Yeah no shit they are like 5 man Obers with 5 Panzerfusillier g43's. at vet 0.
I find 10 pop too much only
Posts: 112
Yeah no shit they are like 5 man Obers with 5 Panzerfusillier g43's. at vet 0.
Posts: 1563
So 4 men Ober's with 9 pop are not much but somehow 5 man Obers with 5x PF g43's are. Insane maybe we should just make all axis squads have 3 models.
I find 10 pop too much only
Posts: 112
So 4 men Ober's with 9 pop are not much but somehow 5 man Obers with 5x PF g43's are. Insane maybe we should just make all axis squads have 3 models.
Posts: 1563
Are you fking high.
its both different units with different strenghts, none is better than the other. So no, 9 pop for both it should be.
Posts: 103
maybe we should just make all axis squads have 3 models.
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
Posts: 615
It's deserved. The RE rifle grenade takes zero micro and denies cover, both of which are important mechanics of the game.
Posts: 1563
Maybe I will.
I'd like that. You should suggest that to the balance team.
Posts: 359
Posts: 359
I guess Rangers weren't OP enough. Not like that a 5 man squad with near Ober levels of RA + 5 PF g43's wasn't enough. They need to be even stronger. Wow you know not just make all the axis squad have 3 models and increase their cost by 20% and lower their reinforcement speed by 33% aswell.
Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6
3. Youve effectively made the Pershing worse
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Just like I assume literally NO ONE on this forum, asked for the third RE rifle nade nerf in a row. Seriously, I have no clue what balance team is smoking on this one.
Posts: 44
Posts: 359
Please elaborate how these changes make it worse.
The DR will be adjusted to reach 960 hp again.
Posts: 359
Well, I do understand the reasoning behind that change, but I'm also completely confused by the origin of that change.
Is it so prevalent in 4v4 for it to be an issue, despite not a single living soul complaining about it?
Posts: 359
Here are some suggestions for this Commander patch.
First, let's start with thanks to the modding team for making the patch.
However, it is a feedback that I think we need to make some additional suggestions, so I would like you to look at it.
And this opinion is not 100% my opinion, but rather as a reference to the opinions of the Coh2 players around me.
1. Additional buff proposal for Easy Eight tank
First of all, I think it is very encouraging to approach the concept of premium tanks like the Comat tank.
As a result, buffing the tank's gun range from 40 to 45 and improving the vehicle's speed and turning speed seem to be good intentions.
However, I am concerned that the penetration power will decrease as the range of the tank increases.
In fact, I think the reason why Easy Eight is not used compared to the 76 Sherman tank is the low medium-to-long penetration compared to the Hvap.
So I would like to suggest an additional buff.
It seems we need a way to buff the conventional tank gun penetration from 200/165/155 to 200/185/170.
If you do this, I think you can make sense even if you nerf the fuel requirement for the current Easy Eight tank from 140 to 150.
Snip 2nd bullet
3. Exchange between Rangers and Assault Engineers of the Urban Assault Company.
I think this opinion is probably the most difficult to understand from the perspective of users who read it. But I think this is absolutely necessary. According to the current patch, the units to support Calliope and armored battles are rather than Rangers.
Assault Engineers is good. Because it is much easier to conduct defense operations as explosives or mine operations that Rangers do not have, they are helpful in repairing tanks and Calliope, equipped with flamethrowers necessary for urban operations, and are the core of repelling enemies in buildings than Rangers. I think it can play an important role.
You may not like the above 3 kinds of feedback. However, I am convinced that this combination fits the AEF company concept of maximizing the character of the commander. Also, if you consider the elements of the game balance, I think that it is neither excessive buff nor excessive nerf. That's all the feedback I thought of. Thanks for reading. And thank you to the modding team working on better content.
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
Please elaborate how these changes make it worse.
The DR will be adjusted to reach 960 hp again.
Posts: 359
Why is this nickpicking on comment?
You always do that, cherrypicking a comment that may be not true to avoid engaging discussion on far more consistent points that have been made above. Pershing could be worst or not with this change this is so insigniant and so far from what make the pershing a bad unit that you're just adding insult over the insult.
We're waiting for your comment on all the points that have been made, not just the pershing change that is going to change nothing because the pershing isn't a damage sponge as the KV1 and what it need isn't repairing faster but taking less damage. We know that you know that but for some reason you don't want to do anything about it.
So say it: The balance team don't want to make the Pershing more relevant and that's it... Fuck, Joder, Putain. Stop being a dick.
Posts: 208
Because any type of ability that has a multiplicative damage is going to eat through it like it doesnt have DR right? So it seems like we traded being weaker against stuff like Mark Target for a faster repair speed? And even if thats not the case, the reason pershing was underperforming and needed help was because it wasnt effective at any one thing. It couldn't soak shots, its not the AI machine it used to be, its AT is l0l worthy, there is just no place for it in your army. This unit won't see any more play than previously with these changes and if that is indeed the case, this was a bad change as it didnt accomplish its goal.
92 | |||||
1 | |||||
137 | |||||
21 | |||||
13 | |||||
4 | |||||
3 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |