Profile of Mirdarion

first the USF desception says that USF good combined arms while attacking with the best medium tanks no commander

Well, and that is certainly the case. American infantry is superior as it is, throwing in a good medium tank like the Sherman in its current state rewards combined arms, especially as veteran Shermans used together gain a nice bonus that strengthens them even further. The basis is there, what you make of it is your own decision.

Out of all the strategic possibilities this game offers, USF combined arms play is certainly one of the most rewarding ones while still being reasonably easy to pull off. If you play as Ostheer for a bit, you will notice how badly rewarding their combined arms play is, as it constantly requires you to react to your opponent and invest more than he does, in order to stand any chance of competing with him.

and i came up with the idea from coh1

And that is exactly what got lost before, because I couldn't understand you. I didn't do that to anger you, or because I am simply a bad human being (well I am, but that's not the issue here). And your last two posts show that you can indeed do better, to help others understand you. We all can only profit from that.

Also, pershing is weaker than tiger thata why its repair a little bitt faster than tiger.

Correct, in terms of game data, the Pershing is treated like a "heavy" medium tank (800 HP) like the Panther, T-34/85 and the Comet. It is supposed to be a better Panther while being a threat to infantry like a heavy tank - a role which it performs well. If you want to use it like a Tiger, you will be disappointed of course, as it can't take as much of a beating.

That said, the Pershing actually works out better as a generalist tank, despite the lower health pool. It is overly mobile, well armoured (same frontal armour as the Tiger, a big WTF-point if you ask me, especially as the Pershing has the mobility to entirely negate the lower rear armour), high penetration (more than the Tiger). On top of that, even the higher reload is negated at vet 3, as the Pershing has a whooping 0.5 modifier to reload speed at that point, which amounts to a faster reload speed than the Tiger at vet3.

This is almost the same as the comparison between Tiger and IS-2: The Pershing starts out a tiny bit worse than the Tiger in very few areas and massively better in others, and gets significantly better with veterancy while the Tiger gets moderately better. The difference is, that the Tiger can take more of a beating, which doesn't change with veterancy - this doesn't negate its downsides, which is why the Pershing actually works in its role.

TL;DR: Compared to its counterparts in other armies, the Tiger is bad. And it gets even worse with veterancy, when its counterparts actually get some decent buffs, while the Tiger gets barely enough to not be considered laughably shitty.

this , it dosent fit in with coh2 game mechanis ..i think best is just do make it with 1 shell all around good dmg, like king tiger

We already had that, and it didn't work out. And basically every derivation from that idea led to different problems - either the ISU was underperforming against infantry due to its slow reload, or it was overperforming against vehicles due to its fast reload. Or the other way around.

It's the good old problem of generalist units vs. specialised units all over again, and there still is no adequate solution short of turning the unit in question into a specialised unit by reworking it - which of course destroys any kind of unique mechanics or strategies the unit may have offered previously.

There is of course an additional problem with the ISU: If it is turned into a really decent tank destroyer, especially Ostheer will have trouble working against it - there are no tanks on the Axis side that are either disposable (i.e. cheap) or mobile (accuracy penalty on the move) to make a push from the flanks feasible. Allied factions can do that, because they can either simply replace their tanks or have a decent enough chance to get out alive, but neither the Ostheer Panzer IV or Panther can make the same argument.

snip

That doesn't really explain the difference, IMO. Riflemen with their BARs also receive a massive boost to their long range DPS (a single BAR deals almost the same damage at long ranges as the entire squad without that BAR), which reduces the opposing players's ability to influence the fight through superior positioning.

That seems just as wrong as Volks becoming more powerful at long ranges when upgrading to assault rifles.

And William Christensen's argument about elite infantry also doesn't seem to work, if we consider how easily Riflemen vet up and how sturdy they become with veterancy (compared to actual elite infantry like PzGrens or Obersoldaten). Sure, they don't carry that specific distinction in title within the game files, but their performance tells an entirely different story.


How are we supposed to balance the idea of elite units like Obersoldaten within one army, if the next army has regular troops that for significantly less money perform better in the long run?

Protip: Don't use MGs on the frontline to fight enemy infantry. Use your MGs to cover your infantry.

And then we're back to square one, because countering Allied infantry requires much more resources and micro than Ostheer infantry. At the same time, the enemy also has all the necessary tools to completely negate your micro and resource investment, because mortars just wait for your units to stay still for more than a second.

Of course that also holds true for Brits, but there is a significant difference at play here: Tommies can actually do something at range instead of uselessly plinking away at far away units with no discernible effect.