Profile of gbem

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 1979

General Information


Thread: T-34 rework30 Nov 2020, 06:01 AM Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 05:47 AMFelixTHM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 05:06 AMgbem no... but it will lose to a P4 GUARANTEED at any range and so will 3 T-34s lose against 2 P4s despite costing more fuel and significantly more manpower.... that is not the definition of "cost efficient".... Hahaha. Another gbem post. Not understanding what the word "guaranteed" means. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/guaranteed they are guaranteed to lose frontally which was the original argument.. but nice work taking an argument out of context In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework30 Nov 2020, 03:03 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 14:49 PMSerrith The quality of the faction overall has no bearing on the "cost efficiency" of a specific vehicle. I am referring to the Puma. but it does... if you put a bunch of cost efficient units in an already good faction it starts to become a problem for the game... Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 14:49 PMSerrith So first, the MG on the AEC is better but not even by 10% at close range though it does edge out at long range. you wouldn't want to use the puma at close range vs infantry at all... unless you wanna eat a snare Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 14:49 PMSerrith Second, the accuracy stats are misleading as the puma has longer range. At equivalent ranges the puma will actually have higher stationary accuracy, though the AEC does have better on the move accuracy. I would also actually argue that higher speed also benefits the puma when engaging light vehicles as it makes it less likely they can get away. really? aec accuracy Accuracy mid (30) 0.0375 Accuracy far (40) 0.03125 puma accuracy Accuracy mid (30) 0.0375 Accuracy far (50) 0.025 (0.0375-0.025)/20 = 0.000625 100.000625+0.025 = 0.03125 puma accuracy at range 40 0.03125 therefore puma = aec stationary accuracy with higher moving accuracy for the aec.... you're objectively wrong Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 14:49 PMSerrith Unlike the AEC vs Puma, The T-34/76 is substantially less expensive then the Panzer 4. For 90 fuel* the stats on the T-34/76 are fine. If there's an issue with soviet tech being too expensive, then reduce that. but the issue is the panzer 4 cannot cost efficiently engage the panzer 4 despite being cheaper... it is simply LESS cost efficient than the panzer 4 despite being intended to be MORE cost efficient... Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 14:49 PMSerrith Put another way, how much penetration/performance do you think a 90 fuel generalist tank should have? enough to cost efficiently engage the panzer 4 as it was intended to... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework29 Nov 2020, 13:21 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 13:15 PMT.R. Stormjäger lmao wot i kinda exaggerated... though I do think OKW and SOV are the trashiest factions in the current meta... both automatch and tourney data indicates it... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework29 Nov 2020, 13:17 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 13:08 PMButcher Thank you for contributing to the thread. What about adressing the point I made?. i did... and you haven't addressed my points In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework29 Nov 2020, 13:13 PM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 12:33 PMSerrith Including the sidetech, an AEC will ring you up for 75 fuel while a puma is only 70. Yet the puma is superior across the board stat wise with exception of armor. Does that mean the AEC isn't cost effective? Does that mean the AEC should have its cost reduced or its stats buffed? I would hope you'd say no. 1. the puma is doctrinal for ostheer and okw is complete and utter trash soo despite the puma`s performance it really doesn't indicate much... 2. the puma isn't a straight upgrade to the AEC... the AEC has better anti-infantry and light vehicles due to its more reliable MG higher accuracy and as you've said before more armor... the puma in comparison is better against medium armor due to its higher speed and longer range... there are actual situations where id rather have the AEC than the puma and vice versa... the T-34-76 on the other hand is outright outclassed in both anti infantry and anti armor in both a 1v1 and a critical mass setting by the panzer 4... there is no reason to build a T-34-76 if you have a panzer 4 in your lineup In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback29 Nov 2020, 11:54 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 11:45 AMKyle If you don't want to lock the T34/76mm ramming in vet 1 then please remove IL2 bombing run from the ISU-152 commander. Right now in 2vs2 SoV can just stall for time until ISU-152 come out and wipe axis infantry left and right. If Wehr bring out an Elefant or OKW bring out Jadtiger, SoV can just throw a fresh T34/76mm to ram and drop IL2 bombing run on those tank-destroyers. So if you don't like what happen to Ramming in this new patch then please tell the Dev / Balance team to move the IL2 bombing run out of both ISU-152 commander And yeah sure do the same to Stuka bomb drop in Elefant commander i actually agree with this... ISU + ram/IL-2 is fckn broken in teamgames soo + 1 for this... in any case id still like to rework the T-34 and ram... the base unit most definitely needs some change and improvement to be usable outside of ram/offmap combos... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework29 Nov 2020, 11:47 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 11:45 AMButcher Seems to me some people don't see the role of the T-34 correctly. It is not supposed to go against tanks. It shreds ifnatry and can still somewhat fight medium tanks. If you want to go head on versus German tanks go for the T-34/85. a P4 will shred infantry better than a T-34 will with its superior scatter and ROF + pintle MG while still being useful against armor unlike the T-34... as I've said before the T-34 is simply outclassed by the P4... and the worst part is it takes more time to actually get your first T-34 than it takes to get your first P4... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework29 Nov 2020, 11:38 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 11:13 AMAerohank I think the T34/76 is fine as it is. You use it as an anti-infantry and oppertunistic AT tank while leaving the actual AT to your SU85 and Zis Guns. I'm sure that with the ram change they will still be fine. The only real problem will be with JT/Elephant being more OP than they are. But these can be adressed in the commander patch. i mean the T-34 is usable... its just outperformed outclassed and inefficient when contrasted to a proper medium like the panzer 4 and thus lies much closer to the "bad" end of the spectrum than it lies in the "good" end... and a nerf is most certainly not warranted without a compensatory buff... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback29 Nov 2020, 10:37 AM any ram nerfs need to be done in lieu of a T-34 buff... the base T-34 is pretty terrible to begin with anyways... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework29 Nov 2020, 10:35 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 10:31 AMSerrith The stats it has for 90 fuel lineup with other vehicles. If it were 100 or 110 fuel id expect a penetration or rate of fire increase or both. But at 20 fuel less then a cromwell you really think it should have more penetration than it does? You want to give it 120/110/100, ok, bump its price up by 15 fuel. then increase its rate of fire and improve its scatter + armor to 160? great id take it for 100 fuel... btw the Cromwell is considered underpowered soo its a pretty terrible point of comparison... if anything both the T-34 and the crom need a buff... instead its wiser to compare the T-34 and the crom to the P4... in both cases they are outclassed heavily by the P4... In: COH2 Balance