i don't want to play USF if it means losing every game that goes over the 15 minute mark, that's a load of horsey bullcraperinos
"flank tigers"
YEAH WELL TIGERS CAN MOVE BACKWARDS JUST AS FAST AS ANY EASY-8 CAN MOVE FORWARD, and stop telling me to flank with jackons, tiger kills jacksons in 3 hits
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つGIVE USF HEAVY ARMOR༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
20 Jan 2015, 00:54 AM
#1
Posts: 531
20 Jan 2015, 00:58 AM
#2
Posts: 317
Adding a heavy tank is neither a good fix nor a necessary fix for the faction imo.
Im not against a commander with something heavier, but not for balance reasons. However, Relic does not add completely new unit models via DLC (at least not up until this point). So I dont think the chances are high
Im not against a commander with something heavier, but not for balance reasons. However, Relic does not add completely new unit models via DLC (at least not up until this point). So I dont think the chances are high
20 Jan 2015, 01:11 AM
#3
Posts: 1026
Can't add Pershings, they were only used a few times during the war, unlike very common Axis units like Sturmtigers, IR searchlight halftracks and Ostwind Flakpanzers, which were basically the heart and soul of all 1944 German activity on both fronts.
And it would be against the design of the faction to give them a heavy tank, it would be almost as strange as if a doctrine allowed OKW to get a medium tank callin.
And it would be against the design of the faction to give them a heavy tank, it would be almost as strange as if a doctrine allowed OKW to get a medium tank callin.
20 Jan 2015, 01:13 AM
#4
Posts: 1130
i don't want to play USF if it means losing every game that goes over the 15 minute mark, that's a load of horsey bullcraperinos
"flank tigers"
YEAH WELL TIGERS CAN MOVE BACKWARDS JUST AS FAST AS ANY EASY-8 CAN MOVE FORWARD, and stop telling me to flank with jackons, tiger kills jacksons in 3 hits
Now im all for adding a pershing for diversity but if they added it it would not change your issue. the tiger and the pershing will go into a slugging match with one another and the okw/ost has the better support AT. your pershing is still going to lose. you are far better of with 2 jacksons.
Now im for adding the pershing because the usf despereatly needs a breakthrough tank.
horrida flamma bella
20 Jan 2015, 01:31 AM
#5
Posts: 559
I think the Tiger is fine.
All I want is a better U.S. lategame and proper counters especially to axis heavies.
But before that I´d like to see a bug fix and balance fix!!
After that a Pershing, a Sherman Jumbo, Sherman Firefly or Rangers can hit the field.
All I want is a better U.S. lategame and proper counters especially to axis heavies.
But before that I´d like to see a bug fix and balance fix!!
After that a Pershing, a Sherman Jumbo, Sherman Firefly or Rangers can hit the field.
20 Jan 2015, 01:32 AM
#6
Posts: 4928
Can't add Pershings, they were only used a few times during the war, unlike very common Axis units like Sturmtigers, IR searchlight halftracks and Ostwind Flakpanzers, which were basically the heart and soul of all 1944 German activity on both fronts.
It's not just 'during the war', it's 'during the Battle of the Bulge'. The Sturmtiger saw action in the Battle of the Bulge in Belgium, the Pershing did not see action until 1 month later in Germany.
And it would be against the design of the faction to give them a heavy tank, it would be almost as strange as if a doctrine allowed OKW to get a medium tank callin.
OKW's weakness was never stated to be a lack of Medium Tanks, it was stated to be a lack of resource income. USF's weakness on the other hand is a lack of Heavy Tanks.
They can release US Heavy Armour Company at the same time they release OKW Full Resources Doctrine.
After that a Pershing, a Sherman Jumbo, Sherman Firefly or Rangers can hit the field.
Pershing won't work, Firefly was not used by the United States, it was a British vehicle.
Jumbo and Rangers should definitely be in a USF Commander though.
all you filthy hotchkiss lovers need to l2p #TeamPanzerIII
> Kriegsbeute Doctrine|Partisan Rework|British Infantry Rework|Soviet Assault Squad <
20 Jan 2015, 01:37 AM
#7
Posts: 2053
But Jumbos would be fitting... All i want is a meatshield - not including the absolutely worthless, ugly, bulldozer.
Calliope and Crocodiles could happen as well - even though Sherman HE shells are great enough.
Calliope and Crocodiles could happen as well - even though Sherman HE shells are great enough.
20 Jan 2015, 01:38 AM
#8
Posts: 952 | Subs: 1
Good to see that you're as annoying on the forums now as you were vulgar ingame a year ago.
It's near impossible to scrape together 11CPs by the 15 minute mark. Not exaggerating would help your case.
Flat out incorrect. And if I'm not mistaken, a vet 2 EZ8 should move faster than a Tiger with Blitz, as well (7.32 vs 7.05m/s). I can't verify this ingame at the moment though.
Jacksons are more for kiting than flanking- ideally, you shouldn't take a single hit assuming you don't just charge in. The difficult bit, I think, is 1. Getting vet 1 to begin laying down reliable damage at range, and 2. The difficulty of securing the kill (blitz backwards into pak cover sometimes with smoke)- which is where the P47 comes in very handy. That being said, it isn't easy as the USF player if you allow the Ostheer to set up a pak wall w/ LMGs and the Tiger, but with the early game dominance of the USF you shouldn't let that happen at all in the first place.
i don't want to play USF if it means losing every game that goes over the 15 minute mark, that's a load of horsey bullcraperinos
It's near impossible to scrape together 11CPs by the 15 minute mark. Not exaggerating would help your case.
YEAH WELL TIGERS CAN MOVE BACKWARDS JUST AS FAST AS ANY EASY-8 CAN MOVE FORWARD
Flat out incorrect. And if I'm not mistaken, a vet 2 EZ8 should move faster than a Tiger with Blitz, as well (7.32 vs 7.05m/s). I can't verify this ingame at the moment though.
and stop telling me to flank with jackons, tiger kills jacksons in 3 hits
Jacksons are more for kiting than flanking- ideally, you shouldn't take a single hit assuming you don't just charge in. The difficult bit, I think, is 1. Getting vet 1 to begin laying down reliable damage at range, and 2. The difficulty of securing the kill (blitz backwards into pak cover sometimes with smoke)- which is where the P47 comes in very handy. That being said, it isn't easy as the USF player if you allow the Ostheer to set up a pak wall w/ LMGs and the Tiger, but with the early game dominance of the USF you shouldn't let that happen at all in the first place.
20 Jan 2015, 01:39 AM
#9
Posts: 135
clearly you have not found how to play as US, you have to go for 2 Jackson's in 2v2 and above at least one US rely's on this, and its just a great TD
20 Jan 2015, 01:42 AM
#10
Posts: 559
Firefly was not used by the United States, it was a British vehicle.
Counted that to enforce my claim of a bug and balance patch. Should have edit it to "(...)or whatever can hit the field" for clarification. Though I like Fireflys even when they are British.
20 Jan 2015, 01:44 AM
#11
Posts: 655
Permanently Banned
It's not just 'during the war', it's 'during the Battle of the Bulge'. The Sturmtiger saw action in the Battle of the Bulge in Belgium, the Pershing did not see action until 1 month later in Germany.
OKW's weakness was never stated to be a lack of Medium Tanks, it was stated to be a lack of resource income. USF's weakness on the other hand is a lack of Heavy Tanks.
They can release US Heavy Armour Company at the same time they release OKW Full Resources Doctrine.
Pershing won't work, Firefly was not used by the United States, it was a British vehicle.
Jumbo and Rangers should definitely be in a USF Commander though.
Since when should unit selection (and therefore balance) be decided solely by the circumstance of a single battle? I.E. OKW has many units that weren't exclusive to The Battle of The Bulge.
USF's weakness was never stated to be a lack of Heavy Tanks. In fact, I don't think any faction ever had what it's strengths and weaknesses were to be so clearly defined as to allow these descriptions to hinder balance. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone ever said "USF can never have Heavy Tanks".
Firefly was a British vehicle yes, but that hardly represents a reason as to why it couldn't appear in the USF force's arsenal. It's not like the British and the Americans never fought side by side. I would agree with you that a Jumbo would be nice but the argument that "shermans are boring" seems to be prevalent amongst many who seek late-game changes for USF.
A Fallen Scrub
20 Jan 2015, 01:59 AM
#12
Posts: 954
we should introduce a word "rearing" for COH series doesn't have side armor. (2013 game)
Aye Pershing! BTW, the night vision STG44 were introduced in 1945 Feb.
Aye Pershing! BTW, the night vision STG44 were introduced in 1945 Feb.
First off all. Tripwire so gud, 10 ammo for a whole dead squad ? + sight.
Vehicle capture point can win games, blitzkrieg save a tank. Fair Deal i think
20 Jan 2015, 02:21 AM
#13
Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2
Permanently Banned
that "shermans are boring" seems to be prevalent amongst many who seek late-game changes for USF.
They are boring
There is no recording in all WW2 history of a piat actually knocking off a vehicle. Yes, it was THAT bad.
20 Jan 2015, 02:23 AM
#14
Posts: 655
Permanently Banned
They are boring
Thanks for your wise words and clever input, QueenRatchet. Next time I need any other soothsaying truths or mystical wisdom of unknown power, I'll be sure to know who to consult.
A Fallen Scrub
20 Jan 2015, 02:36 AM
#15
Posts: 1026
we should introduce a word "rearing" for COH series doesn't have side armor. (2013 game)
Aye Pershing! BTW, the night vision STG44 were introduced in 1945 Feb.
I legitimately think Side Armor would eliminate a lot of the late game problems that cause heavies to be so much more effective than multiple mediums of the same cost. It's one thing to flank units from the side, it's another if "flanking" actually involves getting shots on the rear of the tank instead of the front or side.
Also lol at Vampir STGs. Battle of the bulge is fine for theming the units but it shouldn't be shackles that prevent you getting more unit variety. It's not like they're forced to add them into the solo campaign anyway.
20 Jan 2015, 02:41 AM
#16
Posts: 655
Permanently Banned
I legitimately think Side Armor would eliminate a lot of the late game problems that cause heavies to be so much more effective than multiple mediums of the same cost. It's one thing to flank units from the side, it's another if "flanking" actually involves getting shots on the rear of the tank instead of the front or side.
This.
It would improve so many things about the current tank combat meta which involves basically getting lucky enough to penetrate, and it would encourage flanking and tactical play, not to mention the effect it would have on portable Allied AT like PTRS and Bazooka.
I've heard someone say this is unfeasible because it would require re-modeling of all vehicles to have side armor values, or something to that nature. I don't know much about that stuff, but it seems like it's a worthy endeavor if it means breaking the stalemate of current tank combat.
A Fallen Scrub
20 Jan 2015, 02:53 AM
#17
Posts: 1637
clearly you have not found how to play as US, you have to go for 2 Jackson's in 2v2 and above at least one US rely's on this, and its just a great TD
Two Jacksons cost more than a Tiger not even including the Teching. Now if a Tiger kills both Jacksons the Tiger is still useful.
If the Jacksons kill the Tiger the Jacksons are now a waste of Pop cap.
I dont think the US should ever have to build more than one Jackson personally because having a Jack and no targets is punishing and a total waste of fuel. A Jackson and a Sherman SHOULD be enough to take out or at least severely threaten a Tiger if you go off cost alone. But without side armor this will never happen.
I am fine without a Pershing myself but I would like to see a Jacksons damage as consistent and dont think the call in meta is good at all. A Tiger or IS2 shouldn't be cheaper than a Jackson with Tech....
The PTRS's are fine as they are. Whenever i'm up against Guard Infantry, I always have to be careful with my vehicles or the Guards will completely destroy them. Good range, good damage and fairly cheap; if anything, the PTRS should nerfed since it's ridiculously good for the price. Even in the hands of Conscripts, the PTRS's are extremely potent.
20 Jan 2015, 03:47 AM
#18
Posts: 4928
Since when should unit selection (and therefore balance) be decided solely by the circumstance of a single battle? I.E. OKW has many units that weren't exclusive to The Battle of The Bulge.
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.
USF's weakness was never stated to be a lack of Heavy Tanks.
It is part of the official check here.
Firefly was a British vehicle yes, but that hardly represents a reason as to why it couldn't appear in the USF force's arsenal...I would agree with you that a Jumbo would be nice but the argument that "shermans are boring" seems to be prevalent amongst many who seek late-game changes for USF.
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
all you filthy hotchkiss lovers need to l2p #TeamPanzerIII
> Kriegsbeute Doctrine|Partisan Rework|British Infantry Rework|Soviet Assault Squad <
20 Jan 2015, 04:41 AM
#19
Posts: 531
they get the worst AT gun that can't even penetrate, the worst rocket launchers for infantry, the most unreliable AT nades, and paper-thin tanks
bufferinos pls
bufferinos pls
20 Jan 2015, 05:11 AM
#20
Posts: 353
hey who want sherman firefly in USF please look to poor M36 Jackson 
PS. i not sure gun performance between QOF 17P in Firefly and M3 90 mm in jackson
PS. i not sure gun performance between QOF 17P in Firefly and M3 90 mm in jackson
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
216 | ||
|
|
|
|
16 | ||
 |
|
|
7 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.611220.735+5
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.1110614.644+11
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.918405.694+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 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
1236