1.4 Tank Hunters

I continue to have two major issues with the very cost effective tank hunters, both of which could be lessened in their no-brainer effectiveness I suppose, with an actual use cost to their at grenades.

First, Base rapes are fast and devastating with these units when backed up with any of the powerful anti-infantry options.  At grenades kill bunkers and buildings in seconds, and the at guns finish whatever still remains.  These blobs move fast, and even if they come out slightly behind on the attrition war, they have devestated their enemy's production lines, and made it easy to rinse and repeat by already taking down the slight obstacle of the bunker.

Second, AT mines coupled with AT grenades make pushing these units off of key sections tennous at best...and it makes for hilariously effective anti infantry at choke-points...etc.  Without fail, an AT grenade chucked at an AT mine will detonate it and kill everything in the vicinity.  It's easy, the thrower has a very handy range, and it offers these units a dimension that given their very effective qualities in the specific areas of anti vehicle, seems highly inappropriate.

This doesn't even require preparation or planning.  AT mines laid for their intended purpose are already likely to be in the perfect opportunistic place to take out 2 or 3 squads of infantry....

by the way, I lost 2 vet-2 full health storm squads with about 225 munitions invested into them to a single errant shrek when I was sitting on one of those mines...this may be just as possible when dealing with PE mines and probably is, but it was rather frustrating.

It seems like applying a decent cost to use of at least 35 munitions a pop would go a long way to making these tactics a trade-off, rather than a free lunch. 

** on edit, 35 is probably too high given the muni upkeep...maybe 10 to 15 would be more reasonable

Last edited June 8, 2011 at 5:28 PM by Joshua9

For the first issue:
Sturmovies, Guards, and Strelky are being balanced in the next patch, so they won't be OP anymore.
While he chose to invest his manpower and resources into his tank hunters, you could have invested your own manpower into more anti-infantry units like an MG or a mortar.

The result: So lets say, he has 60% combat infantry + 40% tank hunters, and an AT gun, while you will have 100% combat infantry and perhaps a PAK AT gun just in case.  Theoretically, considering equal micro and skill and the future nerf to the anti-infantry squads protecting them, you should win.

For the second issue, I don't think that's a very big issue, and it might even be a legit / valid tactic in CoH.  However, if a lot of people feel this tactic is unfair, perhaps AT mine health could be increased to avoid this?

Yauz wrote:
For the second issue, I don't think that's a very big issue, and it might even be a legit / valid tactic in CoH.  However, if a lot of people feel this tactic is unfair, perhaps AT mine health could be increased to avoid this?

Fair enough, i think this suggestion could be applied for the next version. Currently has the same hitpoints as a normal mine.

Those changes are definitely welcome

one of the things that makes tank hunters so effective is that the infantry that supports them is so good in small numbers, guards in particular, so a nerf to them would make me breathe a little easier. 

More hitpoints on the mines sounds excellent. Then it would at least require some set-up as a booby trap, depending on the number of hitpoints you're suggesting... though it would still be free to lob a couple early to prime it.

blackbishop wrote:

Yauz wrote:
For the second issue, I don't think that's a very big issue, and it might even be a legit / valid tactic in CoH.  However, if a lot of people feel this tactic is unfair, perhaps AT mine health could be increased to avoid this?

Fair enough, i think this suggestion could be applied for the next version. Currently has the same hitpoints as a normal mine.

Or lower its area of effect. AT mines were powerfull but they didnt use shrapnel.

Hm I don't think Strelky & guards are op, I found that against soviet elite inf "spam" snipers are the answer. In 3on3s vet 3 Snipers mixed in a PE blob really mess them up. I tend to get 3-4 snipers in a game and send them around the map with my allied PE players.

The support vet is useful at the start for mg42 (of which I get 3 atm) and vet 2 + 3 are quite easy to attain with the high resource incomes on 6 player maps.

I'm quite sure that decent sniper usage makes or breaks wehrs late game against soviets in team games tbh. Just beware of the Sniper Ace ^^

However: I think that base rapes with TH are really easy to attain, and its especially true for annihilation games. I've seen it used against me during 1.31 and its really devastating.

If its possible, you could try to change the modifier for TH at grenades against buildings and bunkers to like 1/4 of its current value. That should help a lot.

Base rapes should be possible, just not such no brain style and a bit harder to pull off.

Last edited June 8, 2011 at 8:43 PM by dArCReAvEr

I would like that change to at grenades against buildings also, and thanks for the tips...that's probably why I find mg's so ineffective against those rushes(doesn't even really stop the tank hunters in their tracks)...i rarely get support vet, and I guess the faster fire rate on snipers makes them much more effective even when the blobs are in full force.

PE can do exactly the same with Teller mines, which are even more devastating. What people should try as Russians is laying an AT mine over a normal mine so the normal mine detonates when infantry are near, also exploding the AT mine which is much more powerful. Of course this makes it a 75MU mine but it's usually worth it.

Joshua9 wrote:
Second, AT mines coupled with AT grenades...and it makes for hilariously effective anti infantry at choke-points...etc.  Without fail, an AT grenade chucked at an AT mine will detonate it and kill everything in the vicinity. 

Yauz wrote:
I don't think that's a very big issue, and it might even be a legit / valid tactic in CoH.  However, if a lot of people feel this tactic is unfair...

Seems like an exploit to me... but All's Fair in Love and Wargames. Soldiers have never really worried about inappropriate use of technology if it saved their butts... iirc In N.Italy some G.I.s stampeded a farmer's dairy herd over a suspected mine field. The result: Hamburger all over the highway and one very pissed farmer!

Joshua9 wrote:
by the way, I lost 2 vet-2 full health storm squads with about 225 munitions invested into them to a single errant shrek when I was sitting on one of those mines...this may be just as possible when dealing with PE mines and probably is, but it was rather frustrating.

Maybe its not a good idea to deploy in a known mine field?

Otto wrote:

Joshua9 wrote:
by the way, I lost 2 vet-2 full health storm squads with about 225 munitions invested into them to a single errant shrek when I was sitting on one of those mines...this may be just as possible when dealing with PE mines and probably is, but it was rather frustrating.

Maybe its not a good idea to deploy in a known mine field?

Maybe youre ST squad was so heaviely equipped they triggered the mine that normally only tanks trigger. ;D
Massed dead Stormtroopers allways make my day. 8)

Paciat wrote:

Otto wrote:

Joshua9 wrote:
by the way, I lost 2 vet-2 full health storm squads with about 225 munitions invested into them to a single errant shrek when I was sitting on one of those mines...this may be just as possible when dealing with PE mines and probably is, but it was rather frustrating.

Maybe its not a good idea to deploy in a known mine field?

Massed dead Stormtroopers allways make my day. 8)

oh yeah killin some krauts 8) ;D

hehe...they were pretty laden...as to "known" mine field....that's really the trick...one single mine in the corner of a map that takes 30 seconds to place...so I didn't know I was sitting on top of one until all my men exploded. 

As to PE, yes I was pretty sure it was a tactic employed, but thought that it was a little less certain given old scatter,(also do the PE grenades throw at the same range as the tank hunter grenades?  if so chock the question off to impaired senses in the heat of seeing so much red).  Still, the PE trick costs.  Doing this is so easy its  a matter of convenience rather than planning.  Also, I hope that mines can't be placed under or on-top of AT mines.  Didn't they actually make that impossible with teller mines at some point for this very reason?

Joshua9 wrote:
...do the PE grenades throw at the same range as the tank hunter grenades?  if so chock the question off to impaired senses in the heat of seeing so much red...

Excellent question. I often get the feeling that the other guy can throw farther than I can. Its probably sour grapes on my part. Aerodynamically an Amis frag would fly faster, a potato masher would fly further because of the longer moment arm and a molotov would have the slowest shortest trajectory in the physical world. In the virtual world? Does anyone know?

Otto wrote:

Joshua9 wrote:
...do the PE grenades throw at the same range as the tank hunter grenades?  if so chock the question off to impaired senses in the heat of seeing so much red...

Excellent question. I often get the feeling that the other guy can throw farther than I can. Its probably sour grapes on my part. Aerodynamically an Amis frag would fly faster, a potato masher would fly further because of the longer moment arm and a molotov would have the slowest shortest trajectory in the physical world. In the virtual world? Does anyone know?

I think they will in the next patch :P

Otto wrote:

Joshua9 wrote:
...do the PE grenades throw at the same range as the tank hunter grenades?  if so chock the question off to impaired senses in the heat of seeing so much red...

Excellent question. I often get the feeling that the other guy can throw farther than I can. Its probably sour grapes on my part. Aerodynamically an Amis frag would fly faster, a potato masher would fly further because of the longer moment arm and a molotov would have the slowest shortest trajectory in the physical world. In the virtual world? Does anyone know?

Try throwing an actual bottle, half of it being filled with any liquid.
The liquid will gather on the bottom of the bottle creating an "arm"  similar to potato mashers arm.

I don't think a molotov is thrown by spinning it, I think it's thrown like a shot put.

SnappingTurtle wrote:
I don't think a molotov is thrown by spinning it, I think it's thrown like a shot put.

I've thrown a few. They're best when thrown underhanded at short range though if you're good you can chuck it pretty far with an overhand throw.

Spinning is a problem, unless the rag is tightly secured to where it won't move if held upside down then it won't be such a problem, you just have to worry about the flame going out.

Molotovs are fun and dangerous :D

Back OT: Yes a AT mine health buff is a good option here.

People, here i came again with balance questions to perturb you all. Sorry, but I came with Humidity and I'm in the best of intentions with no "fanboy aspirations" about any faction or these things.  ;)

I know that the post is long, but I like the details and I want to explain it right to make sure that all understand the point.

Recently, I've discussed extensively and intensively with some high lvl players  (like Itaperuna, Cebi and SgtYoda/3Pastel1Choops - all 3 players are lvl 16 on 1v1 automatch, being Itaperuna top 18 PE/US 1v1) about Tank Hunter squads. They all play EF almost all day with me ultimately, with all factions. Again, please don't take this as arrogance, I just want to show that we have some knowledge about the game mechanics.

In our evaluation and conversations, we find that Tank Hunters need some changes that I will suggest later.

Well... the problem is that: Tank Hunters squads are supposedly to be an soft counter to armor, specially the light armor. Why? Because the fuel cost and time to take the first of them on the field: They just cost 35 fuel to make.

1.) Lets analyze with others early AT's:

US: 15+50+45 = 110 fuel (the high amount necessary is justified because US have the fastest capping of the game).
Wher: 35 + 25 = 60 fuel (for a "flankeable" pak or spend 75 ammo to get a Panzerschreck)
Brit: 15 + 35 + (25 for a static 17 pounder, 15 for a static boffors (only effective against light armor like AC's, HT's), 45 for a Stuart or 75 ammo to upgrade a Sapper) = 75/65/95/0 fuel (75 ammo)
PE: 20+35 OR 20+30+40+40 OR 20+30+15 (50 ammo for TD for a OK use) = 55/130/65 fuel
Soviets: 35 fuel. Only that.  :P

Soviets have the fastest deployment and cheapest AT unit (in fuel cost to make the first unit) of the game.

2.) Tank Hunters are a soft Anti-Armor counter like airborne, rangers, etc, like all other anti tank infantry is. But these units have reinforcement costs far beyond the 28 mp cost of TH (Airborne/Ranger = 45, PG = 45, Grenadiers = 37, Sappers = 35)
All these units mentioned above are T2 units or doctrinal units (and cost more fuel, as mentioned before).

3.) With a little more fuel (35) The "Tier 1.5" tank hunters can go out on the world with Soviet AT Gun, making a complete anti-tank solution, for light and heavy armor, with mines and at nades, for just 70 fuel.

4.) Tank Hunters perform so well against infantry, when used in large numbers that make difficult to use infantry to counter a large blob of this unit, that supposedly was to be a anti-tank unit.

5.) Tank Hunters have a too high probability to pierce trough heavy frontal armor (like phanters, P4, Willberwind, Ostwind, StuG, StuH and so on) and they shot very fast (I don't write down the exact time, but think is about 5s, 3 second less than a shreck)!

6.) Tank Hunters have other abilities like AT Nades and "Teller mines" (I really DON'T see this as a problem, like post creator related. PE can do the same thing and this is not unbalance, as mine locations are somewhat predictable and clever players allways bring a mine detector).

7.) We think that players should use TH and other ATs solutions together to make a effective, balanced and interesting way to deal with axis armor. For example: TH + AT gun, TH + Mines, TH + Su-85 or T70. But actually, players just can make a large amount of TH squads + sharpshooter teams and just blob, there is no effective counter for in current patch, nor skill/little micro necessary.

This all above is just to give base to arguments. Our suggestions to balance the Tank Hunter:

Quote a) Decrease weapon penetration values (specially against heavy armor), but let damage as it is. This will ensure that he is a counter ONLY for light armor. TH in conjunction with AT Guns would still perform great against AC's, SC, Puma, HT. As the Axis armies need bigger amount of fuel to make heavy tanks, Soviets should need a equally larger amounts of fuel to make a effective counter against them.

Quote b) Increase Squad cost and reinforcement cost: As mentioned before, the squad cost AND the reinforcement cost is too low, this ensure that a player can't just blob them. Player will need to be more careful and smart, using them together with other units, making ambushes, placing mines, etc.

I think 320 manpower and 35 reinforce cost should be OK. Compare:

Rangers = 400, doctrinal unit.
Airborne = 375 (need a 125 ammo up), doctrinal unit.
PG = 360 or 25 + 75 ammo. Tier 2.
Brits = 320 + 75 ammo, tier 2 unit.

Other comparison:
Airborne unit have a 6 member squad. The proportional reinforce cost per member is 72% of a new squad (375mp)(remember, doctrinal, require ammo...).
Ranger: 69% (doctrinal)
Soviet TH: 40%  :o

Quote c) Decrease firing rate a little. Something about 1s or 1,5s should be ok.

"a" and "b" is urgent thing. I suggest strongly it to be done.
"c" Its a suggestion that may not be necessary if "a" and "b" is made.

Sorry for the long post, I can attach replays if necessary.
Plz read and counterargument freely if you wish.

Currently we set mines to be used after Men agains Tanks is researched but this definitely would help to balance those guys.

Tankhunters shouldnt be compared to other AT infantry. They have puny rifles, low HP lower xp bonuses than US infantry. They aren versatile as shreck Grens or PGrens. However Naval Infantry are a problem. 1 squad with its cheap upgrade can replace a squad os Strelky and a second squad of Tankhunters. No extra fuel needed.

blackbishop wrote:
Currently we set mines to be used after Men agains Tanks is researched but this definitely would help to balance those guys.

The mine is not a problem blackbishop. I think its OK.

QuoteTankhunters shouldnt be compared to other AT infantry. They have puny rifles, low HP lower xp bonuses than US infantry. They aren versatile as shreck Grens or PGrens. However Naval Infantry are a problem. 1 squad with its cheap upgrade can replace a squad os Strelky and a second squad of Tankhunters. No extra fuel needed.

Sure, If they was to be so versatile, they would cost 400mp instead 280, have a 70% reinforce cost and be a 2/3 CP doctrinal unit that don't come to game at 4 minutes or need 100+ ammo upgrade to be really efective.  :P

Naval Infantry I think its OK as far I played with them, but can't give a precise testimonial because dont remember costs, reinforce, etc, etc, as I'm not so found of this doctrine.

Last edited July 1, 2011 at 7:00 AM by SuperSoca

This thread isn't about OP NI. It's about THs.

They are fine. Their low reinforce is tied to their low health. They do piss poor damage and cannot penetrate most tanks from the front. They bounce off and do 0.15 deflection damage, which is extremely minimal. They are ineffective against infantry and pretty crap against light vehicles without the Men Against Tanks upgrade. With it, there is a combined tech cost of 75FU. Honestly, they are pretty crap.

"crap" seems like a definite overstatement...

these guys coupled with a single well placed mine will guarantee a dead tank(it ALWAYS immobilizes), be that tank vetted panther or tiger, and they can handle it on their own. god forbid your tanks are too close together when it goes off. They are blazing fast, so while they may not penetrate frontal armor at a signifigant rate(I'll take your word for it...that small percentage does add up fast to me, given their rate of fire) it hardly matters, as they will often overrun flanks and put expensive tanks on the retreat to go lick their wounds.

By itself, I don't have a problem with the damage they do though, and with the two changes to mines mentioned in this thread, I think tank hunters will become much more reasonable for the price, not to mention the apparent nerf that is coming for guards, who are such effective backup midgame in small numbers.

I do hope that something will be done about the damage at grenades do to buildings(this also nullifies the point of making bunkers anywhere but deep into your own territory-tank hunters make shorter work of them than airborne and come earlier)  Running headlong into base defenses doesn't seem like it should be a strategy that reaps the kind of rewards it does.

Yes, IIRC TH AT nades vs buildings were nerfed, don't remember if their upgraded version was.

TH's suck and are kited by armor and killed by infantry, if anything they're a liability unless you trap or immobilize somehting

they're the worst AT option available to any faction i'd rather have zooks!

Last edited July 1, 2011 at 8:00 PM by RedGuard

GodlikeDennis wrote:
This thread isn't about OP NI. It's about THs.

They are fine. Their low reinforce is tied to their low health. They do piss poor damage and cannot penetrate most tanks from the front. They bounce off and do 0.15 deflection damage, which is extremely minimal. They are ineffective against infantry and pretty crap against light vehicles without the Men Against Tanks upgrade. With it, there is a combined tech cost of 75FU. Honestly, they are pretty crap.

Yeah in 1.3 they were insane, now they arent that big a deal especially against high vet tanks they basically do no damage and get ran over trying to throw there grenade. I only build then against Panzer Elite.

The only thing that drives me crazy is trying to kill them with infantry when im screening tanks. They pop into camo so fast u can normally fire 1 round at them.

A sniper at riflemen blob sounds quite expensive to be that good, the strum ingency with flames & at riflemen blob that Yauz used on me 1 game was much scarier/ impossible to deal with.

really?

cuz wehr tanks just don't kite that well.  They aren't very fast, and tank hunters ARE, especially with ability boosts, doctrinal or commisar based.

haha are you sure we're playing the same game?  :o  :P

ostwind, panzer IV, panther, tiger, you can even kite infantry with a king tiger given its tracks arent damaged  ::)
did i mention puma  AC and whirlbe too

Last edited July 1, 2011 at 8:29 PM by RedGuard

constantly unsure.  I am well aware that most of you guys are better players.  more replays between you better players would be appreciated...maybe they won't match up with my version...heh.  By the way, given that you, as a solid player are privvy to making these, I think that the best argument you could make for your point would be to post more.

but sans that, are you saying tank hunters aren't fast?  or that wehr tanks are particularly apt at kiting?  they certainly have nothing on the tanks of other factions in that way...russian tanks are better for it, american tanks are better for it, cromwells are better at it...its not a strength I think they need to have, but I find that when my russian opponent is going a heavy infantry strat coupled with tank hunters, that tanks become a liability, even vetted.  You can't be saying that if 4 squads of relatively cheap tank hunters do get close enough to a vet 3 panther or p4 that their guns coupled with at grenades won't destroy it in seconds.

im saying that its very easy to kite infantry no matter what infantry it is, or any vehicle it is. it is easy believe me and your infantry will take heavy losses in the process while tanks are repaired for virtually no cost

the only way to counter vehicles with infantry is to use AT guns, or to seriously surprise the enemy or catch them not looking

wow!

I'd love to see your work with PUMAs against tank hunters...that would truly make me feel lousy about my play.  are you sure their sight range isn't nearly matched by the range of tank hunter weapons?  because I can't find an effective point of engagement, and those weapons do quite well against puma armor.

also, are you sure you can kite a charging force that has either the commisar ability activated or the doctrinal one activated?  that shit moves pretty fast, and static defenses usually get broken up by comissar arty

Last edited July 1, 2011 at 8:35 PM by Joshua9

you'll come out on the losing end usually with the puma vs tank hunter battle, given you dont do anything stupid with the puma to get it killed

simply kite and repair the puma when needed, the puma cannon shreds infantry that arent in cover. it will drain the soviets manpower and with axis infantry on the field it only becomes a turkey shoot

green cover is really the only way to gain the upper hand in this situation but in a real game its never as simple as just tank hunters versus a vehicle theres many more factors involved

im not the only one joshua many others will tell you the same

As a now 4 year American player, I can say that I really do hate THs. Theyre wielding pretty much vanilla Boys AT rifles with new aestetics and a slight nerf, yes? I don't see them as much more than a Fal squad + PzBusche rifle (lol, EiR mod talking there). Id much rather tech to ATGs because they're more viable and recrewable. ATGs also turn the tables, literally; in Soviet Russia, ATG kites you!

GodlikeDennis wrote:
This thread isn't about OP NI. It's about THs.

They are fine. Their low reinforce is tied to their low health. They do piss poor damage and cannot penetrate most tanks from the front. They bounce off and do 0.15 deflection damage, which is extremely minimal. They are ineffective against infantry and pretty crap against light vehicles without the Men Against Tanks upgrade. With it, there is a combined tech cost of 75FU. Honestly, they are pretty crap.

You are mistaken GodlikeDenis. Reinforcement cost is'n tied to health, and yes by how powerfull/usable is an unit and the army structure. If was tied to health, an Sharpshoter team would have something like 40 reinforcement cost, or a sniper would cust something like 150 manpower.

The bounce off and 0.15 damage you talk is minimal if you take account only and purely for the damage and ignore other factors. In truth, they penetrate even Phanter armor from the FRONT, and the 0.15 bonce off damage must be taken in account the rate of fire, that is something like 1.5 x a shreck or ranger's zooka, and the precision, that is far beyond Shreck/Bazooka, specially at long range. With Man Against Tanks upgrade, is double trouble.

I launch an challenge: I will play Soviet and make just 3 units in the late game: Tank Hunters, Sharpshoter teams and keep 1 or 2 IS-2's. Anyone that wins over me can put replay here for analyze and maybe I can recognize that I'm wrong.

Wanna try, contact me over the steam: SuperSoca.

PS: My sugestions:

- Reduce TH penetration against heavy armor OR lower bounce off damage against heavy armor (GodLikeDennis suggested without wanting  ;)).

OR/AND (problly "AND"):

- Increase Squad cost and reinforcement cost to about 320/40 (60% reinforcement cost, that will still lower than most other units of the game, and equal to Conscripts and Riflemans :o) (at current state, its lower than ENGINEERS (46%).

Last edited July 2, 2011 at 2:29 AM by SuperSoca

Have any of you noticed how Tank Hunters suffer insane damage from Armored cars ? if you try a 1v1 armored car vs tank hunters (even if you use the anti tank grenade) the tank hunters always lose and the Armored car always keeps at least 40% of its health .
And because Soviets lack early game vehicles , German Armored Cars are almost invincible in the early game , Tank Hunters aren't cost effective in dealing with armored cars and Anti Tank guns aren't effective against fast moving vehicles , they are easily circled and once they are circled the crew dies within seconds with the armored car gun .

My suggestion would be to  somehow give Tank Hunters better armor against armored car guns or increase their health in general .
Because if you also try 1v1 TankHunters vs PE assault granadiers with panzerschreck you will notice the huge difference in health between the two .

Thats why tank hunters are better in groups. make at least 3 of them, than PE light vehicles are easy prey.

You have to protect your atgun. Hold your infantry nearby. If you have no AT at all then a angry conscript blob can destroy a AC too ;)

You're not using your THs correctly if they're being decimated. Sit in heavy cover protecting an AT gun.