Posts: 836 | Subs: 5
 | Playercard of Dusty | |||||||||||||||
|
Devils_Brigade: man captain molo why dont you just buy and m3 drive that around instead of playing coh
Posts: 133
...allies have awful late game units?
Serious question. I just played a 2v2 versus a well-known CoH1 player and beat him, and it was mostly thanks to the AVRE.
The thing is just so damn survivable. He had 3 Paks all firing at it, and I still had time to roll up, blow one away, and reverse back into safety with most of my HP.
Sturm is a bitch to play against, but for some reason I don't see him nearly as much, and he feels more fragile.
What is the answer to AVRE? Snares (faust)?
Because it seems like no amount of coordinated AT can kill it or scare it away until after it has delivered its doomsday mortar.
I concede it could just be the fact that I've been a USF player since they were released, and the idea of having a sturdy late game unit is completely foreign to me.
Posts: 742 | Subs: 1
Why didn't he toggle on target weak point on his AT guns? the ARVE is a well known allied spearhead that is infamous hard to kill, there also super expensive. If he had 3 AT guns with 90 munitions he could easily stun lock it to death. Bad is bad, no matter how well known.
Posts: 1439
Are we protecting AVRE on this thread ?
Posts: 1124
1 Posts: 412
OKW gets 66% fuel income so the formula is 160/.66
Posts: 657
...allies have awful late game units?
Serious question. I just played a 2v2 versus a well-known CoH1 player and beat him, and it was mostly thanks to the AVRE.
The thing is just so damn survivable. He had 3 Paks all firing at it, and I still had time to roll up, blow one away, and reverse back into safety with most of my HP.
Sturm is a bitch to play against, but for some reason I don't see him nearly as much, and he feels more fragile.
What is the answer to AVRE? Snares (faust)?
Because it seems like no amount of coordinated AT can kill it or scare it away until after it has delivered its doomsday mortar.
I concede it could just be the fact that I've been a USF player since they were released, and the idea of having a sturdy late game unit is completely foreign to me.
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
No. You are deducting the fuel penalty, not the fuel they do get. It is definitely 160/.33
If they are receiving 33% less than the allies then to make costs proportional you have to add 33%, not 66%.
3 
Posts: 545
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
Lol whaaaat when does 33% become 50%?
3 Posts: 545
1 Posts: 412
They receive .66 fuel for every 1 fuel Allies get. 160/.33 is not correct. 160/.66 is the correct equation to use because it shows you what 160 fuel looks like when you are only getting .66 fuel for every 1 fuel the enemy gets. Alternatively you can do 160 times 1.5 since compared to .66, Allies get 50% more.
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
1 Posts: 135
Posts: 1026
so how is it allies get 50% more? When it's just for every one fuel you take off 33% so 1 not 1.5?
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
Or you can just go with ±.71 which is a bit more accurate
Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2
Permanently Banned
Heads out boys. Stop ignoring the differences between the avre and sturmtiger. A turret and lack of a vulnerable manual reload are gigantic differences, and so is the synergy with hammer war speed.
There is no recording in all WW2 history of a piat actually knocking off a vehicle. Yes, it was THAT bad.
Posts: 1439
If OKW recieves 2/3 of the fuel that allies recieve, then allies receive 50% more fuel. It's maths.
2 fuel instead of 3
3 is 50% more than 2 (2 x 1.5 = 3)
2 is 66.66...% of 3 (2/3 = 0.666...)
In either case you could say OKW gets 2/3 of the fuel of the normal factions from strat points and fuel points, or that normal factions get 50% more fuel than OKW. Both are true.
Posts: 1217
 |
|
|
46 | ||
|
|
|
|
41 | ||
|
|
|
|
35 | ||
 |
|
|
5 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
24 | ||
 |
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
2 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
