Profile of porkloin

If you want a sherman but better in every way just build a pershing.

E8 is not UP in any way, and adding more AI to it is senseless. If you want it to see play then the doctrine needs to provide better tools than heavy cav, which needs to have rangers and field defenses removed from it if rifle company is ever going to be an interesting choice without being ridiculously OP.

Further, with all due respect for your dilligence in providing a stat sheet, the P4 in tests has remarkably better AI performance, a cheaper MG upgrade, and on the topic of factional bonuses, an ability that grants it both better accuracy and mobility (combat blitz).

A single round of testing is not an accurate yardstick for comparing tanks, and your thread is not going to go far if you're going to constantly deflect to "the tests!".

Historically, 76mm shermans were actually left behind in England for the invasion of France. The 75mm was doing a good enough job against tanks, but it's turret had substantially better HE performance. It wasn't until the newer models of german tanks started showing up that US armor realized that "oh, we're going to need better AT guns on our shermans!".

You see the same dynamic in the game. Vanilla sherman is good enough vs a fresh OST p4, but struggles with upgraded armor p4s. E8 also preforms significantly better than the vanilla sherman against panthers and tigers, but won't solo them.

Rifle company isn't in the meta because heavy cavalry does everything it does and more. If you want to see more doctrine variety in USF then heavy cav shouldn't be some omni-doctrine offering the best in infantry via the rangers, smoke, sandbags, and mines, and also the best in armor via pershing and super zook rangers.

OST t4 isn't viable in 1v1 because there is no light tank that you can use to pivot into t4. You really need that p4 to give you some breathing room against the other light vehicles that dominate the 222, and man-handle the MGs you need to keep pace with the infantry fight.

I've suggested earlier bringing in the short-barreled p4 into the light tank role. I've also suggested bringing the stug into t2 with or without battlephase 2 requirements.

As is there's no reason to go t4. Two p4s, or a tiger are going to be a better choice in all situations.

I think building a panther in 1v1 will lose you far more games than you win because of it's pop. You won't be able to field the panther, and a AI vehicle, and all the infantry and team weapons you need in 1v1. Even with a huge tempo advantage, you'll just get slowly pushed off the field while sitting on 1,000 something manpower that you can't put to good use because your pop-capped.

E:battlephase 2 not 3

If caches had a noticeable impact, we would see OKW winrates in teamgames plummet. And yet, double OKW is considered as the strongest Axis matchup for 2v2 (https://www.coh2.org/news/92866/automatch-stats-factions-teams-and-maps; OKW/OKW had by far the highest win rate in 2v2s), and 3x or 4x OKW teams never have much of a disadvantage (no statistics available though sadly).

With the exception of some maps, like Hill 400 (where most of the fuel resources are continuously contested), I think the influence of caches is overrated. Their influence can usually be compensated by stronger map presence giving stronger map control, as demonstrated by OKW doing fine without them.

Ultimately, caches provide +3/6/9 fuel per minute extra, which isn't neglectable, but also isn't a whole lot in comparison to periodically losing ~20-30 fuel income by cutoffs or losing most of the map control in 1v1s. Thus, as I said, most of the resource inflation in team games comes from the fact that most territory isn't contested and players always have a steady income of at least ~20-25 fuel throughout the entire match. Caches do add up to the resource inflation, but not so much that I'd consider them the problem.

OKW win rate do trend down with increased game mode , and OH win rates trend up yes? Or is this something you'd dispute.

I was trying to make a nice little chart to show this, but I don't have good software for it.

OKW is an interesting problem. Forward retreat on the battlegroup, and the flak on the panzerheadquaters translate into greater map control, or more accurately, less area to defend and travel.

I'd argue that the current cache scheme makes OKW a problem for the balance team. Their economy tends to be weaker in the team games, and so their units are over-tuned to compensate, but this throws off 1v1 balance. Just comparing the armies I'd expect OKW to be the better team game army than OH due to the core infantry size, indirect fire options, and building differences.


I don't think caches are the single source of balance issues, but I do think their affect is over-looked. Ultimately I'd just like to see a bit more complexity to the game's economy to open more options. Fixing caches so that they're an interesting option in all game modes is the first step towards diversifying the economy decisions.

As was mentioned earlier in the thread: what I'd also like to see, probably even more than a fixed cache scheme, would be special points like medics/mechanics replace some of the resource points in team games.

I'd rather not see brits get a nerf to 5-man squads and weapons.

I'd much rather see more options for straight up upgrades in the other armies.

I really miss the arms race dynamic that happened in COH with stuff like wher veterancy, and the supply depot.

I'd much rather see more permanent upgrades to invest in rather than having a squad's potential nerfed with cosmetic side-grades that don't offer an interesting or significant return on investment.