i love how u guys got worked up over an obvious troll/bait post
Pfffff, how can anyone take that seriously? You got as much chance of being in charge of CoH2 as me - none!
Changing IS2 back to 240 damage
8 Apr 2015, 01:20 AM
#61
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
Pfffff, how can anyone take that seriously? You got as much chance of being in charge of CoH2 as me - none!
8 Apr 2015, 01:24 AM
#62
Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2
Permanently Banned
Pfffff, how can anyone take that seriously? You got as much chance of being in charge of CoH2 as me - none!
...
There is no recording in all WW2 history of a piat actually knocking off a vehicle. Yes, it was THAT bad.
8 Apr 2015, 01:26 AM
#63
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
Don't worry, you won't be
in that at least, I'm here for ya!
8 Apr 2015, 05:17 AM
#65
Posts: 380
Yeah, nerf is2 to shit, nerf front armor to shit, come on! Is2 is a good as it is. RNG fire on infantry means that folks and pzgrens with shreks can get close to is2. Paks and puphen are nightmare for frontal armor of is2. Rotating speed of is2 is not fast, so a sing puma can destroy it with a good flank.
8 Apr 2015, 05:50 AM
#66
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
Yeah, nerf is2 to shit, nerf front armor to shit, come on! Is2 is a good as it is. RNG fire on infantry means that folks and pzgrens with shreks can get close to is2. Paks and puphen are nightmare for frontal armor of is2. Rotating speed of is2 is not fast, so a sing puma can destroy it with a good flank.
The DshK on top of the IS2 can kill a Puma, Iv done it and been on the receiving end of it. The IS2 has weakness's but mobility and infantry based AT are not it.
8 Apr 2015, 06:38 AM
#67
14 
Posts: 10665 | Subs: 9
3 disrespectful posts invised and three follow-ups citing said posts.
Back to topic
Back to topic
8 Apr 2015, 06:48 AM
#68
Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1
Permanently Banned3 disrespectful posts invised and three follow-ups citing said posts.pssh constructive criticism is now offensive. Not like my post that paints relic in a bad light would do anything anyway, even if its true. We all talk on here but deep down its all useless. Relic doesn't care..
Back to topic
1337 h4X0R, dank memes
axis
8 Apr 2015, 10:35 AM
#69
14 Posts: 10665 | Subs: 9
pssh constructive criticism is now offensive. Not like my post that paints relic in a bad light would do anything anyway, even if its true. We all talk on here but deep down its all useless. Relic doesn't care..
Your post had to be invised bcs sadly, it cited one of the disrespectful posts made by another member
8 Apr 2015, 12:28 PM
#70
3 
Posts: 587
Imagine the shitstorm it would cause if they would give Panther 60 range like it originally had, making other Axis tanks obsolete, even STUG G was used in mass numbers when it also had 60 range
(Maybe give AT guns the Old veterancy back, to make them OP since all AT guns back then did 320dmg per shot with VET 3, so 3 AT guns with VET 3 could do 960dmg in single volley!)
(Maybe give AT guns the Old veterancy back, to make them OP since all AT guns back then did 320dmg per shot with VET 3, so 3 AT guns with VET 3 could do 960dmg in single volley!)
8 Apr 2015, 14:00 PM
#71
Posts: 1484
IS2's reload time is very frustrating, I don't think I would want to prolong it even further for more damage.
 | Playercard of WingZero | |||||||||||||||
|
17 Apr 2015, 15:40 PM
#72
Posts: 471 | Subs: 1
Fix call in as an idea before fiddly diddling with the actual call in tank itself, ya nawm sayin?
| Playercard of Siddolio | |||||||||||||||||||
|
18 Apr 2015, 22:10 PM
#73
Posts: 100
Agreed.
IS-2s having the same frontal armor as King Tigers is not logic. One is an end of tech tree tank for almost double the initial fuel cost, the other one can be spammed within the doctrine and requires no tech.
If the KT has its frontal armor nerfed for Allies to fight it frontally, the same logic should apply to the IS-2.
The IS-2 actually is more survivable than the KT now since it can move faster eventually leading to the IS-2 being the way cheaper and even better performing tank.
IS-2s really have become a problem.
KT nerf was really not needed. IS-2 can now just steamroll over it which is rather pathetic. I dont know what those guys at Relic are using for thinking but clearly is not their heads. I think they have no idea how to balance the game... They are just feeding us with PR bullshit.
18 Apr 2015, 22:39 PM
#74
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
KT nerf was really not needed. IS-2 can now just steamroll over it which is rather pathetic. I dont know what those guys at Relic are using for thinking but clearly is not their heads. I think they have no idea how to balance the game... They are just feeding us with PR bullshit.
The delicious axis tears are the best sign that the changes were needed and spot on.
IS-2 wasn't changed, exactly same things that countered it last patch counter it this patch, KT included.
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.
19 Apr 2015, 02:46 AM
#75
8 Posts: 2470
KT nerf was really not needed. IS-2 can now just steamroll over it which is rather pathetic. I dont know what those guys at Relic are using for thinking but clearly is not their heads. I think they have no idea how to balance the game... They are just feeding us with PR bullshit.
the first time i ever built a VI B i had a sherman steamroll circles around it and kill it because i didn't give a fuck and wasn't trying. poor play on my part.
19 Apr 2015, 21:52 PM
#76
Posts: 521
IS-2 is a symptom. It's a good unit but it is too prevalent due to lack of enough alternatives, and the way Soviets are designed means you'll see a lot of it.
People say that the call-in meta is as Relic intended, but why not try saying Relic intended wrong?
People say that the call-in meta is as Relic intended, but why not try saying Relic intended wrong?
Find out about my redesign of all four factions, with more to come!
Feel free to contact me regarding your Attribute Editor-related questions.
Feel free to contact me regarding your Attribute Editor-related questions.
19 Apr 2015, 21:58 PM
#77
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
People say that the call-in meta is as Relic intended, but why not try saying Relic intended wrong?
I can't see why someone think would that's the case, otherwise the Soviet defensive commander wouldn't have got greenlit.
19 Apr 2015, 23:21 PM
#78
8 Posts: 2470
there are plenty of shit commanders for both OKH and USSR. even USF and OKW have bad commanders.
19 Apr 2015, 23:49 PM
#79
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
there are plenty of shit commanders for both OKH and USSR. even USF and OKW have bad commanders.
The point I'm saying is, were Soviets' late-game intended to be built around their call-ins, there would not be commanders for them without late-game call-ins. If it were such a simplistic design rule, the large amount of commanders contrary to that would definitely have not happened.
20 Apr 2015, 00:20 AM
#80
8 Posts: 2470
The point I'm saying is, were Soviets' late-game intended to be built around their call-ins, there would not be commanders for them without late-game call-ins. If it were such a simplistic design rule, the large amount of commanders contrary to that would definitely have not happened.
i know, i'm just saying i don't trust relic not to design soviets for callins and then make commanders that don't have them.
0 user is browsing this thread:
Livestreams
 |
|
|
58 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.842223.791+5
- 2.655231.739+15
- 3.1103405.731+8
- 4.943411.696-1
- 5.715.934+12
- 6.35659.858+2
- 7.275145.655+1
- 8.307114.729+3
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
12
Download
1269