I think several extra units are needed to balance the sides

[baron]

there are several units I think the USA should have added so as to compare to the UK and German sides.

I think the USA needs a large AT/AA weapon.
I think this one would be acceptable and period correct.

90mm M2
basically the same gun as in the Slugger and Pershing. but the stand alone AA/AT variant.

filling the same role as the 3.7" for the brits and flak 37 for the germans.
a big difference from the tank versions is that the AA/AT version was capable of 24 rounds per min, meaning it reloads in under 3 seconds.

The M1 155mm 'long tom' could also fill this role, it was capable of firing the M112 AP rounds for about 150mm penetration @ 30 degrees @ 1km range.
it was said to be quite accurate too.

the longtom was also fitted as a SPG, this could fill the role of heavy mobile artillery that the USA currently does not have. [like the hummel]
or the M112 155mm could fill that role and the M40 long tom could be used as the USA special unit instead of the 2 shermans maybe.

another alternative could be to make the Sherman 105 available, as well as being a 105mm howitzer it was also issued with the 105mm HEAT rounds which could penetrate 102mm of armour at any range.


now the UK I think lacks a light artillery/plunging fire option, such as the other nations have in the form of the M8 Scott, PZIV-E and BT7a.
I have read that it was possible to use the spigot [P.I.A.T] as a light 'mortar', since with sufficient angle it was possible to attain a range of 600 yards.
perhaps we could give the PIAT a range of about 80-90 [since we know that infantry have a different scale to vehicles] and allow it to be employed as a hand-mortar?
the brits don't seem to have much in the way of low velocity 60-80mm weapons, the main one they have is the 25pdr, but the bishop is not comparable in price to an M8 scott .etc.

I think the comet would be a great idea, particularly if it came with a limited supply of APDS ammo.

[PlusPatton]

I don't think factions should have 1 to 1 unit lists. I'm not asking for it but if the devs include it, it's no problem to me.

[Ludovsky]

Actually, historically the british army had "close support" (C.S.) variants for most if not all of their tanks. Most notable would be the C.S. variant of both the Centaur("early cromwells" in a way) and Churchills, which saw both tanks in such variant equipped with a short barelled 95mm howitzer in a turret.

Considering both field respectively medium and heavy armor, these could actually make for actually half-decent "artillery tanks".

In fact, for a list of C.S. tanks and other similar with artillery like weaponry:

* Matilda II Close Support (CS)
Variant with QF 3 inch (76 mm) [nb 4] howitzer firing smoke shells.[7][34]

* Matilda Hedgehog (6)
A naval Hedgehog 7-barrel spigot mortar was mounted in an armoured box on the rear hull of several Australian Matilda tanks. The mortars were hydraulically elevated and electrically fired either individually or in a salvo of six, the fifth tube could not be fired until the turret was traversed to move the radio antenna out of the bomb's flightpath. Each bomb weighed 65 lb (29 kg) and contained 30 to 35 lb (14 to 16 kg) of high explosive, the range of the bombs was up to 400 metres and aiming accomplished by pointing the entire tank as the mortars had no traverse independent of the hull of the tank.[35]

*Crusader I CS (Cruiser Mk VI CS) (Close Support) mounted a 3 inch howitzer in the turret instead of the 2-pounder.

*Crusader II CS (Cruiser Mk VIA CS) mounted a 3 inch howitzer in the turret.

*Centaur IV
Centaur armed with a 95 mm howitzer (with 51 rounds of ammunition). This is the only version of the Centaur known to have seen combat, in service with the Royal Marines Armoured Support Group. The vehicles were fitted with wading gear to get them ashore. Trunking waterproofed the engine inlets and covers were fitted to the guns. 114 produced.[4]

*Cromwell VI
Cromwell armed with 95 mm howitzer. 341 produced

*Churchill Mk V (241)
A Churchill III / IV which was equipped with a close support 95 mm howitzer in place of the main gun (47 rounds).

*Churchill Mk VIII
A Churchill VII which replaced the main gun with a 95 mm howitzer (47 rounds).

[baron]

I'd forgot about those, just couldn't think of them at all yesterday, cheers.

[General FLEISH]

So basicially you are complaining because not all factions are the same? Where would the Varity go if they where? I think it's fine as it is, each nation has its strengh (exept germany, because they gave every other nation a super heavy, too)

When you are complaining about the US being too weak, did you even think about the special units the US have? Which Nation has a similiar weopon as the twin 40mm bofors rapidfire kill everything m19? Or in AS even the no-reload-rapidfire-singlebofors. Or a medium Tank with a formidable multiple rocketlauncher mounted on it. A hard to hit, espeacially for germans, without an aa gun, armoured jeep with two bazookas capable of destroying even the heaviest of tanks?

Btw I dont mean this stuff is imba, its just the strength of the us. You have to use the advanteages tactically, where would the tactic go, if everyone has the same?

[baron]

you mean the nerfed m19? slower and less penetration then IRL?
the bofors with even less penetration then the nerfed m19 bofors [which after posting about instinct has indicated he will check it?
you mean the calliope which is the weakest of all the rockets, unable 99 times out of 100 to kill medium and heavier tanks?
the jeep which the crew is easily killed from the front even by rifles?

after 1200+ games I'm fairly familiar with the units in game and the strategies involved therein.

I'm not suggesting mythical or prototype units, I'm suggesting units that are realistic.
In fact I'd be fine with such units being removed, they are for the most part useless anyway.
also I was not complaining.
I also don't recall asking for some troll reply.
you're welcome to reply with a contrary opinion, but there is not need to be inflammatory by calling people with feedback and suggestions 'complainers'.

I have in no way suggested all factions be 1 for 1 with units, if I was suggesting that I'd be listing a lot more, such as giving the UK and German the bofors as well since they had them.however, if 2 sides are going to have a powerful 160 range AT gun then it seems logical to give the other side a historically realistic one of their own.

if a side had a decent range of CS tanks, why not include a representative selection in the game?

[Zeke Wolff]

you mean the calliope which is the weakest of all the rockets, unable 99 times out of 100 to kill medium and heavier tanks?

And... this is the real thing - these rocket artillery SP vehicles weren´t designed to knock out tanks, but infantry and other light armored and softskinned vehicles, ie. the same purpose as the German Neberwerfers and Russian Katyusha rocket variants. None of these vehicles neither had the accuracy good enough to pinpoint a tank, nor the capability to knock them out (of course exceptions to this did occur).

the jeep which the crew is easily killed from the front even by rifles?

But instead it has speed, a good machine gun and it wasn´t used as a assault vehicle, but a recon vehicle and their purpose is to see, and not to be seen. If they have to use their armament they have simply failed in their assigned mission. Same thing goes for the German Sd.Kfz. 222 and Sd.Kfz. 234 "Puma", they were both designed as recon vehicles fight relied on speed but had automatic 20mm guns and 5cm main cannons IF they had to fight their way back to their own lines.

~Zeke.

[baron]

I wasn't commenting on the their real life purpose, just pointing out that they aren't anything particularly special in-game.
a twink bazooka jeep isn't a reason for not introducing a 160 range AT gun for the only faction that currently does not have one.
equally a Calliope sherman is not a good reason to also not have a realistic SP 155mm artillery such as the M12 155mm.

it'd be like trying to reason that because the germans have a PZIV-E that they don't need a panzerwerfer, it'd make no sense because they perform different roles in-game.

I also don't think there is any reason to not include 1 or 2 more CS tanks for the british at around the same cost as the M8 scott, PZIV-E or BT7a.

[Ludovsky]

actually, I wouldn't neccessarily make them the same cost. Most of the close-support tanks were medium or heavy chassis with the armor that came with it, so they might be costier.

But the presence of such "armored close support" tanks actually could become a british staple, whilst correcting the fact that, currently, british are without a tank actually capable to provide any sort of proper High Explosive "close support" roles, for the exception of the sherman, since most of their early or midgames vehicles fields only 2 or 6 pounders in general, which have a very low caliber of HE.

[baron]

well I don't mean the exact same cost, but starting in that region as opposed to now where the best option is a bishop which is somewhat more expensive.