New faction British??

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

Duuuuuude.. Learn history! Cavalry was just a name, not soldiers on horses!

and it makes sense since Poland used outdated tactics and weapons.

Outdated weapons? Tactics? Polish weapons were at least same level as Nazi in 39', sometimes even better (UR35 vs Panzerbusche or 7TP vs Pz I/II). France used even more outdated tactic then, same for Soviets.

Poland never was a superpower or even a regional power, so them resorting to desperate cavalry charges makes sense to me.

Poland was top 4/5 army in the whole world in that time. The only problem was that Nazi were using groups of tanks while Poland had stretched (few tanks for a division).
Explain me, how horses could stop 2 biggest armies in the world for a month when France with a way better equipment could not stop Nazi for more than 3 weeks?

Come on, learn history...

By saying "never" you claim whole history, right? Well.. Once Poland was the most powerful country in Europe and the only one that took Moscow!

GIVETH THEE STUGHOUNDS!!!

EDIT: No Japs PLEASSE.

Im not A historical buff. But even i dont want to see Western from USF fighting the japs. That would look soo stupid.

Save the jap faction for coh3 when they can begin in a new theater

Coh3: Pacific

Actually the Polish cavalry relied on anti tank rifles to fight German tanks. They actually were quite successful. The horses were for transportation, then the troops dismounted and fought.

Nazi propaganda just turned it into them using swords to show how "inferior" they were.



As for British: They have the biggest potential for a new faction: Churchills, Cromwells, Fireflies etc.

If it´s actually true that they are going to be introduced I just hope they don´t turn out to be as bad and annoying of a faction as they used to be in Coh1. A totally static army doesn´t belong into Coh.

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.

Ok, either you are extremelly delusional or just simply trolling.

Well, Lee Enfield was indeed very successful construction that had absolutely no problems with working in extreme conditions(cold at least) and was really accurate, but about every single other thing REforever have written is either fairy tales or pure, utter bullshit coming either from severe lack of education on the topic or irresistible urge to troll. Lee Enfield was bolt action rifle. Not a single bolt action rifle could match fire rate of semi auto rifle, which Garand was(obviously, other parts of the wall of text are bs as well, no need to address that thou).

By the way, cavalry was used by soviets as well, it was a mean of TRANSPORTATION troops quickly over hard terrain, then troops dismounted and proceeded to engage in combat on foot. That goes for polish cavalry as well, you'd knew that if you studied real history materials and not propaganda leaflets as your primary source of information.

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.

Just soldier talk laughing at a victory, seeing the enemy was under equipped. And US soldiers claimed every tank they saw was a panther!

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.

Its not like Poland did not exist for 123 years and had less than 3 decades to organize against a military machine that nearly dominated Europe.

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.

-Of course Poland has no 17 pounder equivalent because it was 1939 - no allied nation had a mass produced equivalent. It didnt even exist at the time. The Lee Enfield "jungle carbine"? "Modern"? Its a PoS. Its only worthy to be on a wall as it has no accuracy. Maybe everyone i know that has it are just used to other nation's proved rifles of the time. Praise the Canadian designed Garand, but not that pile of trash that was a waste of a friend collector's money.

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.

First sentence applies to everyone. Poland tried. Britain itself did not break down from hard times and pulled through in the end. And the people of Poland did not give up under their occupation. I had a relative (grandfather's brother) who was killed by the SS for his partisan activities. The spirit of Poland fought on.

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

Being an island helped a lot.

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.

Britain defeated Germany with the help of its entire Commonwealth, the US, and most importantly, the Soviet Union. They all aided each other, a popular example being Lend Lease.

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.

Being an island has had its advantages for centuries.

Sorry for weird quoting, but the point is:

I know you are patriotic for Canada and Britian and all...
But that doesn not mean you can talk shit that did not happen about nations and people that you think are inferior to you.

It probably going to be a commander rather than a faction. They said they would wait to add another faction and they also said they didnt see the need to add more during one of their streams

Charging German steel with horses is one example

It's a myth born from a nazi propaganda after this battle

/offtopic

Bring back the blob smashing gliders !

Japanese in a Pacific front against a second US Forces faction, featuring MacArthur's forces.

Or against Soviets in Manchuria.

Show Spoiler

we have:
- Four Germans (2-vCoH, 2-CoH-2)
- Two Americans (1-vCoH, 1-CoH-2)
- One Soviet Union
- One British (in vCoH), and one more opportunity to appear.


I am for the introduction of new factions:
- Guards / Shock Army, the Trans-Baikal Military District.
- Japan
- Eastern Legion - Romanians, Hungarians, Finns
- Italo-German faction.

Why repeat and do the same thing?
I was against the OKW and the USF in the last DLC

we have:
- Four Germans (2-vCoH, 2-CoH-2)
- Two Americans (1-vCoH, 1-CoH-2)
- One Soviet Union
- One British (in vCoH), and one more opportunity to appear.


I am for the introduction of new factions:
- Guards / Shock Army, the Trans-Baikal Military District.
- Japan
- Eastern Legion - Romanians, Hungarians, Finns
- Italo-German faction.

Why repeat and do the same thing?
I was against the OKW and the USF in the last DLC

Not every participant in WWII can make a sensible transition into being playable in a video game. Like seriously, would the Romanians have a special ability where their field guns run out of ammo and the crew picks up their rifles instead? And having Hungarians and Romanians in the same faction would be an absolute joke as they hated each other more than their common enemy, the Germans had to put the Italian units in between them along the front to prevent incidents.


There really isn't anything new or interesting that they could offer that the Germans already don't aside from having low morale modifiers I guess and different uniforms and flags.

And having Hungarians and Romanians in one faction would be an absolute joke as they hated each other more than their common enemy.

Oh that would be a fun mechanic. You mortar the Italian squad and the other two kill each other...

I'll just drop by to plug my Brazil feature...


http://www.coh2.org/news/30318/forgotten-nations-brazil


Hungary/Romania/Finland are all individually as variant Ostheer if you tweak a few things to do them justice.


Once you get to the minor minors like Slovakia and Croatia there isn't much to do to make them unique though,


France you can add as a whole faction competitive in 1944-45 meta if you make some assumptions about the likely developments had they not been taken out in 1940


At the moment Poland would strain even my creativity to get useful however

my choice of the USSR against Japan:
- Games on the theme of the USSR against Japan - very few
- No need to paint the island (if you do not take the landing of Marines on the island)
- Japan, more interesting than the Italians, the Germans fifth fraction - is nonsense.
- The USSR, because fairly (the game was already two factions US and British)

Perhaps british units/commanders within the usf army. not unrealistic since Montgomery took command of the northern usf armies during the ardens offensive and the brits also fought in the battle. .

So your thinking of abilities Like "Pattons Rivalry" which gives a speed boost to American tanks whilst active and 'brew up' which prevents your Shermans from moving for 30s (to drink tea) but repairs tank damage

Not to urinate on your nationalistic pride my pole and briton friends but.... murica! Soviets would have ultimately won in my opinion but there is a reason Stalin was so pissed at yalta. He wanted some slack. The us mobilized the first fully mechanized army in the world from nothing in less than 3 years(We don't need no stinkin' horses. We eat horses. Murica!). were it not for lend lease the bits would have been in dire straights. America had something like half the industrial capacity of the world. It could likely be said the war was lost without any one of the three major allies. America and USSR were waxing while the British Empire was waning. All three and all of the other allies including Poles, fought valiantly to defend their way of life. We can all agree it's the Germans who are the baddies.. kappa.

Totally looking forward to any commonwealth inclusion, but from the code I'd guess full faction. Mediterranean or Normandy seems equally likely. seems probable that no new axis since relic has been working OT on AA and WFA. One single faction, and one the can borrow stuff from coh to complete seems more plausible than another two factions in ~1 year from such a big release. Figuring in all the other tid bits you coders have gleaned I'd definitely bet brits only and I'll be only too happy to buy it.

Please don't start it all over again, we've already had a big chat of Slavs versus Tommies.

Topic: I'd rather have british commaner than british faction. I don't want to have every faction in this game, it is supposed to be Company of Heroes sequel rather than Europa Universalis 5: Aryan Boogaloo

New factions for Coh2 are very limited by its timeframe of 1943-44.

I have long proposed that CoH3 operates in a 1940-41 timeframe, allowing for us to have:

- Italy
- Commonwealth
- France
- Germany

All as viable factions. It also means no super cheese IR STGs and ubertanks.

If we NEED more than 4 factions there are also other possibilities in that timeframe like USSR and potentially other Axis minors (with German support maybe).

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.

I am 100% convinced that you are some kind of parody or trolling account.

At any rate, the British Army was not "merely" outnumbered, they were already defeated on the ground in 1940 and when not combined with the French military, could not hope to stand up to a fight against the Germans on a large scale. Tactically they could perform well, but strategically the situation would be hopeless if not for the Royal Navy protecting the Channel.

Of course this scenario is a headscratcher because if the channel didn't exist, history would have been completely different in Europe and the UK (if it even existed) would not be a naval-focussed power since it would not have the luxury of being protected by a giant moat.

Also stop slandering the Poles please; they faced a dramatically numerically superior force (particularly in terms of number of tanks and number of aircraft) and fought well considering this. The Franco-British forces had equal numbers of troops and more tanks than the Germans, yet also got crushed. The "Polish charged tanks with cavalry" thing is a historical myth. The only cavalary charge the Poles initiated in WWII was arguably successful in that it succeeded in delaying the German advance in one sector, and resulted in minimal casualties. They charged an infantry battalion, not tanks.