Profile of ThoseDeafMutes

what time it starts?

It starts at [redacted] hundred hours on the [redacted] of [redacted].

I can't wait for the impending balance repercussions

Can you hear that?

Defensive stance is implemented poorly. It should only be possible to engage it while out of combat, rather than something you can just charge up to someone and click on.

Other than that I don't see major issues. Rifle flamers in particular seem to explode on me all the damned time and you can't rebuild them. Vet riflemen + flamers are a good combo in Rifle doc, definitely. However most of the time (depending on map) it's not the best doctrine to pick. Rifle, Infantry and Airborne are all viable, and AB in particular is the best overall doctrine. Maybe you could increase the cost of flamers slightly or something, but I wouldn't want a major nerf.

That being said, RNG and squad wiping doens't produce a good war-game. It simply punishes you for no reason. Squads should be wiped for the sole reason you had squad wipes in CoH1: you weren't paying attention, and so you suffer the consequences. Losing squads randomly (like that game of Hans vs Paul on Angoville where Paul lost 4 man Falls to single T70 shots) merely punishes one player for no reason. Sure this allows for come backs and lead consolidation, but when you know you are outplaying someone it is frustrating to have luck come in. Even games like Chess and Checkers have it figured out that RNG is bad and games should focus on strategic skill and positioning.

CoH1 still had substantial RNG, squad wipes are a related but distinct factor. The existence of RNG in a game is not always negative, and like a good commander in real life, you cannot always plan for every contingency. Calculated risk taking is present in some wide-spread competitive games like Texas Hold'Em Poker. That is an extreme example, CoH2 is much less random than that, but risk taking can have a role in competitive games. Many shooters have "some" degree of randomness in the form of bullet spread, as another random example. Many games have concepts like "critical hits". There is room for games with no randomness, and there is room for games with low, medium or high degrees of randomness.

I agree that squadwipes are in a bad spot right now, but that's about the extent of it. I also want changes done to death crits, as outlined in other threads.

Wtf is an assault tank? wtf are you even talking about. Blame the united states for treating tanks and crews like fodder for this representation. Not like they NEEEED a jumbo anyway. Jumbos would be a cool doctrine, but how you're stating your opinion is pathetic. The USF faction is far from bad. If you don't like how america rides the coattails to freedom in this game, then you are playing them wrong and should probably switch to axis if they are so unbelievably good.

Treating tank crews like fodder? When the Sherman made its combat debut it was one of the best tanks around. They correctly determined that Tiger class tanks would be rare. They incorrectly predicted that Panthers would be similarly rare. When this assumption turned out to be false on contact in France, the Pershing was rushed into service as fast as possible, with the M36 Jackson acting as an interim solution on the TD front. In any case, the most common foes faced by the US tanker were assault gun/tank destroyers, medium tanks like the Panzer IV, and AT gun positions. All of which even the standard 75mm Sherman was a match for. It would be incorrect to say that the US tanker was mere cannon fodder marched suicidally into the superior German Krupp Stahl, and only capable of overcoming them by outnumbering them 5-1!

In Company of Heroes 2, the most common AFV foe that a Sherman faces is a Panther and Tiger. OKW doesn't get mediums except through a useless doctrine, and the Ostheer meta calls for T2 stalling into Tiger callins. It would not be an exaggerating to say that I've faced more Tigers than Panzer IVs over the past six months of multiplayer. And I have faced a tiny number of Stugs, comparatively. The most common reason to see a Panzer IV is because of Tiger Ace cheese, where they are allowed to pump all their fuel into T3 then still call a supertank in at the end.

The question is not so much whether USF is competitively viable. It's extremely viable in 1v1, it's moderately viable in 2v2, and it's still fairly mediocre in big team games. But the issue we're pointing out is that the game is designed in large part to cater to WWII gamer's Panzer fetishes. Germany gets all of its cool toys, even ones that saw limited or no combat. Then when people ask for the Americans to get some of their cool late war toys, they start throwing around arguments about how historically inaccurate it is. This is quite funny in the face of how broadly ridiculous the unit compositions are for armies in CoH in general, to say nothing of how many limited-production vehicles that may not have ever seen any combat get featured as core units of factions.