Login

russian armor

Rear armor of some vehicles needs to be reduced

23 Feb 2018, 17:53 PM
#41
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Feb 2018, 17:47 PMVipper
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.

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.
same for isu-152
23 Feb 2018, 17:57 PM
#42
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Feb 2018, 13:00 PMKatitof


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.
23 Feb 2018, 18:15 PM
#43
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

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
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Feb 2018, 13:57 PMEsxile





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.
23 Feb 2018, 18:53 PM
#45
avatar of ZombiFrancis

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.
23 Feb 2018, 18:54 PM
#46
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

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
avatar of Vipper

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
avatar of MajorBloodnok
Admin Red  Badge
Patrion 314

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).

23 Feb 2018, 19:24 PM
#49
avatar of ZombiFrancis

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.
23 Feb 2018, 21:01 PM
#50
avatar of Katitof

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.
23 Feb 2018, 21:03 PM
#51
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Feb 2018, 21:01 PMKatitof

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.
23 Feb 2018, 21:28 PM
#52
avatar of murky depths

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
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

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
avatar of Esxile

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
avatar of murky depths

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
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

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.
24 Feb 2018, 12:06 PM
#57
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474



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.
a resonable buff to the PV ? neverrrrrrrrr
24 Feb 2018, 14:47 PM
#58
avatar of AceOfTitanium

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
avatar of Vipper

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.
1 Mar 2018, 00:24 AM
#60
avatar of The Blue Falcon

Posts: 7

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Feb 2018, 00:08 AMVipper
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.

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.
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.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

854 users are online: 854 guests
0 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49120
Welcome our newest member, truvioll94
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM