Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Design: Froward Reinforcement/healing13 Sep 2022, 13:51 PM The old system implement by Relic with reinforcement time connected to entity cost was completely arbitrary was part of the reason why certain units where and some still are UP. Imo it was one of the main issue with Pg which not only had to retreat earlier due to low entity count but also had to spend lots of down time to reinforce. Same thing now happen with Ostheer officer with their long reinforcement time. As for Bunker imo the change that allow ostheer to build make to upgrades one one bunker is part of ostheer strength (at least in larger games). It would have been better if command bunker where cheaper and only healed garrisoned units. In: COH3 Central
Thread: Design: Froward Reinforcement/healing12 Sep 2022, 14:10 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Sep 2022, 13:52 PMaerafield Not at all, you can still put them somewhat to the frontline and then soft-retreat to them. Just not anymore parked right next to fighting squads I still prefer OP suggestion... In: COH3 Central
Thread: Design: Froward Reinforcement/healing12 Sep 2022, 13:13 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Sep 2022, 12:42 PMaerafield I think the only necessary change would be to disable reinforcing during combat outside your base sector What about halftracks? Would such a change greatly reduce their utility? In: COH3 Central
Thread: Design: Froward Reinforcement/healing12 Sep 2022, 12:38 PM Jump back to quoted post12 Sep 2022, 12:23 PMOrangePest Reinforcement types are already a thing. Just a unit to unit basis. Obers reinforce slower, ostruppen faster etc No actually they are not based on types. When Coh2 was launched reinforcement time was directly linked to entity cost. After all the patches that have changed entities cost and reinforcement cost there is no logic, it is simply a mess. Jump back to quoted post12 Sep 2022, 12:23 PMOrangePest I agree though. Frontline reinforcing is undynamic and unfun gameplay that forces overinvestment on one side (coh1) or makes the game cheesy (coh2) Glad that you agree. In: COH3 Central
Thread: Design: Froward Reinforcement/healing12 Sep 2022, 11:25 AM Another aspect of Coh2 that could be improved is forward recommencement/healing mechanism. FR/H point in COH2 give a big advantage to certain faction and allow people to turtle around. One could lower the healing speed and increase the reinforcement time but have base provide a bonus to both. This tool would allow a separate balancing for in base and FR/H speed allowing results. In addition squad could be changed to standard reinforcement according to type from faster to slower: Support troops mainline troops Elite troops support weapons The reason why support weapon should reinforce slower is that inflicting causalities to them is more difficult since these weapon have great range. In: COH3 Central
Thread: since we are adding prototype tanks in game9 Sep 2022, 14:05 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Sep 2022, 13:53 PMGrumpy This... Mass-produced normally also means that someone develops a production line specifically for the item being produced, not utilizing a product of another production line and modifying it on an ad-hoc basis. Elefant was not an "ad-hoc" modification like the Geschutzenwagen FCM or a prototype units like the Selbstfahrlafette auf VK3001. Elafant was a vehicle designed on drawing board to make use existing hulls and was produced in a factory and an production line. If you do not like the term "mass produced" for this case, I suggest you simply do not use it. And that is really beside the Point which is that the Elefant regardless of it production history and problems was an effective unit with a very high kill score. In: Lobby
Thread: since we are adding prototype tanks in game9 Sep 2022, 13:12 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Sep 2022, 12:57 PMHannibal Which one? I am not sure why you keep at this wording that is not actually mine but can be found on more than one sites, at this point it feels more like you arguing semantics than anything else. As I have pointed I would not have chosen the particular wording since it can lead to some misconception. I have used because other did before me and anyone who does not like the term can take it up to them and not me. I did not claim that the unit has been produced in massive numbers. As I have clearly explained imo the term "mass produced" here is not used here to describe a vehicle that was produced in massive numbers but to describe a vehicle produced in an assembly line as in contrast with vehicle that was produced only as prototype and to explain that vehicles like the 12.8 cm Selbstfahrlafette auf VK3001(H) might actually achieved a superior kill ratio but they never where in production. Jump back to quoted post9 Sep 2022, 12:57 PMHannibal That's also not the point. ... And I was responding to claim that Elfant was crap which was not. On the theme of thread I personally do not like prototype units that never saw action like the Black Prince to be in the game even more so since the vehicle even if deployed would be crap yet it will probably be portrayed like a Tiger/IS-2. In: Lobby
Thread: since we are adding prototype tanks in game9 Sep 2022, 12:56 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Sep 2022, 12:17 PMKatukov The elefant has an impressive amount of kills and on paper would be considered "the best tank destroyer". But if you actually dug around and looked at the tank design themselves, you would realize that it was only the "best" tank on paper Tell that to people who fell prey of the Elefant that it was "good only on paper" because I pretty sure it felt differently to them. Elefant killed nothing "on paper" on the contrary it killed lots of things on the battlefield. Jump back to quoted post9 Sep 2022, 12:17 PMKatukov Yes, obviously the most powerful cannon fielded on a tank in the entire world (so far) and 200mm of armor are really fucking good. Elefant did not have the "most powerful cannon fielded on a tank", it was not even a Tank. Jump back to quoted post9 Sep 2022, 12:17 PMKatukov But then you don't read wikipedia (that ITSELF SAYS "CITATION NEEDED") and instead the reality, which is that the elefant/ferdinand TD was REALLY awful at mobility and reliability. This means that it knocked itself out with mechanical failures way more than being destroyed by enemy means, barely even drivable (and unable to go even up hill, according to a ferdinand crewman) and so on. If it actually managed to fire, it was devastating, but it barely managed to do so. A big gun and lots of armor don't mean that the tank is magically good. It track record proves it worthiness and that is not base on Wikipedia. When it was deployed in a suitable environment like the Russian steps the unit was extremely effective. Jump back to quoted post9 Sep 2022, 12:17 PMKatukov You didnt bother actually reading my last post anyway so i dont know why i replied If you have no reason to replay pls do not. In: Lobby
Thread: since we are adding prototype tanks in game9 Sep 2022, 09:08 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Sep 2022, 08:56 AMHannibal You're taking things too literal. Editing also means adding info. You can even literally edit any page on wikipedia, and the review process there is often not competent, so a ton of none sense comes through regularly. If it was "mass produced" or not is a matter of where you personally draw the line. Objectively, we can say that the project was scrapped early and the that those tanks would not have existed if the company had not overinvested into building chassis during development. Production numbers are far from other standard tanks and tank hunters. I wouldn't call it mass produced. The Ferdinand was not planned from the beginning, they had those chassis lying around and had something to do with it. The Ferdinand was basically developed after the the base of the tank, it was not a straightforward decision and production process, which would usually be the case for anything you'd call mass produced. I wouldn't chose to say Elefant mass produced either. Point here is that Elafant had probably the best kill ratio (around 10) (for TDs that went beyond prototype). The 12.8 cm Selbstfahrlafette auf VK3001(H) seems to have had a better kill ratio of above 11 but was only build as prototype and only 2 where ever build. I am not sure why some people choose to argue semantics about mass production when the point was the actual great record Elefant achieved and not weather it was mass produced or not. In: Lobby
Thread: since we are adding prototype tanks in game9 Sep 2022, 07:44 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Sep 2022, 00:23 AMGrumpy I didn't accuse anyone here of changing anything on Wiki. Stop making defamatory claims about me. Jump back to quoted post8 Sep 2022, 04:51 AMGrumpy Nothing wrong with my reading ability....... Just because some "genius" edits a Wiki page and makes the ridiculous claim that 91 vehicles is "mass produced" doesn't mean people should mindlessly parrot it. You have accused someone of editing a wiki page and others of "mindlessly" parroting. Jump back to quoted post9 Sep 2022, 00:23 AMGrumpy You still don't understand the basic point that 91 of anything does not equal mass produced. It is barely beyond a prototype. 91 vehicles that went on fighting for two years are way beyond a "prototype" that was not produced in an assembly line. I have to guess that the reason the article talks about "mass production" in a factory, is exactly because there might have been vehicles developed in small numbers (like the 12.8 cm Selbstfahrlafette auf VK3001(H)) not produced in an assembly line that might have achieved better kills ratios. But all these are beside the point Elefant made use of rejected chassis of a tank and yet had an excellent kill ratio as TD. In: Lobby