Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog21 Nov 2018, 12:19 PM Jump back to quoted post21 Nov 2018, 11:37 AMKatitof And close accuracy of M20 is gutted completely. It'll be 222, but without a weapon that would be good against anything. I can give a very long list of differences between a 222 and m20, including cost, tech cost, tier armor. When it comes to DPS 0/10/20/30/40 New m20_utility_car_m2hb_50cal_mounted_mp Vet 0 16.43/12.73/9.74/6.40/3.83 Vet 3 23.90/19.07/15.06/10.79/7.10 old Vet 0 22.41/15.60/10.28/6.17/3.06 Now it might be that in your opinion close accuracy is "gutted completely", but the number seem to another story. In: Lobby
Thread: Buff Ostwind21 Nov 2018, 11:28 AM Jump back to quoted post21 Nov 2018, 11:23 AMKurfürst A RoF buff I proposed for Ostwind would achieve that, and would make it somewhat more effective vs infantry. Right now its meh for its price against both lights and infantry. I doubt it, with 40 damage and 35 far penetration it needs 10 penetrating shots vs a T-70 when it haves 50% to penetrate. By comparison a Centaur can obliterate a axis light vehicle 1-2 bursts. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog21 Nov 2018, 10:39 AM The far accuracy of the M20 is buffed considerably both base and vetted and the unit can kite from range 40, at vet 3 the close accuracy is superior to current one. The unit should be able to vet allot faster. In: Lobby
Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog21 Nov 2018, 10:29 AM Jump back to quoted post21 Nov 2018, 09:56 AMsherlock You are mistaken. I am playing the mod and point out what I observe. I am looking at how the timing compares to how it is now (the unmodded version). I also realise the futility of these "bait and switch" discussions, which is why I'll refrain from entertaining them, within threads, if you wish to discuss this and other points further, please feel free to pm me. I am sorry you feel that I am baiting you. Comparing time is one factor and it is important, the new versatility is another. Jump back to quoted post21 Nov 2018, 09:56 AMsherlock As it stands, the m20 is now less potent when it hits the field since the close range damage was reduced (for good reason) and hits it slightly later depending on build order. Its window of opportunity is notoriously short and potentially shortened, which is why I pointed it out. On the other hand M20 has become significant cheaper, vets faster and better. For 240/20 fuel the crew armed with a bazooka almost covers the cost. In: Lobby
Thread: USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog21 Nov 2018, 09:47 AM Jump back to quoted post21 Nov 2018, 00:48 AMsherlock ... The M20 hits the field later now if one goes for a 3 riflemen start. The only build order that allows similar timing is 2 rifles, Lt, rifle, unlock, m20 which is a build that sacrifices a lot of map presence due to the high build time of the Lt and the delay of the 3rd riflemen due to the Lt tech as the third unit. I'm not sure if this is a problem either, but something that might require further testing. (Edit: I should have mentioned that this is in comparison to vanilla m20 timings) ... I am under the impression you are looking things from of perspective how to optimize USF build order with the tech changes. Imo you should be looking things from of the perspective of how it compares to Ostheer tech options. In: Lobby
Thread: 120 mm mortar21 Nov 2018, 09:24 AM Jump back to quoted post21 Nov 2018, 08:58 AMKatitof Regular T2 mortar is even better, because it shoots much faster and is much more accurate. I guess if someone want to barrage from 80 range instead of 100 it might, since the 120mm mortar can do it from 25% more range pm-82_41 is hardly better vs trucks. When it comes to OKW trucks the 120mm mortar can hit just fine. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Weapon upgrades for standard infatry squads21 Nov 2018, 09:18 AM Jump back to quoted post21 Nov 2018, 00:30 AMKirrik Nobody claimed here Soviets are struggling, Conscripts however are not used and thats the point of the thread. Let me explain how this has worked so far. People complained that Soviet always went for maxims, so they decided to buff Penals, but then they had to buff Guards, but now they have to buff Shock and now you want to buff conscripts. Then will have to buff the maxim again because nobody is using it...and so on. Buffing a units to make it more attractive is simply the wrong way to about it, there is power level that is good and units should not exceed that power level. Units should have different roles so people choose them for what they bring to the table and not because they are OP. Adding PPsh to conscripts is simply not "the only realistic" solution. It is actually a bad solution. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: 120 mm mortar21 Nov 2018, 08:39 AM The 120mm is very good at attacking structures like OKW trucks In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Weapon upgrades for standard infatry squads21 Nov 2018, 00:11 AM Jump back to quoted post20 Nov 2018, 23:55 PMKirrik The point is - If people would not use Shocks and instead prefer non-doc PPSh Cons it would mean Shocks are way too weak even after small buffs they got last patch. So lets buff shocks even more because it the "only realistic" solution after all Soviets are clearly struggling. Yes that sounds about right. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Weapon upgrades for standard infatry squads20 Nov 2018, 23:49 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Nov 2018, 23:31 PMKirrik Shocks actually synergize with PPSh Cons, since Shocks have smoke nades PPSh Cons can attack MG's directly without flanking, they also can threaten wipes with nades while Cons dont and if Shocks are focused you could merge nearby PPSh Cons into them to keep them fighting. Think allot of people would disagree with that claim. Actually Soviet Shock Army is probably the least picked doctrine that has Ppshs. Now if only there was unit that could create a smoke screen, like a mortar. Shock are probably the worse unit to merge to. In: COH2 Balance