Profile of Retaliation

I feel like the vehicle delay has had a not insignificant effect on the viability of airdropped combat group.

I can't tell if I like or hate it when a match turns into a marathon.

The movie was far from realistic regarding the last scene where a single Sherman takes out the entire German Army, if that was actually the ending scene. I haven't seen the movie myself, but I definitely don't want to pay money for it if it's nothing more than a "Fuck yeah, Murica!" film that would bring any patriotic American into tears.


@ Arclyte

German steel and engineering was simply better than anything the Americans put out. Why do you think the US had to send wave after wave of tanks to take out German tanks(Who had inferior numbers)? It's because the Germans had superior weapons and technology.

You are a fool to believe that. As reported by the US Army Ballistics Research Laboratory in 1954 the typical engagement of the 3rd and 4th armored against German tanks was 9 to 4. That's not even close to 5:1. With regards to engagements between shermans and panthers shermans were on the defense 19 times compared to the 5 times they were on the offense. I shouldn't have to explain why a sherman on the defense is a much more dangerous threat than one on the offense (hint: 40mm of unsloped armor offers no protection to 3" guns).

This is the real power of having more tanks than your enemies, not this 5:1 nonsense (and never in the war did the US have enough shermans for that to be a winning prospect). When you have to hoard tanks like precious metals for decisive offensives while your enemy can give every single infantry division their own battalion of tanks, it doesn't matter what your frontal armor is. You're going to be ambushed at every opportunity and almost always from the sides or rear.


As for the differences between German and American steel, it's as much about American designers attempting to protect the men inside from spalling rather than keeping the tank intact as anything else.

Btw people, I find it very strange that everyone is bashing on my build order. Isn't it a tad strange that you need one or two specific tactics and build orders to deal with and perhaps defeat a faction? Why are there only one or two tactics that are viable.. That just doesn't seem right to me.. An entire faction rendered almost useless apart from 2 to 4 units which are viable in either one of the "working" tactics.

That's something that happens to every game when you begin seriously evaluating it's bits and pieces. It's more pronounced in strategy games because what you do early on has dramatic effects later on (hence build orders), but it's not unique.

While you can mitigate it by shuffling around stats to something more viable, truly fixing the problem (making everything viable at all points in the game) is pretty much impossible.

Four Sherman down for one Axis Tiger. Portrayed the tactics Allied tankers had to do at that stage of the war perfectly. Only penning shot was from the Fury (easy 8, The other Sherman were a mix of Sherman types) from the rear, textbook in a way, after the loss of the other crews.


Sad day for the ones on the ground, a victory for the Officers at the planning table.

If by portrayed perfectly you mean giving in to the mantra of "5 shermans to 1 tiger/panther/pz4/farm tractor" then yeah I guess they couldn't really do any better.

Criticisms off the top of my head:
In reality the side armor of a tiger is exactly the same as it's rear (80mm) and can be penetrated at over a kilometer (turret side included) by the 76mm.