Armor doctrine

[OrderLordTank]

I would argue that armor doesnt even have an early game m10s have worse armor than f2s at least vs vehicles that is,and not all allied squads is a potential handheld AT threat like axis squads.So you cant spam m10s to win as you spam f2s.

Warhawk said <<Good US players win the game in the early stage or at least try to get a dominant position prior to the Tank phase.
At best you try to keep the fuel at least neutral, but if axis get fuel early on and can hold it up untill tank phase, it gets brutal really quick.>>
I agree and also add that without fuel less call ins the armor doctrine is hopeless if you loose map control in early game.When you have worse TDs (m10s vs stugs) and your shermans require a ton of upgrades to be viable vs late p4s while your viable answer to panthers and tigers is 9 CPs pershings with just 75mm jumbos to fill the gap its an uphill battle all the way (early,mid and late game).If your best tactic is combat engineers and recoil jeeps with just 1-2 75mm HE shermans to fill the gap then it shouldnt be called an armor doctrine at all.

[MEFISTO]

In my humble opinion to make this doctrine a bit better pershings should cost 7 cp, jumbo 76mm should be back to armor and cost 60fuel instead 80. so: 5cp a 76mm jumbo, 7cp persings 11 cp SP.

[MarKr]

That is true, the problem is, as armor doctrine yuo can't go for pershings (same whith propaganda and tigers) as soon as you wish because you need artillery tank commander, cheaper sherman production, war machine etcetera...

Everyone says how Shermans are not worth building, why do you need cheaper sherman production and warmachine, then?
But now seriously - I was pointing at the fact that people just say "Tigers 4CP, Pershings 9CP" which is not very representative of the real situation because lower CP cost doesn't mean you have the unit available as soon as you get that amount of CP.

Some changes are coming in the next beta that should help with the performance differences between medium tanks between factions. We'll see how that changes the situation and then we'll decide what else needs to be done.

If your best tactic is combat engineers and recoil jeeps with just 1-2 75mm HE shermans to fill the gap then it shouldnt be called an armor doctrine at all.

OK, in the next patch we'll rename Armor Company to "Combat Engineers, Recoil jeeps and HE Shermans Company"

[OrderLordTank]

I doubt the 76mm can be fixed at this point.Its been like that for ever so i guess there is an internal bug like the m10s gun.If not then fix it by all means as well as the shermans armor.Without armor doctrine sherman upgrades,over repair and .50 cal the sherman has been powered creeped to oblivion.There was no over repair or armor upgrades in vCOH and sherman was much more viable vs early and mid game axis armor.There was no f2 spam or axis fuel exchange mechanisms.So apart from PEs panther group you would rarely see late game axis armor in mid game.And since tanks didnt die so fast there was less risk in trying to flank stugs (which required way more resources to get armor skirts and top mg btw).

Again i am not asking for axis nerfs but sherman buffs.And i repeat that i agree with the fast .50 cal and over repair nerfs.However even if you buff the shermans armor and 76mm gun,the CPs chain layout is still way too strict.Six points for 75mm jumbos and 9 for pershing is way too much.If you do pick mass production and war machine that becomes 9 and 12 CPs.I really dont understand why pershings cant have their own separate chain.And why spend 6 points for calliope when walking stuka is just 2 CPs?

[MarKr]

Again i am not asking for axis nerfs but sherman buffs.

You cannot change one without the other. If something is strong, it is because enemy counter units are weaker and vice versa. So if you feel that Axis have better tanks, it is because allied tanks are weaker. Buff the allied tanks and the Axis tank "advantage" will be less noticeable or completely gone. Thus Sherman (direct) buff = Axis (indirect) nerf.

I really dont understand why pershings cant have their own separate chain.

Before the reworks, one very common move for Axis players was to use medium tanks as little as possible and get the heavy tanks as soon as possible. This, in turn led to Armor doc rushing Pershings, Infantry doc artillery and AB airstrikes, CW docs in general just anything with 17 pounder, just to be able to counter axis heavy tanks. We wanted to change this and make the game stay longer in the medium tank stage. I think this was achieved because, as people reported, Axis players use a lot more often PIV F2/H/J and StuGs and no longer rush for heavies every time.

The game balance is rarely as easy as "buff Shermans" - if we overdo it, we're back at rushing heavy tanks and skipping the mediums. Same goes for "separate Pershing chain". So if do that, instead of Allied players complaining that Axis have heavies too soon, we'll have Axis players complaining here that Allies have Pershings too soon and we'll have to deal with all of this again, only from the other side.

As I said:

Some changes are coming in the next beta that should help with the performance differences between medium tanks between factions. We'll see how that changes the situation and then we'll decide what else needs to be done.

[OrderLordTank]

I dont want to sound critical but the 76mm lackluster performance is well known for years so it should have been buffed before focusing the armor tree around shermans.Thats basically the main reason no one used shermans anyway,of course they are useless vs axis heavy armor since they cant even handle medium in any cost effective way.BTW the f2 zerg was a thing in previous version as well since they are so cheap.Also without fast .50 cal shermans armor must be buffed because due to the panzerfaust ability almost all axis squads is a serious potential AT threat if you are close enough and lets not forget how much better axis handheld AT is compared to allies.

In any case axis is now using his medium armor more but doesnt have to wait 9+ points for his heavy armor so your reasoning that a future sherman buff will justify waiting so much for persings is moot.Finally i see no reason why you need 6 CPs just for calliope (105mm sherman is rarely used) when all axis doctrines have access to artillery sooner.I mean the jeep version must become 4+ times better to even consider making it.

[MEFISTO]

That is true, the problem is, as armor doctrine yuo can't go for pershings (same whith propaganda and tigers) as soon as you wish because you need artillery tank commander, cheaper sherman production, war machine etcetera...

Everyone says how Shermans are not worth building, why do you need cheaper sherman production and warmachine, then?
But now seriously - I was pointing at the fact that people just say "Tigers 4CP, Pershings 9CP" which is not very representative of the real situation because lower CP cost doesn't mean you have the unit available as soon as you get that amount of CP.

Some changes are coming in the next beta that should help with the performance differences between medium tanks between factions. We'll see how that changes the situation and then we'll decide what else needs to be done.

If your best tactic is combat engineers and recoil jeeps with just 1-2 75mm HE shermans to fill the gap then it shouldnt be called an armor doctrine at all.

OK, in the next patch we'll rename Armor Company to "Combat Engineers, Recoil jeeps and HE Shermans Company"

I was talking abou 75mm shermans, 76mm are not worth it, I prefer to use m10 with 75mm shermans.

[kwok]

First of all sorry for hijacking this thread for armor doctrine issues.
Secondly i 100% agree that .50 cal needed to be locked even behind a fuel cost,since ammo is not needed for critical tech upgrades thus it's easier to be spared.My problem is that in the armor doctrine this fuel cost is indirectly combined with that of all others previously fuel-less (jumbo) or way earlier (calliope) call ins,as well the separate extra 2 CP path for cheaper shermans.Same goes for airborne to be frank since it lost its fuel supply and the extra ammo doesn't really translate to more bombardments due to the cooldown timer.

Am fine when a dev wants to defend his decision if he has clear and stated excuses about it.I mean we all agree that the old airborne patrol was an i win button vs tanks,but old armor was already in my opinion the weakest 1v1 doctrine.I don't remember any serious concerns about it so i am having trouble understanding all the huge early and mid game nerfs which were caused by the current CP layout.

So to go back on "why change armor?" I was going to find original rework posts on armor but so many changes have happened SINCE those posts were made, I didn't want to get distracted trying to debate things that don't even exist anymore. Instead I'll just have to rely on pure memory of the 5.1.7 patch to now. Here's the very first release on armor: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3257

Was armor viable in a 1v1?
Frankly, no... In the old patch I distinctly remember armor doc being completely shut down and powerless against Def doc, Tank hunter doc, and even Scorched Earth. To an extent, it was even hard countered by late-game skilled LUFT because of the henshel patrols coupled with 88s and panthers.
The only thing that made armor doc viable in 1v1 is by playing against a blitzkrieg doc player who by stereotype are fanatical panther/tiger-tunnel visioned players because armor doc players would just rush a pershing and make the panzer fanatic ragequit and come here on forum saying how underpowered the tiger was. These players make up a LOT of the community (which isn't surprising. Tiger tanks are extremely iconic and should have their "popularity" reflected somehow in a game that is designed for fun). But, when you put really skilled opponents against each other and the axis player reads armor doc, the solution was often 75mm turtling until end game doctrine unlocks come up because the only artillery option armor doctrine had was the calliope which had a long cooldown, large spread, and low "dps" despite how much damage output the barrage theoretically does (it's easy to dodge the calliope and mitigate its damage by just pressing retreat). This is why the arty capabilities/cp path has been updated and separated from other main line paths so that armor doc players can directly respond to threats flexibly instead of committing down a path that might not be necessary in the situation.
Secondly, any sort of close range fighting was extremely difficult. Armor doc was almost never chosen on urban maps which makes sense strategically... it's hard to maneuver tanks in a city. But, it's not unheard of for tanks to support infantry in cities and we still want the doctrines to at least be usuable in different maps and environments. This is why we moved the combat engineers to armor doc. They synergize so much better to armor.
Third, a lot of the auxiliary abilities in the CP tree were just never used. The games were mostly pershing rushes which makes a lot of the sherman related unlocks useless. When people only used about 1/4 of the CP tree... I feel like that's the BIGGEST sign of need for a change. A lot of those abilities were moved outside of CP unlocks into the weapon support center so that they can still be acquired without slowing the armor doc CP unlocking down. Others were broken out from their branches so that armor doc can respond to situations quicker through unlocks instead of pathing down a useless utility.
So all in all, a lot of capability was added INTO armor doc so that they can deal with previously counter-picking doctrines. I'm not saying now armor doc counters those doctrines, actually our ideal is that no doctrine will counter another doctrine. It might be HARDER to face certain matchups but not as impossible.

So why does armor feel weak? Nerfed? .... what about ThE pErShInG bEiNg NiNe CP???
This is a really long long explanation. In short, because EVERY doctrine had its late game tanks delayed except for ONE doctrine (which in original designs had it delayed too but we had serious push back from the community). If there is one achievement made in the beta is the reemergence of a "mid game" where medium tanks have become viable. In the 5.1.7 patches, nobody used panzer iv f2s, sherman 76's, dare I say rarely even used armored cars going into the late game because they just weren't worth getting when everyone was rushing tigers, panthers, pershings, jadgpanthers.... Now we get posts on how strong certain medium tanks are, how viable rushing them are, how balanced the panzer iv and sherman match up is, effectiveness of certain guns, etc... We haven't had these kind of discussions for god knows how long... maybe even ever. So we get that there's like those whole black hole area of unbalanced shit that needs to be tweaked because players just never used them before (that's why you see a lot of changes to 76mm guns, AT guns, etcs occuring lately). The solution to those problems, in our vision, is not to make stronger units come out faster but to make similar tier units viable. So for example when a panther comes out and can't be stopped by shermans, maybe make the 76mm gun a bit stronger to deter panthers instead of pushing pershings out faster. Make the game more skill/tactic based rather than build order focused.
BUT WHY IS THE PERSHING 9 CP AND TIGER ONLY 4????
Because they exist in two very very different doctrines. Fundamentally, the armor doc has a power curve that's weak in the early game, okay in the mid game, strong in the late game. For propaganda doctrine, they are extra weak in the early game, okay in the mid game, extra strong in the late game. Most of the time with good players, the tiger is delayed purely because rushing the tiger is not viable. If a player does not invest in other bonuses along the way to beef up the available early game utilities they won't even get the fuel to get a tiger even if they have it unlocked. That's 4 wasted CP. In team games it's a bit different because sometimes teammates can cover your early game and stall into a tiger. So what's the solution here? To be honest, we're not entirely sure yet but making the pershing come earlier is a solution we are reluctant to take because it directly goes against the original intent of extending the middle game. So far what seems to be working a little bit is by giving a bit more power to certain allied doctrines in the early/mid game, it puts enough pressure on axis docs even in team games to not rush tigers. We hear things like "tiger's aren't even that bad. 76 guns can at least keep them off until you get XYZ (ahem... jackson... ahem... which by the way got a buff in CP availability and judging by forum discussion may or may not get additional changes... i dunno i haven't talked to other devs about that)." Should the pershing be the only solution to tigers? No. ESPECIALLY when a 90mm cannon is literally available through different means and has been completely forgotten as a potential solution (if that's any hint to where the next patch might go....).

All in all, yes maybe armor doc got weaker in certain doctrine match ups like armor vs propaganda now compared to armor vs formerly terror in the past. But, it also got stronger in other match ups that were impossible before. In a 1v1 scenario, the game was formerly "balanced" around only a few viable doctrines in a 1v1, with certain doctrines only being viable if the opponent chose a particular match up. In a way, armor doc can be "balanced" because choosing the doctrine itself was the strategic choice rather than choices within the doctrine. Now, you can choose a doctrine a bit more safely knowing that you'll at least have some tools do deal with nearly all situations even if they come at a later time. Sometimes you just gotta play the stall game until you hit your powerspike.

[OrderLordTank]

There are certain above statements i agree with and others i don't,however i'm not a pvp expert so i will just state some personal opinions.

Stugs were and still are more cost effective then shermans and to a certain degree so are late pz4s.It takes 3 CPs to get cheap 76mm shermans and @2,3 or at most 4 CPs the enemy either has stugs or cheap late pz4s at a very similar fuel price.In fact you must spend 2 CPs just to get cheap 75mm shermans otherwise the enemy's CP free long barreled f2 pz4s have the same fuel price,a bit lighter armor but scale much better into late game due to the better gun.In short the armor doctrine must spend 3 CPs (2 of which in a separate path) just to have viable armor and still lag behind in cost effectiveness (stugs for 2 CPs) or late game scaling (cheap late pz4s for 3 or 4 CPs).In truth if you buy the improved chassis,both armor upgrades and the .50 cal than the easy 8 sherman does scale better then late pz4 but also becomes more cost ineffective.

The 75mm jumbo is very late even @ 5 CPs and very pricey @ 600mp+80 fuel (mass production doesn't effect it).By that stage it's just a damage sponge with a good for infantry only main gun.From afar even the enemy medium tanks can just ignore it (unless it's a cheap f2) and focus on softer targets and if you close in you can still easily die from panzerfausts/schrecks while your side armor wont hold against anything above pz4s or stugs.If the jumbo had the 76mm gun then the enemy tanks wouldn't just ignore it.

If you want armor to have a viable artillery alternative than fix the calliope jeep version instead of locking the calliope tank behind 5 CPs.The enemy has CP free nebelwerfers and walking stukas only cost 2 CPs.Also why the 5 CPs cost,wouldn't 1 point for the 105 sherman (including tank commander artillery) +2 for calliope be enough?

Both armor doctrine versions of jackson have very weak armor.Granted axis glass canons also exist but have either cheaper price or much better gun stats.I much prefer using cheaper hellcats.

I still fail to see the need of armor's pershings unlocking @ 8 CPs when propaganda's tigers cost 4.Granted propaganda will still spend another 2 CPs for stugs prior to that,but the same is true for armor since you need sherman mass production.

In short with the exception of combat engineers i fail to see any early or mid game pressure from armor,as well as a very strong late game power spike in 1v1.Again that is just my personal opinion so feel free to correct me.

[Warhawks97]

As you speak about power spike:

What about having the supply yard to be independent from other tec? That would enable US players to hit a certain strenght in early to mid game if they want in exchange for a bit delayed tec and better units. In return more mid game units.

The build cost would be 20 fuel (from current 40) while the first upgrade is increased to 40 (from 20 atm).

Atm US is like "as much as necessary, as little as possible". Every decision to get a extra unit before having the supply yard puts an heavy burden on your wallet and in team games every US player is forced to tec almost till end before any of them gets any "spike".
That way an inf player could choose to build it earlier to keep a strong inf force in mid game while armor guy gets tanks first and then supply yard.

I see it over and over on axis side where one or two have just two buildings and spam inf/weapon crews like shit untill they got the fuel to get the last two buildings and other upgrades at once. Meanwhile one dude doesnt build much and spams mediums as soon as possible.



That would help more than any CP adjustment since you are talking about "power spikes".

[OrderLordTank]

I doubt that this will negate the need for armor doctrine CP adjustment,but i am all in favor in making the supply yard available earlier in order to field more lower tier units instead of upteching asap.That would benefit all US doctrines.In fact i already suggested to transfer .50 cal upgrade to the supply yard in order to further delay it since it now costs mp+ammo and not fuel.If the supply yard can be built independently this will enable the .50 cal upgrade to be accessed by vehicles and light armor faster but without totally skipping the upfront fuel cost barrier.

[F31.58]

No, .50 cal upgrade should be right where it is.
You anyway have to ignore .50 cal in motorpool and go straight for Stuart, to not pay for that upgrade and even right now paying to get one vehicle in t3 more useful is still not really good.

[CGarr]

There are certain above statements i agree with and others i don't,however i'm not a pvp expert so i will just state some personal opinions.

Stugs were and still are more cost effective then shermans and to a certain degree so are late pz4s.It takes 3 CPs to get cheap 76mm shermans and @2,3 or at most 4 CPs the enemy either has stugs or cheap late pz4s at a very similar fuel price.In fact you must spend 2 CPs just to get cheap 75mm shermans otherwise the enemy's CP free long barreled f2 pz4s have the same fuel price,a bit lighter armor but scale much better into late game due to the better gun.In short the armor doctrine must spend 3 CPs (2 of which in a separate path) just to have viable armor and still lag behind in cost effectiveness (stugs for 2 CPs) or late game scaling (cheap late pz4s for 3 or 4 CPs).In truth if you buy the improved chassis,both armor upgrades and the .50 cal than the easy 8 sherman does scale better then late pz4 but also becomes more cost ineffective.

76mm's just got a fat buff recently against mediums and some TD's, so yes, the enemy will have cheap late P4's at the same time, but that's pretty much a 50/50 matchup at this point since both sides reliably pen eachother. Stugs are meant to counter shermans (even 76mm ones, as it still has crazy long ambush range for a low price even if the 76mm can pen now), so trying to have shermans be better than them is counter-productive. A better approach would be to limit stug's anti-inf performance by removing AP, so that their natural counter (AT inf) can actually kill them without risking being insta-wiped. The same goes for some other TD's like the M18 and Achilles (remove HE), or the jpz4/70 (buff inf AT pen against it or remove the stupid "low profile" received accuracy modifier).

You are correct in that Easy 8's are kinda pointless when the other 76 sherman is the same thing but cheaper. I personally have never noticed a difference in effectiveness when using one over the other, and it always puzzled me as to why the Easy 8 doesn't just replace it's cheaper cousin while maintaining said low price instead of the Easy 8's extra 10 or so fuel. On the P4's, the difference between a J and an H is a lot more noticeable because they have to be micro'd differently due to the turret rotation speed and there is a visual difference in armor between the 2. Whether or not skirts actually do much is something I'm still unsure of, but it's still much more noticeably different than the E8 is to the other 76 sherman (a slightly better looking model and slightly lighter shade of green).

As for the armor upgrades and 50 cal, I believe those are mainly there to help with performance against heavies and inf (armor upgrade just gives a health increase that makes getting one-shot by some heavies happen less often, 50 cal is pretty obviously just an upgrade to deal with inf), so they aren't necessary to factor in for this discussion.

The 75mm jumbo is very late even @ 5 CPs and very pricey @ 600mp+80 fuel (mass production doesn't effect it).By that stage it's just a damage sponge with a good for infantry only main gun.From afar even the enemy medium tanks can just ignore it (unless it's a cheap f2) and focus on softer targets and if you close in you can still easily die from panzerfausts/schrecks while your side armor wont hold against anything above pz4s or stugs.If the jumbo had the 76mm gun then the enemy tanks wouldn't just ignore it.

The 75mm jumbo is actually pretty good against all P4's since they have trouble penning without AP (or even with it, can't really tell if axis players just never use AP or if it's armor is really that good since I never risk trying to fight them when I'm axis). The 75mm recently got buffed as well, and while it still takes a somewhat long time to pen hetzers, stugs, and late P4's, you will probably pen before they do (unless the hetzer user figures out what the HEAT button does). It's meant to be paired with a 76 sherman or TD though, so between that and the relatively thin read armor (side armor doesn't really exist in BK, the tank is just split into 180 degree halves, front and back), it is a somewhat high micro unit. The 76 jumbo is more akin to a shitty pershing, so having that available right before the pershing on the same unlock path is kinda redundant. That's why it got moved. Armor doc has plenty of other options to deal with heavies like the jackson, which will be discussed later.

If you want armor to have a viable artillery alternative than fix the calliope jeep version instead of locking the calliope tank behind 5 CPs.The enemy has CP free nebelwerfers and walking stukas only cost 2 CPs.Also why the 5 CPs cost,wouldn't 1 point for the 105 sherman (including tank commander artillery) +2 for calliope be enough?

Both armor doctrine versions of jackson have very weak armor.Granted axis glass canons also exist but have either cheaper price or much better gun stats.I much prefer using cheaper hellcats.

Armor doctrine only has the unarmored jackson, and there is currently a discussion taking place on whether it should get better AT performance. Feel free to pitch in if you have any ideas on how to buff it in a way that the community wouldn't complain too much about, personally I'm kinda stumped aside from what was already mentioned in that thread (reload, accuracy, and same range as panther/tiger). I'd prefer better pen/damage and keep the range as it is (or even lower it slightly) so that the US heavy tanks and TD's are more close range brawlers where the Axis ones are better at range.

I still fail to see the need of armor's pershings unlocking @ 8 CPs when propaganda's tigers cost 4.Granted propaganda will still spend another 2 CPs for stugs prior to that,but the same is true for armor since you need sherman mass production.

The cheap sherman unlock isn't really necessary to get you to late game, it's there for people who want to try and powerspike earlier for a quick win. Realistically the prop doc player should be going for the faust as well, so thats another 2 CP. With that being said, worst case they ignore the stug and get a tiger 2 CP before your pershing comes out, but generally speaking, both will probably come out around 8 CP, assuming neither player is trying to get an early win via the other unlocks and thus delaying their heavy.

In short with the exception of combat engineers i fail to see any early or mid game pressure from armor,as well as a very strong late game power spike in 1v1.Again that is just my personal opinion so feel free to correct me.

With a super pershing, you are pretty much untouchable to enemy armor late game against pretty much every doc except luft and defense (henschell is really good at turning it into a sitting duck, elefant can wreck it from ambush or hit it from super far away with ALRS). The KT is comparable, but that fight is pretty much 50/50. As for early game, you have combat engineers, light vehicles that can cap and apply pressure well into late game with 50 cals, and the recoilless rifle jeep can shut down vehicle heavy plays, as it's only real counters are the WH AT rifle squad and the 28mm car/HT.

[OrderLordTank]

@ CGgar. <<76mm's just got a fat buff recently against mediums and some TD's, so yes, the enemy will have cheap late P4's at the same time, but that's pretty much a 50/50 matchup at this point since both sides reliably pen eachother. Stugs are meant to counter shermans (even 76mm ones, as it still has crazy long ambush range for a low price even if the 76mm can pen now), so trying to have shermans be better than them is counter-productive.>>

It is indeed a 50/50 matchup between a 76mm sherman and a late pz4,but late pz4 scale better into late game because they have free top mg and armor skirts.The problem isn't just the axis heavies either.If you account the generally better axis guns (on various tanks or even vehicles) and handhelds ATs (as well as their much wider availability in the form of the panzerfaust) the sherman faces,you will realize how essential the easy 8 chassis,both armor upgrades and the .50 cal are in order to scale into late game.As i said the end result is slightly better but also more cost ineffective compared to late pz4s and stugs.Also i have no problem with stugs having the upper hand (they were ATs after all) if they would loose the HE (as you said) and paid for the top mg and armor skirts.Right now they are a cheap,spammable,good vs all unit and as i said before the lack of turret isn't a huge deal after you produce the second one.

<<The 75mm jumbo is actually pretty good against all P4's since they have trouble penning without AP (or even with it, can't really tell if axis players just never use AP or if it's armor is really that good since I never risk trying to fight them when I'm axis). The 75mm recently got buffed as well, and while it still takes a somewhat long time to pen hetzers, stugs, and late P4's, you will probably pen before they do (unless the hetzer user figures out what the HEAT button does). It's meant to be paired with a 76 sherman or TD though, so between that and the relatively thin read armor (side armor doesn't really exist in BK, the tank is just split into 180 degree halves, front and back), it is a somewhat high micro unit. The 76 jumbo is more akin to a shitty pershing, so having that available right before the pershing on the same unlock path is kinda redundant. That's why it got moved. Armor doc has plenty of other options to deal with heavies like the jackson, which will be discussed later.>>

Let me repeat,the 75mm takes an age to pen from afar any medium axis armor (apart from cheap f2s).So when you use the 75mm jumbo as a shield the enemy just ignores it and shoots at the way softer 76mm shermans and m10s.If you close in,then axis hand held ATs will eat you up,as well as sideshots (or w/e you call them) from axis long barreled 75mm guns (which are available even to cheap f2 variants).In truth by the time you get 5 CPs (or 7 CPs if you add the sherman mass production) the 75mm jumbo is just an expensive damage sponge with a good for infantry only main gun.So no i don't think that the 76mm jumbo would be redundant,especially if you consider that pershing unlock is still 3 more CPs away.I mean propaganda needs just 4 CPs for tigers without waiting for 5+3=8 CPs,and while it needs to pay another 2 CPs for stugs prior to that so does armor for sherman mass production.

<<Armor doctrine only has the unarmored jackson, and there is currently a discussion taking place on whether it should get better AT performance. Feel free to pitch in if you have any ideas on how to buff it in a way that the community wouldn't complain too much about, personally I'm kinda stumped aside from what was already mentioned in that thread (reload, accuracy, and same range as panther/tiger). I'd prefer better pen/damage and keep the range as it is (or even lower it slightly) so that the US heavy tanks and TD's are more close range brawlers where the Axis ones are better at range.>>

And i would like for jackson to have its true frontal armor which was equal to that of the jumbo's.It ain't gonna happen so instead of investing so much fuel in such a fragile AT i will just keep using cheaper hellcats both fuel and CP wise.

<<The cheap sherman unlock isn't really necessary to get you to late game, it's there for people who want to try and powerspike earlier for a quick win. Realistically the prop doc player should be going for the faust as well, so thats another 2 CP. With that being said, worst case they ignore the stug and get a tiger 2 CP before your pershing comes out, but generally speaking, both will probably come out around 8 CP, assuming neither player is trying to get an early win via the other unlocks and thus delaying their heavy.>>

Propaganda doesn't really need faust if it gets stugs because they are very cost effective good vs all units.As i said before the lack of turret isn't a huge deal after you produce the second one.Also if armor doesn't unlock sherman mass production then stugs pr cheap late pz4s will eat him alive.They much more cost effective units that scale better in late game than 76mm shermans especially if you pay full price for the latter.

<<With a super pershing, you are pretty much untouchable to enemy armor late game against pretty much every doc except luft and defense (henschell is really good at turning it into a sitting duck, elefant can wreck it from ambush or hit it from super far away with ALRS). The KT is comparable, but that fight is pretty much 50/50. As for early game, you have combat engineers, light vehicles that can cap and apply pressure well into late game with 50 cals, and the recoilless rifle jeep can shut down vehicle heavy plays, as it's only real counters are the WH AT rifle squad and the 28mm car/HT.>>

The tiger ace is 7 CP while the super pershing ace is 12, good luck holding that long in 1v1.Also by that time propaganda gets KT which can be rebuild if lost (that's why i prefer the ace instead of the super pershing).I agree about the recoilless jeeps (although i don't agree relying on them on a so called <<armor>> doctrine),but capping with vehicles requires 1 CP and so does training for combat engineers (they die like flies without it).If enemy uses these 2 CPs for stugs and you don't have sherman mass production it's game over.

[CGarr]

It is indeed a 50/50 matchup between a 76mm sherman and a late pz4,but late pz4 scale better into late game because they have free top mg and armor skirts.The problem isn't just the axis heavies either.If you account the generally better axis guns (on various tanks or even vehicles) and handhelds ATs (as well as their much wider availability in the form of the panzerfaust) the sherman faces,you will realize how essential the easy 8 chassis,both armor upgrades and the .50 cal are in order to scale into late game.As i said the end result is slightly better but also more cost ineffective compared to late pz4s and stugs.Also i have no problem with stugs having the upper hand (they were ATs after all) if they would loose the HE (as you said) and paid for the top mg and armor skirts.Right now they are a cheap,spammable,good vs all unit and as i said before the lack of turret isn't a huge deal after you produce the second one.

Again the easy 8 chassis does nothing unless you insist on getting easy 8's instead of the normal 76 shermans. There is very little difference between the 2 aside from cost (and a slight moving accuracy buff, IIRC), so you might as well get the cheaper normal 76 shermans. As for the extra cost for 50 cals, it evens out when you consider that late game, Axis keeps having to pay 90 muni for HE on it's tanks, whereas you have an upgrade that negates that cost. Anyways, the 50 cal is better against light vehicles and units in cover, so the extra cost would still be justified. the armor upgrades don't really help much against P4's and inf, they're mainly there to give you a second chance if a heavy decides to take a shot at you. Inf AT and medium tank guns will still generally take the same amount of shots to kill a sherman with the armor upgrades as they would to kill a sherman without them. The armor increase is negligible (if it even adds any), the upgrade is primarily there to give extra health. That extra health doesn't really do anything in engagements with mediums because 2 shots to kill is still 2 shots to kill, regardless of whether the sherman had 40% health or 10% health when the second shot landed. Shermans are objectively more cost effective late game when you account for supply yard upgrades and the free ammo upgrades, on top of their cheap initial price. This isn't really something debatable, and I'm pretty sure everyone here would agree with me. If there is any issue with the cost efficiency, it is because WH pays less upkeep on their tanks by default, but I am pretty sure that the comparison still favors shermans even with that in mind.

Let me repeat,the 75mm takes an age to pen from afar any medium axis armor (apart from cheap f2s).So when you use the 75mm jumbo as a shield the enemy just ignores it and shoots at the way softer 76mm shermans and m10s.If you close in,then axis hand held ATs will eat you up,as well as sideshots (or w/e you call them) from axis long barreled 75mm guns (which are available even to cheap f2 variants).In truth by the time you get 5 CPs (or 7 CPs if you add the sherman mass production) the 75mm jumbo is just an expensive damage sponge with a good for infantry only main gun.So no i don't think that the 76mm jumbo would be redundant,especially if you consider that pershing unlock is still 3 more CPs away.I mean propaganda needs just 4 CPs for tigers without waiting for 5+3=8 CPs,and while it needs to pay another 2 CPs for stugs prior to that so does armor for sherman mass production.

If you time your push with each tank right, the enemy tank will always auto target the jumbo first since it is the first one seen. Wait for that shot while keeping the 76 close behind, then bring the 76 in range while the P4 is reloading. Easy money, I've never had trouble fighting P4's with that combo. The Jumbo can do it solo if you aren't impatient. Sherman mass production really isn't a requirement, so again I have no idea why you keep bringing it up. If you're scared of stugs, cheap shermans aren't going to help. If you're scared of a tiger rush, go for jacksons instead. That HE main gun on the sherman will rake in a lot more CP than the 76mm would, as you're going to get XP with every shot because individual inf models die instantly, whereas the 76mm would be worse against inf and only reward your efforts against tanks if you actually finish them off. Anyways, if a tiger or panther comes out, neither jumbo variant is going to be bouncing their shots if the enemy player is smart enough to use AP, so you might as well just use normal 76 shermans.

And i would like for jackson to have its true frontal armor which was equal to that of the jumbo's.It ain't gonna happen so instead of investing so much fuel in such a fragile AT i will just keep using cheaper hellcats both fuel and CP wise.

It didn't have jumbo armor, I'm like 95% sure it was a normal M4A3 chassis. They ran out of M10 hulls, so they used normal sherman hulls. They didn't have jumbo hulls just lying around to be used for whatever. You might be thinking of the 76mm armed jumbo.

Propaganda doesn't really need faust if it gets stugs because they are very cost effective good vs all units.As i said before the lack of turret isn't a huge deal after you produce the second one.Also if armor doesn't unlock sherman mass production then stugs pr cheap late pz4s will eat him alive.They much more cost effective units that scale better in late game than 76mm shermans especially if you pay full price for the latter.

A stug is a lot more expensive to lose than a conscript squad, despite having the same damage potential per shot. And if you're playing propaganda as it is meant to be played, you will already have the conscripts as your mainline inf, whereas you have to go out of your way to get a stugs. I'd point to the above explanation about how shermans are more cost effective late game than late version P4's, but I'm pretty sure prop doc doesn't even have late version P4's (H and J) so I'm not sure why you brought them up. And I agree that stugs are better than pretty much all mediums currently (although I mainly mean blitz doc stugs when I make that argument), but thats not a problem with armor doc. That's just a product of the stug having HE on top of its amazing performance against tanks, which is why I called for HE to be removed from TD's. Trust me, you've got the right idea, but you're blaming the wrong things.

The tiger ace is 7 CP while the super pershing ace is 12, good luck holding that long in 1v1.Also by that time propaganda gets KT which can be rebuild if lost (that's why i prefer the ace instead of the super pershing).I agree about the recoilless jeeps (although i don't agree relying on them on a so called <<armor>> doctrine),but capping with vehicles requires 1 CP and so does training for combat engineers (they die like flies without it).If enemy uses these 2 CPs for stugs and you don't have sherman mass production it's game over.

Same on using the Pershing Ace over the SP, although I do so because SP is useless if someone plays luft or uses the 280mm rocket strike on prop doc. That being said, the SP is just flat out better than anything prop doc can throw at you in terms of armor. The only thing they can beat it with low risk while using tanks is through spamming ALRS on their tiger ace or the long range position on the KT if they manage to get it a ton of vet. The tiger Ace is just a vetted tiger 1 with more health, a jackson in ambush will still probably ruin it's day (especially if they get a much needed buff). Said jackson comes out at 4 CP, and makes a lot more sense against a propaganda doc player than going for pershings.

As for the point about the vehicle capping and combat engies, you dont need to pay for the combat engineer upgrade for them to be good. They are a cheap squad that comes out immediately and is armed with SMG's, they will clean house early game even without the upgrade. The vehicle capping costs 1 CP on it's own, and between that, the strength of the 50 cals (which no longer cost fuel to get), and the ability to cap with said 50 cal armed vehicles, you will pretty much own the entire map if you are aggressive, especially if you aren't on a lane map. PE might give you some trouble with 28mm's, but your 57mm HT's should beat them if you use camo. The M20 car is a monster for how little it costs. Those 2 units supported by combat engineers will give you full map dominance until tanks hit the the field, and you should be getting tanks sooner if you have map dominance because you will gain resources faster. That's all for 1 CP. 4 more and you can have 76 shermans, M18's, and Jacksons, meaning you'll have competent mediums, a good medium TD, and a decent heavy TD. Thats 5 CP CP total. 5 CP will do a lot more for you than a prop doc player. Sure, they might get stugs, but then their tiger comes at like 8 CP or 6 if they decide to rush (meaning their inf will still be garbage since you will have the same capping power, which negates their one real advantage. They also wont be able to do anything about your light vehicles). If they rush tigers first, they will be at the mercy of your 50 cals for a really long time, and you will probably have a few jacksons out by the time the tiger actually hits the field. If they go for anything but stugs or tigers early game against an armor doc player, they are screwed unless the skill gap is massively in their favor, and even then it will probably still be a tough fight for them.

[OrderLordTank]

The easy 8 doesn't offer more protection but more cross country mobility.At least that is what it says in the description and if that's not the case then it needs to be clarified.I agree that the increased accuracy while moving isn't a big deal although every bit helps when flanking heavier axis armor.

Of course the .50 cal is better but axis top mg is free both as an unlock and later as a per unit upgrade.Same goes for axis armor skirts that are free compared to armor doctrine sherman armor upgrades while offering better protection against bazookas than the armor upgrades against panzerschrecks/fausts.None the less in my opinion these upgrades are essential vs panzerschrecks/fausts which in late game are everywhere (unlike bazookas).

Ofcourse in the end the shermans are more cost effective if you have already purchased all the armor upgrades,and the 3 fuel improvements from the supply yard and spend 2 CPs on sherman mass production and 3 CPs for armor crates.In practice though it's a tough call even to get just the armor upgrades after the 2 CPs mass production in a 1v1 game and nothing else,unless you already control most of the map and yet the game drags on.All those other improvements can be purchased without already wining the game only in 3v3.Even in 2v2 it's hard unless we are not taking about an open map.

As for the sherman mass production not being required.How many stugs can your 75mm jumbo bait to 76mm shermans before your opponent simply swarms you?Even doing it once isn't easy against a competent player since stugs have more range.Without mass production he has 3 stugs for 2 76mm shermans,if you add the 75mm jumbo on the list the stugs become 5.That's 5 capable guns with good armor vs 2 capable guns with mediocre armor + 1 mediocre gun with very good armor.My money is on the stugs.Granted mass production won't do wonders but it does help facing half a stug less as well as replacing losses.In fact if you take the 75mm jumbo out of the equation (it costs 2 CPs more even if you don't take mass production) then mass production makes you have 4 76mm shemans vs 4.5 stugs.Still an uphill battle but with way better chances of success.That's why a 75mm jumbo @ 5 CPs is just an expensive damage sponge with a good for infantry only gun.In 1v1 (and not only) by that time soft armored f2s have either been phased out or you have already lost.

True jackson didn't have jumbo armor,i remembered the WOT values while forgetting that in COH the m4A3 hull isn't better armored then stugs and late pz4s as it historically should.In short the jackson b1 has as soft armor as the 76mm shermans (which is mediocre in COH) so i will stick to hellcats when i need a better gun which are much cheaper both fuel and CP wise.

So you are telling me that investing 2 CPs to unlock faust as a potential handheld AT on a initially very weak infantry unit (volkssturm squad) is a better investment than unlocking 40 fuel priced stugs that come pre-equipped with top mg and armor skirts as well as better armor and range than shermans while they can also be upgraded with HE?Thanks but...No thanks.I may be a worse player but i will take the good vs all very cost effective stug instead of the faust ability for the volkssturm any day of the week.I mean why even bother when i can already have volksgrenadiers prior to picking a doctrine?Propaganda doesn't have late pz4s but for the reasons i mentioned above they also scale better in late game than shermans as well as in mid game if you don't have sherman mass production.Thus armor faces the same problems against all axis doctrines.

I agree that pershings are overpriced,that's why in late game i prefer to spam fully upgraded shermans.However the same is true for jacksons,i see no reason picking them when hellcats have the same gun and are much cheaper both in fuel and CP.None the less you can't compare allied AT glass cannons to axis heavies.I would much rather invest 4 CPs to unlock a tiger than a jackson.Also by the time you get the super pershing @ 12 CPs,prop can have 2x tigers+a tiger ace+a king tiger plus the ammo for fuel exchange.Not that i would ever bet on a single time call in as the SP anyway.

Combat engineers ain't that cheap @ 320 mp and fight much worse then same priced axis infantry.Sure you can upgrade them with smgs but good luck getting close in one piece without training.Also you can't spam them since they require motorpool and by that time you are better off using your mp+ammo to get vehicles in order to capitalize on early .50 cal upgrades.If you don't have the fuel for vehicles then yes,you do buy combat engineers and smgs for them,but not without training.However you are better of using recoilless jeeps (sounds stupid for an armored doctrine i know) instead of vehicles otherwise stugs (which cost the same 2 CPs as raid+training and don't care much for 57mm ATs) will own them.Heck even long barreled f2 pz4s can easily kill your vehicles if the enemy player knows how to scout.

[Consti255]

.However the same is true for jacksons,i see no reason picking them when hellcats have the same gun and are much cheaper both in fuel and CP.

You know that the Jackson got a 90mm gun and not the 76mm from the Hellcat right?
Its more potent to pen the KT and Tiger than the Hellcat. Hellcats also have even less armor with there Hull and gets even penetrated by light tanks.
The Jackson needs a buff for sure, but not in his terms of his gun and armor.

[CGarr]

The easy 8 doesn't offer more protection but more cross country mobility.At least that is what it says in the description and if that's not the case then it needs to be clarified.I agree that the increased accuracy while moving isn't a big deal although every bit helps when flanking heavier axis armor.

The Easy 8 is objectively worse against heavies than the jackson, the Easy 8's 76mm gun has way less pen than the Jackson's 90mm. Both die in 1-2 hits, although with flank speed on the jackson you at least have some chance of actually getting behind an axis heavy without getting hit. Shermans can't outrun any axis tank's turret rotation. Neither have the armor to bounce heavy guns reliably. Anyways, this is off topic. You were arguing that the sherman is worse in the long run than the late P4 versions.

Of course the .50 cal is better but axis top mg is free both as an unlock and later as a per unit upgrade.Same goes for axis armor skirts that are free compared to armor doctrine sherman armor upgrades while offering better protection against bazookas than the armor upgrades against panzerschrecks/fausts.None the less in my opinion these upgrades are essential vs panzerschrecks/fausts which in late game are everywhere (unlike bazookas).

Again, I have no idea what you're trying to argue at this point. What change are you trying to suggest? Free 50 cals aren't going to happen, they're way too potent after the buffs. The armor upgrades are fine in their current state.

Ofcourse in the end the shermans are more cost effective if you have already purchased all the armor upgrades,and the 3 fuel improvements from the supply yard and spend 2 CPs on sherman mass production and 3 CPs for armor crates.In practice though it's a tough call even to get just the armor upgrades after the 2 CPs mass production in a 1v1 game and nothing else,unless you already control most of the map and yet the game drags on.All those other improvements can be purchased without already wining the game only in 3v3.Even in 2v2 it's hard unless we are not taking about an open map.

Then don't try to go for fully upgraded shermans in a 1v1 game? The 50 cal upgrade is pretty cheap, but the armor upgrade and Easy 8 chassis are entirely unnecessary, especially in 1v1. They help against heavies, but you shouldn't be spamming shermans against heavies anyways. It's generally not going to work unless the skill gap is huge, and that's intentional. Shermans require relatively little micro, but are less potent than the specialist vehicles available to armor doc. They are there to fill multiple gaps at once when you are desperate or provide support against all targets when you are in a comfortable position. They're better than P4's by virtue of just being a better medium tank, but they aren't the counter to P4 spam. If someone is churning out P4's, you will probably beat them to late game tech, so you should just sit tight with cheap AT units like M10's and AT guns until you can get a pershing (at least in 1v1). Sherman spam is mainly a team game thing, it's doable in 1v1 but in 1v1 you are generally doing it to finish before late game comes, so the upgrades are irrelevant.

As for the sherman mass production not being required.How many stugs can your 75mm jumbo bait to 76mm shermans before your opponent simply swarms you?Even doing it once isn't easy against a competent player since stugs have more range.Without mass production he has 3 stugs for 2 76mm shermans,if you add the 75mm jumbo on the list the stugs become 5.That's 5 capable guns with good armor vs 2 capable guns with mediocre armor + 1 mediocre gun with very good armor.My money is on the stugs.Granted mass production won't do wonders but it does help facing half a stug less as well as replacing losses.In fact if you take the 75mm jumbo out of the equation (it costs 2 CPs more even if you don't take mass production) then mass production makes you have 4 76mm shemans vs 4.5 stugs.Still an uphill battle but with way better chances of success.That's why a 75mm jumbo @ 5 CPs is just an expensive damage sponge with a good for infantry only gun.In 1v1 (and not only) by that time soft armored f2s have either been phased out or you have already lost.

You're ignoring the fact that stugs need to be stationary to get that extra range, meaning you dictate which unit fires at which. You can push the jumbo in first and the stug will auto target it, unless the player turns it or toggles stationary mode off to move it, in which case you are no longer at a range disadvantage with your 76 and they will have either wasted their shot or moved into a worse position. That 1 stug is pretty much a free kill if they decide to stay there. If your opponent is going for 5 stugs in one area, you're probably better off just setting up a 76mm AT gun and going somewhere else. If they aren't grouped up, you will win the fight. And again, if someone is spamming mediums or stugs, you have the teching advantage if you haven't gone all in on medium spam yourself. If you have gone all in on medium spam, just keep pressuring them and go wherever the stug isn't, stugs generally don't win against AT guns so your opponent probably won't be able to push even if your tanks are on the opposite side of the map. You have the initiative in that matchup.

If you find yourself in a stalemate, it's time to start teching up and prepare for the tiger or panther that will inevitably come, which is why I keep saying you're probably just better off going for a jackson than a jumbo or pershing. The jumbo and pershing can always be useful late, as jumbos are potent inf killers throughout the game and pershings are better than panthers (and more cost efficient than other heavies). Rushing them will screw you over though unless you play super defensively, and medium spam doesn't really lend itself to that kind of playstyle. A jackson or 2 will be a lot more helpful in getting you there. Sherman spam is for quick wins( or late game pressue in team games), it's an alternate path to getting heavies.

True jackson didn't have jumbo armor,i remembered the WOT values while forgetting that in COH the m4A3 hull isn't better armored then stugs and late pz4s as it historically should.In short the jackson b1 has as soft armor as the 76mm shermans (which is mediocre in COH) so i will stick to hellcats when i need a better gun which are much cheaper both fuel and CP wise.

Trust me, jacksons will help you a lot more than M18's if you're insistent on spamming shermans. The M18 has the same gun as the sherman, so the only thing it would add to your unit comp is the ability to ambush. The jackson has both a much better gun and ambush. It wrecks mediums (especially if you have shermans in front to keep the fire off of it), and it's pen allows it to fend off heavies until you can get your own.

So you are telling me that investing 2 CPs to unlock faust as a potential handheld AT on a initially very weak infantry unit (volkssturm squad) is a better investment than unlocking 40 fuel priced stugs that come pre-equipped with top mg and armor skirts as well as better armor and range than shermans while they can also be upgraded with HE?

Yes. They only cost muni to fire for the vsturms, you don't have to pay any initial cost. Vsturms are also cheap enough to reinforce that you will bleed a lot less when rushing tanks with them than you would with volksgrens. You can also have more vsturm squads than volksgrenadiers for any given MP amount, and with multiple squads you can hit from different angles. I never said they are better than stugs, I said you are better off getting them instead of stugs because both have decent AT potential but stugs will eat into your fuel reserves, meaning tigers will come later. If you just want to spam stugs, why are you going Propaganda doc? Blitz is way better at that. Stugs on prop doc are fine, but if you can get away with it, saving resources for the tiger will be way better since prop doc tigers are incredibly strong. The tigerphobia buff is really good, and the vsturms can faust anything that tries to flank your tiger if you have it unlocked. Meanwhile, if you go for stugs as prop doc, you are just delaying that powerspike since you will still want the fausts. 2 stugs to cover your flank is 80-100 fuel and 800 MP. 4 vsturm squads will give you a similar level of coverage for half the MP cost and no fuel. Stugs are there for when you can't handle enemy medium armor with your 0 CP units.

I agree that pershings are overpriced,that's why in late game i prefer to spam fully upgraded shermans.However the same is true for jacksons,i see no reason picking them when hellcats have the same gun and are much cheaper both in fuel and CP.None the less you can't compare allied AT glass cannons to axis heavies.I would much rather invest 4 CPs to unlock a tiger than a jackson.Also by the time you get the super pershing @ 12 CPs,prop can have 2x tigers+a tiger ace+a king tiger plus the ammo for fuel exchange.Not that i would ever bet on a single time call in as the SP anyway.

Hellcats don't have the same gun, or flank speed. And yes, obviously 4 CP for a tiger is better than 4 CP for a jackson if you look at it like that, but armor doc is a lot more capable at 0 CP than prop doc is. Armor doc will probably have that 4 CP well before the prop doc player. You're arguing in circles.

Combat engineers ain't that cheap @ 320 mp and fight much worse then same priced axis infantry.Sure you can upgrade them with smgs but good luck getting close in one piece without training.Also you can't spam them since they require motorpool and by that time you are better off using your mp+ammo to get vehicles in order to capitalize on early .50 cal upgrades.If you don't have the fuel for vehicles then yes,you do buy combat engineers and smgs for them,but not without training.However you are better of using recoilless jeeps (sounds stupid for an armored doctrine i know) instead of vehicles otherwise stugs (which cost the same 2 CPs as raid+training and don't care much for 57mm ATs) will own them.Heck even long barreled f2 pz4s can easily kill your vehicles if the enemy player knows how to scout.

Then don't use them to initiate fights. Rush them to a good position, and use 50 cal vehicles to weaken enemy inf off. They will be forced to back away or close the distance to try and kill it, and if they do the latter, your combat engineers will melt them. Add an AT gun and/or a TD of your own to that mix to deal with enemy armor, and you're untouchable until heavies come out. Recoilless jeeps are alright, but they're not reliable since you're risking losing that MP in one shot on a vehicle that has poor durability and relatively short range. When I mentioned them, I was mainly saying that they're a good part of your initial build order because you can be more mobile without having to worry about enemy light vehicles. That combo should get you the resource lead if your micro is good enough. If it isn't, then you're going to be doing a lot of sitting behind AT guns until your TD's come out. 57mm cars are better than nothing, but the gun is pretty unreliable against stugs and even some mediums, which is why I have been pushing to get it reworked for a long time.

[OrderLordTank]

Ofcourse jackson is better vs heavies than the sherman,however it's an overkill vs pz4s and stugs as well as much worse vs infantry while being way more expensive and fragile.In any case i prefer flanking an axis heavy with a cheaper hellcat which is also way better vs infantry thanks to .50 cal.It doesn't have a 90mm gun (my mistake there) but a 76mm with AP while not good frontally is good enough for flanking tigers and panthers.Especially since i can almost buy 2 hellcats for the price of the jackson and i need less CPs and tank depot upgrades to make them.

I will say it again stugs and pz4s scale better in late game than shermans because they have free top mg,armor skirts and face way less as well as weaker handheld AT and ofcourse easier allied tanks in general.Stugs also have better armor and range.In the very end shermans do scale better than pz4s (and maybe stugs) if you buy all the upgrades (in both the supply yard and weapons center) and invest all the specific armor doctrine only CPs.However that is never doable in 1v1 (and even 2v2) unless you already control all the map for a very long time and it just helps you end an already wining game faster instead of wining it in the first place.

I never said that .50 cal should also be free.I agree 100% with it being an unlock because it used to dominate the vehicle phase.I did mentioned though that the old 30 fuel unlock price was way too steep and that now that the unlock costs ammunition it should be linked to the tank depot or even supply yard in order not to dominate the vehicle phase again.In fact i would add that sherman armor upgrades should only cost ammunition as well especially since you don't seem to regard them as vital.

I don't spam shermans (until late game when they have all the upgrades) because wining a 1v1 (or even 2v2) game this way is impossible.Wining a 1v1 (or even 2v2) game by spamming stugs and late pz4s however isn't just doable but optimal (at least @ my skill level if you know basic scouting) for all the reasons i have already mentioned.I have done it many times with prop and blitz but never once with this so called <<armor>> doctrine which somehow must also wait 8 CPs for pershings if it wants proper heavies (even which are somewhat worse than axis ones that come earlier) or 5 CPs for calliope if it wants half decent artillery (while nebelwerfer is better and free CP wise).

Also i never said that you must spam stugs with prop but for me it is way easier than relying on upgraded volkssturms.Truth is stug spam (if you know how to use them) is good enough to end a 1v1 game right there so who cares if tigers take longer to produce?In truth with 2 CPs on stugs for me it's (9 times out of 10) easy going all the way to tiger ace call in and ammo for fuel swap after that.Later if i have the fuel i will replace stug losses with tigers but usually even that's rarely needed.

That is a fine strategy to defend and not attack until you realize that nebelwerfer is free and your own vehicles also can't really pass through the enemy ATs (and later the stug and pz4 spam) that guards it.So the nebelwerfer shoots and your AT gun is dead while you can't do the same.See how waiting 5 CPs just for an artillery unit hurts the armor doctrine so hard?

[MarKr]

@ CGar & OderLordTank: I have nothing against a good, civil discussion that you are showing here but would you perhaps be interested in a 1v1 match (or several of them) against each other where you could show all this theory in practical use?

I've seen several-pages long (I think the record was 11 or 13 pages on the old forum) dicussions like this one with one wall-of-text post after another and they very rarely ended up in some sort of agreement among the arguing players.
I'm NOT suggesting this so that the "winner" of the matches can say "I won, I'm right, now shut up" (I believe you two are mature enough not to do that), just saying that practical demonstration can often lead to more understanding than pages of theory.

[Walderschmidt]

I’ll 1v1 OrderLordTank.

My armor doc versus his Blitz or Propaganda.

Wald

[kwok]

DEV SANCTIONED CAGE MAAAAATCHHHHHH
Tune in Saturday 16 January, 2021 for the first of many matches.
sponsored by Rappatix's Onlyfans



Just wanted to clarfiy and make sure people really understand Markr... he's not saying winner is right. He's not saying that at all. He's saying that it's worth putting things into practice for the sake of gaining perspective and eventually understanding for a balance solution.

[sarcasm] ME ON THE OTHERHAND WANTS TO SEE A RUTHLESS DUEL OF HONOR SO I CAN MAKE SOME SIDE HUSTLE MONEY GAMBLING ON DISCORD [/sarcasm]

[CGarr]

DEV SANCTIONED CAGE MAAAAATCHHHHHH
Tune in Saturday 16 January, 2021 for the first of many matches.
sponsored by Rappatix's Onlyfans



Just wanted to clarfiy and make sure people really understand Markr... he's not saying winner is right. He's not saying that at all. He's saying that it's worth putting things into practice for the sake of gaining perspective and eventually understanding for a balance solution.

[sarcasm] ME ON THE OTHERHAND WANTS TO SEE A RUTHLESS DUEL OF HONOR SO I CAN MAKE SOME SIDE HUSTLE MONEY GAMBLING ON DISCORD [/sarcasm]

I'm actually down, never played with overlord so idk how this is gonna go. Was just trying to clear up some stuff since he kept saying the same thing over and over and that thing doesn't seem accurate.

[OrderLordTank]

I also don't think a match will prove anything since our skill levels are so unequal (due to me playing mostly vs expert CPUs on open basic maps).But i have nothing against a match either.Having said that i find it hard to believe that someone who is better than me believes that playing armor is as easy as propaganda or blitzkrieg.In any case i will be fine with an afternoon or evening match in the weekend,just curb your expectations accordingly...

[Krieger Blitzer]

I also don't think a match will prove anything since our skill levels are so unequal (due to me playing mostly vs expert CPUs on open basic maps).But i have nothing against a match either.Having said that i find it hard to believe that someone who is better than me believes that playing armor is as easy as propaganda or blitzkrieg.In any case i will be fine with an afternoon or evening match in the weekend,just curb your expectations accordingly...

if your thoughts are mainly based on games vs Ai opponents, then you should find it "easy" to believe that you are wrong with what you think. Comp Stomp players will probably believe earth is flat until they get to play PvP and realize the truth.. eventually laughing back at themselves; without exaggeration.