Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Commando stens25 Jan 2017, 12:45 PM Jump back to quoted post25 Jan 2017, 12:15 PMLatch The stens are not 'fine' due to the broken ambush modifier in live, it and they are fixed in WBP and makes ambush very lethal. You just have to get in the enemies face to use them, I love using them as they allow you to be really sneaky and get in a lot of wipes, anything above close range and I don't bother with the engagement which is, I suppose, how they should be. Almost instant wipe out from camo does not actually help game play and that is why Wer camo bonus was nerfed (and is further nerfed with WBP camo changes. Actually you do not have to be close they have the same DPS up to range 10. They are far better than Shock PPsh at range 20. Smg actually should be weapon that are good only at close. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Commando stens25 Jan 2017, 11:46 AM Your error starts from using Thompson as reference. Thompson are weapon upgrades and not default weapons and thus they over-perform especially at mid. Use the shock PPsh as reference and you will see that commando stens are fine. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.6 Update24 Jan 2017, 17:02 PM Jump back to quoted post23 Jan 2017, 22:28 PMA_E My opinion has evolved and as I got very good feedback for vlogging my last opinion I thought I'd do the same again here. (dat ego.) Let me know if you vehemently disagree! Imo having 6 men AT squad is a bad idea. Unit with At capabilities need to be smaller... In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Winter Balance Preview Replays24 Jan 2017, 14:02 PM One could increase the utility of AEC at the cost of AT abilities. Increase anti garrison capabilities or/and Recon or/and smoke from main gun at the cost penetration and a more easily used but less effective snare. Utility over shock value. In: Lobby
Thread: Manpower question24 Jan 2017, 11:05 AM Jump back to quoted post24 Jan 2017, 10:54 AMTickTack It's cool Actually I apologized to ElSlayer who seem to agree with me. Pop difference is an indirect away to change manpower income. Jump back to quoted post24 Jan 2017, 04:34 AMDustBucket Why were armies not balanced against one another by having differing manpower incomes? Changing the default manpower income would be necessary if units did not have an upkeep or the upkeep was the same across the board. Since units have different pop/upkeep and different reinforcement cost faction actually do have different effective manpower income and manpower available. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Penals and Cons24 Jan 2017, 10:49 AM It is still my opinion that the a solution worth trying is to have Penal and Conscripts separated into offensive and defensive infantry. Penal become cheap 200-220 get ourah, molotov and 6 PPsh (Shock troops curve) and are the flanking/ anti-garrison infantry. (ourah has penalties that are reduced with veterancy). Conscripts get target size 1, fragmentation grenade (tech cost), and a timed ability like hit the ground that cost MU but also increase their accuracy, AT grenade get some extra range. Doctrinal PPsh replaced by SVT upgrade. With this solution there is room for both units to work together, with Penal being more usefull for flaking/urban map. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Manpower question24 Jan 2017, 10:41 AM Jump back to quoted post24 Jan 2017, 10:39 AMElSlayer That's what I'm saying. Sorry my mistake... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Manpower question24 Jan 2017, 10:33 AM Jump back to quoted post24 Jan 2017, 10:30 AMElSlayer Manpower INCOME question Manpower income= Default Manpower (200)-Upkeep. Upkeep is related to pop. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Manpower question24 Jan 2017, 10:14 AM Combine lower upkeep and lower reinforcement cost and ones end up with more manpower available. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Manpower question24 Jan 2017, 07:41 AM They are. Grenadier have a Pop of 7 Pg of 9. Conscripts have a pop of 6 Penal of 7. A PzIV has a pop of 12. A T-34/76 has a pop of 10. In: COH2 Balance