So according to elchino7's test Ranger with 3 bazookas have the "HIGHEST AT dmg output" and are superior to AT PF which is exactly what I posted.
It also seem that the only reason you thought AT PF where superior is that you think they still have snare when they upgrade with AT when they do not. I wonder if you ever even used AT PF to honest.
Not that they keep the snare, but that moving 2 squads of PFs is superior to rifle squad + 3 zooks. I don't use PFs much. Not in AT mode nor g43s. Used them a couple of times playing with OKW, you are right about that, so on average I use them never. |
|
L2P I guess. Calliope is strong, no doubt about it, but it's strength is the armour/hp, not the barrage itself. If you can't hear it and can't react, turn the volume up. About the AA the soviets have. It's their only AA option in the game, and is expensive as such. L2P I guess. |
Thx for your intense testing. :-)
In the end both squads are really powerful in the AT segment (too powerful if you ask me) ;-)
I don't think AT squads can ever be too OP. Well, they can but you get my drift.
My argument: At the time where shrecks and triple zooks come online, you have medium tanks and plenty of AI power. Now if you run your shrecks/zooks solo. One, maybe two squads running around, you will be forced to retreat coming about another infantry (unless pio or echelon or sth like that). If you do run into a medium tank, a medium will always have an upper edge. That is, you can bleed the squad with occasional backing away.
The main thing that separates fussies from ranger zooks is the fact they also have snare. A triple zook squad will never down anything above a 222 solo, and if you blob it with rifles, you risk a pretty substantial bleed.
So all in all, unless 5 zooks or 6 PTSRs or 4 shrecks are introduced, infantry carrying AT weapons will always be OK. One thing that would not be ok if they had some sort of fast AI power like the bundled nade. I'm not against the bundled on Pgrens but it does make them super strong with double shrecks. |
This happened to my teammate almost every game before he fixed it by deleting his coh2 folder (not the main one but the one in documents) and verifying game files. Not sure if that really fixed it but he was fine since then so it might have helped.
After I updated to the 64 bit about 1h after release, I had 15 FPS on all maps after about 1 minute of gameplay (RX 580, 16 GB RAM, Ryzen 5 1600). Low settings, same shit, highest possible settings, same shit. Then, out of the blue, the FPS just stabilized. I didn't verify, didn't reinstall. Literally tested around 20 maps one after the other on all possible settings with Vsync off or on (I later thought that turning Vsync ON was what fixed it but it wasn't).
So, I shut the computer off, and went to sleep. Woke up, studied, and after an hour or two, went on to test again. Opened COH2. Same thing. Of,on,high,low, each and every map I tested I had 15 FPS after about one minute.
Again, I turned off COH2 and went to cook myself some lunch. After an hour and half, I wanted to give it one last try before reinstalling. Lo and behold. The FPS went to 80-90 and was as smooth as butter. Literally the computer was idle for an hour and a half and somehow the FPS got fixed.
It's strange |
Vs heavy armoured targets shreks have better pen, but bazookas make that up with ACC and ROF. All other targets like MED and LV's, super bazookers are the best, but that doesnt mean shreks are bad vs them, ther still good.
Both are (for me) tied as the best hand held AT options in the game. this idea that "oh alpha damage is higher on shrek so its better" or "ROF is higher on bazooka so thats better" is nonsesense and is enterily dependant on the siuation.
Agreed with that. I don't even claim they are superior or inferior. On one hand, Rangers can carry 3 zooks, which is more expensive but can lead to good skirmishes vs vehicles if all three hit. On the other, having 2 shrecks is cheaper and higher alpha damage as you have said but the accuracy is somewhat lower.
I'm still waiting for proof, for that claim that super zooks are simply superior. |
What about instead of consistently deflecting you actually for once reply? You brought the subject up yourself, so please provide the data.
I think you're asking too much from a troll |
You comparison of shreck and Super bazookas is incorrect since you are not taking into account accuracy and ROF.
Rangers with 3 bazookas is simply superior to AT PF.
If it's so simply superior. Prove it. |
That situation is not really the same since Calliope is a lot more durable than Kat and Panz.
In addition the combination of doctrinal rocket AI arty like Calliope and an AT off map is bad to begin with.
Mostly for soviet and none of them have the AT capability of rangers.
Each faction plays differently now imagine how broken it would be one combined 5 men grenadier with a Super heavy like Tiger or Elefant.
5 man grens are equal to rangers now? You do know Rangers are expensive both in MP and population? Not only that, they are not mainline infantry and are only suited for close range or zooks. Please stop these silly uninformative comparisons. Shame on you. |
Yes at a FACT. Everyone on this forums knows panther exists to COUNTER ALLIED HEAVIES.
@Protos Angelus you are over exaggerating the panther soo much, making it seem like anti allied vehicle of doom "panther will win vs any allied tank" i mean this is complete stupidy, tone it down
Overall, anyone can see perishing has good stats but saying it’s not worth the price, that doesn’t immediately mean it needs a performance buff, you can just decrease the price and not break balance again.
And its not just about the performance of specific units, it’s also about what the enemy has to counter. Compare the Tiger and Pershing (which are more similar than the stupid panther comparison). Yh tiger has more HP and Armour, but ALL allied factions have 60 range high pen non doc TD's to outrange and counter all axis heavies like tiger and panther.
I do not see how you can buff the perishing without making it OP. It has 960hp, same armour as panther (260 I believe), High speed, best AI out of heavies and very good AT with ability to improve its penetration. (correct me if im wrong)
If its overpriced for what it gives, then reduce the price.
I didn't call it nor intended to call it a tank of doom. However, I can't think of a single tank that a Panther can not dive and win. In vacuum definitely; and in a regular engagement, they can get into the 50 range, shoot a few shots and get out (and you'll def force the player to react with SUs or Jacksons, moving them away)
So a Panther will win vs any allied tank. That's not exaggeration, but a fact. It won't shit on every tank, but will win in 1v1 unless the axis player is not using it's speed and frontal armour and is diving into snares and tanks. If one can nullify the range advantage of TDs by positioning and sight blockers (or carpeting the area beforehand to kill enemy sight providers)...kudos.
Pershing has 270 armour (10 more than Panther, same HP as panther). IS-2 has a cannon that is sort of on par with the Pershing (higher AOE but a bit worse modifiers with similar ROF). Compared to the Tiger AI. Tiger has 15% worse AOE but higher ROF and has a pintle MG. So, less wipes but more bleed. Pershing gets an acceleration buff at vet1. Accuracy and automatic nade throw at vet2 and 35% better reload speed at vet3 (5.5s to 3.85s + 1 s of wind down). Penetration is the same as Panther's and does not change (260-240-220). I pretty much think that's all, unless I'm forgetting something in the vet department.
Either decrease the price of Pershing or buff it's armour back to 300. |
|
Well. If you compare Panther and Pershing, you'll notice that Pershing only has a better AI gun and moving accuracy. Rest of the stats the Panther wins, even in the ability department. I think that was the original design and the devs are sticking to it, so nothing you can do about it. Panther will always win vs any tank, allied units can field. Both in vacuum and regular gameplay. That is by design, so it's expensive. One could only argue that it's design is bad for teamgames, where the resource management is not as important as 1v1 and you can get steamrolled by pintled Panthers late game if you allow axis to reach critical mass. Other faction that can do that is the UKF with the Comets. Of course, you can spam any tank, but only those two can actually be useful lategame. Although you will see T34 critical mass in teamgames. An early c.mass that can steamroll the opponent if you've been playing well.
Back to the point at hand. Pershing not being equal to Panther. While that is true, it's not as clear cut as it seems. Yes, Panther has 90% of stats better, but one major stat is the AI power, and Pershing with it's 4 AOE (compared to 0.5 on Panther) clearly wins, and infantry is a major element of any mode. While the Panther can have decent AI once the pintle MG has been upgraded, especially if you keep all 3 MGs on your targets, it will never wipe more than one model with one shot, never ever. That is quite a big setback. Of course, that setback is contrasted by the fact that it's sturdy, fast, long ranged, highly penetrating and frequently shooting. Compare it to the Comet, you'll see that the Comet has even more armour, less HP, less range, but better AI cannon and nice utility.
It's all give and take generally in this game, contrary to what some people claim.
Does Pershing need a buff? IMHO yes.
Does the E8 need a slight buff? IMHO yes.
Is USF a bad faction for teamgames or lacks something non-doctrinal? IMHO no.
I wonder how the commander patch, if it occurs will look like. But I wouldn't expect much. The low number of commanders on the newer factions puts a strain on combining the existing ones. |
Relic Entertainment
