Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Autofire should be removed24 Jun 2020, 23:47 PM Jump back to quoted post24 Jun 2020, 23:40 PMthedarkarmadillo The buff would be that the mortar is cheaper and thus they can field more units more quickly. It should go without saying that if mortars were to lose their auto fire their barrages would be reworked as well to be a "get out what you put in" kinda unit. Also correct me if I'm wrong but we're talking about the mortar here, and not going to be touching the glorious mg42 that is the true master of supporting grens. Problem is that barrage is only good vs stationary units and thus grenadier will receive the sort end of the stick since they are stationary infatry. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Autofire should be removed24 Jun 2020, 22:08 PM Jump back to quoted post24 Jun 2020, 22:06 PMthedarkarmadillo If they lost the auto fire their price could go down so they function as a support weapon instead of an indirect no micro mainline replacement. And then grenadier would have to be buffed because they would no longer have the support of superior support weapons. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Autofire should be removed24 Jun 2020, 21:46 PM Jump back to quoted post24 Jun 2020, 21:31 PMLoopDloop ... You are correct that that is the role of mortars on paper. However, because of how autofire works, what happens in practice is that they become a microless force multiplier effective against all infantry with 0 input from the user and in all circumstances. Right now the mortar does all those things you mentioned on top of automatically punishing any infantry within their range. They are meant to be used as force multipliers since their cost is similar to mainline infatry. What would be the point of building a mainline a hmg and mortar instead of 3 mainline infantries if the mainline infatry was the superior option in all cases? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: bugs after Version: 4.0.0.2346824 Jun 2020, 14:18 PM Jump back to quoted post24 Jun 2020, 13:38 PMSneakEye The tools are not reliable at the moment. The lasts 3 patches are not included. Edit, hmm I see this specific change was 4 patches ago.. The reason I even checked was because I had a hard time hitting a B4 so I think the size is wrong. In: COH2 Bugs
Thread: State of the ISU-15224 Jun 2020, 14:17 PM Jump back to quoted post24 Jun 2020, 14:14 PMthedarkarmadillo I disagree that talking about the Brummbär is irrelevant. Let me rephrase this , the claim that ISU1-152 is fine because it similar to Brumbar holds very little water. Jump back to quoted post24 Jun 2020, 14:14 PMthedarkarmadillo They are similar enough to paint a picture, however cost is a part of that picture and maybe a bump in cost for the isu is required for the boons it has. But again, I think looking at the commanders so that the isu can't counter its counters and picking it means missing out on something else is the best start point. As I have posted in this thread and years ago when the commander revamp started one should start with the commanders (and the rear armor) and see how it goes from there. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: State of the ISU-15224 Jun 2020, 14:11 PM Jump back to quoted post24 Jun 2020, 13:26 PMSuperHansFan Accept it's not, actually you're wrong on the micro and range front because you forget Brum has bunker buster. ISU actually has to expose itself on the front line and can't fire behind houses or shot blockers. At this point you are reaching for straws compering auto-fire and a vet 1 ability barrage with long cool down. If in your opinion 70 range is "in the front line" I wonder how you describe 30 range. Jump back to quoted post24 Jun 2020, 13:26 PMSuperHansFan 43 people disagree with you and think the ISU is fine but I don't use this against you in a discussion about the unit. Actually this is pretty irrelevant so let's keep the discussion on topic. If you have lost many ISU-152 to the static pak43 that would explain a lot. Thank for agreeing with me that talking about brumbar in thread about ISU-152 is irrelevant. It is also misleading. Jump back to quoted post24 Jun 2020, 13:36 PMSuperHansFan Which is correct, but the threads not full of people complaining about its AT apart from vipper At least try to get your fact right. I have not complain about that the AT performance of ISU-152 on the other hand completely ignoring as you do when you compare it with brumbar is simply misleading. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: bugs after Version: 4.0.0.2346824 Jun 2020, 13:20 PM If I am not mistaken the B4 target size has not been fixed. According to the editor the: aritllery_203mm_b4 has the correct target size of 20 but m1931_aritllery_203mm_b4_commander_mp that as far as I know is used still has a target size of 1 In: COH2 Bugs
Thread: State of the ISU-15224 Jun 2020, 13:09 PM Jump back to quoted post24 Jun 2020, 12:19 PMSuperHansFan Half of what you typed is false, watch some hans streams with him microing both units, he pretty much uses attack ground every time due to how unreliable they both are vs moving squads. Every thing in that post is accurate. Your response on the other hand is full of inaccuracies as other users have pointed out. Can you pls tone down the hostility in your post a bit? Jump back to quoted post24 Jun 2020, 12:19 PMSuperHansFan Brumbar also has pretty much identical range with bunkerbuster so nerfing the ISU when nondoc brumbar stays the same would be crazy. Brumbar is actually viable in 1vs1 too, ISU is only really useful in team games that have open lane areas. Brum projectile can shoot over shot blockers but in true vipper fashion you conveniently ignore the perks of the axis units. Let me explain this once more, comparing ISU-152 and Brumbar is totally misleading for a number of reasons including the one I have already mentioned. On top of that units work differently. Brumbar needs to be aggressive to auto-fire while it is facing allied TD that can penetrate it reliably while outrangeing it by double its range. ISU-152 can sit back and snipe units because the are few units that outrange it and even those by small margin and need spotter to do so. Regardless if Brumabar has better AI or not ISU-152 has much better AT. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: State of the ISU-15224 Jun 2020, 11:28 AM Jump back to quoted post24 Jun 2020, 11:14 AMmrgame2 like i brought up before, it is overperforming because of its rear armor and it is more mobile than elefant.... nerf the rear armor so P4 can pen from far. So weird that Elefant get asshanded by T34 and Shermans and Cromwells easier than ISU152 when flanked. Rear armor should be reduced and that goes for other vehicles also. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: State of the ISU-15224 Jun 2020, 09:52 AM Jump back to quoted post24 Jun 2020, 09:36 AMAcidfreak i used isu last night on whiteball express and it never one shotted a squad. it always takes 2 shots to kill a squad on full health which is in line with other tanks like brumbar 1) ISU has twice the range of the Brumbar 2) ISU has a much faster projectile 3) ISU need a lot less micro since it does not need manual aiming 4) ISU is firing generally on units with less entities 5) ISU has also AP rounds. If some one compares the unit with the one of the best AI axis units in the game it is evidence that the dual role average in both roles Soviet design does not apply to ISU since it one of the best AI units in the game and has decent AT. In: COH2 Balance