Why has the USF regular sherman become so bad...

Anyone who says the Panzer IV for Ostheer is trash against infantry needs to adjust their perspective. The main gun may not hit all the time but it does well enough blasting models before the MGs are added.

How about any of the time?

https://clips.twitch.tv/VibrantSpoopyWafflePRChase

vs the "bad sherman in question" at 10 fuel cheaper

https://clips.twitch.tv/AuspiciousHonorableSproutStinkyCheese

Don't get me wrong, the OST p4 isn't bad, but when I see things like this crap where I literally cannot improve the tank performance any more by staying stationary vs players who just stroll up and insta gib shit, it gets frustrating.

And before the army of allied fanboys attacks for the 2nd clip about how there were squads on retreat, watch the HP of pioneer in the top right as the sherman takes shots, and tell me it was the blob doing the work.

Before, the Sherman was the only tank you built as usf, so in order to balance it and add more utility to the rest they tweaked the stats.

Sherman is mainly used for AI firepower, the rest is extra, and it can still hold itself with AP rounds.

Also the panzer 4 is fine, and does great against infantry.
I find it hilarious when they tell you the main gun misses too often, the same people will tell you that the T34 is good, even though the main gun doesn't hit shit.

I stopped counting the number of wipes I got with the panzer 4, even though it can miss, when the main gun hits it really does damage and wipes infantry with much ease.

Heres the low down fellas, all mediums are completely RNG based so its a L2p issue

So if they're the same, (the pintle ain't free after all) why would u disagree that the ai ability of the Ost p4 is just as pathetic as the cromwell and far worse than the Sherman.

V (that's supposed to be an arrow lol).

Actual answer: he tried to word things conservatively. The p4 main gun actually has a non insignificant advantage (well, if I wasn't being conservative, id say it has a significant in advantage) in kill radius. Each of the p4's machine guns is also much better (60%? or so) than the cromwell's, in addition to having the option to upgrade a pintle machine gun the cromwell does not have access to entirely.

Pretty much this. I was trying to be as moderate as possible in statement, and I was too lazy to go figure out hull mg dps's, but the ost p4s main advantage that I was trying to point out was the pintle (which, sure, isn't free but it exists, and exists to be used. Cromwell doesn't even get that option). Apparently its hull mgs are also significantly better than the cromwell's. That and a better kill radius, which is as Jae said an objective, concrete statistic. It's the radius that a tank shell can kill a full health infantry model. So there's your answer I guess.

Are you trying to put words in my mouth? I didn't say he's biased against Ost. And if you're trying to say Ost p4 has more scatter, then how come OKW p4 has less scatter and does noticeably better against inf. "Kill radius" isn't even a statistic. Allied infantry aren't afraid of an Ost p4 because they know it can't hit a single model most of the time. Cromwell has a slightly smaller AOE but somehow it just snipes models a bit better than the ost p4 somehow.

There's no basis in fact for this though. In reality, it's really the opposite. The p4 has a better kill radius against infantry and thus will "snipe" models more often than the Cromwell The only significant advantage the cromwell has is (significantly) better far damage (but not AoE) and that has nothing to do with sniping models. It'll damage models at the edge of the blast much more than the p4, but the blast radius is smaller and kill radius is smaller.

Before, the Sherman was the only tank you built as usf, so in order to balance it and add more utility to the rest they tweaked the stats.

Sherman is mainly used for AI firepower, the rest is extra, and it can still hold itself with AP rounds.

Also the panzer 4 is fine, and does great against infantry.
I find it hilarious when they tell you the main gun misses too often, the same people will tell you that the T34 is good, even though the main gun doesn't hit shit.

I stopped counting the number of wipes I got with the panzer 4, even though it can miss, when the main gun hits it really does damage and wipes infantry with much ease.

I don't know when was that "before" and if it ever existed outside your mind because from my memories before we were building Sherman to go toes to toes with Pz4s, not only to deal with infantry and then Jackson to deal with Panthers and biggest cats.

Today, well, just read people on this thread, everyone is happy with the Sherman stat vs infantry and keep telling you the sherman is not there to fight Pz4, just serve as protection to forbid Pz4 to dive into your ground.
Pz4 anti infantry stat are as good as the Sherman without having to switch ammo and ShadowLinkX37 can show whatever video he wants, Sherman suffer the same bad-luck momentums vs infantry with the same regularity.

So my question still stand, the Sherman was better vs Pz4 and various changes brought it where we are. And since people like to introduce the Cromwell in the conversation, as well it was far better vs Pz4 before.
Ostheer and OKW have in the same tier natural counters for allied medium tanks named Stug and Jpz4 but no one bother to build them if they see a sherman on the field since Pz4s are better fighting medium armor.
On the other hand, and it is approved by the posters here, shermans are at best a stop gap vs medium armor so the natural go for USF to counter Pz4 is the Jackson.

So why this difference?
Why Axis faction aren't forced to use their anti medium tank tools if you build a sherman, Pz4s are more than enough while providing the same anti infantry results. And why USF which doesn't have anti medium tank tool is forced to build the super expensive Jackson primarily designed to counter heavies and super heavies just to counter medium tanks.

And please stop responding me about AI stat, all Mediums have good AI, if the sherman were over the top like the brumbar/bulldowzer are, I'll completely agree with the sherman being bad AT, but that's not the case, so AT performance matter.

Esxile, dude. Dude

The Sherman has these things called High Explosive Rounds, right? And when it uses them, its AI is absolutely wild. It wrecks infantry in a way the PzIVs and Cromwell can only dream of.

Buy a .50 cal to pick off the stragglers who try flee from your mighty boom shells.

The M4A3 absolutely does not need any buffs, it does just fine as an AI machine with a decent AT detertant and light tank bullying.

USFs medium tank response is perfectly adequately covered with their AT gun, zooks (bad but a deterrant) and snares.

Esxile, dude. Dude

The Sherman has these things called High Explosive Rounds, right? And when it uses them, its AI is absolutely wild. It wrecks infantry in a way the PzIVs and Cromwell can only dream of.

Buy a .50 cal to pick off the stragglers who try flee from your mighty boom shells.

The M4A3 absolutely does not need any buffs, it does just fine as an AI machine with a decent AT detertant and light tank bullying.

USFs medium tank response is perfectly adequately covered with their AT gun, zooks (bad but a deterrant) and snares.

If it was absolutely wild like you mention it, it would have numerous of threads already opened on the forum about it. Does it? I mean there are more threads about the Scott than the Sherman by a large margin.
So I'm back to my point. Sherman IA is fine like any other Medium, in fact Medium tank IA performance is probably one of the best balanced thing in the game.

See my question from another angle if it is so hard to understand the way I expressed it first: What Stugs and Jpz4 are for if Pz4s are enough to deal with Shermans/Cromwell/T34.

If it was absolutely wild like you mention it, it would have numerous of threads already opened on the forum about it. Does it? I mean there are more threads about the Scott than the Sherman by a large margin.
So I'm back to my point. Sherman IA is fine like any other Medium, in fact Medium tank IA performance is probably one of the best balanced thing in the game.

See my question from another angle if it is so hard to understand the way I expressed it first: What Stugs and Jpz4 are for if Pz4s are enough to deal with Shermans/Cromwell/T34.

76mm shermans, Dozer Shermans (75mm or 105mm), T-34-85's, Comets, Churchills, IS-2's, ISU-152s, medium tanks really well supported by AT guns or AT infantry, Pershings, KV-1/2s, SU-85s?

If it was absolutely wild like you mention it, it would have numerous of threads already opened on the forum about it. Does it? I mean there are more threads about the Scott than the Sherman by a large margin.
So I'm back to my point. Sherman IA is fine like any other Medium, in fact Medium tank IA performance is probably one of the best balanced thing in the game.

See my question from another angle if it is so hard to understand the way I expressed it first: What Stugs and Jpz4 are for if Pz4s are enough to deal with Shermans/Cromwell/T34.

You are missing a critical point here.

Ostheer can't really attack with stugs. They need to PzIV if they want to launch to attack in any form. USF do not need the Sherman to attack.

I suggest to not derail this thread further with personal remarks. Sharing your opinion is absolutely fine, but without spitting out unnecessary insults.

See my question from another angle if it is so hard to understand the way I expressed it first: What Stugs and Jpz4 are for if Pz4s are enough to deal with Shermans/Cromwell/T34.

The OST P4 has a slight edge. It's not a counter.

It's the surrounding metagame that makes the P4 so favourable and the Sherman less so.

On the USF side, their AT gun is behind a tech fork, and their current meta commanders can skip weapon racks in favour of doctrinal AI. They've got a decent chance of going into T3 with a fairly lackluster AT presence. If you're at an AT disadvantage, answering a P4 with a Jackson is just a safer choice.

Ostheer, however, is playing against the light vehicle happy USF, so it'll very likely have a Pak or some PGrens out. It can quite safely go for a medium tank. And besides, what are its other options? StuGs are cheap AT support that work well as a second tank but are questionable as a first. Ostwinds are trash.


If you want to see more Shermans, rework the Stuart to be more like the AEC and Puma. Then LT builds can use it to support a Sherman against a P4.

If you want to see fewer P4s, buff the Ostwind. Give Ost a reason to want to build that over a P4. This'll also mean more Allied basic mediums, as the Ostwind doesn't have an edge against them.

...
If you want to see fewer P4s, buff the Ostwind. Give Ost a reason to want to build that over a P4. This'll also mean more Allied basic mediums, as the Ostwind doesn't have an edge against them.

Actually imo the best solution currently would be to move Stug -E to T3 so that OStheer get some indirect fire support.

Move Ostwind to T4 and buff it accordingly so Ostheer can afford to support Panther.

Make Brumbar super heavy similar to KV-2 so the unit can be balanced.

(as it was first suggested by Widerstreit, if not mistaken)

hey did u just removed the fact that usf vehicle have 0.75 movement accuracy ? how is the p4 better than the Sherman when they have same chances to pen each other and the Sherman has the better AI

p4 has no edge on Sherman what are u smoking

hey did u just removed the fact that usf vehicle have 0.75 movement accuracy ? how is the p4 better than the Sherman when they have same chances to pen each other and the Sherman has the better AI

p4 has no edge on Sherman what are u smoking

*until vet2

76mm shermans, Dozer Shermans (75mm or 105mm), T-34-85's, Comets, Churchills, IS-2's, ISU-152s, medium tanks really well supported by AT guns or AT infantry, Pershings, KV-1/2s, SU-85s?

Those are countered just fine by both Panthers. In fact, I don't think it is a good idea to build stugs to counter those units if they come in number, Jpz4 is probably better in that way but that's an other topic.

The OST P4 has a slight edge. It's not a counter.

It's the surrounding metagame that makes the P4 so favourable and the Sherman less so.

On the USF side, their AT gun is behind a tech fork, and their current meta commanders can skip weapon racks in favour of doctrinal AI. They've got a decent chance of going into T3 with a fairly lackluster AT presence. If you're at an AT disadvantage, answering a P4 with a Jackson is just a safer choice.

Ostheer, however, is playing against the light vehicle happy USF, so it'll very likely have a Pak or some PGrens out. It can quite safely go for a medium tank. And besides, what are its other options? StuGs are cheap AT support that work well as a second tank but are questionable as a first. Ostwinds are trash.


If you want to see more Shermans, rework the Stuart to be more like the AEC and Puma. Then LT builds can use it to support a Sherman against a P4.

If you want to see fewer P4s, buff the Ostwind. Give Ost a reason to want to build that over a P4. This'll also mean more Allied basic mediums, as the Ostwind doesn't have an edge against them.

Agree with you to a certain point but Lvs or not Ostheer and OKW always have access to pak/raketen to support their Pz4s so I find it questionable that Pz4s became better AT than the sherman over the time when they have all support access from previous tier + the possibility to build a dedicated medium counter.

As for buffing the Ostwind, I'm not against but who would build a Ostwind over a Pz4 if not by itself OP in a sens that the Pz4 is already strong vs infantry and strong vs Armor. Say you put the ostwind to Sherman HE level, people will still prefer the Pz4 for its AT capability and still good AI capability.

*until vet2

.......

Sherman tank is fine for the price. I think the penetration is perfect and anti infantry capability is far better than P4 especially at vet 3.

If it was absolutely wild like you mention it, it would have numerous of threads already opened on the forum about it. Does it? I mean there are more threads about the Scott than the Sherman by a large margin.
So I'm back to my point. Sherman IA is fine like any other Medium, in fact Medium tank IA performance is probably one of the best balanced thing in the game.

See my question from another angle if it is so hard to understand the way I expressed it first: What Stugs and Jpz4 are for if Pz4s are enough to deal with Shermans/Cromwell/T34.

As long as you try to justify your point using irrational arguments, no one, not even you is going to believe them.
Everyone agrees shermans AI is fine and its HE shells give it sonething to be used for.
OST plays defensively earlygame to take a chance with pz4 at midgame. Why do you deny that. Even good OST players tend to force the most of their midgame because its a uphill battle after that.
USF in the other hand starts aggresively and becomes adaptative midgame. Later it can take the lead again, since jacksons dominate any tank 1v1. And riflemen can back up the AI department.
An OST player that is forced into stugs means he lost too much fuel or is teching into t4.
But why do you argue against it, do you pretend for USF to always have an edge in means of firepower, risk/benefit ratio and timing? Thats how you make a faction OP