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

^ That's not a bad idea.

But Amis don't need heavies. OK, the historic thing might be a moot point but Germany was famous for its over-the-top heavy tanks. The Allies weren't, even though they rushed some into production at the end of the war. I don't buy into the Pershing thing at all.

US needs:

* A more resilient, prestige Sherman variant
* Better AT guns
* A more interesting take on the tank destroyer doctrine beyond the Jackson (AT halfies, for example)
* Better, dedicated AT infantry and while I'm at it, sticky bombs
* An early tank better than the Stuart (Chaffee fits, a tank that scales well into the late game like the Puma does)
* Calliopes please

The vibe they need to capture is this - Germany is powerful, cornered and bleeding armoured beast. Dangerous when cornered, with a powerful bite. US is nimble, fast, well-supplied and tactically flexible.

The asymmetrical struggle between those themes is the whole point of US versus OKW. Pershings don't help that. They skew it.

It can be fixed with a core faction tweak and some commanders. An early Chaffee to counter Luchs rush, for example, or elite AT infantry with better zooks.

USF in vCOH was a good reflection of US superiority, logistics and a rare Pershing Tank commander. I dont see why Relic cant add a heavy armor commander with a limit to call in 1 Pershing (like the Tiger Ace). There is no point of discussing how the faction should be according to history because clearly no army is even close to it.

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.

Seems you still need to learn the balance-whine game. Axis fanboi answer is always either "Historical" or "gameplay" depending on which argument suits their needs.

If you want a heavy penetrating tank with mobility and ask for a Pershing... you can't have it because "historical" (they weren't in-country until February). If you argue that the downsides of German vehicles were that they were very likely to breakdown while in combat, or run out of fuel, the answer will be that random engine damage can't happen because "gameplay".

This game is fun and can be used to respond to any complaint of Relic game design.

There is no "historical" authenticity if the US isn't given the non-doctrinal ability to BLOW-EVERYTHING-UP. Even the 101st when surrounded in Bastogne had 3 whole batteries of 105mm guns with them.

(Old German joke was that you could find out who was shooting at you by firing one round:

If in return you got a fast response of well aimed rifle fire, the opponent was British. If you got a fast response of a fusilade of not so well aimed rifle and smg fire, the opponent was Russian. If there was no response for a few minutes and then your entire position was obliterated by artillery or an air strike, the opponent was American.)

^ That's not a bad idea.

But Amis don't need heavies. OK, the historic thing might be a moot point but Germany was famous for its over-the-top heavy tanks. The Allies weren't, even though they rushed some into production at the end of the war. I don't buy into the Pershing thing at all.

US needs:

* A more resilient, prestige Sherman variant
* Better AT guns
* A more interesting take on the tank destroyer doctrine beyond the Jackson (AT halfies, for example)
* Better, dedicated AT infantry and while I'm at it, sticky bombs
* An early tank better than the Stuart (Chaffee fits, a tank that scales well into the late game like the Puma does)
* Calliopes please

The vibe they need to capture is this - Germany is powerful, cornered and bleeding armoured beast. Dangerous when cornered, with a powerful bite. US is nimble, fast, well-supplied and tactically flexible.

The asymmetrical struggle between those themes is the whole point of US versus OKW. Pershings don't help that. They skew it.

It can be fixed with a core faction tweak and some commanders. An early Chaffee to counter Luchs rush, for example, or elite AT infantry with better zooks.

Two steps.

Get rid of vet 4 and 5 (No, the old men and young boys were never going to be super soldiers, and the grizzled vets aren't about to learn even more super-human new tricks).

Reduce the pop used by allied forces, particularly medium armor and some of the infantry. If you can outplay your opponent and gather/conserve more resources, your reward should absolutely be rewarded with more troops and vehicles on the field, you are going to need them.

Wait, why OP is banned

but some obvious active troll never been banned?

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.

yeah i think bringing any tank above tiger was a bad idea in coh2 to begin with just because of how tanks and mechanics perform in coh2...but now relic is not going to remove them...i think only good long term solution is to make even more better and much much more costlier..so getting them will be a achievement in it's self...and the enemy can't have any complains because how can he let his player get such a costly tank like in 800 manpower and 450 fuel for a kt.

This isn't an argument about historic authenticity, it's an argument about the faction *style*

Big difference.

Historic flavour might be a little part of that, but the main thing is how they play. Clash of armoured titans as Germans V USSR is fine. But the same with Americans would be dull. I like the idea of a rapier-thrust, flexible American style but it should involve more than rifles / Jacksons / rocket strike.

I've explained how you can do that without injecting yet more World of Tanks monster-truck dullness into the meta.

They can release US Heavy Armour Company at the same time they release OKW Full Resources Doctrine.

OKW Full Resource Doctrine - that's awesome....

Why does USF need heavy armour when 1 rifle AT nade and a Jackson can solo any heavy vehicle?

Why does USF need heavy armour when 1 rifle AT nade and a Jackson can solo any heavy vehicle?

Obershrek blob

If usf get pershing

OKW can get a full resource commander

DEAL?

ahh lol historical accuracy not important.....seems it is to relic...

Company of Heroes is a franchise that prides itself on several things. For one, it's a well-regarded real-time strategy game. For another, historical accuracy is paramount to developers Relic.

http://kotaku.com/5916104/disobey-orders-in-company-of-heroes-2-and-your-comrades-will-shoot-you-down

USF
Should at best get a Jumbo and it should be doctrinal, doctrine could include things like extra armour for shermans, jacksons and perhaps other vehicles, when I say extra armour I mean something like added sandbagging to the frontal armour (this could perhaps lower damage taken from a penetrating hit, but not determine whether a shot penetrates)

Now before anyone decides to rage at me or call me an axis fanboi lets start here:

OKW
Remove vet 4-5 (or give levels to all factions), remove one of their heavies their only heavy should remain in the current doctine.

SOV medium armour needs to be revised to allow for more useful non doctrinal armour, some other minor things not worth getting into here.

OST list is too long but basically infantry overhaul, tanks are in a pretty good place right now though some could use a little work again not worth getting into here.

http://i.imgur.com/0QEgd.gif

If relic just posted this on their main page and added a commander with a Pershing. I'd forgive them. I'd also buy the commander. I wouldn't lose one lick of sleep worrying about how those folks at Relic couldn't keep their promises of historical accuracy.

I miss my buddy from CoH1.

If you argue that the downsides of German vehicles were that they were very likely to breakdown while in combat, or run out of fuel, the answer will be that random engine damage can't happen because "gameplay".

Because having the game decided by whether or not RNG decides to kill your tank is not fun for anyone, there's zero skill or player input involved, and zero counter-play. We want less RNG, not more RNG that decides entire games.

Wait, why OP is banned

OP was banned because 2/3 his posts are negative or insulting, he's been given numerous warnings and has had many of his posts invis'd.

and the enemy can't have any complains because how can he let his player get such a costly tank like in 800 manpower and 450 fuel for a kt.

OKW's camping game is off the charts though, no faction camps as good as OKW, not even Brits (Brits didn't have Oberschreck Blobs). This method would just kill any team game with a competent OKW player.

So does the US, however the bottom line is the United States Army did not use any Heavy Tanks during the Battle of the Bulge. The closest thing they had were Sherman Jumbo's with 76mm Guns, and even then most Jumbers were armed with 75mm Guns as that was still the factory standard for a Sherman Tank.



It is part of the official check here.



It is a very good reason why it couldn't appear in the US Faction, it was not used by the US Army. "Shermans are boring" isn't a good argument to bring in the Sherman Firefly either

The US Forces were not ‘advantaged’ with heavy tanks. There is absolutely no equivalent to Tigers, King Tigers, Jagdtigers. This is an intended asymmetrical element that matches history.

That doesnt mean no Heavy Tanks. It means if they had one it would suck. That is all.

The US Forces were not ‘advantaged’ with heavy tanks. There is absolutely no equivalent to Tigers, King Tigers, Jagdtigers. This is an intended asymmetrical element that matches history.

That doesnt mean no Heavy Tanks. It means if they had one it would suck. That is all.

The US Forces were not advantaged with heavy tanks. means exactly what it says it means. Heavy Tanks were an advantage that the US did not have, they did not have the advantage of Heavy Tanks, having an advantage of Heavy Tanks the US did not, there aren't many more ways I can say it. If Relic decides to break their own rules (which I hope they don't), that's on them. But as it is, it quite clearly says no Heavy Tanks.

The Iraqis in 91 were not advantaged with main battle tanks. They had them. But it was not an advantage as they sucked. You can read it either way.

It does not simply say the USF had no heavy tanks. You interpreted that to mean something. I interpret it another way.

Yes lets give USF a heavy tank and make Ostheer even more utterly unplayable.