
4. Nukes that can totally turn the numerical advantage upside down: "The more they have the more i can kill". Mainly Hotchkiss (that gets hopefully fixed with higher barrage cost and upgrade limit) and, in my opinion, the def doc "off map nuke" or "insta everything killa" that would need to be replaced by a more regular and short tactical 105 off-map strike.




So US is not just "fixing upkeep issues", its actually a great idea that works so far with just flaws here and there. Its like one side comes with better standard equipment at first and then invests into better logistics, the other side starts with less good eqipment but comes then with advanced weaponary (STG, MG42, FG42, Panther) and elite units but lacking the logistical support to get enough of it.
As a side note here: US won the war not simply bc they had the numbers, but the logistics to get all that stuff to the frontlines and to proper supply units with spare parts and ammo. One said somwehere that US maintance crews could technically build a whole new sherman at the front by the spare parts laying in the frontline repair shop, while axis maintance crews almost killed each other in order to get the spare parts for their machines when a train arrived at the front.
And i think the current supply yard does reflect it veery good and was a brilliant idea in terms of faction design by the creators of coh and i am sad coh 2 doesnt have that anymore.

Mr. FeministDonut wrote:Also, Sherman 75mm could easily penetrate Panzer 4 H armor, as it lowered plate was only 50mm.
While Jumbo was inpenetratable even by Tigers and Panthers in the frontal armor. So I don't get why shermans here are really underperforming, crushing even jumbo with AP rounds by Stugs

The tank IV H/J had 80 mm hull but 50 mm turret armor. The latest tank III had it the other way arround.

And as i said, this tank IV thing is a design flaw as we doesnt treat the Panther as its successor and instead as an elite (almost heavy tank) and thus keeping the H/J as the only avaialble medium tank for axis that can get fielded in numbers.