New faction British??

I dare not hope that this is a USF commander like lend lease and has the Firefly in it.

I am sure it wont be that good though. Probably a Cromwell or something....

Could add a 17 pounder though. Since the Pak43 is in game...why not?

And as those very words were mentioned, Relic has just finalzied a commander with an M26 Pershing Heavy Tank for 500 MP and 150 fuel. >_<

We can only hope Relic learned from the Soviet Industry Tactics/Elite Troops Doctrine P2W clusterf*ck fest.

I dare not hope that this is a USF commander like lend lease and has the Firefly in it.

I am sure it wont be that good though. Probably a Cromwell or something....

Could add a 17 pounder though. Since the Pak43 is in game...why not?

And the lend lease commander was a prequel for WFA.

Yeah, right.


I guarantee you new factions will break the game even more. 100% sure. Absolutely.

I understand your fear but it should not be worst that it is now, so it can only be better !

I can't get enough of the idiots who still believe this horse vs tanks axis propaganda. I mean, how stupid and uneducated can you be to keep repeating that?

I've seen you post frequently and can completely agree with you. I honestly love utilizing all four factions, but consider myself a causal-to-intermediate level player. All the pro-Allies/pro-Axis players who complain about "balance" issues, but only play one faction/side, should be considered completely irrelevant. A lot of complaints root back to a "L2P" scenario, and yeah, there's some complications with balance (all games have their fair-share), but to say that this game is completely one-sided towards a particular faction demonstrates that the individual lacks the ability to comprehend that this is a game, and there are people who are good, and those who aren't at said game (the latter generally likes to deny this fact).

Nobody want new armies or Brits! Just play COh1 if you really want to play them.

Maybe we will see a return of the PE as well? A german faction with one main combat/utility infantry unit, Soviet/PE style teching, fragile but effective tier vehicles and reliable and powerful call-ins?

I really miss the Hetzer, the Jagdpanther and the Hummel....especially the Hummel...

its very possible that this is a commander and not a totally new faction.. USF isnt limited to JUST the US Forces, since the faction emblem is THE SHAEF logo which is a reperesentative of all the western allies including britain, poland, etc

voice lines could be "We have nearby commonwealth forces that have been placed under our command, direct as needed"

"we just lost a firefly. montgomerys gonna be pissed wih us misusing his men."

"British commandos ready to coordinate with us"
would be reallllllllllly cool if they did it like that

Maybe we will see a return of the PE as well? A german faction with one main combat/utility infantry unit, Soviet/PE style teching, fragile but effective tier vehicles and reliable and powerful call-ins?

Hell no, please no comeback of PE or another "only" german faction. That would be so boring.

I really miss the Hetzer, the Jagdpanther and the Hummel....especially the Hummel...

I miss them too. But please give them to Ost Wehr.

If there was no water between the british isles and mainland europe, england would be gone in 2 weeks, if not faster. The british land army was not much in a better state than 1941 and 1942 than the polish or french forces. Remember, they were getting their asses kicked by the japanese in 1941-42 and even the soviets in 1939 were able to defeat the japanese in Khalkin Ghol, even though the state of the soviet army in 1939-41 was also completely backwards. While USA didin't really have an army in 1941-42.
The german land forces outclassed absolutely everyone in 1941-1942, while the soviet army was better on paper, it turned out to be a completely mess in 1941-1942. Of course even the wehrmacht was not perfect, since Barbarossa ultimately failed horribly at Moscow.
The soviet union was instrumental to the defeat of the germans. Its a very well proven fact. Whether they could of won alone is another question. Some historians such as Glantz believe that the soviets could of won alone.


Also, the polish charging tanks with cavalry is complete and utter bullshit. That said, horses were incredibly instrumental for the war. For example, the wehrmacht and the red army used horses as its primary mean of transport.

Really? You honestly think that the British Empire would've been defeated in 2 weeks if it wasn't for the English Channel? The British Army is possibly the oldest Army in the World along with the Royal Navy; the British Army might not be the best and have numerical superiority, but they were and still are one of the best armies in the World; if Germany got past the Royal Navy, they then would've had to go up against the British Army(soldiers from Canada, Australia, UK, India, New Zealand and etc). Unlike Polish soldiers, British troops were extremely well trained, equipped with the most modern weapons and had competent officers and Generals leading them.

Anyways, i'm not going to go into much detail about your cherrypicking(Claiming the Japanese had a better Army than the British Empire) but most of what you say is utterly wrong. Keep in mind, the British Empire was fighting on all fronts and for a while, they were literally the only country who stood up against the Germans while everyone fled and surrendered.


There's no doubt in my mind that without the British Empire(The UK, India, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and etc), Germany would've won WW2. As in practically every other war the British fought, they were one of if not the most important actor on the stage, and almost always emerged decisively victorious. It's why the British deserve to be a faction instead of being a support bitch; leave the support to countries who got wrecked like Romania, Poland and etc.

Also, go look up the British Army on Wikipedia or go to the British Army website and learn about their Army; they were one of the finest in the World and along with the Royal Navy supporting them, they were a force to be reckoned with. I can't say the same about Poland, unless you're telling me the Polish Navy was better than the Royal Navy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army

https://www.army.mod.uk/

Anyways, I don't see why people are upset regarding my comment about Polish cavalry charges. Several historians agree that the Polish tried to flank a German Panzer division using horses and cavalry sabres, and it makes sense since Poland used outdated tactics and weapons. Poland never was a superpower or even a regional power, so them resorting to desperate cavalry charges makes sense to me.

A game that don't evolve will surely die.... new stuff must be added to keep the game fresh. But the implementation must be done with care to keep fun level high or you can jeopardize the whole game.

But i'm confident the corporate don't want to kill a potential cash cow.

i beg for a big chunky balance patch and a couple of new, non broken wfa commanders.

If they add a british commander they will also add a british faction.

Just curious what setting we will visit in the upcoming expansion pack

Really? You honestly think that the British Empire would've been defeated in 2 weeks if it wasn't for the English Channel?

Ships are bad in directly assisting ground forces, british army was non existent before ww2, few weak garrisons and absolutely none on the main islands(just enough to keep order).

Yea, if not for the fact that panzers could not get there, the brits would lose the war before even starting it, just like french.

Brits/Japanese as new factions? Why not? Brits match with european and pacific war theatre like U.S. and Soviets do. Would be pretty cool and Relic does have the pacific maps already.

Dreamin...

I like the idea of a commander that calls in Common Wealth units instead of a whole new army.

The Japanese wouldn't (unless you use your World of Tanks history textbook) possess any armoured units that could conceivably hold their own with a 75mm Sherman...let alone the E8, Jackson...Soviet arsenal...etc

If you want to include Japan you'd have to create a separate US Army/Marines faction that is balanced towards pacific island fighting, more infantry geared than armoured...and have them not be able to mix with US/Sov/Ost/West in matchmaking...

But that's not going to happen because;
1) Majority of CoH2 casual fanbase wants to see epic heavy tank face-offs like IS-2s vs Tigers...they'd see the Japanese/Marines as boring factions with their occasional light/medium tanks.
2) If they did implement it...they wouldn't separate the fanbase, they didn't with Western Armies...now we have US Army in Rostov and the Red Army in France...and that's already a problem as USF cannot hold their own in big team games without Soviet support as it is...An Imperial Army faction would just be a liability to the Axis.

Overall a Japanese faction would require a completely different game experience than what we are used to in CoH2...It needs to be tailored to reflect the fighting conditions and the nature of the combat in the pacific...game mechanics simulating thick jungle brush, prolonged exposure to heat, complex ambush/camo mechanics, night-time maps with limited LOS, hand-to-hand fighting...it has to be done right or not at all.

Really? You honestly think that the British Empire would've been defeated in 2 weeks if it wasn't for the English Channel? The British Army is possibly the oldest Army in the World along with the Royal Navy; the British Army might not be the best and have numerical superiority, but they were and still are one of the best armies in the World; if Germany got past the Royal Navy, they then would've had to go up against the British Army(soldiers from Canada, Australia, UK, India, New Zealand and etc). Unlike Polish soldiers, British troops were extremely well trained, equipped with the most modern weapons and had competent officers and Generals leading them.

Anyways, i'm not going to go into much detail about your cherrypicking(Claiming the Japanese had a better Army than the British Empire) but most of what you say is utterly wrong. Keep in mind, the British Empire was fighting on all fronts and for a while, they were literally the only country who stood up against the Germans while everyone fled and surrendered.


There's no doubt in my mind that without the British Empire(The UK, India, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and etc), Germany would've won WW2. As in practically every other war the British fought, they were one of if not the most important actor on the stage, and almost always emerged decisively victorious. It's why the British deserve to be a faction instead of being a support bitch; leave the support to countries who got wrecked like Romania, Poland and etc.

Also, go look up the British Army on Wikipedia or go to the British Army website and learn about their Army; they were one of the finest in the World and along with the Royal Navy supporting them, they were a force to be reckoned with. I can't say the same about Poland, unless you're telling me the Polish Navy was better than the Royal Navy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army

https://www.army.mod.uk/

Anyways, I don't see why people are upset regarding my comment about Polish cavalry charges. Several historians agree that the Polish tried to flank a German Panzer division using horses and cavalry sabres, and it makes sense since Poland used outdated tactics and weapons. Poland never was a superpower or even a regional power, so them resorting to desperate cavalry charges makes sense to me.

Which historians are you reffering to that said that Poland charged cavarly with tanks? I'd suggest you look at the numbers of the british army in 1941-1942 and how well they actually performed. What are these so "modern weapons" you speak of?


I'm interested in why exactly the british troops were well trained, had capable officers and extremelly well equipped yet still got horribly defeated in France, Japan and almost lost Africa.


Somehow the british empire consisting of india, canada and the british isles losing a bunch of battles againts germany, japan and what not makes them very well trained and experienced.

Yet a much smaller Poland fightning againts the biggest 2 armies in the world (soviet union, germany) is told to be "weak in tactics and experience" while still holding on for a month.

Fightning on all fronts? What fronts? They were fightning on one front. Africa, againts italians.

Months later germany declared war on the soviet union and after another few months the japanese attacked USA and UK.

Which historians are you reffering to that said that Poland charged cavarly with tanks?

It was said by an Italian correspondant named Indro Montanelli that the Polish charged German Panzers using Lancers and horses. German commanders who were present at the battle also confirmed cavalry charges by the Polish.

I'd suggest you look at the numbers of the british army in 1941-1942 and how well they actually performed. What are these so "modern weapons" you speak of?

I did look at the numbers and my research tells me the British Army was 860 thousand to 900 thousand strong in 39 compared to the Polish who had 940 thousand approximately. Did Poland have numerical superiority? Sure(Not by much though) but the Invasion of Poland proved that their tactics, equipment and troops were of low quality. This is supported by the fact that casualties for the polish during the Battle of Poland was 900 thousand(Lol!), compared to the British who lost around 300 thousand in total(Including civilians). This is early on in the war mind you, once the British Empire was operating at full capability, the amount of troops, weapons, ships and etc were increased tenfold.

As for modern weapons, do I need to remind you of the Lee Enfield and the 17 Pounder? The Lee Enfield was modern because it was still the best infantry rifle in WW2; the Enfield was the weapon of choice for Colonial troops in the Boer Wars, conflicts in the Middle East and WW1 and WW2; it was tried and true.

The 17 Pounder was also the only AT gun that could take on Germany's heaviest tanks; what did Poland make that rivaled the 17 Pounder? Nothing.

I'm interested in why exactly the british troops were well trained, had capable officers and extremelly well equipped yet still got horribly defeated in France, Japan and almost lost Africa.

You can't win every battle. None the less, the British Army were constantly winning battles in 1941 and after, and often against enemies who had numerical superiority. Let's not forget though that the British Empire's bread and butter was the Royal Navy; it's the main weapon that established battlefield superiority, but the British Army weren't incompetent idiots and ill-equipped. Quite the contrary actually since they also had an extremely good Army on top of the World's greatest Naval force.

Somehow the british empire consisting of india, canada and the british isles losing a bunch of battles againts germany, japan and what not makes them very well trained and experienced.

Again, you can't win every battle. The British Empire was decisively winning from 1941 and onward.

Yet a much smaller Poland fightning againts the biggest 2 armies in the world (soviet union, germany) is told to be "weak in tactics and experience" while still holding on for a month.

Poland had more troops than the British Empire during 1939, so where do you get "smaller Poland" from? Doesn't change the fact that the British Empire defeated Germany while Poland lost to them.

Fightning on all fronts? What fronts? They were fightning on one front. Africa, againts italians.

The British were fighting on all fronts from an economical and military perspective. They were busy fighting the Germans militarily in Eastern Europe, while financially supporting and militarily supporting the Mediterranean countries; let's not forget about Japanese aggression and movements in the Pacific and SEA, AND the Middle East on top of all that.

It was said by an Italian correspondant named Indro Montanelli that the Polish charged German Panzers using Lancers and horses. German commanders who were present at the battle also confirmed cavalry charges by the Polish.



I did look at the numbers and my research tells me the British Army was 860 thousand to 900 thousand strong in 39 compared to the Polish who had 940 thousand approximately. Did Poland have numerical superiority? Sure(Not by much though) but the Invasion of Poland proved that their tactics, equipment and troops were of low quality. This is supported by the fact that casualties for the polish during the Battle of Poland was 900 thousand(Lol!), compared to the British who lost around 300 thousand in total(Including civilians). This is early on in the war mind you, once the British Empire was operating at full capability, the amount of troops, weapons, ships and etc were increased tenfold.

As for modern weapons, do I need to remind you of the Lee Enfield and the 17 Pounder? The Lee Enfield was modern because it was still the best infantry rifle in WW2; the Enfield was the weapon of choice for Colonial troops in the Boer Wars, conflicts in the Middle East and WW1 and WW2; it was tried and true.

The 17 Pounder was also the only AT gun that could take on Germany's heaviest tanks; what did Poland make that rivaled the 17 Pounder? Nothing.






You can't win every battle. None the less, the British Army were constantly winning battles in 1941 and after, and often against enemies who had numerical superiority. Let's not forget though that the British Empire's bread and butter was the Royal Navy; it's the main weapon that established battlefield superiority, but the British Army weren't incompetent idiots and ill-equipped. Quite the contrary actually since they also had an extremely good Army on top of the World's greatest Naval force.




Again, you can't win every battle. The British Empire was decisively winning from 1941 and onward.



Poland had more troops than the British Empire during 1939, so where do you get "smaller Poland" from? Doesn't change the fact that the British Empire defeated Germany while Poland lost to them.


The British were fighting on all fronts from an economical and military perspective. They were busy fighting the Germans militarily in Eastern Europe, while financially supporting and militarily supporting the Mediterranean countries; let's not forget about Japanese aggression and movements in the Pacific and SEA, AND the Middle East on top of all that.

Well, i dont know, but i think India , Canada, British isles, Canada and a bunch of more islands is bigger in total territory than Poland. British fightning in eastern europe? What?
Maybe the fact that the army of britain was so small just proves the fact that they were not ready for war?

Oh, so apparently now we believe in correspondants, not actual historians, okay.

The fact that british casaulties are so low just prove that they didin't participate in much in the war.

Your post makes no sense whatsoever. Why are we talking about the 17 pounder? This is a late war thing, not an early war thing.


How in the world was the lee enfield superior? Sure it had 10 rounds over 5, yeah, big deal.

The Lee Enfield was incredibly innovative when it was first introduced, and was good enough that it retained service in WW2 and beyond; it's even been used in recent African and Middle-Eastern conflicts by terrorists and rebels alike. It had the firepower of a K98 and the clip capacity and firing speed of an M1 Garand; it was the rifle that won WW2 I think.