Less pack, More Howitzer (buff the pack's barrage)

To be completely honest I believe that the USF Howitzer's greatest ability is in it's versatility, however in an Army that oozes versatility it's really quite poor. I don't deny it's a good mortar however it's too expensive to be a mortar, honestly the developers should be expanding the USF and OKW Commanders and consider giving it to a support commander after buffing it and just giving the 80mm Mortar which is in the campaign to the USF.

The USF's hard counter to emplacements is meant to be smoke, not destruction. It's why they have it on nearly every unit they own. White Phosphorus is a kraut killer that SLOWS and damages enemy units while also screening your own allowing you to get right up in their grille... however the USF is never meant to let the Germans dig in as they are designed to stay mobile. While this is easier on 1v1's it can work on 2v2's.

The M8 and Pack howitzer are redundant yes but then again so is the entire Captains tree with the Majors tree. It's best you just spend the extra fuel on getting frag grenades for more smoke and don't let them dig in in the first place.

I get what you are saying, simple aggressiveness can deter a player from getting concentrated defenses ready and I'm good at making do with what I have. The thing is that with a light mobile army like USF, you are likely to get pushed back eventually. It's real common for players to set up near the center of the map whenever you give them the chance. From there it's real hard to make use of the mobility that make USF so Iconic as axis forces will begin deploying/reinforcing from the center of the map. You will often have to choose between either going toe-toe in the center which USF isn't designed for, or attempting to keep hold of the other two VPs. From there you either attempt for each player to hold a VP which they will eventually be pushed from by the combined might of both axis. Both options will lead to a slow grinding failure unless your opponent makes mistakes. And even after many attempts at different builds, the only one that works reliably is to simply opt for infantry company.

Premptive use of smoke is great, but it simply can't handle every situation. Not to mention building a pack should be a decent alternative to the grenade upgrade in the first place. I hate to keep bringing up the PAK 43, but it is very representative of the situation. PAK 43 doesn't give a shit about smoke, it will fire through it. Throw it behind a flak truck and you have the very situation that keeps me up at night. In my ideal situation I would take the pak out from afar with the pack. Unfortunately I would be lucky to kill the thing even after 5 minutes of constant barragment.

I don't want the pack to be the destroyer of all things like having the firepower of soviet arty. Just that it be able to effectively loosen up concentrated defenses by picking off/forcing away a MG, or AT gun here and there without being 5 feet from them. So I can actually make use of the mobile forces I do have to exploit the weaknesses in the defenses it creates. But right now with current stats, it struggles heavily to do damage to anything that isn't running right towards it.

IB4 People asking for the calliope


If only the major artillery was good enough...

Major artillery would definitely help as well if it was any good. Too bad it takes so long and can't hit a broad side of a barn. Literally, I used it once directly on a barn and it missed every shell.

It still causes ridiculous insta-wipes, so as long as the infantry clumping isn't fixed, I don't wanna see any buffs on this thing. If the probability of wipes is greatly reduced, it could be tweaked in a way to be a more "normal" indirect fire as you call it.

Anyway I agree with CadianGuardsman, and Pack Howi is great for countering OKW's bases and Ostheer's bunkers and PAK-WALL. IMO the main issue is the performance of Captain's tier as a whole.

Pack Howi is great for countering OKW's bases

I'm willing to accept people disagreeing with me, but this simply can't be further from the truth. The Pack needs an excessive amount of time to destroy a building. It's slow rate of fire assures that and a lot of the shots will straight up miss. It's not much better at hitting the infantry around it either, because as I've said before the barrage sucks. A single pio could repair it faster then it can damage it.

Literally every other weapon that can damage OKW trucks will prove more efficient then the pack.

Why would they ask for a calliope?

Someone might be left with the impression that Relic is run by wehraboos when the Germans get every toy in the attic while the US is found wanting and can't even get a Pershing. It's also a convenient German slant when the game doesn't register side armor. Can't have Germans worrying about the fact that from the sides and rear a Panther is no better at protecting it's crew than an M4 Sherman.


There were more Pershings that were deployed in Europe than there were Sturmtigers built. That along with KV-8's. Every German player gets Panther G's- that's the only model resembling something "good"- while the US has to spend actual cash or get lucky if they want the E8. Not much better with the Soviets and the T-34-85. Shit, 2 of the core Ostheer tanks- the Sturmpanzer 4 and the Ostwind- saw incredibly short production cycles, but apparently its a problem for the US to get even an M4A3E2? How about an AT gun worth a shit? Bazookas?



Its not that US players want the calliope, they want something that doesn't roundly suck.

Someone might be left with the impression that Relic is run by wehraboos when the Germans get every toy in the attic while the US is found wanting and can't even get a Pershing. It's also a convenient German slant when the game doesn't register side armor. Can't have Germans worrying about the fact that from the sides and rear a Panther is no better at protecting it's crew than an M4 Sherman.


There were more Pershings that were deployed in Europe than there were Sturmtigers built. That along with KV-8's. Every German player gets Panther G's- that's the only model resembling something "good"- while the US has to spend actual cash or get lucky if they want the E8. Not much better with the Soviets and the T-34-85. Shit, 2 of the core Ostheer tanks- the Sturmpanzer 4 and the Ostwind- saw incredibly short production cycles, but apparently its a problem for the US to get even an M4A3E2? How about an AT gun worth a shit? Bazookas?



Its not that US players want the calliope, they want something that doesn't roundly suck.

well you certainly opened up a big can of worms there, this is going to escalate quickly.....

on topic: Calliope would be quite excessive for stock rocket artillery T27 xylophone would do nicely

I'm willing to accept people disagreeing with me, but this simply can't be further from the truth. The Pack needs an excessive amount of time to destroy a building. It's slow rate of fire assures that and a lot of the shots will straight up miss. It's not much better at hitting the infantry around it either, because as I've said before the barrage sucks. A single pio could repair it faster then it can damage it.

Literally every other weapon that can damage OKW trucks will prove more efficient then the pack.

About the barrage, I agree with you. This can be said about LeIG too. I don't know why their barrage sucks so much in terms of accuracy. The only thing that makes me disagree with you to some extent is the stupid wipes which are totally RNG based and change the course of the game. I myself am not a blobber (not a very good player, but a proud non-blobber) and when I lose my vet 2 LMGgren to a random shot, I rage. But I too think that it's barrage should be more accurate so you can destroy static defenses.

The suppression thing was good though, for both LeIG and Pack Howi. I would like to see infantry reactions back on regular mortars.

well you certainly opened up a big can of worms there, this is going to escalate quickly.....

I don't know why people think that we are gonna get new units left and right. It's very very unlikely unless they introduce Custom commanders, test it, then introduce UGC, then test it and after all that, it's still "Pandora's Box". Adding something like WC truck on a commander is one thing, but adding a big ass rocket launcher or M26 Pershing is gonna FUCK...THINGS...UP. That's why Relic is not going to simply add units to present factions, because they take their time to create a balance patch, and adding game changing units is a nightmare in terms of balance.

Imagine having Pershing in the game. There are two possibilities since at the current state, it is VERY VERY unlikely to set things right just after release:
1. It's OP
2. It's UP

So we're stuck with either a killing machine which devours your army, or a waste of MP and Fuel for like, 6 months. That's why I'm not a fan of introducing new units (and even a new faction) unless Relic is able to speed things up.
Show Spoiler

480 mp is a hell of a lot for a pack howitzer. its really expensive for what it is tbh

IB4 People asking for the calliope


If only the major artillery was good enough...

+1 major artillery is the real problem behind the Pack howi

There are 4 types of arty in this game:
Mortars
Rocket Aoe Arty like Katy, Raketen and Stuka
Field Guns like Pack Howi and Infanteriegeschütz
Barrage Arty like Priest (People don't realise how good it is) and Howitzers

well you certainly opened up a big can of worms there, this is going to escalate quickly.....

on topic: Calliope would be quite excessive for stock rocket artillery T27 xylophone would do nicely

Well, it bears repeating. Relic gives everyone but the US a proper assault tank. Germans and Soviets get tanks that didn't see more than 10 or 20 examples built, but it's suddenly a problem if the US gets and M-26 Pershing? Or an M4A3E2? How about some artillery that isn't complete ass? The Americans were known for how much artillery they used, but you'd never know it in COH2. They get exactly one properly good OMA and it's an air strike.

There were more Pershings that were deployed in Europe than there were Sturmtigers built. That along with KV-8's. Every German player gets Panther G's- that's the only model resembling something "good"- while the US has to spend actual cash or get lucky if they want the E8. Not much better with the Soviets and the T-34-85. Shit, 2 of the core Ostheer tanks- the Sturmpanzer 4 and the Ostwind- saw incredibly short production cycles, but apparently its a problem for the US to get even an M4A3E2? How about an AT gun worth a shit? Bazookas?

+1

This.

Someone might be left with the impression that Relic is run by wehraboos when the Germans get every toy in the attic while the US is found wanting and can't even get a Pershing. It's also a convenient German slant when the game doesn't register side armor. Can't have Germans worrying about the fact that from the sides and rear a Panther is no better at protecting it's crew than an M4 Sherman.


There were more Pershings that were deployed in Europe than there were Sturmtigers built. That along with KV-8's. Every German player gets Panther G's- that's the only model resembling something "good"- while the US has to spend actual cash or get lucky if they want the E8. Not much better with the Soviets and the T-34-85. Shit, 2 of the core Ostheer tanks- the Sturmpanzer 4 and the Ostwind- saw incredibly short production cycles, but apparently its a problem for the US to get even an M4A3E2? How about an AT gun worth a shit? Bazookas?



Its not that US players want the calliope, they want something that doesn't roundly suck.

On point! Calliope is something I really wanted to see in COH2, not to metnion USF were known for Arty spam.

Well, it bears repeating. Relic gives everyone but the US a proper assault tank. Germans and Soviets get tanks that didn't see more than 10 or 20 examples built, but it's suddenly a problem if the US gets and M-26 Pershing? Or an M4A3E2? How about some artillery that isn't complete ass? The Americans were known for how much artillery they used, but you'd never know it in COH2. They get exactly one properly good OMA and it's an air strike.

You act as if the USF is gimped so hard and just can't compete with any other faction. Lol, I know you're biased. But acting as if USF just NEEDS an m26 really makes your argument seem like shit.

You act as if the USF is gimped so hard and just can't compete with any other faction. Lol, I know you're biased. But acting as if USF just NEEDS an m26 really makes your argument seem like shit.

It stinks of bullshit when Relic can claim it is somehow a problem for the US to get a proper assault tank when everyone else gets one.


I'm not just focusing on the M26 here- an M4A3E2 would be just as useful.

It stinks of bullshit when Relic can claim it is somehow a problem for the US to get a proper assault tank when everyone else gets one.


I'm not just focusing on the M26 here- an M4A3E2 would be just as useful.

Wtf is an assault tank? wtf are you even talking about. Blame the united states for treating tanks and crews like fodder for this representation. Not like they NEEEED a jumbo anyway. Jumbos would be a cool doctrine, but how you're stating your opinion is pathetic. The USF faction is far from bad. If you don't like how america rides the coattails to freedom in this game, then you are playing them wrong and should probably switch to axis if they are so unbelievably good.

Wtf is an assault tank? wtf are you even talking about. Blame the united states for treating tanks and crews like fodder for this representation. Not like they NEEEED a jumbo anyway. Jumbos would be a cool doctrine, but how you're stating your opinion is pathetic. The USF faction is far from bad. If you don't like how america rides the coattails to freedom in this game, then you are playing them wrong and should probably switch to axis if they are so unbelievably good.

Treating tank crews like fodder? When the Sherman made its combat debut it was one of the best tanks around. They correctly determined that Tiger class tanks would be rare. They incorrectly predicted that Panthers would be similarly rare. When this assumption turned out to be false on contact in France, the Pershing was rushed into service as fast as possible, with the M36 Jackson acting as an interim solution on the TD front. In any case, the most common foes faced by the US tanker were assault gun/tank destroyers, medium tanks like the Panzer IV, and AT gun positions. All of which even the standard 75mm Sherman was a match for. It would be incorrect to say that the US tanker was mere cannon fodder marched suicidally into the superior German Krupp Stahl, and only capable of overcoming them by outnumbering them 5-1!

In Company of Heroes 2, the most common AFV foe that a Sherman faces is a Panther and Tiger. OKW doesn't get mediums except through a useless doctrine, and the Ostheer meta calls for T2 stalling into Tiger callins. It would not be an exaggerating to say that I've faced more Tigers than Panzer IVs over the past six months of multiplayer. And I have faced a tiny number of Stugs, comparatively. The most common reason to see a Panzer IV is because of Tiger Ace cheese, where they are allowed to pump all their fuel into T3 then still call a supertank in at the end.

The question is not so much whether USF is competitively viable. It's extremely viable in 1v1, it's moderately viable in 2v2, and it's still fairly mediocre in big team games. But the issue we're pointing out is that the game is designed in large part to cater to WWII gamer's Panzer fetishes. Germany gets all of its cool toys, even ones that saw limited or no combat. Then when people ask for the Americans to get some of their cool late war toys, they start throwing around arguments about how historically inaccurate it is. This is quite funny in the face of how broadly ridiculous the unit compositions are for armies in CoH in general, to say nothing of how many limited-production vehicles that may not have ever seen any combat get featured as core units of factions.

Treating tank crews like fodder? When the Sherman made its combat debut it was one of the best tanks around.

There's a reason they were called tommy cookers. First hit usually lit them on fire burning the entire crew. The US didn't work around the clock to ge tthe pershing into production. The boys back home told everyone that the sherman was more than adequate and thats why they made 10's of thousands of them. Despite as early as 1943 shermans were lighting on fire and were outclassed by panzer4s. I'd consider the barebones t34/76 tanks with a life expectancy of a week a better tank than the sherman piece of shit mobile. Shit Eisenhower had to order that no more 75 mm shermans be sent to europe after the shit ton of losses after the battle of the bulge. Or else they would of kept at it. They worked against the dinky japanese tanks, but got shit on by the germans and needed aircraft support for them to engage enemy armor on a serious scale.

Shermans were not good tanks, they were not planned for future german tanks at all, the americans were really short sighted simply because they performed adequately vs upgunned panzer3s and panzer 4s. Just like russia, they picked really cheap easily expendable tanks because their economy could handle producing 10s of thousands of vehicles as well as finding near infinite crews to operate them relative to the germans. If they really cared about crew safety and such upon entering the war they would have taken a more panther like approach of armor, firepower, and mobility. After the war they wised up and were like "Oh shit maybe sending hundreds of crews to their deaths isn't such a good idea" Hence why everyone copied the idea of the panther and why Modern Main Battle Tanks are a thing.

Feel free to go and read up on some feedback from american tank crews of the time.

http://archives.library.illinois.edu/blog/poor-defense-sherman-tanks-ww2/

Hell even go read through the wikepedia article on the m4 sherman. Only the 76mms were more even vs stugs and panzer4s.

There's a reason they were called tommy cookers. First hit usually lit them on fire burning the entire crew. The US didn't work around the clock to get the pershing into production. The boys back home told everyone that the sherman was more than adequate and thats why they made 10's of thousands of them. Despite as early as 1943 shermans were lighting on fire and were outclassed by panzer4s. I'd consider the barebones t34/76 tanks with a life expectancy of a week a better tank than the sherman piece of shit mobile. Shit Eisenhower had to order that no more 75 mm shermans be sent to europe after the shit ton of losses after the battle of the bulge. Or else they would of kept at it. They worked against the dinky japanese tanks, but got shit on by the germans and needed aircraft support for them to engage enemy armor on a serious scale.

Shermans were not good tanks, they were not planned for future german tanks at all, the americans were really short sighted simply because they performed adequately vs upgunned panzer3s and panzer 4s. Just like russia, they picked really cheap easily expendable tanks because their economy could handle producing 10s of thousands of vehicles as well as finding near infinite crews to operate them relative to the germans. If they really cared about crew safety and such upon entering the war they would have taken a more panther like approach of armor, firepower, and mobility. After the war they wised up and were like "Oh shit maybe sending hundreds of crews to their deaths isn't such a good idea" Hence why everyone copied the idea of the panther and why Modern Main Battle Tanks are a thing.

Feel free to go and read up on some feedback from American tank crews of the time.

http://archives.library.illinois.edu/blog/poor-defense-sherman-tanks-ww2/

Hell even go read through the Wikipedia article on the m4 Sherman. Only the 76mms were more even vs stugs and panzer4s.

There is so many inaccuracies packed into this post....


"Tommy Cooker" is a badly sourced nickname that appears to have no place in reality. At least you didn't call it a Ronson, which is even worse in terms of being able to establish historical precedence. Most people can't even mention the Ronson nickname without then citing an ad slogan that wouldn't appear till years after the war.


The M4 Sherman was actually no more prone to catching fire than any other tank in the war. Early production models and ill instructed crews had poor munition storage and layout (crews were literally stuffing rounds anywhere they'd fit) which generally meant the entire thing was going to explode if any of it was struck. Whereas the Germans would effectively never figure out munitions storage (The Tiger 1 basically had it set where any side penetrating round that wasn't hitting the turret and still placed in the center of the tank was hitting an ammo rack, until they fixed the mantlet design, if the Panther was facing it's turret forward, rounds hitting the lower half would be deflected down into the crew compartment, typically right into another munition rack) the US actually made great strides in munition storage- both where they were stored, and the wet jackets- all of which led to the M4 Sherman effectively being the safest medium tank in the war.


Furthermore the M4 Sherman was actually one of the most successful tank designs of the war- it left a lot to be desired in the French Hedgerows, but that is simply because any tank trying to make offensive action in those would be cut to pieces. All in all from D-Day to VE day the M4 Sherman- based on Steven Zaloga's studies- actually had a performance figure well in excess of the Panther. Never mind the edge in mobile operations the Americans had compared to the Germans.


Furthermore the, "quantity won the war!" argument has no place in reality- at best the Allies were fighting with a 2:1 edge which would fall far short of the oft listed, "5 Shermans to 1 panther" figure people like to fart out of their asses. By '44 and '45 the Americans were actually cutting back the number of tanks they were producing.



And while, yes, Eisenhower ordered that no more 75mm Shermans be called in, the reality remained that the 75mm Sherman was still an adequate tank. Remember- the point of tanks wasn't to fight other tanks. Tanks fighting tanks represents a minority of tanks destroyed in the war- for all sides infantry operated ordinance, be it AT guns, panzerfaust, bazookas, or AT rifles, represented the heavy lifting in this respect. And no, close air support actually represented fairly little.



And of course the, "Muh main battle tank" thing. Are you trying to win wehraboo bingo? The panther has little conceptually in common with a main battle tank. It was so irredeemably crippled by it's design choices that they typically couldn't even engage in traditional tank maneuvers, never mind the fact that it had what was effectively an AT gun rather than a legitimate multi-role gun. If anything it was actually (ironically) the Japanese who first hit on the idea of a singular tank that'd fill multiple roles rather than multiple dedicated tanks for specific roles. No one copied anything off the Panther. They wanted tanks that worked. Even the French, who kept some after the war and kept them in service long enough to have had more experience than the Germans with them, could only comment that the tanks had an excellent gunnery sight, which they then had to immediately take away because the complete lack of any other optics for the gunner meant that they often spent far too much time trying to acquire targets.



And lastly, no, first hand testimony isn't evidence of the wider narrative. On average every round penetrating any tank was killing at least one person. Even the Germans were building tanks that, Tiger 1 and Tiger 2 excluded, were vulnerable somewhere to aged and antiquated AT weapons. Any asshole with a bazooka or a panzershrek hiding in a foxhole or around a corner could take out a tank. Or the AT gun hidden in that patch of trees you can't see. The Panther was no safer from the sides and rear than an M4 Sherman, and German high command had to instruct German tank crews to keep all M4 Shermans at 800 meters or more. Most actual tank combat happened from 1000 meters to 700. Anyone who wasn't absolutely afraid of being in their tank was either lying, dead, or a mechanic.

Lol good one acosn. Those silly germans shouldn't have stopped producing panzer 3s. Cause all you ever need are shitty fodder tanks to win a war. Oops excuse me I mean "adequate" and "good designed".