The Humble Marder

[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

[MannfredvonRitter]

There was a reason in normal company of heroes why a Marder III is worth under half what an M4 Sherman is.

1. The Sherman is more versatile, it can kill infantry highly effectively.
2. It can skirmish with tanks, it can easily flank weapons such as a Stug (baring roads of course).

Currently the Sherman costs 255 fuel versus the Marder at 195 fuel, almost the same in spite of being quite an even match up AT wise and the Marder's lack of anti infantry capabilities.

I'm going to compare them both without using site main gun, as siting the main gun leaves you a candidate for circling/micro.

Shermans are also benefitting from a higher immunity to small arms.

Sherman 75mm:
636 Health

Attacking:
Acc: 0.94
Pen: 554% (always 100%)
DMG: 1x 87.5
ROF: 1.5 delay + 6s reload

Will Kill a Marder In:
75% Acc L * 87.5 = 65.625
375/65.625 = 6 shots
= 1.5 + 5x6
= 31.5s
100% Acc M * 87.5 = 87.5
5 shots
100% Acc S * 87.5 = 87.5
5 shots
=25.5s
First one after 1.5s, later every 6 s
So 1.5 + 4x6
=25.5s

Marder III Tank Hunter
Acc: 1.0
Pen: 0.614
L: 0.805 / 49.427% (25-60)
M: 0.909 / 55.8126% (11-24)
S: 1.0 / 61.4% (=<10)
ROF: 4 + 1 WD = 5
On Deflection: 35% DMG

I'll start at Long Range
0.75 * (150*0.50573*1 + 150*0.35*49.427%)
= 0.75 * (75.8595 + 25.949175)
= 76.3 DMG/Shot
= 8.3 Shots Req
= 9*5 = 45s to kill a sherman
If we assume that it gets an additional shot, before the Sherman closes the range, this means that the Marder III will kill a Sherman in one shot faster of actual combat time making the total time required 40x. 14.5s more to kill it, when it's supposedly a tank hunting weapon, but loses out against standard allied armour and has no anti infantry capabilities.

Medium Range and Short Range actually get better for the Marder slightly, but not to a huge degree,
0.9 * (150*0.55*1 + 150*0.45*0.35)
= 0.9 ( 82.5 + 23.625)
= 95.51 DMG/Shot
= 636/95.51
= 7 Shots / 35s

Again, big difference in effectiveness, even if I have made a small miscalculation here and there the difference is quite huge. The high price of the Marder and as the only anti tank device of the PE, leads to a lack of alternate armour for the faction. Seriously curtailing their effectiveness.

My suggestion is that the availability stay at 3 and the fuel cost drop to about 110, this would ensure the Marder III is priced effectively against the most common armour available to the allies. Currently the Marder costs 195 fuel and the Sherman costs 255 fuel, the former weighs in at 8 pop, the latter at 12. The Marder III makes its user highly vulnerable to infantry waves, as it can't assist in the fight and no weapons exist which can effectively hold back superior numbers for the PE, with the PE relying upon concentration of forces and speed to match high enemy numbers. The Sherman can effectively kill infantry as well as a large portion of axis armour and as such its 4 additional population isn't that big of a deal.

N.B when locked down if the Sherman is stupid enough to stay standing still, the battle is quite close and can go either way, however the Sherman is reliable with high accuracy v Marder II and 100% penetration, so any chance is likely to favour it, not the Marder III.

N.B II: I'm also assuming that both players are of equal skill, so suggestions about tactics/ability/game play are irrelevant.

[jackmccrack]

110/255 just about evens out to 40/90 so yeah.

I know this isn't vCoH, but it does make sense.

[Bubblesatan]

Marder can lock down, as you said, and has longer range. It's not supposed to face a sherman alone in a 1v1 fight. Also m10 loses to p4 if wrong microed in 1v1. 110 is to cheap, price it has now it's ok. Maybe +- 15 fuel but not more. It's not an assault weapon and should be used with support.

[MorkaandBorka]

Sigh...What support would you suggest Bubble?

I mean say you have a 2v2 goin on, msot of the time both players are either fighting each other 1v1 or good team players fight a real 2v2.  But after all teh battles I have seen, trygin to support the marder is kinda hard. I usually have an atht there to stun a tank, but if there two tanks your done for, and thats 13 poplulation right there. 

I was initailly going to compare the marder to a pak, but they really cant be compared other then the fact that they are pretty much strictly AT weapons.  The problem I have with you saying "support it" is that usually the 2 panzer grenadiers and halftrack, or 2 armoured cars...or even a PIV, will not be enough to stop a big enough rush against your marder.  Eir:R is not made for blobbing units but the only way to win with a marder in your midst is to basically blob all your units around it to protect it.  Usually at end game its easier to support the marder, like it is for all things, but at the beginning of the game through middle its really unlikely that your marder will survive or be able to take out alot of stuff in that time spent on the field.

Anyways I just cant find a reason why the marder is still a little to expensieve fuel wise.  Original post makes sense, in the fact that maybe a good decrease in fuel would be in order.  Maybe its just cuz of the crap tankbuster sqauds im complaining but really, a marder isnt that great, situationally at least.  I would say a marder for 145 would be nice, it takes of 50 fuel instead of 80 and it gives enough fuel left for panther and other halftracks. 

[MannfredvonRitter]

Marder can lock down, as you said, and has longer range. It's not supposed to face a sherman alone in a 1v1 fight. Also m10 loses to p4 if wrong microed in 1v1. 110 is to cheap, price it has now it's ok. Maybe +- 15 fuel but not more. It's not an assault weapon and should be used with support.

Did you even read what I said above? The Marder is a TANK HUNTER, yet it can't beat a sherman in a front to front fight and costs almost the same amount of fuel. Take an ATG, 17pndr, Pak38, all will defeat any opponants tank if it just 'slugs' it out. The Marder can't even do that, not only that but the only ranged AT available chews up almost half of the fuel available, seriously hurting any attempts to have real armour.

It is quite easy to quickly run past a Marder with a sherman, kill the tankbuster squad and then kill the Marder. Short of having the TB in a building at the same time it's quite easy to use, combine it with another sherman and defending isn't viable. Then remember the Marder costs 8 pop, whilst pak38's and atg's cost 4 pop, freeing up so much more for other weaponry.

[MorkaandBorka]

Thats what I think also Manfred!

For once we think alike

[Mgallun74]

Marder can lock down, as you said, and has longer range. It's not supposed to face a sherman alone in a 1v1 fight. Also m10 loses to p4 if wrong microed in 1v1. 110 is to cheap, price it has now it's ok. Maybe +- 15 fuel but not more. It's not an assault weapon and should be used with support.

Did you even read what I said above? The Marder is a TANK HUNTER, yet it can't beat a sherman in a front to front fight and costs almost the same amount of fuel. Take an ATG, 17pndr, Pak38, all will defeat any opponants tank if it just 'slugs' it out. The Marder can't even do that, not only that but the only ranged AT available chews up almost half of the fuel available, seriously hurting any attempts to have real armour.

It is quite easy to quickly run past a Marder with a sherman, kill the tankbuster squad and then kill the Marder. Short of having the TB in a building at the same time it's quite easy to use, combine it with another sherman and defending isn't viable. Then remember the Marder costs 8 pop, whilst pak38's and atg's cost 4 pop, freeing up so much more for other weaponry.

what exactly would just fuel reduction cost? wouldnt you also want a mp reduction?

[MannfredvonRitter]

I think the manpower cost is quite fair, its the fuel cost which is too high. All other factions have vastly superior quantities of armour to the PE as a result of the Marder III cost.

In fact, the only time the Marder reliably won against anything, was when it had been immobilized, but that got nerfed (without a price decrease might I add, 95 munition sticky).

[Malevolence]

You'll note that if the Marder III is not locked down it is much more mobile than any other AT gun equivalent in the game, possibly excluding a sherman firefly (which it in fact roughly ties or defeats, so ignore the firefly for now [can't remember which]).

You can't claim that it's at a massive disadvantage when you are using it without its intended abilities. That's like saying "oh, look, PaK sucks - it loses to (insert here)" and refusing to use cloak first strike bonus, or saying a firefly sucks it loses to any tank while refusing to keep it at range.

Use the weapon as it's intended to be used against certain targets. Locked down, it functions as an AT anchor - while mobile it functions as a light vehicle hunter killer...

It's possible the cost isn't quite balanced, but you can't say it's because it has inadequate performance against tanks - if anything it's the glass cannon AT gun duels that leave it slightly overpriced.

It is quite easy to quickly run past a Marder with a sherman, kill the tankbuster squad and then kill the Marder. Short of having the TB in a building at the same time it's quite easy to use, combine it with another sherman and defending isn't viable. Then remember the Marder costs 8 pop, whilst pak38's and atg's cost 4 pop, freeing up so much more for other weaponry.

If you lose a schrek squad that easily you're a noob player, or just very unfortunate. Same 12 pop, kills a sherman, similar (ish) cost. Not saying that the Marder is priced fine, I think you're probably right that it is a bit too fuel heavy (not quite as fuel heavy as you say it is), but it's nowhere near as problematic as you make it seem.

[MannfredvonRitter]

You'll note that if the Marder III is not locked down it is much more mobile than any other AT gun equivalent in the game, possibly excluding a sherman firefly (which it in fact roughly ties or defeats, so ignore the firefly for now [can't remember which]).

You can't claim that it's at a massive disadvantage when you are using it without its intended abilities. That's like saying "oh, look, PaK sucks - it loses to (insert here)" and refusing to use cloak first strike bonus, or saying a firefly sucks it loses to any tank while refusing to keep it at range.

Use the weapon as it's intended to be used against certain targets. Locked down, it functions as an AT anchor - while mobile it functions as a light vehicle hunter killer...

It's possible the cost isn't quite balanced, but you can't say it's because it has inadequate performance against tanks - if anything it's the glass cannon AT gun duels that leave it slightly overpriced.

It is quite easy to quickly run past a Marder with a sherman, kill the tankbuster squad and then kill the Marder. Short of having the TB in a building at the same time it's quite easy to use, combine it with another sherman and defending isn't viable. Then remember the Marder costs 8 pop, whilst pak38's and atg's cost 4 pop, freeing up so much more for other weaponry.

If you lose a schrek squad that easily you're a noob player, or just very unfortunate. Same 12 pop, kills a sherman, similar (ish) cost. Not saying that the Marder is priced fine, I think you're probably right that it is a bit too fuel heavy (not quite as fuel heavy as you say it is), but it's nowhere near as problematic as you make it seem.

Ironically enough, the Firefly will lose to the Marder, the Sherman 75mm will win, Sherman 76mm will tie.

As a specialised tank hunting unit it just isn't worth it's cost. Anti Tank guns all range around the 300ish MP and 150ish mu mark but are far superior. Of the many PE players I've asked, all face the same problem, running out of AT way too early.

Say you have 3 Marders and one Panther, this gives a total fuel cost of 1190 out of 1300, perhaps then you get one Mortar halftrack. You now have nothing but STG's and G43's to stop all of their infantry and support weapons.

[Malevolence]

Well, the problem is with the mysterious 25% damage buff gone, Marders are no longer the terror of the high seas against Shermans and M10s, and with tread breaker being less effective (I say that needs tweaking still) it's a lot easier to rush 'em.

So I say a bit less fuel cost (still not as much as you recommend, but some). Manpower cost is fine, they are some of the most mobile AT in the game, after all - can't be too cheap.

[MannfredvonRitter]

Well, the problem is with the mysterious 25% damage buff gone, Marders are no longer the terror of the high seas against Shermans and M10s, and with tread breaker being less effective (I say that needs tweaking still) it's a lot easier to rush 'em.

So I say a bit less fuel cost (still not as much as you recommend, but some). Manpower cost is fine, they are some of the most mobile AT in the game, after all - can't be too cheap.

I think 150FU would be a middle ground and see how it performs from there. That would be on par with the munitions cost of the ATG and Pak weapons.

[Schultz]

Is the fuel your problem really ? What will it change rather than getting more light vehicles perhaps. In practice will it give more you more AT, will you lose your marders in action because of the reason morka mentioned above.

[Malevolence]

Less fuel cost means the PE can grab more of their vehicular based anti-vehicle aid (AT HTs, Infantry HTs for carrying schreks into battle so they won't get run over or suppressed, FlaK 88, Jagdpanther... et c....)

[RikiRude]

I gotta agree, there should be a fuel reduction cost with the marders, I won't suggest how much, but I say take it down about 20 fuel (that's going to be 60 extra fuel you have if you usually purchase 3) and see how that helps. I recently decided to try a panther as PE, but haven't had a chance to use it to see if I like it better then 2 marders.

One thing that isn't taken into consideration is the munition cost of the sherman for the upgun, which I think actually balances out the TB squad you would have supporting the marder. Which of course STILL leaves you with no AI capabilities. Also I always support my marder with an AT HT, which has tread breaker and focus fire. TB works enough of the time to where you can rely on taking down whatever vehicle is coming your way, though once that's used you're left with a vehicle that will only do about 3% damage to a tank that's coming towards you, though with FF it is good at taking down infantry.

[MannfredvonRitter]

I've moved away from the Marder and started using the Hetzer and have found it to be drastically more cost effective, minimal anti infantry power, immunity to small arms, higher speed and maneuverability, more armour and more health for only 70 more fuel, it's highly effective and far better. Even compared to its own units the Marder is inefficient.

[Mgallun74]

lets remember the Marder really was not all that anyways, it was a hastlily built unit they wanted to get the 75mm gun on to deal with the hordes of allied tanks.. The Hetzer was really a better piece, nice sloped frontal armor, very small and low silloutte... other than its limited gun movement was really effective.

[WikingPara]

it has its purpose

[Fingertrapped]

I replaced all marders in my company with hetzers, meaning that I am able to field 3 hetzers with scopes.

All hetzers gained vet 1 and a single one of the hetzers gained vet 2 in their first game.

Hetzer-pros:
- Hard to penetrate
- Long range
- Amazing MG
- Cloak (both to ambush and hide from the allied mob)
- 10 pop (perfect cost imo)
- Pretty fast

Cons:
- Pathing
- Low health (arguably a pro if you can repair)
- No turret
- Ineffective at crushing (too small)
- Fairly expensive (especially since you need the scope for it to use it as long range support)
- Doesnt deal as much damage as a marder
- Seems pretty inaccurate at times
- Vulnerable to infantry AT

Im using my hetzers in pairs, to make them harder to flank etc.

Also: Dont send them against at guns unless you are flanking. A single shrek in support makes a huge difference with this unit. Keep it at range where the turret angle doesnt cause so many problems.

[Waffen 17th.SS]

This whole "we don't change vCoH stats" stuff got to go for some units.


I mean the Marder is a joke, a joke in the sense of a analogy like this.



The Marder is suppose to be like a Mercedes but it drives a Toyota Camery.


It's needs to be reworked.

The same applies to the Fallschirmjäger, what another Joke.

It's like having a China made toy soldiers, they die and suck so quick/bad.