Login

russian armor

USF - A few more design errors

27 Jul 2015, 18:28 PM
#1
avatar of OrionHunter88

Posts: 141

Since my thread about USF being the worst faction got closed due to some mudslinging I'd like to bring up a few more points.

German Air Superiority.

I really struggle with this. In no way did axis ever need to have so many different stuka attacks added again and again and it culminated in the Close Air Support commander. Relic released this commander while they were working on WFA and knew full well that USF would be in the game as represented in 1944-45. A TIME WHEN GERMAN AIRPOWER WAS NON-EXISTANT except for air vs air. Even on the eastern front their airpower was diminishing. So from neither a history nor a game balance perspective should this have ever been developed.

USF Artillery Options.

USF desperately needs powerful artillery in the game. they are the ONLY faction that does not have stock long range artillery. I find this disturbing both for game balance and from historical perspective. USF had the best artillery in WW2 (Soviets may have massed the most in some battles) but USF artillery was the most modern in terms of ballistics calulators, communication, and motorization/mechanization. Relic FOOLISHLY choose to represent this power through redundant and often ineffective off map abilities. Where is buildable 105mm? Where is stock long range artillery? Calliope? ... so irritiating.

Combined arms.

USF doctrine stressed more than any other the use of combined arms and fire and maneuver (all forces in ww2 did) but USF was one of the better at doing this. Better than the germans largely due to the fact that late in the war it was hard for germans to always use combined arms due to a lack to vehicles. USF always had plenty of infantry/vehicles to send into the fray. Better training over all than soviet. and better manpower than british. I have a problem with the way the units are balanced that USF revolves around rifleman/jackson/paratrooper. Everything else is niche or just sucks.
28 Jul 2015, 22:55 PM
#2
avatar of The Big Red 1

Posts: 758

that and the need for the M26 Pershing to help level the playing field
29 Jul 2015, 01:59 AM
#3
avatar of Sesleri

Posts: 46

Less than 5 Pershings saw any use during WW2 and they weren't successful. We don't need this Korean War tank in every COH match.

Every faction doesn't need to be identical. It's ok that Americans lack heavy armor.
29 Jul 2015, 02:28 AM
#4
avatar of The Big Red 1

Posts: 758

yet the other 4 factions get heavy tanks that doesn't sound really fair and relic made USF heavy skins available for purchase in the store if USF has no heavy tank why did relic bother making those xtra heavy skins that would defy all logic beyond madness because its a waste of time and money
29 Jul 2015, 02:36 AM
#5
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

why did relic bother making those xtra heavy skins that would defy all logic beyond madness because its a waste of time and money

They probably really didn't and just copied the icon in the inventory to make the heavy skin spot look less empty.
29 Jul 2015, 02:43 AM
#6
avatar of Bob Loblaw

Posts: 156

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Jul 2015, 01:59 AMSesleri
Less than 5 Pershings saw any use during WW2 and they weren't successful. We don't need this Korean War tank in every COH match.

Every faction doesn't need to be identical. It's ok that Americans lack heavy armor.


Nope

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/vehiclesarmor/p/m26-pershing.htm

Only about 310 Infrared scopes were fielded and those are in this game. In infantry forces that is pretty much nothing. According to my source 310 M26s made it to Europe so I expect to see a Pershing.
29 Jul 2015, 02:46 AM
#7
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Jul 2015, 01:59 AMSesleri
Less than 5 Pershings saw any use during WW2 and they weren't successful. We don't need this Korean War tank in every COH match.

Every faction doesn't need to be identical. It's ok that Americans lack heavy armor.
No it was 20 pershings that saw combat, not 5.
29 Jul 2015, 02:50 AM
#8
avatar of Bob Loblaw

Posts: 156

I just want USF costs to not be stupid. I don't think any drastic design changes are needed for that.
29 Jul 2015, 02:51 AM
#9
avatar of Bob Loblaw

Posts: 156

I just want USF unit and upgrade costs to not be stupid. I don't think any drastic design changes are needed for balance.
29 Jul 2015, 02:54 AM
#10
avatar of Sesleri

Posts: 46



Nope

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/vehiclesarmor/p/m26-pershing.htm

Only about 310 Infrared scopes were fielded and those are in this game. In infantry forces that is pretty much nothing. According to my source 310 M26s made it to Europe so I expect to see a Pershing.


The very article you link claims only 20 "saw combat".
29 Jul 2015, 03:13 AM
#11
avatar of Bob Loblaw

Posts: 156

jump backJump back to quoted post29 Jul 2015, 02:54 AMSesleri


The very article you link claims only 20 "saw combat".


At least 14 more than your less than 5 claim. Also it goes on to say 310 made it to the theatre of war. The same can be said for the Zielgerät 1229 scopes which are in the game so there is no argument to be had here against the inclusion of the Pershing.

If German war porn that didn't have a large affect on the war is in the game then Allied war porn should be in it too.
29 Jul 2015, 03:19 AM
#12
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

Realistically speaking OKW is actually more historically accurate than it's ever been. Out of date PIV's upgunned and forced into battle fighting alongside JPIV's while being hopelessly outnumbered is pretty realistic.

I support USF getting the Pershing but is isn't going to be the magic bullet that fixes USF. It's just going to be Rifle Company 2.0.
29 Jul 2015, 03:52 AM
#13
avatar of ThoseDeafMutes

Posts: 1026

Sturmtiger as stock unit was definitely nonsensical. But then so is Ostwind being a stock tank, lel. 45 produced total starting in 1944, unknown number seeing combat. The games use real armies as themes, but don't strictly adhere to realism in any capacity.

29 Jul 2015, 03:56 AM
#14
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

I wish the pack howitzer wasn't a gimmick unit that relied on lucky wipes and actually allowed USF to have good long range indirect.
29 Jul 2015, 04:05 AM
#15
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

I wish the pack howitzer wasn't a gimmick unit that relied on lucky wipes and actually allowed USF to have good long range indirect.


+1. Also LeiG needs the same help.
29 Jul 2015, 04:23 AM
#16
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561



+1. Also LeiG needs the same help.
Atleast the lieg doesn't work against OKW. You can place it within range of the base where it can get reinforced against counter-battery and protected by the flak truck. All while keeping up a nice consistant fire with it's long range autofire.

The Pack howitzer is a slow, inconsistent, defensive unit in a faction that's all about mobility and aggressiveness. It forces the USF player to fight in a style that it's not designed to. On top of that it comes in the tier with no suppression units to defend it. It's crummy range forces it to be close to the front line, yet it doesn't even have a gun shield like the leig to defend it and can't retreat if it gets in trouble. It's increased range with barrage might as well not even be there since it's accuracy past that point makes it impossible to even hit anything.

The pack really doesn't really belong in USF as it is right now.
29 Jul 2015, 06:16 AM
#17
avatar of Sesleri

Posts: 46



At least 14 more than your less than 5 claim. Also it goes on to say 310 made it to the theatre of war. The same can be said for the Zielgerät 1229 scopes which are in the game so there is no argument to be had here against the inclusion of the Pershing.

If German war porn that didn't have a large affect on the war is in the game then Allied war porn should be in it too.


I think it's fine to buff USF, add new late-game, or early game options for them, or nerf Axis. Adding historically inaccurate units like Pershing into meta- mirroring the factions- is silly though.

Often seems like many forum heroes won't be happy until factions are exactly the same with different skins. It makes the game more interesting to have vastly different factions with different strengths and weaknesses.

I think the scopes you're talking about appearing in COH matches is silly too!


Not trying to be an axis fanboy here, just think Pershing doesn't belong showing up in every COH game when it played no role in the war.
29 Jul 2015, 06:30 AM
#18
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053

M4a3e2's...

#1 complaint: USF armor is paper.

The US army tried to make a temporary solution to deal with powerful guns.
29 Jul 2015, 06:34 AM
#19
avatar of The Big Red 1

Posts: 758

M4a3e2's...

#1 complaint: USF armor is paper.

The US army tried to make a temporary solution to deal with powerful guns.

but that didnt work so well now did it which is why they brought in the M26 Pershing after the heavy tank losses against a concentrated armored force from the germans during the battle of the bulge...
29 Jul 2015, 06:53 AM
#20
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053


but that didnt work so well now did it which is why they brought in the M26 Pershing after the heavy tank losses against a concentrated armored force from the germans during the battle of the bulge...


The M26 really wasnt great at all. It suffered from mechanical failures, unsurprisingly - the bane of the panther. Its a miracle they didnt cancel the order to build them like many other tank designs.

-

USF is designed around the time of the Battle of the Bulge. No Pershings there. Sherman Jumbo was able to bounce 88mm shells, but obviously wasnt preferable because the sherman was not designed to work that way. Nevertheless, it is better for the game than another wet dream sleazy heavy tank which you expect to destroy everything just cuz (even though it would be worse than IS-2 and Tiger, especially with USF vehicle crews having duct tape insta crit repair).

It all depends how much Relic wants money from commanders. Upon USF's release, Relic had said USF was designed to not require heavy tanks. Pershing is a heavy tank, a modified sherman with very heavy armor is not. USF only needs durable armor, not a noob crutch weapon.

I want to play USF nice. I dont want the faction and game ruined with another gimmicky monstrocity that was once the terror of the call-in meta. Heavy tanks simply disavow proper use of combined arms and other tanks/vehicles.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

632 users are online: 632 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49065
Welcome our newest member, Huhmpal01
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM