Profile of Antemurale

Avatar Area

Offline unknown
Posts: 951

General Information
Steam: 76561198088648045
Timezone: Asia/Taipei
Game Name: Antemurale


Thread: Lieutenant builds for USF1 Oct 2018, 04:28 AM M20 is something that's really fun to use against WM. Usually, it's a strong counter to the Sniper, deals a load of damage at range, and has the cheeky AT mines that you can bait 222s to run over. I forgo the Skirts to plant an extra AT mine--even now most players don't go for sweepers vs USF (because they assume they have no mines). Of course, the safe strategy is that which was mentioned by Esxile, namely the 2 M2HBs into fast Major into fast Sherman. In: US Forces Strategies
Thread: OKW UP?1 Oct 2018, 00:04 AM Alright folks, let's keep it civil and on topic. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Teller mines and OHKs30 Sep 2018, 23:58 PM Please refrain from insulting people if you disagree with them, no matter how tempting. Carry on. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Looking for someone who can review a BM (bad manner) replay27 Sep 2018, 06:09 AM It's definitely an improvement. You should see what his chat looked like before It's fine if you take the review, Cresc. Unfortunately, as a member of staff, I'm obliged to follow site rules, and I assume other staff members are obliged as well. In: Scrap Yard
Thread: Looking for someone who can review a BM (bad manner) replay27 Sep 2018, 00:29 AM Short response: strategists refused to review. Come back to the State Office for replay reviews once you're polite and respectful to everyone, including those that hand your behind to you in an online game. Moved. In: Scrap Yard
Thread: OKW UP?27 Sep 2018, 00:27 AM I have absolutely no idea why OP posted in OKW strategies when he ignored advice and argued for balance. Moved out of State Office. In: OKW Strategies
Thread: How to fix UKF: Unit overview27 Sep 2018, 00:21 AM Alright folks, let's try to stay on topic and try not to bash each other's brains in. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Feedback for Commander Revamppatch22 Sep 2018, 05:16 AM Jump back to quoted post22 Sep 2018, 01:55 AMZombiFrancis You know, it might be a good idea to forget this silly HE round stuff with the M10 and simply reduce M10 fuel cost to 70 so it can once again be a cost effective option for USF. The HE rounds feel rather gimmicky and seem about as appropriate for the unit as the airburst shells were on the Elefant. I hope that there's no confusion about the functional role of the M10 Tank Destroyer with its unfortunate legacy as a call-in unit and the stale metagames that have persisted as a plague. If you really want to get wild increase the M10's NEAR penetration from 180 to 200 or even 220(!), but reduce mid range from 160 to 150 and far range from 140 to 120. Alternatively and/or additionally the M10 gun's mid range could be adjusted to calculate at 20 range instead of 25, thus tightening optimal penetration towards closer ranges. Placing the unit in Major was a nerf indeed, but once unlocked it should certainly be a cost-effective unit against Axis armor. If it's going to be locked in USF's final tier, it must be cost-effective enough to push their opponent towards their final tier. Matching fuel cost with a StuG simply doesn't cut it for a Major tier M10. What's interesting is that this would actually allow the unit to have better synergy with both Shermans (better penetration) AND Jacksons (more cost-effective for screening). In my opinion, the best course of action should be to simply ensure every USF commander has access to a tank that can operate effectively in the lategame. Returning the M10 to an effective role would also allow the M10 to be a more suitable option for, say, Mechanized or Rifle company. It'd certainly be more appropriate than the 76mm Sherman's current implementation. I'd support reducing the M10's cost to 300MP 80FU, removing the HE shell, and see how it performs from there. 70FU rivals the Puma and I'm pretty sure the M10 is more effective than the Puma; it would be far too cost-effective then (You could get 2 M10s for 1 OKW P4). Jump back to quoted post22 Sep 2018, 01:55 AMZombiFrancis Deep down though I really think the Jackson and the M10 should also be swapped in this case and that every commander is ensured to have either an EZ8, a Pershing, a Jackson, or SP Artillery (Priest, Calliope.) be accessible. I'd love to see this, but the issue is that the USF would be doctrine-reliant on dealing with Axis heavy armor. Doctrines with no answer to Axis heavy armor would fail to be of much use (e.g. Recon Support, which has no late-game units/abilities). Also, if possible, can we sneak an a small buff to the Calliopie? In: Lobby
Thread: M8A1 Scott Counter19 Sep 2018, 02:14 AM Jump back to quoted post19 Sep 2018, 01:52 AMOutsider_Sidaroth Discounting Ambulance and Weapon Racks and AAHT (75F) 2 Scotts and 2 Jacksons with LT into Major is 600 Fuel, so either they get the Scotts early and lack TDs or they get them late, which means you'd have more chances to kill them before their Vet1. But Considering the huge army advantage you describe, it sounds like you didn't bully USF slow start enough and were losing pretty badly army size wise, don't let the Yankees get their hands on fuel and ammo or their lategame power will surprise you. Very true. Such a scenario is very much a late-game scenario, which usually happens if players are at a similar skill level. It's not that there is a massive disparity in army size. I usually end up with near-100 popcap as well; it's just that I find it extremely difficult to push when your infantry gets shot to bits in the midst of infantry engagements. Wiping power of Scotts is shockingly good. Have you encountered any reliable counter to M8A1 Scotts? In: Ostheer Strategies
Thread: Commander Revamp Patch - Bug List19 Sep 2018, 01:51 AM Not sure if this is intentional: Calvary Riflemen can upgrade to Thompsons outside of friendly territory. In: Lobby