Profile of JHeartless

Avatar Area

Offline unknown
Posts: 1637

General Information
Steam: 76561198006521729


Thread: What is it about USF Riflenades17 Jan 2015, 21:10 PM Jump back to quoted post17 Jan 2015, 21:05 PMdaspoulos Play both sides. This is a bug that affects all factions. Grens rnades will not fire sometimes, shocks sometimes will not throw their grenades. This is not specific to certain factions, its everyone. I guess my 100 Ost games dont count. I play all sides but not all sides competitively. Grens do not Bug out in any regular frequency. I suggest you take your own advice because the problem is in every game for rifles. Its more likely to bug out then to actually work. In: Lobby
Thread: OKW Panzer Schwer HQ17 Jan 2015, 21:08 PM Jump back to quoted post17 Jan 2015, 19:32 PMAlexzandvar Mortars/Scotts/75mm Howitzers, Katyushas, ect. Indirect fire doesn't mean only standard fixed artillery. Show me a Replay of an M8 being able to kill of a Panzer Schwer with Indirect Fire mode in 1v1 and ill donate to your Paypal account. My money is safe because it wont happen. Scott is great at direct fire sucks ass at indirect (totally backwards) In: COH2 Balance
Thread: What is it about USF Riflenades17 Jan 2015, 21:00 PM What is it exactly about USF Riflenades that make them so unreliable? Grens rifle nades are very reliable and always seem to go off yet Rifles have issues. I cant tell you how many times I have had up to a 45 second delay from when I order say a Smoke nade to go off till when it actually did. Or how many times my Rifles have derped on an AT Riflenade because a tank shot at them and again 10-15 seconds until it actually went off. This happens when I am in range and meet all their strict range requirements. I find this very very frustrating. Does anyone know the Mechanic as to why Ost rnades work fine but USF do not? A perfect example: Get suppressed by MG. Fire Smoke nade...model dives, does jumping jacks, Runs for cover, Writes his Memoir and then finally after my squad is half dead fires the damn grenade. Meanwhile Maxim dakka dakka dakka and Gren fires and levels it no problem. In: Lobby
Thread: Nicknames you give units17 Jan 2015, 20:54 PM Jump back to quoted post17 Jan 2015, 12:12 PMausterlitz IR halftrack -Peeping tom Thats another good one. In: Lobby
Thread: Ostheer vs usf matchup 17 Jan 2015, 20:51 PM Jump back to quoted post17 Jan 2015, 18:20 PMAce of Swords But PGrens are overperforming -relic On a serious note, I don't think the infantry fight is all that broken, the problems are the ridicolous manpower costs which will magically make your numbers inferior despite grens being 240 and rifles 280 and the m20. The m20 is an issue on it's own, it comes too early OR it's too powerful, if it was nerfed to come out 2-3 minutes late it would be fine I think, otherwise with the current timing it needs to become as weak as the 221/222 against infantry and it's smoke moved to vet 1. Could be worse. They could be "Annoying" and end up like Button.... M20 is a silly thing. Did you know it gets 0 and I mean 0 combat ability from Veterancy? That a Vet 2 OKW Pumas hull mount MG has better close range DPS... It may come to early or the 222 comes too late. But thats a tough one since the 222 hard counters it. Ostheer need something for sure but I suspect that the realm of MG42 buffing and Tech cost reduction should suffice. I wouldnt mind really seeing the 222 get some sort of buff and I would really like to see the FlameHT viable again. This would give Ost a much needed powerful light vehicle and against USF with their lack of AT nades without Vet would do quite well and probably force Bazooka purchases. Basically Grens are suffering against Rifles like Scripts suffer against Grens but in reverse. Grens start out at a disadvantage that scales into an advantage for most of the mid game and only is a disadvantage again late game when Rifles finally get Vet 3 and some combat buffs (or you went Infantry and Spend more Muni for your better LMGs which again at Vet 2 on rifles isnt as deadly as Vet 2 Grens with their 30% more accuracy). Where Scripts do good early and just get completely rolled over Mid to Late game by Grens. At least Rifles cost more... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Ostheer vs usf matchup 17 Jan 2015, 05:33 AM Rifles beat greens at long range due to 5 models and that alone. Once greens reach vet2 it is no longer the case. MG42 does need a buff. I am fine with making rifles weaker if their price is lowered to 240 MP and Thor vet becomes just like everyone else's instead of backwards. Otherwise tough shit they cost more and are the only thing USF can build for the first 5 minutes or more. Smoke nades are bullshit but they aren't cheap and cost fuel that the USF start with 0 of. If any changes are made I would expect them to be dirt dirt cheap. Others tech should be cheaper for sure. And I am of the opinion and always have been that T4 should cost the same as T3. Just make the phase costs cheaper and the buildings more expensive. Werner does suck and could use a buff and Pgrens could use a buff and they Are not the only overpriced elite vanilla infantry that needs to be looked at. Piñatas are crap now as well. Not sure about the Stug as it can stun. If 60 range then remove TWP and AI as its a TD now shouldn't also kill infantry. Edit predictI've text caused typos I am to tired to fix sorry In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW extremly OP, when a new patch will be out?16 Jan 2015, 19:22 PM Jump back to quoted post16 Jan 2015, 19:11 PMSpearhead Sure! - No ability to inflict engine damage - Expensive unit replacement (which overperform per mp but losses might be underestimated in the first minutes) - Risk tied to FQH positioning (which is a benefit per se) - No medium tanks, time until P5 Mines. Not using not my problem. But they are there. If everybody didnt Shrek Blob. Like the early days of Soviet team games. Mines were required and LOTS and LOTS of them. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Where is USF air superiority?16 Jan 2015, 18:43 PM Jump back to quoted post16 Jan 2015, 17:53 PM__deleted__ That said, in the realm of actual scholarly literature, I have not come across about all that many people claiming US armor/AT was somehow impotent in the face of their German counterparts. Last off topic post I promise. Leyawn the majority of my reads are based on books from Major publishers with little insight into actual Scholarly and reliable data. If you could PM some links to any you know of on the Internet I would appreciate it. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Where is USF air superiority?16 Jan 2015, 17:17 PM Jump back to quoted post16 Jan 2015, 16:56 PMOmega_Warrior I've read that US tank destroyers were plenty good at actually destroying tanks and mostly had a favorable kill to death ratio. It was just the doctrine that was overall not very efficient because it's much better to have a tank that can handle any situation at any time rather then hope to hell you have a tank destroyer when a tank comes over the hill. Yep TD was a fail doctrine. My point though is you can read 1000 articles and 100s of books and you will find many that say how useless everything was against German armor. Even a commander of a Jackson said that it was trash because of the Trajectory was similar to how the Bulldozer Sherman is modeled in game where the 75MM of the Panther was flat. All of this is well and good. And there is truth to all of it. But the results are still the same. German tanks were lost in droves. So SOMETHING had to be doing all that killing In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Where is USF air superiority?16 Jan 2015, 15:23 PM Jump back to quoted post16 Jan 2015, 15:19 PMGlendizzle I'm not saying every american doctrine should have p47 at rockets. I am saying the us army is wildly misrepresented in the game concerning airpower( and artillery) But the Major both has overflight and a crap arty barrage. And every doctrine EXCEPT Elite Rifles and Airborne have pretty kick ass offmap arty. I think they did a good job showing USF always had those things. But the non doctrinal variety sucks ass. In: COH2 Gameplay