Profile of thedarkarmadillo

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 5279

General Information


Thread: T-34 rework2 Dec 2020, 03:15 AM frankly, regardless of if its added as a non command vehcle or not id like the stubby to get a gun profile akin to the stubby stug. the turret would be a hug boon and it would act a bit like a short range but more robust scott (the stubby stug being a long ranged, squisher casemate P4) id bump the damage up to 160 and reconfigure the AOE profile so that its AI is otherwise unchanged so that structures and armour it does pen take heed its gun would be great against infantry, its armour and health forgiving, if not dominant at its timing and its pen would be enough to force allied lights to take caution. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework1 Dec 2020, 23:47 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 20:24 PMWiderstreit Because of AT-rifle-fire. And yes, there were also many units removing skirts after "losing" some parts. All over, in our CoH-story-timeline German tanks were on the defence, and a P4 in hull-down had more potential than T34 because of better Gun and better combat room. Problem is, that Germans are missing Pnz.III, it would bring much more for T70 + T34 balancing. They could make the stub dick p4 as a "light" medium. Maybe in t2 after BP2 is teched kinda thing. Fine tuning needed In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] General Discussion1 Dec 2020, 23:40 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 21:31 PMfrustynumber I would rather lose the AT shells on the ISU entirely than deal with a range nerf to HE. It's already extremely slow and vulnerable, add in buffed panthers and nerfed SU85s to support it and you spend the whole game repairing it. What is envisioned as counterplay to the Elefants now that ISU, SU85, T34 and Zis are all nerfed? The AT shells are necessary to keep the unit balanced as a unit of that cost being only AI at 70-hell even 60 range would need to be a nightmare. Making it cheaper to componsate simply makes it more replaceable and easier to support. It's only balanced as a package and only precariously at that In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] General Discussion1 Dec 2020, 18:41 PM Jump back to quoted post1 Dec 2020, 16:03 PMT.R. Stormjäger I'd like to see its range go down to 65 or 60. Scope isn't that relevant imo since most people just keep a vetted 222 for it. Wtf? No. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework1 Dec 2020, 18:31 PM The fact that this t34 suggestion thread sprang out of ram being demo charged out of the game means that the t34 isn't filling its role- unless that role is diesel powered torpedo. I agree that it should not be going toe to toe with other generalists but it should serve some purpose in aiding late game. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] General Discussion1 Dec 2020, 15:41 PM Isu nerf is acceptable. The rear armour was a long time coming and shouldn't really realistically change much if you are supporting your isu properly-even with the reduced range.in regards to the reduced range--this is also a good change. Currently the isu is impossible to stop from wiping squads aside from major misplay by the enemy or a risky all in dive. Even an elefant is unable to realistically counter it. The range reduction allows it to STILL out range almost every axis unit, but eats a bit of buffer space. Adds some risk to the reward without making the isu inert against infantry. Think of a Brummbär with double the range. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback30 Nov 2020, 23:28 PM Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 13:12 PMgbem merge retains target size hence one really shouldnt use it outside of combat situations... The target size iirc is 1.087 or something like that for cons. Compare the less than 9% chance increase to get hit over RA of 1 penals in exchange for saving 20% on reinforcement costs (5mp per head) and even more if 7 man you'll find that merge is plenty well enough for penals. What's more penals get more bite as models drop starting at vet 1 meaning that mp saved, even with the slightly more mp bled turns very well into dead germans. In elite infantry merge is worse off, on everything else the mp saved more than offsets the staying power reduction - especially if you bring more cons to keep em fresh. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34 rework30 Nov 2020, 21:35 PM Just give the t34 more close range pen and call it a day. That's all it need- to be rewarded for closing. That way a couple of them is ACTUALLY a threat because you can't shoot at them all if out numbered meaning SOME might do damage. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback30 Nov 2020, 11:37 AM Jump back to quoted post30 Nov 2020, 09:11 AMaddvaluejack Could we give Penal Vet3 reinforcement cost reduction bonus? They have one! It's called merging cons. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [Winter Balance Update] SOV Feedback29 Nov 2020, 06:27 AM Jump back to quoted post29 Nov 2020, 06:15 AMgbem there's also the fact that it has a 4 second suppression time instead of 1.23 (for the mg42) which is definitely far more significant than the whole 6 man thing.. and then there's the smaller arc and the deathloop... if the maxim at least took 2 seconds to suppress and had a larger arc it would be fair but no... the thing actually takes 4 seconds to suppress which is a 300% increase in time to suppress... in turn a maxim is only 33% more durable than an mg42... Read the above post. Do you know what happens when you allow a 6 man mg to suppress in 2 seconds? Anyone who played the game a few years ago will unhappily tell you.... Access to sustained fire should be sufficient for the maxim it do its job. There's some other things I'd like to see them try but this will at the minimum allow a recrewed maxim to no be a waste. Also the maxim has 50% more durability than an mg42 Also comparing it to the mg42 performance is slightly wrong because the mg42 is specifically better than the best to fill the star role of the defensive Ostheer. Kinda like comparing units to rifles. In: COH2 Balance