Are you sure thats how bare bones the calculation is ? 4% sounds like at gun vs infantry odds lol.
From personal experience, a tanks accuracy makes a literal night and day difference in infantry effectiveness when moving vs stationary and im aware its a 50% hit but +10% is definitely not negligible and do you know if the comet still has .75% moving accuracy ?
Yes, you have somewhere in the region of a 4% chance to actually hit a target. In practice this is not generally meaningful however, as you are relying on a favourable scatter roll, not a favourable accuracy roll for tank cannons.
An average AT gun has nominally better accuracy than most tank cannons, but has ludicrous scatter and a practically negligible AOE which is part of why they do practically nothing to infantry. |
|
Really, you should just give deflection damage to non-penetrating hits from weapons with a penetration somewhat comparable to the armour value of the target, not to every weapon.
The 222 shouldn't be doing deflection damage to the IS2, but the Stug should. |
|
Early alpha, and then another later alpha with fewer bugs. (And also ideally feedback from the first alpha). Its there for testing, I don't really see much reason to delay it due to it being buggy... That's ostensibly the sort of thing the alpha is to address. |
0.5 x 40 = 20 not 15.
How much time do you think that 4 T-70 need to fire 8 rounds?
Point here is that deflection damage promotes spamming vehicles while making Super heavies unable to cope. Already 3 SU-76 can take out an Elephant without any deflection damage, try to imagine what would happen if deflection damage was added.
Both the accuracy mechanisms and armor mechanism are good mechanisms that add dept to combat. People who do not like them should probably stick to AOE or other titles that do not have RNG elements.
AoE has RNG elements for ranged combat, as well as resource distribution/map generation. |
Assault Tommies have WP too. Smoke is smoke, if a unit can self-smoke then follow up with a nade on an MG emplacement makes it very strong. They can move through it but will take some damage and be slowed.
Stormtroopers have smoke and fire nade not sharing cooldown too.
Attempting to advance through your own WP is pretty much a death sentence.
The fire grenade isnt the equivalent of an HE grenade, either. |
Which remain a barrage. But we agree on it doesn't make sense to compare two type of unit. One to counter mainline the other static and team weapons.
The Scott's autoattack also outranges the Sherman's, it isnt just the barrage. The point remains that Pathfinder + Sherman isnt meaningfully comparable to Scott + Pathfinder. |
the coh2 soviet campaign is closer to something that nazi germany's Goebbels would create, which to be fair is the entire basis of cold war (and modern) propaganda
Spoiler: Stalin and the Soviets were, in fact, evil. |
You're nickpicking what suit your vision, or you're just reading the last post of each thread. It has always been about overall effectiveness of both units and a focus on DPS at the end because that's the only thing that's go for the Sherman and is easily spammable on a forum@ look the AI damage stat the sherman is better!!!! with 0 care for context.
Now since your so good yourself by your playercard, tell us why everybody here complain about a unit that have far less IA damage and requires to be pack in 3 + extended vision from another unit to be really effective when the Sherman is so far better in that matter. Why nobody complains about Sherman and Pathfinder? Are people complaining about Scott IA damage at the end or something else like its survivability vs reckless panther dives? Do the supposedly superior IA from the sherman really matter during a game? Or is it just an overkill that brings in reality nothing effective you can count on.
Those stats means nothing at the moment since everyone playing USF in 2vs2 is actually doing Scott&Path, 4vs4 the same thing and 3vs3 a joke as usual. Do you think you've achieve something good with the balance when a faction is played building only 2 units supposedly being support type? Do you think the balance is working when everyone is avoiding building riflemen or light vehicle on teamgame?
We're in reality far from a debate around Calliope or Priest vs scott but a build that avoid building any of USF peak. No riflemen, no light vehicle, no sherman, only path, hmg, optional atgun, optional jackson, zook and Scott.
What would there to be to complain about with a Sherman + Pathfinder combo?
The Sherman doesn't synergise with Pathfinders in the way that the Scott does, due to its rather worse range. What sort of comparison even is this? |
The funniest BS I've since for the day.
Why not give pio a AT nade & remove it from the gren? That would be awesone buff to the OST according to your logic right?
It would be even acceptable to give them a one schrek if it costs gren not having AT nade.
As mentioned by Julian: That would actually be a buff to OST, given that many strats revolve around purposely not building grenadiers. |
Why would you compare global faction ratios (and OKW has nowhere near 60% in any gamemode anyway) to meassure faction vs faction balance?
In 1v1 USF vs OKW matchup over the last 3 months the win ratio is 50/50 in top 200 matches and 53/47 in favour of USF in all matches.
https://coh2stats.com/stats?range=range&statsSource=all&type=1v1&race=wermacht&fromTimeStamp=1625097600&toTimeStamp=1634428800
Admittedly OKW does have a 58.9% winrate in 4v4 if you're looking at the "top 200" statistics.
|
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
