maybe true but im finding ukf in a very strong position in all game modes right now. if u want emplacements to be better there needs to be nerfs too.
plus people keep forgetting that the reinforcment costs will go down to 28(!!!!!) thats less than grens (30) so you will have tons of manpower for every fucking mortar pit u want to place on the map. dont they realize what 28 reinforcement means for ukf?
You are forgetting about essential early-game upgrades such as squadsize and nades that brits couldn't afford before. UKF is strong because of no-brainer centaur rush, not because of their abundance of manpower. It's not like the difference in early-game MP will be huge anyway, it's 200 at most, and that's if you bleed hard.
All that aside, I agree that emplacements don't generally need buffs, although an adjustment to 17pdr popcap could be made. |
|
I don't know what you people are thinking. If his crit shot is removed, the scout car can just drive through the whole royal guard and kill the sniper on retreat. That's not possible with Ost and Sov because of AT snares. You don't just attack move the scout car and expect it to couner the sniper, flanking is the way to do it. And a critted engine won't stop the sniper from dying on retreat if you just stand still, same as Sov sniper. |
Thread: RNG25 Oct 2015, 14:39 PM
If you follow my calculation, then this is no buff to any faction. Because weak penetration gain only weak penetration chance at next shot (10% + 10% of 90%, or only 9% for example) while strong penetration gain better amount (20% + 20% of 80%, or 16%).
This was meant to reduce, but not remove, the RNG dependency. I never did say RNG was bad after all.
You basically suggested a strong buff to AT weaponry, nothing else. I don't want to be an the other side of the buff, having a Tiger die to massed weak AT (su-76 anyone?).
It could be done by implementing pseudo random, but the game has so many RNG calculations that it would be quite difficult to do.
On top of that, I believe RNG is part of what makes coh2 appealing. It produces a feeling that the devs intended to put in the game. The only RNG thing I could vote against is the abandon mechanic, that's just stupid because of how low the chance is and the massive impact on the game it has. |
|
I remember seeing ambulance used as an early reinforcement point to great effect. It's very vulnerable though.
As for the 251, its flames can protect it from infantry and it is not a combat unit without them. A buff to 320 HP or the suggested armor increase would be enough, I think. |
The Panzer IV has slightly superior AoE and Scatter, and slightly better Machine Guns.
Actually, P4 has a bit less AOE, much better scatter (distance object hit min = 10) and overwhelmingly better MGs due to pintle upgrade. Suppose you compared an upgraded M4C's DPS against infantry to T-34's. That's how bad it is. |
|
Mortar pit and bofors are fine. If you place them correctly, they are very powerful.
The 17pdr, on the other hand, is just too situational to use. The only time I can think of is a Crossing (or a similar map) 2v2 lategame campfest. It is simply outclassed by the mobile and cheap 6pdr, and also costs fuel on top of it. But any buff to it should be slight because it is very powerful in teamgames and making it impossible to bypass with armor would be disastrous. |
While we're at it, can we nerf molotov damage so it doesn't take 2 of them (30 munitions) to destroy a wehrmacht bunker.
Because that's not been talked about or looked at yet... like at all.
Flame DOT DPS is nerfed to 40% of previous amount in the october patch |
The T-34/85's main gun is second only to the Sherman firing HE.
It is the same as T-34-76 (I saw something along the lines in a recent patch), which is not very good against infantry. P4 is certainly better, now that AOE doesn't matter as much thanks to squad spacing changes. |
1.But T3485 has 800HP while M4C has 640, it means a lot.
2.T4 cost doesn't need to be touched. It's fine comepared to USF/OH tech cost.
3.TBH I feel all the medium call-ins should be locked at tech buildings. The M4C shouldn't be an exception.
4.T3 units are pretty good, that's why T4 is almost never built.
The point I'm making is that a call-in unit with the same price performs significantly better than a doctrinal tier-locked unit, which is definitely not healthy. A 160 HP difference doesn't mean much when the tank just doesn't do enough damage until it needs to be repaired.
About T4, I think that SU85 and Katyusha are good enough options, they are just not worth it considering the heavy teching cost. Ost teching is very costly aswell, but Panther and Pwerfer are actually good, unlike the T-34 or T-34-85. |
|
The T-34-85 has dreadful AI (same as 76mm version), okay-ish AT. Compare it with its closest counerpart, the M4C Sherman: good AI due to pintle MG, almost the same cost (5 more fuel), good AT with 1.5 better fire rate and same pen, doesn't need T4. Only drawback is less HP.
I believe the issue is with T-34-85's anti-infantry and teching costs. Its coaxial and hull MGs could be buffed to offer more consistent DPS, and T4 cost really should be reduced, and it is not an issue with the t-34-85 only. All of the T4 units are hindered by the teching cost (specifically, manpower), that's why T4 is almost never built.
Thoughts?
|
Muxsus
Erguvan
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
