Login

russian armor

Is the AVRE OP or do I just think it's OP because...

10 Sep 2015, 15:10 PM
#41
avatar of iTzDusty

Posts: 836 | Subs: 5

Vet 3 avre and emergency war speed = tpoooooooooooooop kek.

I remember when my sturmtiger could rush into 3 or 4 hard counters and back away faster than old blitz :snfPeter:

Oh wait....

DAE le axis OP le relic hates le allies ?!??!?!

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.

But no le axis OpieOP
10 Sep 2015, 15:27 PM
#42
avatar of gman1211

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.


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.
10 Sep 2015, 16:00 PM
#43
avatar of Blalord

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.


Dead paks will not get to Vet 1
10 Sep 2015, 16:16 PM
#44
avatar of OZtheWiZARD

Posts: 1439

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Sep 2015, 14:58 PMBlalord
Are we protecting AVRE on this thread ?


Not really. Both units are BS.
10 Sep 2015, 16:18 PM
#45
avatar of Intelligence209

Posts: 1124

Any nerf to the ST will result in it being how it was before. Never used and a wasted investment. I don't have problems with the ARVE, except when it has no health left it seems to still take a lot of damage. My IMO. If a ST nerf happens, a price decrease happens. Most people only use that doc for the ST anyways.
10 Sep 2015, 16:47 PM
#46
avatar of Robbie_Rotten
Donator 11

Posts: 412



OKW gets 66% fuel income so the formula is 160/.66


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%.
10 Sep 2015, 17:08 PM
#47
avatar of Jackiebrown

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.


Before UKF allies had awful late game units.
10 Sep 2015, 17:26 PM
#48
avatar of Alexzandvar

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%.


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.

10 Sep 2015, 17:34 PM
#49
avatar of Switzerland
Donator 33

Posts: 545

Lol whaaaat when does 33% become 50%?
10 Sep 2015, 17:44 PM
#50
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

Lol whaaaat when does 33% become 50%?


1.5*.66=1
10 Sep 2015, 17:51 PM
#51
avatar of Switzerland
Donator 33

Posts: 545

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?
10 Sep 2015, 18:04 PM
#52
avatar of Robbie_Rotten
Donator 11

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.



yup. I can't math. :luvDerp:
10 Sep 2015, 19:00 PM
#53
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Or you can just go with ±.71 which is a bit more accurate
10 Sep 2015, 19:08 PM
#54
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

Shooting from FoW > Everything.
ST is better.
Case closed.
Let's move to the next topic.

Remember times when ST did not have 45 range? Almost no one used it and even if, it was so easy to avoid that ST was completly useless.
10 Sep 2015, 22:52 PM
#55
avatar of Keaper!
Donator 11

Posts: 135

Regardless of balance you guys should check out the game below. Giap does an awesome job countering the AVRE as OKW vs dbmb.

http://www.twitch.tv/dbmb_/v/15350562
11 Sep 2015, 00:52 AM
#56
avatar of ThoseDeafMutes

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?


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.
11 Sep 2015, 03:13 AM
#57
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

Or you can just go with ±.71 which is a bit more accurate


You see, I used to think this but the game DOES actually times all fuel income by .66, it's just that the game can't show fractions of a fuel as income meaning that how much fuel it shows you have isn't actually how much your getting or you actually have. It's honestly crazy how much you have to dig through the files to figure all this out with certainty.
11 Sep 2015, 04:16 AM
#58
avatar of QueenRatchet123

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.



Lets not ignore the 45 range and ability to shoot outside the FOG

Both units are BS

Defending one over the other reaches a level of hypocrisy that i dont want to encounter or engage in. This isn't pointed at you dusty. More so at Alex and katitof.
11 Sep 2015, 09:30 AM
#59
avatar of OZtheWiZARD

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.


They don't get 50% more. Your logic is wrong. They get 50% more of whole OKW fuel because 2/3 + 1/3 = 1. Also its OKW who is getting less fuel so correct is to say that OKW is getting 1/3 less.
11 Sep 2015, 09:37 AM
#60
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1217

For a start I think they should give both units a minimum range of about 15. So you can avoid them and have a safe zone. A Sturmtiger or AVRE rushing in mindlessly would have to fear that tanks come real close and destroy it. Would also make sense, because nobody is going to fire a huge mortar at something directly in front of him.

This doesn´t solve the whole squad wiping issue, but it´s a start.

Also the reload time on the AVRE is ridiculously short.
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

789 users are online: 789 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49083
Welcome our newest member, debethiphop
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM