Profile of Firesparks

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 1930

General Information


Thread: The AEC needs a buff4 Dec 2015, 11:23 AM Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 09:24 AMMr. Someguy Well the AEC Mk III was designed to fire stronger HE rounds, so why not good accuracy and area of effect offset by low damage and low penetration? which create the problem where wehr have to worry about facing what's essentially another stuart from the british player. There's also the matter of redundancy with the wasp carrier as well. The AEC should be handling vehicle while the wasp carrier handle infantry. Remember the British lack infantry snare or accurate atw. The bofor/AEC is basically their mobile answer to vehicle rush. Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 11:15 AMCarlos Danger Problem is that this unit has no real purpose. The Axis don't field many light vehicles - maybe that'll change with the new OKW design the puma is a straight up better original of the aec. The 20mm on the luch is also suprisingly effective against the AEC's armor, plus the fact volks are sure to be packing schreck. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: The AEC needs a buff4 Dec 2015, 07:46 AM Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 07:23 AMMr. Someguy Why make it a Puma clone? Why can't it be something unique? unique how? people always say that unit need to be unique, yet can't make them unique beside uniquely bad. Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 07:35 AMNuclear Arbitor AEC is actually quite solid against infantry; little bit above the level of the 222. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LOYMDi_XR7rILsk6HbAZqGihsk22t-45C_6NbQEP-m0/edit#gid=1675306803&vpid=A1 the coaxial on the 222 is more than twice as good as the coaxial on the AEC. With the AEC you're really dependent on rng to get a model snipe In: COH2 Balance
Thread: The AEC needs a buff4 Dec 2015, 07:20 AM Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 07:14 AMnodickwilliams I don't think giving it a range buff is a good idea. Giving it 50 range is so huge considering it can hurt infantry. I laugh at the notion that AEC is anti-infantry. Even a jackson get lucky sometime and hit infantry, but that by no matter make them anti-infantry. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Switch Schrecks with Panzerbusche on Volks. Thoughts?4 Dec 2015, 06:54 AM Jump back to quoted post3 Dec 2015, 18:48 PMJackiebrown Still see Guards and Conscripts walking around with pretty much the same thing eh? I do agree with AchArcher that an anti tank squad with them can work like the AT Inf Sec. the soviet did actually issue their troops with PTRD up to the end of the war as they didn't have anything better. Their infantry anti-tank weapon and towed-anti tank gun were generally the worst in the war although they make up for it by having a crapload of tanks. on the other hand the german ditch their panzerbusche fairly fast and switch to panzerfaust. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: The AEC needs a buff4 Dec 2015, 06:37 AM The AEC is basically a inferior Puma clone with less range. The only buff the AEC really need is those 10 meter of range. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [USF] Buff the Scott, Nerf the pack4 Dec 2015, 06:33 AM The only buff I would give to the scott at this point is decreasing the barrage recharge time. It's basically a glorified mortar barrage at this point but yet it takes 1 minute to recharge. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Give Brits AT Snare With Nade Tech4 Dec 2015, 06:05 AM Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 01:47 AMcr4wler also, @Firesparks, the "nerf" to the 6pdr was not a direct nerf to the 6pdr (its stats remained untouched), it was more a nerf to the amount of fieldable units of the brits. the 6pdr still performs EXACTLY the same way it did before, the MP cost increase only delayed the appearance of the 6pdr (and all subsequent units) by roughly 10-15 seconds. and if you think 10-15 seconds is a big deal, pls test the earliest possible times for both cromwell and (ost) p4 in a custom game and try to justify that. 40 mp is significant enough. trying to dismiss the importance of 40 mp is idiotic considering how much people were crying about the 6 pounder being cheaper to begin with. as for tech difference: Jump back to quoted post13 Nov 2015, 02:19 AMDullahan This is why Brits have fuel sinks. -Weapon racks 15F -Grenades 25F -Squad sizes 25 F -Bofors/AEC 15 F -Hammer/Anvil 50 F Ostheer spends the most fuel teching, but they have zero fuel sinks. Likewise OKW gets 1 less fuel per strat point and 2 per fuel point, but don't have fuel sinks either. A Brit rushing a centaur or whatever only needs to spend 780 manpower 245 fuel, but they're sacrificing weapon upgrades, grenades, larger squad sizes (which translates into 25% less damage on their infantry sections and sappers.) and Bofors Emplacement/AEC both of which have their uses. Meanwhile Ostheer spend 780 manpower and 260 fuel for an Ostwind and aren't missing anything from their army like grenades or weapon upgrades. I think over time you'll see people learn to appreciate the importance of stuff like bofors/AEC and how effective they can be. In general any RTS metagame heavily favours fast teching for high end units until the metagame developments. Saw the same shit in Dawn of War 2 for years, only in the last 2-3 has the metagame evolved beyond that. I don't think anything about British teching should be touched with a 10ft pole. This is the sort of problem that is solved by players getting better at steamrolling british players who don't buy their upgrades in favour of trying to rush an early centaur/cromwell. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Give Brits AT Snare With Nade Tech4 Dec 2015, 01:05 AM Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 01:03 AMWaegukin Perhaps a buff then to make it more reliable? then you would have people complaining about vet 1 sniper destroying engines on stuff like tigers. Stuff like turret lock was perfectly fine on a vet 0 ability. the light vehicle snare was really the only odd one out. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Give Brits AT Snare With Nade Tech4 Dec 2015, 01:03 AM Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 00:55 AMAchtAchter Yes, tanks get only shortly stunned. casemate armor (stug,jpz4, etc) get short stun. turreted tank (pz4, panther, etc) get turret lock, but the gun can still technically fire and the tank can still move with no problem. The instant engine crit against light vehicle was a bit much, but the effect on other unit was annoying at best. A better nerf would have been to limit the light vehicle engine critical to target with only 50% hp left, similar to how the other snare operate. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Give Brits AT Snare With Nade Tech4 Dec 2015, 00:49 AM Jump back to quoted post3 Dec 2015, 22:21 PMAchtAchter How to counter any tank: 1. Snare it. 2. Piat blob it to death, thx to 80 deflection damage. Therefore no thank you. You have a snare on the sniper, it only requires vet 1. Brits were managing without snares up to this point, I don't see a reason why they should get it. I think one of the reasons the 6 Pounder has it's 50 % better accuracy against vehicle is because they have no classical snare. while I agree with the sentiment, that british anti-tank capability was designed with the lack of an at snare on tommies, the recent nerf to the at sniper and the 6 pounder is a massive nerf to the brits. I would prefer the tommies be kept without a snare, but they are going to need a massive buff in other areas. The AEC is going to need a massive buff for one. In: COH2 Balance