Pumas and Target Weak Point

my suggestion is to try and spam mines.

How about making them cheaper and dish out less pen/dmg, but giving them the weakspotting ability right away? They could be more of a support/harrass/finisher unit.

Wow, this is unbelievable. What's wrong with you guys? Comparing the two commanders, soviet lend lease and the german mobile defense, the soviet one is obviously better, it feels like a military parade playing with it, not like a fight. And the only thing you found to whine about, is Puma?! Just lol.
How about sherman being TO powerful and cost effective?

The Sherman is indeed powerful but I don't think it's cost effective. It's 380 mp and 135 fuel, which makes it the 2nd most expensive tank in the game, a lot more expensive than a Panzer IV yet is on par with it.

The Sherman is indeed powerful but I don't think it's cost effective. It's 380 mp and 135 fuel, which makes it the 2nd most expensive tank in the game, a lot more expensive than a Panzer IV yet is on par with it.

I think it fits the "hit-and-run" strategy the US Army is built around really well (relic said US is more of a hit and run faction in one of the interviews).

The Sherman is indeed powerful but I don't think it's cost effective. It's 380 mp and 135 fuel, which makes it the 2nd most expensive tank in the game, a lot more expensive than a Panzer IV yet is on par with it.

You can't compare the Sherman tank cost to a PIV cost just like that, because sherman is a call in.
If Sherman was tied to a building, T3 or T4, it would cost less than 380/135.

You can't compare the Sherman tank cost to a PIV cost just like that, because sherman is a call in.
If Sherman was tied to a building, T3 or T4, it would cost less than 380/135.

The sherman we have will be the upgraded version of what the americans have. It is their version of the T34/85. I feel like a lot of players are expecting to fight like a T34/76 rather then the advanced medium tank it is.
It does a lot of damage very quickly, but it does almost nothing to the front of most armor. As long as you keep track of it and keep your flanks covered, there's not much it can do and it's 135 fuel investment is no better then a regular 100 fuel T34.

Off: Sherman vs T34-85 comparison right meow

On:

What the hell is wrong with a 80 Fuel Unit surviving 2 IS2 shots ???

-A 70 fuel light TANK doesn´t survives neither 2 tank shots, 3 Shreck hits or 2 pak shots.
-It´s an AC, not a tank.
-Cost is irrelevant.
-I think some might agree that it was better to balance around the old slow-high damage IS2.

Again, i´m not saying its OP. It´s just weird how viable is to take out heavy tanks with an AC.

The Sherman is indeed powerful but I don't think it's cost effective. It's 380 mp and 135 fuel, which makes it the 2nd most expensive tank in the game, a lot more expensive than a Panzer IV yet is on par with it.

But still, it beats PIV in 1on1 (taken from StrummingBirds awesome thread about tank pen):

Sherman vs P4, Max range
Sherman 66% CTP P4, DPS 24.27, TTK 26.37 seconds
P4 62.5% CTP Sherman, DPS 20, TTK 32 seconds
Sherman Wins

Sherman vs P4, Close range
Sherman 77.7% CTP P4, DPS 28.6, TTK 22.37 seconds
P4 75% CTP Sherman, DPS 24, TTK 26.67 seconds
Sherman Wins

The Sherman deals a lot of damage, but can't take much either.

But still, it beats PIV in 1on1 (taken from StrummingBirds awesome thread about tank pen):

And by the words of PQ, is supposed to.

-A 70 fuel light TANK doesn´t survives neither 2 tank shots, 3 Shreck hits or 2 pak shots.
-It´s an AC, not a tank.
-Cost is irrelevant.
-I think some might agree that it was better to balance around the old slow-high damage IS2.

Again, i´m not saying its OP. It´s just weird how viable is to take out heavy tanks with an AC.

I think it's better to view it as a baby M10 dressed up as an armored car. It costs as much as an assault gun and more than a light anti-infantry tank, it has the range, penetration, and DPS of a tank destroyer, and comes fairly late CP-wise.

Not saying it doesn't or does overperform for cost/timing, because I haven't used it much.

The Sherman is indeed powerful but I don't think it's cost effective. It's 380 mp and 135 fuel, which makes it the 2nd most expensive tank in the game, a lot more expensive than a Panzer IV yet is on par with it.

In my opinion, the sherman seems like it has strengths and weaknesses, but the strengths synergize with each other well while counteracting the weaknesses.

For example, compared to the 'brawler' medium tank, the T-3485, it has less penetration, which in theory should counteract the very high DPS of the gun. However, due to its extreme speed, it can very easily flank and cost-effectively beat much heavier vehicles.

It has low HP and the same armor compared to the T3485, which would mean it would be weaker to weapons with high penetration that virtually ignore armor, such as the Pak 40. But at the same time, its speed allows for easy flanking- and makes it very difficult to faust. The top-mounted machine gun, together with high rate of fire on the main gun, means it decimates infantry and the Pak 40 should it catch it for even a second without support. I've had engine-damaged Shermans circlestrafe a Pak after the AT gun missed the first shot as it approached.

And despite being a very good flanker and infantry killer, it costs just a smidge less than the T-3485 while, and can beat any german tank below T4 head on. No tech costs means it's spammable, and it doesn't come in a doctrine where all other abilities are bad- because Lend Lease certainly isn't.

Again, just my opinion from fighting against it. I haven't used it in many games yet, so I might be wrong still.

I think both, the Sherman and the Puma are a little bit to strong as it is right now. They both destroy tanks and infantry way to fast even without vet. Yesterday i played one game vs. AI to test the Puma, at vet 3, it destroyed 2 cons (not veted) in about 5-8 sec. I'm not kidding.

CP wise actually, it comes exactly or before you need it.

Probably the only call-in armor that does that, maybe except stug-e now.

Fully agreed. This is to much. They made a mistake, this is an OP commander. Lend lease on the other hand is to weak. He needs some buffs, for instance making shermanns be equal wit panthers

i see but lend lease commander not that's weak but if they make 0cp or 1cp assault guards troops will be better to counter the mechanized assault doc

And by the words of PQ, is supposed to.

I did never say it should not, but to say PIV is on par with Sherman is not quite true.

I did never say it should not, but to say PIV is on par with Sherman is not quite true.

Why is this not true?

Off: Sherman vs T34-85 comparison right meow

On:


-A 70 fuel light TANK doesn´t survives neither 2 tank shots, 3 Shreck hits or 2 pak shots.
-It´s an AC, not a tank.
-Cost is irrelevant.
-I think some might agree that it was better to balance around the old slow-high damage IS2.

Again, i´m not saying its OP. It´s just weird how viable is to take out heavy tanks with an AC.

1.why is cost irrelevant ?
2.I don't care if it's an AC in real life (i don't find killing machines aka weapons as fascinating as most people in this forum so i don't know anything detailed about this unit). INGAME it costs more than a t70 and as you said the t70 is a light tank so the puma should also be classified as a tank and not an armored car.

Fully agreed. This is to much. They made a mistake, this is an OP commander. Lend lease on the other hand is to weak. He needs some buffs, for instance making shermanns be equal wit panthers

Troll

Why is this not true?

Read the previous posts.

Wow, this is unbelievable. What's wrong with you guys? Comparing the two commanders, soviet lend lease and the german mobile defense, the soviet one is obviously better, it feels like a military parade playing with it, not like a fight. And the only thing you found to whine about, is Puma?! Just lol.
How about sherman being TO powerful and cost effective?

You know, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you never played land lease commander.
You just like trolling without even a single valid point.