Profile of thedarkarmadillo

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 5279

General Information


Thread: So why exactly can't UKF/USF base buildings be destroyed ?6 Jun 2018, 19:34 PM Sure is a good thing that volks have snares and ranks are pretty cheap I guess... Oh and mines... The idea that without hand AT the faction is pooches is laughable at best. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Mobile Defence doctrine6 Jun 2018, 04:11 AM Does nobody get the puma because it's a fun little unit? No? Just me? OK.... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: So why exactly can't UKF/USF base buildings be destroyed ?5 Jun 2018, 17:26 PM The fact that this tactic... NEVER happens outside trash tier blowout games says all it needs to I think... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Give OKW flame nade a tech cost?5 Jun 2018, 15:08 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Jun 2018, 09:25 AMLago They became 20 munitions in DBP but their unlock cost went from 125/15 to 80/10. Thanks. Good change over all but I wish some point in vet would knock off that extra 5mu. Doesn't seem like a lot but does add up In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Give OKW flame nade a tech cost?5 Jun 2018, 08:48 AM Molotov are 20mu now if I'm not mistaken or was it oorah alone that got the price bump? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: So why exactly can't UKF/USF base buildings be destroyed ?5 Jun 2018, 07:40 AM Jump back to quoted post5 Jun 2018, 05:23 AMWaegukin Thanks to inspiration taken from this thread, glorious Relic matchmaking and high-quality British balance, I can confirm it takes 2:03 on the in-game clock for a 222 to solo a British T1 building. Thanks! So iirc it takes an AT gun much less than that to build so we should be able to agree it's a non issue right? Also I'm curious how long it takes JUST for rifle fire to kill a 222. I mean we all know it IS a non issue but I'm curious In: COH2 Balance
Thread: So why exactly can't UKF/USF base buildings be destroyed ?5 Jun 2018, 04:16 AM Would @vipper mind using his magical number crunching powers to tell us how long it takes a 222 to kill a UKF or usf base? Because I recall it being somewhat time consuming even with a proper tank (or gagle of tanks?) so I'm not personally seeing the opportunity to base rape that early. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Mobile Defence doctrine3 Jun 2018, 19:40 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2018, 18:52 PMKurfürst THIS. Essentially its a comeback doctrine with a bit of second chance if you bugger up the early mid game, you have a bit of a chance to play delay action with the Puma and keep your bleed lower with the Command Pz. But other than that, for the amount of fuel, neither the Puma or the Command Panzer can do much apart from boosting your defenses. They are whole incapable to play offensively with them, and once real medium tanks roll out, you are effectively playing hide and seek all the time. Which might be annoying, but it does not win matches. Tying them to Tiers or BF is just silly. It was not broken for 5 years, and its broken now, huh? Seeing as the Soviet sniper got a massive change despite being 2 man for the life of the game "it was fine for 5 years" doesn't really work any more. The landscape of the game is changing and by the end all factions will be the same, it stands to reason that tying to BP is a reasonable change. would it kill the unit to need bp2 unlocked really? No but it might even boost use in team games where teching happens quicker than CPs which would be a good change. It might come out in time to fight allied light tanks instead of when kvs are hitting the field. Being built is also a better design than call in because it can't be panicked out. There's decision then instead of impulse In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Lower the Price of OKW Panzerschreck3 Jun 2018, 19:33 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Jun 2018, 16:07 PMmr.matrix300 Sturms aren't really a decent AT since they only have one Schreck and fall like flies and in my opinion the Choice between AT and Sweeper is a bad design itself.Also I do not get how a 4 man unit with almost no AI ability (because of Sweeper and Schreck(you won't put sweeper away when attacking enemy positions)is a nobrainer but a 5 man Royals/RE with sweeper and AT isn't ? I emplote you to go back and find a quote of me saying 5 man AT squads are a good idea. You'll not we are talking about changing sturms here, not sappers nor RE so the point is moot. A unit that transitions thoughtlessly is bad design, just like being able to turn 5 man ~200 or so mp squads into AT squads is a bad design. But I shouldn't have to reference bad design on other factions to say 5hisbwould be bad design. You know why Shrek or sweeper doesn't feel right? It's because that wasn't considered when they were designed. It was moved their because of ANOTHER bad design choice (that also gave volks STGs making yet ANOTHER bad design choice because they had to stand up to great at all ranges and superior to anything rifles who could also double arm Bars which was... Yep you guessed it a bad design choice...) But above all why should sturms who are already a great unit in their own right capable of many things including healing and fighting be able to adapt their role AND sweep for mines when EFA can't? If Ost pios want to sweep for mines they have to forfeit any chance of ever getting any more vet ever. Sturms can at least remain relevant as a flanker unit and top up armour and infantry alike. All sturms need is a vet realignment. If Tommy's need a 0.8 target size else be hopeless against the enemy while sitting behind green cover they can create and double arm Brent's and get an extra man it's hardly unreasonable to ask for sturms to get AT LEAST the same target size after vet 1 swing as they need to close for effectiveness. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Fix AT Partisans 3 Jun 2018, 11:18 AM Thought it already was on cool down? If it isn't it certainly should be. Constancy and all. Let alone balance.. In: COH2 Balance