It has better penetration, making it a pretty effective weapon vs sws halftracks, stukas, pumas, etc. I've had shermans barely survive engagements vs pumas because the machine gun finished them off just in time.
I don't necessarily think that means it should cost 70 munitions but it's something to keep in mind.
Well thats because pumas are the most effective at for the price , you dont expect an m10 to beat a p4 from the front now do you ? but the 50cal top gun seems to be less effctive than the mg42 top gun for its intended purpose. THey could give it better anti infantry stats and add an armor piercing rounds for 20 munis or something |
Lolz you think I'm not trolling now?
The QQ in this thread is real. Real friggen sad. Axis were never really "OP" ever. Barring each units high pop cap, fuel, manpower, teching costs. Then the fact that they are fewer than their Allied counterpart.
I hear there is some pudding on the bar please do us the favor and help yourself to it
small weapons as the pintle mg indeed suffer from -recieved accuracy modifiers, but again the role it plays when it comes to the weapons of most tanks its rather insignificant:
i beg to differ in that one , its the way tanks get a lot of kills on squads that are low on health and typically thats what happening in retreat , even panthers with the top mg42 get lots of conscripts and rifle kills when they are on low health |
ehm. i guess im bursting your bubble here, when i tell you that recieved accuracy doesnt do much vs tanks with explosive weapons. they rarely hit models anyways. they basically always miss, but scatter (preferably low) and aoe make them kill things inspite of that
reality disproves you i ve seen plenty of shots missing by a mile not much aoe can do when the shot crashes at a distance from the sqaud , ofc the recieved accuracy plays a role , its not like every shot that doesnt hit the target crashes immediately next to them and i am pretty sure that accuracy does play a role for the top gunner mg |
kafrion, you have SOME valid points here. Mostly it's L2P though. There is a problem with shreks right now in relation to bazooka. Bazooka costs more and delivers less.
The suckiness of the .50 HMG is valid. It's expensive and shitty.
The .50 on the Sherman is bad ass.
Beating shrek PG's with Sherman just takes good judgement. If you don't force retreat on them after your at half health, then retreat for repairs and come back. Use HE rounds, they work. I like to combine everything you think sucks though. I put the .50 cal on, I get the HE rounds on, and then I run their asses over. One of those 3 is going to result in 4 dead dudes. Watch Romeo's stream and you will see how little an issue pgrens are for Shermans.
The call-in meta is a general problem the community has, so expect that to be addresses sometime soon.
Vaz first of all let me be clear hear , but i do use the he shells , wouldnt make the thread if i wasnt .
and trust me i do back my sherman off when its at half health against pgrens the problem with that shermans is that pgrens get fast vet with schrecks and even faster with elite commander and soon you just cant land a shot on them |
|
USF stands a fighting chance only with airborne commander anything else is just gg , and even with airborne you need to be a lot better or luckier than your opponent to beat him . Also i lol at people justifying the strong USF start to justify their weak late game , because from what we know coh2 is a game that doesnt facilitate comebacks . If your opponent doesnt give in he always stands a chance of winning with grens pgrens and paks and the later the game goes and the vet accumulates the less chances you have at winning it .
Other than that shermans and easy8s are just jokes as for the jackson all it taks for it to die is a pak and its good only agains p4s without vet , which is problem since you dont see p4s with the heavy tank stallling we see these days and therefore your jackson wont have vet unless you get really lucky and kill some puma |
It's definitely true, and it's true of 99% of games honestly. The vast majority of CSGO, SC2, Dota 2, etc. players who play those games don't play them competitively or with any competitive ambitions. The problem with Relic's approach is that they see those numbers and think immediately that they need to focus their attention on the "casual" aspect of the game, at the expense of the competitive scene.
It's a weird way to think about the game, and Relic is one of the only developers who seems to feel that way. Other developers like Valve and Blizzard and Riot realize that while the vast majority of their players will never play their games competitively, the competitive scene is vital to success because it provides free marketing, attracts new players, and keeps existing players interested in their games and the communities surrounding them. The fact of the matter is, skirmish players are going to keep playing skirmish regardless of the changes to the game. Competitive play, on the other hand, is never going to succeed today unless it is given serious, targeted attention from developers. Most of the biggest non-MMO multiplayer games today are games with hugely successful competitive scenes supported by developers who run their own flagship tournaments and focus a large amount of energy on improving competitive play. These games also happen to have enormous numbers of casual players, even though so much developer energy is focused away from that aspect of these games. The fact that Relic doesn't realize that, and didn't from day one prioritize the competitive scene as a result, is their #1 strategic failing as a company in my opinion.
Not only that but a balanced game offers a much better gameplay experience than an unbalanced any day of the week , imagine if dota2 had 5 or 10 heroes that worked and the others were crap , sure the very top people would find some ways around that but in the lower tiers that would make the games of people a miserable experience half the time resulting to them moving to other games , and guess what coh2 isnt that far from that stage for some time , I am litterally bored of facing the same and the sam stuff .
And that's the job of his employer, to review his performance and decide whether it is satisfactory or not. Do you know the organizational structure at Relic? Do you know his team? Do you know his supervisors? Do you know what they talk about in their internal meetings? Do you know anything other than the fact that you're angry that he hasn't done exactly what you want him to do?
Do you have any idea how petty it makes you look to demand a man lose his job because you disagree with how he's managing balance in a video game? What makes you think you have anywhere near the knowledge required to make a decision like that? It's pathetic honestly. You're willing to work to harm a man's personal life because of that? What the fuck is wrong with you?
You have no idea how improved this game is because of Peter. He's taken a shitty design and commanders that he's had little or no say in and worked his ass off to turn this clusterfuck of a game into something people might actually care about. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it's leaps and fucking bounds beyond what it used to be, and what it probably would be if anybody else at Relic were in charge of things.
Thankfully, nobody gives a shit about you, or your opinions. Hopefully it stays that way.
While you are right that Peter is good at his job even though there is plenty of bullshit that he has to cope with and Shouldnt be fired , i think that the people who were in charge of designing the WFA factions dis a really shitty job and dont deserve to be working at a prestigious studio like relic |
Last night I had two squads of pgrens with shreks (one vet 3). Wiped by a single Sherman HE shot.
My fault for bunching them outside of cover I guess
i am sorry for that , but that was some pretty bad rng , while i have been observing shermans being unable to land a shot for plenty of time against vetted axis troops |
Well you got to admit your post is a little bit long so i apologize if i have overlooked something you wrote. But in general it seems to me like one guy has his own little problems with the usf because of...reasons. You complain about the assymetrical balance, for example the pak compared to the 57mm, while the pak has the better penetration and the better range (we dont talk about the heat rounds they work only when the enemy stays still), the 57mm has a very good pen with the at rounds and it is possible to create a increased los and range with vet 1. So my opinion hasn't changed it still seems like a ltp issue to me.
The ap rounds bounce far too often against the likes of panthers anbd tigers andthat what you typically want to get with your atgs , you want me to l2p and yet you compare the at guns without mentioning the targets they have to face , i think i made my point claer enough here , i dont have time to xplain myself twice , go read the OP , otherwise dont talk about it . |
Wow people complaining about pgs and volks with schrecks, did nazi dat coming. I mean really, have you ever heared about the HE rounds of the sherman? Since patch and the new clumping mechanics they are a squadwipe machine. This entire thread seems to be a ltp issue to me.
i have heard of it but you seem to not have heard of reading the opening text or the harder to be hit vet bonusses both volks and pgrens get and the speed at which they gain that vet with the schrecks before you wrote whatever ... you had to , also OBVIOUSLY if i wasnt engaging with HE i would not be making the thread , but i did and i d like to see you trying to change ammo with the e8 since it doesnt have the option . Also to get the best usage of shermans HE you have to close in which means cetain death for it . Now go back to the OP and read it |
Anyway if i am insulting i d like to apologise but that shouldnt put people off anyway  . Its what you say that matter not how imo . |
Ignatius J. Reilly
ringhost1
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
