Give 222 smoke by default?
Posts: 789
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
Posts: 5279
Posts: 528 | Subs: 1
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
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?
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Its literally what doctrines are for, you pick stuff you need for yourself.
Posts: 479
Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1
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.
Posts: 783
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!!
Posts: 5279
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.
Posts: 783
Maybe an MG-upgrade would suit it better for 30 munitions.
I know a fix. Give Kubel smoke
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?
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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)
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Shove your false theories.
I'm done with you.
There is only so much spinning arguments and twisting words one can take from you.
Posts: 5279
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.
Livestreams
21 | |||||
871 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.587233.716+3
- 4.1095612.641+19
- 5.882398.689+4
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.997646.607+1
- 8.379114.769+1
- 9.300113.726-1
- 10.717439.620+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
Brick Top
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, sunwinctcom
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM