Login

russian armor

4vs4 as allied

5 Mar 2015, 04:45 AM
#81
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2



If you even edge inside the AT snare range of a unit your going to get snared due to the tracking/ulimited range ability of snares once the unit begins to throw/fire the snare. It's quite a different animal than moving support weapons. Because both parties involved are just moving using legs, and once sees the other coming with an appreciable distance between the two.



If your not using 1919's, BARs and Shocks as well as Para's your doing something wrong.


yeah. all my wins won by propaganda, m3 shocks with m15 aaht, guards button... what was i dreaming about?




The ISG is the worst indirect fire unit in the game next to the USF Mortar HT, I don't count it because I don't count the USF Mortar HT. Both are useless and pretending like they matter is dumb.

On the other hand, pretending like the fuel penalty doesn't matter IS stupid because it has everything to do with unit cost performance and when a unit can enter the field.


again, the fuel penalty is counteracted by other advantages and abilities that only okw has.



The Tiger actually has less chance to wipe a squad/multiple models in one shot than the IS2 does due to the IS2's higher AoE.

The only thing that the Tiger has over the IS2 is ROF, but it only has 1 more ROF, so it's not really much of a advantage.

The Target weak point stun ability 1. Doesn't work on IS2's all the time, and 2. The ROF on the Pak40 is only slightly better than that of the Zis which has anti infantry capabilities as well is less likely to be wiped thanks to a higher squad count.'

The chances of a IS2 wiping a Pak40 in one shot are quite high.


less scatter, too? nit picking again i see. 1 second faster rof? not much? lolz. got forbid if twp doesnt work 100% on all armour units... especially now that it is so easy to use.



It's not pure conjecture to say that more units requires more micro. Allies have a large amount of tools in their tool box many players don't use because they lack the skill to use them.

The Jackson is the most mobile TD in the game, bar none. Most players are stupid and treat it like a SU-85. Demo charges can destroy entire armies in 1 click, most players are to lazy to even bother.

I'm actually agreeing with you, but your so determined to hate me you can't see it.


i am determined to hate bullshits, not people. i blame their upbringings. and i smell a lot of shit coming from your posts. doesnt matter if you technically agree with me. shit is shit.

5 Mar 2015, 04:57 AM
#83
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1



yeah. all my wins won by propaganda, m3 shocks with m15 aaht, guards button... what was i dreaming about?


Uh, terror doctrine comes with shock troops unless your using NKVD tactics (lol). I'm not saying you can't use other infantry, but there is a buttload of great options out there for Allies that put them far ahead of Volks and Grens.

again, the fuel penalty is counteracted by other advantages and abilities that only okw has.


No, it's not. The only ability that OKW has to increase resource generation is A. Salvage which involves you opponent losing vehicles or you do. and B. conversion which is suicide unless your team can move to support you cause you ain't gonna have shreks for shit.

less scatter, too? nit picking again i see. 1 second faster rof? not much? lolz. got forbid if twp doesnt work 100% on all armour units... especially now that it is so easy to use.


It's not nitpicking to point out obvious stats. The Tiger is worse than the IS2 in every way but ROF and having a better veteran ability. The IS2 and Tiger have the exact same scatter, but the IS2 has a large AoE profile so it means it's more likely to gib squads due to the new bunching system.

i am determined to hate bullshits, not people. i blame their upbringings. and i smell a lot of shit coming from your posts. doesnt matter if you technically agree with me. shit is shit.


Uh, this doesn't even make sense. So you agree that I'm right but just don't like the way I say it?
5 Mar 2015, 06:00 AM
#84
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2



Uh, this doesn't even make sense. So you agree that I'm right but just don't like the way I say it?


if someone says allies are UP in 3v3+, i will agree with him as it is like a fact to me. but if he says allies are UP in 3v3+ because their artillery power is lesser than that of axis, i will disagree with him.

5 Mar 2015, 06:06 AM
#85
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1



if someone says allies are UP in 3v3+, i will agree with him as it is like a fact to me. but if he says allies are UP in 3v3+ because their artillery power is lesser than that of axis, i will disagree with him.



Allies are not UP, they are just harder to play. Two AT's of equal high skill will always have a very close game, but 90% of the time it's just AT's facing randoms or randoms facing each other.

This doesn't mean balance is fine (It's not), but that faction design is wonked and needs a look at.
5 Mar 2015, 13:08 PM
#86
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Since at this point it seems futile to discuss i'm just gonna correct some things.

The Target weak point stun ability 1. Doesn't work on IS2's all the time

Pak40: 210-190
Stun: Penetration x2
IS2: 375armor

420-380 > 375

It's not nitpicking to point out obvious stats. The Tiger is worse than the IS2 in every way but ROF and having a better veteran ability. The IS2 and Tiger have the exact same scatter, but the IS2 has a large AoE profile so it means it's more likely to gib squads due to the new bunching system.


Tiger: 4.3
IS2: 5.7

4.3 =/= 5.7

Maths OP.

Go on, keep discussing.
5 Mar 2015, 14:25 PM
#87
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484



The IS2 is better than the Tiger (including Tiger ace).


IS-2 better than Tiger Ace? Wow.
5 Mar 2015, 16:23 PM
#88
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

Since at this point it seems futile to discuss i'm just gonna correct some things.


Pak40: 210-190
Stun: Penetration x2
IS2: 375armor

420-380 > 375



Tiger: 4.3
IS2: 5.7

4.3 =/= 5.7

Maths OP.

Go on, keep discussing.



I was looking at the angle, whoopsies. Shouldn't have been posting so late at night lol :D

(Although the AoE is different, I wish Coh2Stats wasn't so obtuse to read)

IS-2 better than Tiger Ace? Wow.


A Tiger Ace is literally just a vet 3 Tiger. It has better reload/range/speed. But That's it. So the places were the Tiger are better than the IS2 get better, but the things its worse at stay the same.

5 Mar 2015, 21:43 PM
#89
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2


A Tiger Ace is literally just a vet 3 Tiger. It has better reload/range/speed. But That's it. So the places were the Tiger are better than the IS2 get better, but the things its worse at stay the same.


And you forget the MGs dealing the same DPS as a Tiger with Gunner, increased vision, target weakpoint and more HP.
5 Mar 2015, 22:08 PM
#90
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1



And you forget the MGs dealing the same DPS as a Tiger with Gunner, increased vision, target weakpoint and more HP.


It has 200 more health, that's 1 shot from a Jackson, really I just think the IS2 is better overall due to coming in early and the fact it has a much higher chance to push enemy AT off the field.

The Tiger really doesn't need any changes, just a minor cost reduction.
5 Mar 2015, 22:24 PM
#91
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1


It has better reload/range/speed.


And you forget the MGs dealing the same DPS as a Tiger with Gunner, increased vision, target weakpoint and more HP.


It has 200 more health, that's 1 shot from a Jackson


A Tiger Ace is literally just a vet 3 Tiger.


Alex the Apologist has already gone frothing at the mouth.
Talking bullshit 24/7 nonstop without any signs of conscience.
5 Mar 2015, 22:45 PM
#92
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1






Alex the Apologist has already gone frothing at the mouth.
Talking bullshit 24/7 nonstop without any signs of conscience.


wow I forgot to mention it had 200 more health. This obviously demands that you insult me instead of just being an adult and mentioning that I made the mistake of not saying it has 200 health.

Insulting someone for accidentally forgetting to include a unit stat makes you the one frothing at the mouth, not me, sorry lol
6 Mar 2015, 00:19 AM
#93
avatar of Vitor

Posts: 57



wow I forgot to mention it had 200 more health. This obviously demands that you insult me instead of just being an adult and mentioning that I made the mistake of not saying it has 200 health.

Insulting someone for accidentally forgetting to include a unit stat makes you the one frothing at the mouth, not me, sorry lol


That's 2 more shots from medium armor and at guns, it is very significant.
6 Mar 2015, 00:38 AM
#94
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1



wow I forgot to mention it had 200 more health. This obviously demands that you insult me instead of just being an adult and mentioning that I made the mistake of not saying it has 200 health.

Insulting someone for accidentally forgetting to include a unit stat makes you the one frothing at the mouth, not me, sorry lol

Actually, it wasn't about you forgot to mention this (really, I'm not dumb to laugh about such things), but about "that's 1 shot from a Jackson" and about whole "yeah it is better in MANY CRUCIAL stats, but it is JUST VET 3 TIGER WITH NO FUEL COST DAMN IT" (I'm not arguing about how good or bad it is, just saying about the way how you ALWAYS trying to ignore actual bonuses of axis units)

By the way, T-34-85 is the same T-34/76, it just have faster reload, more penetration and health, but that's just 1 shot from Pak-40. Yet, in a thread about making T-34-85 non-doc you were frothing at the mouth about how bad this idea was (I'm not supporting it either).

Double standards, man. Double standards. In every f'ing thread. You have no conscience. Your goal on this forum isn't to make CoH2 a better game for everyone, but only for yourself with your personal preferences.
6 Mar 2015, 00:52 AM
#95
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post6 Mar 2015, 00:19 AMVitor


That's 2 more shots from medium armor and at guns, it is very significant.


That's why I said "Jackson". It's Ostheers biggest nemesis at the moment.

By the way, T-34-85 is the same T-34/76, it just have worse AI (because of worse reload), more penetration and health, but that's just 1 shot from Pak-40. Yet, in a thread about making T-34-85 non-doc you were frothing at the mouth about how bad this idea was (I'm not supporting it either).


Because than you would make a shitload of soviet commanders useless. So you would need to change every single Soviet commander with T34/85's to.

Double standards, man. Double standards. In every f'ing thread. You have no conscience. Your goal on this forum isn't to make CoH2 a better game for everyone, but only for yourself with your personal preferences.


Yeah I'm trying to make the game better for myself, and everyone else. Both things can be accomplished at the same time, in fact, I agree with most people on this board but because I don't scream for nerfs every 5 bloody seconds people get irrationally upset and follow me around.

I don't ignore the bonus's of Axis units, but everyone ignores their weakness's

Constantly I here the claim of Axis in 3's and 4's being OP, then how exactly, is it so easy for my team to beat Axis teams consistently? The answer is Allies require more micro and effort, but with said micro and effort can easily smash anything in the game.

My problems with this game are design wise, and the fact that it's riddled with bugs to boot.

6 Mar 2015, 01:00 AM
#96
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1

Back on topic:
I have a good example of
So even if there is obviously some Balance Problems in 4vs4, i think that if the allied would use the flexibilty and speed of their armies efficiently, they could still win a lot of games.


4v4.
Allies.
Rostov.
Northen starting location.
Against full arranged team.
OKW player is rank 4 in 4v4 random.

I'll just leave it here.



A very short replay.
6 Mar 2015, 01:01 AM
#97
avatar of MarcoRossolini

Posts: 1042



Allies are not UP, they are just harder to play.


Which is in itself imbalanced.
6 Mar 2015, 01:21 AM
#98
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1



Which is in itself imbalanced.


Changing unit values isn't going to make Allies easier to play, it would require a total redesign of both Soviets and Americans.

Honestly it's just micro ability, USF is about as strategically deep as a puddle in a desert. With good micro it's stupid easy to win.

6 Mar 2015, 01:22 AM
#99
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

And even then in team games you don't really need that much micro if you can pick a easy to cheese doctrine/unit combination. Jacksons + IS2's + P47's = total unrelenting death for the enemy team.
6 Mar 2015, 01:29 AM
#100
avatar of GenObi

Posts: 556

Alex your wrong a lot of times arnt you?Its okay at least you think your right.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

687 users are online: 687 guests
0 post in the last 24h
13 posts in the last week
32 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50085
Welcome our newest member, Hernanda
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM