>>1366981
if the camera were zoomed in any closer this would be an fps

File: 1471702612816.png (30 KB, 100x120)

30 KB PNG

>>1366981
>leaderboard top players are gooks
nice gookclick game

>literally cannot kill units in a house without flamers
>putting units in a house is completely useless if theres 1 flamer around
its so annoying

you can have 3 squads lighting up a grenadier in a house and it takes like 2 minutes to grind it down

>first game get blindsided by Italian LT spam
>see it again and just build a Matilda and a Foot Guard squad and it completely shuts it down

>>1367032
Protip: elevation negates cover. Mount up into a building higher up and you'll kill the squad in seconds. Grenades also slaughter them instantly but take a little longer to get out.

>>1367038
better tip wouldve been to leave them to rot in that house in the middle of nowhere instead of trying to kill it with a massive numbers advantage (like you could in coh2)

>RBT
please hang yourself

>strongest faction now wins by spamming italian infantry into italian light tanks
Pastaboos, we're home

>>1366981
what the absolute fucking hell is going on in this picture

>try to play the US without doing assault engie + mortar nest spam
>feel like i'm just teetering on the edge of disaster at all times
im just too shit at micro to manage a weasel, 2 riflemen, an mg, a sniper, my bazooka guy and my flamer engie at the same time. building an FOB with assault engies is just more comfy

File: 1665539257108862.png (1.3 MB, 707x1000)

1.3 MB PNG

>>1367051
it makes me seethe so fucking much that the italians carry DAK and still don't have their own faction despite clearly having the possibility to do so and the argument was that "italians were basically fully under germans".
you hate to see it.

italy faction would be cool but id sell you pastaboys out in a second for a japan faction

>>1367086
But that's a proper rerason.
"Italy" as a sovereign military contributed essentially nothing to World War 2. They picked two fights that they lost and couldn't even finish. They had no real military doctrine and their army just consisted of obsolete midwar-era light tanks, military police and conscripts.

The only time Italy notably contributed to World War 2 was when their military assets were under german command. They deserve their own place in the faction roster about as much as Poland or France do. I would take Finland or China before Italy.

>>1367088
Japan and China fought so differently from the western powers that it would be hard to design them in a game like this where you tech towards heavy vehicles and tanks, without just doing ridiculous shit. And you're bound to offend somebody in the process.

>>1367105
my rules are simple
>can you field enough distinct units, weapons and vehicles?
>if yes, you deserve your own faction
>if not, you deserve to be an optional doctrine/subfaction
thus both france and italy would make fine factions, damn, even hungary would be okay, while china and finland - not really.

>>1367113
you dont have to make them scream banzai or talk about honorabru death if thats the issue. there's plenty of design space there without getting offensive. even dice had the balls to put in a literal suicide charge weapon in battlefield 5 so i doubt there's an issue with pointing out historically accurate tactics either way.

and imo i think they'd be interesting exactly because of how different they were. their fuel could be used for stuff like rocket mortars, unit upgrades, naval support, and the few light tanks they fielded. they also had some medium tanks and even a couple of heavy tank prototypes that were never used in combat, so it's not a huge stretch to add those as call-ins for the "mainland defense" doctrine or whatever

>>1367117
Pretty weak reasoning. People don't play a WW2 game to live out the fantasy of being a minor power annexed by german in the first year. You can easily pad rosters because dividing infantry into specific units is utterly arbitrary, and just like there's design space for a mostly vehicle faction with DAK, you could easily have a mostly infantry faction with Japan/China, or an axis Finland that techs into german tanks.

Hell, a Winter War DLC with Finland vs the USSR sounds like a good way to recycle existing russia faction assets and fit it into the Ally vs Axis framework of multiplayer. The campaign could start during the Winter War and progress into Barbarossa and Siege of Leningrad.

>>1367129
winter war finland would be hard to make into a faction without being completely ahistorical since it'd literally just be people hiding in the snow with random ww1 era garbage and soviets somehow dying in droves to it

continuation war finland would just be the previous thing but with german hardware added in the mix. sad to say it but finland would work better work as a doctrine since their only 2 "units" of note would be ski infantry and le epic white death super sniper that can switch to an SMG and suppress infantry

>>1367125
Okay I'll say the quiet part out loud: The majority of Japan's land combat in WW2 was fought on mainland China. And in a game without naval combat, that's basically the only theatre where a Japanese land army makes sense as a faction.

The CCP has an invented history of WW2 completely different from reality. Any substantive coverage of the japanese invasion of China is going to be subject to censorship politburo and piss off the rest of the world for being flimsy agitprop, or refuse to toe the party line and Hurt the Feelings of the Chinese People.

>>1367135
every game that i've seen feature japan as a ww2 faction has focused solely on japan vs the US part and i don't see why relic would step up to be different. they don't even have to mention china

>>1367129
>People don't play a WW2 game to live out the fantasy of being a minor power annexed by german in the first year.
People play this game because they like asymmetric design and rich rosters. There's only so much you can take with playing as/against Germans (1) and Germans (2). If you're really going to bo so anal about it then Germans should be destined to lose because 1945 which I hope you see that it makes no sense.
It never was about "accuracy", it was about "plausibility" and "immersion". New factions outside of the Big 4 [Germany, USA, UK, Soviets] wouldn't break the immersion at all.
They could introduce some freshness and they chose not to. Or rather chose the worst possible solution.

>>1367050
my bad g i kinda just threw the op together and put the joke genre name before the real genre name. i didnt realize it was such a controversial term either

>>1367145
it's okay, im not mad at all i was just kidding. im having a great time with coh3 anon, i hope you are too :) what's your favorite strat?

>>1367157
forgetting to micro the unit i send to back cap and losing it over and over

>>1367105
>t. Generalfeldmarschall Hans Bittenkraut von Scheissegrubbe

>>1367032
Literally skill issue what the fuck are you on about. Just indirect fire it, grenade it, breach it, or even just use a tank goddamn. Not to mention just moving around it since they can't do shit if you cap around them

>>1367164
ive since learnt my lesson and i realize you have no option but to play rock paper scissors with garrisoned houses. but my original point was that they went overboard with that shit and it just isn't fun when some fuckass puts all their units in houses and you don't have an anti-house unit and therefore you need to stop playing the game until you have one. maybe im just too used to the coh2 approach of "dont ever put your units in houses except for vision and better MG use"

>>1367158
you'll get the hang of it - may I recommend shift clicking a path for capping?

>>1367167
you can get an "anti house unit" (flamethrower) within the first 2 minutes for all factions, or a mortar within the first 30 seconds for most factions

>>1367175
yea but i forgot there were houses on the map

>leaderboard
>doesn't have over a week of my games

>>1366981
>RBT
No such thing.

File: mussolini-aprile-45_020-1(...).jpg (303 KB, 1030x604)

303 KB JPG

>>1367086
>Italians were basically fully under germans

Not true. The Afrika Korps has been overblown by hollywood and post war historians. Rommel himself was only actually there for a few months during the Axis counter-offensive and then shipped back home when things got bad. In reality the majority of troops in North Africa were Italian and the overall theatre commander was Italian.

>>1367105
>"Italy" as a sovereign military contributed essentially nothing to World War 2
Only an entire geographical theatre of war. The fact they struggled in Greece and Africa doesn't revoke their entitlement to be depicted, after all the brits also lost in Greece and Africa at one point too.
>They had no real military doctrine
You haven't even tried retard. They had a doctrine that was basically infantry-based blitzkrieg. They also had advanced anti-tank weaponry (the famous 88mm was based on the Italian 90mm and they inspired the Germans with self-propelled anti tank vehicles like the Semovente series). You could easily have Italy as a kind of glass cannon faction. Elite light infantry that are squishy (Bersaglieri like Jaegers in coh2 or Decima MAS marines similar to brit commandos) with specialized tanks (Like USF in coh2, 1 excellent anti tank, 1 ok medium and maybe the M41 SPAA variant). Call ins could utilise the 210mm Obice cannon as like a B4. colonial infantry if the player wanted to do an Ostruppen-esque orc rush tactic. Basically they would own the early game but not scale very well. Axis in any game should always be about securing the win early and I think the Italians speak to this the most.

Imho i think they started with an Italian faction and ran out of time which is why theres so much Italian content bundled with the DAK.

>>1367417
>Only an entire geographical theatre of war.
Fascist Italy ceased to exist by the time the allies had Siciliy, trying to pretend Mussoulini's army mattered because the allies fought the germans in Italy is downright silly. The rest of your post is Wikipedia-history and schizobabble trying to glorify an inept dictator. "Infantry-based blitzkrieg"? Those are human wave tactics, anon. They threw raw conscripts against machine guns because their commanders were desperate to provide results that could boost their careers. There's no strategy there, just military incompetence and a monumental waste of life. Nothing is brought to the table by having the bumbling regime of Axis Italy depicted as a faction that isn't already covered by just giving the Afrika Corps italian auxiliaries.

What new factions would you want to see added in a prospective future expansion?
Hard Mode: The number of allies and axis factions must remain equal
Private Ryan Must Die Mode: each ally/axis faction pair have to actually have fought each other in the same theatre

>>1367032
dealing with MGs has never been easier in CoH. smoke is everywhere now, buildings aren't made of titanium anymore and breaching is 100% certified winner.

>>1367105
Who cares? the devs are lazy that's the only actual reason. Other better games with less funding have Italy and other minor factions. They just don't want to put more effort into their latest skinnerbox.

>>1367507
Sweden/Switzerland spectator mode DLC

i still can't believe relic made a good game.

everything they've made since the first CoH has been basically a downgrade. OF was a downgrade on vCoH. CoH2 was a downgrade on vCoH+OF. DoW2 was a downgrade on DoW, DoW3 was a massive downgrade on DoW2. AOE4 turned into a siege fuckfest (did they fix that?).

CoH3 is the first legitimately well designed game they've made in 17 years.

>>1367507
As another anon mentioned: Finland vs USSR would be a neat option. They could set up Finland to be Winter War-era earlygame, with light infantry and camouflage and old WW1 light vehicles, and then tech into Barbarossa-era Axis armor lategame. Maybe they'll have Panthers as main roster t3 tanks since Wehr only has them as callins, with an emphasis on having proportionately fewer, more expensive units lategame. Historically, Nazi Germany exported a lot of military hardware to Finland throughout the war, so you could easily fit just about any german vehicle/emplacement into a Finnish t2/3, especially any of the ones still yet unused by the main Axis factions, like Panzer I/IIs. Their emphasis could be on mobility, long range skirmishing and ambushes, with an explicit lack in durable units or heavy armor until lategame. Counterparts would obviously be the USSR basically built off of their CoH2 iteration--there's a tonne of stuff to reuse there.

Alternatively, China vs Japan. This has the added benefit that you can have the US present in the pacific theatre island battles, and the British present in the siege of Hong Kong. Since neither Japan nor China really had much heavy armor, they could be infantry-focused factions with an emphasis on infantry mobility, weapon teams, light transports, etc. I'd actually be really interested to see how they could make a faction work if their t3 had no medium tank to spam.

>>1367515
DoW2 was fine. It was literally just CoH with a 40k skin and was better at being a CoH game than CoH2 was.

>>1367521
>finns with panthers
what the frick

>>1367569
Axis Finland did indeed receive imported Panthers from Germany during the war.

>>1367438
Sources other than Youtube videos and /r/historymemes exist, anon.

Any word on improving this game's art or graphics without mods?

I have fallen in love with the 17-pounder

>>1367581
Obviously not. The last word on their current priorities is tracking and quashing the last GPU-related crashes, addressing balance changes from the previous patch that weren't implemented properly (ie Boys bug), and continuing to work on Italian campaign AI.
We've been getting a hotfix roughly every 4 days so the next one will probably be Friday or Monday. I expect that longterm, there will likely be improvements to the graphics with regards to a few units that have obviously unpolished textures but you'd be insane if you think they're going to change the global lighting or artstyle post-release.

>>1367599
>insane if you think they're going to change the global lighting or artstyle post-release.
unfortunately that the difference maker for me to buy

>>1367597
The range on it is nuts and it's fantastic at cutting down lategame axis armour, but I don't think it's very good at dealing with the current Carro spam meta since it's so easily overwhelmed. It has a similar issue to the Black Prince where its penetration is skyhigh but its actual DPS is just so-so.

Protip: if you refund the free truck that tows the 17-pounder after emplacing it, you get fully refunded for the price of the gun. If you need to tow it after the fact, you can recruit the truck directly from your t2 building for half the resources. As long as this bug exists, there's no reason to not grab at least 1 or possibly even 2 17s lategame, since they're essentially free aside from the tech cost.

>>1367528
it became fine after a few expansions and they upped the unit count.

at launch it felt like a micro skirmish game.

>>1367507
Japan since we already have the coastal theme

And fuck you Relic for no Polish battlegroup to attack Monte Cassino with.
I want my BEAR ARTILLERY

>>1367627
We already know that we're getting additional battlegroups for existing factions, so a Polish battlegroup for the US might be a cool idea.

>load into 4v4
>double engineer into dingo, then sections
>roam the map with dingo, catch and kill a ketten, intercept an mg squad and force a mortar squad to route before finally getting chased off
>meanwhile double engis run over the wehr player at the nearest vp, then flank an mg with section support and route them off entirely, uncapping their fuel in the process
>3 members of the enemy team immediately quit and the game's over by 6 minutes
Feels kind of hollow. When are unranked modes getting some kind of sbmm?

>>1367663
there is some SBMM but you have a separate rank for each mode/faction combination so it's going to be a little wacky for a few weeks

>>1367086
between the L6s and the m13/40s it really makes me wish we had more fast and cheap shit tanks to overwhelm allied through superior positioning and speed.
Stuff like the AB41 and l3/33 might be really fun to fuck around with.

Although without the DAK health upgrades, self-repair, pen upgrades and capture upgrades the Italian tanks would be worthless.

>>1367521
The problem with China vs Japan is that China never fought Germany.
Japan fought both US and UK so it would fit in perfectly, but China as an allied nation wouldn't be the best imo

>>1367581
There are some videos about using reshade you might want to look into them

>>1367670
The italian tanks still have the value of being fast, capable of capping and able to hurt bigger tanks. Their AP ability allows them to reliably penetrate medium tanks from the side/back, so with their mobility they can easily flank a stronger tank that's committed to fighting something else and deal very meaningful damage. This is exactly how the british use Crusaders currently; you use their speed to wheel around behind axis tanks when they engage something else and fuck them up with side/rear shots. The value of the role is clearly there.

Though the Carro Armatos are clearly overperforming right now, I'd argue their key issue is just that they benefit too much from DAK's multiple stacking hp upgrades. A light tank with more hp than a Sherman becomes an issue because most AT is built around penetration, not burning down a big hp pool. The amount of hp per fuel you get by spamming Carros just outscales the feasible damage output of most anti-tank options right now because of those flat upgrades. If anything, the upgrades probably need to be changed rather than the Carro itself. I'd maybe like to see the hp upgrades become %-based rather than flat.

>>1367507
Japan vs US Pacific
Ostfront Germans vs Soviets
This isn’t what I want, but I think if they go the new theater route that’d be the most likely. If you wanted Axis minors it’d be in Ostfront battlegroups.

>>1367676
While this is true, the US never fought the Afrika Corps either. I think you're going to end up very restricted if you require that every faction has fought every opposing faction historically, because the only factions with ubiquitous presence in the war were the big guys, almost all of whom are already in.

>>1367515
>AOE4 turned into a siege fuckfest (did they fix that?).
They did. Siege is still powerful but they’re really easy to kill now. I’d actually go on a limb and say AoE4 is a pretty good game, though I understand why 2fags continue to just stick with 2

>>1367688
It was doing fine when it came out after 5 CPs, it was still strong when buffed but the allies had a better window to take them down before they got massed.
Not only they made it come 1CP sooner, they made the pact of steel upgrade come sooner too, so they're just so much more easy to spam now.
I'd say just revert the CP change and it's a balanced unit again.

imo they should just make the semovente come at 2 CPs since otherwise it just gets overshadowed by the marder and revert the m13/40 to 5 total CPs

>>1367692
>the US never fought the Afrika Corps either
They did in Tunisia didn't they

>>1367690
How would you make another German faction distinct from the existing 2 without recycling all the infantry and vehicles?

>>1367692
Read up on Kasserine Pass and El Guettar

>>1367507
I wonder how it'd go if they added nations that could technically go with either side.
Like free France + Vichy France or RSI Italy + Post-capitulation allied-aligned Italy.

Like it's one faction that keeps the same units on either side but with different skins for the allied/axis version and maybe different battlegroups

>>1367105
>They had no real military doctrine and their army just consisted of obsolete midwar-era light tanks
this argument would work if CoH3 didn't give Brits acess to a prototype tank from May 1945.

CoH3 is the best team RTS experience since the original Starcraft
CoH3

I don't know if it's the maps, or the gameplay, or what - but it just works.

It's vastly better than COH1 or COH2 was in 2s.

It's also vastly better than SC2 - which just felt off (and if you notice, never got that popular) due to balance issues in the way that certain race combos were just insanely OP with nigh unbeatable harass tools

Better than WC3, better than AoE4.

>>1367697
I like the idea that the Carro comes out super early. In 1v1s DAK is often getting out there 8 Rad at the 5-6 minute mark so setting up the Carro to be the next vehicle they grab after that, and filling out their t2 combat role, feels reasonable.
The key issue is that properly upgrade Carros outperform equal resources in any other tank. There's no reason to recruit PIIIs when you have Carros. They beat their cost in Shermans, Crusaders, Matildas and even Churchills. If I had to choose between Carros being available early or strong lategame, the former is obviously the more sensible choice. DAK has other options for lategame, options which are currently being eclipsed by Carros, but it just makes sense for a light tank with low armour to be something you get out early and then transition out of as your opponent fields heavier armour and stronger AT, not something that you build 6 of lategame because it beats everything else.

>>1367701
The only way to make it truly unique would be to make it a late-war German faction i.e. OKW. I think it’s more likely that the Soviets are just added on their own with no opposing Axis faction and if you do get a twofer it’ll be the Pacific.

>>1367712
Oh no sisters the brits put a bigger gun on a churchill I am LITERALLY shaking rn

>>1367713
Obvious Reddit post

>>1367690
>Japan vs US Pacific
Would never make a challenging RTS; the entire Pacific theatre was just Japan overrunning undermanned Western garrisons before getting their own starving garrisons get curbstomped by the US navy, air force and marine corps with state of the art weapons, flamethrowers and armour.

The only real Japanese "campaign" was the New Guinea one and the corollary Guadalcanal one which were both completely dependent on air support and naval resupply. And in the New Guinea campaign like 90% of Jap casualties were due to starvation and disease. Any Pacific theatre RTS would HAVE to have a huge emphasis on naval combat and carrier engagement.

>>1367714
The most effective counter I’ve found to Carro spam has been Foot Guards.

>>1367724
>uuuuuuuuuh they lost ay err ell so they would be bad in a bibeogaem!!!!!
literal retard

>>1367724
The strategic level is completely irrelevant to CoH, a game where a couple of platoons of infantry and tanks with limited outside support fight over small patches of land.
You can absolutely make a Japanese faction that is the tactical level equal of any other faction in the game, even if strategically the Japanese military was about 6 months of success followed by three years of failure. You can even justify giving them whatever kind of paper tanks you want given the British got the Black Prince.

>>1367725
Foot guards work against the carro but a smart player can mix in stug Ds and bleed you a lot

>>1367725
When Boys are fixed they'll probably be an adequate counter but the big issue with Foot Guards is that A: they cost more manpower than a Carro per squad B: they are much slower, and so can't effectively chase down low hp Carros that retreat after taking damage and then autorepair in the fog of war C: they can't keep up with the map presence of Carros with the capping upgrade.

Grants are the 'best' answer in that they beat their cost in Carros. Their 37mm secondary gun punishes the Carros for having low armour since it's high DPS/low pen so one Grant will easily beat 2 Carros and so on. Their issue is that the extra gas-expensive tech makes them take too long to get out so you're never going to have enough of them to match Carro spam unless the game goes REALLY late.

>>1367732
That’s why I also mix in Matilda’s

>>1367729
His point, anon, was that it would be hard to design a pacific singleplayer campaign since there were so few land battles between the US and Japan that weren't completely one-sided. It was almost entirely abandoned and unsupplied garrisons being crushed by naval and air superiority, starved out, then overrun by larger numbers of landing troops. You can't really put together 6 missions of that, let alone an interactive campaign like the Italy one (which is likely the model future campaign expansions will follow).

>>1367735
>uuuuuuuuu the campaign was one sided ay er ell so they can't make good levels in a bibeogaem!!!!
literal retard

>>1367729
>No heavy or medium tanks
>Only interwar armoured cars and light tanks
>Small arms are also limited to interwar levels while Americans have standard issue semi-auto rifles, plentiful SMGs and support weapons
>Don't even have assault guns or armoured cars

Japan as a faction only makes sense in the first 2 phases of CoH, as a faction they would have almost nothing to offer for late game offensives that aren't purely fantastical. Fuck off back you /a/ you weeb retards

>>1367739
>that aren't purely fantastical
He says in a CoH thread, unironically

>>1367726
>>1367738
>>>/v/
Go back anytime.

>>1367742
seethe

>>1367735
When has CoH ever cared about realism? The Italian campaign was 90% both sides sitting in trenches shooting artillery at each other in a WW1 reenactment. That would suck ass if done “realistically” so CoH3 didn’t and pretends it was a maneuver war.
>>1367739
>NOOOOOOO YOU CANT JUST HAVE FAKE TANKS IN THE GAME IF THEY AREN’T BRITISH
retard

>>1367739
japan had medium tanks, they just were never used due to them being stuck on the mainland.

>abloobloo they didn't have that many of them

bitch they definitely had more of them than germany had wirbelwinds

>>1367738
>>1367726
Counterpoint to you fucking mouth breathers: Germany lost the war and always makes the best RTS faction in WWII games

>>1367745
> When has CoH ever cared about realism?
in one of the earlier devlogs they stated that they want to be historically authentic... but honestly at this point they might as well give the Japs acess to their Garand copycat once they add them to the game.

>>1367032
Snipers work too

>>1367507
before germany invaded russia there was a border conflict between russia and japan
it even fits the time period this game seems to moan and cry about
relic already has a bunch of russia assets so they just need to make a japan which they can absolutely steal the basis for from a CoH1 mod that features them just like they did for russia

>>1367756
speaking of which, what's the best way to use them? i feel like it's really hard to fit that 340 manpower into any build because you get rolled over so easily, and DAK especially has a super easy time diving the shit out of it unless you heavily commit to AT as well

>>1367758
You have to be a micro god and constantly babysit them since they're even flimsier than coh1 and the american sniper doesnt get auto stealth. On the plus side theyll still delete advanced infantry in one shot and are useful at taking down weapon teams you are having trouble reaching. If you're really gaming as americans you can keep a gunless weasel carrier around to evacuate the sniper if they try and rush him down. It's an easy choice vs wehr

>>1367739
Imagine being retarded enough to say
>but the US had battle rifles, plentiful SMGs and support weapons!
when in the game right now battle rifles aren't any better than bolt action rifles, Americans have no decent SMG outside of one doctrinal unit and every faction has comparable support weapons.

Do you even play this game?

>>1367768
>Do you even play this game?
No, i just shitpost about it on /vst/ :^)

>>1367758
You grab them after your infantry core in place of a machine gun or other t1 support unit and use them behind your main infantry pushes, usually around the center of the map. Their main purpose is to bleed enemy manpower and punish them for holding static positions. Snipers ignore cover and always kill a model with every shot. It's a great tech choice against Luftwaffe because fallpios are a defensive unit that want to sit back in heavy cover and a sniper just bleeds them out. DAK utilize infantry much less and often their most valuable units will be riding around in a clown car so the sniper isn't a great choice against them. The Werh sniper can be a good choice into Britain because they go heavy into infantry sections, but against US pathfinder spam it's far too easy for your sniper to get caught out and killed earlygame and pathfinders themselves are really cheap to reinforce.

Past the early and midgame, they lose value as infantry will mainly be used for capping or thrown in front of a vehicle push to screen for AT guns. 9/10 games your sniper will die before the 20 minute mark, and that's okay. It only needs to shoot about 10 times to pay for itself.

>>1367692
>the US never fought the Afrika Corps either
How do you think they got to Sicily anon

New hotfix just dropped, Boys bug fixed

>>1367515
Literal shill post.
Game is still dead AND bad.

OMG GUYS!
This game is so freaking good!
Tell your friends to buy it, it's just THAT good!

>>1366981
Oh CoHtrannies, why did you decide to make a thread on /v/? You're barely even tolerated here.

>>1366991
That game exists, it's called Gates of Hell and being a Men of War title it's ten times better than any Company of Babies cash grab.

>>1367105
>They deserve their own place in the faction roster about as much as Poland or France do
I wish we had an RTS focusing on early war one day.

>>1367630
Yeah
But will they retroactively add them to the campaign?

>People care about skins in a an arcadey multiplayer game
Lol

>>1367901
But people don't care about your latest gookclick shit

>>1367874
Now one cares about that compstomp meme game

File: 1678392405602946.jpg (147 KB, 1637x915)

147 KB JPG

lol nice gookclick game

>>1368022
>game is le bad because...
>because I'm scared of koreans!!!
really dude?

>>1367832
>>1367836
>>1367851
>>1367874

i was wondering when that one samefagging autistic MOWshitter would arrive.

>8 win streak as dak
>get a match where im playing 1v2 for 40 fucking minutes
>finally give up when i notice my teammate just sent his last pasta flamer to die on vp and now has literally 0 units on the battlefield

Now that AT rifles work again Britain seems really strong. You can leave most of your Sections unupgraded and snap upgrade to AT the moment you see a Carro or just give them lmgs lategame if your opponent doesn't invest in light vehicles. 4-5 AT sections absolutely shuts down Carro spam, and then your own tanks do the work lategame.

DAK vs US feels hilariously lopsided right now. idk if i'm just playing against bad players but i am utterly destroying every US player with an early flamer clown car, like to the point that they can't get out of their base 5 minutes into the game. i guess their best option is to get grenades and try to burst it down with sticky bombs?

>>1368088
>absolutely shuts down Carro spam
It's surely going to make it less effective but the DAK player can still just get a Stug D, it trades so well against AT rifles especially with self repair.

>>1368109
US can just focus fire the 250 with riflemen it's not a vehicle that needs specific teching to counter.

>>1368109
The standard US build is to go airborne for pathfinder spam and grab the vehicle support centre to rush a 4-5 minute Quad. The Quad will kill pretty much everything in DAK t1 and early t2 and is their go-to option for everything until your 8 Rad hits the field. Since your only earlygame anti-vehicle is the Panzerjager callin at 6 minutes that shit can really fuck up DAK before they have any answer available. Players getting crushed by clown cars are either newbies that didn't play CoH 2 or folks just trying to experiment with different US builds that aren't panning out so they just don't have any value on the field at early timings.

>>1368117
that is immensely costly manpower-wise and can only force the half-track to back off after a while

>>1368126
A dead halftrack is 280 dead manpower, you're not going to lose that trade unless it's upgraded with the extra armor

>>1368022
Why are gooks so good at RTS? Everytime I see an Asian username, I know I'm beat and the game isn't even that old.

>>1368135
they aren't. 99% of them suck ass but since there are like 10 billion of them some of them gotta end up at the top of the ladder

I’ve played a fair bit of RTS and laddered in SC2 and greygoo. Never played CoH and its differences were intimidating to me. I’ve spent about 11 hours so far, mostly bot matches and campaign and went online once a few days ago and got rekt. But I’m proud to say I just won my first match tonight. I like the game

>>1368144
The only obvious gameplay problem CoH3 has right now is that some doctrinal strategies are really damn good and you see them every game.
Other than that and the bugs it's pretty damn fun.

>>1368133
you know you can reverse vehicles in this game?

this game is so fucking good but fucking christ they need more maps

>>1368135
Because Starcraft was a literal national sport and cultural phenomenon for decades. They had university classes dedicated to mastery of high-APM RTS gameplay. When blizzard sold out for chinabucks and SC2 crashed and burned, it left a vacuum. You're playing against the gaming equivalent to washed up title boxers that end up wailing on drunks in divebars for cover charge.

>>1368240
You act like star craft is a big deal. Maybe for koreans but not for whites. We do real things, not play a video game professionall and act like it's anything more than that. You know, maybe Koreans wouldnt be losers to the Japanese if they were not worthless bugmen like the Chinese

>>1368133
did you forget the part where he said there were flamers on the half-track

ive noticed doing the flamer half track thing against mainline infantry is mainly good for forcing them to tech early grenades which otherwise kinda fucking suck

it's still a godsend on certain maps where people hide units in houses, especially MGs

Will they improve graphics to this game? Game looks like shit. How does CoH2 look better?

>>1368272
It doesn't. That's just your nostalgia.

>>1368319
Nostalgia to say that CoH2 looks better? I boot up CoH 2 and then CoH 3 back to back and compare.... I've also looked on reviews, forums, and everywhere people complain about it. I'm not being nostalgic.

>>1367663
>load into 4v4
This seems like the source of the problem

>>1368324
Same was said about 2 when it came out.
In reality as shading tech gets more advanced, the less effort is spent on flashes and dust effects.
The models were also made with aim for emblem and cammo mods, so they sometimes reflect light worse than in 1 with all pre-baked lighting.

>>1368387
Why is people's only argument is "same as previous release of x!" or "well yes, x was shit on release so naturally y is acceptable to be shit on release!"
Use your brain.

>>1368401
You will not get the same level of quality as games pre-2007, ever.
Until there is at least some sort of genocide in 1st world that will establish the meritocratic system again.
Until then you can at least avoid the Zelda Effect in your brain.

>>1368401
It's whataboutism, the hot new leftist approach to deflect any and all criticism from their things.

>>1368406
bona fide retard

>>1367438
It is well documented that the Italians invested heavily in infantry and a lot of their doctrine was prepared for mountain warfare similar to ww1 (even fascist Italy envisaged having to fight Germany up until 1938). In Africa the infantry would dig in only to prepare the next assault, not as a defensive measure in and of itself. This is part of why they fell apart so quickly when the momentum stopped near Egypt. Please read a little about what you are trying to talk about faggot
>The rest of your post is Wikipedia-history and schizobabble trying to glorify an inept dictator
I have studied ww2 professionally for 6 years and I don't think I made an attempt to glorify Mussolini. By your same logic it isn't unreasonable to say the UK shouldn't be its own faction, since they used American shit after losing it all in 1940. Even RSI units retained the uniform, structure and weapons of the royal army post-armistice. By 1945 the average brit division was nearly indistinguishable from an American.

just beat the rommel campaign in one sitting, im not interested in multiplayer, do you guys think mods will save this game or what? its a big improvement from COH2 and 1 where i didnt even bother finishing those campaigns respectively

>>1368485
I'm more interested in Invasion of Itally, but no.
Deunovo itself limits modding.
CoH2 was had superior MP, and this is why people played it, in around year this will shift to 3.
SP players are advised to wait until it gets cheaper.

>>1368492
damn i was really hoping for mods, i guess ill play the invasion of italy for now, really looking forward to getting more people in the game

>>1368416
>It is well documented
Produce some documents then, Luigi. Since you're a PROFESSIONAL armchair historian, surely you've got plenty.

>>1368492
>CoH2 was had superior MP

this anon is talking bollocks BTW. the only people still playing CoH2 MP are the F2P shitters. CoH2 MP was never as good as CoH1 and is objectively much worse than 3.

>>1368408
ad hom is not an argument, I accept your concession.

>>1368088
I feel like guards should be a t2 unit
150 fuel to unlock a double zooka infantry that costs 450 mp and doesn't even have a snare, is super expensive

>>1367663
You're going up against better players, but most players don't have more than 1 build they know how to play

>>1368656
i think they're meant as a cope t3 option for when you have no access to fuel, but the economy is kinda messed up rn and everyone except the US is hurting for manpower badly in the lategame

>>1368656
Yeah guards are extremely overpriced and come out too late to matter. Their whole desigh doesn't really make sense, especially since they can't swap weapons like other elite bazooka units.

>>1368563
i bona'd your mom last night FAG

File: 1678383960323619.jpg (2.57 MB, 2399x4159)

2.57 MB JPG

>>1367105
>"Italy" as a sovereign military contributed essentially nothing to World War 2. They picked two fights that they lost and couldn't even finish. They had no real military doctrine and their army just consisted of obsolete midwar-era light tanks, military police and conscripts.

this

>>1368659
If you have no gas you won't be in t3. They don't cope anything, they're overpriced and worse at just about everything than cheaper alternatives. If you need AT and have no gas, you build AT guns or Boys Sections. If you need anti-infantry and you have no gas you grab recce/lmg sections or one of the elite infantry callins or just grab a cheap vickers and crowd control. If you need both then its Boys sections again and they even come with snares that don't require vet1. All of these are cheaper in manpower and tech than foot guards and better at any feasible job foot guards would be doing. Why take an AT squad and give them short range weapons and no smoke? Why take a close range squad and give 2 of their models long range, low dps weapons that can't shoot while they close in? They make no sense

>>1368725
>Carro Armatos don't cheer "Duce! Duce! Duce!"
Shit game.

>>1368734
agreed with most of this, but I think from a dev perspective they wanted to avoid units that could "do everything" so some units like the FG are zooks and close range, but have no snare, and trade dps against infantry for vehicles. i agree that they're a bit weird and really only good against carro armatos

Game is good but why the fuck are the textures so low res? This must be some AMD trick to shill their cards with stupid amounts of vram.

>>1368740
They're actually not good vs Carros. Bazookas have high pen but low dps, so they're mediocre vs high hp low armor vehicles, and DAK is likely to have 3-4 carros before you get your first guard squad. Boys are your answer to Carro spam now that they're not bugged anymore. They actually trade cost effectively into carro spam.

>>1368764
The game defaults to lower texture resolution because of launch hardware issues they've been patching. You can change it in graphic settings

>>1368779
Nah man. I have them on high and the textures look worse than COH2. I can't use Ultra either because it needs a stupid 16 gigs of vram.

>>1368775
good to know thanks anon. i just meant that super super late teamgame i've had success with the FG against tank spam bc they can handle most mainline inf if they're microed well and at least push tanks back by doing damage to them

File: germoids.png (31 KB, 603x138)

31 KB PNG

>>1368725
>Nein! bitte! Italians are lazy anyway so let's just run aw-ACK!

It's wild how much worse Foot Guards are compared to Jagers as hybrid AT infantry considering Jagers are cheaper and a tier lower.

>>1368661
elite late tier infantry is there so you're not utterly buttfucked when you lose your vetted t1 squads.

do think they're 50mp too much though.

>>1368840
Britain and Wehr are the only factions with late-tier infantry. Wehr makes sense: their lategame infantry are highly specialized and excel at their role, the faction has weak earlygame infantry and is encouraged to tech into better units and they can promote their weak t1s into those late tier units.

It's the foot guards that are the odd ones out. Just setting aside the fact that Britain already has generally strong t1 infantry and callins and so rarely want to still be adding more infantry squads to their pop cap by t3, Foot Guards just don't make any sense
It's a squad of close range smgs, which require you to close the distance to deal damage, and two heavy weapons that cannot fire while moving.
It's a squad of anti-infantry weapons that require you advance over open ground and expose yourself to focus fire, with two weapons that cannot hit infantry and do no damage to them even if they do hit.
It's a squad with two low-tier long range anti-vehicle weapons that are specialized in killing early t2 light vehicles from a safe distance, but tied to an expensive t3 unit that's going to face tanks.
It's a long range AT weapon paired with a close range smg that can't even shoot from the effective range of the AT weapon

Nothing about it makes sense. The presence of the two bazookas make it by far the worst cqc-specialist squad in the game, but also the most expensive. Its two weapon types operate at different ranges that want the squad positioned differently. Lategame close range squads are suffering a lot of damage and focus fire to close in, but it has no smoke grenades or anything equivalent to cover its approach and pays a fuckload in reinforcement costs to replace its losses. Lategame AT squads need to penetrate the heavy armour of upgraded medium and heavy tanks, but bazookas penetration sucks because it's a weapon specialized for early t2.

Kill all axis players

>>1367417
>Not true. The Afrika Korps has been overblown by hollywood and post war historians. Rommel himself was only actually there for a few months during the Axis counter-offensive and then shipped back home when things got bad. In reality the majority of troops in North Africa were Italian and the overall theatre commander was Italian.

You're actually retarded.

>>1368870
Sorry mate, I'm eating Pizza

>>1368740
>Avoid units that can do everything
>Fallschirmjagers exist and their FGs only lose to overwhelming numbers
>Jager spec exists because why else would wehr spam it
The absolute retardest thing is making foor guards carbon copies of US rangers from COH1
SMGs in theory protect your AT squad from encroaching infantry, but considering all German players make jagers, fallschrimjagers, and falllschrim pioneers, no one needs to run up to your baka squad to kill it

>>1368932
It's weird because the rest of the british roster is already solid up close so they absolutely didn't need a 4th close range specialist squad in t3, especially considering there are very few good close range infantry on the axis side anyways.

File: cheats.jpg (17 KB, 796x228)

17 KB JPG

coh3 sisters??

how do u reinforce/heal as wehrmacts? I want to skip the motor pool, but the medic half track is pretty much essential for me.

>>1368971
In 1v1s or 2v2s you can usually get away with just the healing upgrade at your base, or coordinate with your ally so the two of you can share a healing point somewhere.
In larger team modes the maps get so big that forward healing becomes essentially mandatory. As Wehr you can build bunkers with pioneers and then upgrade them into medical bunkers to serve as your healing/reinforcement point. Just be sure to build it far enough back that it remains safe, since it can't reposition like a halftrack.

>>1368971
If you're rushing panzer tech you gotta rely on the walk of shame back to base or bunkers

pretty sure the only reason US airborne is the best build is because the average axis player, even in like the top 50, literally cannot handle it when someone splits their units and back caps the entire map while fighting, and then throws grenades in 2 skirmishes at once. pathfinders cost 25 to reinforce and lose to literally every single unit at any range otherwise

>>1369022
tbf pathfinder grenades are bullshit you have like half a second from sound cue to explosion

>>1369022
I feel like pathfinders were super lethal in coh2
What the fuck happened
Do they still have a pair of executioners rifles?
I will agree that inserting at least one squad of pathfinders into any infantry control group is a must
Their increased vision, rifle nades, free paraflares, and smoke nades is way too good utility to ignore when supporting your own machine guns, and your own assaults on hardened positions, and screening for tanks

>>1369023
In a perfect environment I don't believe you
But factoring in ping I believe it

>>1369022
Airborne doesn't win because pathfinders are too good. Airborne wins because Pathfinders are just good enough to afk earlygame while they tech rush to panzers (forma de goblin). Unlike most earlygame infantry, which lose all value lategame except as capping bots, Pathfinders are extremely useful lategames for spamming smoke and free flares, while also passively having larger LoS than everything else. Generally speaking, strategies that go heavy into t1 units get punished lategame because those units eat up all your manpower and don't do anything against tanks, but Pathfinder utility justifies their cost late.

US never wins with pathfinders, they win with Shermans. Pathfinders are just good because they're a gas-free way to not lose for 5 minutes until you get a quad, then cap while your quad controls the map until Shermans roll out at like minute 9.

Rifle grenades can be good because they often don't play an audio cue if the targeted unit isn't onscreen but they aren't the reason Pathfinders are good. They're good because they're a cheap and effective earlygame manpower dump with no gas cost, that have god-tier support abilities lategame.

>>1369025
>Do they still have a pair of executioners rifles?
nope. and in fact they hit like kittens regardless. i used to start with 3 pathfinders but they're such dead weight if your opponent starts blobbing on you that i've stopped doing that and now i instead get engineers or focus on teching. blobbing feels very too strong with certain units because of how the main goal of the game has shifted from area denial to draining manpower, so the pasta riflemen can run up to you and instantly start taking out models, and if you try to fight them with honest strategies like MGs or getting up close, then they will retreat after having taken out a few of your models, and they'll try somewhere else in like 30 seconds. it feels like you don't really "get" anything out of stopping a blob, whereas the blobber actually gets a lot of advantage out of chipping away at those anti-blob measures, and taking territory around them isn't worth the manpower you lose in the process

>>1369037
usually i get fucked off the map with wirbelwind and some kind of call-in tank spam if i try to rush for shermans. but then again buying a chaffee to protect myself from that shit is usually game-losing as well if they skip that shit because then i won't have shermans against the impending p4 or other timing strategy. honestly, i don't think the chaffee is ever really "good", since all it can really do is make you lose slightly less to your opponent hitting their timing, whereas at least something like a quad forces them to react to you instead, and then you have some room to do more stuff yourself.

the most consistent strategy i've found is doing some airborne musical chairs at the start, then consolidating near the center of the map with some combination of mortar nests, a quad, paratroopers with machineguns, heavy MGs, a sniper on certain maps. then i focus on draining manpower with the mortars/sniper while back-capping with whatever.

>>1369037
>>1369050
im tired and didnt notice you talking about the quad and saying many of the same things

anyway it feels like i'm never really "winning" as the US unless i manage to tilt my opponent to death with a sniper and a layered defense that protects him

>>1368725
Absolutely, positively based

>>1369050
>i used to start with 3 pathfinders but they're such dead weight if your opponent starts blobbing on you that i've stopped doing that and now i instead get engineers or focus on teching
i meant that i get 2 pathfinders now and then engies/tech on top

>lose my sniper and therefore the entire game due to a drag scroll bug
i guess it wouldnt be a relic game if they somehow didnt fuck up this feature

>>1369122
skill issue

>>1369390
im gonna record the next time i get it because lol you just end up right clicking somewhere completely different sometimes after you drag scroll

>>1369122
Control group thy sniper, fool

>>1369544
i do, i basically play the game like hes the main character until i have shermans.

the drag scroll bug im talking about happens when you drag scroll and don't move your mouse a little before clicking again. for some reason it stores your last mouse position BEFORE the drag scroll when you do this, which can make you click your unit to go forward instead of backwards

now that i'm a little better at using him, the sniper is starting to feel like a godsend for the US. even DAK can't really dive him if you have pathfinders screening for pasta blobs and clown cars. and the quad shuts down a lot of that stuff once you get it. honestly it feels like 90% of my US gameplay is using the cancer trifecta of microing mortar nests, a quad and a sniper while the rest of your units just give vision and cap

I don't get the chaffee
>AT unit, but not the range and damage output of a marker
>delays Sherman's
>In a world where zook squads are dirt cheap and you can skip a building to drop ATs if you go airborne
How do chaffees work

>>1369675
>How do chaffees work
i guess it's supposed to counter armored cars and maybe just barely ward off mediums on wider maps, but i think it's fundamentally a bad unit because it takes such a large investment and at best it just prevents your opponent from running you over. it sucks at firing on the move like all the other tanks, and a single snare will fuck it over. i'd honestly much rather have a marder than a chaffee since at least the marder can sit far back and plink at armor decently well

>>1369684
That's what I was thinking, like the only two units I would want a chaffee for are the wirbelwind and the flaktrack, but even then it's rate of fire is so slow most of that shit can just peace out before the chaffee does enough damage, because it's rate of fire is so bad

>>1369675
Chaffee is basically an at gun on wheels. It's highly mobile and does great damage vs t2 and t3 vehicles so it's a better answer to an 8 rad for example than bazookas while still being able to hurt panzers when they hit the field.

I think tech rushing shermans in 1v1s is probably too good currently but the chaffee will probably be a good choice one day.

>>1369690
design-wise the chaffee doesn't make much sense. like the 8 rad, wirbelwind and various pasta cheese tanks help you take over the map and force your opponent to commit resources to stop them. chaffee doesn't really do anything or force any kind of reaction. if anything it signals to your opponent that no shermans are coming so they can sit back and go straight to t4.

the marder is kinda similarly bad, but it does have the advantage of being cheap if you already teched it, and it can at least safely push away t4 armor if supported.

i don't really see the chaffee being good unless they give it HE shells or some kind of real anti-tank disable by default

>>1367129
I play WW2 games to see metal clash.
That's why Alternative WW2 is my favorite setting as it has such a rich roster of vehicles and weapons that could be strung together into factions.
I don't care about Allies/Nazis/Soviets, make some shit up for all I care.

>relic replaces m8 scott with bulldozer in US t3
>removes pack howitzer
>the best indirect fire for the US is now a mortar
bravo

>>1369801
To be fair supposedly the coh2 us mortar was broken

Imagine using snipers. A little rat unit. I just run em down with M13.

>>1369801
>Wehrmacht: 210mm Nebelwerfer/105mm Wespe SPG
>UKF: 25-Pounder Artillery Emplacement/M1 4.5-Inch Field Gun Airdrop
>DAK: 280mm Wurfrahmen Half-track/105mm Field Gun
The biggest joke is the Sherman Calliope is out ranged by AT guns.

>>1369856
The bigger joke is how clunky pathing and aim time means it almost always fires exactly 20-30 seconds after you've told it to

yeah uhh i cannot find a way to beat pasta riflemen blobs as the US unless he is some kind of giga retard

my opponent literally just attack moves that shit into me and kills everything i have

honestly they need to fix the fucking MGs in this game. you shouldn't be able to send 2 squads directly into an MG in green cover and kill it. make them turn faster or suppress faster or increase the radius or some shit, it's fucking ridiculous how awful they are against the very thing they're supposed to counter

>>1366981
>Only 4 factions
I LAUGH at you.

>>1369872
Just use MGs!

Oh wait, MGs have been nerfed since CoH1 because they took a modicum of skill to use.

>>1369918
i get why they nerfed MGs, honestly even in CoH2 they were fucking awful to play at times. imo only the US had a well-designed MG in CoH2 since it had a narrow arc and it set up quickly, so it was a micro weapon that you would use to cut down blobs.

the MG42/vickers locking down huge stretches of the map fucking sucked though

>>1369935
2 was schizo with MG balance. You had periods where the soviet maxims were wildly overpowered, but they didn't stay that way for long. Main issue is MGs should suppress much fucking faster, they don't need high damage. Not certain but I think any unit within the MG's cone of fire in 1 took suppression effect, while in 2, it was either the target had to actually be hit by the MG or it had a much smaller aoe around whatever unit was targeted so if you spread units out one MG couldn't pin them all.

Now in 3 they just suck at everything, made worse by basic infantry being relatively strong as well as mobile.

>>1369675
>counters anti-infantry mediums like wirbelwinds and stug D
>Not great but stays relevant against other mediums.
It's not a terrible unit but it's hard to justify unless you're behind and you really need a fast unit to finish what your AT guns/zooks/mines damage
Also chaffee spam works well against m13/40s because you establish an armored presence earlier and prevent them from massing up tanks by playing aggressively, you don't really need shermans against that kind of DAK play

>>1369783
No offense but nobody cares about you

>>1369949
m13/40 tank spam comes hand in hand with a pasta blob so i dont think you can skip shermans against it

seems like the only strategy the US has against that is getting a quad as early as possible and then praying to god you can hold onto it long enough to tech shermans. on tighter maps you might be able to play assault engies flamers and punish them for being too aggressive but its grim

File: Company of Heroes.jpg (1.17 MB, 1600x1200)

1.17 MB JPG

I'm going to be playing the original Company of Heroes for the first time soon, is there any significant difference between the original and the Legacy Edition and any advice for a first timer?

>>1369957
Riflemen beat Bersaglieri pound for pound so you shouldn't be losing the infantry battle. If you're really struggling, swap out a few early pathfinders for rifles and a paratrooper callin.

Just had a game where I produced 27 Carro. We were down two to one, it was a rough game where the other two spammed para-mgs on opening and by the time we dealt with them parazooks and quads were everywhere. Had a bad retreat path with two bersa squads running into an fow humber troll toll in our base side.

Fucking cunt followed me all the way and wiped both.

Never a better feeling than rushing eight carros in an ambush flank and running wild. That's what you get when all you have are at guns and fucking mgs moving up a lane. Game ended with a base rape with p4s, carros, and p3s we were under 50 points at game's end.

Brit player tried to mass horde boys. didn't get the fucking memo that patched don't mean overpowered when bersa lmgs pincered him between the carros.

When Relic nerfs the carro spam Axis will officially be no-fun allowed.

>allied players
>nerf axis! nerf axis! nerf axis!

>>1369980
Legacy edition is the shit old version where you need to login to play online, there's no reason to play it AFAIK
>and any advice for a first timer?
Have fun
If you're having trouble with something specific just ask

>>1370024
It does get ridiculous once they're massed and fully buffed but it's so damn fun to finally have one tank in CoH which is good against all targets AND you can afford to be aggressive with it.
I've lost count of the amount of AT guns I've flanked, decrewed and destroyed.
I'm fine with it costing more fuel or CPs but I really hope they don't touch its stats.

>>1369957
>pasta blob
As US your infantry is so much more cost-effective than bersaglieri, if you're not winning early on I guarantee you're floating manpower or just not using cover properly.
Yes they do get good once fully upgraded but since the strategy is use all CPs to rush the m13/40 and then pact of steel you should enjoy infantry superiority for a while, your concern should be to drain the enemy manpower.
>quad
Yes, it's a good unit and DAK only counter (pre 8rad) is the panzerjager call in, every time you force them off the field that means a minute or so of strolling around with your m16 halftrack mowing down squads that don't have any anti-vehicle capability whatsoever.
For that same reason the greyhound is amazing at punishing bersaglieri and never getting snared, if you bother getting the ammo upgrade it can force away any squad with canister shots.
It counters the 8rad too, it's not great against m13/40s but it does okay before they're upgraded, you can exploit the lack of snares and dive enemy lines to finish low health tanks that hit a mine or got bazooka'd

The chaffe's draw against DAK is that it's your earliest tank that can go 1 on 1 against an m13/40, you can catch the DAK player in the sour spot where they have less tanks that don't auto repair and their infantry is still inferior to yours.
The only reason why they don't shut down m13/40s completely is that having to repair your tanks will make your amored presence way less consistant and 2 squads of panzerjagers are enough to force your tanks away.

>>1370026
>axis players
>nerf allies! nerf allies! nerf allies!

>>1367507
US Marines vs Japan
Royal Italian Army/Partisans vs Italian Social Republic

File: 1670020095317248.png (719 KB, 1293x576)

719 KB PNG

>>1370026

>>1370107
why are they all above 50%????? that's not how that works; if one faction wins one of the opposite factions loses

>>1370186
I believe it’s only tracking Top 500 players.

>>1370107
So is the best opening for DAK bersa? I've tried so many different doctrines but the 2 sappers/infantry section/vickers has been brutal to fight and only counter I've found is focused rifles on rushing sappers and movement to avoid the vickers.

>>1370278
The popular dak opening against BF is to go for 3-4 engineer squads and skip bers. You have no good units against british t1 so you just grab the cheapest option and cap while laying mines everywhere. Then you turn things around with your 8 rad, because Boys take too long to kill it. It's a little tricky because at some point you have to blob your engineers to win fights and keep your base-side resources safe but it works better than spending all your manpower on expensive units that lose to infantry sections

>>1370278
go motorbike, pasta,pasta. use all your units to just stay mobile and cap where they're week until you get your clowncar. keep mobile and cap where they're not. when the clown car builds (after second pasta) upgrade to flamer and drive past their MG while aggroing from the front.

this''ll give you a nice window to tech while they recoup. get bolster, either assgrens or MG with t1, jagers with the first call in and then fast 8-rad.

keep your bike out of harms way, it'll be essential later on when for backcapping and generally retaking points that you've scared them off of with your 8-rad.

>>1370299
oh come on no one actually buys MGs in this game except to bm

File: 20230312161903_1.jpg (426 KB, 3840x2160)

426 KB JPG

Love these little niggers

>>1367507
>Italy setting
>no independent Italy faction
this makes no sense and i'm going to call it out every single time.

>>1370415
There was no independent Italy during the italian campaign, anon. The fascist regime collapsed to a revolution within days of the allies landing on Sicily, and was immediately occupied by nazi Germany. The Italian theatre involved US, British and British colonial (ANZAC, Canadian) forces alongside an italian resistance movement against Werhmacht occupation forces under Kesselring.
The italian campaign has fascist loyalists in Sicily and ally-aligned italian partisans throughout the rest of the campaign. That is an accurate representation of italian participation in the italian theatre.

>>1370415
>Italy setting
>no way of telling how much pasta water your unit has
Shit game.

File: UOC2.jpg (1.13 MB, 1727x775)

1.13 MB JPG

>>1370415
Anon, pre-capitulation Italy didn't do much in the Italian theater, from operation Husky onward both Axis powers just retreated until the defensive lines were established and by that point the goverment already fled Rome.
t. Italianon

A purely Italian faction would make more sense in the African/North African period.
But for reasons I can't comprehend, the devs went with DAK fighting the British instead of Italians invading Ethiopia.

>>1370430
Isn't this more about the setting more than accuracy? Otherwise Germany would've been doomed to lose in the end.

>>1370445
I'm sure germans won plenty of Company of Heroes sized engagements during that time

>>1370049
>As US your infantry is so much more cost-effective than bersaglieri, if you're not winning early on I guarantee you're floating manpower or just not using cover properly.
it's been a long time since i've tried to use riflemen against DAK since i feel like i always regret it, but honestly it just doesn't seem like a situation you want to get into. i don't think you win those engagements hard enough that you actually gain a significant enough advantage that you can put them on the backfoot. imo the cheese-based mechanics of this game require you to kind of always be forcing your opponent to fuck up their build order, otherwise you're going to get stuck in that quagmire yourself.

>>1370459
>The cheese based mechanics
Like what?

>>1370278
I feel like a pair of bikes rushing past/around an mg and shooting from a flanking direction deletes most if not all singular squad models

>>1369935
>Boot into game
>Up against that asshole who played the map enough to know the one building that magically was aimed at a quarter of the map with no cover
>Bet your ass the first thing he did was make an mg and rush to that building
Fucking annoying

>>1370486
>encounter this once
>quit
>now always rush a mortar on that map
Wow, so hard

Every game is the same blobbing

>>1370488
How do that as UK?
Even that aside Im just saying I prefer mgs more in 3
All of them are better on attack move and you're better off keeping them moving neutrally rather than afking and set up
And mortars too seem way more effective since their barrages aren't so RNG and hit what you're aiming at

>>1370488
Or maybe they could make maps that aren't imbalanced for certain factions.

>>1370474
the balance is a little wonky so players are beelining towards specific strategies and they suffer a lot if they are forced to adapt and go off-road

>>1370488
the thing that sucks about it is that if they DON'T do that strategy then you're kinda fucked as well. there's a lot of that in coh3 as well, like you have to guess what kind of cheese is coming and so many builds/doctrines are decided at minute 0 that it's just kind of annoying

Bah DAK is unplayable now that they "fixed" AT rifles (reverted to being broken)
Your infantry is more expensive despite their shit damage and your vehicles get hard countered by an upgrade that's still a net positive on anti-infantry damage.
Bersaglieri do not perform better than grenadiers in any meaningful way, any non-retarded Brit player just pairs up engineers with rifle sections and at that point all you can do is retreat immediately to save manpower
All you do is telegraphing carro spam so the enemy can prepare for it.

Yes it can work if you get all your upgrade and a vehicle mass but guess what that's literally on your opponent being retarded and floating manpower instead of just dominating the infantry game.

>>1370529
>Oh no my infantry that moves as fast as a half-track doesn't also stomp on combat

>>1370564
>bro you can get into unwinnable engagements faster!
wow

>>1370529
>Bah DAK is unplayable now
LMAO

>>1370568
bro the bersaglieri deal full damage at max range. they pop in, take 1 shot each and more than likely take out a model in the process. you literally cannot lose engagements unless you charge in too close or engage with a cover disadvantage

>>1370568
>A skirmishing infantry that gets a 2x mg upgrade and a sixth man
>Bad
They aren't even overpriced for what they do, and they become mainline a-move infantry lategame, what even are you doing with them

>>1370594
>>1370580
Open the cheat command mod and put a squad of bersaglieri on the highground in green cover
Spawn a unit of royal engineers and charge them
This is the most Ideal situation and they trade equally, with either squad being able to win based on RNG
Now factor in a rifle section supporting, bersaglieri taking a second to get into cover or royal engineers approaching from behind a shot blocker and tell me what use is there for bersaglieri when they lose to a squad that's 100 mp cheaper.
>what even are you doing with them
Trying to use them in 1v1 against players that spend their manpower.
I have no idea how you guys can say they're good.
Unironically send me a replay

>>1370604
>hurr durr my long range unit doesnt win a duel to the death with a close range unit
the point is that you can have them unload on an engineer squad and bring a bunch of them down a bunch of models, and once they finally reach you, you can simply press the R key, enjoy your big manpower W, then do it all over again a minute later.

generally speaking long range units lose to close range units in a 1v1, even if they are very good at long range. it's just how the game is balanced

>>1370604
Royal engineers are good and so blatantly strong because they're meant to win in cqc though
The UK have the most fuel hurdles towards reaching the lategame economy, they simply can't afford to have shit infantry on top of that

>>1370604
>Now factor in a rifle section supporting, bersaglieri taking a second to get into cover or royal engineers approaching from behind a shot blocker and tell me what use is there for bersaglieri when they lose to a squad that's 100 mp cheaper.
i dont understand this argument
grens were like the cheapest mainline in COH2 and they rekt all kinds of infantry, but the cost was in their replenishment
if youre going to argue that a bunch of rifles should beat engis with x4 smgs once theyve closed the distance im going to say youre wrong
>Now factor in a rifle section supporting
im pretty sure bersag+panzerpioneers wins 2v2 at range vs rifles and engis, the engis actually have to close the distance, and you can choose to pull back to other cover if they get too close, all the while your other squad is shooting the shit out of the engies

>>1370610
i feel like this is better than the COH2
>oh look they made 2 obers, if you a-move into fog you literally lose half a squad in the blink of an eye
bullshit
not that that's gone with
>stoBs
>fallschirmjagers
both of which are fucking german infantry

>Wermacht upgrades to mass jaegers
>lose

>>1370663
>>1370107
>Boys with Boys Rifle
BAD
>Jagers Schrek Squad
GOOD

>>1370666
i saw a full paratrooper squad lose to a shrek jager squad

what the fuck

>>1370663
>>1370703
nvm i checked iun cheat mode and found out why

apparently the jagers' g43s simply ignore cover completely lol

>>1370666
Boys don't do shit to medium armor while schreks pen every brit tank from the front.

File: COH3 _compressed(1).webm (942 KB, 720x404)

942 KB WEBM

can paratroopers not be attacked while landing? Wasn't this possible in the first and second one?

also look at that plane go

>>1370782
can't shoot 'em
>Wasn't this possible in the first and second one?
different engine

>>1370032
>Have fun
I am so far, playing through the Normandy campaign and I'm on mission 6 so far.
>If you're having trouble with something specific just ask
Will do, played through the tutorial before and it seems like everything's covered.

>>1370728
The Jager's have an upgrade that give 2 models in the squad scoped G43s to ignore cover, but the base squad absolutely shouldn't be. They just do a fuckload of damage at long range because their accuracy is near-perfect and they shoot fairly quickly--which is fair for their price. The issue is that Shreks are as good vs infantry as pre-nerf Boys while having 300pen. Lategame Jagerblobs will shit on most comparable infantry while also melting tanks and having camouflage.

>>1370610
>>1370611
>>1370619
My problem isn't so much the bers mediocre performance and terrible cost-effectiveness, it's that brits can go really infantry heavy like 4 sections and 2 REs.
You can't match it with your infantry since it's shittier and more costly, but you also can't punish it with vehicles because boys will easily force away anything smaller than a stug D

I've met a lot of players that just go all in with this purely infantry build and the best I can do is force retreats with a lucky mine.

>>1370911
nope i tested unupgraded jagers vs paras in long range, close range and close in range in cover

>jagers barely win at long range
>paras mostly win at close range
>jagers absolutely DECIMATE paras at short range if both parties are in cover, like 85% health remaining after killing the paras

idk if it's a bug or not but that's how they work

>>1370917
I wonder if the scoped upgrade is even a significant DPS increase over normal jagers

File: matchups.jpg (1.44 MB, 1760x1907)

1.44 MB JPG

>>1370921
i did some testing and it appears it either does nothing at all, or it might even nerf their damage. cover-bypassing effect applies to every g43, not just scoped ones. you can see some 1v1s tested there. seems unintended

>>1370926
lmao, it did always feel like a waste of ammo.
If the jagers already have their anti-infantry upgrade on all models it would explain why they're so dominating against all targets

>>1370926
This has to be an obvious bug.
Literally second tier infantry is the best at AT and AP roles.
Dual bazooka brit guards can't even compare in AT combat (they are saved by vet ability) AND they lose to them in combat.

Any idea how to to deal with the jager blobs? Having really rough time against them. They wreck your tanks, outperform your infantry and smoke your mgs. Not fair.

>>1370983
Anti-infantry vehicles. Every vehicle outranges shreks narrowly so you just have to spot with something and kite them carefully. Jagers cost a tonne to reinforce so bleeding models while chasing your stuarts will sap their manpower lategame. They key is to destroy their forward reinforce point with artillery so they have to retreat to base every time. You play the war of attrition.
It can also be a good idea to invest in your own powerful infantry so you can push when jagers start getting low and wipe squads.

>>1370983
I have a working theory that the shadow counter to jager blobs is a bishop or two
Unfortunately I can't bring myself to stop playing DAK

>>1371032
Shrecks have 300 penetration on max range.
The actual play against Jager spam is to bait German into adding shrecks on all of them and then spam SMG infantry they have no advantage against.

>>1371069
Shreks have 300 pen at close range, their pen at max range is much lower, around 120. But that wasn't the point. Vehicles have a range advantage against AT infantry, meaning you can shoot from a range where they cannot shoot back.
>smg squads
Smgs are only good in small engagements. Once your opponent is blobbing, close range squads simply take too much damage approaching. You never want to adopt a lategame strategy where you have to approach through your enemy's ideal range and suffer losses before you're able to return fire, otherwise they can simply disengage for free after inflicting losses and bleed you out. Plus shreks deal aoe damage vs infantry just like prenerf boys, which is the main reason they're so effective against other infantry blobs. Just kite them.

>>1370926
Anon I'm going to let you in on a little secret. When two opposing units share a piece of cover, they ignore each other's cover bonuses. That's not unique to the G43, it's universal.

>>1370913
i know the range tolerance is tight but im pretty sure AA halftracks/wirbels outrange AT rifles

>>1371127
Virtually all vehicles outrange virtually all AT infantry, and AT infantry penetration plummets as they approach max range. This is the reason the DAK 8 Rad isn't hard shut down by Boys Sections. It drops 1-2 models before they can even shoot back and can just disengage and repair after every exchange while the Sections need to retreat to base and pay to reinforce.

File: Jagers vs Commandos green(...).webm (2.99 MB, 740x416)

2.99 MB WEBM

>>1371120
>>1370926
Case and point:
Jagers vs SSF commandos. No upgrades on either side, both in green cover at long range (ideal range for both) at 4x speed. You can clearly see that the Jager G43's do not ignore cover and the SSF Commandos comfortably win this matchup.
I had to scuff the hell out of the webm to get it to fit within 4chan size limits but you get the point.
I'll show the comparison vs Recon and Shrek Jagers next.

File: Jagers vs Commandos green(...).webm (3.03 MB, 720x404)

3.03 MB WEBM

>>1371149
Here's the recon upgrade, with the ending cut off because of fucking size limits. This is literally as small as I can make this shit without it becoming completely unwatchable.

Anywho, Jagers do way better here and lose narrowly by a margin of 1 model and only a few points of hp. Considering how one-sided the unupgraded matchup is, this is a pretty massive improvement for the cost, not even counting the extra utility of the flares and camouflage.

File: Jagers vs Commandos green(...).webm (3.02 MB, 720x404)

3.02 MB WEBM

>>1371160
And the Shrek. It's fucking stupid how good this upgrade is. Against elite infantry it's only narrowly worse 1v1 than the recon upgrade while also being essentially the best infantry AT available. You can see here that the Shrek destroys the Commandos cover on the second fucking shot. Commandos only win this fight because the Jagers get screwed over as they start dropping models (similar to Foot Guards). If we scaled this up to say, a 4 squad blob on each side, the Jagers would probably be winning.

Just like with prenerf Boys, any AoE damage that also reliably denies cover is going to be a problem in infantry battles, especially if it's being added to a squad that already performed well vs infantry

>>1371120
then why dont paras deal any damage in that same-cover situation

>>1371173
Probably because their damage curve benefits much less from closing distance than the Jagers, so they're dropping models faster and losing out on damage as they drop.

>>1371177
they deal similar damage up close if neither party is in cover. they only seem to deal shit damage when sharing cover

Can they fucking fix the player colors already. So fucking retarded.

>>1371220
after they fix repair teams not properly retoggling to weapons
>you can issue an attack order for squads with no weapons equipped, and they just run in with their bare hands
this didnt even happen in COH2 what the fuck

>>1371227
>this didnt even happen in COH2
New and improved engine, please understand

>>1371227
That's just beta code for the upcoming russia faction.

>5 days since the last hotfix
It's over bros, we've been abandoned.

>>1371255
i dont mind this
just implement melee attacks

>>1371270
Melee was a thing in DoW2 so presumably the engine is probably still capable of it.

>>1371270
Pls no
I still have PTSD from Iron Harvest MP

>>1371308
>eurojank knockoff CoH is supposed to be an indicator of quality
I mean its relic but still, just implement killmoves but without invincibility

>>1371311
Its not just this
When you give infantry melee, the game changes from positional warfare, into cheapest infantry festa, tarpitting each other.
Medic was the best unit, simply because it was the cheapest, and could give your rifleman free range if opponent had no access to them

>>1371366
im assuming youre talking about iron harvest
but its not like relic hasnt done melee before

>pathfinders in to fast AT truck
>pathfinders in to fast AT truck
>pathfinders in to fast AT truck
Every single game, holy fuck.

>>1371369
The difference is that DoW had dedicated melee and ranged units. CoH would never have dedicated melee.

>>1371395
>AT truck instead of AA truck
who cares?

>>1368813
Based Valenti is a Warhammer 40k commissar

>>1371395
i've had good success as DAK against it, either delaying for the italian TD or getting the Pgrens with the at rifles

>>1371442
Typically US should be getting their quad out almost 2 full minutes before your first callin as DAK. It's really really good in that matchup unless they fuck up.

>>1369572
Its because riflemen suck. They need both fuel upgrades to do anything, and the only other thing the building gives you are mortars and the jeep, which is absolutely fucking usless compared to every other featherlight scout vehicle. It also comes down to they dont synergize with any other doctrine well. The support building is such a better choice over the barracks its unreal, unlike coh1 where you'll have fuck-all for infantry if you skip barracks in coh3 you can have bazooka teams, pathfinders, or assault engineers + easy halftrack access.

>>1369675
Its the problem with half of the american units is that they have a key ability locked behind veterancy, namely going fast. Chaffee is also hurt but the fact tanks control even worse than the first game so its much harder to rush them around heavier assets

>>1371451
fair, that makes sense. i've been getting the little kttengrad or whatever its called and specifically decapping as much fuel as i can to slow them down and it seems to be working.

i've also had good luck going bersegliari and making sure to get into good fights so i can get 3 cp around 4-5 min for the tank that completely deletes the HT

>>1371395
>a unit with horrible combat stats
>into a unit with horrible combat performance
what's the problem

>>1371457
i really dont get this balance
>riflemen which might be good if you survive and delay yourself for literally 200 fuel worth of upgrades
OR
>MG team, which synergizes well with pathfinders/scouts
>zooka squad, dirt cheap and the spammable destroy obstacles rocket can blow up half a squad in cover's HP
>Halftrack, which you need at least one, at most 2 of every game
the most stacked building choices, and its no competition because none of the fucking battlegroups synergize well with riflemen

>>1371470
There is a BAR-rush Riflemen build that most top players use against Wehr now.

>>1371480
are top players blobbing now and that's the only way to deal with it? it feels like every top 100 2v2 game i play is just

>lmao pasta blob
>lmao jager blob

and basically the only way i beat them is by doing the same thing except with worse units, or by holding gas with paras and microing my ass off with sniper/quad to slowly drain their manpower while they control the whole fucking map

>>1371485
The only way to play wehr is to go with a gas-lean t1, into wirbel callin t2 and then stall for panzers. The rifleman build applies pressure earlygame to punish them for being greedy, seeking to starve them of gas so they never reach the lategame they want.
Top players don't really struggle with blobs, they use infantry-heavy builds to apply pressure all around the map.

>>1371498
i dont struggle playing against that strategy at all. maybe your region is just weaker

in fact i find wehr the easiest to beat since they have no real answer to a sniper, except to get one themselves, but axis players dont know how to micro one so they just put themselves even more behind

>>1371504
>actually my matchup is easy because everyone else has a skill issue
Congratulations, anon.

>teammate repeatedly pushes into a heavily fortified VP
>loses a fuckton of manpower
>couldnt even hold the position if he took it
>walks around with 2 squads and a half track 25 minutes into the game
many such cases

>>1371529
>Noob queues up for a team game because he's intimidated by 1v1s
>Doesn't realize he's signing in for a trench warfare simulator
many such cases!

>>1371548
id play 1v1 if it wasnt boring and shit

2v2 map dynamics are more interesting

>>1371550
lol

>>1371553
to me 1v1 in coh is like bragging that youre the best 4v4 sc2 player ie. literally who cares: the gamemode

>>1371591
>the only game mode where you can actually flank
>lol who cares
shitter detected

>>1371591
Don't bother. 1v1fags in this game are so chronically insecure, they won't ever stop crying.

File: Screenshot_20230313-20381(...).png (1.05 MB, 1440x2920)

1.05 MB PNG

where the FUCK is my $30 key

>>1371591
lol

>>1371591
>>1371616
>who cares
>i-insecure
>still complains about teammates instead of showing how good he is without them
Holy Projection Batman!

>>1371617
>He didn't get on train in time
Lol
Lmao even

1v1 is good because you don't share the glory of victory with anyone else. Nor do you have to rely on others for your own fun.

>>1371855
Translation: i have no friends

>>1371617
Leave it I don’t play after day 2 of release

>>1371856
I killed them all after they failed to hold the line

>>1371855
I don't like team games because they're essentially several 1v1s next to each other but with way less space to maneuver. I know it's not all maps but a lot of them really are just that and devolve into bunker/artillery spam from the very beginning.
Also in most maps they still do that thing where two of the three VPs are closer to each team's base which just means two players are relegated to an inconsequential "lane" unless one of them is really bad and gets overrun.
And when it comes to balance, CoH just isn't designed for all fights to be frontal and all games to go to the late game.

>>1372006
whats wrong with having two lanes? they can be fronts
maps should be wider but shorter though to promote flank play

>>1371548
>>1371600
> flanking only possible in 1v1
are the current maps really that bad?

>>1372006
2v2 is more interesting to me because of the teamplay aspects. sometimes you are fighting 1v2 but you have a fortified position, other times you can go help out your teammate and punish your turtling opponent, etc. and the matches feel less lopsided when you have an extra teammate and an opponent to worry about

really the issue is that half of the 2v2 maps are kind of ass. i think only the farmlands and desert map are really good.

>devolve into bunker/artillery spam from the very beginning.
this mostly happens in 3v3 or 4v4 i find

>>1372090
not really, you can usually flank, though there is definitely less empty space around. there's also the option of pushing through your teammate's side and overwhelm the enemy defenses 2v1

>>1372051
>Have teammate
>No team interaction for most of the game
>only team "interaction" is ganging up on someone
Placebo team mode.
Imagine if a team shooter was 30 different 1v1s going on at the same time and whichever team wins most 1v1s wins the game. What's the point of teammates in such a mode?
Meanwhile in CoH the increased numbers on units on the map makes light vehicles and most medium tanks useless, while it's way harder to take cutoffs, neutralize natural fuel points or destroy resource caches unless the guy you're fighting is really terrible.
It's an unarguably worse version of CoH and it's only worth it if you want to shoot the shit with a friend, as demonstrated by people crying about their le bad teammates ITT

>>1372090
Two machine guns are usually enough to cover the whole lane.
some maps are a little wider but you will never be able to envelop a position like you can in 1v1, most of the fights are frontal so HMGs, AT guns and artillery do most of the work

>>1372095
>as demonstrated by people crying about their le bad teammates ITT
If people crying about bad teammates means a game is bad for teamplay, then no video game is good for teamplay.

>>1372122
>Imagine if a team shooter was 30 different 1v1s going on at the same time and whichever team wins most 1v1s wins the game. What's the point of teammates in such a mode?
you just described cs go

>>1372122
>Two machine guns are usually enough to cover the whole lane.
lol

>most of the fights are frontal so HMGs, AT guns and artillery do most of the work
if you buy a HMG in 2v2 you will probably lose the game

Literally every team map provides ample space to circumvent your opponent, back cap, threaten their backline resources and flank them. There's no reason to engage in trench warfare over a vp when you can force your opponent's army to reposition by just capping their backline fuel.

There's also no reason to autistically stick to your "lane" when you can be sending fast units like bikes, humbers etc. to flank enemies in other parts of the map, cutting off retreat paths, and intercept vulnerable units coming from base or just supporting your allies.

Stop playing team games like a moba

File: 1627384094551.gif (3.79 MB, 377x344)

3.79 MB GIF

test

>>1372162
Did they somehow change COH3 so it isn't like COH2 at all? If you did not play your lane in COH2, your entire team would collapse and lose within 5 minutes resulting in everyone surrendering.

>>1372768
No anon is just pushing back or mainly plays 1v1
Always have a presence in your lane, but never put all your chips on the table lest you wipe or let them cut you off and close the pocket

What do you guys think the worst and best doctrines are?
I only ever see US players go Airborne and DAK players always go Combined arms

>>1373591
I'm not sure why, Airborn isn't great outside of paratroopers.

>>1373591
Wehr always goes luftwaffles too

Brits mostly go indian but in 1v1s all 3 are viable imo:
>less manpower cost + ghurkas = good
>Churchills = good
>Skill planes = good

When it comes to DAK the other doctrines seem a bit shit
>Italian infantry
Guastatori themselves have become too expensive for an already manpower starved faction
Bunkers, tellers, booby traps and the howitzer seem okay but they only help you if you're already doing fine imo
the L6s are akin to a worse, earlier hitting 8RAD, they get no smoke and stand no chance against AT rifles but maybe they work against the US.
You might think you can rush the Panzer 3 with it but l6s + Fire support element into a panzer 3 instead of say 8rad into a panzer 3 is only 20 fuel cheaper, the only benefit is that you now have the super cheapo AT guns/leig callins that you'd normally skip in a normal 1v1 build.
>Armored support
A bunch of minor buffs that really don't help you until you have panzer 3 outs, a scavenge that gives you nothing if the dead vehicle costed no fuel (and like 7 fuel from a killed greyhound), some not great tank callins and an AT loiter that's okay but not OP as the wehr one.

I hope they equalize the doctrines a bit next patch

>>1373625
Armored support is pretty good, the increased vehicle pen helps the 8 rad against other light vehicles. The flampanzer melts infantry.

Of course it doesn't compare to bursa spam into carrot spam

>>1373630
>the increased vehicle pen helps the 8 rad against other light vehicles
It makes a difference against the greyhound and nothing else (you beat the humbler and m16 without upgrades and you lose to stuarts and chaffees regardless of upgrades)
And even then you're only really on even ground with the help of the survivability and tungsten core upgrades
But it's negated by the greyhound armor upgrade from the mechanized HQ

It's not nothing but against greyhounds you still want panzerjagers to keep it safe unless you get 2 of them.
I'm intrigued about the MG upgrade but with all the testing I've done it doesn't seem to really make a difference

>>1373615
Pathfinder opener is the reason.
>>1373625
The other DAK doctrines need a rework or some sort of buff because 2/3 of them are useless for the most part.