Profile of JHeartless

Jump back to quoted post12 May 2015, 18:09 PM__deleted__

Anyone serious (outside of "history" channel documentaries) ever said the entire US AT arsenal was ineffectual?
That being said, Arracourt etc. which you'll often find quoted as a vindication of US armour doctrine/employment is a problematic example at best, as the newly created German Panzerbrigaden that made up the bulk of the German forces were hastily shuffled into action and proved clear organisational failures, way too light on combat support/logistics and even more importantly, virtually untrained. In fact, most German crews could hardly operate their tanks individually, let alone function and fight as a formation. This was exarcerbated by the fact that for the most part they were commanded by men who lacked Western front experience and completely underestimated the organic firepower of US formations and the impact of their aerial support...In a way a similar situation to what the Soviets experienced in 1941 on a far larger scale.

As for IS-2 reload, balance&gameplay over authenticity any day IMO.

Jump back to quoted post5 May 2015, 03:56 AMAssaultPlazma

"At the end of two weeks of fighting, the Panther regiments in the Ardennes were shattered, losing about 180 tanks or 43 percent of the starting force of about 415 Panthers. Of the remaining 235 Panthers, only 45 percent were operational, and the remaining 55 percent were dead-line with mechanical problems or battle damage. In the case of the US First Army, which bore the brunt of the Ardennes fighting, by the end of December in had lost about 320 Sherman tanks of which about 90 were M4A1/A3 (76mm), equivalent to about one-quarter of its average daily strength that month. Due to continual reinforcements, First Army had about 1,085 Shermans on hand at the end of December 1944 with about 980 operational and only 9 percent deadline with mechanical problems or battle damage."


^^^Taken from http://books.google.com.ph/books/about/Panther_Vs_Sherman.html?id=SWwRkr_6mzUC&redir_esc=y

Jump back to quoted post8 May 2015, 01:45 AMdaspoulos

Give it 45 range, make the grenade launcher not shit, make it so it can actually make use of its veterancy. The thing is maybe gonna shoot 10 times all game. Lower the veterancy requirements.

Jump back to quoted post5 May 2015, 18:10 PMgary.giles71

Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.

Jump back to quoted post4 May 2015, 13:24 PMEsxile

When you build the lieutenant you should always unlock zooks couple of minutes later. If you go M20, always replace its crew with a RE one so you have a zook squad. Now I know stugE can easily kill any of your squads, that's a risk to asses every time.

It is really map dependent but going 2 or 3 RE can make you overwhelming him. Use the RE as scouting and capping squad and building holder while you use your rifles to flank.

2 or 3 RE start let you go easily to any commanders. its a trade-off for pushing power to capping power.
2 RE start with a bunker in a strategic location to hold until you get enough force to push.
3 RE start, no bunker but building holder in a strategic position.
4 RE start to Rifle commander performs well on many maps. It is really effective in term of manpower management but I wouldn't do 4 RE start with any other commander.

Remember that Ostheer need to keep his pio near to his MG to keep it effective, which mean for him less capping power or to replace a grenadier squad by a pio one.

Cons: more than 2 RE start make you really vulnerable to Grenadier spam. (just talking about early game)