Profile of Australian Magic

Avatar Area

Offline unknown
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

General Information
Steam: 76561198105012992


Thread: Axis heavy armor needs nerf or Allied AT needs buffs25 Dec 2014, 12:17 PM Jump back to quoted post25 Dec 2014, 11:57 AMMoerserKarL Ahh and your SU85 or Jacksons are not supported by inf? SU85's are easy to flank yes, but only if you giving your opponent, the possibility to flank you. easy way to place mines everywhere etc. And Panther should be scared of what? Zooks? Ptrs? Decent opponent won't strike in spot where mine is obvious. Jump back to quoted post25 Dec 2014, 11:59 AMLast of the Catachan hon3ynuts is only person on here talking sense. The axis have better tanks and better antitank than allies true in real life , but the allies a lot more tanks so increase pop cap on axis tanks and decrease pop cap on allies tanks. The allies should have a ratio of 2 to 1 tanks maybe 3 to 1 in this game. Blitz being used by tanks to retreat is just nonsense Relic said that they wanted to do 3:1 ratio. 3 Shermans vs 1 Tiger but I don't see this.. And even then, most probably sceranio is 2 Shermans dead, 1 retreating and 1 Tiger close to death. Allies just lost huge amount MP and F. Axis did not lose anything. And here we come to bleeding problem where US Forec are bleeding all the time with vehicles while OKW does not... What's more, Lt, Cpt and Mjr pop cap and upkeep are deadly for USF army. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Axis heavy armor needs nerf or Allied AT needs buffs25 Dec 2014, 11:57 AM Jump back to quoted post25 Dec 2014, 11:41 AMdreamerdude 260 x 1.5 = 390. this is a tank that basicly cost 390 if you were playing as any other faction, as for the tech buildings 40+40+80 = 160 x 1.5 = 240 + 390 = 630 630 fuel for the king tiger if one were to play any other faction from the okw. I don't know about anyone else but i'd rather use the call in for the 34/85 and mark target the fucker. hell you don't even need an 85. i'd choose the USF AT over a pak-40 any day. Your math is awesome. Why are you doing all the numbers with x1,5 if its a lot cheaper than usf tier? You also count it like you dont recive anything for that fuel (all trucks are awesome). And this thing about 57mm and pak... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Axis heavy armor needs nerf or Allied AT needs buffs25 Dec 2014, 11:42 AM Jump back to quoted post25 Dec 2014, 11:35 AMJaigen If panther reaches the jackson or an su85 gets flanked then you fucked up. also complaining about the su85 being flanked but not the jp4. hypocrite much? both depend on support. and yes i need to support my panther with volks otherwise it will lose against the is2 but then again the soviets can just as easily support his shit with at guns, With what you want to flank Jadgpanzer? Anything fast enough to do this will be annihilated by Schrecks and Jadgpznaer can stand a way longer than SU due to armor. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Axis heavy armor needs nerf or Allied AT needs buffs25 Dec 2014, 11:33 AM Jump back to quoted post25 Dec 2014, 11:28 AMgokkel First you compare all penetration values at minimum range which for most units and engagements is not very likely. They don't all drop off equally much by range, some weapons drop off more than others. Just something to look out for when comparing. At max range Allies lose more than Axis... Just to say that only ISU has 200 at max range (yet Im still not sure about new AP shells) while there are plenty of Axis units with 200 or higer at max distance. And yet Allies have to deal with bigger armor, not Axis. IS loses 60 pen, while Tiger only 40 so close range stats are "in favour" for Allies. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Axis heavy armor needs nerf or Allied AT needs buffs25 Dec 2014, 11:27 AM Jump back to quoted post25 Dec 2014, 11:20 AMJaigen I am looking at the penetration numbers but im also looking at the dps and cost. And yes you are right the panther can penetrate the is2. but you can have 2 su85 or 2 jacksons for every okw panther. and what they lack in quality they make up in quantity unless you have a pak 43 or panther (with support) the axis face the same issues when it come to dealing with the is2. And to be honest i dont mind that the is2 can ignore most axis AT and you should have decent at to counter the heavies just as well. You should also check target size. For example Jadgpanzer has smaller size than... M3 or T70 Your Panther support should be blob of vetted Volks. Panther + Volks can easily handle with 2 SU or 2 Jacksons SU85 is very easy to flank and Panther is faster than Jackson so... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Axis heavy armor needs nerf or Allied AT needs buffs25 Dec 2014, 11:19 AM Jump back to quoted post25 Dec 2014, 11:07 AMgokkel How come? Apart from the good old Bazooka / PTRS / Panzerschreck story this is more like a popular myth. Anti-Tank guns are all similar in Penetration (US one with ability). Between equivalent tanks there is not a huge difference either. Like, P4 is slightly higher than T34/76 and Sherman on medium and long range but slightly lower than T34/85 and somewhat lower than Easy Eight Sherman. Tiger is slightly lower than IS-2, Panther is a bit higher than IS-2, IS-2 is slightly higher than Tiger. Jackson is slightly lower than Jagdpanzer IV, Jagdpanzer IV is slightly lower than SU-85. All in all I don't see those huge differences and if you ask me it is easier for Allies to penetrate the Panther from the front than for Axis to penetrate the IS-2. But you know what, this is fine to me, I just cannot follow the argument of the OP. I am in favour of your side armor suggestion by the way, I think this would make the game make more sense. Panther had historically excellent armor in the front, but on the side it was quite vulnerable. Units with penetration 200 or higher: OST: Panther (260), Tiger (220), Elephant (440), Pak40 (210), Pak43 (380). OKW: Jadgpanzer (200), Panther (260), Jadgtiger (550), King Tiger (240), Raketen (200) and of course Pak43. SU: SU85 (200), KV2 (200), IS2 (250), ZiS (200), ISU (was 260, now I'm not sure what is the value of AP shells right now). For now it seems balanced. Both sides have units with nice penetration and huge armor, although there are issues like Jadgpanzer - SU85. I would pay more for SU85 to make it almost as useful as Jadgpaner. Of course Jadgtiger and Elephant deny any non-turret armor but that's different subject. Now USF: Jackons (200). The end. Simple question. How USF should engage Axis units if the best USF unit has 200 penetration?And what's more, Jackson has to be used at distance where it has.... 160 penetration. Someone would say that USF units are designed to flank. Except Jadgtiger, Ele and KT (what's speed of KT with blitz?) Axis tanks are FASTER than Jackson. 2 volks squads near Jadgtiger and Jackson is dead. On the other hand Axis can flank IS, ISU with Panther and give a garden about PTRS and Zooks. It's stupid when someone design faction to flank or engage at range but at the same time give enemy units with higer range and units that deny flanking. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Axis heavy armor needs nerf or Allied AT needs buffs25 Dec 2014, 10:49 AM Jump back to quoted post25 Dec 2014, 04:11 AMWhySooSerious IS2 has about as much armor as KT fyi. 2nd most heavily armored unit in the game and 2nd most penetration. (leaving out elefant, isu, and jagdtiger.) Jump back to quoted post25 Dec 2014, 10:39 AMgokkel Yeah sure, Panther and King Tiger have too much armor, but IS-2 is "balanced" when it has nearly as much armor as the King Tiger. True but look at penetration numbers. For Axis is not that hard to penetrate IS2. For Allies (especially for USF) is really, really hard to do it. _____________ Side armor would solve this problem (God! Even Blitzkrieg 2, game from 2005, has 4 types of armor!!!) Leave front armor how it is. Just make flanking profitable. And of course redesign this gardening blitzkrieg. I tired to flank Tiger with Jackson yesterday. Reversing Tiger was faster than my Jackson Or make front armor for 1/4 of the tank and the rest should be rear. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: artillery and late game squadwipes25 Dec 2014, 10:10 AM Jump back to quoted post25 Dec 2014, 04:41 AMCieZ How is decrewing the B4 equal to losing it? Losing the B4 means you're out 600 manpower if you were ever to rebuild it, not to mention the time it takes to save up that amount/actually build the gun. Decrewing the B4 costs you a whopping 60 manpower assuming you recrew it with Cons which should happen 100% of the time. That's literally ONE TENTH the cost of having to build a new one. And I'm pretty sure the firing cooldown resets if you recrew it (although maybe they've finally fixed this bug by now? works with all howis if I remember correctly). The fact of the matter is that if you do not have the only reliable answer (stuka dive bomb) to the B4, you're pretty much screwed. I'm not saying you WILL lose to game... but it is going to be extraordinarily difficult and certainly not in your favor. This pigeonholes Axis into having a Stuka dive bomb as part of their team composition because other off-maps will not guarantee a fully destroyed B4. It is just poor design when one faction is majorly pushed into countering a doctrinal unit with a doctrinal ability (at least in my opinion - the same could be said about Mark/T34/85s/Is-2s being preferable to T34/76s or even Su85s when having to fight Tigers - it just isn't a fight that the non-doctrinal Soviet armor can keep up in). Sure the Jaeger Armor commander is one of my favorites because I like the 251 mines and spotting scopes, but do I want to play that commander every. single. damn. time. that there is a B4 in the Soviet load out and Shocks show up on the field? Nope. Or the fact that a vet 3 B4 can literally one-shot a King Tiger. Completely insane for one unit to be able to do that much damage with no way of the opponent reacting to it. You don't use B4 often, do you? It's not about manpower. If I lose B-4 in 5-10min since build it's not bid deal. But if I lose it around 40' of the game with vet 2/3 I'm done. I have nothing to stop enemy's blob. I'm losing 50% rotation which makes my B-4 useless against player who knows about rotation speed, I have KV-1 vs Jadgpanzer/Panther/King Tiger. Enemy knows I don't have vetted B-4 and in fact he can risk more. Vetting to 2-3 again takes about 15mins (of course I can vet in 4mins but that's very unlikely), which means I won't get vet 3 again. Loss of a vet 3 B-4 is like loss of a Tiger and replace it with Pz IV. Just recently I had agame with friend vs OKW&OST. We were 70 vs 400 VP. When my B-4 got vet 1. From that point we pushed them back to 70 vs 150. I lost my vetted crew around 60 vs 40 and since that moment they ve pushed us really heavily. We won only because of VPs left. By the way, OST guy had one doctrine with stuka yet he was complaining about B4 (he did not take this doctrine). What's more, when you see recon plane it's obvious that Im looking for a target but most of the time it's too much to move units until plane is gone... Taking main points with huge blob is also very smart vs B4... So whose fault is that? B-4? No. It's my enemies fault that they are doing what I excatly want from them. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: artillery and late game squadwipes25 Dec 2014, 00:50 AM Jump back to quoted post25 Dec 2014, 00:37 AMNuclear Arbitor decrewed is not the same as a loss, you can recrew it for less mp. 8/10 cases it's excatly the same. 2-3 vetted B-4 is your main unit in late game. You rely on this unit and only this unit against blobs of obers/volks and axis heavies. If you lose veterancy, you are helpless against push. If you have vetted B4, enemy is really careful, thinks twice before do something. Once it's decrewed, enemy can just push with all power and win very easily. How often do you play as soviets and use b4? It's my main commander and I know what Im talking about. If I won't create huge advantage before losing vetted crew, I'm done. Also cons are dying very easily. Same about T34 so most of the time you don't have enough MP to use somehow this pop cap bug. Also against decent opponent it's hard to vet B4. You have advantage at first strike but later, enemy won't let you aim to easily. Of course I had games where my B-4 got vet1 with 1 strike but more often I need 4-6 shells. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: artillery and late game squadwipes25 Dec 2014, 00:20 AM Jump back to quoted post24 Dec 2014, 23:53 PM☭ Калашникова ☭ Ok two things about this: 1- Why should the best sationary howitzer in the game hands down be the only one that is Stuka/IL2/ToT immune? 2- If this were to happen LeFH would need a massive buff to give ost a reliable counter. Not to mention that currently OKW has no go to counter other than yolo rushing it or 2x Stuka and hope to god you can get in range. B4 doesn't need buffs. The other pieces need buffs like ML and LeFH. You need 1 Stuka to decrew and decrewing vetteg B-4 is equal to losing it. Off map frim Jadg doctrine can wreck B-4 if it's builded near point. You can use also Falsch or Jaeger on many maps to decrew it. All you need to do as Axis is to veto some maps like crossing woods where B-4 is base can rape Axis base. But on the other hand Train and Steel (I belive it's name in english) is a map that allows you to use falsch very efficiently and B-4 has to be build outside of the base - at least first line of points. ____ B-4 buff is not needed. In: COH2 Balance