Posts: 262
Remove the blitz I say. Keep Tiger as it is. But give it a realistic range. The Panther's range I would say. The Tiger canon was even better than the Panthers's.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
And as already few ppl pointed above me, as well for their superior optics, powerful cannons and RANGE. But nah, KT should just sit as the duck while the ISU, Jackson and SU's fire at it from the fog of war, that's pathetic. I'd also give up blitz anytime for the superior range that the Axis tanks obviously had.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 1158
T34/76 is NOT a joke on my hands; Maybe on your hands you make it suck shit? but on me, No. I can kill a stug with a little micro, go toe to toe with a Panzer 4. Is it a joke? LOL T34/85 is apparently a very good tank. But no one says it "one hit wipe" or elefant penetration; up to a point i think this little medium tank just have too much health and too much firepower with that fuel cost.
Posts: 1225
Posts: 400
It wasn't better than Panthers gun on long range. Very long 75mm barrel excel than the tigers shorter 88mm cannon. I mean, if we talk on pure long range accuracy, panther was better.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Blitz on the Tiger is perfectly fine as it is. Without it, Tiger would lose too much viability, and present it is about the only thing holding Wehr in the game anyways.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 467
Almost makes one wonder how IS-2 doesn't have it and does fine despite being put up against much better and powerful AT weapons.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
IS2 has much more armor and is faster, genius.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 1225
Almost makes one wonder how IS-2 doesn't have it and does fine despite being put up against much better and powerful AT weapons.
Posts: 824
Range, turret, durability.
Pick two.
Posts: 34
Permanently Banned
0.3 speed advantage isn't even noticeable and its armor advantage is neglected by much better penetration and ROF on axis AT, armor advantage matters almost exclusively against medium tanks only, genius.
Play both sides, you'll know things and stuff that actually are accurate.
Posts: 752
I have proposed my solution plenty of times:
Blitzkrieg is meant to blitz through enemy defenses, not back away.
Make it so that it can only be engaged when NOT in combat.
It needs a 10 sec or longer cooldown so that you have to be out of combat to engage it.
So, that way, Blitzkrieg would be used to break through the lines of defense as it's meant to be.
Posts: 34
Permanently Banned
I dont understand how you mean to implement this.
1) There is no "in combat" game mechanic. The game doesnt differentiate, in anyway, between units that are in combat and those who arent. Its not like WoW or other MMOs where there is a distinct flagged "in combat" state.
Posts: 598
LOL??? Play both sides lol....
Tiger is being easily penetrated frontally by SU85, ZiS etc right now. Meanwhile panzerschreks are bouncing 90% of the time on IS2 front armor, even 50% side, Panther bouncing front and side like 40%, even Tigers and KTs are bouncing on IS2 right now, KTs only get a good shot on IS2 like 1 in 3/4 times.
IS2 is super strong against all axis AT weapons right now except JT, Elefant and Pak43 and 2 of those 3 are dead.
So I say no, I say it is you who needs to play all sides. But really I don't even need to point that out because everyone who has even heard of CoH knows you are the most biased CoH person ever.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
I dont understand how you mean to implement this.
1) There is no "in combat" game mechanic. The game doesnt differentiate, in anyway, between units that are in combat and those who arent. Its not like WoW or other MMOs where there is a distinct flagged "in combat" state.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
Posts: 99
1) There is no "in combat" game mechanic. The game doesnt differentiate, in anyway, between units that are in combat and those who arent. Its not like WoW or other MMOs where there is a distinct flagged "in combat" state.
Posts: 915
katitoff, really, keep cool man. i mostly play axis but are ranked much higher with soviets, i was able to cheese my way up to rank 11 yesterday with allies in 2v2....
is2 beat the tiger, 2 jacksons kiting kill a tiger, 2 su-85's kill a tiger.
2 p4's or 2 stugs arent realy able to take on a is2.
the blitz on the tiger is absolutely fine as it is. ofcourse vet1 capping ability on the is2 is a joke, but it doesnt need anything else because it already stands up against the tiger and other stuff.
ofcourse paks are stronger and thus deal more damage to the is, but while a 4-man crew gets oneshot by the is2 toomany times the 6-man zis crew takes atleast 2 hits from the tiger.
you always say people should play both sides and you are absolutely right, but somehow i only see you defend soviets ?!
if anything should be changed it is the extremely underperforming german t4 and the awful soviet mainline inf (cons+penals)
Posts: 34
Permanently Banned
Uhhhhh... What!? Im pretty sure the tiger can beat the IS2 head up. I could be wrong, but I cant recall losing a tiger to an IS2 without massively screwing up the tiger micro.
Posts: 665
 |
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
18 | ||
 |
|
|
10 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
