Login

russian armor

USF and mobile rocket artillery

24 Sep 2014, 18:57 PM
#21
avatar of Romeo
Honorary Member Badge
Benefactor 115

Posts: 1970 | Subs: 5

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2014, 18:49 PMKatitof
What if you don't go for T2? Its certainly a great mine, but USF teching isn't exactly linear.


I think that's a silly argument. You may as well have said "What if you don't plant mines?"

Then yes of course you will lack mines?
24 Sep 2014, 19:01 PM
#22
avatar of Retaliation
Donator 11

Posts: 97

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2014, 18:54 PMnee
Having three non-doctrinal light artillery units (Major's strike, pack howtizer and Scott) sort of seems fine. The only USF commander to not have off map artillery is Recon, which is kind of compensated for its myriad of oddly placed airborne abilities.


I&R pathfinders have a 140 muni artillery off map which is probably the most potent and precise artillery off map in the game.

As per the thread though...

I would rather the unique aspects of the USF be focused on rather than hamfisting in things other factions have like heavy tanks (which were untried and too low in numbers) and rocket artillery (which the US didn't really care about). USF doesn't have problems because it lacks units other factions have, but because it's key units are become incapable of fulfilling their roles.
24 Sep 2014, 19:12 PM
#23
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2014, 18:57 PMRomeo


I think that's a silly argument. You may as well have said "What if you don't plant mines?"

Then yes of course you will lack mines?


Well, all other armies plant mines on starting squad.

USF needs doctrine for specific tier for it. That is my only problem.
Thou I'd rather complain on how extremely boring USF "openings" are.
24 Sep 2014, 19:15 PM
#24
avatar of broodwarjc

Posts: 824

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2014, 18:47 PMRomeo
Yes that argument is very strange, if anything USF has the very best mining capability because it does massive damage, cannot be wasted on infantry, and gets laid by a highly mobile and survivable vehicle.


Used it today in a 2v2 on Ettelbruck to kill a Puma that was hunting my M20...:p
24 Sep 2014, 19:19 PM
#25
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

It's not like the capability to make up up for the lack of rocket artillery isn't there. It's that all those things suck, atleast the non-doctrinal ones.
24 Sep 2014, 19:31 PM
#26
avatar of AvNY

Posts: 862

The US built some 200 Calliopes. They were in no way the base of US artillery, which was probably the most reactive, accurate and also powerful artillery in the war. The irony is that the 75mm pack howie was the rarity among US tubes while 105s and 155s were in huge supply and there were also a fair # of 203s.

That said, only 100 50mm Pumas were ever produced, 40 ostwinds, 65 Elefants and 10 Sturmtigers. But those are axis so Relic will include them.
24 Sep 2014, 20:04 PM
#27
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

T4 static artillery ?
24 Sep 2014, 20:08 PM
#28
avatar of broodwarjc

Posts: 824

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2014, 19:31 PMAvNY
The US built some 200 Calliopes. They were in no way the base of US artillery, which was probably the most reactive, accurate and also powerful artillery in the war. The irony is that the 75mm pack howie was the rarity among US tubes while 105s and 155s were in huge supply and there were also a fair # of 203s.

That said, only 100 50mm Pumas were ever produced, 40 ostwinds, 65 Elefants and 10 Sturmtigers. But those are axis so Relic will include them.


I would be fine if Relic included the Calliope(but test it first Relic, os we don't have another Katyusha rocket spam fest). Otherwise, Yes, the US built EVERYTHING more than the Germans. The problem was a lot of German weapons at least made it the front lines, where the US stuff took its time moving to the front and the war was over before it got there...
24 Sep 2014, 20:34 PM
#29
avatar of butterfingers158

Posts: 239

the usf has the m20 mine, stop making the argument that it doesnt have a nondoctrinal mine when the m20 mine is extremely powerful and is a guaranteed engine destroyed or immobilized


Being forced to go Lieutenant and then M-20 if I want mines is kinda limiting. Sure I love the M-20 and it's a great mine, but the current placement of it discourages going Captain.

No anti-infantry mines at all is also a huge bummer, especially when a Shreck flank can kill all your anti tank in about 3 seconds.
24 Sep 2014, 20:40 PM
#30
avatar of broodwarjc

Posts: 824



Being forced to go Lieutenant and then M-20 if I want mines is kinda limiting. Sure I love the M-20 and it's a great mine, but the current placement of it discourages going Captain.

No anti-infantry mines at all is also a huge bummer, especially when a Shreck flank can kill all your anti tank in about 3 seconds.


How much did the US even use mines during WW2? Most of the time they were pushing the Germans back and not vice versa.
24 Sep 2014, 20:42 PM
#31
avatar of butterfingers158

Posts: 239



How much did the US even use mines during WW2? Most of the time they were pushing the Germans back and not vice versa.


Who cares? It's a video game
24 Sep 2014, 20:48 PM
#32
avatar of Romeo
Honorary Member Badge
Benefactor 115

Posts: 1970 | Subs: 5

Yes it's behind a tier of tech but considering it's basically the best mine in the game I think that's fair.

Anti-infantry mines are not that important. Yes if you can bleed or deny an area it is somewhat useful, but immobilize a KT is better I think!
24 Sep 2014, 20:53 PM
#33
avatar of butterfingers158

Posts: 239

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2014, 20:48 PMRomeo
Yes it's behind a tier of tech but considering it's basically the best mine in the game I think that's fair.

Anti-infantry mines are not that important. Yes if you can bleed or deny an area it is somewhat useful, but immobilize a KT is better I think!


As far as I can tell it is identical to a teller mine and costs 10 munitions more (maybe has better immobilize chance?)
24 Sep 2014, 21:00 PM
#34
avatar of Romeo
Honorary Member Badge
Benefactor 115

Posts: 1970 | Subs: 5

Even if it has exact same stats it is still better because it is being used on more important targets. As axis your teller mine will hit one out of a zillion allied tanks spam. As allies your m20 mine could win you the game by disabling a panther, jagdp, KT, etc.
24 Sep 2014, 21:09 PM
#35
avatar of butterfingers158

Posts: 239

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2014, 21:00 PMRomeo
Even if it has exact same stats it is still better because it is being used on more important targets. As axis your teller mine will hit one out of a zillion allied tanks spam. As allies your m20 mine could win you the game by disabling a panther, jagdp, KT, etc.


Or your M20 mine could get hit by a 222, Puma, Luchs,P4, hell the OKW building halftrack could hit it.

I think the M20 mine is great, but I think being forced into a tech choice to get mines at all is dumb (and a big "BUY SWEEPERS" sign to your opponent)
24 Sep 2014, 21:47 PM
#36
avatar of van Voort
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2



How much did the US even use mines during WW2? Most of the time they were pushing the Germans back and not vice versa.


Strategically you'd be right, tactically though you'd dig in and defend what you take because there is a lot of back and forth and Germans stressed immediate counterattack.

Also, the WAllies were very well provided with motor transport so could carry plenty of defensive equipment.


##################

The USF get their historic disadvantages in armour and TD doctrine, but don't get much of their advantages:

Air support

Artillery

Logistics
24 Sep 2014, 22:05 PM
#37
avatar of LemonJuice

Posts: 1144 | Subs: 7



Or your M20 mine could get hit by a 222, Puma, Luchs,P4, hell the OKW building halftrack could hit it.

I think the M20 mine is great, but I think being forced into a tech choice to get mines at all is dumb (and a big "BUY SWEEPERS" sign to your opponent)


but all those light vehicles pose a very significant threat if they come out in a timely matter. in addition, any OKW vehicles are very big fuel investments so that even knocking one out is a huge win for the USF. for example, if you take out a puma with a mine, your m20 or AA halftrack have almost free reign to harass enemy units. the luchs is extremely deadly to infantry, and if u can knock it out, you wont have to worry about it.

you can sort of negate minesweepers by being careful with mine placements. generally heavy tanks will be used to spearhead a push, so if u put the mine on ur side of the map, often times heavy tanks will overextend and run into them while their sweepers lag behind.
24 Sep 2014, 22:48 PM
#38
avatar of ASneakyFox

Posts: 365

their only non doctrinal mortar/arty harassment are:

pak howitzer : bassically a joke, vet ability is better.. but if youre using it against anything besides a garrison its not going to do much

howitzer carriage: pretty good, comes very late game though, leaving you high and dry in all those early and mid game fights where mgs are holding you down

major arty: late game, and completely hilariously bad. the best use for it is that it deploys red smoke so you might trick your opponent in to thinking that youre firing real arty.

however.. i wouldnt say the lack of arty in options puts the usf at a huge disadvantage. the m20 utility car (which you can pull out very early) and the stuart light tank can be used to deal with MGs and foward structures. the usf does have the best light vehicles, compounded with the fact that they can be brought out earlier than other vehicles.

I agree not all factions need all types of units.. but i think its really the USF that is the only faction that is "missing" units (elite infantry, heavy tanks, and artillary). all other factions have bassically no gaps.
24 Sep 2014, 22:49 PM
#39
avatar of butterfingers158

Posts: 239



but all those light vehicles pose a very significant threat if they come out in a timely matter. in addition, any OKW vehicles are very big fuel investments so that even knocking one out is a huge win for the USF. for example, if you take out a puma with a mine, your m20 or AA halftrack have almost free reign to harass enemy units. the luchs is extremely deadly to infantry, and if u can knock it out, you wont have to worry about it.

you can sort of negate minesweepers by being careful with mine placements. generally heavy tanks will be used to spearhead a push, so if u put the mine on ur side of the map, often times heavy tanks will overextend and run into them while their sweepers lag behind.


I'm not disputing that taking out those light vehicles is helpful. I'm disputing Romeo's assertion that the M20 mine is superior to the (as far as I know identical but cheaper) Teller mine because it hits higher value targets.

My problem with the USF mine is not that it is bad. My problem with it is that it restricts your possible build orders if you want mines.
24 Sep 2014, 23:31 PM
#40
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

the usf has the m20 mine, stop making the argument that it doesnt have a nondoctrinal mine when the m20 mine is extremely powerful and is a guaranteed engine destroyed or immobilized


While this is true, people are referring to infantry-based mines. It's easier to get a 4 man squad to get a mine out somewhere relatively discreet than it is to drive a medium-sized armoured car there.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

437 users are online: 437 guests
0 post in the last 24h
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48733
Welcome our newest member, service
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM