Fallshirms are OKW power creep

FF has an armor of 160 an thus a Pz4 firing at max range has 0.69% chance to penetrate it.

0.69%? Is P4 firing blank bullet or soemthing?

The circumstances were that you had 40% less manpower invested in anti-infantry capability than your opponent and are whining "power creep/imbalance".

Seriously the active playerbase is so small that I'm almost top 50 with Brits. The players ranked in the thousands are almost all people who downloaded COH2 during the free weekend, played 3 games of multiplayer, got rekt, and never came back. 470 in premade 3v3 means you understand some of the basics and are better than those players, which is the skill equivalent of "I can tie my own shoelaces". "Good" is as much of a stretch as "fry-cook in McDonald's = rich because there's a billion people starving in Africa". I saw literally nobody in this thread (or in the coh2 community) agreeing with you that rank 800 is anywhere close to good.

Fyi I was ranked 700 after playing my first 5 or 10 placement matches ever - at that point I didn't even know about tank destroyers vs generalist tanks in COH2, I built Panthers to fight infantry, didn't know sandbags and mines existed, had no clue about infantry dps and RA - I was fighting Grenadiers at long range with my Riflemen and wondering why I was losing. That's approximately the level you're at right now so your focus should be on 1) improving your skills

2) improving your strategy

Blobber had 40% more manpower investment than a support player in 3v3, big shock coming to you clearly.FJ are imbalanced especially late game but that's a completely different story.You can't get ranked in the first place if you only play 3 matches and leave.You can only get so much rank in exactly 17(I just checked to verify) matches even with a 70-80% winrate which is a very good winrate for allied teams that aren't sub 100.
I didn't say that rank 800 was a "good" rank, I said that people agreed with me that sub 800 was "good"-they weren't agreeing with me on this on the forum, but on a discord server and two of them were sub 100 USF/UKF players, learn to read.
I love how you assume what and how I play like off a forum post without even seeing a replay of me playing, playing with me or against me, no nothing to prove anything.
"fyi i was playing like a retard 4+ years ago when half the playerbase didn't even have a rank lol bro your so bad"
You realize how dumb you sound right?

0.69%? Is P4 firing blank bullet or soemthing?

he might have forgotten to add 2 zeros after converting to '%', which is ~69% (nice)

Blobber had 40% more manpower investment than a support player in 3v3, big shock coming to you clearly.FJ are imbalanced especially late game but that's a completely different story.You can't get ranked in the first place if you only play 3 matches and leave.You can only get so much rank in exactly 17(I just checked to verify) matches even with a 70-80% winrate which is a very good winrate for allied teams that aren't sub 100.
I didn't say that rank 800 was a "good" rank, I said that people agreed with me that sub 800 was "good"-they weren't agreeing with me on this on the forum, but on a discord server and two of them were sub 100 USF/UKF players, learn to read.
I love how you assume what and how I play like off a forum post without even seeing a replay of me playing, playing with me or against me, no nothing to prove anything.
"fyi i was playing like a retard 4+ years ago when half the playerbase didn't even have a rank lol bro your so bad"
You realize how dumb you sound right?

I have no idea why you created this thread, because you've made up you mind before doing it and clearly know everything better then any of us, or at least you act like you do.

Blobber had 40% more manpower investment than a support player in 3v3, big shock coming to you clearly.FJ are imbalanced especially late game but that's a completely different story.You can't get ranked in the first place if you only play 3 matches and leave.You can only get so much rank in exactly 17(I just checked to verify) matches even with a 70-80% winrate which is a very good winrate for allied teams that aren't sub 100.
I didn't say that rank 800 was a "good" rank, I said that people agreed with me that sub 800 was "good"-they weren't agreeing with me on this on the forum, but on a discord server and two of them were sub 100 USF/UKF players, learn to read.
I love how you assume what and how I play like off a forum post without even seeing a replay of me playing, playing with me or against me, no nothing to prove anything.
"fyi i was playing like a retard 4+ years ago when half the playerbase didn't even have a rank lol bro your so bad"
You realize how dumb you sound right?

"half the playerbase" lol. This year had an average of around 6000 players (even after considering the new patch, which always attracts people back temporarily). When I got COH2 from a humble bundle on February 2016 5,620.8 was the average player count. Way to come up with amazing logic-defying excuses for being bad - which isn't even something to be ashamed of. I was as bad as you once, and one of my earliest noob posts when I was ranked in the 400s was "Something something OP as well". I've literally been there before and the only way to move forward is to have a positive attitude towards improving your gameplay.

I'd like to question the two imaginary trolls who think that sub 800 is "good". Like I told you, having 250 ping and playing without reading tooltips properly already gets you to 700. 470 is only half a step ahead so stop congratulating yourself please. Everyone else is dying from secondhand cringe.


You somehow have convinced yourself that being ranked 470 in a premade 3v3 is "good". I mean, you're not here for advice. You're not here to learn or get better. You came in with a horribly wrong opinion based off of shitty gameplay and flawed assumptions, and expected us to agree with you.

The only reason I sound dumb is that I'm trying to talk sense into you - you're beyond salvage.

Blobber had 40% more manpower investment than a support player in 3v3, big shock coming to you clearly.FJ are imbalanced especially late game but that's a completely different story.You can't get ranked in the first place if you only play 3 matches and leave.You can only get so much rank in exactly 17(I just checked to verify) matches even with a 70-80% winrate which is a very good winrate for allied teams that aren't sub 100.
I didn't say that rank 800 was a "good" rank, I said that people agreed with me that sub 800 was "good"-they weren't agreeing with me on this on the forum, but on a discord server and two of them were sub 100 USF/UKF players, learn to read.
I love how you assume what and how I play like off a forum post without even seeing a replay of me playing, playing with me or against me, no nothing to prove anything.
"fyi i was playing like a retard 4+ years ago when half the playerbase didn't even have a rank lol bro your so bad"
You realize how dumb you sound right?

So you understand that you spent 40% less than him on infantry (Even discounting upkeep bleed differences) and are still insistent that FJ are imbalanced because he was able to defeat you?

You werent playing as a "Support player", you were playing as a drain on your teammates and letting three enemies put their full weight on the equivalent of two and a half people. This strategy of yours only works on weaker players.

You played badly and so you lost, not because the enemy picked Luftwaffe.

EDIT: Feel free to upload some replays to demonstrate how "well" you were actually playing. That game specifically would be preferable, but apparently you didnt save it.

EDIT2:

The circumstance that he only has to pay 320MP and pay 60MUNI whilst having a online PzAuth to get terminator elite inf whilst I have to spend 45+ fuel and 270MUNI+be in green cover to fight against him and have a measurable chance to win or get Brenmandos, not manpower or where I spent it.I don't expect stock IS to win against them and that wasn't the point of the thread.

You really should be adding in the PzAuth costs (and the timing) if you're adding in the fuel for Bolster/Weapon Racks, by the way. They cannot just be discounted because "Oh well they don't JUST unlock things for Fallschirmjager". Allied and Axis teching is designed differently, but pretending that axis "dont pay" for their ability to upgrade weapons is disingenuous.

0.69%? Is P4 firing blank bullet or soemthing?

All Panzer IV have notoriously low penetration, probably to avoid it from winning against premium mediums

All Panzer IV have notoriously low penetration, probably to avoid it from winning against premium mediums

You don't get my joke

And what do you mean by notoriously low pen?

P4: 125/115/110
Cromwell: 135/120/105
Sherman(AP): 140/120/100
t34-76: 120/100/80