M1919A6s are already present in other Commanders so I don't think they'd be an issue.
And as far as I remember the M3 Engineer combat group with flamers in Mechanized wasn't that OP altho it's been a long time since the so I might be mistaken.
For me the RE flamers just don't fit thematically and there's way better things to replace them with in my opinion.
As far as a Sherman doctrine goes, I mean Rifle is basically all over the place so yeah I'm guessing that me and a lot of other people are purely just taking it for the E8.
But for a dedicated Sherman commander there would need to be more stuff, like Commander upgrades, Dozer upgrade maybe, HVAP/WP rounds for all Shermans, 76/E8 Sherman, combined arms perhaps since The Sherman was initially meant as an infantry support tank, only later when they started fighting the losing the tank battles against the big cats did they start up-gunning and armoring them and so on.
Basically Elite Armor but for the USF instead and a lot of different things.
I wouldn't call the M1919 an offensive upgrade for riflemen already because that RM/M1919 has been nerfed some time ago and is more a defensive upgrade than anything else.
Giving the M3 to riflemen commander is a bit of an overlap with mechanized and I don't see much people using it on 2vs2 because it requires quite some micro to keep it in the right place to support correctly your moving infantry. To me the M3 is a new waste of slot for this commander.
|
That is simply false 221 5.4 frontal armor and dies to small arm fire.
221 also cost fuel and delay OKW tech.
The unit is simply badly designed and its upgrade also. It try to do too many thing at the same time and thus is average (if not up) in all of them.
as much as Pz4 dies from T-70 |
I technically agree with you.
Rifle Company should have been probably Rifleman Field Defenses, M1919A6 weapon rack unlock, M3/M5 Halftrack, something like Marksman/Sharpshooter training that maybe takes up 1 or 2 weapon slots, similar to the British Recon section from the old CoH and either a Sherman Jumbo or 105 since those were the 2 types of dedicated "infantry support tanks" so to speak in real life so they thematically fit here but the Jumbo would have probably been the best and most unique choice.
Instead it's got some of these changes years after it's initial release (Field defenses and Halftrack) and still doesn't make sense why there are flamethrowers for the RE or an E8 when it's supposed to be just a better more maneuverable version of the basic Sherman.
Problem with this commander is that you can't give more offensive capabilities to riflemen from balance perspectives. FT on riflemen = OP, more stuff on riflemen = OP.
Imo it would be better to rename the commander Sherman commander and build it around sherman tanks instead of riflemen.
Anyway, Brace before the shitstorm RE+flamethrower on M3 rush Openess. |
And that doesn't mean it won't get an ATG way before 221 arrives, meaning that "helpless sections and riflemen" is utterly wrong
221 arrive way earler than any of those for USF, its on lieutnant timing and only him can counter it. Also note that building a .50 or atgun will delay atnade unlock. It .50 or M1 or atnade. |
You have no proof to back your claim up with that the Pershing was always meant to be in the game since I clearly remember them saying that the USF would not have a heavy tank, hence why it (and the Calliope) was introduced along with the British and not before that so the only assumption we can make is that they changed their mind last minute.
Yes,
Original faction's design hit the wall of balance reallity some times ago already.
With the considerable decrease of repair time made on the last patches for every faction, I'm not sure the trade-off durability for repair time vs manoevrability for low armor exist anymore in this game.
I've seen multiple time a KT beeing fully repair some few second later than any USF tank fighting it. Axis players consider USF repair crew like a bonus but its a mandatory feature for a faction that requires twice as much tank as its opponent to fight equally. |
PM-42 82mm Mortar
The PM-42 Mortar will now have the ‘Flare’ ability at Vet 0 to provide vital scouting information and to give the Soviet mortar a more utility oriented role when it is deployed.
Flare ability no longer requires veterancy 1
Veterancy 1 reduces Flare recharge by 25%
too strong then?
|
I mostly agree with your point, I just said the original data to support that is useless because penetration values alone do not mean anything. The EZ8 has good AT vs mediums but is only mediocre vs higher armor like Panther, JP4 and Brummbar
There are honestly much better doctrinal solutions than a Ez8 to fight medium tanks, named Ranger/zook, para/zook, M4A3/dozer blade and the M10.
Rangers and Paras have really good alfa strike, M10 is cheap and M4A3/dozer have shells switch and armor. The only thing the Ez8 is better in fighting is vs a Brumbar. |
|
Why would you build a tank that is only good to fight mediums when you can, for the same price, build a tank that is good vs medium and heavy tanks.
It is not only the combo M4A3 / Jackson that is good, its the logic of building a sherman to punish infantry while able to defend itself vs medium (with the appropriate support) and then build a Jackson to fight anything armored.
Questions anyone should answer are:
Why would you build a M4A3 then a Ez8?
Why would you build a Ez8 first and then a M4A3 or Jackson?
Why would you build a Jackson and then a Ez8?
----
Still haven't see an answer for my other question
Any reason or background decision making on the nerf for pathfinder crew? I mean we see this nerf at the 3rd iteration of a patch that is supposed to tune existing changes brought during the 1 and 2 iteration, here we see something coming from nowhere on a doctrine you are unwiling to modify otherwise, even align the P47 cost with other loitering cost. |
Tanks with spotting scopes lose their vision bonus while moving, so they actually can't do that.
Because that would be OP. But it doesn't mean you attack move your atgun on the frontline because their crew are pathfinder all the game long. |
In that case Mediums vs AT Guns operate differently since for the Spotting scopes to be active you can't be moving and vehicles are best used to poke and prod around the frontlines without hanging in an area too much lest you attract AT attention. So effectively using Scopes on tanks generally results in either having a less effective vehicle on your hands in order to have better sight which might be a lateral trade off at best or putting your vehicle in a dangerous position for this extra sight which while effective has it's own risks, while an AT Gun generally wants to be centralized and any maneuvers are often slight to put into position to support infantry vs vehicles. The extra sight range gives your AT gun more operating room without support, better heads up if infantry is coming to pressure it, and is ultimately better in every situation you can use to take advantage of the sight since you have no drawbacks to go with the additional vision.
Unless I'm missing the point I don't get it. If we're talking Tank vs Tank if you stop chasing to get spotting scope vision you're going to have the target leave your range where you'd have just been better off chasing to clean the kill up in most instances. At Guns can't chase so vision is significantly better there.
A tank that can self spot isn't doing it only for itself, with scope you know where is your opponent.
I keep my opinion that this nerf has no serious backup and have been decided unilaterally to please someone. Have it been made stronger this would impact the balance around scout units recrewing team weapon such as pioneer, something nobody wants to touch.
|
Relic Entertainment
