At the end of the day, it doesnt matter how big a gun you have if you can't get in range to fire it. Have a high HP pool only means you can take more hits before having to lumber back to repair it.
IS 2 doesn't need to fear flanking mediums excpet maybe panthers since its almost as fast as them.
Speed > firepower
Cromwell is living proof of that.
Tiger has 4.7 speed.
IS-2 has 5 speed.
Slowest med has 6.3 speed.
Tiger is not even 10% slower then IS-2 while shoots almost 20% faster.
Moreover, Tiger can blitz.
Which means the speed when it actually matters, goes for Tiger, you still need vet1 for it, but it'll chew through infantry fast enough to get there quickly, as it usually does. |
It is not just the tech cost they come much later (by that time one probably has to make an AT unit) and so they are facing vetted units.
Yeah, you'll get to vet3 with penals within these 3 minutes. 
Since you don't seem to play the game any more then me, first vet2 infantry appears around 8th minute.
Vet1 at most and only if opponent won't be retreating until last man.
PG reinforce with 34 which is allot more than most Allied infantry, 36% more than Penal (25) and 70% more than merge...
Yeah, 3x34(102) is so much more then 5x22(110) or 5x20(100) or 4x28(112).
Lets ignore squad size, because why the fuck not, after all every single squad in game have same number of entities and squads are balanced exclusively on model vs model basis, not squad vs squad. 
Pg do not actually wreck Penals at mid, the fight is very much related to veterancy and cover. By vet 3 the break about even and usually PG get cut down when they try to approach.
With shreck they simply change roles so it rather irrelevant.
Pg are not "plain better" and are actually less cost efficient than Penal as AI, given the time the hit the field their cost and bleed.
At least this part is somewhat accurate, however penal vs pg engagement will depend on more variables, unless you always YOLO through the open ground against static unit shooting at you.
When forced to approach, PGs might lose, when penals get jumped on mid to short range, penals might lose.
Its not black and white scenario. |
Thread: Bofors11 May 2016, 13:48 PM
But using this HQ offensively is a very, very big risk. There's a big drawback to using it to lock down forward points, as losing it means no tanks for a long time, and a shitton of fuel lost. The drawback to losing a bofors is akin to losing a light vehicle. And yet the bofors has more means to defend itself from attacks than the HQ.
Risk doesn't really change the function.
Its area denial tool working in the same way as bofors, except for no additional cost, without negative modifiers, without popcap cost and with much greater health poll.
So OKW's doctrinal (!) Flak nest (which is a true equivalent to the bofors) is fine to instant wipe, but Bofors is not and needs to have brace and barrage? Something is very not right there.
Terrible example.
There isn't a single sane player in the game saying okw flak is fine.
It's not a playstyle. It's "I will place bofors, mortar or two, and forward assembly and play some movie on my TV". For me, the emplacements can have the brace. But let them be decrewable (like OKW's flak or Ost's PaK43 or LeIH) and remove the bofors barrage. That's all.
That is exactly a playstyle/BO choice.
It got its hardcounters just like any other BO.
During ESL you could see how easily this can be countered.
Team games are not balanced at all. |
and flamer will do bonus damage to Pgrens cause they are on heavy cover, no ?
I really dont see Pgrens winning a fight against Penal squad heavy cover VS heavy cover at mid range, cause flamer
Yes, 1.25 modifier from infantry flamers.
And on the long range, PGs will lose anyway.
Short range however its pure RNG, whoever will better focus and snipe models will win with PGs advantage as they have ~100% higher DPS on close range(on per squad basis). |
Thread: Bofors11 May 2016, 13:29 PM
Excuse me, a poor noob, but in CoH1 You COULD decrew brit emplacements. All of them. I did it like, 2 months ago, when I last played CoH1.
They had abandon chance at low hp.
CoH2 emplacements had that too, but there was some odd behavior with it(for example when it occurred during brace) so it was removed and you can only destroy it now.
That still is a different type of abandonment then, say, PaK43.
Oh, and about the Flak HQ and MG nest - MG nest cannot turn, and Flak HQ costs a shitton of fuel and manpower and is a tier building. And has no brace nor it can make a barrage to counter the ground-attack AT guns.
I was just giving the closest equivalent examples 
Obviously it makes no sense for tech structure to get abandoned, but just like shwerer is not a gun platform with infantry, but a whole "unit", the deal is with emplacements, its a whole unit, not a crew on a support weapon.
Brace exist as a preservation mechanic from instant wipes, but you also have positive dmg modifier from explosives, ballistics and flames.
It may not be the best mechanic around and sure a lot of people hate it, but, loosely quoting Brad while he was still at Relic, "few loud people who do not like to play against certain playstyle or unit is not a reason for the playstyle to not be a valid choice and option". |
Thread: Bofors11 May 2016, 13:02 PM
Ok so its a static emplacement and it cant move so it needs brace to manage on the battlefield well then where is the brace for Ost bunkers USF fighting positions Pak 43s and 2cm flak emplacements (that is if anyone ever built 2cm flak emplacements)
Probably in the same place where huge hitbox and bonus dmg modifier vs anything that isn't infantry rifle
and why cant British emplacements be decrewed like other static units because honestly that alone could make them a lot more balanced.
For the same reason coh1 brit emplacements couldn't be decrewed.
You pay and rely on them too much to have them hardcountered by a single sniper or small arms fire.
Fortifications for other armies is a small fluffy doctrinal addition, for UKF, like it or not, its a playstyle choice using 1/3 of your stock options.
Plus, its not like you can decrew MG bunkers or schwerer hq either. |
Mines, AT gun, not Yoloing with AEC ? Same way OST had to handle Stuart and AEC in the past.
Ost in the past didn't had 15 fuel light tank But I see your point, ost is fuel heavy in early game, brits are mp heavy.
Btw i am not saying 222 does not need a little cost increase, i am just argumenting that ost sniper against Brit is not obvious as against USF
Yeah, that is obvious.
Can still make a difference at these first 5 minutes before brit sniper hits the field. |
|
Well guess what.
Pwerfer is more deadly then katy.
If katy according to you can punish stubborn noobs, then so can alpha strike PW with its BETTER AOE PROFILE.
End of thread.
Another hot air breather just lost his last argument. |
Actually I did not miss anything, what you post now is completely different from your previous post.
If you wanted to say that Rifles become tantkier at vet 3 than Penal, vs small arms, that is what you should had written, but you did not.
You actually wrote:
"Or vet that makes them tanky.
There is plenty things setting them apart."
Which actually mean than penal are set apart from riflemen because the do not get veternacy bonuses that make the "tanky".
And that statement is actually wrong.
(If you spend less timing spamming post, maybe your post would be of better quality, and you would not have to write even more low quality post try to defending your original post with more BS)
That is a reading comprehension fail on your part.
I never said they don't get any defensive bonuses.
Rifles are becoming tanky, cons are becoming tanky.
Volks and penals are becoming more durable, but hardly tanky. |
Half of something if 50%, not 100%.
And out of curiosity, what do you think of katiusha lethality or calliope?
would it be OK for you if pwerfer was as effective as one of these? |
Katitoff
jove
Katitoff
Cobra
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
