pernik
|
|
« Reply #40 on: July 30, 2009, 05:24:03 am » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Ununoctium
|
|
« Reply #41 on: July 30, 2009, 06:17:10 am » |
|
Well this is really making a very weird 2 sided coin.
This PE doctrine is a freaking nightmare to tanks especially heavies. But its screwed for infantry. So allies will prob be able to fight it without using tank support cuz tanks will fail
But Armour doctrine also gets no inf bonuses but all their armour is mainly anti-inf (except the failcat and Kamikaze m10) and Sherman needs to pay muni to be effective AT weapon.
That means tank hunters is officially fail vs Americans but OP vs armour Doc
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 My tigers get penetrated by everything. Its really really frustrating.
Your tiger is a whore |
|
|
CafeMilani
Aloha
 Posts: 2994
|
|
« Reply #42 on: July 30, 2009, 07:24:58 am » |
|
why is the ami officer only 60mun? is it so bad? what does he exactly do?
sandbags cheaper? t17 is awesome with them. 70 was fine if not 80muni
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mysthalin
Tired King of Stats
 Posts: 9028
|
|
« Reply #43 on: July 30, 2009, 07:27:17 am » |
|
He lost his off-map, aloha.
Now he can do a 10 second inspired assault xD.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| spinn72
|
|
« Reply #44 on: July 30, 2009, 07:46:31 am » |
|
Tank Hunters are Officially meant to own Armour Company and Royal Engineers Company. Its pretty much a "i like to kill big tanks" company. I wish Allies had one, so many more important Axis tanks to destroy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Smokaz
Honoured Member
Posts: 11418
|
|
« Reply #45 on: July 30, 2009, 08:06:30 am » |
|
I wish americans had a doctrine with offmaps that kill tanks, and some kind of infantry with good handheld AT that penetrated the larger axis tanks. We can all keep dreaming I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
SlippedHerTheBigOne: big penis puma
SlippedHerTheBigOne: and i have no repairkits
SlippedHerTheBigOne: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
|
|
|
Tymathee
Donator
Posts: 9741
|
|
« Reply #46 on: July 30, 2009, 08:33:10 am » |
|
earthshaker rapes tanks...
RR's? Tank reaper zooks?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I want proof!"
"I have proof!"
"Whatever, I'm still right"
Dafuq man, don't ask for proof if you'll refuse it if it's not in your favor, logic fallacy for the bloody win.
|
|
|
| simpson02
|
|
« Reply #47 on: July 30, 2009, 09:05:23 am » |
|
Wow another few battles and my staghound are -2896xp and -918xp
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Ununoctium
|
|
« Reply #48 on: July 30, 2009, 09:09:17 am » |
|
Wow another few battles and my staghound are -2896xp and -918xp
I love how this unit fails  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Baine
Steven Spielberg
 Posts: 3713
|
|
« Reply #49 on: July 30, 2009, 09:17:32 am » |
|
earthshaker rapes tanks...
RR's? Tank reaper zooks?
OMG Leophone number two.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tymathee
Donator
Posts: 9741
|
|
« Reply #50 on: July 30, 2009, 09:20:29 am » |
|
earthshaker rapes tanks...
RR's? Tank reaper zooks?
OMG Leophone number two. i figured he was being sarcastic but it was hard to tell. He did put a smiley or a smart ass remark in there somewhere. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tymathee
Donator
Posts: 9741
|
|
« Reply #51 on: July 30, 2009, 09:20:41 am » |
|
He didn't*
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Smokaz
Honoured Member
Posts: 11418
|
|
« Reply #52 on: July 30, 2009, 09:28:03 am » |
|
Internet incoming  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Jinker
|
|
« Reply #53 on: July 30, 2009, 10:37:19 am » |
|
Smokaz, I went on vacation for a few hours. Since I've been away, that picture still isn't funny. But while I was away, what did I miss? I heard there were some funny things that happened while I was away, on vacation. Did I mention I was away on vacation, and that I'm back now?
Anyways, what is the deal with tank shock, instant suppress? If so, why?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Mukip
|
|
« Reply #54 on: July 30, 2009, 10:55:58 am » |
|
The tank shock is ridiculous, it needs "tweaking".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Sharpshooter824
I <3 Aloha
EIR Veteran Posts: 775
|
|
« Reply #55 on: July 30, 2009, 12:00:32 pm » |
|
its only for churchills, its not like FFs and cromwells are running around with it too..plus it costs extra
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Rawr
|
|
|
| EliteGren
|
|
« Reply #56 on: July 30, 2009, 12:05:50 pm » |
|
Imagine each pak shell has a 1% chance of destroying a tanks main gun, the chance is really low but when it happens its still gay.
Thats what you basically just said.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
i prefer to no u
Don't knock it til uve tried it bitchface, this isn't anything like salads version. Besides u said a semois conversion would never work, now look that's the most played map, ohgodwhy.jpg r u map lead
 |
|
|
salan
Synergies TL2 mod!
Posts: 6290
|
|
« Reply #57 on: July 30, 2009, 12:08:27 pm » |
|
Airborne mg, mortar and sniper are 100% airborne troops. I copied their ebps (stats) and superimposed the mortar/mg/sniper weapons and vet.
they can do everything the original unit can do, and have the bonus's of airborne. they do cost a bit more then the normal version.
sniper CAN cloak, or fireup.. doing one locks out the other.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
salan
Synergies TL2 mod!
Posts: 6290
|
|
« Reply #58 on: July 30, 2009, 12:09:00 pm » |
|
I'm going to work on making tank shock not pin on the first few pulses...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| LuAn
|
|
« Reply #59 on: July 30, 2009, 12:14:14 pm » |
|
sniper CAN cloak, or fireup.. doing one locks out the other.
So if you use one of those two the other one becomes permanetly unavailable? Or do you mean you cant combine fireup and camouflage? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
aka UckY  |
|
|
|
