ST is an assault gun like brumbar but with bigger aoe damage but much higher reload
Hmm, not too sure what your point is? I know what a sturmtiger is  |
Update your game, they cannot have a JT and KT anymore...
"In 2v2s you can see a strumT a KT and JagD or another KT between two players at once."
I don't really see it as a big problem in 2vs2, it feels very rare to see a sturmtiger at all nowadays. And if you're giving the opponents the opportunity to get all those heavies in a 2v2, you probably either lost the game earlier or don't apply enough pressure before they arrive. |
Firing zook from front when you could easily nade it and go for side armor ......
*Rear armor, there is no side armor. But yes, that's the way to do it, easy or not. But his math was correct nonetheless . |
http://www.stat.coh2.hu/weapon.php?filename=m9_bazooka_mp
redo math class
Technically he actually did. If all of them were fired on panthers (vet0) front armor, and all of them hit, 37,5% pen chance (120/320) gives 0,375x10 shots x 80 dmg (=300 penetrating shots) + 0,625x10x20 (=125 deflection) = 425 damage on avarage.
Of course that's disregarding any RNG, as well as one's obviously doing it wrong if firing zooks at panthers front armor. |
I believe when the veterancy bug is fixed the zook boost will no longer be needed and should be removed.
Joseph
I agree that it could be worth looking at. |
Set up time is one problem, maybe just have it fire while stopped but removing the setup time. However the issue with squishyness is related to the zook boost, not the vehicle stats itself. I've recently watched some vintage footage of the 20mm faptrack and it really is the ww2 equivalent of an Iraqi 'Technical', a pickup with a gun mounted in the bed. Even one zook in real life would waste it.
The range of the zook would need to be nerfed for a believable rectification. However I still do not see anyone buying a 55 fuel faptrack no matter what, the lynx is so much better and its right there. The fuel cost must be reduced.
Joseph
Yeah, would be interesting to see if removing setup time would change anything. It's a bigger buff in many ways than one might think.
Still, reduced fuel cost will break timing and it's realisticly very unlikely that it happens.It would either require a shuffle of units in the tier buildings, which is very improbable, a system similar to the AEC (also very improbable), or a gun nerf which would result in an similary unbelievable rectification as a defensive stat buff, and I don't see that happening either. I'm not saying I don't want it to change, but I simply don't think it will happen due to the amount of changes that has to be implemented with it. A defensive stat boost, while looking ugly and unrealistic (as so many other things in this game) would be the easiest route to take, and is therefor more realistic to happen. |
Unless you expect it to improve to the lynx's level of effectiveness I suspect no minor increases in ability will cause it to be used more often. Its a 55 fuel waste of resources, when for 10 fuel more, not including teching, I could have a lynx.
It is a waste of resources as it is now yes. That doesn't change the fact that a 30 fuel price tag will mess up the timing completely, so it most likely will never happen. Therefor the buffs have to be something else.
Players will always wait that out rather than take a unit that cannot be effectively used offensively and which dies to zooks so easy.
Joseph
I agree. So the solution should be to make it effective when used offensively, and more durable. Mobility (set up-time) and squishyness is what makes this difficult atm, so that's where the changes should be. |
The natural solution to early blobbing was the 20mm faptrack. However the boost to zook effectiveness, especially accuracy, has now made the 55 fuel faptrack a waste of resources. It is far too easy to kill for its cost.
The new solution would be to greatly reduce the fuel cost of the faptrack, leaving it still difficult to keep alive but making it much less a risky gambit to get early on, and you'll end up seeing them used more often to counter inf blobs.
I propose lowering the fuel cost to be in line with its effectiveness as a anti inf only vehicle that has to set up to fire, which I believe would be 30 fuel.
Joseph
A fuel decrease would cause timing problems, so it will most likely not happen. It performs for its cost offensively, so a change to the set-up time or defensive capabilities is a more realistic change. |
For God sake, problem is not in MG itself! Problem is in "how much AT powers have each side". Axis has enough AT and would have enough even without AP in MG-42. But USSR hardly suffer without early and simple AT guns, like same PTRS or DShK.
I just ask to balance AT powers of side, I don't care about MGs.
You should put some thought into making a thread with a more appropiate title, and an op that's more clearly discussing what you intend to discuss, if you get worked up by those kind of responses. Comparing mg-42 with maxim in the op (e.g. cone width) is misleading for example.
To discuss the issue you now mention, ost have enough AT but not at all stages of the game* (*may have with the improved 222, as I said, haven't tested it enough just yet). They are/were suffering from early light vehicle rushes from mainly UKF and USF. Does the mg-42 need the incendiary rounds? Perhaps not. Is it broken OP? Absolutely not.
Soviets do not suffer from lack of early AT imo, PTRS, nades, ZIS and light vehicles are sufficient to counter any light vehicles that OST & OKW can throw at you. Late game AT are clearly inferior though, but not as much as it becomes a huge problem. |
1. MG-42 should not be able to destroy light vechicles and tanks, like it do now. For that, Wehrmacht should use another units, like Panzergrenadeers or same 222 cars. They all are good in that.
So, I suggest to change that "AP flame rounds" ability with something else. It is impossible to watch, how your T3 T-70 tears apart with 1-2 bursts by T0 Anti-infantry unit MG-42.
P.S Yes, we know about DShK MG with same impossible AT abilities, but it is doctrinal one, and it putted in only 2 doctrines. One of them (defences) is 100% useless and I never saw somebody using it, so we have only one real doctrine with DShK (Lend-Lease), which is definetly not enough for such requierd for USSR unit.
Mg-42 seems fine to me. It doesn't really "destroy" light vehicles, incendiary rounds are a soft counter that OST needs (ignoring new 222 as I haven't tested it enough yet) against allied light vehicle rushes. It's easy to avoid and mostly results in denying an area for vehicles during the duration.
You shouldn't really compare it to the maxim, they are completely different units spite both being HMGs. One is static and defensive, the other mobile and offensive. A comparison with the vickers hmg will be more accurate. |
Sweden
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
