Grey cover seems to be replacing the yellow dots that are default but also light cover. Good idea, since less experienced people could easily assume everything is light cover and only bother with green dots. It'd also help veterans because when you put a squad in light cover, you'd also see if anyone is out of cover. I'm not sure why yellow dots were used to represent no cover and light cover to begin with, but this is a welcome change, however small.
2 theories on spraypaint:
- Could be for colouring captured tanks, such as a captured Panzer IV being repainted Green.
- Could be default colour like others have said. I hope for this (with proper restrictions, no hot pink clown kubels), because:
It would also be cool if you could modify and add on insignia and edit tank numbers. Good looking tanks matter. |
|
Come on people, vote for volksgren blobbing.... |
|
It would be nice if...
1. Unit with role is being designed - one faction can counter said unit well, and the other cannot at all - unit is not designed, and something else takes its place.
Instead, it is...
2. Unit with role is being designed - one faction can counter said unit well, and the other cannot at all - good enough, unit is put into game, use other faction's help to counter unit, and if all one faction/ playing 1v1, then too bad.
As well as: new faction units being designed - faction is not given units that match well/counter existing faction units. Derpy imbalance ensues, and queue several patches changing and undoing changes because of lack of foresight in design.
|
I feel that would be abused a lot, imagine them dropping a crewed weapon near tank that is repairing or on cutoff/fuel/muni. I would be ok with it if they made it LOS only.
Thats not much different than dropping paratroopers somewhere... And a lone AT gun in enemy territory is a death sentence.
Doesnt matter since It will never happen, anyways... |
So it is fine for the Ostheer to have a unit in tier 2 that costs no fuel and no munitions to have nearly twice the DPS of comparable AT guns and much more armor penetration while fighting softer targets because the only other counter for Soviet heavy tanks- something not every player will field- is Panthers?
But it is perfectly acceptable that the US has to field M36's to deal with German heavy tanks? Mind you, the OKW can field heavy tanks as a faction without even needing to pick a commander.
Anyone else find it ironic that the US has to have a push-botton ability to make their AT guns viable against armor, while the Ostheer has it built in, while fighting softer armor?
Stop questioning asymmetrical balance.  |
Do merged squads keep the recieved accuracy penalty? I ask because I remember a thread a while ago where it was stated that recieved accuracy depends on the squad itself, not models.
Hmmm... If so, then:
ULTRA UTILITY CONSCRIPTS |
You would be correct about the two, the puma variant however didnt leave the factory though if I remember right. However the 5cm gun is capable of penning 69mm at 100m. The Sherman had 51 mm of hull frontal armor. Either way, the Sherman was too thin and the German guns could pen it. The hellcat can only pen so much and the panther was one of the heaviest armored tanks in the war.
The 51 mm armor is angled at 56 degrees, simulating armor that is substantially more thicker. 100m is not a far distance in tank combat anyways, and the 5 cm 234/2 was not built in mind to combat medium tanks at all. It was a reconnaissance vehicle, after all. The pak wagen, however, was capable of doing so, but it had a very limited amount of space for ammunition since, well, its a car. It also made the puma much heavier and had to be driven slower and more carefully. Both had a decent amount produced, and served their roles very late in the war.
Besides the point, the Hellcat would indeed be fast enough to flank Axis tanks and hit them reliably from behind at least (im not expecting it to pen a panther's front more than 50% of the time) since it is a death wish to try with anything else. |
Top is 5 cm cannon, bottom has pak40, correct?
The one on top is in the game.
If the puma in the game is capable of destroying medium tanks, then im pretty sure a Hellcat would be capable of destroying Axis medium tanks reliably. |
Puma was armed with 7.5 cm PaK 40 L/46, one of the best german AT guns of the time. That is why it can kill tanks;furthermore, US tanks were thinly armored compared to german counterparts.
NOTE: The German Puma modeled in game is mostly based upon drawings for the only operational ones were open topped if I remember my history correct.
Not the ingame puma... I think you are referring to the pakwagen? Because... |
The call for a hellcat is funny. War time M18 where armard with 76mm AT M1A2 gun. The M36 was armed with the 90mm M3 gun. If the later war 90mm M3 gun on the Jackson for the USF in game can not pen the front of a Panther (btw was historically had one of the best front plates of any tanks in the war) then how would a historical 76mm AT m1A2 pen a panther? The hellcat was lighter and faster...but thats it. The Pershing came to late in the war to play a major roll; however, it was armed with a 90mm just like the jackson. Thus how would it theoretically fight better in the game?
BTW......Ik napalms videos, my games were with my good buddy Naplam thank you very much. Furthermore, zooks work great in the game when used in mass and on the weak points of tanks. The combo of zooks/at guns/supporting jacksons does do wonders. Replays can be provided if you need help understanding this concept.
If a puma can kill medium tanks... Then a Hellcat can fight Axis tanks reliably. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
