76mm Sherman and M4C's AP shell needs a small buff I think

The main problems with the old 76 mm were:

- powerspike of 2x76mm timed attack with Combined arms
- because of the RoF of the AP shell it wasn't necessary at all to switch to the AT shell, because the lower penetration chance vs heavy tanks was equated but the RoF. In the end AP shell had similar DPS vs heavy armored targets and higher DPS vs all other targets including infantry of course

They should have just removed Combined Arms and replaced it with an offmap ability.

With the nerf to AP RoF 76mm got worse vs infantry and lightly armored targets. This should have been compensated by other means like buffing AOE of AP shell. AT shell could have 50 range to make it more appealing in addition. That way 76mm would have stayed unique and maybe more of an alternative to the Jackson/M4A3 combo.

In the end 76mm is at the same tier as Jackson, only 20 fuel between them. If major fuel cost would have been split in two parts somehow and Jackson would come later than all Sherman variants as a heavy tank counter, the 76mm would see way more action without another single buff.

The point was to nerf the doctrine in any ways, mot making it different.

The point was to nerf the doctrine in any ways, not making it different.

The removal of combined arms would have been a nerf to the first problem I described. This combination was the main reason a nerf was needed if you ask me. It was a niche and somehow cheesy strat that existed in 1vs1. In 3vs3/4vs4 this commander was picked seldom anyways after the previous WC51 nerf which removed some team game strats.

And there is still the removal of Bulldozer Blade for 75mm, which would remain unchanged.

My proposal was to nerf AP RoF and add some more AOE while adding 10 range to AT shell, to solve the second problem I described. The problem that you should never take AT shell over AP shell at prenerf 76mm.

Offmap instead of Combined arms would have removed 1vs1 cheese and made this commander more viable for 3vs3/4vs4 in one go. Thats what I would call smarter balancing.

The removal of combined arms would have been a nerf to the first problem I described. This combination was the main reason a nerf was needed if you ask me. It was a niche and somehow cheesy strat that existed in 1vs1. In 3vs3/4vs4 this commander was picked seldom anyways after the previous WC51 nerf which removed some team game strats.

And there is still the removal of Bulldozer Blade for 75mm, which would remain unchanged.

My proposal was to nerf AP RoF and add some more AOE while adding 10 range to AT shell, to solve the second problem I described. The problem that you should never take AT shell over AP shell at prenerf 76mm.

Offmap instead of Combined arms would have removed 1vs1 cheese and made this commander more viable for 3vs3/4vs4 in one go. Thats what I would call smarter balancing.

I was sarcastic, the modding team simply wanted to make the doctrine disappear so don't bother with better solutions because they don't care, they achieved their objective.

I was sarcastic, the modding team simply wanted to make the doctrine disappear so don't bother with better solutions because they don't care, they achieved their objective.

This 100%

I was sarcastic, the modding team simply wanted to make the doctrine disappear so don't bother with better solutions because they don't care, they achieved their objective.

A here is the conspiracy theory again.

Now lets try get back to reality. Mechanized and Ostuppen commander where completely dominating the meta and that was bad for the game. So both of them got nerfed.

The idea that "modding team" does not care is rather ridiculous because if they did not care they would simply not make patches.

And objective of the mod team is not no nerf USF to the ground either...

A here is the conspiracy theory again.

Now lets try get back to reality. Mechanized and Ostuppen commander where completely dominating the meta and that was bad for the game. So both of them got nerfed.

The idea that "modding team" does not care is rather ridiculous because if they did not care they would simply not make patches.

And objective of the mod team is not no nerf USF to the ground either...

Their objectives was to make sure bad players like you have a chance vs USF. Nothing related to balance, thus the "You need to play USF perfectly to win" while Ostheer can be played with 1 hand we get now as balance standard.

Mechanized dominance on 1vs1 was solely related to the WC51 which as been hard nerfed purposely and if the modding team had ever bother to think about USF and its doctrines implication they would have tune combined arms and not simply nerfed every single aspect of the doctrine.

Their objectives was to make sure bad players like you have a chance vs USF. Nothing related to balance, thus the "You need to play USF perfectly to win" while Ostheer can be played with 1 hand we get now as balance standard.

Mechanized dominance on 1vs1 was solely related to the WC51 which as been hard nerfed purposely and if the modding team had ever bother to think about USF and its doctrines implication they would have tune combined arms and not simply nerfed every single aspect of the doctrine.

And here are the actual stat that tell a different story:
USF 53% winrate in 1vs1 for the last patch and 51.9% for top 200.


https://coh2stats.com/stats?range=range&statsSource=all&type=1v1&race=usf&fromTimeStamp=1631145600&toTimeStamp=1648944000

Think it is safe to say that mod team does not hate the USF faction...

And objective of the mod team is not no nerf USF to the ground either...

Besides B4 why was it that every single patch the mod team released had extremely game breaking German units that had to be hot fixed while no such game breaking units existed for any of the allied factions. Especially at the level of OPness that some of these german units had.

For example (one of many) they nerfed Allied air strikes yet made Sector Assault (OKW JLI commander) so broken that the planes would track you from the other side of the map deleting your entire army yet Airborne P47 tracking was too strong and had to be removed (basically more nerfs for USF).

JLI Terminators needing to be hotfixed

Sturmtiger deleting units from fog of war

Everyone can see through the hypocrisy at this point.

Could you imagine if Raid Sections for UKF were at JLI level when JLI were reworked. Instead we get mediocre trash and have to settle with that like the 76mm Sherman.

And here are the actual stat that tell a different story:
USF 53% winrate in 1vs1 for the last patch and 51.9% for top 200.


https://coh2stats.com/stats?range=range&statsSource=all&type=1v1&race=usf&fromTimeStamp=1631145600&toTimeStamp=1648944000

Think it is safe to say that mod team does not hate the USF faction...

Stats talk about winrate, neither balance or skill. Simply says there are less noob playing USF while its abound on Oshteer and OKW factions.

Besides B4 why was it that every single patch the mod team released had extremely game breaking German units that had to be hot fixed while no such game breaking units existed for any of the allied factions. Especially at the level of OPness that some of these german units had.

For example (one of many) they nerfed Allied air strikes yet made Sector Assault (OKW JLI commander) so broken that the planes would track you from the other side of the map deleting your entire army yet Airborne P47 tracking was too strong and had to be removed (basically more nerfs for USF).

JLI Terminators needing to be hotfixed

Sturmtiger deleting units from fog of war

Everyone can see through the hypocrisy at this point.

Could you imagine if Raid Sections for UKF were at JLI level when JLI were reworked. Instead we get mediocre trash and have to settle with that like the 76mm Sherman.

Only thing I disagree with is calling the absolute garbage raid sections “mediocre”. Other than that, yes.

Only thing I disagree with is calling the absolute garbage raid sections “mediocre”. Other than that, yes.

As a combat unit they are hot garbage and infantry sections are a much better investment but the Territory Capture speed bonus (which was removed from Infantry Sections thanks to balance team) does make them decent at something at least.

Now if only Universal Carrier could capture territory (while not upgraded) like the Kubelwagon (which also doesn't have a fuel cost attached while UC costs 5 fuel) then Raid Sections would have 0 reason to exist.

As a combat unit they are hot garbage and infantry sections are a much better investment but the Territory Capture speed bonus (which was removed from Infantry Sections thanks to balance team) does make them decent at something at least.

Now if only Universal Carrier could capture territory (while not upgraded) like the Kubelwagon (which also doesn't have a fuel cost attached while UC costs 5 fuel) then Raid Sections would have 0 reason to exist.

They also have the old riflemen drop rate and drop Vickers very easily for your opponent to pick up. Then you're stuck with a 1 Vickers K raid section because you can only upgrade both Vickers K at the same time.

Absolutely disgustingly bad unit. Speaks volumes about the people that made it.

Very constructive comment, way to go.

Well I mean Vipper is the biggest troll on these forums which is why he has gotten banned a few times. He is basically the Balance Team mascot defending every bad decision they make and loves to derail threads.


Anyway the 76mm Sherman lacks a clear definitive role. This is one aspect of the game that could use some work.

For example you have sort of a rock, paper, scissors approach with Infantry, HMGs, and Mortars which works well but then with tanks the only roles are Generalist (T-34/Panzer IV/Crommwell), Tank Destroyer, and Heavy tank with no real roles assigned to these tanks other than whoever is the best or does most damage wins.

Take shock troops for example, everyone knows that Shock Troops murder things at close range, While Infantry Sections are Max Range, while Rifleman are great at Medium Range. These types of Weapon Profiles should exist for tanks as well.






There have been numerous documented cases of smaller tanks/vehicles defeating big tanks at close range yet this isn't translated into COH 2 at all when the technology for different profiles exists within the game.


Take an Elephant Tank for example. A T-34 could get close to an Elephant even firing from the rear and the shots/do no damage. If tanks had weapon profiles like infantry they could assign roles to different tanks.

Maybe T-34 sucks balls long range but will shock troop vehicles close range.

So back to the 76mm Sherman it does the same role as the regular sherman which makes it pointless to make.


Now if a normal Sherman had a profile where it needed close range to be effective, 76mm sherman could be the medium range tank leaving Jackson with a long range weapon profile and the unit would at least have some form of role in mind with its design.

Lack of Role and Design make the tank in its current state extreme garbage.