Login

russian armor

Nerf the DAMN SECTOR ASSAULT

25 Feb 2019, 11:05 AM
#81
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243


30 fuel to build, but it's in a side tech that locks out the AEC so I don't think it would be too bad. They have nerfed its general perfomance enough that being able to shoot down planes wouldn't be too unreasonable. Keep in mind the 222 is only 20 fuel, the Soviet AAHT isnt crazy expensive either. Sure it's waaaay more durable but it doesn't move so.....



this both verhicles comes without tech? Nice.
This both verhicle wipes any retreating (even 4model left) unit easy? Nice
This both verhicles can take more than 6-8 AT gun shots? nice
They can brace? nice
They have indirect fire? Supa!
They kill all light and even mediums in short time?? nice

Yes it cant move...but it doesnt need to move when u use it right: hold an area for so less cost its mostly cost free...in perspective it gives you back.
25 Feb 2019, 11:20 AM
#82
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279




this both verhicles comes without tech? Nice.
This both verhicle wipes any retreating (even 4model left) unit easy? Nice
This both verhicles can take more than 6-8 AT gun shots? nice
They can brace? nice
They have indirect fire? Supa!
They kill all light and even mediums in short time?? nice

Yes it cant move...but it doesnt need to move when u use it right: hold an area for so less cost its mostly cost free...in perspective it gives you back.


The tech for the bofors unlocks literally othing but the bofors. That's its only purpose. It doesn't get you closer to tanks, it does t u lock tanks with it. It's a side tech that only unlocks the bofors and without it you can't have a bofors. It needs to be accounted for.

Also you are overstating the power of the bofors. It used to wipe instantly, but no longer. It should function as AA primarily so that it might actually get some use.
25 Feb 2019, 13:21 PM
#83
avatar of SeductiveCardbordBox

Posts: 591 | Subs: 1

>People still complaining about Brit defensive structures like it's 2017

The fact the Brits can't use it as a dedicated hard AA vehicle is a joke. OKW get one for free with their teching, still. Every other nation at least gets something that's on the cheaper end of the scale.

But the brits have to spennd 100 fuel on a dedicated AI tank with 0 at capability because having to side tech and then building a Bofors in the back line is, somehow, OP.
25 Feb 2019, 16:41 PM
#84
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

>People still complaining about Brit defensive structures like it's 2017
...
But the brits have to spennd 100 fuel on a dedicated AI tank with 0 at capability because having to side tech and then building a Bofors in the back line is, somehow, OP.


Funny part is, that neither Bofors are built in the back lines, rather frontlines, cutoffs and important resource points nor Side tech needed is a problem, you only sacrifice getting the AEC, but once you get one you dont need the other (they dont sinergyse) and finally forces a direct counter strategy on it (either mortar spam, AT ground attack or area denyal) for a cheap amount of Fuel.
I am not complainting but showing the other precious side of the coin you "accidently" missed.
You are welcome...

But this all was about sector assault, and bofors AA fix is very important, at least as an active ability...
26 Feb 2019, 07:23 AM
#85
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243

>People still complaining about Brit defensive structures like it's 2017

The fact the Brits can't use it as a dedicated hard AA vehicle is a joke. OKW get one for free with their teching, still. Every other nation at least gets something that's on the cheaper end of the scale.

But the brits have to spennd 100 fuel on a dedicated AI tank with 0 at capability because having to side tech and then building a Bofors in the back line is, somehow, OP.


imagine you spend 110fuel on a tank which has nearly zero AA capability, no AT, so less AI ....yeah...ostwind say hello to you.
26 Feb 2019, 07:50 AM
#86
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



imagine you spend 110fuel on a tank which has nearly zero AA capability, no AT, so less AI ....yeah...ostwind say hello to you.

Problems with the istwind are problems with the istwind and independent of problems with the bofors.
26 Feb 2019, 08:02 AM
#87
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243


Problems with the istwind are problems with the istwind and independent of problems with the bofors.


i was only saying that the Centaur is really good...compared to the ostwind....he was the guy which brought the Centaur in to the topic..
26 Feb 2019, 08:14 AM
#88
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



imagine you spend 110fuel on a tank which has nearly zero AA capability, no AT, so less AI ....yeah...ostwind say hello to you.

If you only lasted 4 more words and noticed the "cheap" part.

222 AA performance is not to be ignored and it has both, decent AT and AI for its tier and price.
26 Feb 2019, 08:17 AM
#89
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Feb 2019, 08:14 AMKatitof

If you only lasted 4 more words and noticed the "cheap" part.

222 AA performance is not to be ignored and it has both, decent AT and AI for its tier and price.


while can be push back by any infantry with a scissor....because it has armor out of paper. Try this with a bofors....which can deal with armys
26 Feb 2019, 08:49 AM
#90
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



while can be push back by any infantry with a scissor....because it has armor out of paper. Try this with a bofors....which can deal with armys

And that makes is less of a cheap affordable AA how exactly?

You don't really need to put any unit directly on the front line, under opponents fire for it to fight planes.
In fact, I'm going to blow your mind here and say it will not fight planes in this case, because it'll be busy shooting ground force.
26 Feb 2019, 09:04 AM
#91
avatar of Sp33dSnake

Posts: 149

I agree; eliminate the Sector Assault call in.

...

(And substitute it for the V-2 Rocket Strike from COH. Man, I love the sound it made.)
26 Feb 2019, 10:46 AM
#92
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



i was only saying that the Centaur is really good...compared to the ostwind....he was the guy which brought the Centaur in to the topic..

he brought the centaur into it because were talking about an axis air ability.... allied AA units counter axis air abilities, and the centaur is an allied unit.
again, the state of the ostwind doesnt matter to this discussion at all. if you want to talk ostwind needing buffs, make a thread and ill support the change, but this isnt the place here as it has no link at all to this particular issue.
1 Mar 2019, 22:55 PM
#93
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358

I agree; eliminate the Sector Assault call in.

...

(And substitute it for the V-2 Rocket Strike from COH. Man, I love the sound it made.)


Yes, please! Nukes for axis!
1 Mar 2019, 23:08 PM
#94
avatar of SeductiveCardbordBox

Posts: 591 | Subs: 1



Yes, please! Nukes for axis!


Its equivalent, the Stuka Bomb Drop, is already in game. Single target, no flare, distinctive sound, does a butt load of damage.
2 Mar 2019, 00:07 AM
#95
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358



Its equivalent, the Stuka Bomb Drop, is already in game. Single target, no flare, distinctive sound, does a butt load of damage.

A stuka bomb is an explosive dropped from a plane.
Instead a V-2 rocket its a self propelled explosive with much more potential to blow up anything. Like saying a Pershing, or a damn bofors emplacement while braced.
2 Mar 2019, 00:34 AM
#96
avatar of KoRneY

Posts: 682



Its equivalent, the Stuka Bomb Drop, is already in game. Single target, no flare, distinctive sound, does a butt load of damage.


v1 was way cooler
2 Mar 2019, 00:37 AM
#97
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279


A stuka bomb is an explosive dropped from a plane.
Instead a V-2 rocket its a self propelled explosive with much more potential to blow up anything. Like saying a Pershing, or a damn bofors emplacement while braced.


Wow you really are something special arnt you? Notice how they listed IN GAME features (most ww2 bombs and arty are not led by 3 red flares, I figure you might need that pointed out to you)
IN GAME there exists an equivalent, the stuka.
Just because I know it would take at least 3 times for you:
IN GAME stuak DB==v1 rocket for all intents and purposes.
2 Mar 2019, 00:51 AM
#98
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

The same commander has goliaths. Why you would want another one-bomb wonder in that commander is beyond me just from a design standpoint. Just takes a bit more planning and a lot less munitions to use.
2 Mar 2019, 02:28 AM
#99
avatar of distrofio

Posts: 2358



Wow you really are something special arnt you? Notice how they listed IN GAME features (most ww2 bombs and arty are not led by 3 red flares, I figure you might need that pointed out to you)
IN GAME there exists an equivalent, the stuka.
Just because I know it would take at least 3 times for you:
IN GAME stuak DB==v1 rocket for all intents and purposes.

BUT STUKA IS A BOMB
V-2 ITS A SELF PROPELLED ROCKET.

Gosh, i hate people not getting the important point of the discussion...

2 Mar 2019, 02:38 AM
#100
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279


BUT STUKA IS A BOMB
V-2 ITS A SELF PROPELLED ROCKET.

Gosh, i hate people not getting the important point of the discussion...



MECHANICALLY THEY WOULD FUNCTION THE SAME IN THE GAME.

Wide aoe with long delay
You could call it a disteofio core orbital flechette (denser than any substance known to man) and it would STILL function the same.
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

853 users are online: 1 member and 852 guests
Major Shentypoo
1 post in the last 24h
10 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50004
Welcome our newest member, Abtik Services
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM