Profile of Blovski

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 480

General Information


Thread: Langres Mark v2 Proposal1 Sep 2013, 13:03 PM Personally I think a Langreskaya south start is very Ostheer favoured (and forces the Soviets to go with snipers), while a Langreskaya North Ostheer start is pretty well balanced between the factions. Kind of want to see how flanking and the MG bulletins are fixed before saying it needs some sort of change to make more strategies viable as a Soviet on Langreskaya North. I'm curious as to whether anyone's going LHS from the north start... it seems like that would be easier to hold/less likely to get you cut-off stomped as the Soviets. Changing it to Angoville layout seems a bit unneeded, and I think the symmetry would make the map a bit flavourless. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Give me a reason why KV8 is OP?1 Sep 2013, 12:56 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Sep 2013, 12:31 PMBabaRoga Ok, to answer Op's question: The reason KV8 is OP is because its in a weak commander tree (no rifles, etc) meaning German domination through t2. Its designed to be high risk strategy with potential high gain or if it doesn't work out its GG Its quite clear why its OP, because if its nerfed you may as well just delete entire commander tree Um, I'm not sure being in a crap tree is necessarily a good reason for it to be OP, because then fixing anything else in the tree (like, say, making Shocks cost effective) will completely mess up the balance. My issue is still, it's just that it's the sort of unit that can just end the game if it waltzes into an enemy base, as well as being very hard to actually kill if the opponent uses it more responsibly. For 360MP and 135 Fuel, that's way too good. I don't mind the infantry melting but the infantry melting, the armour and the cost together is way too good. I think the best point of comparison is the Brummbar, which has worse armour and less HP, is less effective against infantry in a real scenario most of the time, requires a Tier 4 tech building (hence a bigger initial fuel and MP investment) and costs 35 fuel and 160 mp more. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Give me a reason why KV8 is OP?1 Sep 2013, 09:45 AM Way too cheap. Especially compared to the Brummbar of disappointment. I honestly think they should just swap prices : p Half again the armour and half again the HP of a P-IV for a marginally higher fuel cost. Yeah, it won't beat a P-IV but it won't get killed quickly by one (a P-IV has less than a 50% chance of penetrating). Incredible infantry melting powers, can often waltz up to PAKs facefirst and melt them. Easily the nastiest baserushing vehicle in the game. I really think it needs to cost enough that trading one for a P-IV is bad and that people will stop just baserushing with them regardless of context because they'll probably kill stuff more than they cost most of the time. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: SU-85; The Thread1 Sep 2013, 02:25 AM Jump back to quoted post31 Aug 2013, 22:01 PMJohanSchwarz @Blovski: I do agree that the T1 part of the T1+T4 atm is harder to pull off as the AC is quite effective vs. snipers now and you only need to spend the 25 fuel instead of 50 for two, but it doesn't really change the fact that once the Soviets get to picking between T3 and T4, the latter is generally the more cost effective choice. The Soviet weak early game is caused by the AC (which I do think is a little too versatile post-patch) but in this thread we should treat that as a separate issue as once (if) that is changed T1+T4 will become the default route once more. The only real reason the Soviets have to choose T3 over T4 is anti-air for strafing run, which is another problem completely and probably deserves its own thread. Again. Well, the real reason T3 is better vs strafing run is actually that the strafing run then doesn't affect any of your anti-infantry stuff, and it doesn't do much to AT guns either. In general it offers a load of options T-4 doesn't and vice versa. T-70s can just reclaim half the map, mince squads and get out before a P-IV can arrive. I kind of think the cost-effectiveness of T4 vs T3 is very dependent on having your anti-infantry more or less covered already. I think unless the sniper preservation is made much easier (even before the AC changes, I think German players were cottoning onto dealing with snipers properly), or Shocks get a cost decrease or something, T3 is going to have a place in the meta. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: if oorah got increased to 10 munis31 Aug 2013, 23:14 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Aug 2013, 20:57 PMraw the game is completely broken at the moment. - MG42 can supress instantly - maps like semois are unwinnable for soviets - grenadiers win 2 vs. 1 vs conscripts and engis - AC murders M3 and infantry - soviet has no T2 removal except guards - paks are completely worthless - pzIV still roll over everything short of SU-85 and can drive through 2 Paks like they aren't even there - running flanks with conscripts even with oorah is a completly worthless excercise - the RNG is absolute shit winning as soviet relies on gimmicky killstreaks with M3 and T70. i hope that answers your question. Breaking down your points 1. Yes, and it's problematic. 2. It isn't. Personally I find it less challenging than Langreskaya. 3. Doubt. Grens are marginally better than conscripts. 4. Mauls M3s, yes, can also be killed by 1 mine, an AT nade + small arms fire... the vet gain on it does seem too quick right now but other than that it's fine. 5. Except ZiS guns, mines and AT nades. 6. PAKs are pretty bad. ZiS is alright. 7. Protip: point the AT guns at the P-IV. 8. Not rewarded enough, yes; worthless, no. 9. ... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: SU-85; The Thread31 Aug 2013, 20:52 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Aug 2013, 01:18 AMEkko Tek It's cheaper, has better penetration, and slightly better reload time. I don't recall all the stat differences but remember those. It's a better anti-tank choice - just have to use it more defensively due to the lack of a rotational turret. With the recent buffs to the T-34 I think it makes the Stug a better choice over the Panzer vs T3 Soviets. But also only 2/3 the health and no better armour. They're a nice stopgap if you have no fuel and you have some extra AT to back them up and prevent them getting T-34 rushed (and the Vet ability is great) but the P-IV is definitely better vs. T-70s and usually better vs T-34s. @Johan... Tier 1 -> Tier 4 relies on preserving units better than the Ostheer player. It's kinda higher risk than T2->T3. I think the Ostheer Scout Car change makes T1->T4 much elss easy to pull off (just because previously an upgunned AC was overpriced as an exclusive counter to the M3). I'm hoping that making MG 42s properly flankable will make conscript spam and T2 starts a bit more appealing on maps like Langreskaya. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Soviet Faction31 Aug 2013, 18:19 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Aug 2013, 08:56 AMGreenDevil The mistakes: 1) Clown Cars being allowed to have infantry shoot out of the back 2) Conscripts not having powerful enough smalls arms fire to punish German player when flanking 3) Two man sniper teams, for fuck sake just make them a one man squad, this is not hard to understand 4) 6 man Support teams, being too hard to kill 5) Kv8 Flame is far too powerful at killing squads 6) SU 85 still fires too quickly and is too fast and too cheap 7) Being able to build T1 and then T4 straight away is joke and too easy 8) Soviets Mines are cheaper then German mines, why? 1. Not seeing this as hugely game-breaking, tbh. 2. Yeah, though that's more a general question of support teams vs small arms fire. 3. Currently in a better spot than the German sniper as far as utility and balance goes. Right now, a Soviet can win with snipers -> SU-85 but it's very dependent on having better unit preservation than the Ostheer. 4. Since the Maxim nerf, there are more ways to deal with most Soviet weapon teams than with MG-42s. 5. More accurately, I think KV-8 doesn't cost enough for how strong it is. 6. Ehhhh... sort of true. Or at least, the frontal armour, damage and speed and lowish cost all taken together seem a bit excessive. Would be better if a StuG worked as a modest soft counter to it. Kind of mooted right now in 1v1 because of some of the Ostheer early game edge. Once MG-42 flanking gets fixed then maybe the SU-85 will need another tweak. 7. In 1v1, as I said in point 3, this is absolutely dependent on keeping your stuff alive better than the Ostheer player does. Since the scout car changes made it so you can't rely on an upgun ruining the 222's anti-sniper capacity, it's a much more high-pressure/high-risk strat than T2->T3, where AT-guns and T-70s can often net you a comeback even if you slip up quite badly in the early game. 8. German minefield really needs something of a rework but the Teller mines are way more powerful and more reliable anti-vehicle than the Sov mines. Jump back to quoted post31 Aug 2013, 07:57 AMraw There are no unvetted ACs on the field by the time T-70 hits. And no-one just amoves their AC into a T-70. Shrecked Pgrens, Pfausts (who can btw one-shot T-70 if lucky) all exist and make the T-70 "rampage" a very short experience. As I said, the T-70 is a gimmick unit that relies on exploiting an opening in your enemies defense. A good german won't have that, so T-70 is useless. The same is true for M3s. T-70s are very good against infantry throughout the game, as well as extremely cheap (therefore get vet very quickly), fast and having a lot of extra utility (vet cap, self-repair, recon). I see a lot of very high-level Soviets use them successfully. I have never ever seen a faust one-shot a T-70. You probably hit a teller mine or something. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: no warnning for German grnade31 Aug 2013, 02:32 AM I think I've been experiencing the same thing. In: COH2 Bugs
Thread: Mg42 vet 1 ability31 Aug 2013, 00:26 AM Killing a T-70 with this is possibly the most satisfying thing in the game right now. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Elo can't pick up on this, can it?30 Aug 2013, 01:18 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Aug 2013, 18:40 PMCyridius That's exactly what freedom of speech does. Maybe not in countries of oppression like Germany where my freedom ends where your feelings begin, but Freedom of Speech is EXACTLY that, FREEDOM OF SPEECH. It would be interesting to see the legal basis of banning somebody from using a product or service because of what they say. Then again I believe it's a right of a business to deny service for whatever reason. Edit; Anyway I'm pretty sure "Freedom of X" doesn't apply. You can say whatever you want in game, and as a result Relic/Steam can deny service to you whenever they want. It's usually in the ToS that they reserve the right to do that. Why is it that the freedom of speech argument gets applied almost exclusively to things that aren't worth saying.... Not meaning to start a big political argument here but you are aware that America's historical relationship with meaningful freedom of speech hasn't been a happy one. In: Lobby