Profile of Corp.Shephard

Tiger Penetration is 220/200/180, short, medium, long.

IS-2 Frontal Armor is 375.

Thus Tiger penetration rate at the three ranges: 58.7%/53.3%/48%

Pak40 penetration is 210/200/190. Extremely similar.

You have a better than 50% chance to penetrate the frontal armor of the IS-2 with these weapons at most ranges. You just got incredibly unlucky my friend!

I think these two tanks are pretty much fine.

Keep in mind that Ciez plays at a skill level that like maybe ~5% of the game's population plays at if not less.

Ostheer vs US may favor Ostheer at the highest level. The majority of people don't play a the highest level. Thus the poll could easily be skewed based on the player base's average skill level. It's his experiences that guide him.

Also that poll is like 18 days old. There's been two balance patches since then. Patches that have nerfed the M15 AA Half-track's range and troublesome call-ins like Veteran Riflemen and WC51 Jeeps.

This thread was basically a plea from a community member to get the input of "high level players" on the state of US balance. The poll is not relevant to this discussion.

If you wanted to make a thread about how Ostheer is too difficult to play or you perceive it as weak in 1v1s then I'm sure the poll could be valuable there. Although it is a little out of date at this point.

I never know what to think about the US force's strengths.

Riflemen always feel like they over-perform but that's a core strength of the US forces. They're supposed to over-perform. By design their strengths are supposed to lift the rest of the army up.

I don't really like the way you assess the army in your original post though.

Riflemen are only really good anti-infantry with .30 Caliber LMGs. That requires you to go Infantry Company which locks you out of 'Easy Eights'. BARs are good but don't fully even the odds against elite anti-infantry squads. Personally I think .30 Cal LMGs are too good or at least defensive stance is too good. You give up alot by going Infantry though as I said.

I think the 'Easy Eight' comparison is a little overblown. The Easy Eight is better than the Panther? I don't disagree really when you take the economic realities of the two units.

That being said you're basing your argument on support for these two tanks as well. Germans have better anti-armor support units than the US for the most part. Volksgrenadiers with Panzerschrecks are more accessible and valuable than Riflemen with Bazookas.

For my own curiousity I will show the penetration differences with numbers. I'll just use the average (medium range) penetration for simplicity although the long range penetration is probably more realistic for the AT guns.

Keep in mind that the 'Easy Eight' is the most armored unit in the arsenal of the US forces. It's all downhill from it.

Pak40 vs EE = 93% chance to penetrate
Rak43 vs EE = 88% chance to penetrate
Panzerschreck vs EE = 79% chance to penetrate

Pretty good odds. For the US against the Panther:

57mm vs Panther = 43% chance to penetrate. (I don't know how the "AP rounds" ability works. I've heard 50% more penetration which would be 64.5%?)
Bazooka vs Panther = 41% chance to penetrate.

Keep in mind that the Bazooka does 66% of the damage that the Panzerschreck does as well. You should also keep in mind that the Pak40 and Raketen43 have 33% more base accuracy over the 57mm.

The target size of the 'Easy Eight' and the Panther is 23 vs 24 (way smaller difference than I expected!) respectively so this is a pretty huge boon for the Panther. Bigger targets get automatically hit more.

You can see that the two have very different support weapons available to them on the two sides. While the 'Easy Eight' can draw upon it's support weapons to turn a battle between the two the Axis can do so much easier with greater reliability. The other strength that the 'Easy Eight' has it something all call-ins have. Wehrmacht players crush faces with Tiger Tanks. Soviets have long done it with their call-ins. It's just an issue with call-in tanks.

To return to the greater point though they're maybe a little too strong here and there? I think Riflemen are always going to feel really strong in the same way that a Tiger should always feel really strong. It's just a strength of the side.

I have to agree with most here. The differences are overblown. My personal opinion, which is hard to rationalize, is that US are slightly overpowered. It's not much though really. Map advantage or tactics will overcome this strength in my opinion.

One of the things they really have going for them is an arsenal of really strong units. There's no un-usable unit. There's no.. SU-76. There's no... Brummbar. There's no... 251/17 Flak Halftrack.

Having no dead-weight units give them great flexibility. Even calling these three "dead weight" units is harsh but there are factors that hurt them.

The closest thing the US have to a dead-weight unit is probably the M20 Utility Car and M15 which are being edged out by a Puma metagame that punishes them harshly. Both units are still really strong though.

tl;dr: Yes, sortof, they're probably a little strong but it's nothing you can't overcome and honestly the map, tactics and game-mode will have a far greater impact.

Veteran Troops doesn't necessarily guarantee anything though.

Investing into a singular unit is potentially rewarding but you are taking a significant risk.

Let's say I am playing Soviets. I quite like Tier 1 Soviet play. I see you go for Vet 3 Grenadiers.

These elite grens will probably cause some issues for my first Conscript squad but then my M3A1 will roll out. A vet 3 grenadier's Panzerfaust is no better than a vet 0 to my knowledge. I will stall your forces for a little while and then I will get a flamethrower. All of that veterancy means nothing to the flamethrower or explosives. Shortly after a sniper will hit the field. Suddenly I have a very high priority target to pick on that actually give me more experience per sniper shot! I can turn your investment against you one bullet at a time.

All the while you have slowed down your personal tech. I don't have to worry about a 222 scout car nearly as fast. My Guards/AT grenades will absolutely be ready when they come. Each time you use the ability you slow your tech down. A vet 3 grenadier means little to a T-70 light tank or an M15 AA Half-track.

All units have weaknesses. A vet 3 MG against a sniper, smoke grenade, or flanking troops is a wasted investment. A vet 3 grenadier still loses to Riflemen who have better cover at a better range or a maxim that suppresses it and ends the fight immediately. A vet 3 Mortar is pretty solid but cannot hold a line itself.

A good player won't lose his fuel to a single veteran infantry. If you make multiple then all I need is a higher tech counter.

If the enemy understands the inherent weaknesses of each unit then they can exploit the fact that you've invested into a singular troop.

The Ace is kind of crazy good. 90% reduced fuel income generally means if you beat the Ace you win the game though. Once again it's an all-in style tactic. I just have to play things carefully. One good mine and the right tech means your game-plan goes down in smoke.

It's a decent doctrine but I don't think it's crazy overpowered. In fairness I don't own it. I've fought it many times though.

How many games have you done as the doctrine out of curiosity?

They're great.

I use them all the time.

I actually find that their low durability is a perk. They're easy enough to rebuild so having one go down isn't a big deal.

What makes it an advantage is the Panzerschreck. If you spam sandbag walls everywhere then the enemy can use them against you. That's okay though. You'll destroy their cover mid-fight with the Panzerschreck and put them out of position.

This means you can pretty safely put sandbags everywhere without being too worried about them being turned against you.

Sandbags everywhere means the enemy has to engage you at long range or they're charging units in green cover. Thus you restrict the enemy to the range where your Volks are best.

I find one tile of sandbags is often enough myself.