The case of KV-2 is similar to the case of the IS-2 and since according to developers IS-2 need its rear armor lowered so is the case for the KV-2.same for isu-152
Any otherre balance KV-2 might need (like different vet bonuses and abilities) is irrelevant to its ability to to withstand rear armor shot from P4 and it has little reason to have the same rear armor value that Ostheer P4 has frontally.
Rear armor of some vehicles needs to be reduced
23 Feb 2018, 17:53 PM
#41
Posts: 4474
katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
23 Feb 2018, 17:57 PM
#42
Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1
The Moment a unit is no longer obvious and only choice is the moment its more balanced.
One faction only Players resisting changes to very specific powerful unit is a good indicator that unit needs to be touched, especially when it overshadows all other alternatives by a Long shot, which KT did.
Still can't believe people are complaining about KT nerfs. The thing was literally a nondoc I win unit for OKW. Essentially an old Tiger Ace without needing to lock a doctrine for it.
bg /l
23 Feb 2018, 18:15 PM
#43
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
Still can't believe people are complaining about KT nerfs. The thing was literally a nondoc I win unit for OKW. Essentially an old Tiger Ace without needing to lock a doctrine for it.
The reason people complain about the KT nerfs is because it went from a threatening expensive unit that COULD be countered through tank destroyers.... and then we gave it IS2 scatter. Why is the IS2 never used? Because its an RNG cannon that misses too frequently to deal reliable damage. So why on earth we made the KT like that I'll never know when there were FAR better options than what was done.
23 Feb 2018, 18:47 PM
#44
Posts: 2066
Let's make it more clear
Panthers are not mean counter Tank Destroyers , I'm sorry, that's how the game works today, Tank destroyers are mean to counter Panthers .
So, then what is the Ostheer Panther supposed to counter? It has slow rate of fire, so it can't seriously threaten heavies. It is too expensive to be 'spammed' (lol) and thus can't fight against multiple mediums (which will be there by the time it arrives), especially due to its low rate of fire. It has no worthwhile anti infantry capabilities, so it can't effectively deter infantry. It has not the range nor the damage output to contest with tank destroyers.
What must it do and what is it effective at? The thing costs an arm and a leg, but gives very shallow capabilities in return.
Kappa
23 Feb 2018, 18:53 PM
#45
Posts: 2742
Well, people complained that they couldn't solo an opposing team in large games.
Two players with a JT/KT combo were too much for a single player to overwhelm.
Two players with a JT/KT combo were too much for a single player to overwhelm.
Strategic Territory Points Mod:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604491510
Classic resource points!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604491510
Classic resource points!
23 Feb 2018, 18:54 PM
#46
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
Well, people complained that they couldn't solo an opposing team in large games.
Two players with a JT/KT combo were too much for a single player to overwhelm.
You're telling me 1 player couldn't beat 4 players at once? Should probably nerf those 4 people so they're worth only 1/4 of a player.
23 Feb 2018, 18:57 PM
#47
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Lets try to forget Panther/ Allied TDs and focus on Tanks that have a rear armor as high as Ostheer P4 frontal armor making flanking not rewarding enough.
23 Feb 2018, 19:00 PM
#48
14 
Posts: 10665 | Subs: 9
Flame posts #38 and #39 have both been invised by a Moderator.
If the sniping continues, this thread will have to be consigned to the eternal flame, as perhaps it should have been a couple of pages back, (but I blame myself for that).
If the sniping continues, this thread will have to be consigned to the eternal flame, as perhaps it should have been a couple of pages back, (but I blame myself for that).
23 Feb 2018, 19:24 PM
#49
Posts: 2742
You're telling me 1 player couldn't beat 4 players at once? Should probably nerf those 4 people so they're worth only 1/4 of a player.
The difference between doing your own 1vX thing and coordinating with teammates is pretty much night and day. This is/was a foreign concept as "teamwork" and "communication" aren't variables that can be calculated in a speadsheet or edited in mod tools.
So yes, I'd say that that was more or less the approach taken.
Strategic Territory Points Mod:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604491510
Classic resource points!
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=604491510
Classic resource points!
23 Feb 2018, 21:01 PM
#50
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Still can't believe people are complaining about KT nerfs. The thing was literally a nondoc I win unit for OKW. Essentially an old Tiger Ace without needing to lock a doctrine for it.
I literally said it was OP and is OP no longer.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
23 Feb 2018, 21:03 PM
#51
Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1
I literally said it was OP and is OP no longer.
Mb I wasn't clear, I was agreeing with you but I'm surprised that people state how they think the old KT was fine.
bg /l
23 Feb 2018, 21:28 PM
#52
Posts: 607
Why is the IS2 never used? Because its an RNG cannon that misses too frequently to deal reliable damage.
I can't speak for others, but that's not the reason I don't use it. The reason I don't use it is because it's doctrinal and those (two?) commanders aren't terribly great to use given the various other options one has.
In fact, I'd be surprised if it gets used even 1/5th as often as a KT does. Hell, there's team games where 4+ KTs are deployed but not a single IS-2, Pershing, ISU-152, or KV-2 for the entire match.
23 Feb 2018, 23:21 PM
#53
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
I can't speak for others, but that's not the reason I don't use it. The reason I don't use it is because it's doctrinal and those (two?) commanders aren't terribly great to use given the various other options one has.
In fact, I'd be surprised if it gets used even 1/5th as often as a KT does. Hell, there's team games where 4+ KTs are deployed but not a single IS-2, Pershing, ISU-152, or KV-2 for the entire match.
A lot of that has to do with the fact the KT is nondoc. Pershing, 152 and KV-2 can all be great but they're map dependant, and generally get shut down by axis TDs, which are still selected usually.
23 Feb 2018, 23:41 PM
#54
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
So, then what is the Ostheer Panther supposed to counter? It has slow rate of fire, so it can't seriously threaten heavies. It is too expensive to be 'spammed' (lol) and thus can't fight against multiple mediums (which will be there by the time it arrives), especially due to its low rate of fire. It has no worthwhile anti infantry capabilities, so it can't effectively deter infantry. It has not the range nor the damage output to contest with tank destroyers.
What must it do and what is it effective at? The thing costs an arm and a leg, but gives very shallow capabilities in return.
Medium tanks + ISU, iS2, Pershing, Comet, Churchills, KV-2. Stuff that is not used, you are complaining you have no reason to use your hunter unit but the reason is because its preys are just not used at all. Why? because most of them are unique and linked to meh doctrines. That's not a problem of Panther but a problem of allied units so useless that it is always better to spam arty and TDs than building one of them...
Don't get me wrong I'm not please with the current situation, I think that in the meta, exchanging Panther with Tiger would be better than anything else to bring back late game balance for the Ostheer. It would be insentive for the Ostheer to actually build T4.
24 Feb 2018, 04:47 AM
#55
Posts: 607
A lot of that has to do with the fact the KT is nondoc. Pershing, 152 and KV-2 can all be great but they're map dependant, and generally get shut down by axis TDs, which are still selected usually.
Yes, that was my point (and also what I said).
Not really related to topic/thread, but I would very much like for all armies to have access to a heavy tank (maybe by full teching or something else).
Overall, I really dislike how the commander system works in CoH2.
24 Feb 2018, 05:56 AM
#56
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
So, then what is the Ostheer Panther supposed to counter? It has slow rate of fire, so it can't seriously threaten heavies.
It basically has the same RoF as the Jackson, difference now is just 0.1s. PV role should be anti premium mediums. Give it back old RoF, improve acc and give it 200dmg which would make it good against Su76, same performance against normal 640HP medium tanks but it will dealt easier with 720/800HP tanks as well as heavier ones.
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
24 Feb 2018, 12:06 PM
#57
Posts: 4474
a resonable buff to the PV ? neverrrrrrrrr
It basically has the same RoF as the Jackson, difference now is just 0.1s. PV role should be anti premium mediums. Give it back old RoF, improve acc and give it 200dmg which would make it good against Su76, same performance against normal 640HP medium tanks but it will dealt easier with 720/800HP tanks as well as heavier ones.
katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
Katitof-2018
24 Feb 2018, 14:47 PM
#58
Posts: 162
I wonder if it is still possible to implement side armor, its the last thing I really wope relic would do in this game even as late as now.
27 Feb 2018, 15:16 PM
#59
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Other vehicles that need different armor values:
Centaur 160/80 target size 18 they are simply too high (and similar to Cromwell)
For comparison reason Ostwind armor levels are 110/55 TS 22.
OKW PzIV rear armor 80 this probably due to an oversight from when it could buy armored skirts.
For comparison Ostheer PzIV has an armor of 90 going to 117 at vet 2.
Centaur 160/80 target size 18 they are simply too high (and similar to Cromwell)
For comparison reason Ostwind armor levels are 110/55 TS 22.
OKW PzIV rear armor 80 this probably due to an oversight from when it could buy armored skirts.
For comparison Ostheer PzIV has an armor of 90 going to 117 at vet 2.
1 Mar 2018, 00:24 AM
#60
Posts: 7
In the patch that lowered the rear/side armor of most vehicles certain vehicles where forgotten and currently have more rear armor even than KT.Just to be clear all the Allies HEAVY tanks need to have their armor lowered, but the Hetzer which uses the chassis of a T-38 needs to be rasied...your logic is undeniable.
Rear armor of KT is 150
KV-1 165 should be lowered
KV-2 180 should be lowered
ISU-152 155 should be lowered
KV-8 145 should be lowered
Churchill 180 should be lowered
On the other hand the Hezter with its low range and no turret should have its rear/side armor increased from 80.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
9 | ||
 |
|
|
34 | ||
|
|
|
|
12 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.611220.735+5
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.1110614.644+11
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.918405.694+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1236