Most requested unit in coh2 history...
19 Sep 2014, 19:50 PM
#121
Posts: 2487 | Subs: 21
Be nice to have the Pershing, considering we have a Tiger Ace. *cough* pershing ace needed *cough*
19 Sep 2014, 19:55 PM
#124
1 Posts: 2307 | Subs: 4
Just to point out for all the people asking for a sherman jumbo: The sherman jumbo was outclassed by the easy 8, the ez8 was the ultimate sherman design of WWII, making the jumbo the big bad "heavy" of the US faction wouldn't make much sense, it would be more similiar to a KV1, slow, good armor, kinda shitty cannon.
Sounds perfect, love the kv1.
Tobis "Complete Throw"
Someone asked what my avatar was from... I really don't know.
Defeated Paula and knocked him out of 2v2 Anniversary Cup
Someone asked what my avatar was from... I really don't know.
Defeated Paula and knocked him out of 2v2 Anniversary Cup
19 Sep 2014, 22:13 PM
#125
Posts: 54
My point was that theres almost always a way to get something the faction is otherwise missing through doctrines, and it hasn't broken the game. One commander where uncle sam gets a heavy isn't going to eff up balance (except during the initial release - relic uhh.. Finds a way)
Apart from balance concerns theres no reason not to add cool crap to the game. Hell i don't even like heavy tanks., gimme a sherman up front and a jackson in the back any day. Just don't understand all this dogma about "faction design" .
Also i too miss the hetzer and hellcat.
Apart from balance concerns theres no reason not to add cool crap to the game. Hell i don't even like heavy tanks., gimme a sherman up front and a jackson in the back any day. Just don't understand all this dogma about "faction design" .
Also i too miss the hetzer and hellcat.
19 Sep 2014, 22:39 PM
#126
Posts: 656
Be nice to have the Pershing, considering we have a Tiger Ace. *cough* pershing ace needed *cough*
I'd settle for a CoHO Pershing with it's amazing HVAP rounds.
19 Sep 2014, 23:10 PM
#127
Posts: 4928
Just to point out for all the people asking for a sherman jumbo: The sherman jumbo was outclassed by the easy 8, the ez8 was the ultimate sherman design of WWII, making the jumbo the big bad "heavy" of the US faction wouldn't make much sense, it would be more similiar to a KV1, slow, good armor, kinda shitty cannon.
Wrong, it would be better than the KV-1. Exact thickness varied on model, factory, etc, but generally the KV-1's armour protection was considered similar in effect to the T-34, which is why the KV-1 was halted and it's chassis used for other means. On the other hand, the M4A3E2 Assault Tank had at least 4 inches of armour at a much lower angle.
As we know the T-34's armour didn't age too well, and a Panzer IV Ausf. F2 or later were able to take them out. The Sherman Jumbo however was known to have survived frontal hits from Tiger Tanks, putting it's armour strength way above that of the KV-1.
all you filthy hotchkiss lovers need to l2p #TeamPanzerIII
> Kriegsbeute Doctrine|Partisan Rework|British Infantry Rework|Soviet Assault Squad <
19 Sep 2014, 23:28 PM
#128
Posts: 239
Wrong, it would be better than the KV-1. Exact thickness varied on model, factory, etc, but generally the KV-1's armour protection was considered similar in effect to the T-34, which is why the KV-1 was halted and it's chassis used for other means. On the other hand, the M4A3E2 Assault Tank had at least 4 inches of armour at a much lower angle.
As we know the T-34's armour didn't age too well, and a Panzer IV Ausf. F2 or later were able to take them out. The Sherman Jumbo however was known to have survived frontal hits from Tiger Tanks, putting it's armour strength way above that of the KV-1.
Well despite what may have been true in history, the in game KV-1 has 270/165 front/rear armor vs T34/76 150/75 and T34/85 160/80 while having the same gun as the T34/76 in all stats except having a faster reload.
How would the Jumbo/Sherman relationship in game be different than the KV-1/T34 relationship?
19 Sep 2014, 23:44 PM
#129
5 
Posts: 115
People are against Heavy Tanks for USF so what about adding a few other light tanks that may prove useful instead?
I'm thinking about the M24 Chaffee taking the place of the Stuart and adding a M22 Locust to the Airborne Company commander. Remove the AT Gun from the Airborne Company and put a M22 Locust which can be crewed. Airborne is about moving around the map not being stationary so it could be useful.
Also if the WSF DLC it's based in 1944 the M24 was made to take the place of the M5 so it would be nice to have this light tank.
Why is that only OKW can have those rare and scarce tanks made in very low numbers?
Just throwing some ideas to the field.
I'm thinking about the M24 Chaffee taking the place of the Stuart and adding a M22 Locust to the Airborne Company commander. Remove the AT Gun from the Airborne Company and put a M22 Locust which can be crewed. Airborne is about moving around the map not being stationary so it could be useful.
Also if the WSF DLC it's based in 1944 the M24 was made to take the place of the M5 so it would be nice to have this light tank.
Why is that only OKW can have those rare and scarce tanks made in very low numbers?
Just throwing some ideas to the field.
19 Sep 2014, 23:54 PM
#130
Posts: 125
This game doesn't need more super-heavy tanks like the Pershing. It needs some Super-heavy tanks.
The Ratte - If the Tiger II is to be referred to as "King", then it would be an injustice to not call the Ratte at least an emperor.
KV-V1 - Less glorious but still cool
The Ratte - If the Tiger II is to be referred to as "King", then it would be an injustice to not call the Ratte at least an emperor.
KV-V1 - Less glorious but still cool
19 Sep 2014, 23:54 PM
#131
Posts: 135
Imagine Pershing + Jackson behind = gg
How exactly is that gg? It only means axis should be little more cautious with their tanks there. Shrecks and at guns make short work of that jackson and you already know how to beat is2 so pershing would´t be any different. Besides it´s not like pershing would be free to begin with so one pretty much either skips major and stalls for it or makes some tanks out of t4 and delays the pershing.
Pershing could be perfectly balanced. I know the next guy is going to address the us crew repair and how it would make pershing op, so I suggest merging that repair critical ability with elite crews from armor commander, thus making it doctrinal (armor company only). Other abilities on that pershing commander should be mediocre (no calliope!) to discourage the use of pershing every game. Maybe there could be even a slight passive fuel income penalty associated with pershing too.
20 Sep 2014, 00:08 AM
#132
Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2
Permanently BannedCan someone explain to me how the pershing could inbalance this game? OKW get shreks, KT, and JT,
But adding a tank that is between a panther and tiger would be op?
But adding a tank that is between a panther and tiger would be op?
There is no recording in all WW2 history of a piat actually knocking off a vehicle. Yes, it was THAT bad.
20 Sep 2014, 00:13 AM
#133
Posts: 228
Is there a purpose for ur trolling?
no.. just saying, all this axis fanboyz saying shit about the pershing let me a little upset . since alpha
we voted to have a pershing as a commander and the votation was in our favor, but still the same shit..
we really need a heavy to usf this is not fair.. all factions have heavys except for usf :|
or a simple solution take out THE isu,elephant tiger II and jagdtiger ...
20 Sep 2014, 00:34 AM
#134
Posts: 4928
since alpha we voted to have a pershing as a commander and the votation was in our favor, but still the same shit..
The most recent poll put us at 47% Yes, 49% No. Not a huge difference, but it was not on your favour.
all factions have heavys except for usf :|
Which was part of USF's design, just like all factions have 100% fuel income except OKW. The difference is how the armies are compensated, USF's compensation (Crews, AT Infantry, Strong TD) are insufficient to make up for their lack of heavy.
all you filthy hotchkiss lovers need to l2p #TeamPanzerIII
> Kriegsbeute Doctrine|Partisan Rework|British Infantry Rework|Soviet Assault Squad <
20 Sep 2014, 00:46 AM
#135
Posts: 228
The most recent poll put us at 47% Yes, 49% No. Not a huge difference, but it was not on your favour.
i was talking about the pre alpha when a few players was testing the game ...
Which was part of USF's design, just like all factions have 100% fuel income except OKW. The difference is how the armies are compensated, USF's compensation (Crews, AT Infantry, Strong TD) are insufficient to make up for their lack of heavy.
dude i know the m36 is one of the best but it cant handle too much, any inf with schreck can destroy it easely.
diferente of german armor who is better armored ( even in real life ). but thats the point in later game
playing as usf is really hard coz your units are vet 5 and the heavies hit the battlefield and a pershing would be like a meat shield.. making it as expensive as Kt would be fair i think . i don´t see it unbalanced ...
20 Sep 2014, 00:51 AM
#136
Posts: 2053
dude i know the m36 is one of the best but it cant handle too much, any inf with schreck can destroy it easely.
diferente of german armor who is better armored ( even in real life ). but thats the point in later game
playing as usf is really hard coz your units are vet 5 and the heavies hit the battlefield and a pershing would be like a meat shield.. making it as expensive as Kt would be fair i think . i don´t see it unbalanced ...
What happened to your original account?
Anyways, I still don't understand what would be wrong with a jumbo... the USF lacks a tank that bounces shells and can take a beating. So... the Jumbo is the perfect compadre by sticking to the USF doctrine of no heavy tanks.
20 Sep 2014, 00:56 AM
#137
Posts: 228
What happened to your original account?
Anyways, I still don't understand what would be wrong with a jumbo... the USF lacks a tank that bounces shells and can take a beating. So... the Jumbo is the perfect compadre by sticking to the USF doctrine of no heavy tanks.
jumbo is not a bad idea but ... like some one said it will be like a kv-1 ...
thats not what we want but anyways better this than nothing...
20 Sep 2014, 01:04 AM
#139
Posts: 210
Relic could have done so much better in the design of usf, so many great units wil never make it in this game.
it seem to me that relic are hell bent on not copying any thing from US in COH even if it worked well or was a good idea. Dont get me wrong, what they done great as it isn,t exactly the same. But just feel like the faction is incomplete to me. I would have like to have seen sherman upgrades, scout jeep And sticky bombs in the mainline units. Also pershing, howitzer and calliope sherman in commanders.
Its funny that relic designed OKW as faction that has all wish list units in it but usf basically has very little of what was wanted.
it seem to me that relic are hell bent on not copying any thing from US in COH even if it worked well or was a good idea. Dont get me wrong, what they done great as it isn,t exactly the same. But just feel like the faction is incomplete to me. I would have like to have seen sherman upgrades, scout jeep And sticky bombs in the mainline units. Also pershing, howitzer and calliope sherman in commanders.
Its funny that relic designed OKW as faction that has all wish list units in it but usf basically has very little of what was wanted.
20 Sep 2014, 01:05 AM
#140
Posts: 508 | Subs: 1
If Pershing: $$$$$$ = True => Relic put Pershing in game. That simple.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
22 | ||
 |
|
|
15 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
 |
|
|
298 | ||
 |
|
|
190 | ||
 |
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.589215.733+4
- 4.1099614.642-1
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.916405.693-2
- 8.271108.715+22
- 9.721440.621+3
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1231
Board Info
520 users are online:
520 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49062
Welcome our newest member, Mclatc16
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Mclatc16
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM