american tanks just too weak

[neox88]

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 :-)

[Cranialwizard]

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.

[RedGuard]

haha ami tanks didnt survive, they just made more shermans than the germans made AT shells 

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! 

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

[neox88]

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

[Paladin88]

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

[RedGuard]

yeah allies have a lot of ninja inequalities and disadvantages

thats why a lot of players play as axis

[GodlikeDennis]

I disagree with that analysis slightly. It's generally correct but Shermans do have a slight advantage in unvetted matchups.

[RedGuard]

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

[Paciat]

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!

[GodlikeDennis]

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.

[RedGuard]

im skeptical somebody test p4 vs sherman, you get a medal, literally

[Cranialwizard]

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 (:<