t-34/76 - completely pointless due to the existence of the sherman, historically and thematically this doesn't fit the faction either
Yes. That's why I said the commander was completely ficticious. Sherman isn't that good in teamgames and I just wanted an excuse to give USF T34s  .
PPSH tactics: weak, give riflemen x5 ppshs or upgrade to 6 man squad with x6 ppsh.
Not even cons get an entire squad's worth of PPSH's and they are pretty strong in close range where they weren't beforehand. Meanwhile riflemen are already pretty good in close range so I think it's probably fine. Maybe an extra PPSH to lower the mid range damage a bit more but honestly unless they're getting a different version of the PPSH I think 6 would be insane.
Rangers: the PTRS would be pretty useless straight up, svt count increased to x6 or x2 dp-28 at the very least, or combining and having a x2 ptrs/x2 dp-28 guard clone with svts as secondary rifles
Coming pre-equipped with PTRS sounds good but it would just give US too much momentum b/c then they don't have to spend as much munitions on their AT, therefore they can spend more on BARs for their infantry. I think they should have to upgrade for them, but it could be like a quick upgrade and cheaper compared to 2 bazookas.
and the ml-20 is pretty alright, this alone would probably be the reason this doctrine gets picked in team mode
Most likely.
EDIT: I bungled the formatting. |
|
Complete and utterly ficticious commander idea for the lols here:
0CP: Raid Tactics - Raid tactics.
0CP: T34/76 Reserves - Uncle Sam has asked Mother Russia to give them the blueprints for T34 tanks, as a result, T34s can be built at T4. This US version of the T34 lacks ram, because reasons.
2CP: PPSH Tactics - Riflemen and Rear Echelon Squads can be upgraded with a pair of PPSH submachine guns, taking up two slots of weapon space.
2CP: Lend-Lease Rangers - These rangers, can be upgraded with either 3x PTRS rifles , 3x SVTs or 1x DP28. Any one of the upgrades take up all weapon slots.
8CP: ML-20 Howitzer - Rear echelon squads can build an ML-20 howitzer. Self explanatory.
How OP would it be? |
for the sake of your sanity, you shouldnt enter the 4v4 searchlist then
Well see but I'd also want a mute feature of course. |
I would say that the only thing is T34/76 best at, is dying. otherwise m4 is better and more efficient unit.
It's not more efficient. It costs more and its armor isn't even that much better. If you want to talk 1v1 I will agree with you all day that the Sherman is better, but in teamgames you're not keeping mediums like that just because there's only so long Allied medium tanks get to stay effective in long teamgames. When the panthers hit the field, Shermans get bullied off while T34s can still be used for flanking & utility because they're cheaper.
But...my initial point was, that USF have a top tier AI stock medium that is not used, because why would you, if you can barrage your opponent to death? No reason to build an AI medium tank and invest all that micro and attention in it, if you have much more efficient and less micro intensive option like Scott?
And I agree with you. Why would you waste your time on a squishy medium tank that gets bullied by panthers when you could make a cheaper scott?
It's the opposite actually. The HE Sherman deals AI damage more quickly because of main gun alpha damage which makes it better at hit and run tactics, which makes it better in teamgames because the compact nature of teamgames means sustained fights are dangerous for generalist mediums
I never said that this wasn't the case. Using T34s in teamgames, I use them to harass and bait the enemy into my defenses. Medium tanks don't last long in teamgames, which is exactly why being cheaper is better. I can happily lose a T34 after having used it to bait a Panzer 4 into a conscript AT grenade and finish it off. A Sherman doesn't have that. All you gained was a 10 fuel advantage and you lost 60 munition plus the cost of snare.
It's also better against blobs because of its huge AOE profile. I'd always go for a Sherman unless I'd go heavy with elite infantry, while I'd usually pass on a 76 for something bigger or a Katy.
Look, maybe this is a learn to play issue, and I'm a huge idiot or something, but T34 always has a place in my army composition. I'm naked without at least one. If the enemy is going hard for panthers and heavy tanks, I'm going to be getting one T34 at least, for a snare. And plus on top of that I can use it to bully infantry. The only thing the Sherman has going for it in that situation is bullying infantry. But it can't control blobs, because the panthers and heavy tanks will eat its ass for dinner.
A much bigger investment being 20 more fuel and some munitions, that comes with the added utility of self repairs, smoke grenades as well as AA on top of better performance in both AI and AT. Easily worth it.
Easily worth losing? It's just barely worth losing to a panzer 4, meanwhile for the same price point a soviet player gets 2 mines and 20 fuel off their next tank, all the while USF's tank destroyer costs 15 fuel more than the Soviet one. To me it's an easy comparison to make. Comparatively it's just not worth it.
Like Klement said, the Scott is doing the job better.
And yes, all that utility is great, but its meh in teamgames.
|
That's not really true. Main gun scatter/AOE damage mostly ignores cover and standard/vet TS/RA bonuses, while these heavily affect MG dps. Moving also doesn't affect main gun DPS as much as it does the MGs'. And there's also the fact that the T-34 needs to be facing its hull towards the enemy to deal a large portion of its AI DPS, which is often not practical.
The T-34/76 is a great cost efficient medium, with very good AI for its price, but ultimately the HE Sherman is undeniably better at anti-infantry.
Of course. That's why I said the Sherman is definitely better VS blobs. I've already admitted that the sherman is better at AI, and I also rephrased my statement. My point is that T34 does the job better *in a teamgame setting*. You're not going to be attacking blobs with the T34, and neither can you really do it with the Sherman, because axis armor is hard-hitting and easily will scare it off. What you use T34 for boils down to bullying infantry and every once in a while using them to brute force a heavy tank or flank other tanks.
You can do it with the T34 but not the Sherman, just because its a much bigger investment compared to it.
If you give t34 30 sec of shooting without moving, it might be better if M4A3 has no pitle. But everytime you move your tank, for example reversing to avoid a snare, your armor has to move and if it moves, MG DPS drops significantly, while cannon does not care, because it is almost always missing vs infantry. Also cannon gives no F about target size, while MGs definitely do, while having 5 more range.
Sure. I agree. I've already agreed with you that the Sherman is better at AI. The point is that the T34 does roughly the same at less cost. Which is huge for teamgames. Its jack-of-all-trades design hampers it in teamgames. Which is what I meant when I said that T34 was "better" at AI. It's not strictly "better", but the T34 as a whole is in my opinion better in the same role in totality.
|
|
I just want CoH3 to have an expanded ping system at the very least, native Voice Chat ideally. |
They do what now?
I think he meant to say M8 and M20.
EDIT: And I meant to say M8 and Stuart lol. |
wtf....i even explained what i mean with "wiping sqauds here and there"
Yeah, but you were implying that he was using "wipe" in the wrong way and that it only meant 1-2 hit squad KO when it doesn't only mean that. |
the overall DPS curve was far from favorable for t34 as well. I brought up the DPS curve, because nobody bothers read AOE and scatter stats. Did it multiple times specifically for the Sherman, nobody cares.
You would think that a sherman would be preferable to a t34 in teamgames, because it performs better against blobs, but really it's not the case.
You can bully infantry with the T34 and quickly switch targets to medium tanks as well if you flank them, and you can play aggressively with them because it matters less if you lose them. I just don't feel that way about the Sherman.
Of course this doesn't apply to 1v1. Sherman destroys in 1v1 and there's no question about it.
This does not applies to you, but it is just straight up silly, when I mention that Sherman is actually a good AI tank, while comparing it to t34 and get slapped with statement that T34 is better. It was just a wtf moment for me, since it is the best stock medium in terms of dealing with infantry (AFAIK only vetter OKW P4J can compete) yet it just "at best a good deterrent vs mainline infantry"
The acrobatics that people perform to defend and downplay their fav factions are amazing.
Well just comparing the two in performance for teamgames and the T34 wins easily. Despite costing less fuel and munition, it still performs comparably against single squads of infantry, even better if the Sherman hasn't upgraded the pintle. The Sherman relies on the main gun for damage, as evidenced by your graph, so practically speaking the T34 is more reliable with damage against a single squad.
Sherman is definitely better against blobs, but the blobs you're going to be facing in teamgames are almost always backed up by panthers or at the very least their superior mediums (which you'll need to switch ammo types to even begin to engage if you're trying to whittle down a blob) or simply pgren shreks by the time you've got it out, and Shermans have the standard 4 shots of health (which ofc isn't a problem, but in teamgames it just isn't that great compared to t34)
EDIT: For some reason the second half of this comment got cut off & I dont feel like writing it again in its entirety, but basically I just wanted to reiterate:
The T34 accomplishes what the sherman wants to at a lower price point and identical health pool: bullying infantry and elite squads. If I want to deal with blobs Sherman isn't the way to go because it gets slapped by axis tanks in the backline.
And also the Sherman is very good in 1v1 modes, there's no doubt about it. |
that's just false. I completely disagree.
What are you talking about, even without .50 cal sherman is way better
The T34 gets much better MGs on the tank and for free, compared to the Sherman.
DPS comparison at close range:
Coaxial Hull MG: 17 DPS on T34 VS. a measly 5.4 DPS for the Sherman
Vehicle Turret MG: 11.3 DPS T34 with 7 DPS Sherman
So before the .50 cal upgrade, at close range T34 absolutely cleans house versus Sherman with 28.4 DPS on the MGs alone, compared to the Sherman's 12.5 DPS. The .50 cal upgrade doesn't even remedy this, with the Sherman still being shy of the T34, only hitting 26.3 DPS.
Far DPS is less pronounced, but the T34 still has an advantage at all ranges.
As for this chart:
I must admit that this is a bit confusing for me. The chart is labeled: "Damage Dealt by Main Gun" and then the y axis is a percentage. So if I'm understanding this chart correctly, the chart is comparing how much impact the damage of the main gun has on total DPS output.
...meaning that only 10%-30% of the total damage output is determined by the main gun for the T34, which makes sense considering that its MGs are so good.
So yeah definitely it's the better AI tank if you're talking blobs, you're right. I guess that what I was trying to say was that the T34 has way more going for it in a teamgame scenario, where compared to its axis counterparts it's cheaper and is still effective, all while costing 20 fuel and 60 munitions less than the sherman.
|
United States
Relic Entertainment
