Christian_Dodge

I just don't understand why America keeps losing! Although I would say the M2 Carbine does legitimately need a revamp, especially now. Other than the lack of an assault rifle-type weapon, America is honestly fine.

Yes! This alliance needs to make a comeback to put the krauts in their place once more!

You see no problem with the fact the DT-29 has a higher magazine capacity (as much as >3x!), similar (M1941) to better (MG-34) general raw stats than all the other LMGs of comparable tier? Then you've got the Maxim, which is just a 100 round M1919 (i.e. also better, and the M1919 is already quite good). Of course the DT-29 even has more magazine capacity than even the M1919, while offering similar statistics to even the M1919 too.

The MP-40 is behind in the one area SMGs matter, close quarters combat performance. The Thompson is the better performer in those regards, even better than the M2 Carbine. The M2 Carbine looks nice on paper, 1,004 RPM and seemingly decent damage, but then you realize two key efficiencies: lack of damage and controllability. The Thompson will kill someone in an entire bullet less than the M2 Carbine, alone making it the faster time-to-kill weapon due to its rate of fire not being that much worse. On top of that, both feature 30 round magazines, meaning the Thompson also has more killing power before needing to reload. Meaning the M2 Carbine (five shots to kill) can only kill six enemies, while the Thompson (four shots to kill) can kill seven and a half, almost two enemies more! So, the Thompson alone is way superior than the dumpster fire that is the M2 Carbine. At ranged combat, the M2 Carbine in theory is better, but it's just that, a theory. The M2 Carbine's parkinson-like sway makes it unusable outside close quarters combat. "Just use Tight Grip Gold," well yeah, but the Thompson doesn't need that and handles just as well, although lacking the damage retention abilities of the M2 Carbine, which aren't that great anyway. Oh yeah, and the MP-40 kills in the same amount of bullets, albeit boasting superior ranged damage, as a Thompson with the highest damage ammunition, while the Thompson also boasts a superior rate of fire. So the MP-40 is better at ranged combat (but why ever even consider taking a MP-40 when you can just take a StG-44), while the Thompson is better at the one area submachine guns are supposed to be used in. I agree with the fact a modded AVS-36 is better in raw statistics than a StG-44 (and miles ahead of the PoS M2 Carbine), I would like to say a stock, "captured" AVS-36 is actually inferior than a stock, "captured" StG-44. Both kill in the same amount of bullets, four shots to kill. The StG-44 has twice the magazine capacity, while only having 100 RPM less. That is a very small tradeoff for twice the magazine capacity. I'd even argue the StG-44 has superior iron sights too, and also still has superior recoil. Just wanted to add this because a "captured" StG-44 is better than a "captured" AVS-36.

Reto never fails to impress. M2 Carbine was just too good, I guess. Because now it's just extra useless. "Don't mod it to full RPM," well the thing is, you have to to make it competitive, due to how many bullets (five bullets via torso shots, or two bullets via headshot damage with upgraded ammo) you need to kill someone. But hey, StG 44 is still top tier at least. StG 44 was the one that truly needed almost nothing done to it, and the big bad M2 Carbine needed that nerf oh-so badly. Honestly, this change is so out-of-touch, it really makes me wonder if Reto is purposely trying to kill their own game.

Talking about M1A1 Thompson skins... where's this?

Can we also talk about the Moscow server too? God that one sucks.

Yeah basically. But I recalled there being a tank cannon penetration thread somewhere, and this game for sure does not go by real penetration standards. Yes, it was designed to assault positions that a normally armored Sherman would have great difficulty doing. But just because it is an up armored tank for assaulting positions, doesn't make it a "assault tank" by classification. The United States went by weight classification. Hence why the T26E3, the war-time designation for the M26 Pershing for almost the whole war, was called a heavy tank, as it was above 40.0 tons. It's also why the US considered the Panther a heavy tank too. The Jumbo Sherman is below that weight category, classing it as a medium tank. Do note that that's the Post-War weight classes, since the M26 Pershing is a medium by that system. Going by real life armor values, the Panther's hull is actually better protected too, by a few millimeters. Panther's mantlet armor is quite tricky to calculate, but the Jumbo is vastly superior in that category. Side armor, Jumbo wins too. Although the lower part of the side armor, the area where the tracks are, still has the "weak" 38.1mm of side armor of the M4A3 Shermans. We should be going by balance, not by "American terms." In a 1-on-1, both would need to aim for weak spots (albeit adjusted for balancing), rather than lolpenning the entire "top tier" M4A3E8 Sherman. Reto-Moto legitimately think it is a heavy tank too. So it's not just an assault team problem. Otherwise the Panther could've easily been a heavy tank too.

Currently, it is designated as a heavy tank. A fairly common misconception, but the M4A3E2 is not a heavy tank, nor this mystical "assault tank" designation. "Assault tank" as a designation did not exist for the United States military. It was part of the vehicle's name/actual usage, but it was not the tank's classification. In fact, this "heavy tank" is lighter than even the lightest version of the Panzerkampfwagen V "Panther" tanks.

Just for perspective: Infantry Armor Aircraft The infantry gap is pretty massive, on average.

Alright, so the M3 Lee is actually General Robert E. Lee raised from the dead too, right? It is not part of the classification, but you're choosing to ignore that fact I guess, despite that naming scheme matching other vehicles too. Name ≠ vehicle class. I never said it was important. I've posted a thread about the "M1/M2 Carbine" being a designation as wrong too, which changes nothing but the name of the weapon. But honestly, a adjusted M4A3E2 (76mm, or even 75mm) would actually be way more balanced than a M4A3E8 fighting a Panther. Adjusted, as in nerfed armor protection (to better balance it against other mediums). It would also be correct in the designation sense too, because "muh German designation" on the Panther, despite having the armor of a heavy tank. I just want consistency. Panther is a medium by classification. It is a medium tank thanks to that. The Jumbo Sherman is a medium by classification. It is a heavy due to it's armor, despite the fact the Panther also has very comparable armor. That, and the fact that this forum is actually for: It's a historical inaccuracy, so I posted this to show that fact. I don't expect anything to get done about it, as there's actually no problem with the Jumbo Sherman being in the heavy class itself thanks to the massive artificial buff it has, which I think is ridiculous, but whatever.

I hope I made it easier for you to read, grabbed the most obvious part of all of it. Or is the Tiger not really a tank, but an animal? I mean, Tiger is in its name after all. Is the M1A1 Heavy Armor Abrams actually a heavy tank? It has heavy in the name!

It's not called: Tank, Assault, M4A3E2 (75-mm Gun, Wet). It's called Tank, Medium, M4A3E2 (75-mm Gun, Wet) Assault. It is a tank, of the medium tank classification, and it's name is the M4A3E2 (75-mm Gun, Wet) Assault. For example: In fact, from one of the sources I listed originally: "Assault" is just part of the name of the vehicle, not the vehicle's classification. It's like if the M3 Lee was named M3 Assault Tank or something.

I'd prefer not having a tier 1.5 submachine gun, but rather a "true" assault rifle. Be it through the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, or the M2 Carbine. I'd prefer the M2 Carbine personally, since it's already supposed to be the Sturmgewehr 44/AVS-36 counterpart. M2 Carbine adjustments (current → adjusted) • Rate of fire (minimum / maximum) 667 RPM / 1,004 RPM → 500 RPM / 600 RPM • Damage A garbage submachine gun → assault rifle (four hit kill against heavyset gold via torso shots, at extended ranges) • Reload rate 3.0 seconds → 3.2 seconds • Accuracy Tier 1.5 submachine gun → assault rifle (identical to the Sturmgewehr 44) • Recoil/controllability All over the place → assault rifle (extremely easy to control, identical to the Sturmgewehr 44) "But in real life..." but this game has zero semblance of reality at all at this point. MP-40's 9mm doing more damage than a Thompson's .45 ACP. The garbage rod (Mosin-Nagant rifle) does more damage (for recon) than the M2HB heavy machine gun. AVS-36 is more controllable than the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, despite being extremely similar. Someone with heavyset gold can survive a .30 Carbine cartridge to the head and be fine. I can go on and on, but I think I got my point across. But hey, if we do go for a more realistic approach for everything, then I'd be all for it (standardizing damage per bullet/shell, recoil, etc).

M18 Recoilless Rifle also should have a reflector sight. Yet it doesn't.

Funnily enough, Reto originally were going to give the US the T18E2 Boarhound, much more in line with other top tier armored cars. Then for whatever reason, the T8E1 Reece was chosen over it, for some odd reason. I also find it odd how a vehicle that clearly is not water tight (MG port most notably) is amphibious (T8E1).

Want to capture a vehicle? Go grab one from an enemy. Hopefully the whole captured vehicles system is scrapped, just like those masks that have been on-hold for forever (thankfully).

It's so wrong, it's a shame because in real life the M26 Pershing actually looks like a pretty nice tank, completely opposite of what is portrayed in-game.

M2 Carbine has always had awful damage. Fun fact: it is the only weapon (at least used to be, might've changed now - excluding other US Carbine variants) that cannot one shot kill via headshot if someone has heavyset equipped.

The designation "M1/M2 Carbine" simply does not exist. The "M1/M2 Carbine" in-game should be renamed to just "M2 Carbine." Exhibit of Recently Developed Ordnance Material, dated April 1945

Why do people play Heroes and Generals? The FPS? Well, there's already plenty of better ones out there (i.e. Battlefield, CoD). Maybe RTS? Again, better ones already exist (i.e. Company of Heroes, Hearts of Iron). How about the fact that RTS effects FPS (resources in a battle, asymmetrical based on what players put in) and vice versa? That's unique, that's where Heroes and Generals strives. When was the last FPS update? Fairly recently, adding heavy tank destroyers (and a bunch of other changes/additions even earlier). When was the last RTS update? Years maybe? RTS needs revision to keep it up-to-date with the ever changing FPS. Other than a few minor quality of life changes, nothing's really changed much about it. The last "big" update was probably the faction resources system. Heroes and Generals, while being a FPS game (which is the only thing that seems to be updated/supported), needs to rely on the RTS elements too, otherwise the lackluster FPS (Battlefield and CoD offer better FPS gameplay overall) combined with a barely supported RTS (Company of Heroes and Hearts of Iron are miles ahead of H&G too) is just a recipe for disaster. I'm not saying cut all support on FPS in favor of RTS, but maybe shift a lot more support towards the RTS part of the game and improve it.

The Jagdpanther, M36, and SU-100 for now, at least according to this post.

I think adding a third vehicle (just for the US), the Carriage, Motor, 57-mm Gun, T48, would be a good idea (rather than replacing the iconic 75mm M3 GMC). Replacing the 75mm M3 GMC with the 57mm T48 GMC would work too though. Standard Military Motor Vehicles, dated September 1, 1943: Despite my source claiming it was "None (British only)" for the designation, remember this is a 1943 document, and the United States did begin to retrofit M3A1 half-tracks as T48 GMCs in 1944 (although only one was actually integrated into US service). It would give the United States an anti-tank gun comparable in terms of penetration compared to the German 75mm and Soviet 57mm. Despite the T-designation, almost a thousand were built (primarily sent to other Allies, like the Soviets and British). I know Wikipedia isn't the best source, but for just production numbers it should be fine. Another with comparable armor penetrating performance could be the Carriage, Motor, 105mm Howitzer, T19, which could penetrate 127mm-137mm with the 105-mm M67 HEAT shell. 324 were produced in total. German 75mm (Sd. Kfz. 251/22) APCBC - 147mm @ 10m at 0-degrees APCR - 197mm @ 10m at 0-degrees HEAT - 80mm at all ranges at 0-degrees Soviet 57mm (ZIS-30) APHEBC - 121mm @ 10m at 0-degrees APHE - 135mm @ 10m at 0-degrees US 75mm M1897A4 (M3 GMC, supposedly could not physically fire HVAP/APCR as the barrel could not handle it) M61 shot (APCBC) - 88mm @ 10m at 0-degrees M72 shot (AP) - 108mm @ 10m at 0-degrees US 57mm (T48 GMC) M70 shot (AP) - 129mm @ 10m at 0-degrees M86 shot (APCBC) - 111mm @ 10m at 0-degrees APDS (British use only) - ~177mm @ 100m at 0-degree

The problem is, that even if it is a modified M1 Carbine, then it's redesignated a M2 Carbine. "M1/M2 Carbine" is a completely fictional designation, even if it is a converted M1 Carbine.

I am. Catalog of Enemy Ordnance Material, dated 1945 The only 8.8cm rocket listed under "Rocket Ammunition" is just the high explosive anti-tank rocket (and nothing about 8.8cm high explosive/"special" rockets are listed anywhere either). To the German's credit, high explosive anti-tank munitions were quite multipurpose (modern tanks like the M1 Abrams use HEAT-MP, which is quite literally "high explosive anti-tank multipurpose"), sure they weren't as good as normal high explosive rockets, but they were still quite good, hence the "high-explosive" in high explosive anti-tank. Only real downside would be the lack of smoke, but that probably won't even be present on the things that could fire it.