If you made the 76mm Sherman a stock USF unit?

im allowed to hope, am i not? :-)

maybe restrict allied factions to 1 endgame TD 60 range each, that would be something to see :-)

Tank destroyers are reactive units. They're so common in teamgames because the maps are so lanely and heavy armour is so prevalent.

The actual way to fix it is to replace all the Red Ball Expresses and Alliances of Defiance with wider maps, and to add point-blank penetration spikes to all vehicles so that Tank Destroyers aren't the only answer to heavies.

I doubt such changes would be popular though.

Tank destroyers are reactive units. They're so common in teamgames because the maps are so lanely and heavy armour is so prevalent.

The actual way to fix it is to replace all the Red Ball Expresses and Alliances of Defiance with wider maps, and to add point-blank penetration spikes to all vehicles so that Tank Destroyers aren't the only answer to heavies.

I doubt such changes would be popular though.

True, lane-y maps are the crux of imbalance. Either the map favors arty, or heavies or both (port of hamburg). And if it's not a 3v3+ poorly designed map then you have 2v2 and 1v1 maps which favor encampments and have great Schwerer positions. Maps need rework.

USF is pretty much designed around blobbing. They don't have any elite infantry. The starting ones are the finishing ones and the current meta build (3 rifles into captain or lieutenant) pretty much seals the deal unless you lose them along the way. It's better to probably send them in pairs but alongside microing AA HT (micro hell), ATs and Pak howits, (+ later easily penetrated medium tanks) it's difficult to pay attention and not get wiped by some bundled nade or rifle nade or stuka or werfer. The large versatility of USF would be a heaven for a CPU, but for a person it's quite hard. USF is for a reason most micro intensive and mobile. You win some, you lose some.

\begin{RANT}
Also, f*** AA HT: The attack order doesn't work since it will always try to turn around (so the gun will not face it) and the attack ground is even worse since it will just keep spinning in place. With the handbrake I curse the person that decided to design the unit thusly and make it a hotkey-micro-hell.
\end{RANT}

After playing Brits again for a bit I'm back to the belief that USF is the moment the most restricted and inflexible faction in the game right now, and it's arguably been that way for a long time. Ost has a T3 with Panzer IV, Ostwind, and Stug, plus a T4 with Panther, Brumbar, and the rocket HT. Brits get a T4 of sorts with Anvil and Hammer tactics, OKW gets a stock Tiger II.

Only Soviets and USF have no good late game T4 options. Soviets do at least have many doctrines, several with T34/85 and IS2. USF has few doctrines and a bad tech tree. Falling behind and losing units is much harder to recover from as USF than any other faction. The idea for the CPT and LT teching to 76mm Sherman is for some breathing room incase you fall behind, lose a fuel cut off or something like that. If you tech to LT, buy a Stuart, than lose it to a couple Schrek equipped sqauds you're screwed. No AT gun to hold back tanks, no Jackson for a LONG time, and the Sherman M4A3 is not up to the task.

No. It would buff USF too much. It would be a big USF buff which it doesn't require ATM. Except for Pershing, the faction is quite balanced. It lacks stock anti-blobs but makes up for in weapon racks and Sherman HE mode. That's about it. Only buff it needs is probably on Pershing.

and it need for mortar. Ostheer mortar better then usf mortar.

Maybe make Sherman 76 stock will open a path to neft Jackson.

Maybe make Sherman 76 stock will open a path to neft Jackson.

Nerf Jackson, kill USF. Stock 76, nerf Jackson, kill USF. I don't think there is a scenario where the Jackson gets nerfed and the USF has an answer to later stages of the game in teamgames.

Nerf Jackson, kill USF. Stock 76, nerf Jackson, kill USF. I don't think there is a scenario where the Jackson gets nerfed and the USF has an answer to later stages of the game in teamgames.

Popular complain about jackson is it effective again all target from light to super heavy. Make 76mm stock will give USF an options again axis med thus jackson can be redesigned to be specialized in counter heavy tank and less effective again light and med.

If, hypothetically, we could completely redesign USF with a full dev team, I would probably:
- turn the regular M4 into an AI specialist similar to the Ostwind/Centaur (basically lower its cost and tone down its AT);
- add the 76mm or the M10 as a stock vehicle to fight mediums and to some extend heavier armor;
- redesign the Jackson to be less effective against small and medium targets and more effective against heavy tanks (like 200 damage, slower ROF and lower accuracy);
- add the Jumbo to replace the 76mm/M10 in doctrines.

If, hypothetically, we could completely redesign USF with a full dev team, I would probably:
- turn the regular M4 into an AI specialist similar to the Ostwind/Centaur (basically lower its cost and tone down its AT);
- add the 76mm or the M10 as a stock vehicle to fight mediums and to some extend heavier armor;
- redesign the Jackson to be less effective against small and medium targets and more effective against heavy tanks (like 200 damage, slower ROF and lower accuracy);
- add the Jumbo to replace the 76mm/M10 in doctrines.

I'll take it.