State of the balance according to Imperial Dane

Pretty sure you're the only one putting your foot in your mouth. You made a completely false claim, got disproved by math and game mechanics and are now grasping at straws to try and somehow still make your statement valid, when it isn't... sorry bro...

I'm not the one who tried to claim that PaK guns are bouncing off E8s at all ranges. FFS, you've probably got a better chance of missing your target outright than bouncing the shot.

You can argue about the cost/effectiveness of the unit all you want, but trying to pass that turd just isn't going to happen. Sorry your pal got called out on a stupid statement, but there it is.

The discussion could have been avoided if MilkaCow said that shots CAN bounce at all ranges against E8 Sherman, instead of "bounce at all ranges" that seems to imply that 100% of the shots bounce. It's just a semantical discussion what you are having there and it's pointless to continue with that.

Although he's right about everything else.

I'm not the one who tried to claim that PaK guns are bouncing off E8s at all ranges. FFS, you've probably got a better chance of missing your target outright than bouncing the shot.

You can argue about the cost/effectiveness of the unit all you want, but trying to pass that turd just isn't going to happen. Sorry your pal got called out on a stupid statement, but there it is.

I don't get your point... Paks can bounce off the Easy Eight at all ranges, so his claim is correct. What's the deal here?

maybe if you pine over an excel spreadsheet it does

when you actually play the game, the pak gun is going to pen the E8 and damage it

implying the armor of the E8 is too good because AT like PaKs and shrecks have a miniscule chance to bounce off of it is bullshit

The discussion could have been avoided if MilkaCow said that shots CAN bounce at all ranges against E8 Sherman, instead of "bounce at all ranges" that seems to imply that 100% of the shots bounce. It's just a semantical discussion what you are having there and it's pointless to continue with that.

Yea.. well.. usually if we discuss things "bouncing" means that shots do not reliably penetrate. There are just two possibilities, either it always penetrates or it doesn't. It's not possible that it always bounces, that's why differentiating between "can bounce" and "always bounces" is unnecessary. That's why we usually use "bounces" to indicate it does not reliably penetrate. I see that it's not really that obvious in the first post, that's why I added an explanation to the subsequent ones to make it easier to understand for people outside of the group.

maybe if you pine over an excel spreadsheet it does

when you actually play the game, the pak gun is going to pen the E8 and damage it

implying the armor of the E8 is too good because AT like PaKs and shrecks have a miniscule chance to bounce off of it is bullshit

The game is basically a graphical version of the spreadsheet with randomness, where the spreadsheet is usually averages. I never implied the armor is too good, just that it's not in line for the cost.

maybe if you pine over an excel spreadsheet it does

when you actually play the game, the pak gun is going to pen the E8 and damage it

implying the armor of the E8 is too good because AT like PaKs and shrecks have a miniscule chance to bounce off of it is bullshit

Actually Panzerschreck does have a pretty good chance to bounce, particularly at longer range (74% to pen vs 215 armour at far range). However the argument wasn't just that the Eazy8 has overall similar toughness to T-34/85, Eazy8 itself also has better AT capabilities than T-34/85. Also, the fact that you can call them in 1 at a time makes them relatively easy to spam.

In other words, Eazy8 performance itself isn't necessarily a problem, the problem is the spammability combined with the performance, hence the call for a cost increase, as currently the Eazy8 is underpriced relative to its performance.

Milka: "Bounce" is just another colloquilaism for a non-penetrating hit, like "deflect".

Bounce is appropriate cos, well, its bit silly how in CoH2 they really do graphically bounce as if they where made of rubber.

I'm sure the 50 or so odd people that play 1v1 will be greatly offended

Heheheh

PIV shells bouncing off the ass of an ISU. That's what I'm concerned about..

6 consecutive deflections, failure to pen... 'Bounces' if you will, in a single game. From a vet 2 PIV.

So not fair.

I'm not the one who tried to claim that PaK guns are bouncing off E8s at all ranges. FFS, you've probably got a better chance of missing your target outright than bouncing the shot.

You can argue about the cost/effectiveness of the unit all you want, but trying to pass that turd just isn't going to happen. Sorry your pal got called out on a stupid statement, but there it is.

Except that's not what he says, he says it has a CHANCE of bouncing at all ranges.

PIV shells bouncing off the ass of an ISU. That's what I'm concerned about..

6 consecutive deflections, failure to pen... 'Bounces' if you will, in a single game. From a vet 2 PIV.

So not fair.

As far as I know veterancy does not improve the penetration of tank guns, only their damage and Range. Also Vet improves health, armour, rate of fire (Reloads), mobility (acceleration & traverse speed), turret traverse or accuracy.

Tank destroyers might get increase penetration from veterancy.

There is a thread/guide with all the veterancy bonuses but it has not been updated for quite a while.

Maybe one of the file diggers that know the mechanics of CoH 2 inside out such as Ipkaifung or Milkacow can confirm or deny it.

PIV shells bouncing off the ass of an ISU. That's what I'm concerned about..

6 consecutive deflections, failure to pen... 'Bounces' if you will, in a single game. From a vet 2 PIV.

So not fair.

meh, i've had t34's that couldn't pen my kingtiger in the ass. rng?

PIV shells bouncing off the ass of an ISU. That's what I'm concerned about..

6 consecutive deflections, failure to pen... 'Bounces' if you will, in a single game. From a vet 2 PIV.

So not fair.

I noticed that too. Soviet heavies are totally beefed up. I experienced two Panzer IVs just pinging shots at an unsupported IS-2s side/rear armor for what felt like half a minute. When the support arrived, the IS-2 was still standing and I wanted to finish it off. Result: Two Panzer IVs destroyed and an intact IS-2.

If that was a Tiger versus two T-34/85s, the Tiger - being shot in the side and rear- would have gone down within seconds.

Apart from a small cost increase, I'm pretty sure the E8 doesn't need a nerf. It's a powerful, doctrinal medium tank, sure, and the armor is sweet, but 640 HP leaves not a look of margin for errors. Maybe reduce its AI power a bit.

Just like any other call in it nneds some kind of tech restriction. many soviet and ost player still hang around in the lowest tiers saving up huge amount of fuel and mp and then overwhelm you with their call ins.

This makes any commander with no heavy or medium call ins slightly UP.

Lol is so strange that medium tanks fail to pen heavy rear all the time? playing with shermans(non-doc), its a bounce fest no matter where you are shooting them.

This game never will get balance...

Some OP things never change...

Maxpin and Shocks...

As far as I know veterancy does not improve the penetration of tank guns, only their damage and Range. Also Vet improves health, armour, rate of fire (Reloads), mobility (acceleration & traverse speed), turret traverse or accuracy.

Tank destroyers might get increase penetration from veterancy.

There is a thread/guide with all the veterancy bonuses but it has not been updated for quite a while.

Maybe one of the file diggers that know the mechanics of CoH 2 inside out such as Ipkaifung or Milkacow can confirm or deny it.

Some tanks can get penetration. Jackson, Jagdpanzer for example. Didn't look up more.

PIV:
1: Blitz
2: 1.3 armor, 1.4 horizontal weapon speed
3: 0.7 reload, 1.2 rotation speed

Another argument for increasing the Easy 8 cost is that the Soviet Sherman costs the same as the Easy 8 (380 MP, 135 Fuel). The Soviet version being significantly worse than the Easy 8 (the Soviet one has only 160 armour, and it's main gun has 140/130/120 penetration).

So I faced Easy 8 for the first time...



It is going to be a bit of a rant but can someone explain to me how a faction so broken with this amount of broken commander was able to survive all the testing? Was everyone playing OKW or something?

How is OKW supposed to survive all this late game armour madness using Puma and single Panther?
Rocketwarfer gets one shoted by Shermans, Volksgrenadier only got single Shreck but you don't want to chase Shermans with them really, do you?
USA starts with the best early game, goes into very strong mid game and than again very strong late game. How is this even fair? I give up.
Can someone can show me how to deal with very good US player in 1v1 and 2v2 please?
Right now I am loosing against players I shouldn't be loosing to. I can CLEARLY see they got even worse micro than me, they have no idea how to use their units effectively, they have no idea about BO and their capping order is one of the weirdest I have ever seen. They don't use covers, take fights in the middle of the road being in negative one, no even slightest hint of flanking. Nothing. To be honest all they do is blob. All day long and they win. They win every freaking time.

I find several of Dane's statements incredibly strange.

His hatred of Jagdpanzer IV's: They are basically just STuG's that are more oriented to fighting tanks, and are pretty darn good at that roll. I do not understand why he wants them to be good vs Infantry as well. OKW have a ton of ways of dealing with infantry, least of all their own.

Assault Gren's vs Rifleman: It honestly sounds like he hasn't even attempted this. Everytime I've fielded Assault Gren's vs USA, they have mopped Rifleman in the first engagements while taking minimal losses, if I'm smart with cover and movement.