Profile of NinjaWJ

Jump back to quoted post19 Aug 2014, 02:53 AMZombieRommel

I have seen some people saying it's more fun to use "elite" units in the Axis factions.

On that note, does anybody else think that USA in CoH1 felt more like an elite force than USF does here?

What I mean is that Rangers with Fire Up! and P47 strafes at will (superb air force, as in reality), and Pershing and Calliope all felt fearsome and intimidating. Like, yeah, USA still couldn't stand toe to toe with German armor, but you really felt their tenacity and wily ingenuity -- sandbags mounted onto shermans for protection, Riflemen able to plant all-purpose mines, global fuel BARS to make riflemen kick ass and stand up to vetted Axis squads... scary-ass howitzers that couldn't simply be reconnoitered and bombed from miles away.

Like, basically USA was obviously not as strong in a 1v1 unit-vs-unit setting as Wehrmacht in most cases, but they were still intimidating in the right hands and had very intimidating units.

Whereas the USF basically feel like the faction is doing the bare minimum to survive. Like yeah... a Jackson to hard counter heavies at range. Cool. Too bad a Panther can bum-rush it. Nothing scary to make Axis guys sh*t their pants like a Calliope or infantry doctrine off-map. Just little pitter patters that hopefully add up.

This makes USF feel less intimidating and less elite all around. Past the early game it feels like survival mode. It's like Allies trying to rally whatever advantage they can muster and sh*tting their pants if they let the Axis guys have fuel for a while.

Whereas CoH1 USA could make a comeback with airdropped AT guns (already manned), sticky bombs, or a manpower-only Pershing, USF is basically screwed if they give up the mid-game, making them FEEL less resourceful and ingenious (traits I think Relic wanted to stress about USA) than their CoH1 counterparts.

I know this is sounding rambly but I hope you guys are getting my point.

CoH2 USF feels less threatening overall and less elite. With Rangers you knew you had some of the very best all-around infantry and you were going to murk most Axis soldiers. With P47 you had an on-demand blob punish that made Axis weary and paranoid. M8 mines could come out of nowhere and gib squads to bits. You could create a very intimidating feeling if you used USA properly.

But in CoH2 it's like you're just doing enough to get by and win skirmishes and your only real threat is if you use your meager units properly or build up a critical mass of them.

Jump back to quoted post18 Aug 2014, 17:32 PMJ1N6666

I would like to support his argument in that usually, you'd need BOTH a Doctrine Infantry AND Doctrine Tank for a doctrine to be viable (well performing). This further limits commander choices as considering how horrible stock units are compared to the Doc units. Forgoing even one option, will leave a hole in the performance of that specific role whether its heavy tank or T85 series.

Comparing this to Axis, they aren't as even remotely reliant on commanders in regards to Soviets.

Jump back to quoted post18 Aug 2014, 17:10 PMDarthBong420

lol @ support your tanks too argument. lol isu 1 shots everything, how is dead stuff supposed to support a tank in an attack? elephant is NOT a counter to ISU. anyone who says so hasn't used the "new" useless elephant. soviet whiners give it up. you cannot defend this unit any longer. it is as stupid as when you all were trying to defend the ridiculous kat patch. just absolutely no substance in your defense. like i said i know many of you need unfair units to win, but, for the rest of everyone else, its op and needs fixing.

Jump back to quoted post18 Aug 2014, 16:19 PMCannonade

He wasnt rude at all.
Just asked you a simple and direct question.

It could be considered rude to try and construe something rude out of that, when there wasnt any there to begin with.

Just answer yes or no. No more to it than that.