Login

russian armor

Give 222 smoke by default?

6 Apr 2019, 21:41 PM
#1
avatar of KiwiBirb

Posts: 789

The Stuart, AEC and Puma all get smoke, can 222 get some love and get default smoke too?

It’s not surviveable at all, and
I feel like this would be a good buff for it, as increasing its cost to increase its health/penetration would leave ost vulnerable to wc51, UEC and M3.


Don’t hurt me I only play Wher and UKF I thought Stuart had smoke
6 Apr 2019, 22:25 PM
#2
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Stuart AEC and puma all cost more than 30 fuel, as in upwards of 2x the price.
ddd
6 Apr 2019, 22:32 PM
#3
avatar of ddd

Posts: 528 | Subs: 1

Stuart has smoke? Damn i missed patch again.
6 Apr 2019, 22:33 PM
#4
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

Since when Stuart can use smoke?
6 Apr 2019, 22:34 PM
#5
avatar of KiwiBirb

Posts: 789

Stuart AEC and puma all cost more than 30 fuel, as in upwards of 2x the price.


Does costing less mean that 222 can’t have smoke?

Double 222 costs the same as AEC and can fight AEC, but double 222s require more micro and a tiny pathing bug can screw them over. And when AEC is about to die it just pops smoke and leaves. Why not make 222 more forgiving?
6 Apr 2019, 22:36 PM
#6
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

If you want smoke that badly, there is a doctrine for it.
Its literally what doctrines are for, you pick stuff you need for yourself.
6 Apr 2019, 23:43 PM
#7
avatar of Clarity

Posts: 479

I would say I just wish 222's didn't take so much damage from small arms fire, it makes it risky to charge up to infantry even if they don't have snares since you might take just enough damage that a stray AT Gun shot or Light Vehicle could possibly hunt you down. Panzer Tactician is probably too good to be available non-doctrinally although I wish the AEC smoke had to be shot out either like the Smoke Shell or Smoke Canisters(M4 Sherman).
7 Apr 2019, 00:00 AM
#8
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1

They gave the Stuart smoke?
7 Apr 2019, 00:20 AM
#9
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



Does costing less mean that 222 can’t have smoke?

Double 222 costs the same as AEC and can fight AEC, but double 222s require more micro and a tiny pathing bug can screw them over. And when AEC is about to die it just pops smoke and leaves. Why not make 222 more forgiving?

Yes. It's too cheap to warrant something as strong as smoke. The Stuart, AEC and puma are supposed to operate with medium armour the 222is not. When the 3 you mentioned are operating there is an abundance of AT options the 222 will face a single AT element on average, a pair tops.
7 Apr 2019, 13:41 PM
#10
avatar of Balanced_Gamer

Posts: 783

I think 222 should only get smoke option for when you get the Flamethrower upgrade. I think it is fair since an investment in 90 should mean something. Especially its lacking durability. Smoke should cost 30 ammo or less.

I think that would be fair since many allied light vehicles do have smoke. Only OKW FHT has smoke and Puma. Wehrmacht has none by default. I think 222 should at least have smoke when upgraded!!
7 Apr 2019, 13:47 PM
#11
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Sold. Seeing as the 222 can't get the flamer upgrade nothing will change....

As for the 251 which DOES get the flamer upgrade that's a no. If you want a get out of jail card on one of the most impactful lights in the game, there is a few commanders that offer that.
8 Apr 2019, 18:32 PM
#12
avatar of Balanced_Gamer

Posts: 783

I have mistaken for the Halftrack. 222 is fine, why does it need smoke. It is a terrible vehicle anyway, why bother giving it smoke. Only good at countering light vehicles

Maybe an MG-upgrade would suit it better for 30 munitions.

I know a fix. Give Kubel smoke:hyper:
8 Apr 2019, 23:33 PM
#13
avatar of insaneHoshi

Posts: 911

Stuart AEC and puma all cost more than 30 fuel, as in upwards of 2x the price.


What about the m20? Does that also cost 60+fuel?

8 Apr 2019, 23:50 PM
#14
avatar of Jae For Jett
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2



What about the m20? Does that also cost 60+fuel?


No, but it does essentially cost 70 munitions. Anyway, the m20 is basically a full utility vehicle, and it has utility. The 222 is a scout, light AA, and light vehicle hunter, and it does these jobs.
9 Apr 2019, 00:01 AM
#15
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279



What about the m20? Does that also cost 60+fuel?



Depends on if you bundle in the side tech you need to unlock it.
But at any rate, it's a fuck tone less durable than the 222 and comes a smidge later. Idk what you want from me here. If you want smoke on it there are a number of doctrines that provide that.
9 Apr 2019, 00:20 AM
#16
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



Depends on if you bundle in the side tech you need to unlock it.
But at any rate, it's a fuck tone less durable than the 222 and comes a smidge later. Idk what you want from me here. If you want smoke on it there are a number of doctrines that provide that.

Not really

M20
Armor: 11/5.5 Health: 240

Skirts
Armor 16.5/8.25 Health 320

222
Armor: 9/4.5 Health: 320
9 Apr 2019, 07:11 AM
#17
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



What about the m20? Does that also cost 60+fuel?


It got durability upgrade, without it small arms can take it down and it has significantly less health then 222 out of the gate.
In addition, it can engage infantry exclusively, contrary to infantry, lvs and planes 222 can engage(ok, maybe M20 can shoot at planes too, but 222 can actually take them down with relative ease).

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Apr 2019, 00:20 AMVipper

Not really

M20
Armor: 11/5.5 Health: 240

Skirts
Armor 16.5/8.25 Health 320

222
Armor: 9/4.5 Health: 320


Unupgraded M20 has less EHP vs 1 pen small arms then 222, upgrade cost is worth more then 10 fuel.
Its not "fuck ton less health", but its 240 EHP vs 1 pen weapons in favor of 222.

222 also has massive advantage in durability against any kind of AT weapons due to having that extra health.

Skirted M20 got more EHP, but resources combined, it also costs more at the end and its firepower stays meh at best.
9 Apr 2019, 08:15 AM
#18
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


It got durability upgrade, without it small arms can take it down and it has significantly less health then 222 out of the gate.
In addition, it can engage infantry exclusively, contrary to infantry, lvs and planes 222 can engage(ok, maybe M20 can shoot at planes too, but 222 can actually take them down with relative ease).



Unupgraded M20 has less EHP vs 1 pen small arms then 222, upgrade cost is worth more then 10 fuel.
Its not "fuck ton less health", but its 240 EHP vs 1 pen weapons in favor of 222.

222 also has massive advantage in durability against any kind of AT weapons due to having that extra health.

Skirted M20 got more EHP, but resources combined, it also costs more at the end and its firepower stays meh at best.

Word of advice:
If you are going to use quotation marks you have to actually put the exact words and not change them. Else you are putting words to other people mouth and that tantamount to lying.
Especially if it being done to prove me wrong.

This is what darkarmadillo wrote and what I responded to:


Depends on if you bundle in the side tech you need to unlock it.
But at any rate, it's a fuck tone less durable than the 222 and comes a smidge later. Idk what you want from me here. If you want smoke on it there are a number of doctrines that provide that.


Yet you write:
Its not "fuck ton less health",

In addition that claim that:
222 also has massive advantage in durability against any kind of AT weapons due to having that extra health.

Is simply false. Many AT weapon do 160 and need 2 shots to take vehicles with both 240 or 320 HP.

The stat of EHP for these vehicles vs penetration 1 weapons.
M20 no skirts EHP front 2.640 Rear 1.320
222 EHP front 3.060 Rear 1.440
M20 skirts EHP 5.280 Rear 2.640

In other words 222 has around x116% more EHP than the non skirted M20 while the skirted M20 has x173% more EHP.

My point still stands the 222 is only slightly more durable than non skirted m20, while the skirted M20 in fact more durable.
(edited to add the actual stats and clarify my point)
9 Apr 2019, 08:17 AM
#19
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

I find it extremely amusing that you're the only one struggling here to grasp the context, when everyone else seems to be doing fine with it.

Shove your false theories.
I'm done with you.
There is only so much spinning arguments and twisting words one can take from you.
9 Apr 2019, 09:26 AM
#20
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Apr 2019, 08:15 AMVipper



The stat of EHP for these vehicles vs penetration 1 weapons.
M20 no skirts EHP front 2.640 Rear 1.320
222 EHP front 3.060 Rear 1.440
M20 skirts EHP 5.280 Rear 2.640

In other words 222 has around x116% more EHP than the non skirted M20 while the skirted M20 has x173% more EHP.

My point still stands the 222 is not more durable than a skirted M20, in fact the M20 is significantly more durable.


thats still quite the difference in durability before (and after) skirts. also important, hand AT. shreks deal 120 damage, so the hard HP of the m20 could have it dead by 2 hit, but the 222 needs 3 zook hits.
ill admit i didnt realize the m20 stock armour was that high, but i stand by my point, the 222 is more durable. unless you add a boat load of munitions to the m20 that is.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

Germany 788
Russian Federation 103
unknown 7

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

589 users are online: 589 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48730
Welcome our newest member, johnsmith008
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM