Suggested change for call-in doctrinal units?

Yeah I guess that dynamic is lost with T3 Panzer IV? The first time I played way back in the beta, I was actually pretty shocked that T3 gave Panzer IV, it seemed so early for them to show up.

I think m10s and hellcats felt "better" than su85s just because the movement AI was better. Properly driving an su85 especially in tighter maps is silly lol.

In general I liked the vcoh dynamic much better than coh2. I think a lot of that had to so with no fuel cost Calkins. By making Calkins cost fuel they appear to be "standard" tanks that you would use instead of your regular tanks istead of with your main tanks.

Also teaching seems to be too quick in coh2 for my liking.

The game has lost some of its "epic" feeling which has been replaced by monotony :/

Yeah I guess that dynamic is lost with T3 Panzer IV? The first time I played way back in the beta, I was actually pretty shocked that T3 gave Panzer IV, it seemed so early for them to show up.

Yep. It's also a very basic coh2 design flaw in my view. That's why Stug IIIs are shunned by many players.

That, and the fact that the Panzer IV/Stug have front armor that can't be penned by the T-34/85. (Basically the Sherman 76 of Coh2) And the T-34/85 is a dual late game call in instead of an upgraded tank, etc.

So you don't see the bread and butter of VCOH: Careful Micro'ing with M10/Shermans vs. Stugs/Panzer IVs.

The Stug in Vcoh is T3, and the Panzer IV, Panther are T4. Then there was the STUH via the blitz doctrine. A quick t3 1 v 1 build would be Stugs or Stug + Stuh instead of panzer IVs of Coh2.

Or G-Wagon instead of Stug, if you activate TOV. The G-Wagon was basically a glass cannon version of the SU-85.

So early game fights were M10/M18 + Shermans vs. Self-propelled guns.

In a way, the Americans have better gear until T4/call-ins (Panther, Tiger, King Tiger)

Gwagen was actually a glass version of elephant.
Nothing had as big damage as gwagen, not even jadgpanther.

Who was buying P4 in Coh1? why not better save up a little more and get a monster-panther?

The Panther used to cost 140 fuel in vcoh. It now costs 110 fuel. The Panzer IV was 80 fuel in comparison.

Yeh..but paper made, better get the heavy one, at least is what I was doing...

Yeh..but paper made, better get the heavy one, at least is what I was doing...

Hmm, P4 had no problems dealing with infantry and vehicles alike, could be easily vetted for less then panther, could be much easier spammed.

Panther was AT only and since vCoH had deflection damage, vCoH panther was less powerful overall then CoH2 panther.

Hmm, P4 had no problems dealing with infantry and vehicles alike, could be easily vetted for less then panther, could be much easier spammed.

Panther was AT only and since vCoH had deflection damage, vCoH panther was less powerful overall then CoH2 panther.

As a well known panther spammer before, I would say you underestimate the power of the dark side them

Ever seen a single panther sniping down 51 American while playing against Airborne?

Yeh..but paper made, better get the heavy one, at least is what I was doing...

Pop cap is a big deal in Vcoh, especially if you are losing. the Panther takes 12 pop cap- compared to just 8 for the P4 and a mere 4 for the Stug IV. Most of the infantry call ins had a double pop cap penalty along with high MP price.

I hope to get Panther and Tiger I (my favorite is Terror Doctrine) but sometimes that isn't possible.

As Americans I always use the Armor doctrine to make up for US armor weakness, which gives the Pershing and self repair...It is essentially the IS-2 of the game (except at bargain price with zero fuel cost) that can go toe to toe with panthers/tigers and beat them.

The M-10 is a bit disposable like the Stug but they can counter stugs/STUH42 if microed. 2 x Sherman 76mm are needed to beat a panther with safety.

It's a shame that they never brought in the M-36 (TD with 90mm gun)

I'm going to contest the Pershing = IS-2 bit. The Pershing was more comparable to the vCoH Tiger imo, it had good health and armour, not as good, but it worked. It had more health than a Panther tank, which was weaker than it's CoH2 counterpart. On the other hand, the IS-2 has great armour but the same health as a Panther (which is more than CoH), but mounts a much more powerful gun (max penetration, high damage, wide radius, the strongest in the game imo).

Comparisons are difficult because even units that were in CoH1 differ from their CoH2 counterparts, but overall I feel the IS-2 is probably better than the Pershing, because it can take on Tanks or Infantry with ease, only struggling against Panthers, Tigers, and Tank Destroyers (much like the Pershing did).


I'm with you on the last point though, I wanted the Jackson so bad, I was never quite sure why they chose the underpowered M10 as the US TD.

They they swapped the SU-76 to T3 (preferably swap places with T-70), that'd bring back some of the Infantry Tank + Tank Destroy dynamic, and would go a long way to making Soviet late-game feel good.

That is not going to happen any time soon. The reason soviets have a large amount of call ins is ad to tier 3 or 4. if you tier 4 better take an AI commander go tier 3 better stick to guards then.

Interesting, that. I find the Pershing to be quite good against both infantry and armor targets. It seems to be better than the Tiger at infantry targets and roughly equal to it in AT. But its HP seems to be a bit lower if penned. Against Panthers, it can beat them quite readily but like the IS-2, it will get mauled.

The important though: Unlike the IS-2, it is also available at an affordable price and quantity (Only 1 Tiger at a time for Germans, while Pershing you can call-in 2). The Pop cap is 14. (compared to 12 for the Panther) This makes the US Armor commander very essential for long games. The Calliope is also very useful and durable w/ an affordable price.

I've never read the exact figures so this is just guessing based on experience.


----------------

Like coh2, I find the US/CW in VCoh to be annoyingly vulnerable to German heavy armor and tank destroyers: Most obviously Panther, Tiger, King Tiger, Jagdpanther. Out of 6 Allied commanders, this makes only the US armor commander w/Pershing viable for long and big games.

The CW's chief non-doctrinal response is really just the expensive, back-tracking 'Glass cannon' firefly. (which requires a lot of investment, like the purchase of the cromwell tank with no MG) Unfortunately, these don't have the armor to go toe to toe offensively.

Their churchills are like the Kv-1s....meatshields with pea-shooters.

Worse, the CW don't have a manhandled anti-tank gun and have to rely on fixed emplacements, which require fuel and can be bypassed/knocked out by infantry/indirect fire. As a faction, the CW is handicapped in the AT department once the fireflies are knocked out.

Interesting, that. I find the Pershing to be quite good against both infantry and armor targets. It seems to be better than the Tiger at infantry targets and roughly equal to it in AT. But its HP seems to be a bit lower if penned. Against Panthers, it can beat them quite readily but like the IS-2, it will get mauled.

The important though: Unlike the IS-2, it is also available at an affordable price and quantity (Only 1 Tiger at a time for Germans, while Pershing you can call-in 2). The Pop cap is 14. (compared to 12 for the Panther) This makes the US Armor commander very essential for long games. The Calliope is also very useful and durable w/ an affordable price.

I've never read the exact figures so this is just guessing based on experience.


----------------

Like coh2, I find the US/CW in VCoh to be annoyingly vulnerable to German heavy armor and tank destroyers: Most obviously Panther, Tiger, King Tiger, Jagdpanther. Out of 6 Allied commanders, this makes only the US armor commander w/Pershing viable for long and big games.

The CW's chief non-doctrinal response is really just the expensive, back-tracking 'Glass cannon' firefly. (which requires a lot of investment, like the purchase of the cromwell tank with no MG) Unfortunately, these don't have the armor to go toe to toe offensively.

Their churchills are like the Kv-1s....meatshields with pea-shooters.

Worse, the CW don't have a manhandled anti-tank gun and have to rely on fixed emplacements, which require fuel and can be bypassed/knocked out by infantry/indirect fire. As a faction, the CW is handicapped in the AT department once the fireflies are knocked out.

You're forgetting one key thing for the CW. The roo!!! And the insane physics defying piat! Put a piat squad on solid ground and they can't hit shit ... But put them in a mobile transport and watch them become piat snipers haha. I loved rolling around with three roos to bring 3 luitenants 3 been squads and as many piats as possible. Bring a Churchill or two to soak up initial damage and you're golden

All in all I found that I enjoyed cw the most out of every faction so far (coh2 included) even before I discovered the hilarity that was the roo It was certainly a flawed faction but it was still awesome!!