Profile of Cardboard Tank

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 978

General Information


Thread: Finally a reason for Relic to Nerf that BS4 Aug 2014, 11:51 AM The problem is the two man squad the soviet sniper comes in. That´s way too hard to kill. A 222 may seem like a good option, but above a certain level the opponent will spam mines. The pioneers with minesweepers can detect one mine at best and then have to retreat. Currently your best bet is to have a lucky mortar shot and god knows that is a shitty strategy that can´t be relied on. This dual sniper squad ruins games. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Panther Rework Idea1 Aug 2014, 19:11 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Aug 2014, 16:43 PMKatitof Good thing that sherman and panther had exactly the same weight so your comparison makes the most perfect of senses. I actually thought about adding the comment that the horsepower difference is so huge, that even the higher weight of the Panther didn´t prevent it from going faster. I didn´t do it because I though it was obvious and nobody was so dumb to not recognize himself. I was wrong. The Panther has a speed of 46 km/h the Sherman a speed of 40 km/h. It´s not like the Panther was super slow, like people here seem to suggest. And Katitof, until now I tried to talk with you like a normal person. The result is always a sarcastic answer. That makes you incredibly annoying. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Panther Rework Idea1 Aug 2014, 16:38 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Aug 2014, 16:30 PMRocket If anything its speed needs nerfed. It is pretty pathetic that a sherman is slower than a panther it makes no sense it is almost twice the size of a sherman. The Panthers engine had 600/700 hp, the Shermans engine had 350 hp. It makes perfect sense. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Panther Rework Idea1 Aug 2014, 11:52 AM Jump back to quoted post1 Aug 2014, 08:52 AMMettiu I think model Ausf G is slithy different than current model in game. The model ingame is the Ausführung A, the second variant of the Panther. You can see that on the MG port and the cupola. Also the shot trap at the gun mantle is still there, which was finally fixed with the Ausf. G. That being said, it would be nice to have an Ausführung G with more armor and HP replacing one of those Panthers. The current Panther remains nerfed despite all of its opponents being buffed. Thus it will always underperform. I don´t think giving the Panther less survivability is good. That would be ridiculous and totally ignore the characteristics of the Panther, which was well protected - at least from the front. What´s needed is an increase in rate of fire. Neither should a 75mm deal more damage than a 122mm on the IS-2. What the long 75mm should excel at is penetration and rate of fire. Also the health you get at vet2 needs to be back at vet0. TL DR; - increase Rof - give it it´s vet2 health back at vet0 In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Patch: July 31st31 Jul 2014, 20:22 PM Jump back to quoted post31 Jul 2014, 19:24 PMBrachiaraidos Why's that, exactly? How many T4 soviets do you see in 1v1? Aside from the current Katty bandwagon. Nobody said that Soviet T4 was as it should be. I think the Su-76 needs to get some StuG like anti infantry capabilities as the Tier lacks that. The new Katjuscha I can´t comment on yet. Su-85 seemed pretty decent last patch though I didn´t see them often. T-34/85 were obviously the better choice. But do two wrongs make something right? If Soviet T4 is lacking so should the Ost T4? I would prefer more options and thus the Tier needs to be buffed for both. It´s not just about call ins being more affordable, it´s the specific units not fulfilling their role. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Patch: July 31st31 Jul 2014, 18:01 PM Relic logic: Community complains about call ins being too cost effective and Ostheer T4 being unattractive. Solution: Nerf Panzerwerfer. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Patch: July 31st31 Jul 2014, 16:23 PM So the Panzerwerfer now takes loner to reload? For some more AoE and damage on deflection that the Katjuscha also got? One reason less to go for T4 I think. Every patch that doesn´t fix Ost T4 is a bad one. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: IS-2 Frontal Armor 31 Jul 2014, 12:04 PM Jump back to quoted post31 Jul 2014, 11:07 AMBurts Just because we can see them now, does not mean that these documents were made for propoganda purposes. No, that is wrong, these documents are specifically for the red army, and the red army concluded, that the F34 gun of the t-34 was not adequate againts tigers or panthers. That is why they introduced the 85mm gun on their T-34s, probaly because of these tests which showed that the 85mm is very effective againts tigers, and decent againts panthers. Then why did so many T-34/85 get lost while trying to flank Tigers? After all they could have stayed at long distance and sniped the Tigers on equal footing. The 85mm was introduced to narrow the gap in the firepower of German and Russian tanks, not close it. Actually the lighter models like StuG and Panzer IV gave Soviets a headache because they had a way superior weapon to the 76mm. Thus the 85mm was introduced. Also: A chance of penetrating on close range is better than not penetrating at all. The 85mm was used because it could be mounted on the T-34 chassis, not because it was so superb. (Hell, maybe that was the reason those ridiculous test results were published. Try to explain to Stalin that you can only mount an average gun on the vehicle, that struggles versus the heavies.) Jump back to quoted post31 Jul 2014, 11:07 AMBurts Also, that wikipedia penetration thing is way messed up. You get the idea that a tigers armor was actually superior to a panthers armor, because t-34 can penetrate 100mm at only 200~ meters on tiger, yet can penetrate panther ~100mm of curved armor on turret 500m??? ??? It´s referring to the "non-mantlet" part of the turret, which is that spot marked red (the small edges) on this picture - which pretty much means the Panther was almost impervious frontally to that gun - as the article states. The mantlet was thick enough. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: IS-2 Frontal Armor 31 Jul 2014, 09:14 AM Jump back to quoted post31 Jul 2014, 07:32 AMelchino7 I saw the replay and ALL SHOTS were frontal hits. 29:40 KT frontal . Pen. 29:47 KT frontal . Crew shock 30:07 KT frontal . Pen. 30:11 Rak frontal . Bounce 30:13 KT frontal . Miss/Bounce 30:19 KT frontal . Bounce 30:25 KT frontal . Bounce 30:27 Rak frontal . Bounce KT: Pen 240-200 Armor 425/225 Chance - 64%-53.3% / 100%-97.56% IS2: Pen 250-190 Armor 375/205 Chance - 58.82%-44.7% / 100%-84.4% From 6 shots, 2 penetrated, 1 crit, 1 might have missed and the other 2 bounced. FOR those % it´s just slightly unlucky RNG. Bonus: take a look at the IS2 shot at 30:20. You would expect that to be a frontal hit right? Take a better look. Pretty sure at 30:11 that is a Raketenwerfer bouncing from the side. The same thing happens at 30:25. I don´t get you people. I was complaining about the side armor. A Tiger will take much more damage from the side. Flanking an IS-2 is not rewarding. And that´s the issue at hand. Jump back to quoted post31 Jul 2014, 08:11 AMBurts http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/soviet-85-mm-guns-vs-tigers.html oh really? Russian testing... they also fired some hundred shells at king Tigers front armor on the shooting range and when the material finally succumbed, they claimed a penetration. The article doesn´t state what kind of ammunition was used (there is more than just one "AP shell"). With tungsten a Panzer IV could go through IS-2 armor as well. Those shells however were pretty rare and not standard. A penetration occuring that often is thus silly. "The 85 mm gun could penetrate the front of a Tiger I tank between 200 and 500 m (220 and 550 yd).[56] Against the frontal armour of the Panther, the T-34-85 could only penetrate the non-mantlet of its turret at 500 m (550 yd),[50] meaning that even upgraded models of the T-34 usually had to flank a Panther to destroy it." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34 200-500m are definitely less than 1000m + as your article claims. Also consider that every Tiger crew was instructed to angle the armor. So 90 degree hits won´t occur that often. That means a Tiger still remains pretty safe. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: IS-2 Frontal Armor 30 Jul 2014, 21:47 PM The thing is that sideshots bounce off from it on a regular basis. Flanking is part of the game. Useless on IS-2s. Bringing up the T-34/76 which is hardly supposed to fight versus tanks is stupid. T-34/85s - which are more or less in the role of a Panzer IV - will make short process of any Tiger. More so, German AT should deal with heavy tanks. After all Russian AT deals with German tanks easily. "Wehraboo" you call it, while you are just looking for Soviet sided balance. Why should German AT not go through IS-2s armor? After all Soviet AT units (Zis and Su-85 and even the T34/85) go through the Tiger, despite failing to do so historically. So no reason why German AT should struggle to take down Russian tanks. In: COH2 Balance