Profile of flyingtiger

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 142

General Information


Thread: Maxims in 1v122 Dec 2015, 08:46 AM Hi, Iron Emperor, thank you for the reply. Gbpirate, First, sorry for my English . Of course your build is viable, and fun as well. Just that if not for the fun factor only, do you really need more than two Maxims to fight Axis early game? Any opening with 2 Maxims (hell even 1) is already a very strong anti-infantry build. If something goes wrong, you fall behind and have to hold out with T2 and/or T3, a more mobile force with three Cons can support your Maxims, AT-guns and/or Su-76s better. Many high level players nowadays often start with 4 Cons in serious matches, or something crazy like 6 Maxims for trolling purpose. But as I remember, in Alienware Arena Cup Jesulin did use the following opening: 3 Cons 1 Maxim, against OKW, all the way to the Championship. I still think this is the most balanced start the Soviet has to offer. With it, you're ready to deal with any circumstance. In: Red Army Strategies
Thread: Maxims in 1v121 Dec 2015, 11:31 AM Hi, I watched your replays. 3 Maxims 2 Cons opening is indeed good against certain builds. But IMO it relies too heavily on support weapon (in this case the Maxim) => more static play, your ability to maneuver is very limited => weak against vehicles (you don't have enough Cons to snare), snipers and indirect fires such as mortars, Leigs etc. So... well, why not something like 3 Cons 2 Maxims, or maybe 4 Cons 1 Maxim? In: Red Army Strategies
Thread: WHAT ABOUT SU85 ??17 Apr 2015, 13:49 PM Jump back to quoted post17 Apr 2015, 12:51 PMAladdin Panther is a tank destroyer, but I mean it's not a proper tank destroyer with 60 range like SU85, JP4, or Jackson, that's a problem Ost has, which they lack such a unit in their base army. About Jackson, they improved its penetration because of this faction's design which people complained they have problem dealing with the axis heavies, but do soviets really have such a problem!! lol because Jackson's penetration is improved u reckon SU's should be improved as well!!! lol I love that you keep saying that "it's dead end for u!" and "u can't argue against that!" it's so cute! Just theory crafting won't do you any good. Do you have any high level replays in tournaments which Su-85 was used and helped in winning the game? If not, then the answer is clear: Su-85 is not good enough to justify its cost. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: WHAT ABOUT SU85 ??17 Apr 2015, 10:30 AM Yeah yeah, the Su-85 is sooo good and that's why you almost never see it in high level games . In: COH2 Balance
Thread: WHAT ABOUT SU85 ??16 Apr 2015, 02:48 AM Jump back to quoted post15 Apr 2015, 12:12 PMKatitof It doesn't for at least half a year. Cost was doubled and effectiveness was more then halved. Obviously not a word about it in the patch notes. Its currently most underpowered AT gun/TD vet ability in game. Its also most expensive one. If they remove focus sight, then tracking can be improved a little. That and the cost decrease for Su-85 are the key to solve Soviet call ins problem in my opinion. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: WHAT ABOUT SU85 ??15 Apr 2015, 12:02 PM Jump back to quoted post13 Apr 2015, 22:25 PMMr. Someguy After the nerf... None. I think it makes units appear on the minimap to about 50 meters, but it's nothing like what it used to do. You never use "Tracking"? It not only makes infantry appear on the minimap, but also increases the Su-85's sight range for about 50%. That's a lot. I see no point in having Tracking and Focus Sight on the same unit. And although Focus Sight gives better range and is free, it significantly reduces the Su-85's mobility and increase micro intensive. While its 340 mp and 125 fuel cost (on top of Soviet's already expensive tech cost) is unbearable if you want to use both T3 and T4. Those contribute to the call-ins problem. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: WHAT ABOUT SU85 ??13 Apr 2015, 12:41 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Apr 2015, 19:17 PMdaspoulos Horrible idea, a good example is the jagdtiger costing more than a king in game when it wasnt the case. Or even panthers, which only costed 10% more to produce than a panzer in terms of price yet in game they are significantly more expensive. Simply put this kind of logic can't just simply be put on one unit arbitrarily, but not others. The su85 performs well for its cost which is actually quite cheap. You all just feel underwhelmed because unlike the germans the soviets don't have some more expensive better tank to use. So they use the cheaper tanks. Its like transitioning from panzer 4s to panthers. But soviets stay on panzer4s. I doubt it really... Well, let's see here: King Tiger vs Jagdtiger: Armor: 185 vs 250 Gun: 88 mm vs 128 mm A massive difference compares to T-34/76 vs Su-85: Armor: same 45 mm Gun: 76 mm vs 85 mm Jump back to quoted post9 Apr 2015, 19:17 PMdaspoulos Whats the key difference? Su85s are better vs armor than panzer4s, and still pose a threat to heavy vehicles. Considering 125 fuel what do you want? I just want it to not suck. Answer me honestly, just how many high level games did you see Su-85 was used effectively? Jump back to quoted post13 Apr 2015, 11:17 AMMr. Someguy What's with all the suggestions to remove focus sight? I thought this thread was about buffing the SU-85, not nerfing it into the ground What's the use of the "Tracking" ability then? Besides, removing Focus Sight and decrease its cost to 310 mp and 100 fuel is a buff, not a nerf. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: WHAT ABOUT SU85 ??9 Apr 2015, 13:06 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Apr 2015, 12:50 PMJohnnyB That's normal, because Axis steel > Allied steel of course And much more expensive . Get rid of the focus side ability on the Su-85, and decrease the cost to 310 mp and 100 fuel and things should be much better. There's no reason for it to cost more than a T-34/76 (its a turretless tank-destroyer, intended to be cheap, easy to produce after all). Jump back to quoted post9 Apr 2015, 11:09 AMKatitof Its a thread about SU-85, not JP4. @flyingtiger You won't find them, because none of high level players uses them, last time I've seen one used was when Lenny used it against KT and it was horribly ineffective, was before the patch though when it still had 425 armor. Take that as an alternative indicator of their usefulness in current meta. The one on Langres, right? I think it's the Su-85 that rendered the KT ineffective, not the other way around. But to be fair Lenny had the advantage and he would have won anyway, with or without the Su-85. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: WHAT ABOUT SU85 ??9 Apr 2015, 11:05 AM Hm, I've always felt that we are missing some important things in this thread. Now I know it : REPLAYS; a balance thread about Su-85 without HIGH LEVEL REPLAYS to back up whatever claims is totally unacceptable! In: COH2 Balance
Thread: WHAT ABOUT SU85 ??7 Apr 2015, 13:55 PM Jump back to quoted post7 Apr 2015, 01:48 AMCieZ Su85 is literally the worst tank in the game. Unless the Stuart counts as a tank... maybe that's the worst. Actually, the the Su76 is the worst with the Su85 being a close second. It struggles to ever kill anything heavier than a light vehicle, will never kill a heavy, is less than useless against infantry, has no great utility... like... it's just super bad. Really needs focus sight removed in exchange for an accuracy increasing ability at Vet 1 and a slight mobility increase. The DPS is fine, I guess. But everything else about it kinda sucks. Or maybe leave it as is with a slight cost decrease and decrease the amount of pop-cap it takes up slightly, to make fielding 2 more feasible. Maybe it's not suit your style. As Soviet I wouldn't want to rely on Su-85 alone to defeat enemy armors, you need to have at least Zis and AT nade Cons for support. It's only good at keeping tanks at bay or making them come to you, not actually destroying them. In: COH2 Balance