Profile of Gneckes

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 196

General Information


Thread: awesome match vs RtN5 Aug 2014, 19:16 PM Jump back to quoted post5 Aug 2014, 18:37 PMofield Interesting how the match looks totally different when you watch it from your enemey's point of view. Absolutely. I'd recommend the experience to anyone. In: Replays
Thread: USF nerfed recently?5 Aug 2014, 11:22 AM Haven't noticed a change either. Somehow managed to come back against a Tiger Ace and a Panther last night when, I think, my opponent gave up too easily. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Assault Engineers and Vehicle Crews are Useless4 Aug 2014, 19:18 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Aug 2014, 17:07 PMHux Should be replaced by the ability for infantry units to ride on tanks, with an accuracy penalty to prevent kangaroo syndrome and a chance for models to be killed if the tank is hit by AT fire or runs over a mine. this would really fit more into the mobile/utility aspect of that commander. Now, THAT is an AWESOME idea! Relic, please make this happen! In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Counter the Heavys with USF4 Aug 2014, 19:17 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Aug 2014, 18:03 PMThe_Courier Sweet, so there's a historical justification for it. I'd say put in the 90mm, but instead of an emplacement, to reflect US mobility, I think it should be a deployable unit. As in, the gun itself can be moved around slowly, but cannot fire in that state at all. If you want to fire it, you need to deploy it and it takes 10-15 seconds. So it's a much more inflexible weapon than a normal AT gun, but still allows you some leeway. Make it both weaker and (maybe) more expensive than a PaK 43 to compensate. That should give a backbone to US AT. As for how to access it, I doubt Relic will ever a unit to a faction's normal roster, so obviously it would be a new commander. Here's a picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_90_mm_gun_1.jpg The thing to consider here is that it's basically the same gun that was used on the M36 Jackson so it wouldn't really an improvement in firepower, and a definite decrease in mobility. You might gain some improvement in durability, maybe, but... I think I'd rather have an emplacement. And honestly, with the Stuart and Smoke Nade to stun, and the super-longranged AT gun and the Jackson, i'm not sure it's even necessary. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Counter the Heavys with USF4 Aug 2014, 16:51 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Aug 2014, 15:03 PMThe_Courier Apart from that their AT options are very lackluster sans E8. They really need some sort of meatshield tank, or at least for bazookas not to suck, especially considering they cost fuel to get. Or maybe a heavy AT gun, did they US deploy some of those? A stolen Flak 88 ? A meatshield tank for the USF would certainly make things easier. In the absence of those, it seems you have to make do with M23 Smoke Grenades and the Stuart's abilities to hold enemy tanks in place and prevent them from returning fire. As for heavier AT guns: the US employed the 90mm M2 dual-purpose gun. It was quite similar to the famed German 88m Flak 36 gun. I could see it as a doctrinal emplacement in the future. There was also the M5 Anti-Tank gun, which was based on a 3" anti-aircraft gun and started seeing deployment in 1943. It's basically the same gun that was used on the M10, however. They didn't use anything heavier than that, so... maybe a reverse-lend leased 17pdr gun? Again, would be conceivable as a doctrinal emplacement, like the Brits had in vCoH or the Pak43 that's in the game now. Edit: There was also the experimental 105mm T8 gun, which could penetrate 210mm of armour at 1000 yards, but weighed 8 tons (definitely not movable by the crew) and came too late to see action in WW2. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Assault Engineers and Vehicle Crews are Useless4 Aug 2014, 14:08 PM I can't really commenton Assault Engis since I haven't used them much, but.. I think we can all agree that Vehicle Crews are great for massively reducing the downtime of damage USF vehicles. But spending 90 munitions on upgrading them with Thompsons? Oh dear god, no. Saving the crew of a destroyed tank might be worth it if the veterancy for that vehicle carried over to any other vehicle (or even vehicle of the same type) you put them, in but alas... So yeah, I'd like to see the Thompson upgrade removed and replaced with something useful that is similarly in the spirit of an Armored commander- maybe an upgrade for vehicles/tanks similar to the Panzer Tactician smoke launcher (But not actual smoke- the Sherman and M8A1 get that already). In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Counter the Heavys with USF4 Aug 2014, 13:16 PM Quick note: I just noticed the description on the M23 Smoke Screen Grenade- it says "Any vehicles hit by the grenade will be temporarily blinded and slowed." Can anyone confirm that? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Counter the Heavys with USF4 Aug 2014, 12:49 PM My opinion: USF needs to take a more varied approach to anti-tank duty than the other factions, due to the weak penetration (without ability) of the M1 AT-gun and the fragility of the M36 Jackson. Fortunately, however, you have a lot of tools at your disposal, and they work quite well together. I especially feel that the Stuart and his disabling shot is quite underrated. And even if you don't pen and thus don't get the Stun, you still Blind the target, allowing a Jackson to bring it on. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: First Automatch game in a while3 Aug 2014, 23:43 PM Yeah, I realise this went pretty well for me. Still, looking for some feedback on what I should've done better or could've done differently. Thanks! In: Replays
Thread: dealing with the King Tiger in 1v13 Aug 2014, 22:14 PM I think the key here is to seperate it from its supporting infantry blob, so your AT guns and Jacksons can get to work. In: US Forces Strategies