fufubear1f

Free Play Account
  • Content count

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About fufubear1f

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday
  1. Look at it like this. Both are casemates for their main guns The stugs 75mm has the edge in penetration and it's a lower profile The Lee has a turret with a 37mm gun. A stug will deal with all allied stuff from the front but is screwed when it gets flanked. The Lee will struggle with the top armored stuff but when its flanked by faster pz3s it can still fight back with the 37mm. That's my thought process when I said Lee is arguably even with stug.
  2. The Majority of axis tanks would be Pz3s and pz4 F1s. The tiger would be a unicorn and the stug wouldn't be that much more common either. The crusader would be the best "line" tank (meaning excluding the top stuff like tigers and co) in tank on tank combat since the 6 pounder is better than the pak 38 (well its 5cm kwk38 in this case) and the Lee might be awkward to use for some. Lee is arguably no worse than the stug. M10 is the counter because of the gun. The 76mm gun allows the m10 to deal with any German tank of the time from the front. If they find a way to implement sub caliber rounds without exploits you can balance the M10 even more by playing with the amount of M93 it will receive. That's 2 very common allied tanks that are worse than the Tiger that will be far from most common vehicle. The M10 will effectively have parity with the Tiger. The line tanks will all be fairly even. You can play with numbers but imo it shouldn't be anymore than a 2-1 advantage for the top equipment (maybe until stuff like KT and JT). The allies wouldnt be spawning as fodder because the odds of seeing the tiger would be fairly slim.
  3. It's pretty even there too. The tiger and 3g would be countered by the M10. The only imbalance would be KT and JT but those were basically unicorns. The Germans had a grand total of 8 or something for the entire Normandy campaign. Most would be sent to the east. Ideally these special units like tigers would only be certain heavy armor brigades anyway.
  4. History is a lot more balanced tech wise than I think a lot of you guys realize.
  5. M10, Sherman 76, M36, pershing, Firefly, Achilles, and archer will all be able to work against tiger 1, Panther, Stug, jpz4, and jpanther (nashorn has basically no armor and could probably be killed by even a panhard 178). M10 and sherman 76 can work even better when M93 shot gets added (assuming theres a way to prevent people from gaming supply of sub caliber rounds). 17pdr vehicles have enough penetration with their basic AP rounds to work against the tanks I listed at regular combat ranges. 90mm M3 is just about as good as the 88mm on the Tiger II so the Pershing and M36 should have no issue at all with nearly all German armor fielded during the war. Sherman M4a3 76 has potential to even be the best tank to drive if it gets its stabilizer (it wasnt perfect for on the move shooting but it's still an edge no other tank would get). Tiger II and JagdTiger are both vehicles that will clearly be better than allied equipment but ideally they should only be limited to a very few number of brigades. In addition to that the cats in general should only be limited certain brigades and have less availability overall compared to other allied vehicles (especially the M10).
  6. Alt history operation sea lion?
  7. Wow that HE model sounds way better than many other games. Keep up the good work guys.
  8. The issue with death traps is that all Belton Cooper did was recover knocked out Sherman's. It is very clear why he held the sherman in low regard since all he saw were knocked out ones. Had a similar memoir been written about a German tank recovery soldier then he'd have the same outlook on German tanks. The sherman was actually a very safe tank to serve in. This is because armor thickness isnt the factor that makes a tank safe it's how fast you can get out before bad stuff happens. The sherman has large escape hatches for the crew memebers which mean they can get out fast in the case of a penetration. To add on to that, with wet ammo storage they also burned less than their counterparts. Giving the crew an even longer time to get out before a potential ammo coockoff.
  9. Then you realize the tankers had a lower mortality rate compared to the infantry. Sherman was far from a hunk of junk.
  10. Eh it's the history channel which for some reason loves to downplay the Sherman while up playing other things like the P51 and F6F. Sherman was certainly not bad. The Soviets really liked the sherman as did the British.
  11. Yeah I'm most excited for the split cities. We can have real urban combat with more defined front lines now.
  12. Looks like an a6m2 but seeing all of those that did get me excited for the very very longterm of this game.
  13. I am fairly confident in my ability to get air kills in the e4. I don't see a problem with the Luftwaffe fighter wise. I would still like a low tier 190 though (but without the outer mg ff/m cannons). Db7 by design is more maneuverable than a 111. This is the forefather to the A20 and A26. Both of which engaged in ground attack missions (strafing and such) during the war. Meanwhile all the 111 ever did was level bomb. If the Luftwaffe had a Ju 88 or Dornier and the differences were still huge then it would be a FM issue but they simply have bombers designed for different purposes.
  14. Repairing could serve as an alternative to grinding those air ranks because after t1 the players flying in E1s start to get severely disadvantaged. Just food for thought.
  15. It's more fun though