Profile of Omega_Warrior

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 2561

General Information


Thread: T-34/76 - just little fix20 Oct 2015, 16:54 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Oct 2015, 16:37 PMMuxsus SU-76 is very fragile and vulnerable to flanks, making it bad in the lategame where there is an abundance of mediums. But yes, it needs a slight pen reduction. T4 and its units really needs to cost less manpower. MP is the constraining factor about it, not fuel, and that's why it is terrible, you are investing MP in an opportunity to make frankly unnecessary units for even more MP. It doesn't leave a place for infantry, and a t4-heavy vehicle army (basically a lot of t34s) is subpar at best. Exactly! In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34/76 - just little fix20 Oct 2015, 16:14 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Oct 2015, 16:03 PMKatitof I'm quite sure the reason why players aren't going for T4 is that units there perform worst in game of their respectable categories, T34 being worst med tank, SU-85 while not being bad by itself, is outclassed by any other TD in the game(and no, nerfing other TDs, especially other soviet TDs because of it is wrong, you buff units that underperform, not nerf the ones that are fine) and katy being stealth nerfed is completely useless unless paired and vetted. Nothing in T4 performs up to the cost-this is why no one is using it unless they go for T34/85. The SU-76 is most certainly not fine. It's a cheap vehicle available in the light vehicle phase of the game that can be spammed indefinitely even to take on late game heavies. And even has AI capabilities on top of this. With a unit this great it's obvious why so many players are avoiding T4. T4 has a few problems making it unenticing in general. But the current perfomance of the SU-76 only makes the problem worse, giving the soviets no reason to ever need to tech up. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34/76 - just little fix20 Oct 2015, 16:07 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Oct 2015, 16:02 PMVolsky What's the current MP cost on the T-34 atm? I think either 290 or 300. With other mediums being around the 340 area. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34/76 - just little fix20 Oct 2015, 16:01 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Oct 2015, 15:45 PMWingZero I think the price is fine for the Tank, the performance is still not attractive. It performs fine for it's fuel cost, but manpower cost is still high for what you get. The way I see it 1 T-34 is worth 2/3 of the other generalist mediums. But it's mapower is still around 8/10 of a normal medium. And between that and the teching costs. Getting them out in the numbers you need and maintaining a decent infantry force isn't really viable. So relic has 2 options: 1. Lower manpower costs to better fit it's current exposable and spammable intent. or 2. Buff it's performance and raise it's cost to be more similar to the other generalist mediums. Any middle ground between these two will leave the T-34 in a state where it has no real advantage. I also think ram can use a slight buff, but that isn't really going to solve the problem on it's own. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34/76 - just little fix20 Oct 2015, 15:46 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Oct 2015, 15:34 PMVolsky @Katikof, hence me proposing a range nerf on the SU-76, since right now it's literally a ZiS on Kettenkrad treads. Range nerf is bad idea. It doesn't have the mobility or health to survive being that close like the M-10 or the damage like the Stug. I think a pen nerf would be better. That way it would let players to still have the AT they need if they go for T1 and stay in the game vs T3 armor, but make them vulnerable to heavier units without T4 support and be incentivised to tech up instead of spamming SU-76s all game. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: [OKW] [1vs1] [Mechanized HQ Flak Halftrack fuel cost]20 Oct 2015, 15:37 PM This is a terrible argument. A buff to one unit in one faction is not a reason to buff a totally different unit. I'm not even sure if I'm against a buff, but you are going to have to do a lot better to convince me then that. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34/76 - just little fix20 Oct 2015, 15:33 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Oct 2015, 15:18 PMKatitof What does SU-76 have to do with T34/76 being bad? They don't share even remotely similar role-or even tier. That makes as much sense as buffing Tiger by reducing ele range to 60 and armor to 200. The SU-76 is why players aren't using T4 units at all. Between the manpower heavy cost of getting T-34s out and the SU-76's ability to deal with everything from P4's to Tigers. Players are just choosing to forgo T4 all together. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Katysha opinion (Buff,nerfs,changes)20 Oct 2015, 12:48 PM Jump back to quoted post20 Oct 2015, 10:11 AMRedT3rror It doesn't underperform suddenly. It's in a bad spot since the change of russian tier system. Now, it comes out later and is about 55 fuel more expensive to tech. In the past, rushing a katyusha was a good counter against blobs due to it's cost effiency and early arrival. It doesn't come out later at all in relation to every other factions tech. It actually take less fuel to reach soviet T4 then ostheer T3. Stop acting like the changes delayed soviet medium armor more then other factions, because they didn't. sov T4 = 165/175 wher T3 = 175 usf Major = 155/165 In: COH2 Balance
Thread: T-34/76 - just little fix20 Oct 2015, 12:42 PM Just give up on the non-doctrinal T-34/85. It been 3 years and the soviets are in a much better state then they were before. If they weren't going to do it before, they sure as hell won't do it now. Just move on already. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: USF is horribly designed19 Oct 2015, 23:43 PM Their only problems are lack of non doc heavy arty and inaccessible AT gun. Luetenant will always be underused as long as it means you can't get out a at gun easily. In: COH2 Balance