Profile of JHeartless

I think it wants it two dollars. God i wish i could insert a better of dead meme here...

I didn't bring up partisans as an argument that they are good AT counterparts compared to Pgrens, I was merely listing the doctrines that have Mark Target available and that Partisans also benefit from that ability.

If they are cost balanced as you say, then there is nothing inferior about them.



There are a lot of RNG factors that those raw DPS numbers do not account for, meaning they are not a 100% representation of all that happens in this game.

I don't see anything subjective about this. You say that Germans have better DPS, I say that Soviets have better burst with Mark Target - both are true statements. I also said that Soviets can one shot a tank pretty easily using that burst, something that Germans have a much harder time doing - this is also true.



If you don't like to use Market Target, that's your preference. It does not mean that other players do not use it. Just because you happen to not take advantage doesn't mean it isn't part of the Soviet's arsenal.



DPS, of course, does matter. However, as I said before, the damage in-game is not calculated on a simple DPS basis like in Starcraft - there are misses, bounces, etc. Sometimes, you may get unlucky and have your Pak miss 3 shots in a row; when this happens, your DPS during that period is 0. Hence, DPS sheets can only be used as a reference, not an accurate reflection of every battle in-game ala Starcraft.



I'm not sure what you seem to be getting at here, so feel free to clarify in your next post. I'd also like for you to refrain from accusing me of subjectiveness when you yourself base part of your arguments on the fact that you only use Shocks. You also seem to say that German AT is better due to superiority despite admitting that units are cost balanced (ie, not superior or inferior when equal cost is spent). If that is not subjectiveness, I don't know what is.

I dont think you can be accused of subjectiveness or objectivness. Its based on a given action. You either are or arent be objective.

By definition basing something on numbers or other verifiable facts is being objective. Basing things of feelings or observations is subjective. Its not an insult because bothw are used to draw conclusions. Objectivity is just superior in most cases due to its ease to peer review.

You have a valid point on burst dps but it would actually be hurt more by RNG. As a miss on the burst hit is a huge loss rather than a single hit in a series of hits as sustained dps.

The dps numbers i reference do calculate accuracy however so it is an average.

My comment on ai is in response to your opinion on AT. Since it is regarded that soviets generally have superior AI and Germans have better AT.

A kind of Devils advocate if you will. Youll have to forgive my lack of grammer as i am on a mobile device so it makes it challenging to put certain emphasis on things.

On cost balance. Zis is cost balanced against a Pak but it is still inferior at AT. Its balanced by entity count and the barrage gimmick.

So having something cost balanced doesnt make it better or equal to another unit at a given function. Also if you really want to get into the weeds you can look at veterancy bonuses as well but that could fill several threads.

EDIT saying on prefer shocks doeant mean i havent tried yo like Guards. I have probably used Guards in my first hundred or so games before; after trying like hell to find how irreplacable they are; i just learned how i could accomplish most of what they bring ro the table with other units cheaper and more effciently.

I am aware Mark target is a part of the soviet aresenal. But basing the entire Soviet AT on this would be like basing German anti infantry on the availability of G43s.

Yep its harder to kill unless your up on it with Pgrens. They literally can kill a full health Zis in 10 seconds. Soviets have more surviability to stay on the field longer in hopes to do the same damage overtime.

Dying to mortors is the price you pay for ultimate power. But instagibbing could be toned down in favor for more base dps on the soviet side imho.

Lol you do understand that you were the first to bring up partisans right? Check the thread. They are part of your mythical soviet superior AT arguement. I was just pointing out that they are inferior to your stock AT infantry. They are. Cost balanced sure but inferior.

Numbers on a spreadsheet are fact based. They dont care about player skill. They are objective....your arguements on AT balance however are subjective. Based on this situation or that commander choice.

I also dont recall asking for advice on how to play coh2. My prefernce is shocks. If i feel the need for elite infantry at all. I dont require mark target to win with armor...its merely convienient. In fact i cant remember the last time i used it tbh.

Obviously if the dps numbers dont matter to you on whats better than any other stat wont convience you of the facts either. But it doesnt make it any less a fact.

So again with your logic since the ost have better armor on thier units they can sustain dps longer so they must have better AI than the soviets...LOL

Funny thats exactly how i feel about Elite Forces.

But it was a pointless change. But its not as easy as all you put out there against a skilled player in 1v1. Shocks bleed is brutal