Profile of donofsandiego

I think the idea of giving osttruppen buechse 39's is an interesting idea. I don't know how effective those AT rifles are against Allied light armor though, considering that most allied lights are a little more sturdy than axis lights on the whole. At least the ones used to be aggressive with, like Stuart, AEC, and T-70.

Against halftracks, katyusha, UC/WC-51, M20 they would definitely be really good though.

> Make them benefit from riflemen field defenses.

I like the idea of rangers also functioning as a beefier riflemen squad. BAR-ed up Rangers do shred because their accuracy is higher than riflemen. It is, of course, an insane amount of munitions though.

Since mods have an inexplicable allergy to people responding to threads from a while ago that are still relevant to present discussion, I am reposting my comment so that anyone who would like to respond has the ability to.

If COH3 is released within this millenium, I hope infantry armor stays as far away from it as possible. It's incredibly unintuitive and is needlessly confusing for newer players. MP40s in Company of Heroes fire the same bullets right? Well, why does that bullet suddenly gain homing properties against paratroopers? Do they wear armor magnetized to attract 9x19 Parabellum? I played CoH for a few years and I never caught on to *any* of that. It's not communicated to the player in any way. I only learned of infantry armor years later when I decided to visit the CoH1 wiki for funsies.

I think it makes sense to balance the game around adjusting units speciically, not how accurate/ damaging two other factions' weapons are against it based on what arbitrary "type" of unit they are. Which is unknown to the average player.

I suppose that I can see its advantages. (E.g. "Oh well paratroopers are quite good against grenadiers but against volksgrenadiers they are too strong so lets just give volks access to such and such armor later on in the game so they are less susceptible to the M1919s" I'm not saying that that's the way it is in the game I'm just making up an example BTW)But there should be some kind of in-game explanation for it or at the very least a unit encyclopedia (A La Men of War 2) where every single infantry model is listed page by page, and you can see the exact stats of that infantry model.

In men of war, I can access the encyclopedia and see that this recon team model actually has access to the "Aimed Shot" perk which would allow it to snipe enemy soldiers if it were to loot a sniper rifle off of an enemy. Or that this militiaman infantry model has lower health and lower accuracy with rifles than the average soldier. All of this data is accessible within the game. I think that CoH should have that as well. In fact, I think they should with or without infantry armor added to the next title.

Being able to choose from AP and HAVP rounds is an option for the 76mm Sherman the same way that being able to choose from HE is an option for the 75mm Sherman. It is no away disadvantage.

Look, it's the same argument I made for the rapid shell switch disadvantage. Just imagine the enemy tank as something with higher armor. The point still stands that you'll have to commit to a shot or waste it on the other tank. That is a disadvantage, no matter how you put it.

Not really.

If it is a 75mm Sherman the player can engage the engineers with AP rounds just fine, he has the option to decimate them with HE if he want to. He can then switch after firing adding a slight delay to the reload (that might even be lower than the time required to fire on the new target).
In sort the player used little more micro and got more from his units.

In a similar manner the the player using the 76mm can swamp to HAVP after firing. The difference in performance vs an ostheer PzIV is only substantial at max range. The AP round is even better at point blank.

In sort little micro allows users to get more out of their vehicle.

You are describing a situation where you are forced to commit to firing a round with the Sherman at the infantry one more time instead of being able to instantly engage the enemy tank despite being in an advantageous position to do so. Your comment is self defeating. I hope you realize that I'm not conpletely disagreeing with you. There's no need to tie yourself into knots defending something so blatantly apparent.