Profile of rumartinez89

Thought I did fairly well but took for ever to close out due to issues with commander.

It's a question of what you want in your army composition and there will always be tradeoffs. If you want to have 2 units where one is solely AT and the other can be flexible AT/AI then that's fine. But 2 E8s, while more expensive also have the benefit of being generalists and more durable than the M4A3.

You don't ever have to worry about the Jackson getting caught by AT Infantry or the M4A3 getting outmuscled by other tanks (or being forced to use them together all the time). Easy 8 will almost always be the outmuscler and that's not nothing. It's not going to be great AI and it's not going to have Jacksons's Penetration ceiling but those are choices you willingly make and factor into your army composition. Those tradeoffs by themselves don't mean the E8 is trash. More simply put, don't build the E8 and expect it to perform like a Comet because it wont.

I see what your saying but they are generalist in the sense that if rng rolls your way you will do some AI damage. It will not punish blobbing like the regular Sherman HE will and to get the improved AT performance you have to invest heavily with more fuel, muni and loss of mobility.

So I end up punishing myself instead of my opponent until the E8 hits Vet2 where it finally starts to work as intended.
The outmuscling is only in a vacuum 1v1 vs OST tier 3. Looking at cost, the OST player could just make a Stug with the 2nd one not far away vs 1 E8. Yes, the E8 will win 1v1 but against 2 its losing no questions asked which is to be expected. Making the Stugs is a minor inconvenience for most players and does not require any specific doctrine to make. For OKW, only the P4J is getting outmuscled from the STOCK choices available.

Now looking at Army composition an OST player can be expected to have an AT gun which will reliably push back the E8, OKW can spam raks however the E8 has a decent chance of deflecting. This allows the Axis player to stick to their strategy which means my choice only disadvantaged me. I did not force them to hold out for a Panther which would give me at least a minute or so to create momentum.

The reason most have such high expectations of the tank is due to the relative weakness of the entire company. So like some have said the tank needs to carry the doctrine or the rest of Rifle company needs to be reworked.

But 85 still suffers from the same problems EZ8 suffers from anyway. Point is, IF EZ8 came with an overall better commander, it would have been fine addition to the army. But EZ8 is a "selling point" of the Rifle company, because other abilities are garbage. But EZ8 was never supposed to be a selling point of it, its just all the nerfs of the commander made it look like it is.

Its just the fact that EZ8 comes with USF version of ostheer "joint opperations" commander. Very specific, inflexible and fitted only for a specific type of play.

I agree with what you saying but supposed to is past tense, at this point it is the only reason to choose Rifle Company. One of my biggest issues with Rifle Company is Rifle Defenses, Advanced Infantry and the Halftrack are contradictory. Rifle defense promotes turtle based play from an aggressive faction, where Advance Infantry gives a flamethrower to a squishy unit but no sprint to make use of it. Flares to Rifle for more sight however the tank commander also gives sight so one is redundant and sprint to the rifleman which is only useful in certain scenarios. The halftrack comes to late to be used as a clown car so you got to use it defensively as part of a turtle strategy.
These 3 abilities form a weird passive aggressive grouping that needs some omph which is expected to come from the E8.
So either the rest of the commander needs to get buffed or the E8.

The E8 demolishes a P4J too, because it has more hitpoints and more armor. It's an excellent vehicle against all medium tanks.




But the game generally does not work that way. Tanks do not suddenly appear en masse in a vacuum. You'd be getting a Sherman out first while Axis get a P4(J) and they are going to cause bleed to your infantry while also having an advantage in the armor match up. Then you're getting a Jackson while they are getting a second P4, a TD or a Panther and you'll be down even more in AI bleed. With E8s you can just keep stacking them, dealing decent AI damage while also dominating the tank engagements until the Axis are forced to invest in a Panther or a heavy to deal with the E8s, at which point you'll have enough of them (2-3) to fight that off too. This is exactly the reason the 76mm was the dominating meta over the past months.

Demolishes is a rather strong word for the performance. Doesn't the E8 have 215 armor and P4J have 234?
Doesn't the Sherman have better AI so wouldn't a similarly competent player cause more bleed? A second Ost P4 would lose, P4J would be zoned out and the tank destroyers wouldn't cause any more bleed due to their horrific AI however I would expect the Panther to cause the scales to tip in favor of axis however due to cost I would have a time of opportunity to attack. But since you said 2-3 and included a heavy, 1 Sherman and 2 Jackson would demolish any Heavy while having smoke to retreat.

Also the 76mm had vastly superior ROF due to base stats plus VET along with 15 fuel cheaper cost which allowed and encouraged blobbing. The E8 doesn't have those perks.

Would you be against keeping everything as is but increasing the price of the Tank commander to say 70 muni while giving it the ability to call down a arty stike? Maybe something like the first Shell of the 240 artillery from Armor company. That way the commander has a way to deal with emplacements /PAK43 /Howitzer. A shared cooldown between all E8 to keep it balanced.

That's not how the game works. The E8 can and will reliably beat p4s where the m4 is disadvantaged. The E8 is even more valuable against okw where the medium tank match up leaves usf on the back foot.
USF doesn't want for AI anywhere so it's lower AI isnt the end of the world if it denies your enemy tank supremacy.
The issues lie in it being doctrinal, and it competing with the Jackson for an AT role. Those and the fact the tank isn't really that FUN (this I suppose is in part because of its lower AI)

Like I said, make it a limited to 1 command unit and it gives it much more room to be unique and not overlap so much. As I think, it might be required to be HARD capped at 1per game due to the crew, or at the very least with an extreme cooldown to prevent stacking up.

But back to your point there is no denying that the E8 has good stats. It can bounce all standard AT and requires a Panther as a means to guarantee penatrations. This is undeniable. There is no spin. Stats are stats. E8 CAN bounce even pak shots at range (the chance is slim but it CAN) it is one of the only allied mediums in the game that has that chance. It's not debatable. It's one of the only allied mediums that can bounce shreks. Again, this is beyond contestation.

The tank is underwhelming. I agree with that, but imo it's a fun factor not a Stat issue. This is not fact but opinion.

My issue with what your saying is only the Ost P4 gets reliably beat, the OKW does not. E8 has the advantage but it is not as large as the Panther vs E8. In other words, the P4J beats the Sherman, Panther beats E8 unless rng goes catastrophically wrong. Where does the E8 fit in, it is supposed to be AT focused but does not excel which is why I ask for more armor or health.

I was thinking maybe change the Tank commander benefits from increased sight and accuracy to a damage reduction similar to what the Pershing got. With this the E8 becomes a true brawler which wont dominate the Panther/JP4 head to head but will allow for longer fights or to simply overwhelm thru attrition. Maybe charge 70-100 muni.