Profile of gbem

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 1979

General Information


Thread: T-34 rework29 Nov 2020, 10:18 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 10:04 AMSerrith I'd hesitate to say "good", but its price is well justified. Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 10:03 AMVipper Only it far penetration is low because it designed as "flanker" vehicle similar to Puma. And it has the great mobility so it can attack side/rear armor. The unit is quite good in open maps. if the T-34 is "good" or "justified" then what does that make the outright superior in every way P4? overpowered? broken? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback29 Nov 2020, 10:15 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 06:27 AMthedarkarmadillo Read the above post. Do you know what happens when you allow a 6 man mg to suppress in 2 seconds? Anyone who played the game a few years ago will unhappily tell you.... the old maxim had 3 times its current suppression and setup in 1.5 seconds instead of 3... what made the old maxim OP was never its suppression nor 6 man but its 1.5 second setup time.. it essentially allowed the soviet player to replace conscripts as line infantry but that's already long gone... the maxim now setups like ANY OTHER MG therefore it should be treated LIKE ANY OTHER MG Access to sustained fire should be sufficient for the maxim it do its job. There's some other things I'd like to see them try but this will at the minimum allow a recrewed maxim to no be a waste. Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 06:27 AMthedarkarmadillo Also the maxim has 50% more durability than an mg42 ah yes the MG42 has only 33% the durability of the maxim/maxim has 50% more durability than the MG42... still the 300% increase in suppression time is absolutely bonkers... Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 06:27 AMthedarkarmadillo Also comparing it to the mg42 performance is slightly wrong because the mg42 is specifically better than the best to fill the star role of the defensive Ostheer. Kinda like comparing units to rifles. why though? the soviets now have an outright terrible early to mid stock/nondoctrinal lineup against OST... SOV has to contend with 3 minute pgrens 222 flame halftrack MG42 and grens with nothing but conscripts and engineers and the zis 3 all the way until the T-70... the soviets basically have no answer to 3 minute panzergrenadiers... and are absolutely helpless nondoctrinally against the 4 minute flame HT and 222... the maxim is still dirt shit compared to the MG42 conscripts are basically grens but have to pay extra fuel and mp to achieve parity soo basically suck bad... engineers + merge and the zis 3 are the only real silver lining in this lineup... buffing the maxim at least to MG42 standards makes this lineup a little more fair unless the 4 minute flame HT AND the 3 minute panzergrens are removed/nerfed AND molly/ATnade is reworked In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework29 Nov 2020, 10:00 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 06:53 AMSerrith The e8 is a generalist. Compare its AI against the cromwell which I'm sure you would also say is a generalist. You'll see that the E8 compares quite favorably. the Cromwell`s stats cannot be opened in the cruzz calculator but the T-34/76 T-34-85 M4A3 and panzer 4 have much better aoe stats than the easy eight... Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 06:53 AMSerrith In a vacuum, no micro, no flanking, just straight shooting match at long range. straight up shooting frontally at any range... with micro and flanking ill give even more of an edge to the panzer 4 as it can deal damage at a range while still having the speed to keep the distance... Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 06:53 AMSerrith So, which is more cost effective at engaging a centaur/ostwind, the T-34? Or the Panzer 4? (hint hint, the T-34). actually for this case of the ostwind and the centaur its the panzer 4... the unit not only shoots faster but it also doesn't bounce frontally against the ostwind unlike the T-34 which is likely to bounce frontally against it... T-34 long range penetration = 80 P4 long range penetration = 110 ostwind armor = 110 centaur armor = 160 T-34 chance to bounce vs ostwind = 27% P4 chance to bounce vs ostwind = 0% MTTK T-34 vs ostwind 30.98 MTTk P4 vs ostwind 22 price difference between T-34 and P4 = 25%.... and this isn't even counting the fact that the T-34 takes more damage from the ostwind due to lower armor... soo no you're objectively wrong here Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 06:53 AMSerrith Which is more effective at engaging a super heavy like the tiger or IS2? Well, both the T-34 and Panzer 4 are wholly inadequate at fighting super heavies, and have about the same effectiveness at the rear and flanks.... so.... I'd rather flank with a 90 fuel vehicle then a 120fuel vehicle. id rather have 2 P4s engaging a tiger than 3 T-34s if ram is taken out... the T-34 actually bounces off the rear armor quite often while the P4 has much lower chance to bounce... plus I get combat blitz which has utility beyond ram... Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 06:53 AMSerrith Sanders does not speak for me, I speak for me. Don't fob his opinion off on me as if its mine. He can defend himself. both of you defend the same bullshit through different arguments... Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 06:53 AMSerrith Why are you saying that I am the one seeing things in a vacuum when what you quoted was me pointing out that the Jackson's poor time to kill is not representative of its actual strength. Are you just going out of your way to misrepresent what I was saying? yes like the E8 totally "fits" the argument just because it takes an extra hit... i didn't take the performance of the E8 in a vacuum unlike what you did... Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 06:53 AMSerrith The T-34 performs well against infantry for a 90 fuel generalist, and performs about what you would expect from a 90 fuel generalist against tanks. Overall its at the very least average in cost effectiveness for 90fuel. soo if the T-34 is average in its cost effectiveness for 90 fuel does that mean the P4 is overpowered for its cost effectiveness at 120 fuel? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback29 Nov 2020, 06:15 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 05:56 AMthedarkarmadillo Well I mean.. There's the whole 6 man crew thing.... there's also the fact that it has a 4 second suppression time instead of 1.23 (for the mg42) which is definitely far more significant than the whole 6 man thing.. and then there's the smaller arc and the deathloop... if the maxim at least took 2 seconds to suppress and had a larger arc it would be fair but no... the thing actually takes 4 seconds to suppress which is a 300% increase in time to suppress... in turn a maxim is only 33% more durable than an mg42... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework29 Nov 2020, 05:06 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 01:53 AMSerrith And they all can take an extra hit. and you're ignoring the fact that out of all of those you've mentioned only one is a medium generalist... and that medium generalist is considered as a top contender for one of the best tanks ingame.... Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 01:53 AMSerrith And I am disagreeing with the T-34/76 being helpless against armor, there was no caveats to the statement about being "helpless", T-34 is helpless against tanks, full stop. Anti tank capability is a separate category from anti infantry, being good or bad against infantry has no bearing on whether a vehicle is capable of engaging tanks. The centaur is "helpless" against armor, the hetzer is "helpless" against armor. I get the feeling that from your perspective, the T-34 has 5% chance to penetrate a panzer 4 and if it does, it does half damage, because that's what its like for vehicles which are ACTUALLY helpless against armor. 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".... Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 01:53 AMSerrith The T-34 is cost efficient. That is entirely separate from what its optimal role is. In my opinion, the T-34 is useful as a general purpose medium tank that you either get 1 to support your other armor, or you go for a critical mass given their low expense and pop cap. For 90 fuel and 10pop you have a vehicle which is mobile, capable in the anti infantry department, and can be a threat on the flanks of heavier vehicles. Sure it isn't going to go toe to toe with a panzer 4, but its just as dangerous to an overextended panzer 4 as an M4 sherman is. the T-34 according to sanders was a medium tank not intended to be used in 1v1 against other armor but to use in critical mass and trade against other armor... this means it is to be spammed in large amounts and force attritional losses on enemy armor... unfortunately this does NOT apply because as I've said before massing T-34s is LESS efficient when massed than an equivalent medium tank such as the panzer 4... which means not only is ANOTHER UNIT is better at doing its intended role than itself but it is also worse at performing ANY OTHER ROLE aswell... Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 01:53 AMSerrith Time to kill for the stug against any allied tank destroyer is 15 seconds. The time to kill a stug for the firefly is 16 seconds, for the Su-85 its 16.2, for the Jackson its 18.9. Looking at these time to kills one might assume the Jackson is the worst of them, after all it does have the longest time to kill vs 640(or 580) medium tanks. But we all know its not, is it. As for the stug against the Su85 and firefly, there is at best a coin toss chance the stug will win, and in a realistic scenario it should never win. Plus both the Su85 and Firefly have powerful abilities which supports them in their roles- long range self spotting, and tulip rockets. Despite being cheaper, nobody in their right mind would want a stug over an Su85. That doesn't make the stug a bad vehicle. In the same way the Su76 is actually very cost effective if you look at its stats compared to similar priced vehicles. The reason nobody takes them is for reasons other then its cost to performance ratio. unlike the T-34 3 stugs will actually beat 2 SU-85s or fireflies... this means that the STUG though not exactly gonna win a 1v1 provided the allied TD uses a bit of micro is actually EFFICIENT when massed unlike the T-34 who stands no chance against the P4 when massed UNLESS supporting AT is bought... Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 01:53 AMSerrith Looking at these time to kills one might assume the Jackson is the worst of them, after all it does have the longest time to kill vs 640(or 580) medium tanks. But we all know its not, is it. yes because you see things in a vacuum... you say stuff like "the e8 can also take an extra hit" but ignore the fact that the E8 is pretty meh against infantry unlike the T-34-85... the T-34-76 meanwhile is only average against infantry while being bad against armor unlike the P4... and is LESS efficient to mass than the panzer 4 despite the balance team themselves INTENDING the T-34 to be efficient when massed... let me say that again... the T-34 is INTENDED to be efficient when massed... and is INTENDED to trade efficiently against axis armor according to sanders... and it does NONE of that therefore it SUCKS In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework29 Nov 2020, 00:45 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 00:41 AMSpoof Dude...try 1v1ing Allied TDs with a Stug. It's impossible. The extra range is just too much. yes that's why I said provided they don't back away... most fights between armor almost always involves backing away... deaths usually happen only when armor gets snared or if a player is careless... in any case there is still a lot more critical mass phenomenon with stugs and panzer 4s than you will see with T-34s... there is just no reason to mass them at all... at least without ram... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework29 Nov 2020, 00:37 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 00:14 AMSerrith May as well call stugs into question there is NO and I repeat NO case where id rather mass Stugs as opposed to Su-85s So does that mean the stug is cost ineffective? but there is... stug spam can cost efficiently take down allied heavy TD spam as the stug can reliably 1v1 any of the allied tank destroyers (provided they don't back away) while being 38% cheaper and having better AI than allied tank destroyers with pintle (though is almost never used in this capacity)... the T-34 loses to any of the medium tanks including the P4 (provided the T-34 doesn't back away) and has even less AI ability than a panzer 4 while being only 25% cheaper.... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework29 Nov 2020, 00:26 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 00:14 AMSerrith This is simply incorrect. The E8 and 105sherman and bulldozer sherman upgrade all can take an extra hit. Both the E8 and the M4 with bulldozer upgrade have similar cost to the T-34/85. Yes the ability to tank an extra shot is good, but what I was getting at is that an extra 20 fuel is a reasonable cost for the T-34/76 to have an extra 20 penetration at all ranges which puts it squarely in the realm of the cromwell or M4. If this was not a reasonable cost, the base performance could be considered bad. the E8 isn't nearly as good as the T-34-85 against infantry... the 105 sherman is a specialist against infantry and the dozer sherman is also a good contender as one of the best core medium tanks ingame... Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 00:14 AMSerrith You are moving the goal posts, what you said originally was: "its helpless against any medium tank of its class... it can only bully vehicles of a lower weight class and that's it..." Your original point was simply about the tank against other tanks or vehicles, nothing to do with infantry. I have no idea why you are bringing anti infantry into the equation when your original point was about how the T-34 is "helpless" against medium tanks specifically... Like come on... read your own posts. you're taking the argument out of context... here's the original context "the P4 actually has better scatter and ROF on its main gun while having more machinegun DPS if it upgrades to pintle... the only real advantage the T-34-76 has is its lower cost but this is also in exchange for being completely helpless against armor..." as you can see I DID mention the P4 being more efficient against infantry as part of the original post... it is you instead who argue in favor of comparing anti armor capability in a vacuum... something I will not subscribe to... Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 00:14 AMSerrith And t-34s are stronger en masse then valentines. That does not make the valentine cost ineffective, anymore than the panzer 4 being better than T-34s makes T-34s cost ineffective. You seem to be stuck on "Panzer 4 beats T-34 1v1, panzer 4 has better stats, therefore T-34 is cost ineffective." the original point was in the shoutbox... sanders93 argued that the T-34 was cost efficient and was to be used in critical mass and not to be compared 1v1 against the P4... i argued that the T-34 was NOT cost efficient when fighting the P4 and was NOT efficient to mass at all since there are no situations where I would mass T-34s as opposed to panzer 4s.... tldr: the balance team INTENDS the T-34 to be used as a cost efficient massable unit as opposed to a unit stronger in a 1v1 vs enemy armor... the problem is it ISNT cost efficient and massable when contrasting it to a PANZER 4.... the P4 is BETTER than the T-34 at its intended role as a cost efficient massable unit... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework29 Nov 2020, 00:01 AM Jump back to quoted post28 Nov 2020, 23:52 PMSerrith No it isn't. For an extra 40 fuel, the T-34/85 gets +40 penetration at all ranges and some extra hitpoints, and the T-34/85 is considered a very good tank. So for 20 fuel more than a T-34/76(110fuel), we might expect to see say... a 20 penetration increase at all ranges and maybe +10 armor? Well guess what, that would put the T-34/76 into the same realm as the cromwell or sherman. For its cost and AI performance, its AT is fine. the T-34-85 is the best medium tank in the game BECAUSE of those extra hitpoints... the fact that it can tank an additional shot compared to literally every other medium tank means that 1. it can solo every other medium and win 2. it can accumulate veterancy without losses far more efficiently since it tanks an extra shot... Jump back to quoted post28 Nov 2020, 23:52 PMSerrith Im sorry but the E8 being good or bad against infantry wasn't the point. You mentioned that the T-34 was "helpless" against medium tanks of its class(panzer 4). My point is that it isn't, and I used the panzer 4 vs e8 as an analog. I'm sorry but its part of the point... your analogy does not fulfill all the initial requirements of the first analogy hence falls flat... P4 is superior against the T-34 vs armor and infantry but the T-34 costs less the E8 is superior against the P4 against armor but the P4 costs less and is better against infantry... absolutely not a fair comparison Jump back to quoted post28 Nov 2020, 23:52 PMSerrith You also appear to have missed the point here too. The point being that even with LIGHT(ptrs or mini at gun) AT support, the T-34 can stand up to the Panzer 4. It wasnt about NEEDING the AT support but rather an example of how the T-34's power level isn't as far off from the Panzer 4 as you make it seem. and my point was as id repeat AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN there is NO and I repeat NO case where id rather mass T-34 as opposed to panzer 4s Jump back to quoted post28 Nov 2020, 23:52 PMSerrith No. Its cost effective because it has 640hp, 160 damage per shot, 28dps from mgs at 10 range and 150 armor for 300mp 90 fuel. By comparison, the Valentine has 480hp, 120 damage per shot, 7dps from MGs at 10 range and 120 armor for 300mp 80 fuel. The T-34 is fine for its cost. Its not fine for its timing. and my point was as id repeat AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN there is NO and I repeat NO case where id rather mass T-34 as opposed to panzer 4s In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback28 Nov 2020, 23:33 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Nov 2020, 23:26 PMVipper Pls try to provide feedback on the patches preferably after you try it than instead of feedback on me. don't comment till you get rid of your double standards vipper... Jump back to quoted post28 Nov 2020, 23:32 PMLevelOneDm Fact Check: False It's only a 25% fuel discount, 120 fuel compared to 90 fuel. 120 x 0.75 = 90 fuel. why thank you... that actually helps my argument... yeah (1-90/120)*100 = 25% In: COH2 Balance