Profile of Vipper

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

General Information


Thread: Ostheer T2 Skip26 Jun 2019, 15:36 PM Jump back to quoted post26 Jun 2019, 15:21 PMLago I don't see the relevance of this to T2's value as a tier. For instance if armored cars play was more relevant one could add the 221 as counter to armored cars to T2 and delay shrecks and Paks. or one could delay the 250. Point here is that too many unit come at the same time frame it is difficult for all them to remain relevant. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Ostheer T2 Skip26 Jun 2019, 15:07 PM Jump back to quoted post26 Jun 2019, 15:02 PMLago I don't think anti-infantry Panzergrenadiers are a problem. The issue is building T2 being so much worse than building AT Panzergrenadiers. Yet this is a timing issue again. Unit seem to appear too early. There should be more time between phases so that investing in a phase of the game would be worth it. Currently it is a race to heavy infatry and TDs, while shock units have buffed thru the roof just to be attractive. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Super AT Guns26 Jun 2019, 15:01 PM Jump back to quoted post26 Jun 2019, 14:56 PMLago It's possible, but Brace is a cleaner implementation of the same idea. Pak44 does not have brace. Imo brace should be removed or become doctrinal. A selfrepair ability costing MP or MU or FU would be a far better approach. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Ostheer T2 Skip26 Jun 2019, 14:59 PM Jump back to quoted post26 Jun 2019, 14:34 PMLago If you made T2 cheaper, you'd shunt the removed fuel cost to Battle Phase 1 to maintain the timings. Removed manpower could go to BP1 or BP2. I think locking shrecks to T2 is a cleaner solution though. Imo this is a problem of all faction and should be addressed for all factions. The timing of infatry should follow mainline infatry and all units available early should follow the PF approach (although the implementation of PF seem make them UP ). They Spawn weaker (at similar power level as the mainline infatry) but have weapon upgrades via tech available to them. PGs for instance could span as a 260-280 with M40 or some other weapon combo and be able to buy weapon upgrades. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Super AT Guns26 Jun 2019, 14:53 PM Jump back to quoted post26 Jun 2019, 14:42 PMLago Should they be decrewable at all? The building model worked quite well for the 17-pounder. The idea here is that cost is divided between the emplacement itself and the crew. That allows unit preservation and better pricing. For instance if the crew could abandoned the weapon and survive bombardments one could increase XP value and price for the package but lower the price for building the structure only. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Super AT Guns26 Jun 2019, 14:12 PM I guess one could try adding a crew that would be able to abandon the weapon. If the crew was the only unit suitable to operate the weapon effectively or to operate at all, one could better balance these units. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: New USF doctrine is too good26 Jun 2019, 13:41 PM Jump back to quoted post26 Jun 2019, 08:39 AMblvckdream I wonder why no one brought up this in during preview... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: How does scatter work (and some more stuff)26 Jun 2019, 13:34 PM glad that I could help I guess low chance check where removed to make reduce the calculation load, too bad it mess up your strategy. In: Lobby
Thread: USF Riflemen kinda fix.25 Jun 2019, 23:12 PM Jump back to quoted post25 Jun 2019, 22:14 PMBalanced_Gamer Which units are buffed too much, if you do not mind me asking? nearly every unit that has been changed and is available before minute 2 . In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: USF Riflemen kinda fix.25 Jun 2019, 22:08 PM Rifelemn where fine for a very long time and where even op at one point. It the other infatry that have been buffed and too much imo. In: COH2 Gameplay