Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Comet5 Mar 2018, 06:45 AM Jump back to quoted post5 Mar 2018, 02:51 AMFiresparks ... and the max scatter distance on the tiger vs comet is 4.3 and 6.4. It's essentially vertical dispersion. Scatter mainly affect your accuracy vs infantry, and also help against tanks (stray shot). The cromwell and comet used to have two of the best scatter in the the game, but now it's just average and worse than tiger. The comments on scatter are actually misleading. Max scatter distance is a limit and as such less important more important is scatter ratio which is the same at 1. Having a bigger max scatter distance can actually be better when fighting vs tanks and worse when fighting infantry. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: The Sherman in WWII 4 Mar 2018, 22:22 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Mar 2018, 21:49 PMFiresparks ... I would definitely prefer to be in a panther over the sherman in a fight, but it is the harsh reality that the weaker sherman is more suited to logistic and thus winning a war. Sherman did not win the war, the German army was simply not able to beat the combined armies of the 3 of the most powerful countries of the time simultaneously. In: The Library
Thread: The Sherman in WWII 4 Mar 2018, 20:26 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Mar 2018, 20:12 PMFiresparks 2 generation ahead and 2 impractical. the panther was too heavy to be carried by the trucks of its days. for strategic deployment it needed to be carried by train, which is significantly more limited and vulnerable than road network. Driving the tank itself for redeployment will significantly wear it down. Tanks were not meant for marathon. It's not until the post war era that anyone product truck capable of carrying ~45 ton tank. There where no real road network in the Soviet union. The majority of transportation was made by trains. You are overestimating the value of tank truck transportation that would be almost impossible in muddy road of Soviet union. Soviet union units move for hundreds of kilometers thru Europe and far east with little truck support. Panther was a far superior tank than the Sherman weather it could be loaded on truck or not is rather irrelevant. In: The Library
Thread: The Sherman in WWII 4 Mar 2018, 18:42 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Mar 2018, 18:33 PMBasilone Well not really an even comparison because one was designed to be a main battle tank and one was designed to be infantry support and had variants that were better for fighting tanks. And that is my original claim. When Panther was introduced it was a 2 generation ahead of the Sherman that was based on infantry support tank design and was modified again and again instead of being redesigned. Sherman was an inferior Tank to the Panther. In: The Library
Thread: The OKW Puma4 Mar 2018, 18:12 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Mar 2018, 17:55 PMFiresparks the first post in the thread is mainly a comparison to the m36 and rest of the thread follow suit. This is a thin veiled duplicated thread. What is the point of continuing down this path? Do you want me to explain Puma's strength and weakness in a M36 thread? This is thread about the OKW Puma, the M36 is only used to illustrate the differences in the weapon profiles, it could have easily used a SU-85 or a FF, would that make you feel better? Do you have anything even remotely relevant to the Puma, to do add to this thread? In: Lobby
Thread: The Sherman in WWII 4 Mar 2018, 18:06 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Mar 2018, 17:35 PMFiresparks everything is a trade off. The soviet was able to produce the number that they did in large part because they skim on "secondary equipment" like gun optics and radios. they also skim out on stuff like trucks and rail car, relying on lend lease supply. The T-34 was build in factories that produced tractors and was design to be used by farmers. Yet as vehicle it was superior to the Sherman. Soviet simply lacked the technology to produce high quality optics. In: The Library
Thread: OKW Handheld AT solution.4 Mar 2018, 17:33 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Mar 2018, 17:12 PMKatitof Alright, since you struggle to understand that: AT infantry units give up AI for AT capability. Guards do not. They can still engage tanks, but their weapon upgrades and their vet ability is most certainly not suited to fight tanks, it does help, but its not primary reason. You want guards as powerful AI unit as well as light armor deterrent, not as a primary way to deal with tanks, they will support ATGs and TDs with button, but that's it, if you are actually capable to get enough of them to effectively counter tanks, you might want to cut down on 4v4. So according to Katitof in order for a unit to be an AT unit it has to: 1) Give up for AI for their AT But Guards default weapon is the mosin that has better AI than their PTRS so they have actually given up AI for their AT 2) Their vet ability must not suited for fighting tanks But guards already get a vet bonus specifically for dealing with armor. vet 2 +10% penetration vet 3 +30% duration of the 'button' ability But Guards already have access to AT ability with the "button" ability. Is this correct or did I miss anything? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW Handheld AT solution.4 Mar 2018, 16:49 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Mar 2018, 09:21 AMKatitof Guards are NOT an AT unit. Guards are full AI unit with AT capabilities as ALL of their weapons are good vs infantry. Can you pls elaborate on these new theory about Guards a bit more. Penal are an AI. If they upgrade with PTRS they become an AT unit. Guards that have better AT weapon than Penals are "NOT" an AT unit because? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: The Sherman in WWII 4 Mar 2018, 10:00 AM Jump back to quoted post3 Mar 2018, 20:17 PMFiresparks it's worth noting that Soviet guard armor preferred the lend lease sherman over their domestic t34/85, and as guard armor they have first pick over equipment. If it was an actual preference and not "special weapons" going to "special units",it would probably had more to do with secondary equipment like gun optics and radios than the performance of the Tank itself. T-34 mobility was vastly superior to that of the Sherman. In: The Library
Thread: The OKW Puma4 Mar 2018, 09:53 AM Jump back to quoted post3 Mar 2018, 17:21 PMblvckdream M36 and Puma comparison? I dont understand what the point of this whole thread is.... There has been a number of post that where "misinformed" about that Puma and made claims that where not true like: A Puma should never flank A Puma is not a reconnaissance vehicle A Puma is great at Kitting medium Tanks The point of this thread is to clarify the characteristics of the Puma and put and end the misinformation about it. Jump back to quoted post3 Mar 2018, 19:28 PMFiresparks isn't this a duplicate thread?.. the original thread is still on the subject of jackson vs puma and now this thread pop up. No it is not, this thread is about the Puma the other one is about M36. I also find the comment rather weird on the one hand you seem to complain that M36 thread is derailed because the Puma (which you brought up) is actually debated and on the other hand you seem to now complain that there is a new thread specifically about the Puma. Jump back to quoted post3 Mar 2018, 20:35 PMEsxile But why aren't you looking at the Puma penetration vs light tanks which are its primary target? Why don't you pick Puma vs Stuart or Puma vs T70 or AEC? And why would I do that? This it thread illustrating the characteristics of the Puma and clarifying misinformation about the unit. This thread is in the lobby and it is not a balance thread. In: Lobby