Login

russian armor

Centaur

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (5)down
3 Nov 2015, 05:52 AM
#1
avatar of Romeo
Honorary Member Badge
Benefactor 115

Posts: 1970 | Subs: 5

The centaur seems really bad to me now. I have had no success with this unit at all since the nerf. I think the nerf was justified, especially against units in buildings. However, with its reduced DPS and extremely slow speed it seems completely pointless to get this unit when for just 20 mp more and 10 fuel more you could get the extremely capable and versatile cromwell. What do you guys think?
3 Nov 2015, 05:56 AM
#2
avatar of Leepriest

Posts: 179

+1.
Eventhough I would just buff its acceleration and speed.
3 Nov 2015, 06:02 AM
#3
avatar of Basilone

Posts: 1944 | Subs: 2

Agreed. It should basically be reverted against infantry in open but keep the reduction against AT crews and garrisons.
3 Nov 2015, 07:09 AM
#4
avatar of atouba

Posts: 482

The same as ostwind.The ostwind don't have much more AI power than the Pz4.But the Centaur and the ostwind have good AA capability.

With the recent nerf ,I feel the Centaur is in the line with the Ostwind now.
3 Nov 2015, 07:15 AM
#5
avatar of vietnamabc

Posts: 1063

Centaur should have a reuduction in cost, I think 80 fuel is right with their current level of performance.
3 Nov 2015, 07:18 AM
#6
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1

Speed was slightly overnerfed, otherwise it is fine.
3 Nov 2015, 07:25 AM
#7
avatar of TehPowahOfWub

Posts: 100

I agree the previous damage vs AT crews and buildings was over the top. But now this unit is pretty much useless. It is hardcountered by shreck blobs (the thing it's supposed to counter) and it's low speed makes it extremely weak at escaping AT guns and blobs. It'd be nice if it's damage was brought back up vs infantry like Basilone said, so it can fend off blobs, or at least have its speed increased so it can escape them.
3 Nov 2015, 07:44 AM
#8
avatar of atouba

Posts: 482

Centaur should have a reuduction in cost, I think 80 fuel is right with their current level of performance.

Agreed.Both the Centaur and Ostwind should cost 80 fuel. Reduced cost should make them more attractive.
3 Nov 2015, 07:52 AM
#9
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

it needs a speed increase so it can kite schreck blob.
3 Nov 2015, 08:36 AM
#10
avatar of miragefla
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13

A speed boost would be better to allow mobility and kiting which is lacking.
3 Nov 2015, 08:43 AM
#11
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1

Compare the Centaur with the Ostwind before nerf. Centaur>Ostwind by a large margin.
Compare the Centaur with the Ostwind now. Centaur is still better. No problem here. Next thread.
3 Nov 2015, 09:19 AM
#12
avatar of Romeo
Honorary Member Badge
Benefactor 115

Posts: 1970 | Subs: 5

Compare the Centaur with the Ostwind before nerf. Centaur>Ostwind by a large margin.
Compare the Centaur with the Ostwind now. Centaur is still better. No problem here. Next thread.


The ostwind has much better mobility though, which is pretty important.
3 Nov 2015, 09:23 AM
#13
avatar of Leepriest

Posts: 179

I think Both units(ostwind and Centaur) should get supression like the M5 halftrack to control blobs better, they wont be super damaging units and they shall have a better role and more diverse from the generalist tanks.
Also think about it, if 2x20mm fully automatic rounds are flying at you, i am sure you shall be supressed faster than a MG42 would.
3 Nov 2015, 09:27 AM
#14
avatar of blitz1337

Posts: 184

Suppression would be ok, as long as it doenst kill at guns in one burst.
3 Nov 2015, 09:50 AM
#15
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1

Supression is a verry bad idea. Such units would own infantry as hell. No.
3 Nov 2015, 10:40 AM
#16
avatar of Diomedes

Posts: 103

Compare the Centaur with the Ostwind before nerf. Centaur>Ostwind by a large margin.
Compare the Centaur with the Ostwind now. Centaur is still better. No problem here. Next thread.

jump backJump back to quoted post3 Nov 2015, 09:19 AMRomeo
The ostwind has much better mobility though, which is pretty important.

For the same cost if people could choose Ostwind or Centaur, Centaur is still much better choice.

I think that's bullpudding but 1400 HP Churchill even more bullpudding.
3 Nov 2015, 10:40 AM
#17
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

i still find the centaur very effective although i must admit i haven't used the cromwell at all so i'm not sure how they compare.
3 Nov 2015, 10:44 AM
#18
avatar of Pixysmile
Donator 11

Posts: 13

I still prefer the Centaur over Cromwell as my first tank. It still works in his role of discouraging inf blobs. Cromwell here does too little for me in fighting infantery to be a replacement.

Supression would be a great idea, like the doctrinal flak tank from PE in the initial COH.
3 Nov 2015, 10:46 AM
#19
avatar of Jagdfalke

Posts: 33

the centaur is still miles better than the ostwind
3 Nov 2015, 10:53 AM
#20
avatar of AchtAchter

Posts: 1604 | Subs: 3

I have been using it like I used it before the patch. It just needs longer to wipe squad, but it still forces retreats, but at least doesn't wipe on retreat anymore. It's also very good in counter harassing so I personally don't see the issue, especially when using an Ostwind even after the Centaur nerf, the Centaur still does a better job in its dedicated role.
PAGES (5)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 29
unknown 27
unknown 16
Germany 969
Poland 4
Russian Federation 1

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

829 users are online: 829 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49113
Welcome our newest member, Dedek545
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM