GarlicSugar Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 The USA in game needs a serious increase in capability. All the other nations in game get cool uber future gear and America hardly gets anything! Its almost impossible to win with all the overpowered Russian gear. I propose that USA get M1A3 and stealth planes. Also USA artillery should be able to one shot Russian tanks. Artillery in general needs a massive buff to splash damage to compensate for the overpowered Russian armor. The prices on American units should also be reduced, because the current Russian units are too cheap and too easy to spam. Its always 10 T-90AM vs only 2 Abrams! How is this fair? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user2 Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 +1 And make US tanks able to transform into robots. And ability for a tank platoon to form mega-robot! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 GarlicSugar, Welcome aboard! I see you beat me to it on starting the OP on the, ahem, inadequate depiction of US capabilities in the game. The wag in me very much wanted to, but I kept finding more cogent matters to discuss, admittedly while interlarding humor now and then! As for one shot kills vs Russian tanks, I believe recent work by a number of us has shown quite convincingly that a 155 mm or 152 mm direct hit by HE PD will destroy, minimum Mission Kill, any tank extant. Indeed, the Russian manufacturer, KBP, says its 122 mm Kitolov 2M laser guided HE frag shell will do the job. You may also wish to review the pricing structure for T-90AM vice M1A2 SEPV3. Am fairly certain you can't buy 10 x BMP-2M for the cost of one such Abrams, though I haven't examined this matter directly. As it is, the sheer size of forces the Russians can field is a real problem, one now considerably worsened since BFC made mixed auto cannon/ATGM armed AFVs far more likely to select Missile in an encounter with a tank. Instead of Kornets exploding in their launch tubes when the BMP-2M is obliterated after popping off a stream of 30 mm and getting a 120 mm AMP in reply, we may instead see Abrams dying in a hail of deadly LBR ATGMs. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnarly Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 Well played sir!! Question is; who is GarlicSugar the alter ego off? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 8 hours ago, user2 said: +1 And make US tanks able to transform into robots. And ability for a tank platoon to form mega-robot! Yes, this would be huge improvement! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chudacabra Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 Maybe the game just needs some beetles? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 CM:IT - (not "Information Technology", but "Insect Takeover") 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzzleflash1990 Posted April 30, 2017 Share Posted April 30, 2017 True, @Chudacabra , the beetle factor was not been accounted for. But to be fair, the US always put 'boots on the ground' - which of course is literally the best hard counter against the beetles. I also found this leaked combat video showing US infantry supremacy against the beetles, so I am sure the Abrams are not really threatened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 (edited) This might be pertinent: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-the-us-army-plans-build-super-tank-fight-russia-china-20420 TBH it looks like the 2020 SEP v4 upgrade brings the Abrams to something rather like the game's SEP v3 APS. Edited May 1, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 It's really all a matter of tactics. Sometimes the beetle loses. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HUSKER2142 Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 GarlicSugar The reason for the high cost is its effectiveness. In CMBN german tanks are twice as expensive, I played with a rival QB. I took 5 panthers and 2 companies of panzergrenadiers, the enemy used against me 2 companies of Shermans and an infantry battalion. As a result, after losing 80% of the tanks, the enemy surrendered. I lost only 1 tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarlicSugar Posted May 1, 2017 Author Share Posted May 1, 2017 2 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said: GarlicSugar The reason for the high cost is its effectiveness. In CMBN german tanks are twice as expensive, I played with a rival QB. I took 5 panthers and 2 companies of panzergrenadiers, the enemy used against me 2 companies of Shermans and an infantry battalion. As a result, after losing 80% of the tanks, the enemy surrendered. I lost only 1 tank. Except that with the fantasy tanks the Russian get in the game, the M1 is at a qualitative disadvantage. So you get double whammy'd. You have worse tanks, and less of them. American units should be at least twice a numerous and twice as effective if were going to be realistic. M1A4 shoudl being game to balance the T-90AM. Well then you got a lucky round in that match for sure. Usually it takes at least 5 Panthers to stand a chance against a Sherman. Hitler commissioned the King Tiger specifically because the Panther was no match for the M4 most of the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarlicSugar Posted May 1, 2017 Author Share Posted May 1, 2017 On 4/30/2017 at 3:21 AM, John Kettler said: GarlicSugar, Welcome aboard! I see you beat me to it on starting the OP on the, ahem, inadequate depiction of US capabilities in the game. The wag in me very much wanted to, but I kept finding more cogent matters to discuss, admittedly while interlarding humor now and then! As for one shot kills vs Russian tanks, I believe recent work by a number of us has shown quite convincingly that a 155 mm or 152 mm direct hit by HE PD will destroy, minimum Mission Kill, any tank extant. Indeed, the Russian manufacturer, KBP, says its 122 mm Kitolov 2M laser guided HE frag shell will do the job. You may also wish to review the pricing structure for T-90AM vice M1A2 SEPV3. Am fairly certain you can't buy 10 x BMP-2M for the cost of one such Abrams, though I haven't examined this matter directly. As it is, the sheer size of forces the Russians can field is a real problem, one now considerably worsened since BFC made mixed auto cannon/ATGM armed AFVs far more likely to select Missile in an encounter with a tank. Instead of Kornets exploding in their launch tubes when the BMP-2M is obliterated after popping off a stream of 30 mm and getting a 120 mm AMP in reply, we may instead see Abrams dying in a hail of deadly LBR ATGMs. Regards, John Kettler Glad you agree! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarlicSugar Posted May 1, 2017 Author Share Posted May 1, 2017 9 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: This might be pertinent: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-the-us-army-plans-build-super-tank-fight-russia-china-20420 TBH it looks like the 2020 SEP v4 upgrade brings the Abrams to something rather like the game's SEP v3 APS. Excellent idea! This should be in game! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Steppenwulf Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 11 hours ago, GarlicSugar said: Except that with the fantasy tanks the Russian get in the game, the M1 is at a qualitative disadvantage. So you get double whammy'd. You have worse tanks, and less of them. American units should be at least twice a numerous and twice as effective if were going to be realistic. M1A4 shoudl being game to balance the T-90AM. Well then you got a lucky round in that match for sure. Usually it takes at least 5 Panthers to stand a chance against a Sherman. Hitler commissioned the King Tiger specifically because the Panther was no match for the M4 most of the time. Ha ha ha ... oh dear! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artkin Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 Didnt see that one coming! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 15 hours ago, GarlicSugar said: Usually it takes at least 5 Panthers to stand a chance against a Sherman. Hitler commissioned the King Tiger specifically because the Panther was no match for the M4 most of the time. Well that's a highly original opinion I have not previously encountered. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user2 Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 20 hours ago, GarlicSugar said: Well then you got a lucky round in that match for sure. Usually it takes at least 5 Panthers to stand a chance against a Sherman. Hitler commissioned the King Tiger specifically because the Panther was no match for the M4 most of the time. 100% true, man. 100%! Sharmans used to crush Panthers by its tracks producing terrible shreiking sound that stunned all the germans in a 5km radius! Sherman crew did not even bother wasting rounds. To reinforce its crushing capabilities evently Sherman tank recieved Duckbill Tracks that inspired horror into the souls of King Tiger commanders. h 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarre Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 can this topic close ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.