USF needs

Jump back to quoted post30 Aug 2015, 15:33 PMJunaid

Hmm...no, no spotting scope. Else it can spot everything else too! (And with pt vehicle it wont give it away)

Focus vision forward? Or Armored vehicle detection on minimap after 10 sec standstill?

Mind you, I LIKE the spotting scope idea, but usually self-spotting TDs don't work out very well (remember elefant maphack?)

Which is why I suggested these alternatives.

Jump back to quoted post30 Aug 2015, 10:37 AMMr. Someguy

This is why I think the M10 and M36 should have Spotting Scopes by default. They'd only be active when the unit is still, and would simulate a key part of USF TD Doctrine: getting the First Strike.

Relic did a horrible job as simulating the TD Doctrine so now these fearsome tank killers find themselves always on the backfoot, or always at high risk, but never fighting confidently.

Jump back to quoted post31 Aug 2015, 07:54 AMEsxile

M36 or M10 plus scope would simply be OP. Not need for that. Make RM more durable with vet so you can leave them alone more time while micro your other units. It seems simple but there is not need to make it more complicated.

Jump back to quoted post31 Aug 2015, 07:54 AMEsxile

If you want to fight confidently play Axis.

M36 or M10 plus scope would simply be OP. Not need for that. Make RM more durable with vet so you can leave them alone more time while micro your other units. It seems simple but there is not need to make it more complicated.

RM with a better durability = Stay longer on the field, can give vision, screen and support your TDs.
This or add whatever elite stock troop you can replace with when you lose your RMs.

Jump back to quoted post31 Aug 2015, 08:16 AMEsxile

TDs are mean to counter Axis tanks. And they are already doing good today, you don't want to buff them to do their job otherwise you'll simply make Axis armor useless. Even more since Heavies has been reduce to 1 per player.

Jump back to quoted post31 Aug 2015, 08:55 AMMr. Someguy

I'm not convinced, the Axis have Panther tanks that can literally face-dive allied AT Walls, finish off a limping tank, and blitz out for repairs. And that doesn't stop Allies from building any tanks.

Furthermore, the British are about to have something very similar in the form of the Comet Tank, which isn't as agile, but at face value basically the Tiger's AI with the Panther's AT.

Jump back to quoted post31 Aug 2015, 09:14 AMEsxile

Yes and you take a risk, your Panther can be damage + engine damage by a riflenade during your rush, you can hit a mine etc... That's risk/reward. Where is the risk of having a M36 spotting for himself behind your line?

Jump back to quoted post31 Aug 2015, 09:14 AMEsxile

USF is design around RMs being backbone of the army. Actually they aren't past 10 min mark. So let them being it all the game long and that would probably solve many of the USF issues aspect.

Jump back to quoted post31 Aug 2015, 11:52 AMIJHicks_XI

Silly idea inbound....

57mm AT to tier 0 available with either LT or Capt

Then add into the Capt tier one of these... theres your more mobile AT on a light platform....

Jump back to quoted post31 Aug 2015, 13:48 PMOmega_Warrior

There's nothing wrong with the jackson. It's perfectly fine. The problem is that it's really the only thing that can hurt armor. USF needs more anti-armor options not just to buff their only good option til it's OP.

Jump back to quoted post31 Aug 2015, 14:28 PMKreatiir

I kinda agree with this.
It's just, the USF have no damage-soaking unit thus they need to engage tank battles extremely cautious.
That's the thing for me that I don't like about the USF. A P4 can easily escape situations that shermans or Jacksons can't.

Jump back to quoted post31 Aug 2015, 11:52 AMIJHicks_XI

Silly idea inbound....

57mm AT to tier 0 available with either LT or Capt

Then add into the Capt tier one of these... theres your more mobile AT on a light platform....

Jump back to quoted post31 Aug 2015, 14:28 PMKreatiir

I kinda agree with this.
It's just, the USF have no damage-soaking unit thus they need to engage tank battles extremely cautious.
That's the thing for me that I don't like about the USF. A P4 can easily escape situations that shermans or Jacksons can't.

Jump back to quoted post31 Aug 2015, 20:49 PMMr. Someguy

The Panzer IV only has 40 more armour, it isn't a huge amount. It's Blitz that gives it the survivability, and that needs to be disabled in combat imo.

As for no damage soaking, that's part of the problem. US didn't rely on heavy armour, they relied on superior numbers or first-strike Tank Destroyers. Neither of which is portrayed in-game.

Relic wanted to make USF use Tank Destroyers, without giving them any of the advantages these Tank Destroyers had.

Jump back to quoted post31 Aug 2015, 20:54 PM__deleted__

Tank destroyers were mostly used for defensive purposes. When assaulting, tanks actually dealt with tanks, not tank destroyers.

Jump back to quoted post31 Aug 2015, 21:00 PMMr. Someguy

That's not correct, according to US Doctrine Tanks dealt with Infantry and Fortifications, Tank Destroyers dealt with Armour. My argument for Tank Destroyers having increased range comes from the fact that US Tank Destroyers had open tops because it let the entire turret crew spot for targets, rather than mostly relying on the Commander looking through small vision slits. This meant that US Tank Destroyers would often see the enemy first and get the first shot.