Login

russian armor

Most requested unit in coh2 history...

PAGES (10)down
19 Sep 2014, 04:29 AM
#81
avatar of Lucas Troy

Posts: 508

Relic should troll everyone and make the Pershing a call-in tank for an OKW doctrine called "Captured Armor" or something.

19 Sep 2014, 04:41 AM
#82
avatar of butterfingers158

Posts: 239

Don't give them ideas
19 Sep 2014, 04:54 AM
#83
avatar of What Doth Life?!
Patrion 27

Posts: 1664



Im getting the feeling that this is what I really going on...


People come on here and pretend to care about faction design. but, really they couldn't care less. m26 isn't a "buff". its a proposal to make usf more appealing!

If I wanted usf to be op. I would just say it. Hell why cant usf get arty barrages in all commanders. also the usf airforce is strong. a pair of p47's should occasionally strafe german armor like irl... /sarcasm


I find the USF extremely appealing being a yank and all. I think they are third in line for needing fundamental faction work done (1st being Soviet and 2nd being Ostheer) and I don't think adding a heavy tank is the answer at all.

I think you could re-word your intent as: "I don't like the USF faction design because it lacks heavy tanks."

I have already talked about why the M18 Hellcat could be a good doctrinal late-game choice to be added while adhering to the "no-heavies" design.

Also calm down Bro. We're on your side for wanting the best for the game but take a deep breath and realize not everyone is a slobbering fanboy on the forums.
19 Sep 2014, 04:58 AM
#84
avatar of QueenRatchet123

Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2

Permanently Banned


I find the USF extremely appealing being a yank and all. I think they are third in line for needing fundamental faction work done (1st being Soviet and 2nd being Ostheer) and I don't think adding a heavy tank is the answer at all.

I think you could re-word your intent as: "I don't like the USF faction design because it lacks heavy tanks."

I have already talked about why the M18 Hellcat could be a good doctrinal late-game choice to be added while adhering to the "no-heavies" design.

Also calm down Bro. We're on your side for wanting the best for the game but take a deep breath and realize not everyone is a slobbering fanboy on the forums.


m18 hellcat would be cool..

The fanboism on this forum is toxis.

The pershing helps everyone. more peeps will play allies. less wait times. tougher more exciting games.

but, no

i bet if i start a thread promoting the JT to become a non-doc unit. most of these axis fanbois would agree.
19 Sep 2014, 05:02 AM
#85
avatar of butterfingers158

Posts: 239


I have already talked about why the M18 Hellcat could be a good doctrinal late-game choice to be added while adhering to the "no-heavies" design.



I'm not knocking your idea necessarily, but why? It would essentially be a faster and even less armored M10 Wolverine.
19 Sep 2014, 05:15 AM
#87
avatar of SturmtigerCobra
Patrion 310

Posts: 963 | Subs: 11

USF dont need heavy tanks they just need more air support from bombers :P

Just give the Major the P-47 call in ability (good synergy with fake smoke which atm are useless) or some other light-medium bombers that can soft-counter axis heavy tanks. More USF focus on bombers also equal Axis AA ground units beeing used together with heavy tanks and then maybe later with future expansions air to air combat.

Currently axis late game are built around using fuel for heavy armor but what if USF could buy bombers with fuel instead of munitions? Would change the axis late game need of heavy tanks towards more combined arms with both AA, armor and infantry used together. No more heavy tanks driving around the map without AA support.

Seriously P-47 should not be doctrine based but integrated with the Major call in abilities and then keep the heavy bombers doctrine based that can wiped out tanks in a creeping barrage similar to the stuka ability but with more armor penetration and less effective vs infantry.
19 Sep 2014, 05:37 AM
#89
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Relic should troll everyone and make the Pershing a call-in tank for an OKW doctrine called "Captured Armor" or something.


I guess we have a winning idea for fool's day.
19 Sep 2014, 05:58 AM
#90
avatar of adrian23

Posts: 87

I would prefer a jumbo, and more air-support abilities. Merika basically had the best artillery and by-far the best airforce.



honestly that's what i was expecting before WFA release a badass "air power commander" with strafes bombings etc something like OST close air support :(
19 Sep 2014, 06:20 AM
#91
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

Yeah USF is sorely lacking an air superiority commander, considering we owned the skies.
19 Sep 2014, 06:38 AM
#92
avatar of Lucas Troy

Posts: 508

As long as we're in a fantasy thread, what if this happened:

There's no "IRL" reason why Jackson should have such crap armor, AFAIK. It's just weak for balance reasons. What if Jacksons cost a lot more but gained much heavier armor and more penetration? This would give US more punch late game but hopefully not make them too powerful.


19 Sep 2014, 07:06 AM
#93
avatar of MoerserKarL
Donator 22

Posts: 1108



The pershing helps everyone. more peeps will play allies. less wait times. tougher more exciting games.

but, no

i bet if i start a thread promoting the JT to become a non-doc unit. most of these axis fanbois would agree.


I bet the whine will be immense , when the pershing hits the battlefield and will be three shots by an JT through objects. ;)

19 Sep 2014, 07:11 AM
#94
avatar of Hitman5

Posts: 467

As mostly axis player, I think pershing is a good idea. I see no reason why it shouldn't be added, in fact I'd be much more inclined to play USF if they had a Pershing. Though it definitely should NOT have the vehicle crews feature, and I imagine in terms of strength/balance it would be somewhere between a Panther and Tiger.
19 Sep 2014, 07:58 AM
#95
avatar of steel

Posts: 1963 | Subs: 1




honestly that's what i was expecting before WFA release a badass "air power commander" with strafes bombings etc something like OST close air support :(


You want this commander?

P-47 Thunderbolt recon
C-47 Skytrain supply drop
P-47 Thunderbolt strafe
P-47 Thunderbolt bombing run
P-47 Thunderbolt Rocket strike

On-topic

I think buffing the M36 to have more armour at the front and to 640 health and a small penetration buff will do. The problem is not that USF can't tank but they can't fight german heavies. Giving the M36 more armour, penetration and health will fix this issue. The M36 has thick armour at the front IRL.
19 Sep 2014, 08:09 AM
#96
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

Did you know that it was originally intended that the M10 be the non-doctrinal tank destroyer while the M36 was a heavier call in the armor company, but the M10 wasn't good enough to take on the heavies. So rather then buff the M10 into a competent tank destroyer relic switched them instead. Leaving both rather inadequate.

19 Sep 2014, 08:47 AM
#97
avatar of armatak

Posts: 170

M10 is utter crap because the only tanks it can reliably penetrate hit the field long before it comes out because of the slow CP built up of USF.

It is a bit the opposite of the axis call-ins except for ostheer command tank which actually provides benefits to other units.

And that is also the big problem of this armor company commander.

For some reason all the good stuff it provides comes too late to perform the duty they are designed for.

The artillery strike is also a complete joke and the only reason to go armor company is probably the demo charge.

Anyway I am a bit off subject here...
19 Sep 2014, 09:35 AM
#98
avatar of SlaYoU

Posts: 400

I'm sure Pershing will eventually hit the battlefield, in a doctrine with mostly team based assets, so that USF can have a reliable team doctrine to head to.

Sure it would be incorrect to see many of them as it saw very few combat action IRL, but hell, we do have some rare German vehicles as stock or doctrinal units (namely Elefants, Jagdtigers, Pumas, Ostwinds).

Also i would like to reply (i think it was QueenRatchet) to the players using the real world "breakdowns" as an argument against historical accuracy. This is still a video game, and avoiding every real life inconveniencies is fair for everyone. IRL, Machines Guns do overheat, small arm weapons do jam, tanks and vehicles in general do have breakdowns, get stuck in the mud, etc.. This is not World War 2 Simulator (you could play the Wargames series if you want something less arcade oriented).

To keep the game interesting and action paced, getting rid of every "too realistic" issue is a must have, yet it doesn't mean that we should have out of timeline vehicles / weapons added to the game, or maybe i should ask Relic to add Maus tank (whose development ended at the prototype phase, and would have probably hit the field by the end of 1944 if the allies bombing runs didn't dismantle German industry capability). If we start to head this road, we will end up with a game as historically accurate as Wolfenstein, and this, nobody wants (despite Wolfenstein being a quite cool game to play).

I think we all agreed to have historical incoherences when we began fielding USF vs Wehrmacht on some Eastern fronts maps, for the sake of it being a game. In fact, having Wehrmacht and Oberkommando teaming together is also some kind of inaccuracy. The same goes for Soviets fighting alongside USF, as it never happened in the conflict. The next logical step would be to have mirror matches, as it is a game, and even if it doesn't make sense, i can accept to close my eyes (for the duration of a single game) on the issue for the sake of fun.

But this is OffTopic, if it can help USF to attract more players to add a "Late War Tactics" commander with Pershing, why not.
19 Sep 2014, 09:41 AM
#99
avatar of Spanky
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1820 | Subs: 2

Goliath kk thx
19 Sep 2014, 10:01 AM
#100
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1

I don't think that it's ok for USF not having a heavy though I admit that now it's a little late for that because it wouldn't be recommended to put it into a doctrine. Why not putting it into T4 and require a teching button for unlock the build of it? That would give USF players an option: eather they will relay on what T4 provides them as armor, eather pay in mp and fuel the unlock and wait for resources to build the Pershing. That way it will arrive late enough in the game, and you won't see more than one on the battlefield to often.
PAGES (10)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

441 users are online: 1 member and 440 guests
Crecer13
4 posts in the last 24h
38 posts in the last week
147 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45064
Welcome our newest member, edmond2003s
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM