I don't know what the fuck game Tristan was playing, but USF were good in 1v1, weak but usable in 2v2 and a shit show in anything else prior to the recent changes to Rifleman received accuracy and access to mines. "Believe in USF" wasn't a COH meme that gained traction because of how great the USF were - it was because of how terrible they were for the majority of their existence.
This guy took the time to write what I think is a swell perspective on things, not being combative or outright dismissive, and you're responding by A) apparently not knowing what the fuck you're talking about and B) dismissing him as a 4v4 nobody.
lol i just had that experience a few moments ago with human opponents. i tell u right now the panther is a big fucking scary monster. now i wish USF had the M26 Pershing
The reason the USF are considered more "micro intensive" is mostly due to their armor game. The Sherman, for example, needs to be manually cycled between anti-infantry and anti-armor ammunition. The Jackson is the lowest health, highest damage tank destroyer in the game. The 57mm AT gun, while having some useful abilities is, at least in my experience, the easiest AT gun to decrew in the game.
Add to all of this that the USF has no heavy generalist tank akin to a Tiger or IS2, nor a heavily armored anti-armor vehicle like the Panther or Elefant, and you see where the USF late-game struggle begins. While the Germans and late game Soviets have some units they can send into the fray that can perform well enough on their own without needing babysitting, every USF armored unit demands near-constant management.
I'm sure they were utilized, which means "make practical and effective use of". It only makes sense. What doesn't make sense is squads running around shooting rockets, which you can't call 'utilize'. I'm sure this wasn't the case.
Have you played lately? It's pretty reliable. You will do damage, because even if you miss, there is an explosion that damages every model, not just the one you missed. I lose models every game from anti-vehicle rockets, and every time it's costing me the engagement.
Still, that's not the problem. It subtracts from the immersion, the same way snipers in scout cars did.
If you're looking for immersion grounded in realism, COH2 is not the game for you or anyone who thinks likewise. It's a game where men with rifles will repeatedly miss firing at point blank range. It's a game where walking into a hail of machine gun fire will simply force your squad the hug the ground for 15 seconds before they suddenly can't move. It's a game where players can slap a few sandbags on the ground behind a wall and then abandon construction to deny the enemy cover; where often the most effective way to eliminate partially constructed razor wire is to have your men fire their rifles at it; where hand held AT grenades, panzerfausts and AT rifle grenades are all heat-seeking and will bend around trees and corners of buildings to hit a tank in just the right spot to disable it, as long as it's taken 10% damage.
I personally don't take issue with any of the above (except ghosting with sand bags) because it's a game that has to follow some rules that don't 100% click with reality. Given all of that though, if you're coming at this whole thing with "broken immersion" being the backbone of your argument, are bazookas really THE thing that demands your attention, that rattles you out of your "zone"?
Bazookas will occasionally kill models in the same way the panzershrecks from a Volks blob and the occasional AT gun round will. If you're consistently losing engagements and, should we infer(?), even games because of the Captain unit with his two bazookas, I really don't think the issue is that the bazooka is overperforming against infantry. No one sees the Captain hit the field and thinks, "Shit, he went Captain! Pull everything back, EVERYTHING BACK!"
thread backfired bailout ! bailout ! dude everyone knows ur post history
lol for fuck's sake calliope - you're one of the biggest Axis fanboys on this forum. I'm not saying that's a terrible thing in itself, but it doesn't make much sense for you to be hurling "Allied fanboy" spitballs when your post history is basically one big "Sieg Heil."
The USF was in a terrible state previously because of the Rifleman unit. Riflemen were the most expensive core infantry with the highest reinforcement cost and the WORST late-game performance. Rear Echelon spam didn't gain traction because of that unit's effectiveness - it was the low manpower bleed relative to the Riflemen who, late game, save for their grenade abilities, weren't that much more useful.
Fast forward to now, post patch, when the received accuracy buff has turned vet 3 Riflemen with BARs into stout-hearted warriors and suddenly late game USF play feels excitingly different. Throw Infantry company mines into the mix and yeah - honestly, the USF are in a pretty good spot right now. Freedom tastes pretty good.
I've said it before, usually to minimal response, but I'll say it again in the hopes that some day it will strike a nerve.
What fucking sense does it make for the most air-power focused commander in the game to be virtually immune to anti-air units? If a player chooses a commander that has 4 abilities that call a plane onto the fucking map, shouldn't his opponent's natural tactical response be to build some type of anti-air weapon?
Wouldn't it make sense, if you're playing CAS, to prioritize anti-air threats to give your planes breathing room to attack the enemy?
CAS is in my mind, without question, the least fun commander to play against in the game simply because there is no direct counter to its abilities. You should't see an Anti-AIR halftrack on the field and be able to effectively counter it by calling in an AIRplane. It's just shitty design.
First off, bazookas were and panzershrecks actually *were* utilized for anti-infantry, especially against troops inside buildings and defensive positions. Anyone whose immersion is shattered by a bazookas killing a model or two should go play something else.
Second, this is RNG dependent in the EXTREME. If the bazooka was worth a reliable damn in the anti-infantry department, we'd be seeing a lot more aggressive use of the Captain.
It happens with both panzershrecks and bazookas. If you see it happening more with bazookas in your personal experience, that doesn't mean that the bazooka is OP. It means you have shitty luck and aren't spamming enough of your damned ISGs.
Their reinforcement costs fits their vet 3 buffs. But vet 0 infantry sections at 35 mp are something to be laughed at in the late game.
Most people who notice that it's not worth it. Replace them with anvil heavy engineers in order to reduce manpower damage. Plus, you can give them 3 LMG's so they can practically be their own infantry sections equals(or betters) if you want them to be.
They are mostly a stop gap unit in the beginning followed by being the only healing unit available for the UKF(medics nonpending). That, and artillery flares. Basically, their utility is what makes them great. Not their fighting power.
I'm not gonna vehemently disagree with the guy who's ranked number 1 in random 2s with the Brits, but I personally find Infantry Sections to be pretty great. In cover, once they pick up some vet and get ahold of some weapons, I think they're the best core combat unit in the game.
I'd agree though that replacing a lost vet 3 IS with a vet 0 IS doesn't make much sense with Heavy Engies are available. In that sense, I guess they're still better than late game vet 0 Riflemen who share the high reinforcement cost but are less durable and otherwise have no useful useful utility.
1
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
