What kind of backwater logic is that?
Ofc use of X unit can determine outcome of the game.
Hell, vast majority of games where you don't use mainline infantry or tanks will end up in a loss, therefore mainline infantry and tanks are OP?
What? You understand perfectly what I meant, stop trying to manipulate words into your narrative non-sence.
People who account for opposing units, anticipate and counter them will win. People who won't, will lose.
That's the "2%" you're talking about here.
Eh? Except OKW and Wehr top picked commanders are all countaining B4 counters anyway. But in any case, even if so, didnt soviets had ML20 and Axis had LeFH? By your perfect logic, it doesnt matter what howi you\your enemy have, as long as there are counters for it, therefore win-rates shoudnt be affected since any uncountered arty will win you games, during this or previous patch.
That's how ALL of indirect fire and artillery units work.
It might blow your mind, but static artillery pieces are not exactly micro intensive units.
You dont say. I didnt know that ML20\LeFH are mirrored B4s, with suppresion, with one even near shell being able to stop any inf advance, with shortest cooldown out of all howi units and so-on.
It doesnt matter how you try to invert it, its still a fact that out of all howi units B4 is the best one, with the biggest impact and its the easiest to use to be effective by a huge margine. Game has such units already, but thanks god they are not low efford ones, and they requare more then 2 clicks and 1 AA unit to be effective.
Say hello to VSL and self-spotting Elephant with which even noobs were able to win games. |
The effect of the current commander balance affected game balance in such a way, you can see that at the winrates I stated. The winrates get influenced in a positive way, so don't change single units without having a greater scope at the whole faction if you don't want to revert the positive effect.
Judging by your own logic, even if B4 is a result in 2% win rate change this only proves that unit is poorly balanced, because use of mentioned unit can determine the outcome of the game.
And what is even worst - its an low efford artilery unit which requre minimal input from a player to be effective. If Allies got their own KT version which would have increased win rates by 2% its would have been alright, because you actually have to play and control your armored unit to be effective.
This is not how you balance factions and its not how you balance the game to begin with. |
|
Thing is, while Elite armor is really good without ST, I doubt it will be picked without ST.
Not because ST is nessesery that good (while it is good), but because other commanders will become way more attractive with ST in it.
Lets say if we swap ST with JT and even remove heat shells from JT, then breakthought will become insanly powerfull. Same if we swap ST with Tiger from Grand offensive.
Spawing it with commander panther will most likely end up with some broken unit\ability combinations.
In other words while ST doesnt really fit the Elite armor, but its power is sorta balanced out by the commander it is in. And there are no commanders you can put ST in without making it almost no-brainer pick. |
During the COH 2 Beta before the game launched. People complained about performance issues for the game and rather than fix the issues, Relic limited the population cap. They also did not have a heavy tank limit which stayed after launch so you often saw multiple IS-2s vs Tiger tanks in matches assuming you were able to deal with the immense lag at the time since they didn't have servers for multiplayer and it was P2P based.
Elephant in T4  |
|
StuGs aren't TD counters because they have less range then any other TDs. On open maps any half decent player will be able to kite StuGs.
As wehr you either go pak wall, Panther or elephant. As a more usual counters you could use pak43 or hull down, because hull down increases the range and StuG might be able to fight back.
But don't be like imperial dong with his StuG fetish. It's a good unit, but it's not an answer to everything nor it should have equal ground with other TDs |
If you're referencing me that's not what I said. I clearly specified stock AT vehicles
Not nessery to you, a lot of folks around say that USF aside from Jackson everything else is garbo AT vise.
No it isn't. T34 is much more cost effective imo. 20 fuel cheaper, and Ram let's it be a serious threat to setup kills on heavies. The Sherman's AT isn't really that much better, both of them will usually lose to an OKW p4 anyway
Well ram was nerfed, now its much harder to pull it off that it was before. But sure if you compare Sherman and T34 vs P4J then t34 is much more cost effective. But P4J is the most expensive stock medium to begin with. Not to mention that while Sherman and T34\76 will struggle against it, T34\76 will also struggle vs regular PIV and other armored units. Unlike sherman.
The su76 is a AT vehicle. It's far from amazing, but it's better than the USFs next stock AT vehicle. Which is the stuart, if you can even count that. It's more of an anti-light
Yes su76 is an AT vehicle, but lets be real here, who would use it, aside from some emergency situations? Most of the time you see ppl using T70. SU76 has its place only if you cant get youself zis and you would pretty much have to sacrifice your whole mid game AI but getting it, ofcouse if you dont want delaying your T4 units by a few minutes. |
|
I honestly dont really undertand this "USF has not AT aside from Jackson", while soviets objectively have even less AT options then USF. USF have at least stock sherman, which is, while not being great, is still better then soviet T34\76.
Soviets dont have proper inf held AT (while PTRS are okish now, zooks, especially elite ones, are still better), their medium is objectively the weakest one in AT. When it comes to tanks vs tanks options, soviets have only stock SU85 and doc T34\85 and lend-lease Sherman. KV1 is fat a T34\76, IS-2 is a joke. KV2\ISU are good units, but I woudnt call them AT units.
USF on the other hand have debatable AT gun, which is not the best one out of the gate, but if you pump muni into it it might be the best one.
USF is far behind in terms of mines, since without commander they dont have wide access to them, unlike soviets. They also were behind in terms of snares, but it was fixed.
Theoretically if stock M1 was a bit better, if they had access to mines like other faction on REs and maybe if Sherman AP rounds were a bit better in terms of penetration, USF wouldnt be THAT far behind in terms of AT options like ppl tend to speak about them. |
|
|
|
I'm not a fan that AT guns arent taking damage untill they are decrewed. While I do agree that it might be not alright for tanks being able to destoy crewed AT guns by focus fire, I would have still enable damage on crewed AT guns from at least splash damage.
Maybe also aplied damage reductions, so they wont take full dagame but still would take it non the less.
Problem is, that AT guns are relatively safe to use most of the time and are very forgiving in terms of keeping the gun itself alive. Unless you are being pushed really badly, there is no way you gonna lose an AT gun. Other support weapons at least can be stolen and retreated.
Not to mention that in early game there is pretty much no way to destoy decrewed AT gun (only OKW and Penals can pretty much without much of an efford). |
Hmmm, the enemy is using double AT guns. OP!!!!
I thought AT guns use population. Wasn't aware that they are completely free. So if you go one AT gun, you spend 7 pop, but if you go 2, it's 0 pop?
2 AT guns are acceptable even in 1v1. They cost 7 pop-cap which is pretty much 1 mainline squad. Even if you go for staring engi (5), 4 mainlines (28 pop), 2 elites (18 pop), 1 MG (6 pop) and 2 AT guns (14) you are using in total 71 pop-cap. And you still have pop-cap for 2-3 armored units.
Tecnically if game is 50\50 there is no reason not to do AT gun walls, since they litterty can 2 shot any 640HP tank. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
