Profile of Esxile

name me realistic scenario within meta, where Tiger needs its penetration, except facing a comet or a churchill. I want to hear specifics. Because if you are facing an ISU, then it is same like with IS2, you are in a wrong game mode and you probably want to have fun with a big boy tank, because you are bored of meta.
And no, JP4 is not picked by its penetration values, but because it is a 60 range TD with stealth and great veterancy.



because it is a poster tank that is extremely loved and cherished by axis fanboys and wehraboos as an example of wunderwaffe. Exactly the same reason why people pick sentimental cars in racing, same shit here.

The Spreadsheet allows you to see the actual potential of units, without leaning on different completely opposite anecdotal experience, not mentioning that people often remember the worst shit that happened to him, often disregarding the "lucky moments". Like the whole Donnies thread about how pak and p4 are hugely inaccurate and how OST needs more accuracy. Or 100s thread about how USF m1 AT even with Sabot rounds is the worst AT gun imaginable, or random Ullumu's claims how red units are always OP in the most dramatic fashion imaginable.

Please give specifics why Tiger is superior and why IS2 is bad. Because there are already real examples in this thread of how IS2 could be used to a great effect.

Unit's stat means nothing without context, you look like a well known troll here saying sherman is better AT than Pz4 because it has higher penetration raw value.
If tiger were solely a sentimental unit, we would see a lot of post about it being underwhelming. In fact when the Tiger and alike were underwhelming we saw a lot of post about it.

Now I never said the IS2 was worst than the Iiger, In fact I have no opinion on it because I barely use it myself and only play Soviet in non competitive matches. What I highlighted is that Average DPS overtime isn't a valid argument if you don't define what the correct opportunity time in which units can deliver their outcomes. And this opportunity time can't be seen in a spreadsheet.

fair enough and reasonable. i was, however, responding to the part that the tiger was allegedly way superior to the is-2 in terms of anti-infantry performance, not to the overall position of the is-2 in the soviet roster. there are obviously many reasons the is-2 sees little use, but i don't think a 240 dmg cannon will solve these (at least not without creating a bunch of new issues along the way).

I don't think either 240 dmg will solve the problem. Now, to me, the Tiger is superior because the game design goes in a direction that make its superior in usage, the unit is less clumsy, more reactive and at the same time enough tough to give you time to micro your army around. Then the way Commanders are designed around tiger vs IS2, what each tank is supposed to fight and then what each tank has as supportive tools around it make the Tiger a vastly superior investment.

Alright I don't mean to derail the thread here but since I already said something on topic I hope you'll oblige me.

Anyways, I know British people and others outside the US say IA instead of AI for bots (Intelligent Adversary VS. Artificial Intelligence) but what do you mean using IA instead of AI when referring to performance against infantry? Anti-Infantry versus what exactly? Infantry Attack?

My bad, its AI.

And this is just wrong, no matter how often you repeat it. The Tiger's 88mm is obviously stronger against vehicles but against infantry, both guns are more or less equally effective and will inflict the same amount of bleed over time on average (not taking faction specifics like squad size and reinforcement cost per model into account, which would actually skew things in favor of the the IS-2).



Well, this would not only bump up the average DPS by quite a bit, but, more importantly, be a massive buff against 960 HP targets such the Panther. In this case the 160 damage gun would take 2 more shots to kill than the 240 damage version, while against other targets (such as mediums or heavies like the Tiger) the proposed change would barely have any effect.
I doubt it would be worth it to upset the current balance just for the sake of having 240 damage on the main gun. If the lack of AT is really that much of a concern I'd rather improve penetration or add a bit of deflection damage, since this would affect the performance against almost all targets equally.

That's the problem when you compare units on spreadsheet, you can't simply take average dps as a serious point of comparison wihtout taking in account the average time of engagement for units.

Coh2 isn't an game of average but a game of opportunities and the best units in this game are those capable of delivering their full load of outcome at every given opportunities.

It is better to handle a unit able to deliver 30 per shot but with 100% chance to deliver than a unit delivering 90 per shot but with only 33% chance to hit.
Because you never know if you'll have those 3 opportunities to hit and making sure you did something.

Given how T4 is meta in teamgames compared to 1v1s which mostly stick to T3, that is certainly not the case. Ostheer T4 is primarily balanced for teamgames. The Brummbar is a case of a unit performing at a very efficient level, at the edge of being very good to arguably overpowered, which is why it's mostly subjective and down to personal player experience under which category it ultimately falls. In my personal opinion it's very good but not overpowered, and it doesn't need any changes.

Its because the unit is more balanced on 1vs1 you don't see it often. You don't primarily play with units that are balanced but those very good close to overpowered. Otherwise we wouldn't have see such sudden interest to use the Sturmtiger during 6 months until you finally made it balanced.

I'm not really convinced with the Field Marshal mechanisms at the moment, I feel them a bit confusing the way they work.

- Confusing to use them, I feel like I always have to come back to their description to know what I unlocked
- Confusing to play vs because I have to remember what my opponent unlocked from the grenade he's using.

For sure with hundred of hours playing the game the confusion will go but I don't feel it makes the game really accessible.

Second negative point coming to my mind is definitively balance. It is going to be nightmarish to balance the game with those 3 differents set of veterancies for the wehrmach basic units.

Thrid negative point is how unclear from the opponent player's perspective what is needed to counter/adapt to it. Again with experience we'll know it but I'm worried with the learning curve for new players.

As opposed the USA system feel easier to apprehend: or Planes or better infantry or better vehicles. When playing vs it once you detected which one is selected it seems far easier to adapt. Build AA, build more AI or more AT.

Following that, the USA veterancy follow the same confusion pathing imo. As it is individual per squad it lacks a visual effect to detect which of your squad get one or the other veterancy. In Coh1 PE units had clear icones above them so you always knew what veterancy they had.

As the game is in pre-alpha I guess it's the moment to highlight those points, I feel the game is having a lot of options and possibilities but I'm worried there are too much and not enough clear on how they work for both sides. I'm not comenting on if they are balanced it's not the right time for it.