Should you fire a 46 pound anti-tank rifle while standing? Do you want to be something other than exhausted after doing this? Even if it's complete ham at least it's a bit more reasonable for 1919 LMG's and LMG42's to fire on the move- they're about 25 pounds each.
My only real guff is all the goddamn smoke canisters. There are better ways of filling that role without some, "tee hee!" inducing button mash. At the bare minimum they need to fix it so that units manually told to attack a target that pops smoke doesn't then induce all said units to walk into the smoke (particularly AT guns which will interrupt target finding and pack up the gun to start moving)
Improve .50 cal, dont put in another unit to replace it.
I'd rather they replace the .50 cal with the .30 cal since the machine gun in no way reflects the performance of the historical gun. .50 cals have at least one documented occurrence where they penetrated the rear armor on an Panzer 4, to say nothing of what they could do to vehicles.
Black prince would be nice to see. Of course if Relic wants to get into adding prototypes, which I dont see is a problem with the Persing in vcoh and I&R STGs in WFA.
26 Pershings actually saw action in Europe (which is more than, say, the 19 or so Sturmtigers built) and the IR scoped STGs were in the field testing phase. The real problem is that the IR scopes the Germans were using near the end of the war were piss useless. Yes, sure, it let you see at night, but it also emitted light, so everyone you were trying to fight knew exactly where you were.
The Black Prince never saw action. It'd be an odd fit anyways- a heavy tank with a dedicated AT gun?
well you certainly opened up a big can of worms there, this is going to escalate quickly.....
on topic: Calliope would be quite excessive for stock rocket artillery T27 xylophone would do nicely
Well, it bears repeating. Relic gives everyone but the US a proper assault tank. Germans and Soviets get tanks that didn't see more than 10 or 20 examples built, but it's suddenly a problem if the US gets and M-26 Pershing? Or an M4A3E2? How about some artillery that isn't complete ass? The Americans were known for how much artillery they used, but you'd never know it in COH2. They get exactly one properly good OMA and it's an air strike.
Someone might be left with the impression that Relic is run by wehraboos when the Germans get every toy in the attic while the US is found wanting and can't even get a Pershing. It's also a convenient German slant when the game doesn't register side armor. Can't have Germans worrying about the fact that from the sides and rear a Panther is no better at protecting it's crew than an M4 Sherman.
There were more Pershings that were deployed in Europe than there were Sturmtigers built. That along with KV-8's. Every German player gets Panther G's- that's the only model resembling something "good"- while the US has to spend actual cash or get lucky if they want the E8. Not much better with the Soviets and the T-34-85. Shit, 2 of the core Ostheer tanks- the Sturmpanzer 4 and the Ostwind- saw incredibly short production cycles, but apparently its a problem for the US to get even an M4A3E2? How about an AT gun worth a shit? Bazookas?
Its not that US players want the calliope, they want something that doesn't roundly suck.
Do you seriously only look at kills when judging the performance of a unit because by that standard every Axis unit is better because every Axis unit will always be shooting at more infantry and killing more infantry.
two GrW34's might kill more models in the same game as 2 120's, but they will wipe far less squads and cause far less manpower drain.
The B4 had the worst ROF of any unit in the game but it was and still is great, the Sturmtiger is mostly the same but it remains good because of the impact of being able to just erase squads and tanks off the field.
Unless I missed something, efficiency rating is driven by the absolute value of damage done. Consistently killing and forcing infantry to retreat can be more valuable than wiping out the squad if the net cost of consistently reinforcing them without producing results becomes greater than the actual value of the squad.
Unless I'm dealing with a campy motherfucker I don't really think about building the 120mm howitzers.
Fuck it, get rid of the pack howitzer, give it to a commander, and give the US a proper mortar. The pack howitzer isn't mobile enough to be useful in aggressive tactics, the US don't make an effective defensive faction so if your opponent is arsed enough they'll run it down, and as a weapon it is either as good as a mortar, nor as useful as a proper howitzer.
Because it's stuck in between the two, it does both jobs poorly.
Grenade wipes happen on both sides, and it's due to the cover seeking behaviour. Units tend to clump up much more after leaving cover, and they phase through each other so it's possible that the whole squad stands on the same spot. The fact that Riflenades have this long range makes it a bit easier for them. If you would just increase the spacing for the squads if they are not in cover, that would help alot.
There's exactly one reason for a US rifleman squad to close with any other infantry squad. Even if you have BAR's you're still looking for grenades. The effective range of the rifle grenade is combat range. If you're fighting, you can fire it off.
Grenades have a longer delay- I can consistently lay rifle grenades on targets, its fucking hard to catch anyone slipping up with US riflemen. And this all assumes the game even respects user input and throws the grenade when you order them to.
I dunno, I've had plenty of games where the German mortar I decrewed and stole ended up with a much better efficiency rating than the 120mm mortar I built myself.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
