hammer gammon bombs are too expensive
Posts: 1930
Posts: 954
Posts: 271
Agreed, and I still finds out that Churchill+firefly is the better way then the comet
But the croc with the blitz is good as well.. Though I never see it from other players.
Posts: 179
Posts: 732
Posts: 721
Posts: 1024 | Subs: 1
Posts: 509
Posts: 1384
imo should destroy engines if it's gonna cost that much.
Posts: 2779
Comet is also shitty as hell. Better to get two cromwells then tech to hammer and get the commet. Also, heavy engineers...
Dafug?
Posts: 43
light gammon,hammer gammon bombs and of course bundle grenades need to be looked at heavilythis so hard this
Comet is also shitty as hell. Better to get two cromwells then tech to hammer and get the commet. Also, heavy engineers...2 cromwells cost way more mp and fuel than 1 comet so I disagree comet is far from bad
Posts: 1024 | Subs: 1
Dafug?
Churchills are in most effective tactic (anvil) and have more combat effectivnes than comets. 1400up vs 800. And better accuracy to snipe the infantry. There is no point to take comet over churchill.
2 cromwells cost way more mp and fuel than 1 comet so I disagree comet is far from bad
100 and 50 + 580? And 180 is 680 and 230 vs 2x 680 and 220. So, who won you think?
Posts: 271
but I believe the Comet has better damage / penetatrion / range, against vehicles than churchill.
Comet is really not a bad tank..
Churchill just has more appealing and popular things that come with it, like the heavy engineers. which I personally only use for repairs - I should really try some bren guns on them - but they are sooo slow..
Anyway. I mostly use the Vanguard doctrine. I dont see a point in going churchill and croc both, so I end up using hammer allot. The brits warspeed / blitz mechanic that comes with it allows for some saves on a croc, that you would probably have lost otherwise. (I love the vet.. vet2 movement speed - vet 3 passive engine repairs)
In the end I guess its a question of, do you want a churchill and firefly,
or a croc + firefly or comet. The latter seems better to me, (more flexiable) but im sure there are hundreds who disagree.
Posts: 2779
Churchills are in most effective tactic (anvil) and have more combat effectivnes than comets. 1400up vs 800. And better accuracy to snipe the infantry. There is no point to take comet over churchill.
100 and 50 + 580? And 180 is 680 and 230 vs 2x 680 and 220. So, who won you think?
Comet shine with its armor and WP rounds.
Posts: 738
Comet shine with its armor and WP rounds.
WP rounds are vet and don't even work half the time (they're bugged)
Posts: 1024 | Subs: 1
Posts: 271
Posts: 1484
Posts: 871
As Rollo said + churchill have better armor, better gun against inf and much more hp (double more). Also with anvil we got heavy sappers and much better artillery. So, u wot m8?
Churchill doesn't really have that much more armour since it was nerfed compared to the Comet and when you factor in the Churchill has to be closer to shoot its gun, the difference will be minimal. The Churchills gun is pretty poor vs anything with armour where as the comet has decent penetration. Also the churchill doesn't have double the HP, comet has 800 and churchill has 1400? ish now I believe. Comet has the advantage of being significantly more mobile especially with war speed and they are able to hunt in packs. WP (aside from being super buggy) is really useful when it actually works. A single Panther kills churchills pretty easily especially if you have a spotter. Comets at least have a decent chance 1v1 vs Panthers.
Posts: 1653
Livestreams
24 | |||||
13 | |||||
6 | |||||
291 | |||||
178 | |||||
5 | |||||
2 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1099614.642-1
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.271108.715+22
- 9.721440.621+3
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger