My Thoughts on USF Anti-Tank Structure...
Posts: 96
So the M10 and the Jackson…
The Jackson is good, frustrating when it bounces and misses a lot, but pretty good at its job for the price.
However I think it should be better (yeah bear with me).
I reckon the Jackson is incorrectly represented as the 90mm tank killer it should be. The T4 high end tank hunter should be represented by the M10 with a similar price and damage output. It’s fast, nimble, weak but accurate and packs enough of a punch to reward well-orchestrated hit and run attacks or flanks. I’d personally not mind if it had slightly less damage for an increase in chances to pen or an accuracy increase on the move.
The Jackson comes in as the 10cp etc call in of a USF Tank Destroyer Commander. It is more expensive (e.g panther pricing) penetrates consistently, fast, HVAP is vet 0 (or just constant) very accurate on the move to encourage fast flanks and hit and run attacks as with the m10. It’s a genuinely scary prospect for an axis player. A true glass cannon.
Armour Company should have the jumbo or crocodile instead of the m10 with the hellcat being added in as a lower cp call in for the tank destroyer commander. The hellcat operates in a similar role to the puma or the current m10 load out with price adjusted accordingly and perhaps some stealth abilities like they did to the jagdpanzer.
Another commander can have access to the M5 ATG and perhaps rangers with bazookas who possess some sort of ability to boost their dmg output and have chances to do criticals due to their skill with the tubes etc.
And of course it’d be nice to see a pershing. If it were me it’d have access to the same ammo switching abilities of a Sherman but given what I’ve suggested about the Jackson I’m not sure how you’d adjust the damage output to avoid an OP unit (see as they have the same 90mm gun). I’d be happy if it was just a USF tiger but hey unit mirroring is often regarded as boring and not as fun.
All these options open up a wealth of USF AT capabilities that when combined with tier choices give them AT in all stages of the game. Hopefully this gives a USF player variety of options to go for a more static ATG approach with the 57mm and 76mm guns, Sherman-centric with jumbo’s/crocs and dozers, heavy tank, airborne power and the super slick fast tank destroyer spice. A lot more than what seems to be either p47’s or shermans and just a handful of jacksons because what else is there.
Posts: 431 | Subs: 1
Posts: 2561
I never liked this. They could have easily made the M10 a competent TD with 60 range, high rate of fire, similiar health to current M36, and automatic access to AT rounds. Then the M36 could have been the US's heavy TD like a lighter, more mobile version of an elephant. God knows allies could use a heavy TD call-in.
Instead they decided to stick with keeping the units crap and leaving us with a meh doctrinal M36 that doesn't really represent it's power and a crappy doctrinal M10 with no real role. One of the many reasons I think relics design team isn't so great.
Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2
Permanently Bannedjackson needs a pan buff and zooks need pen and damage buff
Posts: 1003
Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2
Permanently BannedFor me are USF 57mm guns and Jacksons OK, but for longer team games, USF need Pershing. In CoH1 was and no problem.
I will NEVER understand.
OKW, non-dooc KT. and the JT
Sov, ISU-152, IS-2, Kv-2
Werhh. Elephant, Tiger
Yet USF cant get one heavy tank commander?
Posts: 52
I will NEVER understand.
OKW, non-dooc KT. and the JT
Sov, ISU-152, IS-2, Kv-2
Werhh. Elephant, Tiger
Yet USF cant get one heavy tank commander?
ofc, becouse USA lost WWII. Did you forget?
Posts: 665
I also dislike the design that US AT needs to use AP rounds to get great penetration. That's not a problem for any other faction's anti-tank, why should US have to use up muni to get other faction's penetration when their AT is already so fragile?
To say nothing of bazookas being useless. As US, I always feel like if I don't enter the late-game with a big advantage, I will end up losing because my stuff just cannot compete unless the other player is really bad and just wades his panzers into a killzone.
Posts: 351
Posts: 369
I will NEVER understand.
OKW, non-dooc KT. and the JT
Sov, ISU-152, IS-2, Kv-2
Werhh. Elephant, Tiger
Yet USF cant get one heavy tank commander?
How hard is it to understand? Americans are supposed to be an infantry focused faction, based on the Battle of the Bulge. Giving them a heavy tank would reduce the diversity of the factions for no good reason. USF doesn't need a heavy tank to be a viable faction.
Posts: 115
How hard is it to understand? Americans are supposed to be an infantry focused faction, based on the Battle of the Bulge. Giving them a heavy tank would reduce the diversity of the factions for no good reason. USF doesn't need a heavy tank to be a viable faction.
Yet they only have two types of Infantry viable: Riflemen and Paratroopers(Doctrinal)
I guess they didn't think about infantry focused faction thing when they designed USF. How are they supposed to be an infantry faction if they don't have viable infantry at all? I guess by adding weapon racks which are actually useless and way too expensive.
I'm not asking for Pershing but everyone of you saying always that it's a design choice as an argument really have a close mind. If something isn't working there is need to be flexible with the factions.
Posts: 438
Posts: 1637
The Jackson should have Penetration Values just under the Elephant for it to be effective. Right now with its 80 more HPs and 20 more Pen then an M10 I just dont see it as Justified when you consider how fast the M10 handles in comparison.
I CAN FLANK with an M10 I cannot with a Jackson. And Losing an M10 isnt the end of the world either.
I would LOVE a Hellcat. If they add it they should make it the fastest vehicle in game. Like an M10 in overdrive but otherwise similar stats with better Vet and a higher cost.
Posts: 1637
Today I played good number of team games with fellow TAB bears, playing as USF the at guns are sufficient enough to counter all axis Armour. If more at is needed a jackson in support does wonders. USF is fine as is and can counter axis armour no problem. If your axis opponent goes heavy amounts of tanks why not counter with zooks and at guns for german tanks were built to counter tanks not inf. Please quit with the whining and complaining about Axis as op, you obviously were not here for the alpha nor the very beginnings of CoH2.
Go watch Napalms video with Romeo and tell me again how good the Jackson and ATG combo is.
Posts: 108 | Subs: 1
I will NEVER understand.
OKW, non-dooc KT. and the JT
Sov, ISU-152, IS-2, Kv-2
Werhh. Elephant, Tiger
Yet USF cant get one heavy tank commander?
Relic logic: Give the Ostheer the Elephant, of which fewer than 100 were built. Give them Ostwinds, of which fewer than 50 were built. Give the Soviets KV-8s, of which fewer than 10 were built. Give OKW King Tigers, Jadgtigers, and Sturmtigers. None of these saw huge volumes of production.
But the US cannot get the M4A3E2, or the M26 because flavor.
But we're going to give the Soviets equipment they largely stopped using in '43. Panthers are core tech for both German factions but the Soviet response is locked behind commanders. AT rifles remained credible threats to German armor excluding King Tigers, but you'd never know it from the game.
The M36 Tank Destroyer had more frontal armor than an M4, but you'd never know that. Having the M36 deal 360 damage a hit was a garbage way of expressing the performance of the 90mm gun, and the gun itself was actually a highly capable multi-role gun. The M36 may have been a purpose built tank destroyer but behaviorally had a fair amount in common with the StuG3's assault gun role.
Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1
Yet they only have two types of Infantry viable: Riflemen and Paratroopers(Doctrinal)
I guess they didn't think about infantry focused faction thing when they designed USF. How are they supposed to be an infantry faction if they don't have viable infantry at all? I guess by adding weapon racks which are actually useless and way too expensive.
I'm not asking for Pershing but everyone of you saying always that it's a design choice as an argument really have a close mind. If something isn't working there is need to be flexible with the factions.
And why Pathfinders and assault engies are not viable?
Maybe all of these problems will cease to exist if they will just do something about kubel.
Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2
Permanently BannedToday I played good number of team games with fellow TAB bears, playing as USF the at guns are sufficient enough to counter all axis Armour. If more at is needed a jackson in support does wonders. USF is fine as is and can counter axis armour no problem. If your axis opponent goes heavy amounts of tanks why not counter with zooks and at guns for german tanks were built to counter tanks not inf. Please quit with the whining and complaining about Axis as op, you obviously were not here for the alpha nor the very beginnings of CoH2.
So basically u played ONE game. and got lucky...
Posts: 4928
1. Deflection Damage. Keep the 240 penetration damage but add 120 deflection damage for a more stable DPS with less RNG (all-or-nothing makes me sad when the stakes are so high).
2. Panther-Light. Decent frontal armour, decent health, good mobility, great penetration, and good range. In a way I prefer this one, but it is more drastic and thus less likely.
Posts: 365
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
Today I played good number of team games with fellow TAB bears, playing as USF the at guns are sufficient enough to counter all axis Armour. If more at is needed a jackson in support does wonders. USF is fine as is and can counter axis armour no problem. If your axis opponent goes heavy amounts of tanks why not counter with zooks and at guns for german tanks were built to counter tanks not inf. Please quit with the whining and complaining about Axis as op, you obviously were not here for the alpha nor the very beginnings of CoH2.
Yesterday a played a good number of 1vs1 game as USF and I face every time the situation when half of my M36 shot and ATgun shots where bouncing over Panther front armor. It isn't like I could have flank him since he was flanking me, a really good move
A+move his Infantry in front of my line and panther to flank.
His objective was my too powerful Scott, I'm waiting for the Relic nerf - this unit is to good, it can kill Obers.
Anyway.
1st M36 shot max range, on the ground. Panther come closer, 1st Panther shot - 1/3 of my m36 life away.
I try to withdraw the M36 but guess what, the panther is faster. So I managed to reposition my Atgun at the same time to shot at it.
2nd M36 shot, medium range - bounce. 2nd Panther shot = 2/3 of the M36 life away. 1st Atgun shot medium range + buff pen bounced.
3rd M36 shot, close range - 1/5 of Panther life away, 3rd Panther shot = byebye M36. 2nd Atgun shot close range + Buff pen = Bounce!!!
The panther goes behind the Atgun and chase the Scott, 2 shots the scott (it was defending the front line) dead.
The panther goes away but I manage with luck - nothing else than luck at this stage - to Atnade it and damage his engine, from the rear I finally manage to kill the Panther with my Atgun.
Second round couple of minutes later, exact same scenario but I don't have the luck of having a critical engine damage with an Atnade.
1 Jackson dead 1 Atgun dead 1 Scott dead, 3/4 of my Infantry dead, 1 Panther 3/5 life Up. GG
Livestreams
76 | |||||
29 | |||||
7 | |||||
6 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 | |||||
0 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.35157.860+16
- 4.599234.719+7
- 5.934410.695-1
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
12 posts in the last week
24 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, dola789ski
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM