PE non-doctrinal anti-tank capabilities.

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Artekas]

You can't calculate it, but you can account for it. It makes an absolutely massive difference, and if you've ever had your Marder get shot at by a 57mm you'd notice that they never freakin' miss! Unless there's something in between them, like a roadblock or a hill.

[TheLastArmada]

so use that to your advantage, a situational advantage

[Artekas]

ATGs still have a slight advantage over my Marder for cheaper, I'm not going to stay and fight. I notice that stuff when my opponent moves it up and starts shooting at my locked down Marder, not when I go looking for a fight with ATGs.

[AmPM]

Angle of trajectory for the miss to miss?

If the model of the Marder is only so wide, then you can calculate the odds of a miss missing at different ranges reasonably well. Each weapon as a maximum angle of scatter.

The fact is, through gameplay observation on both PE and American's (And Wehr using ATGs vs other things) the angle is usually small enough that you hit the target anyway. Similar to RR's.

[Smokaz]

Bob, I never suggested that a Marder III should fight an ATG, but I asked why the Marder accuracy was nerfed and you started giving stats for an ATG vs Marder fight. So, ask yourself? =p We can drop this line of discussion for more important subjects, though.

It's basically impossible to maintain a range advantage with a Marder because they move slowly backwards and every tank in the game except the Jumbo will catch up to them, and even the Jumbo will because it must stop to aim and fire. Also, if it's not locked down, it won't win against basically anything.

Unknown: I didn't think of any changes for them because I made the post under the assumption I was wrong, but nobody has made a convincing argument for me yet, just posts about how awesome things are and to use this strategy and that strategy that's unrelated to balance. And stating blatantly wrong things, like that a Light AT Halftrack + Marder with Lockdown will beat a Churchill (no offense Smokaz!).


However... I wouldn't say give them an ATG, just make the units more cost effective. Right now all AT options barring the Tankbusters share a fuel cost, which really limits the amount you can have. The two primary anti-tank vehicles are also significantly more expensive than their ATG counterparts, while not necessarily being better. Being a vehicle is not purely an advantage, it comes with disadvantages that balance it out. Enemy anti-tank guns are really painful, tanks can kill you in a head on fight without issue, you can't recrew, your firing arc is so tiny...

Then again I said it wasn't a cost effective engagement for the churchill not that it would outright win. I dont suppose you want the super cheap marder to 1v1 a churchill costing more population and fuel? Read my post again, and give it some faith. I've played for a long time and I wouldn't suggest random stuff to pile up a thread with useless, untested info.

As for the light ATHT I do believe it gets the criticals against lower health vehicles. This can be a big deal to ensure you finish off something.

And again you cannot disawow the current balance. The current balance is that PE doctrines are largely not working or implemented, and the majority of the allied doctrines are.

[Artekas]

Smokaz, the cheaper ATGs for every faction will outright win against a medium tank charging them. That's because they're dedicated anti-tank units going against anti-infantry tanks. Why should the more expensive Marder III, which is a dedicated anti-tank unit, lose against anti-infantry tanks? A unit shouldn't win just because it's more expensive, by that logic PIATs should win, at least cost-effectively, against vanilla infantry because they're more expensive. You have to take into account what a unit is designed for doing, as well as the cost. If you have a problem with Marders being able to scare away a Churchill, why don't you have a problem with cheaper PaKs being able to scare away a Churchill?

And again, even if the doctrines were working it wouldn't change the situation at all, because the doctrines have no effect on PE's anti-tank capability.

[Artekas]

Now that I've got a break from direct debating because people have stopped posting every minute, I've got more time to think of what I would change. I'm not going to give exact numbers because I'm not experienced enough to decide that, but I'll identify what issues I think there are and how I think they could be fixed.

The Marder III is currently less combat effective than all anti-tank guns, while costing more resources. This is not because the gun itself it uses is bad, but rather because the survivability is bad. Mainline tanks have trouble killing ATGs head on because of accuracy problems, but they can hit and maul Marders without problem. In addition, the Marder is very prone to being sniped by ATGs and infantry AT. The buff against received accuracy in lockdown is not that good unless it's got a big piece of cover in front of it because it is a much bigger target than ATGs. In order for it to have any sort of combat prowess, it must be locked down, negating one of the only advantages it has, better mobility. If it isn't locked down, it will lose against everything it's meant to kill except for light vehicles. However, when locked down, it becomes very easy to circle as it doesn't have a big firing arc and turns very slowly just like an ATG. And the last issue is that it can't be recrewed, and instead has to pay more resources for a one use repair kit that might not even be used.

Proposed solutions: While locked down, increase the turn rate significantly, OR increase the firing arc to be somewhere near an ATG. In addition to one of these two options, the cost of the vehicle and the repair kit should be somewhat reduced. Currently allied ATG/PaK costs 820/860 total resources, while a Marder with repair kit costs 1485. The cost of Panzergrenadiers recrewing an ATG would be 107.5 resources, while the cost of a Marder repair kit is 120 resources. However, repair kits are invested in and may never be able to be used, while you only lose the resources of recrewing once you actually do it.

Marder and 50mm AT Halftrack are extremely similar units, the 50mm is for all intents and purposes a mini-Marder. It costs less pop and less pool, has a weaker but faster firing gun, is more fragile, and lacks a lockdown mode to make it really combat effective against tanks. But it costs both munitions and fuel, even though it doesn't really do anything different than the Marder. It's also not quite as good as the 50mm PaK, lacking an ambush ability, so if the pricing is going to be based on that it shouldn't cost the same.

Proposed solution: Remove the fuel cost, reduce munitions cost slightly, increase manpower cost slightly. This helps solve the problem with PE having to spend all of its fuel on anti-tank, and also adjusts the price of the vehicle according to what it can do compared with the Marder and 50mm PaK. The fact that it is a slightly more mobile light vehicle than the PaK is just a big disadvantage for it as it is an advantage. Remember the repair kit is 25 munitions as well.

The Light AT Halftrack is priced ungodly high for what it can do. The gun cannot penetrate any tank except from the rear, even the M10, and it does pitifully low damage with low accuracy. Even with the fairly fast fire rate factored in, the DPS is pitiful even against light vehicles. This leaves the abilities: Treadbreaker and Focus Fire. Treadbreaker halves the speed of the vehicle for a short period of time, with a massive cooldown. Focus Fire allows it to kill a few infantry, with a massive cooldown. Given that this thing can do no noticeable or permanent damage to vehicles, it shouldn't be priced as expensive as it is.

Possible solution: Significantly reduce the fuel cost as the vehicle is hardly more combat effective than an armoured car. Completely remove the munitions cost of treadbreaker, add smaller munitions cost to Focus Fire. Base the fuel cost on what Treadbreaker would be worth. Treadbreaker is currently by far the less useful ability here.

For the Hotchkiss, perhaps reduce the pop to 7. In addition, it might be worth removing the munitions cost on the upgun and instead making the 50mm Hotchkiss cost around 85ish fuel. This isn't necessarily to buff or nerf it. It's currently very similar to the 50mm Puma (which could also be reduced to pop 7 if this is), except better at killing tanks and less effective against infantry. However, the Hotchkiss could also be left alone. I don't think it's in need of a lot of attention.

Thoughts?

[shockcoil]

Admitably I haven't read through the thread but I find PE AT adequate but very different. The thing is unless your AT is a jagd it needs to be used in pairs. 1 marder is shit. 2 will trip shit up. 1 50mms is shit. 2 50mms destroy sherman rushes. Same with shrecks, same with hotchkisses,

[Killer344]

LAHT's treadbreak ability is only temporary when you hit a tank on green HP, at yellow or red the crit is permanent.

[salan]

thoughts?  Have you played against as well as with these units?

[Artekas]

Salan: No, and that's completely irrelevant. It would serve you better if you made an actual counterargument rather than accusing me of bias. If my lack of experience against these units puts me completely in the wrong - then show it with debate, not ad hominem.

Killer344: Thanks for the information, I didn't know that.

Shockcoil: Having to use pairs of units that are already more expensive than their counterparts is horribly inefficient.

[Spartan_Marine88]

Wall of text

Not meaning to disregard what you say so bluntly

But you are still very new to the mod. All of your suggestion sound of being angry at losing your stuff before you really understand how to properly use it.

The 50 mm is a PAK on wheels, you don't get an ambush, because hey you can run away. A pak can't. On to the Marder, it hits hard every shot is punishing but just like an atg it needs support. If you are finding it turning to slow, put it on a road.

Salan: No, and that's completely irrelevant. It would serve you better if you made an actual counterargument rather than accusing me of bias. If my lack of experience against these units puts me completely in the wrong - then show it with debate, not ad hominem.

And didn't read this till now. Lack of experience is actually a huge thing. TBH untill you have reached about your 50th game, you haven't really gotten the hang of things. Salans point is completely right. Why are you posting balance points, when you still have next to no experience playing the game

[Artekas]

If you think any of my suggestions are angry then you're completely misinterpreting EVERYTHING, because I made this thread to objectively present a debate. I have never been angry at the mod itself before, and only at specific members of the community on two occasions. I've been having tons of fun with this mod regardless of the fact that I lose most of my games because I am new. But you know what is making me angry? The fact that NOT ONE PERSON* has tried to counter my argument in any sort of reasonable manner. And now we're moving on to ad hominem. This thread has gone on for five pages now, and it's nearing six. I was really hoping that the thread would pick up, but it's just getting worse.

*this is actually a bit of an exaggeration, Smokaz tried for a bit. God bless him!

Nothing has made me think about quitting EiRR until this thread. I don't even care about the balance that much. Winning does not matter because the game is just fun to play. I thought I'd open a thread about a perceived issue and have a debate. Debates are fun. I love debating stuff. Normally. Instead, I get a thread full of bullshit, where everybody says "you're wrong" and not "well, you're wrong because x, and then don't forget y, and also z". The one thing that I really care about in the mod, and the reason I couldn't stick with OMG for more than a day, is community. A community that refuses to do an actual, objective debate to possibly improve the game, and instead just sits around throwing shit at each other, is a terrible community.

Lastly:

Not meaning to disregard what you say so bluntly

You obviously have every meaning of doing it, so why would you say this? You consciously made the decision that posting ad hominem was better than debate.

[brn4meplz]

All threads get worse, which is unfortunate. I can think of SEVERAL community members who don't know what arguments are, they just think that talking a lot or talking loudly will prove their point.

Yes Statistically, if the Marder and an enemy tank are in range of one another the Marder will get wrecked. The Marder does also have 6 pop compared with the ATG's 4.
Where the difference lies is in damage inflicted for cost paid.

A Marder costs 300 mp 140 Fuel.
A Sherman costs 395 mp 240 Fuel.

The Marder, for it's cost does a great deal of damage to the Sherman. Usually even winning when engaging from maximum range. Having a second form of AT on field to support the Marder will guarantee a Sherman death and you may save the Marder.

Scouting is essential so you can engage from the maximum range when you need to. Positioning is also key. If your in a tight space and cannot make use of your Range, lockdown on a Road. The Negative cover will allow you to turn faster and prevent circle strafes. Also if there are any tank wrecks(or if SE use a Roadblock) Lockdown behind those. Wrecks will absorb at least a single shot and Roadblocks will absorb many more.


Munitions is depending on your outlook the most important resource in EiR. It's the enabler. Sure without Manpower and Fuel you'd have no company but it's Munitions that puts the teeth into all your units. Any upgrade costs Munitions. All Anti-Tank costs Munitions. Upgrading Shermans to be good at AT costs Munitions.
A Marder saves you this investment. You've saved 110-150(AP rounds) Munitions in your company by fielding a Marder for Anti tank duties. This allows you to have more Tank busters, or more Assault Grens, or dual G43's or more grenades or any plethora of enhancing upgrades, which allow you to kill ATG's with relative ease.

It's this subtle but distinct difference between the Marder and other ATG's has a large impact on company design, which in turn affects gameplay.


Because of the nature of CoH no one can simply say When X do Y, account for Z. There are units in the game which are great at one thing and terrible at other and there are units which are decent at many things but great at nothing. PE is composed of mostly the Master of 1 unit types. Everything is a specialist unit. In this regard playing PE is drastically different from playing the other factions whose units can perform adequately over a broad spectrum.

A player also needs to develop the knowledge of when to call things on and what your opponent is likely to call on in response. I believe this is what a few of the people here are saying in regards to experience.

PE is a complicated Beast. I tried to cover important areas, but there's alot to say on it in many different situations.

[NightRain]

Sherman's 395 in manpower burnie.

Not a huge price difference. 95 manpower and 100 fuel more. For popcap wise Sherman's 12 and Marder is 6. I've seen Marders in action and used them. Their pathing makes them horrible to use. Add in a fresh new map full of pathing errors and Sherman spam coy, you can feel your head explode

[brn4meplz]

whatever, it's a still a  dead tank.

edited out

[Mysthalin]

However, brn - every single other faction can opt to go for fuel-based AT just the same way as PE can. Americans have the by no means inadequate M10. Brits have the Firefly. Wehrmacht has the largely underrespected StuG (And GeschutzWaggens, if you're terror).

PE only have the 50mm ATHT if they wish to go for reliable munitions-based AT, and even that costs fuel, whereas the brits, wehr and US all have access to their respective AT guns, which are notably extremely efficient at tackling tanks(surprise surprise).

I think this is the part that lends Artekas' argument the most weight.

However, at the same time you are severely under-appreciating the speed of the Marder, Artekas. It is by no means slow while reversing(even if that is hard to pull off at times) - and this can be largely used to your advantage whenever engaging any kind of tank. In fact, in a world where everyone has perfect micro - a marder and schwimwaggen combination would be invincible to any tank, as the marder would essentially just kite the enemy tanks to death as the schwim scouts for it or blocks the tank.

What ShockCoil has said is also true - most PE units have a quadratic efficiency function, if I may refer to that. Two units end up being far better than just twice as efficient. And, at the end of the day - PE AT functions the exact same way as the AT of any other faction : in that singular AT units get raped by the very thing they're supposed to counter(unless it's a panther/jagdpanther). A singular schreck ensures that a marder will not be engaged at short range by a sherman same way a singular sticky ensures you don't try and circle that 57mm with your P4. It's just the way the game goes.

[shockcoil]

I was going to refute your point but Mysthalin did it for me. Basically use your units in pairs and watch them destroy 3 to 4 times their cost.

Hell I actually prefer PE AT to other factions because it's completely mobile and doesn't take 5 years to bring up like ATGs

[Smokaz]

Smokaz, the cheaper ATGs for every faction will outright win against a medium tank charging them. That's because they're dedicated anti-tank units going against anti-infantry tanks. Why should the more expensive Marder III, which is a dedicated anti-tank unit, lose against anti-infantry tanks? A unit shouldn't win just because it's more expensive, by that logic PIATs should win, at least cost-effectively, against vanilla infantry because they're more expensive. You have to take into account what a unit is designed for doing, as well as the cost. If you have a problem with Marders being able to scare away a Churchill, why don't you have a problem with cheaper PaKs being able to scare away a Churchill?

And again, even if the doctrines were working it wouldn't change the situation at all, because the doctrines have no effect on PE's anti-tank capability.

What do you mean anti-infantry tanks? The only dedicated anti infantry tank allies have, is the Sherman crocodile. All the others have AT capability.

"Smokaz, the cheaper ATGs for every faction will outright win against a medium tank charging them."

This is just unbelievable to read. A unsupported 57mm, 6pounder or pak will get MANGLED by any type of armor on its own, without support. P4, sherman, cromwell, whatever. They will take a shot or two depending on the at gun they are facing, and then they will drive into short range and destroy the at gun.

This scenario where unsupported ATG's are facing tanks is also very unlikely to begin with.

And paks dont scare away churchills. The pak cant back up to the same degree a marder can, so hull down is even stronger agains the pak.

[brn4meplz]

Both Paks and Marders have a hard time with Churchills, but Marders can actually win that fight. Paks are just dead. the only benefit in that scenario is that you can Recrew a Pak if your enemy doesn't beat you to it or kill the gun.