Of course they are not. But with KV2 they might see some good usage.
Yeah, USF are really quite poorly suited for tank traps. If a heavy tank destroyer comes out, their own tank traps will hurt them.
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
Of course they are not. But with KV2 they might see some good usage.
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
Posts: 875 | Subs: 2
Thanks for your all votes. I think it's the most one-sided poll on .org ever.
Such agreement between everyone.
So only one thing left...
#BeliveInRelic2016!
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
Thank you for the unnecessary shit post. The poll is fine, and is much better than others.
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
Posts: 875 | Subs: 2
Lel, of course Im gonna bump.
Let Relic know we want changes for defensive tactics.
Posts: 500
Posts: 2
Posts: 5279
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
kv-2 is pretty meh atm... so it would fit in PERFECTLY!
the kv-s is nothing if not a defencive unit...which is why of all units cap territory make the least sense on this unit... but lelic gunna lel
Posts: 1216
Posts: 5279
KV2 suffers from 13CPs.
It should be 12 just like any other heavy tank.
Plus, it's close to being useless on a move with reload over 10secs. It also does not receive any reload bonuses.
But during siege mode it's completly different story. It's still exposed to off maps but thanks to the tank traps it could be possible to stop tanks from parking next to siegied KV2. It would require some thinking and skills to use siege mode just like to assault sieged KV2 covered by some traps.
22 | |||||
4 | |||||
1797 | |||||
203 | |||||
183 | |||||
39 | |||||
23 | |||||
21 | |||||
10 | |||||
7 |