Usf Rifle Company

Just go in the game and test it maybe

ok. i will do, right now. 1 sec

So i checked it.
The E8 in fact has 720 HP, same as the sherman bulldozer. It wasnt always like that though.

The flares and fire up abilities are weak but that is what is probably holding the commander in check.

Buffing units and abilities all the time is step in the wrong direction imo. It makes battles sorter and more RNG.

Its not about buffing, its about making units that are different and useful. Whats the point of having 3 sherman variants all in a 110-140 fuel price range? We already have 2 tank destroyers, one that is arguably the best medium TD in the game, so we have that covered but now balance team is trying to make 76mm into third tank destroyer (and it sucks). Now for e8, some people are saying that it has good stats so we cant buff it because it will perform above its price. But the tank is still useless, nobody needs slightly buffier 75mm sherman with much worse anti infantry capabilities. 76mm similar to t34/85 (800hp, ok performance vs inf and tanks) and Easy8 similar to comet/panther (bad vs inf, good armor and hp) is what will actually be useful.

Its not about buffing, its about making units that are different and useful. Whats the point of having 3 sherman variants all in a 110-140 fuel price range? We already have 2 tank destroyers, one that is arguably the best medium TD in the game, so we have that covered but now balance team is trying to make 76mm into third tank destroyer (and it sucks). Now for e8, some people are saying that it has good stats so we cant buff it because it will perform above its price. But the tank is still useless, nobody needs slightly buffier 75mm sherman with much worse anti infantry capabilities. 76mm similar to t34/85 (800hp, ok performance vs inf and tanks) and Easy8 similar to comet/panther (bad vs inf, good armor and hp) is what will actually be useful.

My point was about "fire it up" and "flares"

I am all about making the units different and useful.

On the other hand your suggestion are to buff both units. Cloning units across factions with different designs has been proven that it does not work.

Unless their price goes also up (185-200?) and require more teching both 76 and Easy8 would be OP.

Actually what I had suggested about the 76mm was to make it similar to normal Sherman but having an AP round option instead of HE. That would make it different and useful leaving room for both Sherman to be built.

Isn't that exactly what the 76mm is though? A Sherman with a little extra health (letting it tank an extra 160 damage hit) with specialist AT-only rounds for clubbing medium tanks?

Isn't that exactly what the 76mm is though? A Sherman with a little extra health (letting it tank an extra 160 damage hit) with specialist AT-only rounds for clubbing medium tanks?

76mm got normal 640 health.
Only E8 and dozer have more.

Isn't that exactly what the 76mm is though? A Sherman with a little extra health (letting it tank an extra 160 damage hit) with specialist AT-only rounds for clubbing medium tanks?

No it a more expensive Sherman with the some HP and very Penetration values for AP rounds.

My point was about "fire it up" and "flares"

I am all about making the units different and useful.

On the other hand your suggestion are to buff both units. Cloning units across factions with different designs has been proven that it does not work.

Unless their price goes also up (185-200?) and require more teching both 76 and Easy8 would be OP.

Actually what I had suggested about the 76mm was to make it similar to normal Sherman but having an AP round option instead of HE. That would make it different and useful leaving room for both Sherman to be built.

My suggestion are not to straight up buff or clone any unit. Im trying to make both doctrinal sherman variants into useful distinct units. When i said "comet like" i didnt mean to literally copy its stats, rather to make it perform at the same level, "premium medium tank". And of course i thought the price going up accordingly is obvious so i didnt mention it...

The main problem here is that usf doesnt need any more tank destroyers and thats pretty much what 76mm is, a weak tank destroyer. USF lacks standard medium tank (one that has good survivability and good performance vs all targets) and premium medium tank (one that could engage panther 1v1 and kill p4 with relative ease)

The problem with making doctrines with no drawbacks can seen with current OKW overwatch and USF armor co. There's zero drawback to selecting those commanders currently. They have early game, mid game, and lategame and unless every commander goes up in power simultainiously, you're going to be creating a very stale meta highly prone to powercreep. Relic doesn't seem to be able to designate such resources to the game currently either. We're receiving patches every 6-9 months, and with AoE4 in a year or two I don't expect coh2 to holding up as well once it's released.

I'd say CoH3 dream.

76mm got normal 640 health.
Only E8 and dozer have more.

Could have sworn it was eating five Pak shots rather than four earlier, but testing it again, yep, you're right.

That's probably better from a variety standpoint. All three Shermans are distinct.

The 75mm Sherman is a pretty standard medium tank with specialist HE rounds for clubbing infantry.

The 76mm Sherman is 15 fuel more expensive and swaps out those HE rounds for HVAP, which club P4s.

The E8 Sherman is the T-34/85 analogue, which is much more expensive and has good performance against everything but Panthers.

My suggestion are not to straight up buff or clone any unit. Im trying to make both doctrinal sherman variants into useful distinct units. When i said "comet like" i didnt mean to literally copy its stats, rather to make it perform at the same level, "premium medium tank". And of course i thought the price going up accordingly is obvious so i didnt mention it...

The main problem here is that usf doesnt need any more tank destroyers and thats pretty much what 76mm is, a weak tank destroyer. USF lacks standard medium tank (one that has good survivability and good performance vs all targets) and premium medium tank (one that could engage panther 1v1 and kill p4 with relative ease)

The Sherman is a good all around tank it probably as cost efficient as PzIV.

The 76 Sherman will beat the PzIV.

If you USF have a tank that can engage the Panther (which is designed to counter tanks) 1vs1 and win then Ostheer would simply be lose badly to USF.

USF already have better infantry, about the same Support weapons, better light vehicles about the same medium tanks and more cost efficient TDs, giving them a premium medium tank able to 1vs1 Panther would simply make them beat Ostheer at all stages of the game.

The Sherman is a good all around tank it probably as cost efficient as PzIV.

The 76 Sherman will beat the PzIV.

If you USF have a tank that can engage the Panther (which is designed to counter tanks) 1vs1 and win then Ostheer would simply be lose badly to USF.

USF already have better infantry, about the same Support weapons, better light vehicles about the same medium tanks and more cost efficient TDs, giving them a premium medium tank able to 1vs1 Panther would simply make them beat Ostheer at all stages of the game.

But they'll still be lacking rocket arty, sniper, cheap tank destroyer and brumbar like unit. In definitive you're just over exaggerating USF capability and over underestimating Ostheer ones.

Where I agree with you is that the Ez8 doesn't need to be changed, picking the doctrine doesn't restrain you from building a regular sherman or a scott for the AI purpose and keep the EZ8 to face other tanks.
What the doctrine needs is a removal of the sprint debuff or better, making it equal at Ostheer one, all infantry except atgun and pak are running faster for a period of time.

The Sherman is a good all around tank it probably as cost efficient as PzIV.

The 76 Sherman will beat the PzIV.

If you USF have a tank that can engage the Panther (which is designed to counter tanks) 1vs1 and win then Ostheer would simply be lose badly to USF.

USF already have better infantry, about the same Support weapons, better light vehicles about the same medium tanks and more cost efficient TDs, giving them a premium medium tank able to 1vs1 Panther would simply make them beat Ostheer at all stages of the game.

First: you still ignore the fact that usf doesnt need another tank destroyer. 76mm will beat p4, sure but jackson will do it too and they both have terrible anti infantry capabilities so whats the point in turning sherman into tank destroyer? Jackson is good at its role and if you want another TD you have m10 too.

Second: i didnt say engage panther 1v1 and win every time. Currently only pershing can engage panther 1v1 and it mostly loses but its good enough to have tank that doesnt have to run when seeing panther rolling in. Every other piece of armor that usf has stand 0 chance against panther and thats why i want some other more advanced piece of armor to be able to engage it with some chance to win 1v1 or at least deal some dmg without being absolutely destroyed.

Third: you act like im preparing another usf rework and giving them superior late game all around. Each of these tanks would be only in ONE doctrine that would lock usf player from other tools like: heavy tank, rocket artillery or elite infantry. Dont worry im not trying to create another ostheer or okw that has all of this NONDOCTRINALLY.

76mm will beat p4, sure but jackson will do it too and they both have terrible anti infantry capabilities so whats the point in turning sherman into tank destroyer?

That's where you're wrong. A 76mm using the basic rounds has pretty standard medium tank performance against infantry. The AoE on them's about the same as the P4 if memory serves.

Sure, it's not as good as a 75mm's HE rounds, but that's specialist anti-infantry ammunition. You might as well say it's not as good against infantry as a Centaur is.

The 75mm has generalist rounds and specialized anti-infantry rounds.
The 76mm has generalist rounds and specialized anti-armour rounds.
Most medium tanks just have generalist rounds.

First: you still ignore the fact that usf doesnt need another tank destroyer. 76mm will beat p4, sure but jackson will do it too and they both have terrible anti infantry capabilities so whats the point in turning sherman into tank destroyer? Jackson is good at its role and if you want another TD you have m10 too.

76mm does not have terrible anti infantry capabilities, it is not TD its medium tanks with high AT capabilities when AT round are selected.

Second: i didnt say engage panther 1v1 and win every time. Currently only pershing can engage panther 1v1 and it mostly loses but its good enough to have tank that doesnt have to run when seeing panther rolling in. Every other piece of armor that usf has stand 0 chance against panther and thats why i want some other more advanced piece of armor to be able to engage it with some chance to win 1v1 or at least deal some dmg without being absolutely destroyed.

A supported M36 can easily drive a Panther away. If you are asking for a tank that can stand up to Panther you should also be asking for Ostheer for a Tanks that can stand up to a m36/su-85/ff.

The panther is there to counter tanks not be countered by them

Third: you act like im preparing another usf rework and giving them superior late game all around. Each of these tanks would be only in ONE doctrine that would lock usf player from other tools like: heavy tank, rocket artillery or elite infantry. Dont worry im not trying to create another ostheer or okw that has all of this NONDOCTRINALLY.

No I am not acting anything like that but if USF have 3 doctrines with tank that can take on Panthers (Easy8, 76 and Pershing) while being able to take infantry also the rest of the commanders will become obsolete.

...
What the doctrine needs is a removal of the sprint debuff or better, making it equal at Ostheer one, all infantry except atgun and pak are running faster for a period of time.

You mean that rear echelons with flamers running around would be a good idea...well no it wouldn't

You mean that rear echelons with flamers running around would be a good idea...well no it wouldn't

As far as I see Pioneer with flamer running around doesn't seem to bother you. Why would RE?

As far as I see Pioneer with flamer running around doesn't seem to bother you. Why would RE?

Feel free to provide replays where pioneers running around with flamers where proven to be problematic.

Keep in mind that pioneer do not have access to smoke grenades and weapons racks. Do you see the problems now?

Bottom line here is the USF infantry are superior to Ostheer infantry and there is little reason to buff them more.

Feel free to provide replays where pioneers running around with flamers where proven to be problematic.

Keep in mind that pioneer do not have access to smoke grenades and weapons racks. Do you see the problems now?

Bottom line here is the USF infantry are superior to Ostheer infantry and there is little reason to buff them more.

Apply your own argument, provide us a replay where RE are that problemaic. Here the only one complaining is you, Pioneer are fine with that and nothing can tell that RE wouldn't be fine as well.

Apply your own argument, provide us a replay where RE are that problemaic. Here the only one complaining is you, Pioneer are fine with that and nothing can tell that RE wouldn't be fine as well.

I am not complaining about anything I am just explaining my point of view about a change suggested by you.

Lets go back to the start, you suggested that "fire up" should be replaced with "tactical movement" and I pointed out that that could causes all of sort of problem. Since it has not happen I can not provide such a replay.

Now if you still having trouble understating why a USF blob running around the map (with RE with flamer on top of everything else) would be problematic, I could probably create a MOD for you to test.