M3 Halftrack Assault Group

I'm quite sure WC truck makes WC truck useless enough with inferior stats to soviet M3 and considerably bigger cost.

USF ass grens...I didnt know they had sprint and 5 men. ~ ~

the flamer change is irrelevant,they still drop 2 models and are in danger of being wiped for simply existing in the same engagement range as other units.

using assault engineers in flamer/close range is asknig for them to be wiped unless nothing is shooting them. They are that bad.


And im glad people(what people?) "keep" ass engies(you cant afford to have a non combat effective squad vs either axis faction...seriously) for a demo or two while already being down a squad vs ostheer,and having to shoot 45 muni worth of munition minimum at every engagement,from the get-go. The last thing you buy is a squad that cant engage without disapearing in a puff of exp markers and 280mp,and is too expensive to be a capper or flanker,and requires an expensive easily countered,and honestly,obvious ability at this point to be relevant. Unless you're winning already...Ass engineers are garbage,but whats new.



even 'shit' volks will cut down ass engies on approach ffs. I wouldnt be suprised if a raketen rocket sniped a guy and then the crew sniped another guy,forcing a retreat. theyre that useless.




Give this halftrack, an actually useful,well thought out,theme appropriate squad to come with it(CAV RIFLEMEN with thompsons,now those are USF ass grens ) and buff its stats.

Feeding the troll is injurious to your mental health

I have no clue at all why all these halftrack call ins can't atleast be bulletproof. Both 250 call ins and this m3 group. Like come on.

I have no clue at all why all these halftrack call ins can't atleast be bulletproof. Both 250 call ins and this m3 group. Like come on.

I don't know that this is a problem so long as it is balanced for all sides. It gives SOME defense against small arms but not total defense.

The answer here actually can be "historical". The armor these thinigs had would not stand up to a strainght .30 rifle bullet (but probably would to a 9mm SMG round). Their main benefit was in protection from shrapnel and rounds coming in from angles or range. They can get infantry TO the battle but not fight IN it.

It was this weakness that lead to the use of Kangaroos by the Canadians, since the Roo in theory could go wherever the Sherman could.

This weakness of IFVs has persisted. The M2 Bradley was an attempt to go a next level.... An IFV that could fight off a tank if need be and could survive all but AT fire. But AT fire is too prevalent on the modern battlefield. The US army went to the Stryker, which is also enough to stop all but AT rounds (including making a lot of IEDs survivable by the crew if not the vehicle), but is lighter and many ways better at its role than the Bradley.

I think the only ones who have gone the way of the Kangaroo are the Israelis who have made it possble to configure a main battle tank to carry infantry (but not well) and have converted MBTs into 40-50 ton APCs.

Also I shouldn't have to explain why Cavalry Riflemen would be aggressively mediocre when a good of example of why you don't mix and match with rifles and SMG's can be seen in Assault Guards. Yeah they are not a waste of space but it would be nice if you didn't have to pay for them.

You could always give them Carbines and Thompsons.

One of the new USF Commander is probably a Cavalry Company.

You could always give them Carbines and Thompsons.

They have all thompsons in AA,cheatmod,whatever,....they UPGRADE to BARs but they start with 5 men thompson squad..

I dont even know what he's babbling about...how would a 5 man thompson squad in a halftrack be mediocre

They have all thompsons in AA,cheatmod,whatever,....they UPGRADE to BARs but they start with 5 men thompson squad..

I dont even know what he's babbling about...how would a 5 man thompson squad in a halftrack be mediocre

5 man rifle squad with all CQC weapons and nothing to close the gap (except a HT that can be 2 shotted easily) would fall apart late game. The reason Thompson Para's work is they are 6 men and have much better veterancy, also they have a special ability that is pure rape.

CQC focused squad + late game + no ability to close = ded.

Again, I said mediocre. They wouldn't be bad by any stretch of the imagination but they would just compound the added drain issues USF has.

5 man rifle squad with all CQC weapons and nothing to close the gap (except a HT that can be 2 shotted easily) would fall apart late game. The reason Thompson Para's work is they are 6 men and have much better veterancy, also they have a special ability that is pure rape.

CQC focused squad + late game + no ability to close = ded.

Again, I said mediocre. They wouldn't be bad by any stretch of the imagination but they would just compound the added drain issues USF has.

*Cough, they have a shock-style smoke grenade and a regular grenade cough*

Also, no reason to change change their abilities ad vet to that of base rifles.

*Cough, they have a shock-style smoke grenade and a regular grenade cough*

Also, no reason to change change their abilities ad vet to that of base rifles.

I knew they had a shock style smoke grenade, but that doesn't help them close and win battles when facing a good opponent when the squad still has 100% received accuracy.

Basically CQC units work like this; they depend very heavily on not losing models in order to win when they finally get into their kill zone because every model loss represents a large loss in DPS and the way SMG's drain health makes it so they don't often kill enemy models (which means your still going to be taking the full brunt of his DPS).

Shocks can handle this because they have a grenade and armor. Para's can handle this because they have an extra man and their individual DPS is so insane along with their special ability they can still win out in CQC (although it should be said Thompson para's aren't nearly as common as 1919 para's). Sturms when vetted up have very good received accuracy AND they use Assault Rifles.

Cavalry Riflemen would have a halftrack. They would be really nice units on flanks.

I knew they had a shock style smoke grenade, but that doesn't help them close and win battles when facing a good opponent when the squad still has 100% received accuracy.

Basically CQC units work like this; they depend very heavily on not losing models in order to win when they finally get into their kill zone because every model loss represents a large loss in DPS and the way SMG's drain health makes it so they don't often kill enemy models (which means your still going to be taking the full brunt of his DPS).

Shocks can handle this because they have a grenade and armor. Para's can handle this because they have an extra man and their individual DPS is so insane along with their special ability they can still win out in CQC (although it should be said Thompson para's aren't nearly as common as 1919 para's). Sturms when vetted up have very good received accuracy AND they use Assault Rifles.

And why do they have to be a noskill charge into enemies unit? Cavalry riflemen SHOULD be a high DPS low survivability CQC unit that requires combined arms to be used to full effect. They would still have the recieved acuracy of rifles, which is NOT 1.0.

USF players don't WANT shocks 2.0, we want different, specialized units that work within the scope of the USF. There is a reason these rifles will be coming in an HT.

And why do they have to be a noskill charge into enemies unit? Cavalry riflemen SHOULD be a high DPS low survivability CQC unit that requires combined arms to be used to full effect. They would still have the recieved acuracy of rifles, which is NOT 1.0.

USF players don't WANT shocks 2.0, we want different, specialized units that work within the scope of the USF. There is a reason these rifles will be coming in an HT.

Well, yes technically they would have .97 received accuracy but functionally it makes very little difference. And uhm, shock troops are the literal definition of specialized. They are excellent at CQC combat and nothing else.

If you want Cavalry Riflemen then well okay I'm glad for you but I just want you to be informed of the potential impact of them relative to the current situation vis a vis CQC units in combat and that units (such as ass engines, pios, assgrens and PPsh cons) with low survability and a CQC combat focus tend to be lacking in impact later into the game.

Well, yes technically they would have .97 received accuracy but functionally it makes very little difference. And uhm, shock troops are the literal definition of specialized. They are excellent at CQC combat and nothing else.

If you want Cavalry Riflemen then well okay I'm glad for you but I just want you to be informed of the potential impact of them relative to the current situation vis a vis CQC units in combat and that units (such as ass engines, pios, assgrens and PPsh cons) with low survability and a CQC combat focus tend to be lacking in impact later into the game.

I am not an idiot Alex, I know what recieved accuracy is and what happens to units when they fight. You don't need to go to threads and pretend to inform people.

If you are going to offer your perspective on a faction/ commander, I would ask you to use the faction/ commander in question before you start talking about it.

Well, yes technically they would have .97 received accuracy but functionally it makes very little difference. And uhm, shock troops are the literal definition of specialized. They are excellent at CQC combat and nothing else.

If you want Cavalry Riflemen then well okay I'm glad for you but I just want you to be informed of the potential impact of them relative to the current situation vis a vis CQC units in combat and that units (such as ass engines, pios, assgrens and PPsh cons) with low survability and a CQC combat focus tend to be lacking in impact later into the game.

You have to think about the combined arms picture. Cavalry Rifles in a HT would be really good at harassing, killing units on the flanks, and killing Pak guns.

I am not an idiot Alex

I never implied you were? You called me on them not having 1 received accuracy.

I know what recieved accuracy is and what happens to units when they fight. You don't need to go to threads and pretend to inform people.

What do you mean by pretending? Is trying to be helpful a bad thing now? It's just that a lot of people ARE good of the game but that doesn't mean they have deep understanding of the engine mechanics (which is understandable because it's a lot of math and effort).

If you are going to offer your perspective on a faction/ commander, I would ask you to use the faction/ commander in question before you start talking about it.

Hard to use Calvary Rifle men in a multiplayer setting when they don't exist in one yet, but they are probably going to be part of the new USF commander loadout.

Hard to use Calvary Rifle men in a multiplayer setting when they don't exist in one yet, but they are probably going to be part of the new USF commander loadout.

You haven't played USF period in 8 months (relic leaderboards).

You haven't played an allied AT game that was ranked in 5.

Please stop pretending like you know about USF. If you want to talk about a faction, at least have the common courtesy to use them.

I'm going to leave now.

You haven't played USF period in 8 months (relic leaderboards).

If only the Alpha was linked to the leader boards, since well that was the last time USF was actually fun for me to play.

You haven't played an allied AT game that was ranked in 5.

I'm guessing you won't accept the tournament I just participated in? I mean that would probably count as a good indicator that I do in fact understand how to play Allies.

Please stop pretending like you know about USF. If you want to talk about a faction, at least have the common courtesy to use them.

I don't think the game files change based on what faction you consider your favorite, but resorting to play card attacks is somewhat problematic IMO. Like if you have an issue with what I'm saying feel free to explain.

I'm going to leave now.

Well In guess not then.

Alex you're arguing that they won't be good, but they'd be replacing Assault Engineers, who are considerably less survivable and deal considerably less DPS. Cavalry Riflemen would be a major improvement and combined with a buffed Half-Track, would make them worth buying.

Alex you're arguing that they won't be good, but they'd be replacing Assault Engineers, who are considerably less survivable and deal considerably less DPS. Cavalry Riflemen would be a major improvement and combined with a buffed Half-Track, would make them worth buying.

Assault Engineers have a decent amount of utility to them allowing them as a CQC unit to remain userful later into the game. This would not be the case with Cav Rifles (assuming we copy paste from AA).

It would be much better early in the game, but I'm looking for solutions to help fix USF's late game. Honestly I think buffing Ass Engines combat capabilities would be a lot less tricky then attempting to introduce a brand new unit and then attempt to balance it.

All things considered anything is better than the status quo of course, but I'm just trying to be helpful.