I was watching an interesting game where Jesulin was upgrading one of his Ranger squads with two Bazookas and one BAR. It seemed like a powerful, if expensive, way to upgrade Rangers. The double Bazookas with the Ranger’s bazooka expert trait combined with a single BAR let the Rangers contest infantry and really hammer medium tanks.
Of course, it isn’t as good as THREE Bazookas for tank killing nor as good as Thompsons for anti infantry work.
What do you guys think, how do you like your Rangers? Thompsons all the way? Triple Bazookas? Triple BARs? Mix and match Bazookas with BARs? 2 Bazookas and a BAR? Two BARs and a single bazooka? Thompsons and a bazooka? Thompsons and a BAR?
Lots of options that can work in all kinds of different scenarios, so there’s really no wrong answers here.
Making the Wasp doctrinal would be interesting if you swapped it with the flamethrower from the doctrines that have that. Should be easy, since this would give the same anti garrison utility from one unit to another, doctrinal vs nondoctrinal. It would give UKF a decent non-doctrinal CQB type unit in the form of 5 man, flamethrower Royal Engineer squads and also allow the Wasp to be made more powerful as a stand alone unit since it would be locked behind a doctrine.
The rock-paper-scissors dynamic that is the core of all RTS games requires that every unit has a weakness. In CoH games we have an even more complicated series of relationships between units that goes much deeper than just Rock Paper Scissors, but the idea that units must be counter able remains true.
Mainline infantry can do it all, but lose to dedicated anti infantry units and elite infantry. TDs best tanks, tanks beat infantry, infantry based AT weapons beat TDs. We all know this. Fallschirmjager are elite infantry that beat pretty much every other type of infantry at all ranges, have stealth and have a way to counter vehicles which is the natural counter for other units that are similar. Are commandos and Shocks better at CQB? Yes, but they lose at long range to Falls. LMG Paratroopers better al long range? Yes, but they lose up close to Falls. This shows the Fallschirmjager vs other elite infantry matchup is more or less ok, but the added utility of passive cloak, first strike bonus and panzerfaust is what messes up the dynamic.
Removing the Faust is the obvious choice. Make it happ’n cap’n!
The problem with that is you end up very infantry heavy if you need to back tech for an AT gun. Sure the Stuart can handle enemy light vehicles, but it’s a gamble since replacing it is too costly and once you end up behind you’re fighting a very tough battle to claw your way back in.
Not saying it can’t work, but I feel like LT first builds go one of three ways.
1. You gain an early advantage and keep it until you win.
2. You don’t gain an early advantage but don’t lose your Stuart. You’re now on the back foot against enemy armor without an AT gun so you are forced to back tech to get one or drop on via Airborne Company. Back teching is manpower heavy for USF and gives you a Captain Squad you may not need or want leading to a very infantry heavy build. Even if you don’t lose your Stuart you still end up fighting tanks with tanks and TDs, which is ok unless you take a few bad engagements. Losing a Jackson is much more punishing than losing an AT gun.
3. You lose your Stuart early and get behind. Now you’re pretty screwed and will probably lose the game even if you back tech to Captain for an AT gun.
It just seems to me like even though the pros are all going for an LT build, the safest choice is to do a full tech build where you go with only two Riflemen into Lieutenant, then M20 and a Stuart, but then go Captain and get an AT gun before you go Major.
I’m trying a build that’s two Riflemen into Lieutenant then grab a 50 cal then tech up to Captain for an AT gun. No light vehicles at all and instead rely on getting early weapons racks and BARs to beat the infantry. I then have room in the lineup for Rangers or Paratroopers or I can get an M8 Greyhound as a light vehicle instead of an M20 or Stuart.
For 4v4, i play Ukf while my friend play usf. I go Vicker, section, then vicker or another section or rush T2, while he go 2 mortar, rifle, captain, pack howi and AAHT. We cover each other.
Very interesting, that’s a lot of indirect fire.
I’m more interested in 1v1 builds though, but I didn’t specify that. Regardless, that’s an interesting build although it sounds like it might be weak to aggressive light vehicle play, such as double 222 or a Luchs-Puma combo.
Hey guys, let’s talk about USF openings and build orders, especially ones that you might consider to be “off meta”.
Most USF players these days are going: Riflemen-Riflemen-Riflemen-Lieutenant-M20 then going for weapons racks an ambulance grenades a 50 cal or a Stuart next, usually Stuart then ambulance depending on map control.
It’s a pretty strong build, which is why it’s so good, but I’m interested in alternate ideas.
I’ve been experimenting with either a 4 Rifleman start and going for M1919A6s on them with Infantry Company going into Captain for the AT gun and rushing for Major, maybe stopping for an AA halftrack.
The other idea was to go for Rifle Company and do the same thing except going for an extra RE squad into three Riflemen and using the Captain as your bazooka squad after you get weapons racks. With all the sprinting Riflemen you can snare more easily and may not need Bazookas at all. But by putting them on the Captain you get his reload Veteran you bonuses that make the Bazookas fire faster and allow you to have two flamethrower RE squads or one flamethrower RE squad and four Riflemen.
With either build it lets you avoid having to back tech for an AT gun later which helps speed up your late game. With rifle company it lets you go for an Easy Eight which forces your opponent to either lose the tank fight or go for a panther to counter them. Since you’ve done a heavy rifleman build you win more infantry fights with or without tank support which should force a no win situation on your enemy since he needs a panther to counter the Easy Eights but also needs a Panzer 4 to counter all the Riflemen.
I’m interested to hear what you all might be trying at the moment. Cheers!
There's a long list of unused tanks and other vehicles that I would always like to see just for the sake of variety. This goes the same for other factions.
I'm more focused on the lack of the PPS-42/43. This gun may not have been as iconic as the PPSh-41 but it is still useful in the game to remove ambiguity between, say, a conscript submachine gun and a shock one.
Good point!
For that matter, there are a few types of Mosin-Nagants that could’ve been used too. The M38 Mosin-Nagant carbine would’ve been perfect for Soviet weapon crews and also a way to differentiate between the better Conscript M91/30s and the weapon crews weaker M38s. Not that they are significantly any better or worse in real life, except for the carbine being handier, but it does provide a semi plausible explanation for the different stats.
I still can't believe an Eastern Front game exists that doesn't have a Panzer III.
Right!?!
CoH 3 better have Panzer IIIs, no matter what the setting. They were so prevalent that it’s crazy that they weren’t featured in CoH 2, especially since there were so many chances to add it in to OKW or via a new commander to Ostheer.
There are unused voices intended for black rear echelons, I'd love add them as part of a doctrine or unit inspired by the "Black Panthers" 761st Tank Battalion. Not sure what I'd put in it, from the sounds of it they'd be good for infantry, engineers, and/or vehicle crews.
That’s a cool idea, but I’m not sure if they (Relic) want to touch on the subject of segregation. After all, the removed the black rear echelon troops from the game after the beta of USF for that very reason. Plus there would be underlying racial problems if they were weaker or stronger than white units.
Black soldiers fought hard and well during the war and are often underrepresented in games, especially RTS games, but it’s also hard to do history justice on the subject of segregation in a video game.
On one hand if you have a unit that is all black, that would be historically correct only if the whole USF faction was all black, since segregation of the army was effected at higher levels than individual squads. On the other hand if you ignore history completely like Battlefield 1 and V or Call of duty WWII’s multiplayers then you aren’t doing history justice either.
Call of Duty:WWII actually did it right in the campaign where there is only one black soldier and he is a messenger from another all black unit who ends up with you for a few missions. Even this correct depiction of history got a lot of criticism for having a “token black guy”. I fear that any black unit would also be labeled a “token black unit”, and draw criticism even if it was done well.
I don’t know if it was the “right” call for Relic to remove them, but it was definitely the safest option.
Long ranged oriented mechanized riflemen squad equipped with an M1919A6 LMG and carried by an M3 Halftrack. The core opposite to the Cav Riflemen.
Would give another mechanized sort of commander a unique squad to play with.
I got some more but these are the ones off the top of my head for now.
Cool idea!
That could be easy to add to a future commander, but I don’t think I’d make them a special squad, maybe just a squad of Riflemen that comes pre-upgraded with the M1919A6 LMG in the back of a halftrack as a call in, kinda like the Grenadier halftrack the Wehrmacht gets in some commanders.
Better yet, have them come in an M3A1 scour car from the Soviets. Call it a “Rifleman Recon Group”, a squad of Riflemen equipped with an M1919A6 LMG that comes in the back of an M3A1 Scout car, come in at 1 or 2 CPs, (whatever is the same as the Wehrmacht halftrack Grenadier call in) and have the cost be about the same.
No need to make it a special named version of Riflemen, the free LMG and the Scout car they ride in would make it unique enough.
United States
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
