Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Brummbar OP plz nerf!!!!21 Oct 2019, 16:20 PM Jump back to quoted post21 Oct 2019, 16:16 PMgeneral_gawain PZIV is T3, KV8 is T4. But luckily you can counter the T4 KV8 with a single nondoctrinal T3 StuG. And read again the comment I responded to: "You can't build a tank? " Stug is not a tank but a TD and one is simply not enough. In addition Panzer J is a T4 as much as KV-8 is. KV-8 should simply be cheaper (around 100-120) and less lethal. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Brummbar OP plz nerf!!!!21 Oct 2019, 16:12 PM Jump back to quoted post21 Oct 2019, 16:09 PMGrumpy You can't build a tank? ... Good luck trying to counter a KV-8 with a PzIV, PzIV J or PzIV H, unless you mean a Tiger. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Brummbar OP plz nerf!!!!21 Oct 2019, 13:18 PM Jump back to quoted post21 Oct 2019, 11:45 AMJibberJabberJobber Ty, now I'm up to speed. Glad that I could help. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Pyro Section Smoke Barrage21 Oct 2019, 03:40 AM The M21 MHT was not use by the UKF In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Pyro Section Smoke Barrage20 Oct 2019, 23:48 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Oct 2019, 23:39 PMthedarkarmadillo I agree it's a needed change. As for names (since we're talking about em) id go with forward observer package. It makes sense with the bonus vision as well as the arty strikes I do like the idea of the sniper Enfield and a rework on it though I'm not sold on the removal of the cover bonus Maybe I was not clear. I did not say the should not have the cover bonus but they should not the cover mechanism similar to Smg Tommies. That would allow a stock option for a more mobile infatry at the cost of being able to upgrade with other weapons. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Brummbar OP plz nerf!!!!20 Oct 2019, 23:43 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Oct 2019, 23:30 PMJibberJabberJobber Anyone know what the exact changes to the Brummbar were? Never was that clear to me. So far I know: - Range reduced from 40 to 35. - Armor reduced from 260 to 240. - Vet 2 armor bonus reduced from x1,3 to x1,2. Is that all concerning the base stats? And was the bunker barrage changed in any way? AT first it was buffer with easier access to T4 and : Cost decreased from 470 manpower and 160 fuel to 420 manpower and 150 fuel Reload standardized from 7.5/9 seconds to 8.25. AOE mid modifer from 0.15 to 0.3 Medium crush changed to Heavy Crush. Veterancy requirements from 2740/5480/10960 to 2040/4080/8160 Added hold fire then AOE was fixed Brummbar The Brummbar is having its AOE adjusted to reduce its ability to wipe out full health units on the first shot, but still able to deal significant damage on misses. • AOE distance changed from 1.25/2.5/3.75 to 0.625/1.25/6; applies to both auto-attack and bunker-buster • AOE damage changed from 1/0.3/0.05 to 1/0.35/0.2; applies to both auto-attack and bunker-buster Then it Nerfed more and the vet1 ability also... Brumbar -Armour reduced to 240 from 260 -Veterancy 2 armour bonus from 1.3 to 1.2 -This equates to 288 armour when vetted as opposed to 320 -Bunker Buster Barrage second and third shot scatter distance from 2.5 to 9 -Bunker Buster second and third shot scatter from 6 to 10 -Brumbar Range from 40 to 35 In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Pyro Section Smoke Barrage20 Oct 2019, 23:35 PM Another idea to try for IS would be to adjust the cover bonuses. So they can get smaller bonuses in yellow cover and better bonuses in green/garrison. That would make late game A-moving blobs weaker while keeping the defensive role of IS. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Pyro Section Smoke Barrage20 Oct 2019, 23:32 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Oct 2019, 23:12 PMelchino7 Do you remember what was the performance of scoped Enfields? If it's a copycat of the basic Enfield and the scoped version is there to emphasis the upgrade or the extended vision i think a single weapon slot usage should be fine. I was suggesting redesigned version of a more powerful version of the standard Enfield at long range and weaker close. So that they do not lose to LMG gren badly. The in game scope ones has currently 130% more DPS close and 114% far. The number I was looking for was more like 80-90% close to 120-130%. Allowing scoped and bren on 5 men units without the cover mechanism might not be a great idea. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Give universal carrier the 222 treatment20 Oct 2019, 21:49 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Oct 2019, 21:42 PMdistrofio If pyro had a single, faster firing, HE howitzer shell with extra damage to garrisons, for half the munition cost, then will that count as anti-garrison tool? Or is it too far behind yet? Actually UKF arty could include a number of different shell types like smoke, incendiary, WP, HE, Air-bust...Some could be doctrinal some stock. Incendiary would be better vs garrison both giving time to react and denying garrison. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Brummbar OP plz nerf!!!!20 Oct 2019, 21:37 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Oct 2019, 21:08 PMthedarkarmadillo Or we could tune down allied TDs so armour means something again instead... Agreed. Other suggestion: KV-8 move DOT flame to an ability with a long cooldown (as with all flamer vehicles). That would allow these unit to be toned down but able to deliver lots of damage when needed. Brumbar: Reduce the damage but add extra damage vs structures and lower garrison/heavy cover modifier to 0-15 so that the unit delivers damage to units even in cover. One could also test adding some critical vs infatry with an ability like sort stun or a DPS reduction. The unit should spearhead attacks. Or move Ostwind to T4, stug-E to T3 and Brumbar doctrinal redesign as a KV-2. In: COH2 Balance