Company of Heroes: Eastern Front
Eastern Front Mod (Read-Only) => Strategy and Tactics => Topic started by: neox88 on June 27, 2011, 01:56:01 AM
-
i ve been playing the eastern front since it is released( TOV before that) and i can say for sure that this is the one of the best strategies i played..this is a great mode and i want to thank developers for making it. it is much better than TOV.i play with russians mostly because they have the answer for all german units, especially for german tanks like panthers and tigers. but i can see that you didnt change americans too much. their infantry is great, but tanks are just usefull what makes them in my opinion, the weakest faction in the entire game. M10 and sherman are just shit of tanks..they are just good until the panthers shows up, then what? they just don t have tanks to confront panther or tiger in late game.my point was, they need a better tank that can handle these heavy german tanks..what about M36 tank destroyer?that tank was engaged in battles during WW2.it had 90 mm gun that could penetrate front armor of the panther..or at least you should put more than one pershing to the battlefield..and one more question, why is fuel needed to upgrade bar?? waiting for your opininion...
-
Wolverines and Hellcats are cheap. Deploy them in greater numbers than Panthers and Tigers, and flank them.
B.A.R.s cost Fuel for balancing, just like all other global upgrades.
-
Yeah, let me also remind you that Americans have 2 types of AT infantry (both doctrinal) and if you decide to choose to go Armor you can produce your armor faster. Then remember Shaving Private Ryan and use Stickies (god i can't believe I'm saying this, I hate sock spam) from Rifles. Never attack German tanks with only tanks and TDs always use combined assaults with Rifle sock spam to break Axis engines and M16s or M10s to flank. They can't pump out their tanks fast enough, especially not Panthers.
Also a bit of a history lesson, American tanks were Infantry Support Weapons, not the Blitzkreig oriented German tanks, thus Americans relied on combined arms (Tanks+Infantry+TDs). This is how Americans should play, not rely on endless spam of Rifles and their bloody socks (seriously, don't they run out of socks at some point).
I would love to see the M36 but we don't need a Pershing sub, and the TD reward is already filled so I will content myself with seeing the Achilles as part of RMC, and the M36 in Blitzkreig
-
@ neosdark: +1
During the Normandy Campaign in 1944, The Brits determined it took 5 Shermans to take out one Tiger I. Only one Sherman was expected to make it back from the engagement.
I am coming to the conclusion that MPs, FPs and munis are just names. I think FPs are only used by the various design teams to slow down the arrival of units or upgrades in time. Munis maintenance costs are used in EF to limit the numbers of various Sov weapons on the field. The Amis Supply yard may just reflect the 5:1 rule of thumb cited above to allow more US tanks on the field.
-
@ neosdark: +1
During the Normandy Campaign in 1944, The Brits determined it took 5 Shermans to take out one Tiger I. Only one Sherman was expected to make it back from the engagement.
though you also have to remember, that was usually because the tiger always got off the first shots, the amount of shermans it took varied from 1 to ten depending on the environment fighting in, 1 being urban combat and 10 being any wide open space.
-
Shermans are actually better than Panzer 4s and 2 M10s>Panther for the same cost: 600MP 110FU. AT guns are extremely good when they use AP rounds, use that.
BARs costing fuel is a way to delay teching. Fuel is the teching resource, which determines how quickly you can gain access to higher tiers of weaponry. If you could get BARs from the start it would be imbalanced.
-
ami tanks have always been weak and axis will always beat them, atleast you can sorta use them now in 2.602 with the 3 shot ninja pak gone.
-
Shermans are actually better than Panzer 4s and 2 M10s>Panther for the same cost: 600MP 110FU. AT guns are extremely good when they use AP rounds, use that.
BARs costing fuel is a way to delay teching. Fuel is the teching resource, which determines how quickly you can gain access to higher tiers of weaponry. If you could get BARs from the start it would be imbalanced.
You know the absolute sad irony is that when I posted American Tanks a v. long time ago, and GodlikeDennis used this EXACT quote... well almost. I wish Ami had better tanks as it stands it almost seems like a fluke they survived WWII... but its up to relic to fix that not EF...
-
Before continuing this "balance discussion", what do you pretend with it? Just out of curiousity, is this a post made to change something about the US faction or was made for discussing tactics? If it's the latter i can move it to that section, if it's the former... i think it's moment to close this because US faction won't be tweaked in any way :-\.
-
Shermans are actually better than Panzer 4s and 2 M10s>Panther for the same cost: 600MP 110FU. AT guns are extremely good when they use AP rounds, use that.
BARs costing fuel is a way to delay teching. Fuel is the teching resource, which determines how quickly you can gain access to higher tiers of weaponry. If you could get BARs from the start it would be imbalanced.
You know the absolute sad irony is that when I posted American Tanks a v. long time ago, and GodlikeDennis used this EXACT quote... well almost. I wish Ami had better tanks as it stands it almost seems like a fluke they survived WWII... but its up to relic to fix that not EF...
haha ami tanks didnt survive, they just made more shermans than the germans made AT shells ;D :D
the sad thing in my view is that the american intelligence knew there men wouldnt survive armor engagemants unless lucky and threw them at them anyway and tank crews were never told exactly how one sided the engagements were, they just said get close in and preferrable behind them :'(
the soviet tankers without radios and t34 had a better chance, much better
-
I'd rather be in a T34 anyday over a Sherman. I'd rather be an infantryman than a Sherman tanker. At least in a T34 the vision was so bad you wouldn't see the shell that killed you :P.
-
@BlackBishop move it to S&T. Its an interesting topic.
haha ami tanks didnt survive, they just made more shermans than the germans made AT shells ;D :D
the sad thing in my view is that the american intelligence knew there men wouldnt survive armor engagemants unless lucky and threw them at them anyway and tank crews were never told exactly how one sided the engagements were, they just said get close in and preferrable behind them :'(
the soviet tankers without radios and t34 had a better chance, much better
Yes and USA made more bombers, fighters, aircraft carriers, etc. I believe its called a spam strategy. Who says CoH isn't a historical simulation. ;D
Yeah American leaders and G2 specialists are a cynical bunch. On D-Day raw recruits hit the beaches, not the veteran troops.
-
thanks guys for your opinions, it s great to see that someone agrees and someone dissagrees with me and i respect all your opininons. well i want to to say, no one is talking too much about americans no more, as they are just perfect as they are, but that is not the case. they are just very hard to play with..and thanks for the history lesson, but i know history about WW2 very well, and i know that their tanks were just infantry support, but we re talking about the game here and we want to be balanced, right? 2 M10 will be beaten by a panther easily, and when panther is at vet3, even a pershing will sometimes lose, depending on map ( know this because i played it!). so, if i were a german, i would make 2 panthers, spamming some infantry with gewehr and light macine guns( which is at vet 2 or 3 stronger than americans with bars and rangers) and the game is over. look, i m talking from experience with other players and computers. i couldnt beat hard Al with americans, but i can beat it with russians( proving me it is much better fraction than americans).and i play with americans just as good as russians, but just can t beat them! and one more thing, M36 could not possible be a sub for M26 pershing, beacause it was build on chasis of M10 tank destroyer. M36 should be an upgrade to M10 tank destroyer, like SU-100 was an upgrade for SU-85. spamming infantry and at guns is just not good enough for american fraction and for the game, and i miss good tank battles when i play with them. armor is just stronger then flesh, and i think everyone thinks the same about that..
-
No, Americans will not be changed.
2 M10s DO beat a Panther. I am talking from FAR more experience than you.
-
haha ami tanks didnt survive, they just made more shermans than the germans made AT shells ;D :D
the sad thing in my view is that the american intelligence knew there men wouldnt survive armor engagemants unless lucky and threw them at them anyway and tank crews were never told exactly how one sided the engagements were, they just said get close in and preferrable behind them :'(
the soviet tankers without radios and t34 had a better chance, much better
Well, I'm not flaming here, but you are clearly a soviet fanboy if you are stating that kind of things! :P
Americans did improve their tanks when it was clear that Tigers and Panthers were invulnerable everything they had. Shermans were relatively quickly fitted with much better gun/armor before late 1944. 76mm version, M36, or the british firefly were more than able to knock out a Tiger (which was basically a 10cm armored box, no angled plate!), and to engage a panther.
Amies and british tankers were fully aware of the threat that heavy german armor posed - but they managed to adapt. It's not like they were supposed to die right away. Allies never really applied consciously the "human/tank wave" tactic.
The fact that soviet tankers were safer in their tank is discutable. Poor leadership (at least until 1944), poor radio communications... Not mentionning that by 1943, T-34 armor was paper under a distance of 500m for every german AT gun.
P.S: just a few nitpicks ;D
I think that, if basic american tanks arent balanced, the entire game isnt balanced aswell!
No, Americans will not be changed.
2 M10s DO beat a Panther. I am talking from FAR more experience than you.
+1
-
No, Americans will not be changed.
2 M10s DO beat a Panther. I am talking from FAR more experience than you.
when panther gets vet they can beat him. just don t agree with you. see there s no way we can change each other minds, so i ll leave this topic alone..
Post Merge: June 27, 2011, 08:05:08 PM
i ment they can t :-)
Post Merge: June 27, 2011, 08:09:12 PM
No, Americans will not be changed.
2 M10s DO beat a Panther. I am talking from FAR more experience than you.
i ll just play with russians and my problems are solved...just don t remove IS2 please :-)
-
look, i m talking from experience with other players and computers. i couldn't beat hard Al with americans, but i can beat it with russians( proving me it is much better fraction than americans).and i play with americans just as good as russians, but just can t beat them!
I stopped reading there.
The AI is rarely a basis to use in a balance discussion because AI's receive bonuses depending on difficulty.
Axis late-game is supposed to be superior to allies. If you let the axis receive enough fuel to pool vet 3 for tanks and get 2 panthers then you lost the battle as soon as you lost the fuel points, simple as that.
Americans are a decent faction and their tanks are lackluster when it comes to heavy tanks. Like the others said they are like support weapons, immobilizing and cleaning up is a viable tactic. You could also try using a sherman as head to head confrontation with a Panther and then using a M10 or 2 coming from behind is the way you take down panthers.
No, Americans will not be changed.
2 M10s DO beat a Panther. I am talking from FAR more experience than you.
+1
First of all this mod does not alter vanilla in any circumstantial or critical ways. (I know RedGuard is going to jump on me about the siren ::))
I wouldn't argue with Dennis because most of the time he knows what the fuck he's talking about. He's got a shit ton of experience and when people argue with him (Myself included) normally they are on the losing end of it.
2 M10s beat a panther. They can easily flank and rear armor hits own panthers badly.
when panther gets vet they can beat him. just don t agree with you. see there s no way we can change each other minds, so i ll leave this topic alone..
If you are allowing Wehr players to achieve vet 2 or vet 3 in tanks then you rightly deserve to lose the battle. It takes 3 M10's worth in fuel to get Vet 3 for wehr tanks.
-
haha ami tanks didnt survive, they just made more shermans than the germans made AT shells ;D :D
the sad thing in my view is that the american intelligence knew there men wouldnt survive armor engagemants unless lucky and threw them at them anyway and tank crews were never told exactly how one sided the engagements were, they just said get close in and preferrable behind them :'(
the soviet tankers without radios and t34 had a better chance, much better
Well, I'm not flaming here, but you are clearly a soviet fanboy if you are stating that kind of things! :P
yeah because I said that t34's had a better chance of surviving armored engagements than shermans
the 2 m10's vs a panther depends on the players micro. if micro'd well you can back the panther up so m10s only ever get front armor, in which case the panther wins/ if your micro sucks or you were caught off guard the m10s can and will destroy it. so nobodys wrong or right
-
Axis late-game is supposed to be superior to allies. If you let the axis receive enough fuel to pool vet 3 for tanks and get 2 panthers then you lost the battle as soon as you lost the fuel points, simple as that.
If you are allowing Wehr players to achieve vet 2 or vet 3 in tanks then you rightly deserve to lose the battle. It takes 3 M10's worth in fuel to get Vet 3 for wehr tanks.
i know what you are trying to tell me, germans mustn t be allowed to full develop their tanks and infantry, but sometimes battles do last longer even if we don t want too, and it s said that usually means the end for alies( if all the players are equaly good more or less ). then germans are just unstoppable...that is that ubalance that i was trying to tell you about..then the winner is mostly the one who is playing with wermacht and that is unfare..well, now with soviets that is hopefully not always the case, and i think they are good balance to the allies!
Post Merge: June 28, 2011, 12:21:01 AM
the 2 m10's vs a panther depends on the players micro. if micro'd well you can back the panther up so m10s only ever get front armor, in which case the panther wins/ if your micro sucks or you were caught off guard the m10s can and will destroy it. so nobodys wrong or right
and i totally agree with this!
+1
-
Alright this is as much I know... now I have some experience.
2 M10s is better than a panther. (But they take up more population overall :()
Sherman 75 (Unvetted) = PzIV (Unvetted)
Sherman 76 (Unvetted) = PzIV (Unvetted)
Sherman 75 (unvetted) < PzIV (VetIII)
Sherman 76 (Unvetted) < PzIV (VetIII)
Sherman 75 (Vet III) > PzIV (VetIII)
Sherman 76 (Vet III) >> PzIV (VetIII)
But PzIV costs less than a Sherman :(
-
yeah allies have a lot of ninja inequalities and disadvantages
thats why a lot of players play as axis
-
I disagree with that analysis slightly. It's generally correct but Shermans do have a slight advantage in unvetted matchups.
-
im pretty sure a p4 usually beats a sherman both unvetted??
-p4 penetration vs. sherman armor 0.623
no wehr vet
-sherman penetration vs panzer4 armor 0.586
no sherman upgun
-p4 reload average 5.0 seconds
-sherman reload 6.0 seconds flat
the sherman has 36 more hp
they do the same damage
the stug has considerably more penetration and is penetrated less vs sherman and does 1.5x damage to shermans
but we know how random stug vs sherman battles are, if you can field stugs in numbers you will win if not you will lose
both axis tanks are cheaper
-
im pretty sure a p4 usually beats a sherman both unvetted??
-p4 penetration vs. sherman armor 0.623
no wehr vet
-sherman penetration vs panzer4 armor 0.586
no sherman upgun
-p4 reload average 5.0 seconds
-sherman reload 6.0 seconds flat
the sherman has 36 more hp
they do the same damage
Look at the aim->post fireing aim time
-PzIV 4secs
-Sherman 1sec
and at penetration multipliers at long and medium range
-PzIV 0.805 0.909
-Sherman 0.83 0.92
M4 will more likely win.
Its suprising that Sherman has a better chance of winning at longer ranges!
-
Yeah I agree with Paciat's analysis. In my experiences, I find that it's a fairly even match up but the P4 will bounce off a tiny bit more often (reflected in slightly cheaper cost). Sherman is an infantry munching machine too, much better against axis inf than the P4 is against Amis. P4 has very useful vet though compared to Sherman.
-
im skeptical somebody test p4 vs sherman, you get a medal, literally
-
P4s with Inf should be used like Shermans and Rifles: That sort of infantry killing machine that's support. Not like an AT weapon per-say...
It's a heavier option to that of a Ostwind. It has some pretty decent splash damage which is good for tackling those damned blobs but can also face off to SOME allied armor.
Panzer IV's will typically lose to a M4 unless vet is mixed in there and considering microing for rear hits...
Yeah I agree with Paciat's analysis. In my experiences, I find that it's a fairly even match up but the P4 will bounce off a tiny bit more often (reflected in slightly cheaper cost). Sherman is an infantry munching machine too, much better against axis inf than the P4 is against Amis. P4 has very useful vet though compared to Sherman.
Much so agreed as vet 2 comes with that nice lethal MG at the top of it, great for munching rifles (:<