Profile of Esxile

You don't quite seem to understand - or deliberately misinterpret and draw out of context - what both Pip and Sander were saying.

But, in order to get back to the original topic and to put things into perspective; the new Scott barrage (at least if I got the stat changes after the last round of patches right) dishes out roughly the same AI DPS as the HE-Sherman (with pintle and hull/coax firing)... albeit at a range of 75 m instead of the Sherman's 35 m! That should give you a slight hint at least why the Scott-PF combo is so powerful and why any comparison with the Sherman would be nonsense (which no one attempted to do anyway, for that reason).

Which remain a barrage. But we agree on it doesn't make sense to compare two type of unit. One to counter mainline the other static and team weapons.

People were comparing the AI power of both vehicles, that's why I responded in regards to their AI power only.

USF is doing fine since the recent patches with 52/51/50/47% win ratios across all game modes respectively. The issue with balancing their 4v4 performance inherently comes down to the fact that Relic decided not to give them stock rocket arty, which is something we couldn't fix as we weren't allowed to put the Calliope in the basic roster. The commanders that bring heavy indirect (Priest, Calliope or Paths with Scotts) will always be meta because of this. UKF has the same exact issue.

You're nickpicking what suit your vision, or you're just reading the last post of each thread. It has always been about overall effectiveness of both units and a focus on DPS at the end because that's the only thing that's go for the Sherman and is easily spammable on a forum@ look the AI damage stat the sherman is better!!!! with 0 care for context.

Now since your so good yourself by your playercard, tell us why everybody here complain about a unit that have far less IA damage and requires to be pack in 3 + extended vision from another unit to be really effective when the Sherman is so far better in that matter. Why nobody complains about Sherman and Pathfinder? Are people complaining about Scott IA damage at the end or something else like its survivability vs reckless panther dives? Do the supposedly superior IA from the sherman really matter during a game? Or is it just an overkill that brings in reality nothing effective you can count on.


Those stats means nothing at the moment since everyone playing USF in 2vs2 is actually doing Scott&Path, 4vs4 the same thing and 3vs3 a joke as usual. Do you think you've achieve something good with the balance when a faction is played building only 2 units supposedly being support type? Do you think the balance is working when everyone is avoiding building riflemen or light vehicle on teamgame?

We're in reality far from a debate around Calliope or Priest vs scott but a build that avoid building any of USF peak. No riflemen, no light vehicle, no sherman, only path, hmg, optional atgun, optional jackson, zook and Scott.

that's just false. I completely disagree.


What are you talking about, even without .50 cal sherman is way better


That's just main cannon. Blue (1) is T34/76, orange (2) is Sherman HE. All vet 0 at range 30.

grey is KT, yellow is Pershing. Done via MMX tool "scatter this"

Which doesn't contradict what I say. T34-76 is enough as infantry deterrent, once you have it (T34 or Sherman) your main concern is atguns and any other medium tank and superior armor. In this regard T34 is a way better investment, its cheaper and Soviet has access to better support tools to deal with those.

At the end you can argue as much as you like, people have stopped building shermans to do 3xscott for a reason, and this reason is not only that 3xscott are more effective (they also cost more) but also better to fulfill the anti-infantry role.
Sherman is at best a good deterrent vs mainline infantry but terrible once there are other medium tanks and atgun, Scott are bad vs mainline infantry because their auto fire is bad vs moving targets, also very bad vs medium tanks but good vs team weapons. The meta today evolves around team weapons, HMG and atgun, the latest rending medium tank obsolete in team game, that's why nobody build shermans, they're too expensive for what they do even if they do it well. but that's also why people still build T34-76 because they're still cost effective and synergy well with other Soviet tools.

If Scott were to be nerfed, people would simply go back to the old Calliope meta which doesn't include regular shermans but Calliope and rangers.

RE mines can gives you time to reorganize your defenses but not stop a panther.

Otherwise spamming 3xObers able to frontally delete any infantry squad with no lose and bitching about 3xScott doing the same for a higher price is the definition of biais. And obers also get smoke to disengage

show me another video where similarly skilled player beats this strat. Protos Angelus himself said that infantry beats zookfinders and fusies are pretty good on the move. So tell me how this playstyle is wrong?

Didn't finish to watch the game but the guy just lost 2 Panthers doing the stupidest dives possible. Trade 1 RE + Ambu for 1 Panther and then nothing for 1 panther.

Now I'll just say that Dirty Finisher has been outplayed more than victim of a specific strategy.

Second thing is that he had 60 popcap worth only on infantry. Is it the right move to do vs 3xScott? Thank to the stupid advantage OKW has he never felt short of manpower.

I don't know if it exists a specific strat that automatically counter Scott/Path but what I know is blobbing infantry until having a panther does not work at equal skill level. Your opponent early game evolve around 0 snare and 0 sufficient AT until hitting critical zook mass with munition and you're waiting to build one of the most expensive tank in the game.

And in this game the USF player blobbed less than the OKW...