Profile of GI John 412

USF more than any other faction are supposed to rely on their tank destroyers to fight tanks. Of course in real life the M4A3 Sherman Medium tank was equal or better than the Panzer IV in basically every way (and I am talking about the short barreled Sherman vs the Panzer IV with the KwK 40 L/43 gun too), but that’s not how the game works so let’s move on.

Basically the real US doctrine of using tanks to attack and TDs to counterattack against enemy armor is reflected in game by making the standard Sherman the best medium tank for attacking enemy infantry with its HE rounds, while making the Jackson your go to for fighting enemy tanks.

I would be interested in seeing play testing where both players were banned from using TDs, USF vs WM, where both players could use only M4 Shermans and Panzer IVs as your armored units. I think you’d find that both factions tanks perform well enough against each other when supported properly.

This supports my opinion that the Jackson is a result of the OKW tanks and WM Panther and Heavy tanks, that the Sherman just can’t fight in game.

By adding the M10 to Captain tier and rebalancing the Jackson to be a dedicated heavy killer and the M10 to be like it is now, a cost effective medium hunter, you open up more play styles and room for counter play by both sides where it doesn’t necessarily have to devolve into Jackson vs Panther in the late game.

Sherman vs Panzer IV should be about equal. Same as Sherman vs StuG and Panzer IV vs M10, but the TD is cost effective and serves as your comeback and counterplay unit.

To hard counter too many Shermans you get a Panther. To counter a Panther you get a Jackson. To counter the Jackson you go back to Panzer IVs or StuGs to be more cost effective. To counter the Panzer IVs you get either Shermans or M10s to equalize or counter with cost effectiveness depending on your resources available. Doctrinal only units like the Easy Eight and Sherman 76 should allow the Shermans to fight Panthers and beat Panzer IVs, but it wouldn’t upset the overall dynamic between Panzers, StuGs, Panthers, Shermans, M10s and Jacksons.

But this only works if you have a non doctrinal M10 at the Captain level. Other wise it’s just Jacksons all the way if you face any German armor and you want to win.

Thematically it doesn't make sense that some of the most used weapons and vehicles in the war are doctrinal (ppshs for example) while small batch units like the centaur and Ostwind are stock units.

OKW with a transport would be messy. People are bitching now about USF's ability to move Cav Rifles around and murder things but let's add that ability to the faction with the most automatic weapons around... Yea. That's balanced. It's bad enough with sturms hopping out behind a shot blocker let alone being delivered behind your MG. Or perhaps mecahanised JLI will be nice and fun. Oooh or good at all ranges falls? Thematic takes a back seat to balance,whats more if you check the sub forum we are in its ACTUALITY the "balance" one, so I'd go out on a limb and say that balance should probably take priority...

Or you could just make it balanced with careful implementation.

A. Low accuracy while firing on the move so you can’t do drive by attacks.

B. Slow disembarkation speed so you can’t just dump troops out up close instantly.

C. Low rear armor so it’s risky to do close in attacks.

D. Instantly kill the embarked unit if it dies so it’s very powerful, but very risky if you lose it.

E. Relatively high cost so you don’t want to risk losing it by diving.

As someone else mentioned, a price increase would be the safest option if the other aspects of USF remain the same. Performance nerfs will mean serious trouble for USF.

My favorite way to balance units. Performance vs cost.

If it’s too good for what you pay, make it cost more.

If it’s not good enough for what you pay, make it cost less.

If it’s a total shit show that gets either abused every game (old school maxim spam) or so bad it’s never used ever (IR Halftrack), that is when you need to look as making drastic changes.

@OP maybe don't call it a sniper rifle/scoped G43. The scoped G43 is what JLI use and it crits models below 75% HP for an instant kill. The standard G43 is a semi automatic rifle designed for mid/close range combat but is also decent at long. The exact opposite of the scoped G43 the JLI use.

I called it a scoped G43 because the model of the G43 rifle has a scope on it.

But you are right, it is a different rifle from what the JLI have statistically, even though both models are the same.

These inconsistencies between firearms is one of my top things to see changed in CoH 3, but that’s a subject for another day.

I wouldn't hate it, is definitely more interesting than just giving him and Stg or G43. It's also annoying that he carries a close range weapon because his squadmates carry Ober Kar98ks, so your ideal range to engage at is long.

I’m actually a big fan of officer and squad leader characters using short range weapons in an otherwise longer range oriented squad, like USF Lieutenant and Captains. I think it’s more realistic as very few units issued SMGs to whole units except highly specialized teams, while almost every warring nation issued squad leaders some sort of SMG to supplement the units close range firepower while on the assault or while defending from an assault.

For example, a Sturm Officer with an MP40 contributes little at long range while his bodyguards do the long range fighting. The Obers in his squad chip away at a charging CQB squad, weakening them enough that the officer can fend them off with his SMG if they do close the distance, but he doesn’t pack enough of a punch to be considered a full blown CQB squad himself.

This is how I think the veteran squad leader for WM Grenadiers should work too, a long range squad with enhanced close range defensive capabilities.