Profile of coh2player

One the things that is different here (than COH) is the fact that the AT guns are actually quite effective against infantry.

And Infantry is more effective in the defense rather than the offense to me, as sometimes there isn't enough cover to reach the cap zone efficiently. Mortars and MGs break the dead lock in the offense but they are expensive to replace (275, 125) and take a while to pound away the AT guns and MGs. The same resources can be put into a light AFV.

In my Carentan normal game, I destroyed 1,400+ troops and 97 vehicles with 650+ losses and 47 (game miscount? I don't remember making or using that many) vehicle losses. I did make big mistakes: I used air power badly (tried to knock out the 88s, nebels, and 50s) instead of using airborne to toss nades in (10 times more expensive..what I did). I forgot to build HMGs (I only manned the capzone MGs) and more mortars after I lost the first one.

I tried to win faster but the incessant massed armor counterattacks got a lot of my m8s, Chaffees and shermans. Only the m10 wolverine was adequate but they fell to the Tiger spam.

So I spammed infantry and bazooka squads constantly just to hold the line. My losses were huge.

One of the features of the blitzkrieg game that I really liked was how there was an option to toggle section/squad formations. As in, the troops could move in various patterns. This would have come in handy as I often want the troops to spread out and not bunch up.

Yes, the Soviet tanks (like IRL) fair well in MOW:AS. I like MOW:AS's attention to realism better than coh2.

The T-34/76 can knock out Panthers (like IRL) easily through flank penetrations. They can easily knock out Panzer IV F/Gs through the front. They can knock out the Panzer IV H through the turret front. The cost is low (IIRC 350 ?) which is 150 less than the Sherman 75mm. (yet their tank fighting capability is roughly similar and both are good against soft targets)

The T-34/85 is a very good core tank and can counter panzers and Stugs quite well if it fires first. Its gun has a little more penetration than the German 75mm L/48.

They also pay attention to reload rates, and the Soviet tanks seem to reload slower than the German. (due to ergonomics and multi-part ammunition on some). The Soviets also, like IRL, have less ammo than the German tanks so they have to resupply more often.

----

USA really gets screwed over in this game though. The CW, USSR, and the Germans have better tanks and value than they do.

This game is harder than most. On the AI Skirmish missions, even 'normal' is very time consuming for me. I won Carenten (as USA) the other night and it took me over 2 hours. Even 'easy' is almost an hour long slog.

I found fighting all the stug III Gs, Panzer IV H, Pumas, and Tigers with a handful of overpriced, paper armor, and weak gunned USA armor (Sherman 75, Jumbo 75, Chaffee light, M8, M10) and antitank guns (57mm @ 225...) to be a bad proposition. So I spammed rifle squads and bazookas just to hold the front line.

In retrospect, it looks to me that the only cost effective thing with the USA in this skirmish is the infantry. The AT gun is essential but overpriced and underpowered (76mm US AT gun would have been much better...). The essential M10 76mm comes too late. It should be available earlier. The German 'Caen' map is so much easier as you get the Tiger, pz IV H, and Stug III G very early on.

The penal battalions were equipped like assault troops and given equipment suitable to the task.

Assault troops got SMGs, SVTs, flamethrowers, explosives, mine detectors, etc They were NOT sent on the battlefield to do minimal damage and then die.

There is memoir of penal battalion officer I looked at and it discloses that many were composed completely of dishonored officers and noncoms. (combat leaders). In the regular army they were ranked men and in the penal battalion they were privates.

The goal in the unit was to essentially get re-instated in the regular army and have their records clear. This was typically accomplished by succeeding in battle and winning medals.

It was not a 'suicide battalion'.

How about the ISU-122 and the Jagdpanzer IV (the super stug??).

The ISU-122 would have the IS-2's gun but of course be cheaper. The gun will have longer range than the IS-2 but shorter than the ISU-152. The ISU-122's armor will be similar to the ISU-152.

The Jagdpanzer IV would have the Panther's gun and be the 'German SU-85'.

The idea would be to get a less expensive/more affordable but less potent version of the ISU-152 onto the field and a more expensive, but more effective version of the Stug.

This should combat the issues against the Stug/ISU-152 with those that want to address it with a dlc commander.

The Panzer III L/42 was obsolete against the T-34/76 (even had problems penetrating the side armor at normal combat ranges).

The Panzer III L/60 could penetrate the side armor at close ranges (below 400 meters)

The T-34/76 could penetrate the Pz III front easily (1,000-1,400 meters plus, depending on model)

Essentially the relationship of the Panzer III vs T-34 in terms of gun/armor was similar to the relationship of the Tiger vs. T-34 except reversed.

Panzer III's could succeed against soviet tanks due to their combined arms support & coordination afforded to them by their panzer divisions so they needed supporting arms when fighting other tanks.