Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Rear armor of some vehicles needs to be reduced1 Mar 2018, 12:13 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 11:26 AMEsxile I guess the point is they are mean to be in the middle of the battle unlike other tanks. Exposing their flank and rear is part of their function. And 140-130 armor value it enough for that. If KV-1 need more armor that should come with veterancy, which should fit the role of the vehicle and not be a copy of the T-34/76 one that has different role. In: Lobby
Thread: The Sherman in WWII 1 Mar 2018, 11:24 AM Sherman was an inferior Tank. It's chassis was based on the Lee tank that was obsolete by mid WWII standards. (With high profile and narrow trucks) When it comes to mass production and maintenance T-34 was far superior. General number of tank loses is rather irrelevant since many of them where unrelated to Sherman performance. Finally German Tiger aces did not simply get "lucky" having multiple Aces with more than x10 more Tank kills than the USF ace is not simply luck. In: The Library
Thread: Rear armor of some vehicles needs to be reduced1 Mar 2018, 11:07 AM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 10:32 AMStug life the problem is that if u nerf the rear armor of churchill and kv1 u gotta buff something else , cause they are meant to be flanked (slow, crappy gun, mediocre frontal armor) they are the meat shield of the faction Turretless TDs are also meant to be flanked yet their rear armor is less than half. Churchill and KV-1 could easily have their rear armor lowered to 140-130 and still would not be penetrated 100% by a PzIV even at point blank. KV-1 performance can be improved by different vet bonuses and ability. In the end of they if the change makes this unit under-perform I wouldn't disagree to buffs. But I really doubt it. KV-1 is rather cost efficient compared to OKW PzIV. Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 10:59 AMStug life unlike heavy tank they dont have a powerfull gun or good frontal armor KV-1 has 10% less armor than the Tiger, it is rather good. In: Lobby
Thread: About Jacksons1 Mar 2018, 09:53 AM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 03:04 AMFiresparks in addition, the jackson is hurt by its rather huge target size of 24. It shouldn't be that high. The open top turret were meant to minimize target profile. They they say "open top", the turret is actually missing about 1/4-2/3 of the turret. Open turret does not have a significant effect on vehicles silhouette. Historically it also proved not effective and m36 where actually refitted with folded armored roof after WWII. But all that is rather irrelevant in game. Even with target size of 24 a PzIV has 60% chance of scoring a natural hit at range 40 or a 30% is moving. There is really no need to lower that chance. Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 03:04 AMFiresparks the current jackson sight is 40 + 5 at vet 2. Puma have 50 +5(okw)/15(wehr) and the Firely have 45 with upgrade. Puma is a reconnaissance vehicle comparing it with a TD is rather misleading especially since the stug has the normal SR of 35. In the end of the day historic accuracy is a good thing and there should be an effort to be achieved but not if that effect balance in a negative way. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Rear armor of some vehicles needs to be reduced1 Mar 2018, 09:25 AM Jump back to quoted post1 Mar 2018, 00:24 AMThe Blue Falcon Just to be clear all the Allies HEAVY tanks need to have their armor lowered, but the Hetzer which uses the chassis of a T-38 needs to be rasied...your logic is undeniable. I have answered this question once but it seems that I have to answer it again: The vehicles listed have very high rear armor that make flanking with medium tank not rewarding. A Ostheer PzIV can park behind a Churchill at range 0 and the Churchill will have a better chance to penetrate the PzIV frontally than PzIV to penetrate the rear armor. This issue was partially fixed in patch for some vehicles but the one in this list where "forgotten". If you find any German vehicle with rear armor more 150 pls bring it up and I will gladly include it. Hezter rear/side armor is so low that A T-34/76 has 100% to penetrate even at max range. In: Lobby
Thread: About Jacksons28 Feb 2018, 21:52 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Feb 2018, 21:11 PMSweetrollNearTheDoor ... Assuming coh.hu stats are still up-to-date it has a target size of 24, same as the Panther, in comparison regular Sherman seems to have a target size of 23 so not that big of a difference. ... Think he is talking about the hitbox model not target size. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: About Jacksons28 Feb 2018, 15:02 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Feb 2018, 14:22 PMAvNY Total hogwash. That actually applies to your description of the Sherman. The Sherman's chassis was based on the Lee/Grand Chassis a tank that had an obsolete design. That of an infantry support tank with a high silhouette to be able to carry its main gun in offset sponson like they did in WWI. The reliability of the Panther had nothing to do with the Tank itself but with the fact that German factories where being bombed, only low quality materiel was available, low quality fuel where used, the same Tanks and crews had to be used allot more due to being outnumbered. That is why German crews got number of kills that no allied crew ever come close to. Actually Panther where produced even after the war and where used by the French. When it come to reliability, easy production and generally cost efficiency the T-34 was far superior to Sherman. If you think that a Sherman facing a Panther had a better chance of coming out victorious you are gravely mistaken. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: About Jacksons28 Feb 2018, 10:13 AM In real life Sherman was a Tank that 2 generation behind the Panther. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: OKW infantry anti-tank is not sufficient28 Feb 2018, 03:07 AM My suggestion would be to test giving the VGs the option (after unlocking their second truck) to upgrade with AT and to replace 2 of their K98 with panzerfaust that would be fired as normal AT weapon and not as ability. The Panzerfaust should probably have to be weaker than bazooka long range but stronger in range bellow 20. That would allow OKW to defend from medium/light rush while the AT VG would have very limited AI and they will not be not be easy to be bloded. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: KotH faction winrates (up to S2E9)28 Feb 2018, 02:59 AM Jump back to quoted post27 Feb 2018, 23:43 PMLatch ...You can't rely on Tommies anymore to hold ground whilst you stall for a Cromwell, you HAVE to get them the 5 man to stand a chance then you need the AEC for a snare and those combined becomes very expensive. ... Have you tried Centaur against OKW they are quite good. In: COH2 Balance