Profile of Firesparks

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 1930

General Information


Thread: Panzerwerfer vs Emplacements - make it burn!22 May 2016, 21:26 PM Jump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 20:55 PMPuppetmaster What do you think about turning the Bofors barrage ability into suppression only (so it does 0 damage)? the bofor round still do enough damage to wreck axis squad, especially the ost 4 men squad. the bofor emplacement shouldn't get an ability to kill its own counter. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: British Turtle Much22 May 2016, 20:41 PM at long as the cromwell get its size 18 back, the emplacement should be nerfed. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Panzerwerfer vs Emplacements - make it burn!22 May 2016, 19:53 PM waiting for the panzerwerfer to counter emplacement is kind of late. The game is going to be long over by then. the bofor barrage needs a range nerf and the mortar emplacement need an autofire range nerf. The problem right now is that the bofor counter its own counter and the mortar emplacement cover too much ground. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Petition to revert crushing change22 May 2016, 19:40 PM Jump back to quoted post22 May 2016, 17:16 PMMirdarion How does the Pansy IV manage to stay relevant into the late game with its size of 22? Especially the Ostheer version, which is just as endangered by Allied AT weaponry as is the Cromwell by Axis AT weaponry... because the allied anti-tank are generally weaker? the US and Soviet are atg both weaker than the pak40. US snare is harder to use than the faust. the bazooka are weaker than the schreck. ( less of an issue in the preview, but it's not like the bazooka was buffed) The PIAT can easily be dodge by a Panzer 4. the jackson and firefly are designed to be good against heavy but inefficient against medium. They have high penetration but slower firing rate. the (vanilla) su-85 is the least accurate TD in the game. Even the buffed version in the preview trade in rate of fire for pen and accuracy. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Ostheer lategame needs a buff21 May 2016, 20:28 PM the emplacement needs a nerf to their range, but that's more of a brits issue. and stug spam is the perfect counter to any allied tanks. Its vet ability allow it to tackle even the allied heavy. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Petition to revert crushing change21 May 2016, 04:15 AM Jump back to quoted post21 May 2016, 03:59 AMMittens There are for sure better ways to address the issues with crush. Changing max speed alone is a starter as I'm almost positive this is driven by the Cromwell. max speed is not the problem, it's the rotation rate. Tank don't ram into infantry at max speed, they turn into them. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Petition to revert crushing change20 May 2016, 23:54 PM Jump back to quoted post20 May 2016, 23:53 PMCookiezNcreem added poll god damn you cookiez In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Petition to revert crushing change20 May 2016, 23:49 PM Jump back to quoted post20 May 2016, 22:05 PMBurts If crush is op, nerf M10 speed + cromwell speed. it's not top speed and acceleration that make them infantry mower, it's the rotation rate. similar case with the t34/76. Jump back to quoted post20 May 2016, 23:20 PMferwiner I would keep the cromwell size nerf though. the crushing needs a nerf, but the small size needs to stay. the small size keep the cromwell relevant into the late game as it grant cromwell survivability against the axis anti-tank weapon. nerf the cromwell's offensive capability, but not its defensive capability. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Possible solution to the mortar pit problem.20 May 2016, 23:30 PM a more simple solution is to just lower the auto fire range. you will still have the 115 meter barrage range to deal with camper, but the emplacement can't hold down a significant portion of the map. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: [may preview] cromwell's size nerf20 May 2016, 20:00 PM Jump back to quoted post20 May 2016, 12:09 PMCultist_kun AEC, LMG tommies, AT guns, insane damaging and long range vet 1 vekers. I dont quite understand how you understood the meaning of "support" in my post. By support I meant combined arms. Right now cromwell's taget size makes it really forging early on, in this case you can pretty much YOLO early enemy tanks even if there are AT gun (with flanking ofcouse), and usually enemy tanks and AT would miss 1-2 shots which is critical considering cromwell's speed. Same with inf AT weaponary. With new target size you wont be able to just YOLO enemy kill-and-run it, drive over AT inf and go away with it. You need combined arms to support cromwells push. Thats the case. Main problem with correct cromwell is that it one-tank-army when it hits the field for the firts time. AEC, tommies, atg, and vicker are nothing really extraordinarily. That's more or less the same amount of support a panzer 4 will usually get. Jump back to quoted post20 May 2016, 13:00 PMMyself IMO since in this patch Axis heavy play has become less powerful one should also rebalance medium Tank balance. That has not only to do with Cromwell but with most allied medium tanks. PZIV imo are the least cost efficient tanks... axis medium tank was left virtually untouched. In fact, the ost tech got a cost deduction, making it easier to field stuff like the panther and panzer4. Don't forget the buff to the brummbar as well. and the nerf to the crushing ability affect allied tank significantly more than it affect the axis armor. Axis armor have always been pretty horrible at crushing infantry, but the cromwell crush infantry on a regular basis. Even people are starting to do it on the t34/76. Make it more expensive then and leave it as it is, fine. There are not a single reson why cromwell should be better then PIV and cost less. Assume you mean leaving the size at 18 but keep the nerf to crushing, I can agree with that. or a cost decrease to panzer4. It feels like the medium tank match up is a bit out of sync currently. In: COH2 Balance