222

Jump back to quoted post22 Apr 2018, 08:54 AMKatitof

The actual controversy here is cost reduction and 50% armor buff.

Jump back to quoted post22 Apr 2018, 09:05 AMblvckdream

It´s kind of rediculous that M20 will remain at 320 MP while 222 will cost 200MP...How is that fair?

Jump back to quoted post22 Apr 2018, 11:28 AMzarok47

The armor buff is so you need actual AT to fight the 222, not just laugh at it with infantry, forcing eternal repairs.

The mp buff is so it can be bought in pairs without further crippling ostheer mp.

What is the problem?



You never heard of the free LT hitting at the same time, creating a gigantic shock when lt+m20 hits?

Thank free sqauds for artificial overpricing of USF units.

Jump back to quoted post22 Apr 2018, 11:28 AMzarok47

The armor buff is so you need actual AT to fight the 222, not just laugh at it with infantry, forcing eternal repairs.

The mp buff is so it can be bought in pairs without further crippling ostheer mp.

What is the problem?



You never heard of the free LT hitting at the same time, creating a gigantic shock when lt+m20 hits?

Thank free sqauds for artificial overpricing of USF units.

Jump back to quoted post22 Apr 2018, 12:13 PMferwiner

Is it not a problem on its own? 222 comes before 2 out of 3 allied factions can get to an AT gun. It is also much cheaper than AT gun itself. Not to mention that even now double 222 is a valid counter to AEC while costing less than AEC and its research.

Jump back to quoted post22 Apr 2018, 13:26 PMBananenheld

im a bit confused, are you talking about 17 pounder or pak 43 ?

Jump back to quoted post22 Apr 2018, 11:39 AMblvckdream

Double 222 is complete cancer and super annoying. Why would anyone want this back in the game? Almost everybody seems to agree on that.

Jump back to quoted post22 Apr 2018, 12:13 PMferwiner

Is it not a problem on its own? 222 comes before 2 out of 3 allied factions can get to an AT gun. It is also much cheaper than AT gun itself. Not to mention that even now double 222 is a valid counter to AEC while costing less than AEC and its research.

Jump back to quoted post22 Apr 2018, 14:01 PMzarok47

???

I answered your question, why are you responding like this? You seem to be argueing out of emotion against the 222 buff, I recommend you evaluate yourself.



So? It's not like 222 is going to wipe infantry like a t70 (which by your logic, is also cheaper than an ATG) or that allied factions lack AT options (mines,snares,LV's you name it).

And I know most brit players are basicly AFK, but 444 isn't a threat to a AEC in competent hands.


The people argueing against 222 buff should play ostheer and face t70/aaht/aec and come back.
You will realise that this thread is a joke then.

Jump back to quoted post22 Apr 2018, 14:10 PMferwiner

Are you really not trolling? With similar support trading one 222 for aaht or aec is pretty much certain if you have 2. Works for me every time I go 222s, even though I usually prefer long T1 play with sniper. T70 is of course a different case as it comes the latest of all these vehicles. Which doesn't matter that much becouse nobody sane goes 222s versus soviets either way.

Jump back to quoted post22 Apr 2018, 14:42 PMzarok47

You just answered why the 222 should be buffed. I refrain from the rest since it's personal experience and some weird argument about timing with the t70, which will just devolve into semantics.

Jump back to quoted post22 Apr 2018, 14:45 PMferwiner

Btw, talking about 222 and t-70 as if they were in same class is pretty hard to justify. There is much less of a difference in cost and arrival time between ostwind and t-70 than 222 and t-70 and yet people don't scream that t-70 is UP becouse of that.

Jump back to quoted post22 Apr 2018, 13:45 PMferwiner

AT guns cost 320 mp. Proposed cost for 222 is 200mp. Don't tell me you can't see the difference. AT guns also use twice as much population as 222.

Jump back to quoted post23 Apr 2018, 15:23 PMBananenheld

So you just leave out the fuel price tag and call it cheaper?


I cant follow that logic.

Jump back to quoted post23 Apr 2018, 18:56 PMferwiner

Do you build an AT gun to counter a single M3, UC or dodge? You don't, becouse these are cheap units and it is not worth it. In the same way you shouldn't be forced to go AT gun to counter a single 222.

Jump back to quoted post23 Apr 2018, 19:00 PMEsxile

All of them are vastly counterable with regular rifles. It will not be the case with the new 222

Jump back to quoted post23 Apr 2018, 19:52 PMClassyDavid

222 will be fine. Don't know what's this huge worry as the 222 lethality and fuel cost is the exact same. 444 will be 400 mp and 60 fuel and any AT weapon will quickly force it off and you have use Pioneer to repair it. Not USF tank crews, Sturmpioneers, Sappers, etc. Not like anyone was seriously using rifle fire to ward of a scout car before now, it forces Allies to go AT weapons just like against OKW or Axis against any Allied faction.

Jump back to quoted post23 Apr 2018, 18:56 PMferwiner

Do you build an AT gun to counter a single M3, UC or dodge? You don't, becouse these are cheap units and it is not worth it. In the same way you shouldn't be forced to go AT gun to counter a single 222.

Jump back to quoted post24 Apr 2018, 06:02 AMEsxile

And how do you get that if you went USF T1 first? Can you remember us why you like to pick Airborn doctrine in the first place.

Jump back to quoted post23 Apr 2018, 01:39 AM#12345678

No more buff on 222 please.

I don't want to recall last year, when you have to fight double or triple 222 rush in the field because of the ridiculous low fuel cost of it (15 fuel).

Jump back to quoted post23 Apr 2018, 19:52 PMClassyDavid

it forces Allies to go AT weapons just like against OKW or Axis against any Allied faction.