Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Overnerfed Brummbar. Why am I not surprised?2 Dec 2018, 21:21 PM Jump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 20:52 PMKatitof In this case, why so picky about nomenclature of ancient war machines? Because, you know, M3 Lee was first introduced during WW2. Its equally "ancient" as Tiger, hell they both have seen conflict for the first time in the same theater was war. M3 HAS a Turret, and an "an archaic" sponson mounting for the main gun. It was a stop gap because USF factories could not produce a turret of 75mm gun, now if you want you can put it the same class a Tiger, you will probably be the only person on earth who does that. Now you can continue this semantics BS on your own, I am not really interested in wasting my time and the time of the people of this forum, with you little crusade "prove Vipper wrong". BB and have a nice day. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Overnerfed Brummbar. Why am I not surprised?2 Dec 2018, 20:26 PM Jump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 20:21 PMKatitof M3 Lees turret gun most certainly wasn't its main armament and it was a tank as far as I'm aware. Lee had a turret, regardless if it houses its main gun. If you want to check ancient designs there are WWI Tanks with no turrets. Thanks, once more you managed to bring bring useless information into another debate. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Stug2 Dec 2018, 17:08 PM Jump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 16:44 PMIncendiaryRounds ok thx for the correction Your welcomed. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Stug2 Dec 2018, 16:33 PM Jump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 16:11 PMthedarkarmadillo 200+ pen eh? you going to stand by that or...? Penetration for SU-76 is: Penetration near 200 Penetration mid 190 Penetration far 180 In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Overnerfed Brummbar. Why am I not surprised?2 Dec 2018, 16:30 PM Jump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 16:18 PMthedarkarmadillo the Brums armour is plenty enough for ATguns and mediums, its not going to help much against dedicated counters but thats the whole point of dedicated counters.... against anything but units designed specifically to eliminate armour the armour is formidable (not to say that allied TDs are not over performing) its there to nuke infantry not tank TD shots. you dont buy a brum thinking " ah yes, now i can deflect thos TD shots" Axis armor is designed for durability and that is why most axis vehicles get an armor bonus. My point is simple, if allied TDs are OP as you say and can ignore even vetted armor bonuses ,then axis armor unit's vet bonuses should be redesigned to get something more useful for their role, the same Katyoushas vet 1 ability needs a redesign. If it was my choice I would make Brumbar very durably, less lethal and better vs structures, but if Relic has decided that Brumbar should be all about the "Gun" that approach should be also reflected on the vet bonuses of the unit. That is the point I am trying to get across. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Overnerfed Brummbar. Why am I not surprised?2 Dec 2018, 16:10 PM Jump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 16:06 PMThe amazing Chandler The difference between a tank and an assault gun is only the gun. Everything else is almost the same. How many tank have you seen without a turret? As you pointed out assault guns and tanks serve different role/purpose. Jump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 16:06 PMThe amazing Chandler You are right about the cost of the KV8. But it is doctrinal and it can't handle two PAKs (especially with the target weak point) after it got nerfed. Check the video where it kill each pak with a single burst. It's from the revamp but it hardly make a difference the flame damage is the same. Jump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 16:06 PMThe amazing Chandler I prefer a Brumbär over a KV8. And I almost forgot, the Brumbär does damage to almost every allied Tank, except the heavys. As i said to OP, i don't know if the nerfs are to much or not but what i know for sure is that the Brumbär is a bit to good. Brumbar does damage to everything including the heavies because it has deflection damage. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Overnerfed Brummbar. Why am I not surprised?2 Dec 2018, 15:51 PM Jump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 15:29 PMferwiner I can already see one 6pdr crew member talking to another. "You can't shoot that assault gun with our gun. It is an anti-tank gun, not an anti assault gun gun." Next time you opponents make brumbar, KV-8s or Crocs you build ATGS and show a replay how well it turn out for you. I pretty sure the crews of your ATG will not have much time talking to one another when they are being turned into crisped or when they are being barraged. Jump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 15:31 PMThe amazing Chandler Don't get technical with me, its a tank with a specific purpose/role. You know what I mean. KV8 and Croc can mess you up when you don't have any support, and these two cant be compared to the Brumbär. They cost almost twice as much a Brumbär Then pls don't get sarcastic with me especially if you what you right next is inaccurate. Assault guns are not Tanks, this is simple fact both in real life and in game, that is why it gets a HE barrage ability unlike any other Tank. It in game role/purpose is to counter soft target and that includes ATGs. KV-8 does not cost twice as much a Brumbar or I am getting technical with you again? KV-8 is actually cheaper than the Brumbar. Brumbar 420/150 Kv-8 390/145 In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Overnerfed Brummbar. Why am I not surprised?2 Dec 2018, 15:10 PM Jump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 14:52 PMThe amazing Chandler LOL (sorry for that). AT Guns are anti TANK guns, Brumbär is a TANK. So AT Guns should counter Brumbären. LOL (sorry for that). Brumbar is an assault gun not a Tank. As for countering tank with ATGs tell that to KV-8 and Croc that can easily kill 2 paks or RW. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Overnerfed Brummbar. Why am I not surprised?2 Dec 2018, 14:27 PM Jump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 14:16 PMferwiner Brummbar was nerfed because it was too effective against its intended counters. Its gun easily deals with AT guns and often even does damage to medium vehicles, helping AT units covering the brummbar kill any TDs or flanking tanks. The armour nerf makes it more vulnerable to AT guns and flanking tanks, meaning the ostheer player can't overextend the brummbar as much as he did before. Other than that it is still the same. ... ATG are not the intended counter of Brumbar, the same way Pak are not the intended counter to KV-8s. It is the other way around both units counter ATG. Flanking mediums had very little trouble penetrating the rear armor of Brumbars. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Overnerfed Brummbar. Why am I not surprised?2 Dec 2018, 13:35 PM Jump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 13:06 PMLago It doesn't make any difference to vetted Tank Destroyers. They aren't the only armour penetrating guns on the field. Yes they are not. But by the time a Brumbar reaches vet2 they are easily around. Jump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 13:06 PMLago Reverse. If consistently hitting the rear armour of well-microed late game tanks backed up by support weapons was easy, Relic wouldn't have needed to make the constant armour reductions they have over the years. Brumbar has notoriously low mobility and allied mid are quite fast. If flanking is correct method of dealing with late game tanks, then the rear armor of allied heavy tanks should be nerfed so that PzIV could have the same chance of penetrating them which is close to 100% in many cases for allied medium tanks. Jump back to quoted post2 Dec 2018, 13:06 PMLago It's bought for that huge infantry obliterating main gun the attempt to nerf it in SBP created. Which exactly proves my point, if the unit is bought for it gun then veterancy bonuses should reflect that role and buff the gun so a vetted is better at it intended role In: COH2 Balance