༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つGIVE USF HEAVY ARMOR༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

Balancing team games is the dumbest thing Relic could do for COH2. If you want competitive team games play DOTA or some other game built around team play. COH2, DOW2, etc, will never be balanced in team games when they can hardly even balance 1vs1's. Don't even think about it.

The majority of games played are team games. Relic should not be catering exclusively to the minority of people who play 1v1 predominantly. If they can improve team game balance without compromising competitive balance, there's no reason not to do that.

i play 1v1's and i still think USF is weak as fuck. OP early game should not make up for a weak as a small cold puddle of chicken piss late game

i play 1v1's and i still think USF is weak as fuck. OP early game should not make up for a weak as a small cold puddle of chicken piss late game

No you need to l2p . even if you get heavy armor your problems will not be solved and the usf is a stronjg faction in 1vs1 games.

Even if you get heavy armor your problems will not be solved.

That's when the "Buff the Pershing" threads pop up

The majority of games played are team games. Relic should not be catering exclusively to the minority of people who play 1v1 predominantly. If they can improve team game balance without compromising competitive balance, there's no reason not to do that.

Yes, but the majority of people who play team games are also terrible. Catering to terrible players who rely on team-based strats and their allies is a very bad approach to balancing this game.

USF doesn't need heavy armor, axis (and to a lesser extent soviet) heavy armor needs a nerf.

this. +1.

Except the US didnt produce a lot of HVAP ammunition, whereas Britain had a decent amount of 17 pounder ammunition for their various 17 pounder tanks (late war) and AT guns.

17 pounder and 76mm were somewhat similar... Depends on what they were mounted on and the variation of the gun. 17 pounder shells were a bit heavier, a bit larger, and had a bit higher muzzle velocity... But that didnt mean it was necessarily better given RoF and accuracy for a 76mm... Given tanks with those cannons used APCBC ammunition.

Hastily looked at forums.

I'd leave British weapons to the Commonwealth - when they come around.

17pdr APDS or early sabot rounds had horrendous dispersion/accuracy issues as the subcaliber bullet would usually yaw due to imperfect separation of the sabot. Which is why Sabot rounds don't become standard for every army until finned dart penetrators are used in the 60s. Every one else took the lesser penetration at range but the ability to hit by selecting subcaliber rounds still encased in the the jacket aka HVAP, and Russian/Soviet APCR rounds.

To actually hit something with a 17pdr or a 77 you need to fire the APCBC shot. Tests by the US army at Isingy france in 1944 with UK gunners netted a 57% 17pdr APDS hit rate at ranges from 600 yds to 300yds . . . 17pdr APDS was a white elephant. Again there is a reason that every other combatant relied on APCR/HVAP; the need to actually hit the target.

British Army’s own test results, obtained by two 17pr-armed Sherman Firefly tanks in September of 1944, were no better. These results and comments were published in Warrant Office Reports WO 291/1263 and WO 165/135 dated 22 September:

400 yds
APC hit 90.5%
APDS hit 56.6%

600 yds
APC hit 73.0%
APDS hit 34.2%

800 yds
APC hit 57.3%
APDS hit 21.9%

1000 yds
APC hit 45.3%
APDS hit 14.9%

1500 yds
APC hit 25.4%
APDS hit 7.1%

If USF gets a Heavy Tank Doctrine, I want OKW to get a Full Resource Doctrine. There's no reason one side should be able to 'fill in' their disadvantage and not the other.

Its in game, its called Luftwaffe supply wehrmacht ally.

Two defamatory posts by sir muffin invised - calling you out, son. This stuff has got to stop, please. It breaches site rules and is unfunny.

Two other posts invised for content management, which were republishing the offensive content.

Site Rules are in the bottom right hand corner of your screen, sir muffin. Kindly acquaint yourself with said rules before posting.

Back to topic

ok usa can get heavy armor but if they drop vehicle crews or have resource penalty.

this. +1.

NO..please heavy armor are nerfed to death...any further nerf will not be in essence of their role in ww2...if anything adjust costs.

NO..please heavy armor are nerfed to death...any further nerf will not be in essence of their role in ww2...if anything adjust costs.

i'm fine with tiger. i'm talking about heavies that have armours that goes up to stratosphere. >~350 i say.

game is so much more fun and interesting when medium tanks are actually flanking and maneuvering than when freakin heavies come out with their 12 inch johnsons shoving it down your throat. imo.

I don't think an american tank which could bounce a panzershrek would break the game. That said, i doubt it happens. I think pershings are ugly as all hell personally. E2 more likely, but meh. We just need something that can reliably penetrate. Jackson's 240 dmg aint crap when it bounces two outta three rounds which always seems to be my luck.

historical accuracy argument seems like fanboyism to me. Your unit that had zero consequence on the war cant be in the game cuz february. My 5 units that were basically prototypes and had zero contribution to the war are non-doc because it was used 60 days before your unit.... and...... reasons. OKW has as much right to sturmtiger, ostwind, that flaktrack, i/r anything, and the PIVs(faction design) as usf does to something heavier than an m4a3.

besides, since when does historical accuracy matter? it's about authenticity, not accuracy.

17pdr APDS or early sabot rounds had horrendous dispersion/accuracy issues as the subcaliber bullet would usually yaw due to imperfect separation of the sabot. Which is why Sabot rounds don't become standard for every army until finned dart penetrators are used in the 60s. Every one else took the lesser penetration at range but the ability to hit by selecting subcaliber rounds still encased in the the jacket aka HVAP, and Russian/Soviet APCR rounds.

To actually hit something with a 17pdr or a 77 you need to fire the APCBC shot. Tests by the US army at Isingy france in 1944 with UK gunners netted a 57% 17pdr APDS hit rate at ranges from 600 yds to 300yds . . . 17pdr APDS was a white elephant. Again there is a reason that every other combatant relied on APCR/HVAP; the need to actually hit the target.

British Army’s own test results, obtained by two 17pr-armed Sherman Firefly tanks in September of 1944, were no better. These results and comments were published in Warrant Office Reports WO 291/1263 and WO 165/135 dated 22 September:

400 yds
APC hit 90.5%
APDS hit 56.6%

600 yds
APC hit 73.0%
APDS hit 34.2%

800 yds
APC hit 57.3%
APDS hit 21.9%

1000 yds
APC hit 45.3%
APDS hit 14.9%

1500 yds
APC hit 25.4%
APDS hit 7.1%

Yes, the 17 pounder sherman firefly had terrible accuracy. The 76mm had better accuracy as well as a better RoF(RoF dependent on crew space) and both were sufficient in terms of penetration. However, its nof like CoH2 would model this well if a firefly was put into the game.

(Some random person: )"A 17 pounder in 1944 was worse than a 76mm in 1946". Fireflies were somewhat good until more 76mm's arrived where the power of the firefly slowly became redundant.

just put in T3 an M4A3 with 76mm gun with the normal 75mm, make it 130 fuel and same pen power as T34/85 or E8s.

then make the E8 more fast or give them an ability like blitzkrieg so u can circle heavies more easy, increase their cost to 150 fuel.

what do u guys think about this?

NO..please heavy armor are nerfed to death...any further nerf will not be in essence of their role in ww2...if anything adjust costs.

Actually(and that goes for all heavy tanks) heavy armor will be fine the moment going mediums will be actually a decision based on your strategy, not superiority of all stats while devoting less micro into play.

This isn't as big issue with soviets(who simply can go medium armor, just not stock one) as it is with the axis where gameplay is "heavy armor spam or gtfo".