Profile of Burts

Avatar Area

Offline unknown
Posts: 1702

General Information
Broadcast: https://www.twitch.tv/Burts5556
Steam: 76561198033352922


Thread: Suggestion to rework penetration27 Dec 2014, 16:37 PM Jump back to quoted post27 Dec 2014, 16:35 PMNinjaWJ interesting.... would this mean 100 percent penetration once yu get into the optimal range? Yes. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Suggestion to rework penetration27 Dec 2014, 16:09 PM So as it stands now, tank combat is incredibly RNG. Theres very little skill involved in actual tank combat, other than just random bullpudding RNG fights and my tank is bigger than yours. So i propose to instead of set penetration values and armor values where a t-70 has 14% chance to pen tigers front armor, i propose all tank guns to have predefined values of whether they can penetrate a specific tank at a specific range or not. Examples of this would be t-34 can penetrate panzer IV at mid/close ranges panzer IV can penetrate t-34 at long/mid/close ranges t-34/85 can penetrate tiger at mid/close ranges tiger can penetrate t-34/85 at long/mid/close IS-2 can penetrate tiger at long/mid/close tiger can penetrate IS-2 at close IS-2 can penetrate KT at close KT can penetrate IS-2 at close/mid jackson can penetrate tiger at long/mid/close jackson can penetrate panther at mid/close And so on. I feel this would make overall tanks more skill involved and make heavies more micro intensive, because you would have to stay at a specific range with your heavy tanks in order to use its heavy armor againts medium tanks. Fail to use them right, and watch in vain as your heavy tank gets easily penetrated by some random medium. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Units that need help27 Dec 2014, 08:04 AM Jump back to quoted post27 Dec 2014, 06:58 AMbraciszek The point of the 57mm AT gun is to be different than all the other AT guns, and its going to have lower penetration because it is indeed weaker in calibre than other AT guns (in which i would wish something rational like heavier AT can be called in once the enemy calls in heavy armor because no sane person is going to continue fighting a tougher enemy with a weak weapon) I think simply AP rounds at vet 0 would be ok. Just because it has a smaller caliber doesnt mean anything. The 57mm anti tank gun significantly surpasses the zis-3, and the pak 40 significantly surpassed the 57mm IRL. And this is no surprise, ZIS-3 wasn't even designed as an AT gun but rather as an artillery piece. Soviets had the zis-2 57mm which was comparable to the pak 40 in terms of armor penetration, but for some reason relic decided to give the soviets a zis-3. The zis-3 IRL was about just somewhat better than the m-42 IRL. The M-42 of course was no where near as bad as it is in game, being able to penetrate 51mm of armor at 1000m. Enough for a panzer IV or a panther from the sides. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: PPSh-41 needs a buff, or?25 Dec 2014, 08:20 AM As a master conspammer i can say that the PPSH is not an upgrade, but it is a horrible downgrade. With just mosin nagants, your conscripts can compete with LMG grens even at mid-long range if you have the superior cover (which you should have, since conspam gives you total map domination). PPSH forces conscripts to close in ALL the time and makes them very useless except for those few ocassions you can ambush stuff around the corner. Shocks are a bit different since they can afford to close in because of their 1.5 armor. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Tips for Wehrmacht vs Soviets24 Dec 2014, 12:38 PM spam grens againts sniper spam 5-6 grens, because he invests so much manpower into snipers, you should easily dominate the map in terms of map control. Get a 222 if you want to further get you more map control. You dont need to kill his snipers, blob your grens when you see his snipers and he will be forced to retreat, retreating snipers is already very good since he gives up alot of map control. Now use your superior map control to rush a PIV and kill the snipers. Snipers in 1v1 usually aren't a big problem. In: Ostheer Strategies
Thread: About OKW Puma´s and Flaktrack abilities.23 Dec 2014, 19:59 PM All of the 3 mechanized HQ units are pretty OP. In 1v1 there is still little reason to go for them except maybe for a puma but in team games all of these 3 vehicles are pretty OP. The Flak HT is ridiciluos in it's damage capability and is incredibly hard to kill when its supported by shreck volks, plus you can abuse its setup time. It has "minimum range" which means jack shit since any kind of infantry based AT from allies is never going to get near to it or kill it, and againts light vehicles it can just use attack ground The puma is nigh unkillable due to its high speed, high acceralation, smoke at vet 0 and good health for a light vehicle. I think everyone knows how ridiciluos the walking stuka in team games , no question about that In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Wehrmacht Ostheer23 Dec 2014, 19:46 PM This thread is turning out to be quite interesting In: COH2 Balance
Thread: OKW Combined arms23 Dec 2014, 19:33 PM Jump back to quoted post23 Dec 2014, 19:32 PMJaigen People are bashing the okw again because they are shitty players. the OKW is the very epitome of combined arms. you dont have any generalist tank what so ever safe for the p4 call in and the KT. all other units are specialised units. even the volks sure they are though (at vet 5 not before that) but have no AI what so ver midgame. second their are no cheap fuel vehicles within the okw combine this with less fuel income means you see less vehicles within the okw faction. Sure you can complain about volks shrecks but first give me a pak 40. ] You haven't seen how people play OKW at the top level if you say that... In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: OKW Combined arms23 Dec 2014, 11:23 AM OKW combined arms doesn't exist. I remember when people were complaining about soviets lacking combined arms due to their tier structure and being all about spam. It is somewhat true. However, when designing OKW, they gave blob and spam a whoooole new meaning. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: artillery and late game squadwipes22 Dec 2014, 08:59 AM Jump back to quoted post22 Dec 2014, 08:45 AMBulgakov Educate yourself, troll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_tank Don't stop there though. You have so SO much to learn. "I'm sorry but you are speaking pure nonsense. The entire purpose of tanks is to fight infantry" No you, as usual, as always, are speaking pure nonsense. Tanks were designed to be invulnerable to infantry while performing various other roles (transport/wire breaking/trench hopping/bunker busting, etc) They had anti-infantry capabilities of course but their "ENTIRE PURPOSE", as you so stupidly blurted, was not anti-infantry. Two things that you listed trench hopping/bunker busting can be classified as killing infantry.. So i didin't realy understand you there. And i have never ever seen a tank made for the purpose of transportation or wire clearing... I wonder why exactly you have to slur out personal insults to make your point clearer or something... It's interesting how your signature says "lets keep it constructivee" yet you are the one slurring out personal attacks and insults and ad hominem. And yes indeed the main purpose of tanks was to fight and destroy infantry or in another way break through heavily defended lines. Everything else was secondary. In: COH2 Balance