Profile of Mr. Someguy

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 4928

General Information


Thread: In House Jumbo.11 Aug 2015, 01:47 AM Hell yeah, the Jumbo would be excellent and a unique take on the heavy tank concept. Arm it with the Easy Eight's gun and give it the ~~IS-2's~~ Vet 2 Panther durability, then tweak it from there. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Su-76 no longer needs free barrage?11 Aug 2015, 01:37 AM Before people bring up the ZiS-3 and Munitions Cost, I want to point out that the SU-76 barrage is vastly inferior to the ZiS-3 Barrage. Edit: Fuck, I'm too late. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: lower fuel for all?11 Aug 2015, 00:19 AM Jump back to quoted post11 Aug 2015, 00:02 AMNuclear Arbitor not enough infantry units in the game to nerf vehicles like that. the game really just needs more infantry in more roles but that's not going to happen at this point. relic fucked up the design pretty badly, partly because of THQ and partly because of who knows what with WFA Not enough Infantry? There's plenty of Infantry, what more do you want? 5 near-identical units for each faction? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Undo Soviet T3 before T4 requirement11 Aug 2015, 00:10 AM Jump back to quoted post10 Aug 2015, 23:55 PMpigsoup what about a tech option in tier 1 and 2 for some MP and ~50FU that let you skip T3? I think this would be best. Maybe increase the prices of T1 and T2 to that of T3, increase starting fuel to cover the cost of one of these buildings, and then allow players to pick any two buildings and then go T4. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: ML-20 152mm Howitzer10 Aug 2015, 23:41 PM Jump back to quoted post10 Aug 2015, 22:26 PMelchino7 Just like any other mobile artillery. And thus you've only solved the problem with Soviet and Ostheer, not USF or UKF. Furthermore, the ML-20 can be reinforced with Conscripts, so Ostheer and their already inferior LeFH would get the short end of the stick in both performance and sustainability. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: ML-20 152mm Howitzer10 Aug 2015, 21:06 PM Jump back to quoted post10 Aug 2015, 21:03 PMAustralian Magic Well, both things are combined. I mean, if you cannot base rape, you cannot counter howie with another howie, right? That's why they should not be built in base, but just outside so they can be coutered by other howies. That still doesn't stop Priests and Sextons unless you disable the barrage ability while they're sitting in base, and even then that doesn't stop them from rolling to the border, firing, and rolling back behind HQ. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: ML-20 152mm Howitzer10 Aug 2015, 20:23 PM Jump back to quoted post10 Aug 2015, 18:29 PMAustralian Magic Or... make them unable to shoot into the base, while howies cannot be built inside the base. Disable shooting into bases, yeah. Disable building in your own, I disagree unless they get the free cover walls like the Pak 43. Even then I feel like it'd suffer Pak 43 syndrome, while the Priest and Sexton are free to hide within their own bases, have a protected crew, and run away from threats. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Bazooka accuracy buff?10 Aug 2015, 04:51 AM Just align the accuracy and scatter stats to match the Panzergrenadier Panzerschreck, then go from there. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: M26 Pershing/Calliope Debate10 Aug 2015, 04:24 AM Jump back to quoted post10 Aug 2015, 04:11 AMNuclear Arbitor we all know the ostwind, 251/17, and sturm tiger are what nearly won the war for the germans. The Ostwind should have been a Wirbelwind, only because the Möbelwagen would need a set-up and tear-down time, which doesn't fit the role of a mobile anti-infantry weapon. Rather, it would be temporary static-defense. 251/17 should have been the 251/21 Drilling, but Drilling didn't need to 'setup' because it had fixed panels, so the unit would function more like the Soviet Quad, which may have been too similar. The Sturmtiger gets a pass solely because there is nothing else like it that could take on the function it has in-game, but I still think it's a silly unit and hard to balance. I have similar feelings about the Jagdtiger, would have preferred a Jagdpanther instead. In: Lobby
Thread: M26 Pershing/Calliope Debate10 Aug 2015, 04:02 AM Jump back to quoted post10 Aug 2015, 03:04 AMSwift I initially disliked the idea of the Pershing because I was maining axis at the time, so typical axis fanboy behaviour, but since then I think it's more a case of USF need more variation and not bigger things to run away with. I don't want one because a Sherman Jumbo would actually be a unique take on the "Heavy" Tank, rather than a copy of the Tiger or IS-2 like the Pershing will probably be. That and the Jumbo actually had an effect on the outcome of the war, while the Pershing showed up at the very end and did nothing spectacular, other than show the Soviets our most recent advancements in tank development right before our alliance was over (not that this mattered either!). 254 Sherman Jumbos officially produced, unknown number of custom conversions (tank crews salvaging armour from dead tanks and welding it to theirs), saw productive use in the Battle of the Bulge. Compared to 20 M26 Pershings (still known as T26E3 upon their arrival to Europe), a fraction of which saw action. In: Lobby