RikiRude
Donator
 Posts: 4376
|
|
« on: March 11, 2009, 07:14:38 pm » |
|
Would it be possible to make it so when the pak moves it decloaks? Give it a passive cloak ability (like falls and such) rather then the sniper style cloak. When you move it it moves at its normal full speed and is visible.
Because the way I see it, the paks cloak is great, and works exactly how it should as a DEFENSIVE platform. But when players use the paks to spot for their mortars, snipe AT guns, and other offensive missions it should have the same disadvantage the 57 has, being able to be seen.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Killer344: "Repent: sory no joke i just had savage diorea" ... or a fat ass cock sucking churchill being stupid |
|
|
Malevolence
Donator
Posts: 1871
|
|
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2009, 07:20:17 pm » |
|
Honestly PaK is fine by me as long as I have strategic level artillery assets on hand.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Akranadas' Greatest Hits, Volume 1: Vet has nothing to do with unit preformance. We are serious about enforcing this, and I am sure you all want to be able to have your balance thought considered by the development team with some biased, sensationalist coming into your thread and ruining it. |
|
|
Tymathee
Donator
Posts: 9741
|
|
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2009, 07:41:18 pm » |
|
I still think that Pak's should only get a 1 shot and then decloak just like every cloaked unit. Maybe it decloaks and recloaks like a sniper but it shouldnt' stay cloaked.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Mysthalin
Tired King of Stats
 Posts: 9028
|
|
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2009, 03:48:20 am » |
|
Just make their LOS to be the same as standard infantry/slightly below when the pak is cloaked. Right now it's sight range is second only to bikes/jeeps/recon tommies.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
CafeMilani
Aloha
Posts: 2994
|
|
« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2009, 04:11:41 am » |
|
no! allies have more and better arty, the pak is fine as it is now
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Bubz
|
|
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2009, 07:24:06 am » |
|
Honestly PaK is fine by me as long as I have strategic level artillery assets on hand.
That's because you've never met a 12 paks phantom army. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| EliteGrens
|
|
« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2009, 08:11:57 am » |
|
Well for 12 paks he has to pay a shitload of PPs, so it should be ok.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Killer344
The Inquisitor
 Posts: 6904
|
|
« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2009, 08:15:05 am » |
|
And... use infantry lol... I donīt think he would have much mu left to deal with the infantry spam :p.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If I get shot and it's a gay medic fixing me up, he's not gonna be fondling my balls while he does it. You can't patch a chest wound and suck a cock at the same time.
|
|
|
| 31stPzGren
|
|
« Reply #8 on: March 16, 2009, 08:28:39 am » |
|
That's because you've never met a 12 paks phantom army.
Understatement. I had a literal phantom army back in EiR. Only cloak-able troops allowed with the exception of tanks. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mysthalin
Tired King of Stats
Posts: 9028
|
|
« Reply #9 on: March 16, 2009, 10:27:27 am » |
|
you have to think outside the box killer - 140x12 < 2000 ^^.
Still enough for about 8 HMGs and shitloads of ostwinds!
And 31st - now it's possible for you to do a fully phantom army - hetzers!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sgMisten
Donator
Posts: 778
|
|
« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2009, 10:32:46 am » |
|
And 31st - now it's possible for you to do a fully phantom army - hetzers!
4 + 2 = 6 stormtroopers 4 + 2 = 6 pak38s 2 + 1 = 3 hetzers 1 + 1 = 2 snipers Quite a lot of cloaked units eh. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mysthalin
Tired King of Stats
Posts: 9028
|
|
« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2009, 10:39:41 am » |
|
17 cloaked units is quite a lot IMO ^^.
And don't forget the fact you can keep buying them, above those, just pay even more PP for it. But that's hardly a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Killer344
The Inquisitor
Posts: 6904
|
|
« Reply #12 on: March 16, 2009, 11:04:09 am » |
|
Iīd like to see you making them cost effective, and have enough pps to pay for the units you loose... yeah.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mysthalin
Tired King of Stats
Posts: 9028
|
|
« Reply #13 on: March 16, 2009, 11:17:41 am » |
|
Iīd like to see you making them cost effective, and have enough pps to pay for the units you loose... yeah.
I don't think anyone has any problem with having too little PPs.. I have 100 PPs floating around in my brits account doing nothing, the launcher decided to give me around 50 free PPs when I tried to make a new company as axis... so yeah. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Killer344
The Inquisitor
Posts: 6904
|
|
« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2009, 11:36:22 am » |
|
meh, I really donīt like to get myself involved in this kind of counter-counter-counter-counter posts, in game things arenīt the same, and such build will fail most of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tymathee
Donator
Posts: 9741
|
|
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2009, 12:38:10 pm » |
|
aloha, i dont get why some people like you keep insisting that the allies have more artillery...maybe it's better but it needs to be better cuz the wehr have stronger units but in terms of more? Not so...each wehr side gets the d00m mortar, the nebel and stuka. AB companies have no artillery, the callie is hella expensive and the howitzer is immobile, as is the 25 pounder. If anything, I'd have to say that wehr artillery is much more common in games than allied artillery (in terms of light and heavy) and its much more dangerous to at guns than to paks because you can always see at guns, which get pak sniped, mortar's, double shotted to death by schrecks, taken out by nebles and stukas, etc. If anything, I'd have to say I see more dead at guns on the field in my gams than paks.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Killer344
The Inquisitor
Posts: 6904
|
|
« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2009, 01:38:32 pm » |
|
If anything, I'd have to say that wehr artillery is much more common in games than allied artillery (in terms of light and heavy) lol... and its much more dangerous to at guns than to paks because you can always see at guns, which get pak sniped, mortar's, double shotted to death by schrecks, taken out by nebles and stukas, etc. If anything, I'd have to say I see more dead at guns on the field in my gams than paks.
Itīs hard to kill what you canīt see... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| wildfire444
|
|
« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2009, 02:23:22 pm » |
|
to fix the pak, give the us AT gun the "hold fire" ability
now 57 is as powerful as the pak - cloak
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
not tym
|
|
|
| Hasiula
|
|
« Reply #18 on: March 19, 2009, 10:52:58 am » |
|
longer range for 57 or recloak as sniper for pak
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| Hydro
|
|
« Reply #19 on: March 19, 2009, 12:27:19 pm » |
|
I will still think cover ability should be more like PIAT ambush I mean in sense- not moving, you can activate cover, but when moving it automaticaly disables. And probably now it's the best option for paks- you have cammo for ambush, but you need to care more about your pak
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
