Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: OKW infantry anti-tank is not sufficient19 Feb 2018, 19:10 PM Jump back to quoted post19 Feb 2018, 18:09 PMFiresparks Jp4 doesn't just rely on having good armor, it's also one of the smallest target on the field. A size of 17 means the Jp4 can dodge as well as bounce shots. The difference in target is with SU-85 is 1 (18 even smaller than the Stug's 20). Su-85 and M36 get x130% accuracy at vet 2 and FF has a mid range of 45(!!!) x110% accuracy from commander and another x130% at vet 3 Both armor (allied TDs will penetrate it reliably) and target size might help JP4 vs allied TD but do not guarantee victory, in addition M36 and Su-85 are more mobile and can break the engagement if they have to. And JP4 needs to be strong vs allied TD because OKW luck the normal counters of 60 range ATGs and strong AT infantry. JP is not a bad unit (it over priced and has too much pop as counter to allied mediums) but simply it is not more cost efficient than allied TDs. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW infantry anti-tank is not sufficient19 Feb 2018, 17:34 PM Jump back to quoted post19 Feb 2018, 16:44 PMthedarkarmadillo To play devils advocate.. JP4 has a very good chance to win vs SU-85 but that does not justify the claim: Jump back to quoted post16 Feb 2018, 17:55 PMferwiner Overpriced stug come on, jp4 is the best non doc AT in the game. Plus it costs roughly as much as a SU85, which is much worse than jp4. The only runner up to the jp4 is the jackson, but it is more expensive and still not as good. Su-85 is not "much worse" than the JP4 and the Jackson (only 5 fuel more expensive) is not inferior ("still not as good") to the JP4. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: MP40 Volks Under-performing19 Feb 2018, 17:23 PM Jump back to quoted post19 Feb 2018, 16:53 PMthedarkarmadillo Didnt con ppsh used to give 6 long time ago? Since there is a commander with con ppsh and shocks it would need a more radical adjustment i think since paying munitions and having sprint as well as the flexibility of a snare and Molotov is way more attractive than spending 50% more manpowerfor a bit more durability and a gaping stomach wound as far as MP bleed goes... Commanders should have very little influence to commander abilities available to more than one commander. If for any reason shock and PPsh conscripts do not work well together they should simply replaced by another ability in the specific commander. Ppsh was changes to 3 in 2014 when it was a different game, it also used to be an upgrade for shock troops. My suggestion was not to mix bolt action with smgs, not necessarily get 6 ppsh. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: MP40 Volks Under-performing19 Feb 2018, 16:03 PM Jump back to quoted post19 Feb 2018, 15:56 PMA table Point 1 and 2 are things i agree with, but i disagree on point 3. I'd rather not have 3- 4 squads of cons with SMG's running around like rambo's wrecking infantry and vehicles left, right and center. If Conscripts get 6 Ppsh their DPS should probably be adjusted. The point is that long range weapons like bolt action rifles and short range weapons like smgs should not be available in the same unit. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: MP40 Volks Under-performing19 Feb 2018, 15:23 PM Pppsh conscripts are OP: 1) They should not have a weapon slot once upgraded 2) They should not have access to the defensive "hit the dirt" ability (which should be timed and not toggle) 3) One should not mix bolt action rifles with smgs. The upgrade should either replace all 6 weapons or should give access to 3 SVTs to pre-patch Penal levels. Finally all smgs should have minimum range set to 0 while all bolt action should have minimum range set to somewhere between 5-15. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW is absolutely trash now, rebalance this asap!19 Feb 2018, 12:22 PM Jump back to quoted post19 Feb 2018, 06:57 AMHighfiveeeee I agree. The only faction that somehow has a 'useful' FRP is the USF. And still this one costs 120 (?) Fuel. USF pays more with their forward bases, Ost and Sovs don't have one from stock. OKW is the only faction with a FRP that can reinforce and heal without being a 'one hit dying' unit like the ambulance. The Major does not cost 120 Fuel. The unlock of T3 costs 240/120 and provides a Major. The Major it self costs 150 manpower (the price to built him) and is one of the most cost efficient units since it provides access to retreat point, Recon flight and the probably the most cost efficient off map. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW infantry anti-tank is not sufficient18 Feb 2018, 00:29 AM Jump back to quoted post18 Feb 2018, 00:27 AMSkysTheLimit I was wrong. Congratulations you were correct. If you see that already I'm not sure why you're still writing that much Actually I am the one that has to congratulate you, there are very few people in this forum that admit that they wrong. Well done man. (My apologies for writing so much, in my defense I also have to deal with some people (actually one) who simply refuse to admit any error) In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW infantry anti-tank is not sufficient18 Feb 2018, 00:19 AM Jump back to quoted post17 Feb 2018, 18:35 PMKatitof In my opinion outside of them both being 60 range TDs are incomparable as they serve 2 different sub roles. SU-85 is meant as all-rounder TD with heavy armor counter focus with low mobility, but high reliability, especially against heavies and is a top tier TD for soviets so that reliability is required as there is nothing above it. JP4 is meant to poke primarily medium armor and TDs(given its self spotting without crippling mobility and own target size), it does not need to engage heavy armor, because that's specifically what panther is meant for. Great theory but it has flaw that make it completely wrong. Su-85 can counter PzIV (meduim) and the Panther (TDs) at least as cost efficient (if not more) as the JP4 can deal with mediums or TDs. The units can be compared, and the SU-85 is simply not "much worse" than JP. In addition SU-85 has higher mobility than the JP4 and the difference in target size is small (1). Finally the SU-85 does not "have" to engage the mediums , because that's specifically what SU-76 is meant for. Jump back to quoted post17 Feb 2018, 18:35 PMKatitof Given stats of both, they clearly aren't meant to engage primarily the same types of targets. And both are good for their designated roles-SU combating heavy armor and JP combating all medium. That is you theory-crafting about single purpose roles. In game both units, once built, they might have to deal with mediums or heavily armored tanks. In either case the SU-85 is simply not "much worse" than the JP4. Jump back to quoted post17 Feb 2018, 18:35 PMKatitof Cost can not be used as an argument as OKW pays 25 fuel extra for everything medium and above as a tribute for other perks of faction(while not combat focused, vet5 still provides much more utility, especially for vehicles compared to other factions). Once more that is you theory-crafting. (unless you find a a reference from Relic that:" OKW pays 25 fuel extra for everything medium and above as a tribute for other perks of faction" it did not happen.) Cost can and should be used when 2 units are compared. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW infantry anti-tank is not sufficient17 Feb 2018, 23:47 PM In the end of the day what exactly are you are you trying to argue? 1) You have agreed with me in the original point that SU-85 is not "far worse" than JP4 2) And you by now must have accepted that I did not make a "vacuum scenario" as you claimed. 3) And you by now must have accepted that TTK can be used for tanks as DPS is used for infantry. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW infantry anti-tank is not sufficient17 Feb 2018, 18:01 PM Jump back to quoted post17 Feb 2018, 17:26 PMKatitof Its actually more complex then raw TTK. Range, mobility, spotting ability, cost, accuracy - all of that play pretty major part. Its not always about your exclusive 1v1 vacuum dps tests on flat ground with zero micro. So the question still stands, in you opinion is the Su-85 "far worse" than the JP? and if so why? In: COH2 Balance