Login

russian armor

USF armour

2 Oct 2020, 19:45 PM
#21
avatar of Spoof

Posts: 449

Minesweeper upgrade with 120 ammo could be a thing.

Minesweeper upgrade would probably be too ineffective to be a good idea. When the flail was activated, the Sherman gun had to point to the rear (couldn't fire), and the tank's speed was very limited. Obviously, the mines would also damage the flail, which would have to be replaced, although I wouldn't mind overlooking this fact, but even if we ignored this, the minesweeper upgrade would be too hard to use and too limited to be worth it.
2 Oct 2020, 20:09 PM
#22
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3102 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post2 Oct 2020, 19:33 PMSpoof


You're right, but IMO all factions only need 3 AT options - tank destroyer, AT gun, infantry AT. Infantry AT should counter tank destroyer, AT gun should priority counter medium and than heavy, tank destroyer should counter priority counter heavy/medium.

You're right in that unit variety would change, but I don't think it would have to be sacrificed. For example, you could have Axis AT guns fire slower but have higher penetration, making them stronger against heavies and weaker against mediums (the Rak 43/Panzershreck actually had really high penetration). Allied AT guns could have less penetration but higher fire rate. In order to compensate for heavily-armored Axis tanks, they could toggle between standard AP and APDS/HVAP; APDS and HVAP slow down the fire rate of the AT gun, and could cost a small amount of munitions per shot if necessary. Similarly, for tank destroyers you'd be able to differentiate between light TDs and heavy TDs. StuG III, Achilles, and Wolverine fall under this category. If I had developed the game, I would have nerfed the SU85 penetration and made it a light TD, while using the SU100 as a non-doctrinal heavy TD with good frontal armor, extremely high peneration (~211 mm at 500 m with APBC), and fast speed, but slow reload rate like the Firefly. Since SU-76 doesn't do a good job of filling the gap between AT power, either SU85 would be made a stock light TD or T34/85 would be a stock upgrade option on the T34, giving a solid counter to medium tanks (after all, Soviets only have 14 units compared to 15 of the other factions). USF wouldn't really need a major change; IRL the Jackson had better fire rate than the Firefly and SU-100 (but worse penetration, not that it really matters on anything smaller than a King Tiger), and was actually pretty slow (26 mph). If need be, the M18 or M10 could have been made a stock light TD.

Anyway, these are all just ideas that I've been mulling over for some time. Such radical changes aren't needed in the current state of the game, although maybe they could prove useful in a mod or a future CoH, if one ever comes.


Even on the theoretical level of "what we could do if we had infinite patches coming up" I don't think it is a good idea to specialize ATGs to anti-heavy units. They are the earliest AT unit a faction can field and they need to be generalists to allow for combacks in case one player gets locked out of fuel or looses his tank early. In the current rooster, especially OST relies on them to counter light vehicles, but also OKW T1 builds absolutely rely on them. Similarly, OST's LV's potency would skyrocket until the Allied LV shows up. There must be an MP based counter to basically everything that can be fielded to ensure that the match is not automatically won or lost if one player destroys the other players expensive tank destroyer.
I also don't see the real point of the SU100 apart from flavor. SOV already has the light and heavy TD combination. It's just the design of the SOV early mid game that screws over the SU76 and forces you to buy a T70. Yes, SU100 could take the heavy TD place and SU85 downgrade to the light TD, but in the end this would just be name changes to the existing system (unless I completely misunderstood your point).
This whole chain of ideas was sparked by getting two Shermans and/or the Jackson into a better spot, but here I'd argue that it is better to redesign the Shermans instead of changing the sholw faction setup.
2 Oct 2020, 20:33 PM
#23
avatar of Spoof

Posts: 449



Even on the theoretical level of "what we could do if we had infinite patches coming up" I don't think it is a good idea to specialize ATGs to anti-heavy units. They are the earliest AT unit a faction can field and they need to be generalists to allow for combacks in case one player gets locked out of fuel or looses his tank early. In the current rooster, especially OST relies on them to counter light vehicles, but also OKW T1 builds absolutely rely on them. Similarly, OST's LV's potency would skyrocket until the Allied LV shows up. There must be an MP based counter to basically everything that can be fielded to ensure that the match is not automatically won or lost if one player destroys the other players expensive tank destroyer.
I also don't see the real point of the SU100 apart from flavor. SOV already has the light and heavy TD combination. It's just the design of the SOV early mid game that screws over the SU76 and forces you to buy a T70. Yes, SU100 could take the heavy TD place and SU85 downgrade to the light TD, but in the end this would just be name changes to the existing system (unless I completely misunderstood your point).
This whole chain of ideas was sparked by getting two Shermans and/or the Jackson into a better spot, but here I'd argue that it is better to redesign the Shermans instead of changing the sholw faction setup.


Sorry, I really derailed the thread with my ideas. I don't mean for ATGs to be specialized in any form; I'm basically saying Axis ATGs should be generalist, while Allied ATGs can toggle between being very good against lights and mediums without muni cost, or toggle to maintain capability against heavy tanks but for muni costs and slower fire rate. As for the Soviets, it's not just a name change, more of a specialization. SU76 just doesn't work as a medium tank counter IMO. Poor penetration, doesn't have the speed necessary, and it's multirole purpose means it can't be too good at either. I might be wrong but I tend to think of it as a light tank counter that can also deal with team weapons.

As for the issue at hand, yes, USF should have a Sherman redesign. Make HVSS/Wolverine stock, nerf the Jackson's fire rate or speed.
3 Oct 2020, 18:57 PM
#24
avatar of BetterDead ThanRed

Posts: 219

I simply find USF too predictable, with few valid doctrines/tactics, which most of us know the counter to.

and getting jacksons is one VERY (but great) predictable move.
Just want a viable AT alternative to jacksons.

how about:
nerf standard m4's AI dmg, reduce price MP to 300 and 90-100 fuel, and from 12 to 10 POP? sort of like the SOV T-34/76, and introduce the M4A3(76) as the stock generalist? with perhaps a touch buff to rate of fire? buff armour a touch? to make it perform closer to E8 and pz4?
4 Oct 2020, 17:25 PM
#25
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3138 | Subs: 2

You forgot the Calliope.

And to be honest the US just lacks meatshield tanks like the Churchill that can actually take a punch like the Churchill, the Pershing is just 1 and is kind of meh.

A Sherman Jumbo was suggested, even with a model. Only problem was that if you zoomed all the way down and then turned the camera you could see that there's a whole in the barrel because SOMEONE disabled model editing and importing back in 2013/2014 and there's a missing mm of additional armor slab, again only visible if you zoom the camera all the way down and then turn in. Otherwise I'd assume most people would be too busy saving their tanks rather than being nit picky and doing which I just described but whatever.

Anyhow, the idea of having the M4 76 Sherman as well as the T34/85 be part of the tech instead of being doctrinal tanks was shot down multiple times, altho it worked back in CoH so yeah...
4 Oct 2020, 17:47 PM
#26
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

The switchable shells for the M4A3 are a disgrace. Either should have been the same for all tanks or the M4A3 should have had a generalist shell type.

I don't wanna see the 76 as the stock option because that would mean the 76 would be nerfed, which I do not want.
4 Oct 2020, 18:51 PM
#27
avatar of BetterDead ThanRed

Posts: 219

would like the M4A3(76), if introduced as stock, not to be nerfed, wouldn't think it would, its not OP
4 Oct 2020, 18:59 PM
#28
avatar of Osinyagov
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 1388 | Subs: 1

IMO USF has to much variation of Shermans, some of them were added much later after USF to make doctrines more interesting to play, but on the other hand just repeat the same design.

"Vanilla" Shermans:
M4A3 "Sherman" - generalist medium tank. Good vs infnatry and ok vs medium armor.
M4A3E8 "Sherman Easy Eight" - top tier medium tank. Very good against vehicles, somewhat ok against infantry. In the beginning, it was safe version of AT, because Jackson was more vunerable (400-500 hp against 720) and useless against infantry. Additional, regular sherman has lower penetration on AP (it was increased in one of the patches iirc).
M4A3(105) "Sherman" - Very good against infantry, but useless against vehicles, works well with M10/36 but overshadowed by regular sherman for exelent HE shells.

"New" Shermans:
M4A3(76)W "Sherman" - instead of adding Easy Eight to one more doctrine and adjust it, this one was added to Mech Company instead. After it got HVAP, the only real advatage of Easy Eight is HP pool. Not have all skins and easy to mess it with Soviet Sherman.
M4A3 "Sherman" with dozer - instead of adding M4A3(105) "Sherman", the dozer upgrade was added to two doctrines, which makes literally the M4A3(105) but with more utility gun. Overshadow the M4A3(105), especially if doctrine also has M64 WP shell.
Calliope - it's ok, rocket artillery is essence part of the faction design, and all should have it.
5 Oct 2020, 02:23 AM
#29
avatar of CODGUY

Posts: 884

USF has been the most difficult faction play in this game. Arguably it's now the British because of their lack of good infantry, especially at range. USF has many problems that make it an especially difficult faction but stock armor isn't one of them.

The problems USF have come from several overpriced/underpreforming units (RETs, Pathfinders, Combat Engineers for example) and a terrible and inflexible tech tree that greatly constrains the player in the early game.

But again stock armor is very good as it is, among the Allied factions only the British have better stock armor options than USF, and only slightly.
5 Oct 2020, 03:24 AM
#30
avatar of ShadowLinkX37
Director of Moderation Badge

Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2020, 02:23 AMCODGUY
Arguably it's now the British because of their lack of good infantry, especially at range.



?????
5 Oct 2020, 04:24 AM
#31
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279




?????

Nothing usf will ever be good enough for cod guy. No point even bothering to try an understand. Keep in mind the Jackson in garbage because it doesn't have as much AI as the elefant.
5 Oct 2020, 05:03 AM
#32
avatar of CODGUY

Posts: 884


Nothing usf will ever be good enough for cod guy. No point even bothering to try an understand. Keep in mind the Jackson in garbage because it doesn't have as much AI as the elefant.


I literally just said the stock armor for USF was good. If it wasn't you wouldn't hear all the Wehraboo fetishists crying to nerf the Jackson all the time.
5 Oct 2020, 08:09 AM
#33
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1

5 Oct 2020, 10:12 AM
#34
avatar of FelixTHM

Posts: 503 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2020, 02:23 AMCODGUY
USF has been the most difficult faction play in this game.

The problems USF have come from several overpriced/underpreforming units (RETs, Pathfinders, Combat Engineers for example) and a terrible and inflexible tech tree that greatly constrains the player in the early game.



Indeed. USF Combat Engineers are so bad, I literally can't even build them.
5 Oct 2020, 15:27 PM
#35
avatar of BetterDead ThanRed

Posts: 219

oh well, worth a try
5 Oct 2020, 15:43 PM
#36
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3



Indeed. USF Combat Engineers are so bad, I literally can't even build them.


He means assault engineers from armour company.

Codguy is right for once, there’s so many garbage tier and overpriced units in the USF roster that it’s ridiculous.

Paths cost 290mp and 30mp reinforce. They should lose one of the two sniper rifles to actually be able to equip weapons and get their vet 3 camo at vet 0 so that they can be an option vs snipers.

Rear Echelons are bad, which is a huge issue in the OKW matchup since they have Spios and can upgrade Volks early without upgrading racks, so ypu’re basically behind 1 combat squad and upgrades right from the get go.

Assault engineers are awful. They need to lose their 5th man and become cheaper and more durable.

The 75mm M4A3 should lose its switchable shells and become a competent medium tank.
5 Oct 2020, 16:03 PM
#37
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1



He means assault engineers from armour company.

Codguy is right for once, there’s so many garbage tier and overpriced units in the USF roster that it’s ridiculous.

Not really


Paths cost 290mp and 30mp reinforce. They should lose one of the two sniper rifles to actually be able to equip weapons and get their vet 3 camo at vet 0 so that they can be an option vs snipers.

Pathfinders can equip weapons they have 2 weapons slots. They can be used vs snipers
In addition they have ridiculously low XP value so they vet extremely fast.



Rear Echelons are bad, which is a huge issue in the OKW matchup since they have Spios and can upgrade Volks early without upgrading racks, so ypu’re basically behind 1 combat squad and upgrades right from the get go.

RE are fine for their price. They also have low XP value since it was not updated when their cost/performance was increased.


Assault engineers are awful. They need to lose their 5th man and become cheaper and more durable.

You probably do not know how to use them and if they become 4 men again they would less durable...



The 75mm M4A3 should lose its switchable shells and become a competent medium tank.

Sherman is a already a competent medium tank, some people argue that is the most cost efficient stock medium.
5 Oct 2020, 16:46 PM
#39
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Sherman AP shells have a slightly lower AOE than normal general purpose shells and HE is vastly superior. Add to that the improved mobility, crew and smoke pots I'm not sure why people think the Sherman is bad. It's not going to out slug an okw p4 but it performs extremely well for its cost without even considering utility. Yall are crazy.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

Offline

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

526 users are online: 526 guests
4 posts in the last 24h
31 posts in the last week
85 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44633
Welcome our newest member, RoadsideAssistance
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM