Your infantry units are far more cost effective than your opponents and preform better, so start with that. The standard infantry available to both Axis factions is vastly superior to what the USF/UKF have. Only Soviet Penals are comparable.
Just CODGUY things. You probably lost your Shermans to Obers and Kubels are destroying your Jacksons, am I right?
(1v1)Take fights all over the map. Don't blob vs brits. Stall for a luchs and then you can f*** him. If he's spamming infantry like that your friends are: MG34, Luchs, Leig.
Since IS is superior to volks early on, don't overextend and force fights. Cap what you can, fight in cover, stall for a luchs or leig. 4 IS + UC will seriously hurt the manpower for Sappers/AT and since IS have no snare, it's easy against them.
This is really bad 1v1 advice.
Taking fights all over the map means you lose fights all over the map, since equal cover IS will beat Volks, forcing you to retreat while he caps/decaps and pops medkit. A single volks won't be able to flank a Vickers. And against UC you need multiple squads to actually force it back. I'd recommend getting a rak as your next unit once you confirm UC, and not before. Getting a rak if there's no UC will put you way behind in the infantry game, contrary to what Katitof claims.
You literally HAVE to pair squads together vs Brits until you're on STGs. Volks don't have enough close range DPS to charge IS 1v1, but you lose badly at range. If you have 2 squads, you can take a bit of bleed to force him into hard retreats and secure map control.
4 IS + UC doesn't hurt the manpower for AT at all and certainly isn't considered spam - it is in fact a very standard build which is very manpower efficient since OKW will bleed terribly against it. 4 IS + UC will curbstomp you if you try to rush for Luchs, since you will get overrun and lose map control. And since AEC has the exact same timing as Luchs, you'll be doubly ruined. If I even go mech at all vs Brits I go Puma first before Luchs, but most of the time I just rely on MG34 + leigs to exploit their lack of smoke, lack of indirect fire, and lack of rocket artillery.
It's cannon has no AI (0.5) but once upgraded with MG, it's got 2 hull MGs + top gunner which is often enough enough to support other units. It's piss poor vs AI compared to P4 and Sherman (which, in HE is the best AI tank). Sticky nade could be removed.
And considering RNG. I mean, complaining about RNG is like complaining about luck in life. Deal with it. I've had games where my Panther didn't miss one moving shot long range and I've had games where a shot down plane fell on 3 of my reinforcing infantry near truck. 2 Obers and one sturm. One should never complain about RNG, ever. Play with the hand that was dealt.
The problem with your refusal to play Axis is that you end up with such ridiculously biased "opinions".
Comet and Panther anti-infantry performance are not "similar" at all. Panther has a serviceable amount of mg damage, it's okay and I wouldn't call it terrible. The Comet cannon actually gets kills and wipes - it literally has good AOE and scatter. It's hardly even comparable. With WP and grenades Comet can dominate team weapons, especially AT guns. You're basically calling a C+ and an A "similar".
I never said the Comet was a match for the Panther. I said its overall package is too good, and its armour is oppressive vs mediums while AT guns, shrecks, and Panthers can't pen reliably. Doesn't Panther have 200 far pen? I thought 220 was mid. It doesn't actually change my point, and especially the examples I used. It has heavy tank armour, medium tank speed, lots of utility, and literally no weaknesses. It probably got overbuffed a little the last time round. Should either undo the cost decrease it got previously or nerf some of its overperforming stats.
The Come is fine at it is, its basically a panther with less at and a bit better ai stock performance but when the panther gets it's MG the ai performance are pretty much the same.
The reason we don't see churchill's anymore is because of the pop cap nerf.
I think the commander upgrade give only a vision range buff and i'am not 100% sure but the xp gain was removed years ago and the accuracy buff is also so tiny that i makes no difference.
AI performance pretty much the same?
Have you ever used/fought a Comet before?
Even back when it was not very cost effective, it was still better against infantry than a Panther. Since then it got a cost decrease, mg buff, and a main gun buff vs infantry.
I like the concept of the Comet as a generalist battle tank with lots of utility. The armour is probably the problem, since it has a high chance of bouncing AT gun, shrecks, and even Panther shots. Stugs and JP4 aren't going to cut it either, although stugs still get used cos they're dirt cheap. 290 armour is basically heavy tank level armour, but it moves like a medium and has war speed.
It can get a slight cost decrease or minor buff in other areas to compensate if we nerf its armour, but 290 armour on a spammable speedy tank really should go now that the Comet is actually good vs infantry. Alternatively increasing its cost by 30mp and 10 fuel would put it closer to heavy tank costs, which is where its performance is approaching. For reference, the Comet handily defeats 2 x P4, and basically trades HP for speed, making it pretty much a Pershing with a worse main gun but more special abilities.
Honestly, I can not think of a time where small arms was used to take down the 251 from full health, or even after a snare. It is usually multiple snares and/or at guns. Buffing its armor or nerfing its counterparts probably would not change much.
I killed a flame HT which had been hit by 1 AT nade with Shock Troops attacking from the rear. To be fair that was mostly thanks to wonky pathing making it harder for the flame HT to escape.
My points are being missed, obviously I'm crap at communicating to people in here, but this is my point. Look at the difference in ease. To me it doesn't matter if I have AOE 2.5 or 4.0. 2.5 is enough to do the job! 2.5 doing the job and not having to hit the stupid toggle and not having to wait 5 seconds after hitting the toggle to fire!
This matters when we then talk about infantry, because we say obers and falls should kick ass uncontested because they don't have a vehicle snare. Then you look at the difference in vehicle impact, which axis is the king of. This works much better for axis than it does for allies between same skilled players.
That's where you're 100% wrong. It certainly matters a ton whether it's AOE 2.5 or 4.0. That's why they made HE Shermans troublesome/riskier to use. In fact I much prefer HE Shermans, since P4s generally only bleed enemy infantry while HE Shermans create a lot of chasedown wipes. If a HE Sherman shell scatters 2.5 to 3.99 distance, it still does damage, while the P4 hits nothing in those situations.
A typical infantry squad can easily be spread out over 5 to 10 distance. The 4.0 AOE is virtually never overkill because 1) Scatter exists and 2) squads are almost always spaced out over a greater distance than the maximum AOE of the P4 gun
The concept of "overkill" that you and Esxile were trying to allude to is intellectual dishonesty, plain and simple. Out of maybe 50 P4 shots, only 1 or 2 will land dead centre in the middle of the entire squad - and that is mathematically impossible with 2.5 AOE if the squad is properly spaced apart. The 4.0 AOE will pay superior dividends at least 95% of the time.
P4 does have slightly better reload and scatter(?), but the vastly superior AOE and non-doctrinal smoke make the Sherman an indisputably superior anti-infantry vehicle.
How does the statistic translate in-game? Because here again nickpicking one stat to define a unit doesn't really show anything.
The pz4 is good vs infantry, the sherman HE is better indeed but it doesn't matter for the pz4? It remains good vs infantry.
So for having a better than good tank vs infantry, what counter-parts are there, because if statistic help understand the funcion of a unit, it matter much less in game once all pieces are on the table.
Let's take an example here, the PUMA is bad vs infantry as per its stat but what if there are no counter available to it or no other unit equal to it for the next 10 minutes to be build. Wouldn't you build it everytime to fight infantry? No counter, nothing can harm it, stat wouldn't matter at all here unless you remove entirely its MGs.
Let's take another example, what is better between having a better than good AI tank but no AT support available to defend it or a simple good AI tank but enough AT support around it to make it uncontested where it stand.
So to come back to the Pz4 vs ShermanHE, the comparison isn't really about stat because both units are good vs infantry in the same way but how is supposely established the situation in the game the moment they hit the field. A shermanHE that hit the field facing a dual pak40 or dual raketen isn't going to be as effective as a Pz4 that face a single stuart. Does the extra AI damage compensate it?
And then here again there are so much more variables to be taken in account, the infantry around, other support weapons etc...
About the riflemen, vet3 riflemen with dual BAR is an accomplishment that usually come on the late game. I don't think obers are an issue anymore but pzgren that comes before you can even equip 1 BAR on one of your squad is an offender for the balance.
The ostheer can have 1 gren with LMG (which is superior to vanilla rifle) or 1 pioFLT and a PZgren before you can equip a first BAR. That's a problem imo.
Come on man, stop pretending like you don't know what the strengths and weaknesses of the Sherman are. You literally play only USF.
Sherman strengths -> Best anti-infantry performance by a mile, has smoke, cheap
Sherman weaknesses -> armour isn't good, needs to swap shells so it's micro-intensive and it's quite possible to get caught off-guard.
I had a chance to kill my enemy's Panther but I accidentally swapped to HE shells like a genius, and there's countless times an enemy p4 appeared while my Sherman is on HE and trying to chasedown Axis infantry.
experience is not feels. When you have a panzerIV come clear a position out in 15 seconds vs sherman he getting chased away with less than half health form fausts, it's a big difference. It's not feels, it happens. There isn't anything wrong so much with the p4, but it's gen purpose rounds do the same work the HE rounds do, I'd argue better, but at least equal. It's not something made up, it's observable.
HE Sherman has an AOE of 4.0. P4 has an AOE of 2.5. It's literally impossible to pretend that the HE Sherman doesn't have the best anti-infantry shell amongst the generalist mediums.
Your "experiences" are basically just super biased, cherry-picked anecdotes which do not conform to observable reality.
An Axis-only player could argue like you and say "Obers die really fast to small-arms fire, their RA is crap and they don't do well vs infantry, they should only cost 300mp with 30mp reinforce". Yeah that's basically how you sound to everyone who actually understands the game mechanics.
Bonus pt: If you're getting fausted 4 or 5 times with a Sherman, you would have gotten AT naded 4 or 5 times with a P4. P4s don't have special anti-snare prevention.
My comment really wasn't so much about elite infantry, as it is infantry as a whole. Have you seen the damage a vet3 ost grenadier can do to a full health retreating squad? The units are effective at all ranges. The fact that a pgren doesn't do a 2 second wipe at long range doesn't mean it's innefective at long range. Pio's are innefective at range. Rear Echelon are innefective at ANY range. Does it take 2000 axis games to understand this? It must not since that's the best rebuttal is to attack me.
Erm, have you seen the damage a Vet 3 Double BAR rifle can do to retreating squads?
If you play only USF, you will mistakenly think Axis infantry are better. This is basically a CODGUY situation - only ever playing one faction so you have wildly flawed evaluations of actual unit performance. Just look up the actual unit/weapon stats and you'll realise you're dead wrong.
If you play all 5 factions (or at least both sides), you will understand that Grenadiers are pretty terrible, and widely regarded as the worst mainline right now. They're not "effective at all ranges" since they are rubbish close range and the only infantry they trade decently with are pre-7 man Cons.