I actually aggree that the Major should have a population reduction to 3 pop. Can't see why USF should be further punished for their teching choice by having a persistant MP drain that is only really useable on a couple of maps or if you don't have a doctrine that provides recon.
Barrage = Only good vs. Pak43.
Fake arty = Meh.
Forward retreat points are good but if your opponent has good map awareness and a vehcile and/or in-direct fire unit they can quickly punish it. You can see the Major beacon for the retreat point in the fog of war. I think a population reduction is already fair since USF has the highest MP upkeep of all the factions due to the price of core units. As a results I relocated my Major every 2 mins or so.
4 rifle BAR, Captain with Recon Commander! I will own this strat. I can not wait to destroy gren LMG players now and actually be rewarded for getting in close and dirty.
In seriousness though I might buy it, still undecided. Leaning most likely towards no though, but that is purely because I never finish single player campaigns anyway. I'll probably just wait as close as possible til release.
Rangers! I am curious to see how they work since we already have brawler thomson paratroopers. I wonder if they still have their classical thomson + zooka?
My guess they have duel wielding thomson with the side arm pistol. OP OP OP!
LOL why do I have a feeling that this scene is pretty much the end of the movie?
That Tiger looks UP. Sherman OP. Even with a disabled engine critical it can blitzkrieg and circle strafe the Tiger. Noob Axis player should learn how to reverse though so his fault. Kappa
1. I would argue this only the case if the pak is by itself, which would then then your statement true for any infantry squad catching it by itself.
2. This is true, however the pack howitzer at vet1 has the phosphorus smoke, which blocks vision AND does damage over time, over a much longer range. Although, I'll concede that it's cost is a major deterrent to anyone even getting this unit in the first place.
3. I agree with this point.
4. The point about T4 I agree with, although it's kind of part of the problem. If you had went T3 instead then you wouldn't have this option. I'll concede off map artillery being more readily available.
5. In this sentence, could you not replace "T70 and T34" with "stuart and sherman"? They don't have any more survivability, and I'd argue the sherman is in a better spot because it has smoke.
6. I'll concede this point.
What am I missing in my analysis?
I appreciate the back and forth stephenn, very interesting.
Even if a pak40 is supported by LMG grens, you just shoot at the grens instead of the pak40 and that will indirectly help out your other infantry in just swarming the pak40. Therefore, you gain map control anyway because your opponent has to forefit ground or leave their units over extended.
Phosphorus is good yes, but I do not like particulary like waiting for an RNG unit to get to vet1 before I can expect to utilize a specific tactical combination.
T70 has by far more survivability than the Stuart in the case of a pak40, even though they have the same health. The T70 has double the fire rate than the Stuart so you can still typically slow (kill 1-2 members) or kill the crew entirely. Not to mention the T70 has a higher acceleration and smaller target box. There is a part of the pak40 cone of fire that if the Stuart gets into, it is simply dead.
Yes, the T34 and Sherman are more even but these tanks are less problematic when comparing against the pak40 since they got a lot of health. I think the difference lies in that USF is fucked if they lose that first tank, where as Soviet can get back into the game just with their T2 when they lose their T34 fuel investment.