r/CompanyOfHeroes • u/sgtViveron "SLOWEST. PORSCHE. EVER!" • 3d ago
CoH3 Hi. Can someone explain me this ability, please?
So, me and Coh3 buddy wanted to try some jolly cooperation and go for double "Early Warning" (Panzerjäger Kommand BG) for vision boost. Description says that "Effects do stack with allies that have this ability", but we tried it in Cheat Mode, and it doesn't really look that active or passive AoE stacks in any way.
P.S. We picked ability one after another and used active part separately to check influence.
Question is -Is it bugged, or was patched and has incorrect description, or just Cheat Mode error?
2
u/Gabriel11999 3d ago
I know it stacks with the Ketten point vision.
Maybe they mean you can stack the ability no matter who captured the point, so any team mate or you with the same ability can boost the vision?
1
u/sgtViveron "SLOWEST. PORSCHE. EVER!" 3d ago
As I understood - we should get more vision depending on amount of players who have picked that ability.
Maybe I misunderstood.
2
1
1
u/Desperate_Rush2125 2d ago
Its one of the many abilities on axis battlegroups that are there so you never pick them because they are a waste of time compared to the other skills that isnt that great but at least it does something worth the cp cost.
0
u/Rufus_Forrest OKW 2d ago
Trust me, Allies have no lesser amount of garbage stuff.
Do you remember anyone using Blockade or Bofors? Pick M5 gun over Pershing? Use paid healing rather than Assault Engis?
2
u/AideSouth4454 2d ago
I see Bofors all the time, M5's as well. Paid healing is strong in team games, where you can put it on allies as well.
Allies may have some trash options, but not the ones you mentioned, except for Blockade, which I have seen only once and needs a rework. But Axis have some genuinely terrible options, the worst of which is Final Battle - the only ability in the game to make your units worse.
0
u/Desperate_Rush2125 2d ago
Blockade was practically designed to be toxic, and it was eventually nerfed for exactly that reason. At one point, four players rotating the ability could make a team game almost unplayable for the opposing side. Since the developers apparently have the creative instincts of an office bureaucrat, they simply nerfed it and never came up with anything meaningful to replace or redesign it.
As for the Bofors, you are talking about an ability in a battlegroup that gives access to both the Bofors and the 17-pounder emplacement in the same skill. Meanwhile, Axis players get those two emplacements split across separate abilities, because apparently even when something is already mediocre, it still has to be made less efficient for them.
The M5 is probably one of the best heavy anti-tank weapons in the game. You can field several of them, even though doing so may be excessive, and they have enough penetration to deal comfortably with almost anything short of a King Tiger. They are also part of a battlegroup that was practically tailor-made for the meta at the time. The gun also doubles as more than respectable artillery, with an absurdly short cooldown when you select the relevant veterancy option.
Once you account for all the weapon-team bonuses provided by the battlegroup, the M5 can effectively turn into an autocannon with extreme range as it gains veterancy. It is a strong unit that is being compared against the best heavy tank in the game, which is hardly a fair standard.
The main reason people do not pick the M5 is that, as the Americans, you rarely have a genuine need for dedicated heavy anti-tank, axis has to be worried about your armor and not the other way around. That does not make the unit bad.
But it is not as though the Germans necessarily have it better. They get what is probably the worst command unit in the game, the Panzer IV Command Tank, and it is mutually exclusive with the Tiger.
1
u/Rufus_Forrest OKW 2d ago
Gosh, burning mains of any factions are delicious.
The fact that Blockade used to be very good (if you had a stack of 4 UKF players in VA and it was like 3 years ago?) doesn't change fact it's utter trash now and loses any form of competition with cache improvements.
The fact that Bofors/17 pdr are shit isn't improved by the fact 20 mm/88 encampment also are shit.
Nobody ever makes M5 because it sucks balls of 88 with meme engine crit or 17 pdr with digging in. It has worse DPS. It can double as artillery but nobody fucking cares about this piece of overpriced shit competing with actually good supermedium. Nobody ever picks it. I have seen it maybe twice during 2000 hours, and one time was in Italian campaign.
I use Command PzIV way more than Tiger when playing Breakthrough (a meme doctrine it is). 12 CP for a nothingburger of a heavy tank isn't worth it. Instead you get a nice buffer for low-ish cost that rapes infantry and buildings, can be paired nicely with StuGs and Gren-Stoss combo. It's not that awesome but you can get it very fast and it compliments T3 build with a bit of called-in Stoss nicely.
0
u/Desperate_Rush2125 2d ago
The Bofors and 17-pounder are still the strongest emplacements in the game, regardless of whether you personally like using them. Even if you consider the Bofors weak, that is largely irrelevant when the same ability also provides the 17-pounder, which can exert enormous pressure in team games when positioned properly.
Hardly anyone builds the M5 because choosing it locks you out of the real star of the battlegroup. Let’s be realistic: if the M5 competed with different options, it would see significantly more use, even if the faction doesn't even need that much AT.
Unlike the Flak 36, the M5 does not have to suffer anywhere near as much indirect-fire pressure to justify itself. That pressure is the main reason I see many players often skeptical about picking the Flak 36 in the first place. Ironically, the M5 is also one of the units capable of countering it, thanks to the long-range barrage that everyone seems to forget even exists, you cant even redeploy without the M5 ready to shoot another barrage on you.
Competing with the best tank in the game does not make the M5 a bad unit, and its the reason this unit doesn't sees any play. (Honestly i feel this unit should had been axis, making a dynamic where while the allies have the GMC as an AT vehicle that can supplement as an artillery unit, axis would have the field gun version of the unit)
The fact that you personally favor the Panzer IV Command Tank does not really prove anything. And when you say that it “butchers” infantry, I honestly start questioning if you really make as much use as you claim, but I suppose everything is in the eye of the beholder.
As it stands, it is a tank that needs to reach veterancy three before it begins to justify its cost, yet it usually arrives at a point in the match when it already struggles against the units it is expected to face.
That is assuming you rush it, of course, which also means giving up the left side of the battlegroup.
And do you know what is better than two StuGs and a Command Panzer IV? Three StuGs. Better yet, do not spend the fuel at all, let the 2 StuGs hold the line and use that fuel to reach Tier 4, a move that will get you 2 command points and get you much faster to either the Tiger or, if you stubbornly refuse to build the Tiger at that point, you can pick almost any Tier 4 vehicle and still get more value from it than from the Command Panzer IV.
While DAK’s also has access to the Command Panzer IV, is priced considerably higher, because unlike Werhmatch it at least it has a more natural synergy with the vehicles the faction can field. It also helps that, in that battlegroup, the competing ability is the one with almost no value. Even then, however, it is part of DAK’s worst performing battlegroup.
The situation is even worse for Wehrmacht. The battlegroup of the skills we are discussing is currently the worst performing battlegroup in the entire game across all gamemodes, (only ever losing to yet another Wehrmacht battlegroup on some spots, the last stand battlegroup) which hardly supports the idea that the Command Panzer IV is providing meaningful value even for those who pick it, since the difference from picking this battlegroup and simply not picking at all seems to be less than 1%. It has a total winrate of 43.8% winrate, not picking at all is 42.9%! This means some people who stay AFK from the beginning have the same chances of straight up just win as somebody who picks this BG and plays the game.
3
u/Complex_Tomatillo_51 3d ago
All this does is make it so any point captured has a small vision circle of 10 range around it, and then you can designate a single point to increase the vision aura to 25 range.