Company of Heroes: Eastern Front

Author Topic: 1.4 Tank Hunters  (Read 11932 times)

Offline Joshua9

  • Donor
  • Guard
  • *
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
Re: 1.4 Tank Hunters
« Reply #30 on: July 01, 2011, 10:32:43 PM »
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 Edit: July 01, 2011, 10:35:19 PM by Joshua9 »

Offline RedGuard

  • Mr. Spam
  • *
  • Posts: 1014
  • Welcome to Axis Front mod
    • View Profile
Re: 1.4 Tank Hunters
« Reply #31 on: July 01, 2011, 10:36:17 PM »
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
Soviet is OP

Offline TheVolskinator

  • Guard
  • ***
  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
    • Deutschland’s Mächtiger Ostheer!
Re: 1.4 Tank Hunters
« Reply #32 on: July 02, 2011, 02:36:32 AM »
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!
Quote from: Pocketsize
I can't wait till they add british to CoH:O; the extreme forces leveled by the new imbalances will create a black hole around the servers that destroys half of Canada.

Offline SuperSoca

  • Guard
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
    • Orkut
Re: 1.4 Tank Hunters
« Reply #33 on: July 02, 2011, 04:14:52 AM »
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 Edit: July 02, 2011, 04:29:43 AM by SuperSoca »

Offline GnrlKhalid

  • Ingenery
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: 1.4 Tank Hunters
« Reply #34 on: July 13, 2011, 01:17:25 PM »

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 .

Killar

  • Guest
Re: 1.4 Tank Hunters
« Reply #35 on: July 13, 2011, 01:33:33 PM »
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 ;)

Offline GodlikeDennis

  • Donor
  • Poster of the Soviet Union
  • *
  • Posts: 4454
    • View Profile
Re: 1.4 Tank Hunters
« Reply #36 on: July 13, 2011, 02:48:08 PM »
You're not using your THs correctly if they're being decimated. Sit in heavy cover protecting an AT gun.
If you get into an argument with me, you're wrong.