Login

russian armor

Overnerfed Brummbar. Why am I not surprised?

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (11)down
2 Dec 2018, 15:51 PM
#41
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



I can already see one 6pdr crew member talking to another. "You can't shoot that assault gun with our gun. It is an anti-tank gun, not an anti assault gun gun." :D

Next time you opponents make brumbar, KV-8s or Crocs you build ATGS and show a replay how well it turn out for you.

I pretty sure the crews of your ATG will not have much time talking to one another when they are being turned into crisped or when they are being barraged.


Don't get technical with me, its a tank with a specific purpose/role. You know what I mean.
KV8 and Croc can mess you up when you don't have any support, and these two cant be compared to the Brumbär. They cost almost twice as much a Brumbär

Then pls don't get sarcastic with me especially if you what you right next is inaccurate.

Assault guns are not Tanks, this is simple fact both in real life and in game, that is why it gets a HE barrage ability unlike any other Tank.

It in game role/purpose is to counter soft target and that includes ATGs.

KV-8 does not cost twice as much a Brumbar or I am getting technical with you again?
KV-8 is actually cheaper than the Brumbar.

Brumbar 420/150
Kv-8 390/145
2 Dec 2018, 16:06 PM
#42
avatar of The amazing Chandler

Posts: 1355

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 15:51 PMVipper

Next time you opponents make brumbar, KV-8s and Crocs you build ATGS and show a replay how well it turn out for you.


Then pls don't get sarcastic with me especially if you what you right next is inaccurate.

Assault guns are not Tanks, this is simple fact both in real life and in game.

KV-8 does not cost twice as much a Brumbar or I am getting technical with you again?
KV-8 is actually cheaper than the Brumbar.

Brumbar 420/150
Kv-8 390/145


The difference between a tank and an assault gun is only the gun. Everything else is almost the same.
You are right about the cost of the KV8. But it is doctrinal and it can't handle two PAKs (especially with the target weak point) after it got nerfed.
I prefer a Brumbär over a KV8. And I almost forgot, the Brumbär does damage to almost every allied Tank, except the heavys.

As i said to OP, i don't know if the nerfs are to much or not but what i know for sure is that the Brumbär is a bit to good.

2 Dec 2018, 16:10 PM
#43
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



The difference between a tank and an assault gun is only the gun. Everything else is almost the same.

How many tank have you seen without a turret?

As you pointed out assault guns and tanks serve different role/purpose.


You are right about the cost of the KV8. But it is doctrinal and it can't handle two PAKs (especially with the target weak point) after it got nerfed.

Check the video where it kill each pak with a single burst. It's from the revamp but it hardly make a difference the flame damage is the same.


I prefer a Brumbär over a KV8. And I almost forgot, the Brumbär does damage to almost every allied Tank, except the heavys.

As i said to OP, i don't know if the nerfs are to much or not but what i know for sure is that the Brumbär is a bit to good.

Brumbar does damage to everything including the heavies because it has deflection damage.
2 Dec 2018, 16:18 PM
#44
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

the Brums armour is plenty enough for ATguns and mediums, its not going to help much against dedicated counters but thats the whole point of dedicated counters....
against anything but units designed specifically to eliminate armour the armour is formidable (not to say that allied TDs are not over performing)
its there to nuke infantry not tank TD shots.
you dont buy a brum thinking " ah yes, now i can deflect thos TD shots"
2 Dec 2018, 16:30 PM
#45
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

the Brums armour is plenty enough for ATguns and mediums, its not going to help much against dedicated counters but thats the whole point of dedicated counters....
against anything but units designed specifically to eliminate armour the armour is formidable (not to say that allied TDs are not over performing)
its there to nuke infantry not tank TD shots.
you dont buy a brum thinking " ah yes, now i can deflect thos TD shots"

Axis armor is designed for durability and that is why most axis vehicles get an armor bonus.

My point is simple, if allied TDs are OP as you say and can ignore even vetted armor bonuses ,then axis armor unit's vet bonuses should be redesigned to get something more useful for their role, the same Katyoushas vet 1 ability needs a redesign.

If it was my choice I would make Brumbar very durably, less lethal and better vs structures, but if Relic has decided that Brumbar should be all about the "Gun" that approach should be also reflected on the vet bonuses of the unit. That is the point I am trying to get across.
2 Dec 2018, 16:36 PM
#46
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1217

Wow, I'm off for just some days and there is yet another German lategame nerf.

I said it before and I'm going to say this again: The community devs are quite biased into the Allied favour. The game went downhill when they started with their stuff.

Now you have overnerfed Elefants, a StuG that is mediocre at best, all while being stuck with 4 men squads. Ost was about good tanks and small squads. Now it's about mediocre tanks and small squads. I'll let you figure out yourself why this game doesn't feel satisfying any more when playing Ost.
2 Dec 2018, 16:39 PM
#47
avatar of IncendiaryRounds:)

Posts: 1527

Permanently Banned

its there to nuke infantry


and at guns. Just like how Kv8 and crocs. The Brum can take on one at gun while the kv8 and croc can sometimes take on two.
2 Dec 2018, 18:35 PM
#48
avatar of Widerstreit

Posts: 1392

Brummbär was good as is was... but not as non-doc vehicle. It should be changed with StuG E.

Like I wrote often…

StuG E into T3, Ostwind into T4 with a buff. Brummbär replaces StuG E in mechanized and new community-def commander.

Maybe buff StuG G with 55 range, so it becomes useful again. Also would be a hull-down buff.
2 Dec 2018, 19:57 PM
#49
avatar of jagd wölfe

Posts: 1660

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 16:10 PMVipper

How many tank have you seen without a turret?



I've seen an assault gun with turret tho, KV2.

Hell even 105mm Sherman is an assault gun
2 Dec 2018, 20:21 PM
#50
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 16:10 PMVipper

How many tank have you seen without a turret?

M3 Lees turret gun most certainly wasn't its main armament and it was a tank as far as I'm aware.
2 Dec 2018, 20:26 PM
#51
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


M3 Lees turret gun most certainly wasn't its main armament and it was a tank as far as I'm aware.

Lee had a turret, regardless if it houses its main gun.

If you want to check ancient designs there are WWI Tanks with no turrets.

Thanks, once more you managed to bring bring useless information into another debate.
2 Dec 2018, 20:36 PM
#52
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1

Wow, I'm off for just some days and there is yet another German lategame nerf.

I said it before and I'm going to say this again: The community devs are quite biased into the Allied favour. The game went downhill when they started with their stuff.

Now you have overnerfed Elefants, a StuG that is mediocre at best, all while being stuck with 4 men squads. Ost was about good tanks and small squads. Now it's about mediocre tanks and small squads. I'll let you figure out yourself why this game doesn't feel satisfying any more when playing Ost.



No, you are just bias about your view of the community devs.
2 Dec 2018, 20:45 PM
#53
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 20:26 PMVipper

Lee had a turret, regardless if it houses its main gun.

If you want to check ancient designs there are WWI Tanks with no turrets.

Thanks, once more you managed to bring bring useless information into another debate.


Strv 103 Main battle tank without a turret
2 Dec 2018, 20:52 PM
#54
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 20:26 PMVipper

Lee had a turret, regardless if it houses its main gun.

If you want to check ancient designs there are WWI Tanks with no turrets.

Thanks, once more you managed to bring bring useless information into another debate.

In this case, why so picky about nomenclature of ancient war machines?
Because, you know, M3 Lee was first introduced during WW2.
Its equally "ancient" as Tiger, hell they both have seen conflict for the first time in the same theater was war.
2 Dec 2018, 21:21 PM
#55
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


In this case, why so picky about nomenclature of ancient war machines?
Because, you know, M3 Lee was first introduced during WW2.
Its equally "ancient" as Tiger, hell they both have seen conflict for the first time in the same theater was war.

M3 HAS a Turret, and an "an archaic" sponson mounting for the main gun.

It was a stop gap because USF factories could not produce a turret of 75mm gun, now if you want you can put it the same class a Tiger, you will probably be the only person on earth who does that.

Now you can continue this semantics BS on your own, I am not really interested in wasting my time and the time of the people of this forum, with you little crusade "prove Vipper wrong".

BB and have a nice day.
2 Dec 2018, 21:23 PM
#56
avatar of murky depths

Posts: 607

Anniversary Classic Mini Balance Update
Brumbar

-Armour reduced to 240 from 260
-Veterancy 2 armour bonus from 1.3 to 1.2
-This equates to 288 armour when vetted as opposed to 320

-Bunker Buster Barrage second and third shot scatter distance from 2.5 to 9
-Bunker Buster second and third shot scatter from 6 to 10

-Brumbar Range from 40 to 35


Damn, before it could get to 320 armor. No wonder shots bounced so often. And they're pretty easy to vet up too since they can damage vehicles as well as infantry. The regular Tiger has 300 frontal armor from what I see on the stats calculator, so I think the change is fine.

Yeah I think I'm ok with the changes, they're also not that drastic.

I'll still be using it, anwyay.
2 Dec 2018, 21:26 PM
#57
avatar of Jae For Jett
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2

2 Dec 2018, 21:41 PM
#58
avatar of IncendiaryRounds:)

Posts: 1527

Permanently Banned

u mad bro?

u still think 222 is op?
2 Dec 2018, 21:48 PM
#59
avatar of Cardboard Tank

Posts: 978

No, you are just bias about your view of the community devs.
He has made a true point.

Ost was about good tanks and small squads. Now it's about mediocre tanks and small squads. I'll let you figure out yourself why this game doesn't feel satisfying any more when playing Ost.
The Brumm was the last remaining good unit Ostheer had. With the reduced range it will be forced to dive deeper into AT guns which renders the unit far less capable. Meanwhile the ISU152 can rule supreme. The Ele with far less utility gets hit with the nerf stick. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see a pattern here.
2 Dec 2018, 21:52 PM
#60
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3260

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 21:21 PMVipper
semantics BS


...

You're the one who started this conversation by saying an anti-tank gun wasn't meant to counter assault guns.

Like StuGs.
PAGES (11)down
4 users are browsing this thread: 4 guests

Livestreams

Germany 25
unknown 17

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

472 users are online: 472 guests
0 post in the last 24h
4 posts in the last week
35 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49227
Welcome our newest member, Brzez538
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM