Profile of thedarkarmadillo

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 5279

General Information


Thread: State of the ISU-15225 Jun 2020, 21:34 PM See this is why I hate ~~dick measuring~~ player card calling. All it does is derail shit. Take the persons claims on the validity of the claim or don't. Get out of here with the "my opinion is better" garbage. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Idea for sturmpiooner25 Jun 2020, 21:29 PM I don't mean to alarm anyone here but... Losing your elite units is SUPPOSED to hurt. That's not an okw fault, it's a game feature. If you don't over extend your sturms you won't lose them, and thus won't have to replace them. 90% of the time it works every time. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: State of the ISU-15225 Jun 2020, 16:55 PM Jump back to quoted post25 Jun 2020, 16:49 PMachpawel Exactly. I'd really make those AT rounds on ISU have much smaller range than 70. And it will change nearly nothing. If the AT shells are what's giving you a hard time I've got news for you.... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Idea for sturmpiooner25 Jun 2020, 16:53 PM Is the camo to compensate for their high cost or is it their higher than average repair rate? Or their stgs? Or is it their no vet 3 aoe healing medkits? Maybe it's the fact they actually have the smallest target size of all starting units. Migh be that they are the only unit in the game that can stash a minesweeper. It can't be the ignoring terrain features since that was basicly removed from the game, but it could be their super wire, even their vet 1 stun nade! My gut however says that it's all of those features stuffed into one unit. Hard to say tho In: COH2 Balance
Thread: State of the ISU-15225 Jun 2020, 16:46 PM Jump back to quoted post25 Jun 2020, 15:30 PMVipper There are few difference: The guy was comparing the barrage ability with auto fire and that is simply misleading. The ISU-152 shot is vet 0 the barrage is vet 1. What I have pointed is that if deflection damage is not enough vs high armor target one has the add option of using the skill shot that has higher penetration. There have been a number of posts describing the AT capability of ISU-152 as bad. I have simply pointed out that with high damage, decent penetration, deflection damage, skill shot and access to mark target describing the AT performance of ISU-152 as bad is simply wrong. Fair enough. However I think most of us can agree combination with Mark target needs to go, saying the isu isnt bad because of the combination of another ability at all let alone one we agree needs to go isn't really fair. It's like when FMR was OP. We didn't say shock were OP, just that the combination was too strong. The isu has alright AT. it's not good, certainly not something a player can rely on solely (or would even want to since then it's not bleeding infantry) and it's not bad either. It just is. ISU AT is a bit like the m42 canister shots. Itll help if you need it to, but if you are leaving it on you are wasting the unit. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: State of the ISU-15225 Jun 2020, 15:09 PM Jump back to quoted post25 Jun 2020, 13:42 PMVipper 70 Thanks for the correction, I'll try and commit it to memory. Still very much not cheap. We just had a page of "you can't count on the Brummbärs bunker buster because it's a muni sink" so bringing in an even more expensive ability to highlight the isu AT seems a bit odd. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: State of the ISU-15225 Jun 2020, 13:04 PM Jump back to quoted post25 Jun 2020, 10:57 AMVipper People keep repeating that ISU-152 can bounce but seem to ignore that even when it bounce it does damage. It actually has one of the highest deflection damage in game. It does 120 damage on deflection up to 162 with "mark vehicle". On top of that it comes with 400/350/300 penetration skill shot. That skill shot costs 90mu if i recall... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Autofire should be removed25 Jun 2020, 00:02 AM Jump back to quoted post24 Jun 2020, 23:47 PMVipper 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. Until the move slightly and are no longer in the barrage until the enemy player retargets them instead of the mortar doing that itself. There's no way that " the enemy has to micro to dig you out" is worse than " the enemy has a mortar in range but is building barbed wire in their base and that's taking all their attention but you are still forced out of cover and the player doesn't even realize it because the game is playing itself" Same issue that was with the mortar pit, smaller scale. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Autofire should be removed24 Jun 2020, 23:40 PM Jump back to quoted post24 Jun 2020, 22:08 PMVipper And then grenadier would have to be buffed because they would no longer have the support of superior support weapons. 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. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Autofire should be removed24 Jun 2020, 22:06 PM Jump back to quoted post24 Jun 2020, 21:46 PMVipper 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? 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. In: COH2 Balance