Login

russian armor

222 spam

2 Mar 2016, 13:06 PM
#21
avatar of Osinyagov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 1389 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Mar 2016, 12:59 PMTNrg


45 fuel for a Luchs autocannon would be OP as fuck


Luchs cost 65 fuel (if i remember correctly). It have good armor (not penetrated by rifles,mg and etc.), good cannon and have 320 hp (correct me if i made mistake). Also it can cloak at 1 vet.
222 for 45 fuel will have good cannon, good speed and good vision, but low hp, weak armor. It can be eaily countered by at guns, PTRS, zooks and etc. Also it difficult to spam (to expensive). That's why i think 45 fuel is enough.
2 Mar 2016, 13:08 PM
#22
avatar of BartonPL

Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6

i dont find 222 being OP, it's balanced imo, kinda cheap, not very good vs anything, losses to garrisoned or green covered units, very vulnerable to any kind of AT weapon, keep in mind that it still does get killed by 2 pak shots and medium/heavy tanks
2 Mar 2016, 13:11 PM
#23
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 236

i dont find 222 being OP, it's balanced imo, kinda cheap, not very good vs anything, losses to garrisoned or green covered units, very vulnerable to any kind of AT weapon, keep in mind that it still does get killed by 2 pak shots and medium/heavy tanks


I'm with Barton on this. That video was a joke, because the player just had to back up to keep his front armor shown and never even attempted to.
2 Mar 2016, 13:14 PM
#24
avatar of Gdot

Posts: 1166 | Subs: 1

i dont find 222 being OP, it's balanced imo, kinda cheap, not very good vs anything, losses to garrisoned or green covered units, very vulnerable to any kind of AT weapon, keep in mind that it still does get killed by 2 pak shots and medium/heavy tanks


Agreed, this is just a silly video to trigger fanbois. Nothing to see her folks, move along.
2 Mar 2016, 13:16 PM
#25
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

The video is an exaggeration, not trying to make a point with it. But how can someone possibly make the argument that the current 222 should be cheaper then a wc51.

It's stats aren't OP but it's price is ridiculous.
2 Mar 2016, 13:17 PM
#26
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



Luchs cost 65 fuel (if i remember correctly). It have good armor (not penetrated by rifles,mg and etc.), good cannon and have 320 hp 400 hp (correct me if i made mistake). Also it can cloak at 1 vet.


2 Mar 2016, 14:00 PM
#27
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930



I'm with Barton on this. That video was a joke, because the player just had to back up to keep his front armor shown and never even attempted to.


while I agree that the tanks could have win if the player had use any micro, you generally don't expect a 210 mp 15 fuel unit to be even capable of harming a tank.
2 Mar 2016, 14:28 PM
#28
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

To me, the issue is clearly the price.
I made 4 of them in a 2vs2 and dominated the battlefield.

Set back the cannon upgrade or increase its fuel price to 30. At least more expensive than a WC51...
2 Mar 2016, 14:34 PM
#29
avatar of Thamor

Posts: 290

The video is an exaggeration, not trying to make a point with it. But how can someone possibly make the argument that the current 222 should be cheaper then a wc51.

It's stats aren't OP but it's price is ridiculous.


Doesn't wc51 allow transport of units? So you can make USF clown car out of it, if so it's balanced. :)
2 Mar 2016, 14:36 PM
#30
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Mar 2016, 14:34 PMThamor


Doesn't wc51 allow transport of units? So you can make USF clown car out of it, if so it's balanced. :)


Soviet M3 is still stronger and cheaper you know. :snfBarton:
2 Mar 2016, 14:38 PM
#31
avatar of Thamor

Posts: 290



Soviet M3 is still stronger and cheaper you know. :snfBarton:


Yes, but was answering his saying of why wc51 cost more than 222.
2 Mar 2016, 14:46 PM
#32
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Mar 2016, 14:38 PMThamor


Yes, but was answering his saying of why wc51 cost more than 222.

That is rather terrible logic.

Unarmed 250 costs 40 fuel.
Soviet M5 costs 30.

Some units just have retarded prices behind them that make absolutely no sense.
2 Mar 2016, 15:07 PM
#33
avatar of Thamor

Posts: 290


That is rather terrible logic.

Unarmed 250 costs 40 fuel.
Soviet M5 costs 30.

Some units just have retarded prices behind them that make absolutely no sense.


Huoh o_O

WC51 is 240mp 20fuel 5pop, that gets USF their own clown car. Is armed with 50cal machine gun (What unarmed?) Which is really good if you want to play clown car style.

And I am 99.9% certain the soviet clown car does not cost 30 fuel. Think 20fuel and maybe 200mp.

ps. I would be really happy if there was ostheer commander that gave me sdkfz 250 only on cp0. Now there is 2 commanders that give it, but you have to save alot of manpower + fuel to get it and being locked behind cp3. 500mp 40fuel to get Wehrmacht clown car, you don't always want to pay for unit + halftrack.
2 Mar 2016, 15:18 PM
#34
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Mar 2016, 15:07 PMThamor


Huoh o_O

WC51 is 240mp 20fuel 5pop, that gets USF their own clown car. Is armed with 50cal machine gun (What unarmed?) Which is really good if you want to play clown car style.

And I am 99.9% certain the soviet clown car does not cost 30 fuel. Think 20fuel and maybe 200mp.

ps. I would be really happy if there was ostheer commander that gave me sdkfz 250 only on cp0. Now there is 2 commanders that give it, but you have to save alot of manpower + fuel to get it and being locked behind cp3. 500mp 40fuel to get Wehrmacht clown car, you don't always want to pay for unit + halftrack.

He's talking about the 250 unarmed halftrack costing 40 fuel.
2 Mar 2016, 15:22 PM
#35
avatar of Thamor

Posts: 290

Well 250 is a halftrack and pretty well armored to take hits, so 40 fuel for is it that much? Depends if you want it or not.

Anyhow comparing 222 to a vehicle that let's u transport + cap points...
2 Mar 2016, 16:02 PM
#36
avatar of Hans G. Schultz

Posts: 875 | Subs: 2

It was just an HP boost. Now everyone thinks they're cheap terminators that win games... Good logic. I suppose this community is soooo used to saying "If it's not underpowered, It's overpowered."
2 Mar 2016, 16:14 PM
#37
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

It was just an HP boost. Now everyone thinks they're cheap terminators that win games... Good logic. I suppose this community is soooo used to saying "If it's not underpowered, It's overpowered."


"just hp boost" was also applied to M10, StuG, sherman EZ8, KV-2, ost weapon teams(4th man), Stuart, 222 previously(apparently only allies are supposed to be losing less then 20fu units to mines and axis vehicles are all supposed to be able to crawl away if they can).

Do I need to remind anyone old 2% hp bulletins and their effect on balance?

The "just hp boost" is one of the most powerful buffs a unit can get.

"Just hp boost" can take unit from being completely and utterly useless to meta and always go-to unit.
2 Mar 2016, 16:29 PM
#38
avatar of Hans G. Schultz

Posts: 875 | Subs: 2



"just hp boost" was also applied to M10, StuG, sherman EZ8, KV-2, ost weapon teams(4th man), Stuart, 222 previously(apparently only allies are supposed to be losing less then 20fu units to mines and axis vehicles are all supposed to be able to crawl away if they can).

Do I need to remind anyone old 2% hp bulletins and their effect on balance?

The "just hp boost" is one of the most powerful buffs a unit can get.

"Just hp boost" can take unit from being completely and utterly useless to meta and always go-to unit.

It still can take damage from just about EVERYTHING, so an HP boost was necessary. At least now the 222 doesn't die immediately after being spotted by any sort of AT.
2 Mar 2016, 17:11 PM
#39
avatar of Clarity

Posts: 479

It is interesting because before the most recent patch building a 222 against an AEC was pretty much suicide but now Brits actually have a pretty rough time against 222 spam. Lack of snares have been such a major issue since Day 1. If you don't have the Special Weapons commander all you can really do is try and spam mines and rush an AEC. Soviets and USF have access to PTRS's and Zooks which work much better against 222's. I still do think Brits have the stronger mid-game, but surviving the early game is even tougher now.
2 Mar 2016, 17:51 PM
#40
avatar of Pablonano

Posts: 297

I'm just going to leave this here


what a shamefull display of horrible tank managing
0 user is browsing this thread:

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

867 users are online: 867 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
40 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49070
Welcome our newest member, Blesofsk
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM