USF AT abilty.

Weren't you the one who kept saying veterancy shouldn't factor in unit balance?

And making the bazookas cheaper is no option, cause you are able to equip every unit on the field with it.

That's the point though, US make up for their lack of one-unit-wonders (elite infantry and heavy tanks) by spreading out their combat ability among other units, like Riflemen having Bazookas. This concept doesn't work though if the Bazooka sucks and cannot make up for what it replaces. This is why everyone wants a Pershing, and given the choice would probably trade Vehicle Crews, Bazookas, and Jacksons for them.

Bazooka can be cheaper,actually i propose giving usf a sherman firefly commander.50 range,less dmg than jackson but more than sherman,better penetration and good but not godly armor.A specialist good strictly AT tank unlike the e8,bit like the panther but with lower armor and bit cheaper.

Only problem, the Sherman Firefly was a British Tank and was not used by the US Military.

id trade crews, and jackson for a spamm-able pershing any day!

But replace m36 with 80 fuel m18 hellcat

If they made bazookas cheaper by just 10 munitions i think that would help alot. They are clearly worse than shrecks per entity and the prices of these two weapons should reflect that

(shrecks cost 60 cold immunity costs 30 on volks)

Interesting calculation, because why would you pay then 30 munition for cold immunity on maps where cold is not a factor? I don't believe that is how Relic calculated it.

Anyway, I think offensively the 57mm is fine, but it dies much faster than other AT guns thanks to being a 4 man squad against firepower designed to beat 6 men ones.

ahh. this argument again. the problem is, rifles and paras can do more dps than anything at long range except obers once you upgrade them with lmgs. the difference is still fairly small though (about 25 dps compared to 28). guards also do about as much damage as lmg grens once they have DPs.

then if you want to talk close range units, shocks obviously win hands down with over 70 dps. lieutenant does about 54 dps at close range. for comparison, pgrens/sturm pios only do about 59. double bar rifles match falls at close and long range and also out dps fusiliers at all ranges.

two weapon upgrades for usf squads is expensive, but the point is there are plenty of soviet and american squads that do about as much if not more dps than axis infantry.

since upgrades are already so expensive, bazookas should be made cheaper. if they were 90 munitions (like i saw someone suggest earlier), i doubt people would get them when you could have 1.5 bars/lmgs for the price unless you made them as good or better than schrecks. making them cheap would make them more accessible and compatible with other upgrades

ahh. this argument again. the problem is, rifles and paras can do more dps than anything at long range except obers once you upgrade them with lmgs. the difference is still fairly small though (about 25 dps compared to 28). guards also do about as much damage as lmg grens once they have DPs.

then if you want to talk close range units, shocks obviously win hands down with over 70 dps. lieutenant does about 54 dps at close range. for comparison, pgrens/sturm pios only do about 59. double bar rifles match falls at close and long range and also out dps fusiliers at all ranges.

two weapon upgrades for usf squads is expensive, but the point is there are plenty of soviet and american squads that do about as much if not more dps than axis infantry.

since upgrades are already so expensive, bazookas should be made cheaper. if they were 90 munitions (like i saw someone suggest earlier), i doubt people would get them when you could have 1.5 bars/lmgs for the price unless you made them as good or better than schrecks. making them cheap would make them more accessible and compatible with other upgrades

You obviously dont play this game. Rifles do not do more long range dps "than anything". (in your words)

And obers deploy with lmgs, but can be upgraded to have stg 44's

ahh. this argument again. the problem is, rifles and paras can do more dps than anything at long range except obers once you upgrade them with lmgs. the difference is still fairly small though (about 25 dps compared to 28). guards also do about as much damage as lmg grens once they have DPs.

then if you want to talk close range units, shocks obviously win hands down with over 70 dps. lieutenant does about 54 dps at close range. for comparison, pgrens/sturm pios only do about 59. double bar rifles match falls at close and long range and also out dps fusiliers at all ranges.

two weapon upgrades for usf squads is expensive, but the point is there are plenty of soviet and american squads that do about as much if not more dps than axis infantry.

since upgrades are already so expensive, bazookas should be made cheaper. if they were 90 munitions (like i saw someone suggest earlier), i doubt people would get them when you could have 1.5 bars/lmgs for the price unless you made them as good or better than schrecks. making them cheap would make them more accessible and compatible with other upgrades

LMGs are doctrinal and cost 120 ammo for a full squad, I bloody well hope they do some damage, especially considering Rifleman veterancy doesn't do that much to improve their durability. Meanwhile, Obers are non-doctrinal and deploy with their full DPS, no muni required, while having veterancy that makes them enormously durable. US as a whole is a glass cannon faction, that seems like undisputable fact.

And the argument is more regarding vehicles and tanks. Axis tanks generally tend to have better AI than their closest equivalent (P4 vs T-34, StuG vs SU-85, Panther vs Jackson, 222 vs M3/M20, SU-76 vs, what, Kubelwagen?). That's not a balance problem at all, but it makes 57mm have a harder time countering vehicles.

One thing is for sure, in actual gameplay, my own 57mms get decrewed far faster than my ZiS (that may be because those are more durable), and faster than my PaKs. There's also the fact you need to spend a large amount of fuel before getting them (unless you beeline for captain I suppose but that means spamming rifles until 80 fuel) while other factions access it earlier, and as I said getting them delays your actual, solid AT by a pretty big margin.

Point is, US has an AT problem that needs looking at, and in my books that means buffing some of what they have. They're generally the faction with the lowest winrate if I recall correctly, and the fact they have no credible AT response beyond the very fragile Jackson is certainly a part of it.

I think wooof spends too much time in spreadsheets and not enough in the game to debate what's balanced or not.

Since wooof like statistics so much, maybe he can explain why the US is the most underperforming faction in every single game mode:

http://community.companyofheroes.com/forum/company-of-heroes-2/coh-2-balance-feedback/97486-win-lose-ratio-from-27-8-7-9-2014

You obviously dont play this game. Rifles do not do more long range dps "than anything". (in your words)

And obers deploy with lmgs, but can be upgraded to have stg 44's

please tell me more about the game. id really like to know how much dps rifles do.

This thread. It needs a shot of IQ points.


On a moar serious note, USF AT ability isn't too bad, the only problem is the U.S. AT gun has a slow firing rate(tends to bounce off of armor[even when AP rounds are enabled]), though it's massive range makes up for it(but in most close quarter games having range over reload time isn't an advantage due to RNG, etc.). Bazookas for the most part aren't too bad on dealing with armor "temporarily", because after a while it's not to hard to get counters out for inf units holding AT(obers, falls, jaegers, etc.). So, while I do agree USF AT ability is weaker than expected, it's armor and unit capabilities make up for it(Captain, m10s, demos, jacksons, easy 8s, etc.).

From what I can tell from limited experience, the main reason why people find USF AT to be bad is more due to the strength of Paks against all US armor (in particular the Jackson) and Obers/JLI/LMG Grenadiers/Stuka/Gr34 against 57mm ATG, rather than any deficiency in the weapons themselves.

If you were to give the USF the Pak 40 and the Wehrmacht the 57mm I think the problems would remain (in fact since lower penetration isn't such a big deal versus thin-skinned allied tanks, and 70 range is a big deal, the 57mm might even be superior for the Germans).

the only problem is the U.S. AT gun has a slow firing rate

Eh? I'm pretty sure it has a firing rate just lower than a Pak 40 does, which itself has a great RoF.

From what I can tell from limited experience, the main reason why people find USF AT to be bad is more due to the strength of Paks against all US armor (in particular the Jackson) and Obers/JLI/LMG Grenadiers/Stuka/Gr34 against 57mm ATG, rather than any deficiency in the weapons themselves.

If you were to give the USF the Pak 40 and the Wehrmacht the 57mm I think the problems would remain (in fact since lower penetration isn't such a big deal versus thin-skinned allied tanks, and 70 range is a big deal, the 57mm might even be superior for the Germans).



Eh? I'm pretty sure it has a firing rate just lower than a Pak 40 does, which itself has a great RoF.

The reason people percieve the US AT being bad is because they have no aggressive AT. The only real good AT measures they have are the 57mm and the jackson, both of which rely on range making them poor in clustered areas. Upon this they don't have a real barrage weapon to clear the support from tanks like the katyusha can do for the SU85.

They are forced to play defensive and hope that the axis player makes a mistake otherwise axis players will slowly break their defenses with stukas and offmaps.

Atleast if bazookas were buffed they could actually have another form of decent mobile AT and not be so defenseless in small spaces.

Interesting calculation, because why would you pay then 30 munition for cold immunity on maps where cold is not a factor? I don't believe that is how Relic calculated it.

Buying 1 Shreck on a pgren squad costs 60 munitions, if you lost the first one, plus almost all single weapon upgrades in the game cost 60

Buying 1 Shreck on a pgren squad costs 60 munitions, if you lost the first one, plus almost all single weapon upgrades in the game cost 60

I believe there were certain arguments made that justified Panzergrens getting 'discounted' panzershrecks- they replace STG44s, a very valuable weapon, come on an expensive squad with high reinforce costs, come on a 4 man squad which makes them vulnerable to the tanks they have to kill, you have to pay tech costs to get panzergrens in the first place, you have to shell out the full 120 munitions in the first place to get double shrecks (and double purchases are often discounted, for example T3485s), among other reasons. Volks don't really fill any of these conditions (you need a truck set up for shrecks, but the volk squad itself is T0)

I think the unit to add to a new USF commander to fullfill their late-game anti tank needs is the M18 Hellcat.



Torsion Bar Suspension and 76mm gun the same as Sherman Easy 8 gives good accuracy on the move and the same weapon as Easy 8 and T34/85.

A whopping 92km/h top-speed compared to 46 km/h of late war Panthers, 48 km/h of M36 Jackson and 51 km/h of M10 Wolverines means this unit could traverse 3v3 and 4v4 battlefields to deal with specific threats.

The M18's Wright R-975 engine is mounted on steel rollers that allow maintenance crews to disconnect it easily from the transmission. This Td is well known for its ease of maintenance. Maybe it can repair faster or is less prone to engine criticals.

Cloaking was on the M18 in vCOH and it could easily be added here.

The M18 also had an M2 Browning .30 cal machine gun which could be upgraded and have some Anti-Infantry capabilities.

Maybe balance this units great strengths by making the crew vulnerable to freezing during blizzards as they were prone to be due to the open-topped nature of their vehicle.

TLDR:: Bring back the M18 Hellcat in a commander that is specifically suited to team games and anti armor (U.S. repair stations please!) It would fit nicely as the U.S. analogue/counter to the Axis Panther and is beloved my many. Me at least.

Torsion Bar Suspension and 76mm gun the same as Sherman Easy 8 gives good accuracy on the move and the same weapon as Easy 8 and T34/85.

That sounds a lot like what the M10 ingame already is- fast, gun equivalent to the E8, open topped... minus the machine gun and cloak suggestion, that is.

Instead of AT power, I think that USF needs a tank unit able to sustain damage.

It doesn't matter that your tank hunters and ATguns are better than the enemy's, if he can receive twice as damage as you.

Instead of AT power, I think that USF needs a tank unit able to sustain damage.

It doesn't matter that your tank hunters and ATguns are better than the enemy's, if he can receive twice as damage as you.

But that's the problem. If this game was designed right the US wouldn't need a tank that can sustain damage. Heavy vehicle dominance has always been a problem in this game.

Instead of AT power, I think that USF needs a tank unit able to sustain damage.

It doesn't matter that your tank hunters and ATguns are better than the enemy's, if he can receive twice as damage as you.

i tried to avoid bringing up a USF heavy tank

Weren't you the one who kept saying veterancy shouldn't factor in unit balance?

Anyway, I think offensively the 57mm is fine, but it dies much faster than other AT guns thanks to being a 4 man squad against firepower designed to beat 6 men ones. So while it has kickass veterancy, a good opponent can decrew them quite fast. 50 cal. has the same problem.

I said unit need to perform at vet 0 zero failfish. and the 57 mm does. its in my opinion better then the pak if you use its ammo abilities. And woof has already explained that the US dps is highest per popcap in the game so your argument makes no sense. if a pak or puchpen can perform against the us the 57 can perform against the axis.