M4A3 Sherman needs a buff

[lolnon]

its just a straight up tank versus tank to determine which one is superior.

Changing the price would effect more than just tank versus tank engagements.
The Sherman seems a lot better for everything besides tank versus tank than the Pz4 G. Better armour. .50 Cal. Also, the Pz4 G is vulerable to the lightest USA at at gun decent ranges.

[penguofdoom]

Yes but if the real life mainstay of the American tank forces is priced disadvantageously than not many people will be keen to purchase it when you can buy them with hero points or just bank for the E7 for the inevitable tiger. Fast TD's dont mean much when server lag and performance affects them from actually using their speed since it slows everything down. They are expensive glass cannons that are used even less with the exception of sluggers against bigger tanks. If anything the most armor I field and others I play with field are the hero point Sherman or bank for something useful like Jumbo or M5 AT Gun. The Americans have no holding power without a cheap tank that you can field easily and not except much out of but to hold its ground while you save points.

[Spoletta]

Just saying , but if of all the people here there has not been a single one that agrees with you, then maybe that you are wrong.

I really like USA, they are my favorite faction to play together with japan, and let me tell you that a well armored, well armed, fast and accurate on the move tank like that is good at that price. Still i prefer the Chaffe, but that's for another reason.

The staying power of the USA is in 1 key element: infantry. Mostly saturated with bazookas.
USA are not designed to get staying power from tanks, like the germans or japanise.
The only ones that can do that are Commonwealth and Soviets thanks to the KV1 and the churchill classes.

That question aside, but do you understand that its thanks to infinite patience of this community that you are still on this forum? Your posts are in violation of at least 50% of the forum rules. It would be better if you now calm down a bit, and perhaps say sorry for your personal attacks.

@Retia: Don't worry, your avatar is great

Edit: Wow i even got a -rep for this, really mature.

[Ritterlichvon86]

I gave you the note that you might want to behave yourself better penguofdoom - people would not be so reluctant to really read and take your arguments for full, it would have helped your cause -

- instead you minus-rep me?

Do you have ANY social skills left in you? Do you really think that convinced anyone of your POV.

[tanksnotdead]

It would be nice to upgun the G, H, Marder, PaK40, and Hetzer to StuG III standards; they all used practically the same gun(75mm guns L43, L46, and and L48 with reduced charge performed more or less the same), so its funny to see Hetzer massively underperforming the StuG. It would be a crazy ass thing to do, but i would love to see penguofdoom rage.

"its just a straight up tank versus tank to determine which one is superior"
Thats a cup full of fail right there. So the KV-85 is kind of a low budget soviet Tiger after the buff, then lets decrease the price of the PzKpfw VI to match that right?

And it dont know why he is comparing it to the G. Normally people avoid the G because its not strong in anything: its not as good against emplacements and inf as the F1, its bigger and more expensive than a PzIIIJ against inf and small targets, and its _much_ worse against medium armor than an H.

Besides yanks already got a cheap Sherman, the M3. Ok it sucks at flanking, but its cheap, and has a M4 standard gun and armor, besides many people use tanks as assault guns anyway.

[Dilust]

It seems that certain people are unable to discuss in a polite way. Another thread locked and ruined.