Profile of Myself

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 677

General Information


Thread: Anvil Churchill could use a SLIGHT buff8 Mar 2016, 12:24 PM People have been complaining for ages about "panzer tactician" smoke and "blitz". Churchill on the the other hand can get both of them for free with no veterancy (warspeed needs a hammer ally but gets full speed bonus). The design intended of Churchill smoke is provide cover to infantry and not the vehicle, further more such a change would allow IS to attack with not penalties... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Anvil Churchill could use a SLIGHT buff8 Mar 2016, 11:38 AM Churchill smoke has been reported as bugged. Imo it not be shot blocker is should provide light cover and immunity to suppression. Then is would serve its design role... Veternacy speed is something that should be looked at. There are units with high XP value that either do not do enough damage or can only harm low XP value target like infantry. For damage sponges the change could be that they gain more XP when they are fired upon and give less to enemies... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Bofors8 Mar 2016, 10:43 AM that is why is suggested that assault guns become better at killing fortification... Having specialized units to destroy fortification would provide a counter to turtling and make these units that seem little action become more attractive... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Infantry Sections, Cover Bonuses and Design7 Mar 2016, 10:53 AM XP to vet IS RoE 480 400 960 800 1.920 1.600 If one wants to take veterancy into account, one should also consider Xp to to vet... Also keep in mind that IS need to be in cover to have that DPS. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Infantry Sections, Cover Bonuses and Design7 Mar 2016, 08:31 AM Jump back to quoted post7 Mar 2016, 08:02 AMKrötentöten I dont mean to be rude but this seems an awfully uninformed post. Do you have the actual figures to back that up? I personaly believed based on the numbers I saw once and ingame experience that as I posted, RE and Commandos do less med and far range dps than IS with brens due to the other 3 members beeing useless... but I would love for some1 to digg out the numbers. I don't mean to be rude either but I have to point out that you blame someone that they posted an "awfully uninformed" post when you seem to be doing exactly the same and asking to for someone else to dig the numbers.... Well it is rather easy to find them here: http://www.stat.coh2.hu/index.php In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Heavy Assault Guns vs Fortifications6 Mar 2016, 08:44 AM Jump back to quoted post6 Mar 2016, 06:29 AMnee Actually your problem is becoming more apparent. thanks for your helpful input so far, will respond to you again if and when you actually add something relevant to the subject of "Heavy assault guns vs Fortifications"...Have a nice day In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Heavy Assault Guns vs Fortifications6 Mar 2016, 00:19 AM Jump back to quoted post5 Mar 2016, 20:54 PMnee That's kind of your problem, you've not really suggested anything as a solution. So far it's just "These units should perform a bit better against fortifications (the term only mentioned in text in the game, I presume you meant emplacements and garrisoned ambient structures?)". Maybe you should think about something a little more specific. You mention in passing six units, but only go into specifics for one. Seeing as they are all different units warranting separate examinations, I think such an oversight is quite relevant. I don't have a problem...I have explained what fortification are multiple times in the thread, Relic has explained what fortification are (ambient building are not fortification). The units I have mention all fall under the the category of assault guns. Since you have already posted that "Personally I agree these vehicles should do a bit more damage against emplacements,..." it seems that we agree... In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Heavy Assault Guns vs Fortifications5 Mar 2016, 16:52 PM Since this thread has suffered enough toxicity lets all try to avoid any more and behave better when we post here... In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Heavy Assault Guns vs Fortifications5 Mar 2016, 16:51 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Mar 2016, 15:34 PMnee One proble, with your OP is hat you only mention Sturmtiger in specific... Assault Gun units in this game have superior range, that alone makes them effective. But like I said, AT Guns and Mortars have this specific advantage as well. The only thing a mortar pit, bofors or even 17 pounder can do to a Jagdtiger is keep it spotted as it fires at you or you keep plinking away at its front armour... Question: how bad is the situation you are presenting, and exactly what solutions do you have in mind? Lastly, no one's going to accept the view that Sherman Dozer would perform just as well as ISU-152. Not all heavy assault vehicles should perform the same as eachother... Actually I mention 6 units in OP... Jagtiger is not assault gun it is heavy tank hunter... Suggestion can be found on page 3 bottom post 59 No one suggested that Dozer and ISU-152 perform the same... No one suggested that Sturmtiger should oneshoot braced emplacements...its damage though should not be negligible either as it currently is especially since it has a such a reload mechanism... In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Hammer gammon are (still) too expensive.5 Mar 2016, 16:32 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Mar 2016, 15:01 PMMr.Smith ... In order to find a more appropriate price, we need to compare it to something else which is already in the game. We have already established that the gammon bomb is strictly inferior in terms of anti-garrison/anti-infantry to the satchel charge. ... I have simply have to disagree... Gammon bomb do the job of the satchel charge as an anti-garrison device adequately and better than most grenades available to mainline infantry. The main difference here is that Penal troops are specialized anti-garrison troops and that is why their satchel is so cheap. Tommies are all around troops that can be armed with lmg, Piats, built trenches, sandbags and even emplacements (doctrinal)or equipped with AT grenades (doctrinal). By having more utility their gammon bomb either need to more expensive or allot less effective... Jump back to quoted post5 Mar 2016, 15:01 PMMr.Smith When it comes to AT performance, we have the following abilities to compare it with: I don't think that this is the correct approach...One should be considering the consequence of a cheap Gammon bomb. A cheaper Gammon bomb would make it more spamable. That would make UKF blobs more dangerous vs vehicles. Imagine a slow vehicle or a vehicle with engine damage making a ideal target for 3 tommies squad that can stun lock it with gammon bomb and destroy it with Piats regardless of it armor due to gammon high penetration and Piat deflection damage. Cheap Gammon bomb in their current performance would basically promote infantry blobbing, and reduce the need to make medium armor. As I have explained before imo if the price of Gammon is to be reduced its AI effectiveness, and its ability to stun should also be reduced. In: COH2 Balance