It´s pretty obvious they tried hard to make a faction that matches the Germans tanks. Too hard... A much more useful Panther with the gun of a Tiger as someone said it (Comet) or a beefed up heavy (Churchill), combined with a beefed up Jackson (Firefly) for AT.
Why would I even choose to go OKW? To get some tank that is matched by its counterpart, yet costs me effectively 30% fuel more? No thanks.
Also taking "target weakpoint" into account, which seems necessary vs Churchills:
Pak40 > Raketenwerfer.
StuG G > Jagdpanzer IV.
We will have to see, but I predict that Ostheer is the way to go.
1600 health tanks.
2 Sep 2015, 14:43 PM
#41
Posts: 1217
2 Sep 2015, 15:20 PM
#42
Posts: 44
Yeah meke them paper tank allies deserves very weak tanks while axis have most heavys.
2 Sep 2015, 16:09 PM
#43
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
Stock Churchill is a breakthrough tank, it should be a punching bag.
Someone said that the AVRE and croc have lower HP and armour, anyone know if this is true?
It is not, the only difference between the Churchill Variants is that the AVRE and Croc have slightly lower max speed.
2 Sep 2015, 16:11 PM
#44
Posts: 600
Sounds like the sturmtiger?
Stiger doesnt have 1600 hp and can be 1 shot if reloading
2 Sep 2015, 16:15 PM
#45
Posts: 392
You remove the whole point of these options, while still having a highly increased TTK with basic AT weaponary - how is this a good approach again?
Sadly, it does not.
Even if you gain more fast firing lighter AT for flanking, the TTK is highly (!) increased. You don't have any logical option to actually counter it. High armor units are usually prone to high pen or rear flanking. Health due plain ROF. This unit ignores both.
I'm completely missing an argument here
"Asymmetry". Maybe we should bring back the old ISU & Ele, you know... for asymmetry.
The "old way" could also mean a more reasonable 1040 hp & 300 armor, and gain 1280hp with veterancy - as an example. And / or you adjust cost, or give it certain specials to fulfill it's role (oh wait, it already has those).
Missing an argument, again
With 280 front armor ingame, it pretty much has the Tigers armor already. It should outclass the KV series, no doubt about it, but doubling it's HP pool is beyond reasonable... and let's not even talk about the specials.
If you read Relics patchnotes you will often see this: "to bring it in line"
No ask yourself why.
just my 2 cents.
"Asymmetry"
yea so fun to play a faction that has a heavy tank that is slow as a turtle,awful at AT as a t34-76 and the only redeeming thing it has is its HP and you want to nerf it WHY?
cause flanks dont do shit?really???
why dont reduce the rear armor of the IS-2 and the ISU-152 then,their rear armor values ARE TOO STRONG and can bounce quite often shots from a panzer 4! but oh no we must nerf the churchill
2 Sep 2015, 16:15 PM
#46
Posts: 1221 | Subs: 41
It actually makes a difference only when fighting guaranteed penetration units like PaK43, ele or JT.
In that case, HP is better.
Against anything else, each bounce adds additional "hp".
Lets take StuG shooting at churchill and at IS-2.
Lets assume its on max range, so 170 penetration.
So what's the actual time to kill for Stug G vs IS2 and Churchill?
160 damage, 170 pen, 0.125+(3.5+4.5)/2=4.125 seconds per shot
vs 1040hp 375 armor & 1600 hp 280 armor
55.15 seconds vs IS2
63.94 seconds vs Churchill
And then firing at the rear...
28.33 seconds vs IS2
39.67 seconds vs Churchill
No tank in this game should have this much HP, it just leads to tanks that are unkillable without getting engine destroyed on them. And the survivability of the Churchill at its current price point is also pretty messed up in general. It would make far more sense with 1040hp and 300 something armor.
2 Sep 2015, 16:19 PM
#47
Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1
Permanently Banned
So what's the actual time to kill for Stug G vs IS2 and Churchill?
160 damage, 170 pen, 0.125+(3.5+4.5)/2=4.125 seconds per shot
vs 1040hp 375 armor & 1600 hp 280 armor
55.15 seconds vs IS2
63.94 seconds vs Churchill
And then firing at the rear...
28.33 seconds vs IS2
39.67 seconds vs Churchill
No tank in this game should have this much HP, it just leads to tanks that are unkillable without getting engine destroyed on them. And the survivability of the Churchill at its current price point is also pretty messed up in general. It would make far more sense with 1040hp and 300 something armor.
Thank you cruzz, for its current price and current health, it is not only very cost effective. But practically unkillable outside of engine destroyed.
1337 h4X0R, dank memes
axis
2 Sep 2015, 16:21 PM
#48
Posts: 1063
So with all the praises for Churchill, any reason for choosing them over Comet?
2 Sep 2015, 16:23 PM
#49
Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1
Permanently BannedSo with all the praises for Churchill, any reason for choosing them over Comet?
If you want a tank that can fight anything from 50 range pick comet. If you want an unkillable meat shield go churchill. Different roles.
1337 h4X0R, dank memes
axis
2 Sep 2015, 16:34 PM
#50
Posts: 17891 | Subs: 8
So with all the praises for Churchill, any reason for choosing them over Comet?
Comets gun and speed allows you to actually kill other tanks by itself.
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
2 Sep 2015, 16:39 PM
#51
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
Comets gun and speed allows you to actually kill other tanks by itself.
It's a superior PIV gun with just longer reload, against enemy mediums it does just fine. Sure you won't punch through the armor of up-armored PIV with every single shot but you will be fairly scary to it since it can't punch through your frontal armor as effectively.
2 Sep 2015, 16:40 PM
#52
Posts: 392
So what's the actual time to kill for Stug G vs IS2 and Churchill?
160 damage, 170 pen, 0.125+(3.5+4.5)/2=4.125 seconds per shot
vs 1040hp 375 armor & 1600 hp 280 armor
55.15 seconds vs IS2
63.94 seconds vs Churchill
And then firing at the rear...
28.33 seconds vs IS2
39.67 seconds vs Churchill
No tank in this game should have this much HP, it just leads to tanks that are unkillable without getting engine destroyed on them. And the survivability of the Churchill at its current price point is also pretty messed up in general. It would make far more sense with 1040hp and 300 something armor.
then reduced the damage the elefant and the pak43 do to tanks to 200-240,BUT they should never do so much damage ALONG with so HIGH penetration
2 Sep 2015, 16:46 PM
#53
Posts: 2053
And the survivability of the Churchill at its current price point is also pretty messed up in general. It would make far more sense with 1040hp and 300 something armor.
Probably and most likely going to happen. Any other inferences between durability/firepower/price of cromwell/AA centaur compared to similar units of other factions?
2 Sep 2015, 17:24 PM
#54
Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2
1600 HP for stock Churchill seems fair.
It's good only at soaking damage.
But for croc and avre 1280 is better option.
Lets not forget that vetted Sturmtiger has over 1400 (IIRC).
Its very expensive tank that doesn't have blast of the Panther or Tiger. The only thing it has is HP.
Units for 200fuel are deadly in CoH2. Churchill isnt. So Id say keep 1600 for stock one, or lower to 1280 but also with price decrease.
It's good only at soaking damage.
But for croc and avre 1280 is better option.
Lets not forget that vetted Sturmtiger has over 1400 (IIRC).
Its very expensive tank that doesn't have blast of the Panther or Tiger. The only thing it has is HP.
Units for 200fuel are deadly in CoH2. Churchill isnt. So Id say keep 1600 for stock one, or lower to 1280 but also with price decrease.
2 Sep 2015, 17:27 PM
#56
Posts: 657
This shouldn't be an issue for the two factions that have the best AT overall.
2 Sep 2015, 17:33 PM
#57
Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2
Permanently Banned
Crutch retard tank that takes autism to lose.
Sounds like every axis tank call-in
There is no recording in all WW2 history of a piat actually knocking off a vehicle. Yes, it was THAT bad.
2 Sep 2015, 17:35 PM
#58
Posts: 657
Sounds like every axis tank call-in
Axis fanbois don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.
2 Sep 2015, 17:42 PM
#60
2 
Posts: 1108
Axis fanbois don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.
because daspoulos is an axis fanboy *irony*
just my 2 cent
 | Playercard of MoerserKarL | |||||||||||||||||||
|
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
71 | ||
|
|
|
|
62 | ||
|
|
|
|
48 | ||
 |
|
|
34 | ||
|
|
|
|
30 | ||
 |
|
|
21 | ||
 |
|
|
11 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.968562.633+23
- 2.555227.710+11
- 3.29446.865-1
- 4.276110.715+14
- 5.259143.644+3
- 6.250150.625+11
- 7.22491.711+11
- 8.6512.844+3
- 9.250135.649+1
- 10.19265.747+5
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
7
Download
754
Board Info
647 users are online:
647 guests
2 posts in the last 24h
37 posts in the last week
137 posts in the last month
37 posts in the last week
137 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45064
Welcome our newest member, edmond2003s
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, edmond2003s
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM