Posts: 482
the centaur should be better, it's more expensive than the ostwind.
yes, 40 mp matter. Either buff the centaur's speed or lower the cost of the centaur.
 | Playercard of ATOUBA | |||||||
|
Posts: 166
Agreed.Both the Centaur and Ostwind should cost 80 fuel. Reduced cost should make them more attractive.
Posts: 1593 | Subs: 1
first of all, the centaur is still more expensive than the ostwind by 40 mp. 40 mp is big enough to be important. This mean that the centaur should be superior to the ostwind.
Posts: 1802 | Subs: 1
can we apply that logic to the pak/6pdr too?
Posts: 1930
can we apply that logic to the pak/6pdr too?
the 6pounder is cheaper. if it's to be a direct clone then it needs to cost the same.
A fast moving tank which has powfull AI capability and medium tank armor(160/80)? No... You know the pens of Pz4 maingun right? It's 100/110/120. And the target size of the Centaur is 18, as same as the M3 scout car/222 scout car. Giving it fast speed will make it much harder to hit. That will make this unit totally overperforming.
nope. i'm sorry but 10-15 second longer wait does not warrant a straight up buff to a unit that is perfectly fine. especially since the IS reinforcement cost was reduced as well.
Posts: 1164
it is a matter of fact that the ostwind is faster while the centuar have better armor and smaller size.
The last remaining important question is the firepower of the two vehicles. Assuming they kill infantry at the same rate then the centuar need a buff in its speed.
Posts: 170
can we apply that logic to the pak/6pdr too?
Posts: 2819
It's fine.
It still does great damage to infantry and light vehicles. Can even do some damage to medium vehicles.
The decision between Cromwell/Centaur is still a very valid one.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
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: 1593 | Subs: 1
*cough* perfect accuracy stun shot *cough*
Some new feedback: Centaur is really good at killing loitering skillplanes, which proves the point that it performs its intended role. I just wish it could effectively kite schreck blobs, which could be achieved with extra range and/or speed.
Posts: 28
Posts: 25
Posts: 762 | Subs: 4
Posts: 47
Posts: 503
I've had no issues with the centaur as of yet. I bring it out a bit later on in the game now (20minutes~) in order to stop JU-87's raining havok down on me and cover a VP alongside infantry. It's still an incredibly effective Anti-Air unit and worth it's cost in that respect for shutting down Lightning war play. The quick veterancy it gains from destroying planes makes it quite deadly I find. If the opponent isn't using a doctrine with Air Support I haven't found reason to use it yet.
Rushing Centaur I can see being a pretty bad idea though now as I don't feel it holds any mid game weight anymore. That whole Aimstrong strategy doesn't feel good now.
Posts: 170
*cought* centaur does 2x the damage of ostwind *cought*
Posts: 503
Centaur:
-better damage vs infantry in the open
-better anti-air
-better armor
Ostwind:
-better mobility
-better damage vs infantry in cover and garrison due to aoe
-better anti-vehicle (I think?)
They have their ups and downs, but I don't think that just saying something about 2x damage covers it.
Posts: 974 | Subs: 2
but i have to agree that this unit is maybe a bit weak now 
Posts: 1063
Centaur:
-better damage vs infantry in the open
-better anti-air
-better armor
Ostwind:
-better mobility
-better damage vs infantry in cover and garrison due to aoe
-better anti-vehicle (I think?)
They have their ups and downs, but I don't think that just saying something about 2x damage covers it.
Posts: 21
The ostwind has much better mobility though, which is pretty important.
 |
|
|
67 | ||
|
|
|
|
37 | ||
 |
|
|
35 | ||
|
|
|
|
20 | ||
|
|
|
|
13 | ||
 |
|
|
10 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
635 | ||
|
|
|
|
12 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
