USF needs

I do agree with everything except for the AT gun changes and adding a heavy tank. USF was meant to be this mobile, powerful force to be reckon with but a heavy tank would go against it. I could see a Jumbo however. The AT gun AP rounds should be looked at in terms of penetration but you have to recall it has one of the best Veterancy abilities (Take Aim!), highest rate of fire, widest arc, and being cheap 270. You have to take note that medium tanks only need 4 shots to take down and if you have a CPT running around that'll be more like 3 or so. Panthers and heavy tanks require teching to Major for Jacksons to counter.

Only change I could see that'd be interesting if Take Aim! reduced rate of fire but increased penetration and longer range for heavy tanks. I mean of reducing the rate of fire by half or so but increased the penetration but a good amount that would stack with AP rounds. This would turn it into the most versatile ATG and fit into the theme of versatility USF (suppose to) have.

The problem isn't the weapon racks, well maybe bazookas, but riflemen scaling into the late game and t4 armor being ineffective to a certain degree. I don't mind that much about Lt. and Cpt. Tier as much as I mind t4 being meh, although I do agree the at-gun needs a slight re-work received accuracy wise(i think dmg wise when AP rounds are enabled it's quite effective).

I really hate the whole "USF doesn't need heavy because faction design" argument.

Look at Ost as it stands now. Ost has access to everything. Decent inf, decent at gun, decent support weapons, medium armour, heavy-medium armour, and heavy armour. Soviets are pretty similar but with different strengths and weaknesses.

This isn't because they don't have certain units - they have everything - but because their units perform differently. You don't look at Ost and say "Ost shouldn't have grens, as they aren't meant to have early game offensive power" or "Ost shouldn't have p4 as versatile medium armour is reserved for USF."

All factions need access to the same tools, but with factional differences reflected in how the tools work - look at maxim vs mg42 as an example.

I don't think USF needs a heavy to be balanced, but in the same way as axis don't need a heavy every match to win. Sometimes though they are necessary, and its always good to have the option.

Also a heavy tank is the very definition of mobile, versatile power. It sure as hell isn't static and sure isn't weak.

I agree.
It needs something to soak up damage cause non of the tanks really can.

I really hate the whole "USF doesn't need heavy because faction design" argument.

Look at Ost as it stands now. Ost has access to everything. Decent inf, decent at gun, decent support weapons, medium armour, heavy-medium armour, and heavy armour. Soviets are pretty similar but with different strengths and weaknesses.

This isn't because they don't have certain units - they have everything - but because their units perform differently. You don't look at Ost and say "Ost shouldn't have grens, as they aren't meant to have early game offensive power" or "Ost shouldn't have p4 as versatile medium armour is reserved for USF."

All factions need access to the same tools, but with factional differences reflected in how the tools work - look at maxim vs mg42 as an example.

I don't think USF needs a heavy to be balanced, but in the same way as axis don't need a heavy every match to win. Sometimes though they are necessary, and its always good to have the option.

Also a heavy tank is the very definition of mobile, versatile power. It sure as hell isn't static and sure isn't weak.

Your argument is invalid: pershing wouldn't be an "option" as 90 % of all players would only go pershing doctrine

Your argument is invalid pershing wouldnt be an "option" as 90 % of all players would only go pershing doctrine

More like 100% if we're talking 4v4s.

I focused too much on the heavy tank missing from USF, but my main gripe is that a lot of usf's problems come from gaps in their unit roster - pretty much what OP is saying. When people talk about filling these the response is generally "USF is designed differently," ignoring the fact that Ost and sovs have a full complement of units that don't just stick to a rigid offensive or defensive design.

It would be OK if the generalist units meant to make up for it were up to scratch, but they're not.

I really hate the whole "USF doesn't need heavy because faction design" argument.

Look at Ost as it stands now. Ost has access to everything. Decent inf, decent at gun, decent support weapons, medium armour, heavy-medium armour, and heavy armour. Soviets are pretty similar but with different strengths and weaknesses.

This isn't because they don't have certain units - they have everything - but because their units perform differently. You don't look at Ost and say "Ost shouldn't have grens, as they aren't meant to have early game offensive power" or "Ost shouldn't have p4 as versatile medium armour is reserved for USF."

All factions need access to the same tools, but with factional differences reflected in how the tools work - look at maxim vs mg42 as an example.

I don't think USF needs a heavy to be balanced, but in the same way as axis don't need a heavy every match to win. Sometimes though they are necessary, and its always good to have the option.

Also a heavy tank is the very definition of mobile, versatile power. It sure as hell isn't static and sure isn't weak.

+10000

not like anyone goes tigers or king tigers other than in 4v4s anyway. Heavies aren't even meta anymore.

I dont agree that USF "NEEDS" a heavy tank. Want to play heavies, or feel like you NEEEEED a heavy? Go play a different faction.

I agree, tired of all the non stop pershing campaigning, the US is a finesse faction. With their early game strength giving them a pershing backed up by jacksons would just be silly.

Rifles just get eaten by LMG grens and need some help in that regard. I like the idea of a supply yard upgrade rather than just a straight scaling buff, seems like it would fit the faction more, rather than just making them scale with grens.

IMO you can balance the USF late game without giving them a heavy.

+1 to:

-mines not being locked behind expensive tech or flimsy vehicles.
-a supply-yard-style upgrade could be enough to offset both the mp bleed from rifles and the need for any heavy vehicles late game.

Balance aside, I think these changes would help make the faction more consistent throughout the game which is what Relic should be striving for.

I agree, tired of all the non stop pershing campaigning, the US is a finesse faction. With their early game strength giving them a pershing backed up by jacksons would just be silly.

Rifles just get eaten by LMG grens and need some help in that regard. I like the idea of a supply yard upgrade rather than just a straight scaling buff, seems like it would fit the faction more, rather than just making them scale with grens.

IMO you can balance the USF late game without giving them a heavy.

I specifically stated, I don't want a pershing, but a Sherman Jumbo, so you have something that can take a punch and doesn't feel like paper. The sherman jumbo won't go against the USF design like a heavy pershing would. It will still be a Sherman, but with more armor.

I specifically stated, I don't want a pershing, but a Sherman Jumbo, so you have something that can take a punch and doesn't feel like paper. The sherman jumbo won't go against the USF design like a heavy pershing would. It will still be a Sherman, but with more armor.

like an EZ8 v2

like an EZ8 v2

It would be a Sherman with more health AND armor, basically a Churchill/KV1 brawler type.

Not sure that a Pershing would be the best for USF, outside of 3v3 & 4v4. Also, there would be no way to put a limit on the number of Pershings without redesigning the faction, and I can already hear the pop cap abuse complaints if one is introduced

My wishlist would be:
better scaling for rifle squads so that they can handle lmg grens when the grens get upgraded,
rifles to always have the ability to build sandbags,
RE's to have the merge ability,
maybe for the bazooka to cost about 40 muni's or at least be worth the 60 that it costs,
lastly, if the US builds all tiers like OKW does, it gets P47's instead of KT's (or Pershings)

I agree, tired of all the non stop pershing campaigning, the US is a finesse faction. With their early game strength giving them a pershing backed up by jacksons would just be silly.

Rifles just get eaten by LMG grens and need some help in that regard. I like the idea of a supply yard upgrade rather than just a straight scaling buff, seems like it would fit the faction more, rather than just making them scale with grens.

IMO you can balance the USF late game without giving them a heavy.

i agree with this. Pershing is not the answer if you need a bullet sponge then you are probably paying the U.S. wrong my biggest problem is not being able to tech due to a rifle men man power bleed, i think a supply yard type building could help with this ir reducing the cost of re-enforcements or make rifles scale better with veterancy or even just making them more effective at close range since they do have semi-auto garands

I agree, tired of all the non stop pershing campaigning, the US is a finesse faction. With their early game strength giving them a pershing backed up by jacksons would just be silly.

Rifles just get eaten by LMG grens and need some help in that regard. I like the idea of a supply yard upgrade rather than just a straight scaling buff, seems like it would fit the faction more, rather than just making them scale with grens.

IMO you can balance the USF late game without giving them a heavy.

yea just bring back supply yard. maybe it can include mine upgrade, too.

land mattress, too.

yea just bring back supply yard. maybe it can include mine upgrade, too.

land mattress, too.

Land matress is a british weapon. Which is already being made for the brits.

I'm actually okay with the US not having a heavy tank. I think it makes them unique, so long as they have other options at their disposal that aren't available to other factions.

I said this in another of your threads, but I'd like to see the 57mm AT gun available in the tier 0 building, but an M5 3" AT gun in the captain building.

Not having mines and sandbags really irritates me, too. You'd think USF would be the faction that needed mines the most.

+1

What about haveing heavy weopns like the 50 cal and the 57mm on tier 0. The mortar in t2 and the pack in t3. They all become unlocked with a 15fuel upgrade at t0.

m20, stuart in T3

M5 " 3 in Gmc and flacktrack in T2

So getting heavy weapons will only delay you're first vechile not nessesarrily a whole officer.

What about haveing heavy weopns like the 50 cal and the 57mm on tier 0. The mortar in t2 and the pack in t3. They all become unlocked with a 15fuel upgrade at t0.

m20, stuart in T3

M5 " 3 in Gmc and flacktrack in T2

So getting heavy weapons will only delay you're first vechile not nessesarrily a whole officer.

A t0 at gun for allies isn't that great of an idea. I mean Ostheer light vehicle play is non existent, so a direct counter to the 222 ready and available at t0 is a bit to much. I understand that OKW has this option, but we must be realistic and see that Axis face way more light armor than the Allies will face from the Axis. Especially with the brits coming.

Have them in the same tier, but not t0, that is just to much. Put a mortar in t0 with the mg, gives them all the things they need in the early game.