Heavy Assault Guns vs Fortifications

"effective vs infantry and buildings"
What does AVRE do?
Wipe infantry and clears buildings.

Just as expected unable to acknowledge mistakes and continues do make them.

If the description you quote was referring to garrison, as you, it would say garrison not buildings, since it says buildings it refers structures and that includes fortifications...

Once more I really see little point in continuing debating with out, wasting time and space, unless you acknowledge that you where wrong and :
1) Fortification do exist in COH2
2) Assault guns and heavy assault guns exist in COH2
3) The design purpose of heavy assault gun is to destroy fortification

I'm arguing potato who supports its claim with fluff text instead of unit stats here

There seems to be some words missing here, having trouble expressing yourself again?
Is that words "like a" (I'm arguing like a potato...)?

That is a very nice generalization but not very relevant. Realism and Balance are not conflicting concepts. One can achieve balance by using realistic solutions, in fact the more realistic the solutions the better the immersion.

In other words, what you wrote, does not explain, why in your opinion, a bonus on damage of Avre shot against a Schwerer Panzer Headquarters would upset balance.

It's not opinion, it's the direction relic entertainment is moving towards as illustrated many time by them and every time some attempts to engage in a "realism" debate. They already made it clear that they want a competitive game for e sports , thus realism takes a back seat to competitive balance. Before the official forums went down they had a entire thread sticky on top for the sole purpose of outlining that historical debates and realism are not permitted when it comes to balance. Sorry bust your bubble.

...
Sorry bust your bubble.

Still have not presented a single argument in this case why making heavy assault guns better against fortifications upsets balance.

If you generally want to debate balance and realism, I have create a thread just for that, so move it there PLS...
http://www.coh2.org/topic/47072/myths-1-realism-vs-balance

Still have not presented a single argument in this case why making heavy assault guns better against fortifications upsets balance.

If you generally want to debate balance and realism, I have create a thread just for that, so move it there PLS...
http://www.coh2.org/topic/47072/myths-1-realism-vs-balance

.......And you still haven't presented a single argument to the contray.

Because YOU feel is underpowered

Because YOU feel like it has no use

Because YOU feel it needs to be more realistic

Because YOU feel that your deployment and use of this unit is unsatisfactory manner is related directly to the performance of the unit and not YOUR use.

none of which give reason for a debate, reason for this thread to really exist and therefore no real reason to respond in a constructive debate when there is nothing constructive about what your pitching. I thought I save you some effort by explaining what the creators of the game position is .

If you got butt hurt because of it that's YOUR prerogative.

.......And you still haven't presented a single argument to the contray.

Well according to Relic this units are designed (among other things) to destroy structures and imo they should be be better at it.

Because YOU feel is underpowered

Did not make that claim, pls stop putting words in my mouth

Because YOU feel like it has no use

Did not make that claim, pls stop putting words in my mouth

Because YOU feel it needs to be more realistic

Actually I would simply like them to be better in one of the roles they are designed for in game and in reality.

If you got butt hurt because of it that's YOUR prerogative.

I would appreciated if you where less offensive.
Happy holidays

No my dear boy, your mistaken I am simply a humble observer, no intention to insult and simply pointing out the error you embarked on. The mistake is actually pretty simple observe bellow.

....."historically"

Now if it's just your IMO then it's a simple " I want thread" with no real value to it which is just fine. Thus again reinforces the reason to why should I, or anyone for that matter forum constructive debate when there is noting there to debate, surely your not suggesting I debate your feelings over the units of coh2.

Then again that could be exactly what you seek, which would explain whys you continue to engage me despite my first respond being definitive.

Either way it's a battle you can't win since you already let the cat out of the bag with your opening post.

IF this game was designed to be a campfest behind bunkers, mortar pits, pillboxes, heavy AT gun emplacements etc., ofc then ISU and ST would fill their realistic role to destroy those things.... But this game isn't like that

For example the ISU gets rid of houses and everything that can be built on the field by axis, they can't fill their "real" role as Assault Guns in a game which isn't made to be realistic.

Want a game in which a Sturmtiger shoots 100+ metres and kills 3 tanks that are 5 metres away from each other because it's realistic? Go play Men of War. Want a game that's not realistic and is more based on balance and smoother gameplay? Then CoH2 is for you

Buff bofars vs retreating units 1st, then AVRE and others can be buffed vs fortifications.

They are already doing a fine job.

Maybe Bulldozer, KV2 n Brummbar could be better against garrisoned units but the rest are performing well.

Against UKF: you are not supposed to hit an emplacement while braced. That's the whole point.
Against OKW building/bunkers: DPS of previous weapons mentioned should be equal to pak/zis gun damage
Against pak43: you are not supposed to engage them with vehicles.

Buff bofars vs retreating units 1st, then AVRE and others can be buffed vs fortifications.

Well Relic seems to think that buffing the bofors vs retreating is not necessary or related because, as RedT3rror pointed out, AVRE already does bonus damage to buildings and fortifications.

Katitof has won this one Myself, sorry dude.

good job ketetof, now people think posting unoriginal videos is a valid contribution to a discussion

Katitof has won this one Myself, sorry dude.

He surely did, he has proven beyond doubt that fortification do not exist in Coh2, that assault Guns do not exist in Coh2, and that one of the design roles of assault Guns is not destroy buildings and fortification.

Now if only stubborn Relic could see that and remove the Bonus damage modifiers...
Any way, thanks for another constructive input via video.
Have a happy new year dude.

I have no interest in... understating, what you mean since it is not constructive...

Perhaps it's because you don't understand, or even try, that his posts make no sense to you?

Perhaps it's because you don't understand, or even try, that his posts make no sense to you?

So let me here your opinion on the prerequisite of actually debating this issue:
1)Do fortifications exist in COH2?
2)Do Assault Guns exist in COH2?
3)Is the part of design intent of assault Guns to destroy buildings and fortifications?

So let me here your opinion on the prerequisite of actually debating this issue:
1)Do fortifications exist in COH2?
2)Do Assault Guns exist in COH2?
3)Is the part of design intent of assault Guns to destroy buildings and fortifications?

1)No, not really.
2)Yes, in the sense there are vehicles representing the actual things in the game.
3)No, not really.

So let me here your opinion on the prerequisite of actually debating this issue

No.
That's irrelevant to my critique.
Edit: Vunther hits something important. It's about what senses we mean the words 'fortification,' 'assault gun,' and so on. Furthermore, expressed intent vs flavor text vs evident design from data, etc.?

I'm asserting that the statement I quoted suffers from an unhealthy approach to communication. I want you to be able to communicate more effectively because I you.

The words seem to have it that you do not try to understand if it's constructive or helpful or valid, but presume it is such. This presumption is bad, for it is impossible to know the character of the text itself without knowing the content of the text. Knowledge of character is predicated on understanding of content.
Your post, then, is something like (not precisely so) "they're just a bunch of pixels stringed together, I don't need to understand what he means to refute his arguments because I understand the string of pixels in my own way." Yet, again, one would have to refute the other's argument by pure chance if there is no actual understanding of their expressed argument, because the presumption required would likely be inaccurate.

Snip...

You gonna have to use simple words and Snytax as OP has difficulty with comprehension skills.

1)Do fortifications exist in COH2?

1)No, not really.

Well then you should inform Relic about it because they made a OKW doctrine called "fortification doctrine" and guess what it allows you to built.
2)Do Assault Guns exist in COH2?

2)Yes, in the sense there are vehicles representing the actual things in the game.

Glad that you agree, now pls let Katiof know because he claim they do not exist

3)Is the part of design intent of assault Guns to destroy buildings and fortifications?

Well again should inform Relic about it because, they say so in their in-game description and they even given damage modifier into some of these units against structures...

You gonna have to use simple words and Snytax as OP has difficulty with comprehension skills.

If one change the reload Reload frequency from 8-9 to 14 of the Rear Echelon Carbine will that increase their DPS or decrease it?