Riflemen and M1919.

If Axis elite infantry were nerfed then Allied elite infantry would certainly need the same axe to befall them.

All elite infantry have ridiculous DPS. A single Thompson Paras/Rangers or Shocks beating 2 Axis squads is the norm, while Commandos need to ambush to pull that off.

Elite infantry need that superior cost-effectiveness because they usually have no snares/utility and come out much later versus already vetted and/or upgraded mainline infantry. They also have smaller windows of effectiveness because light vehicles are already hitting the field and medium vehicles will follow soon after.

The reason you think only Axis elite infantry have super-high dps is that you only play Allies/USF.

Obers and Panzergrens out class Riflemen but what do all three of these units have in common? They're all non-doctrinal units. So you have standard Axis units that will outpreform USF units despite the claim "Allies (especially USF) have better infantry". So the truth is USF doesn't actually have better infantry at all. The only exception is doctrinal Paratroopers, I don't think there is a better infantry unit in the game but that's limited to Airborne or Recon.

Obers and Panzergrens out class Riflemen but what do all three of these units have in common? They're all non-doctrinal units. So you have standard Axis units that will outpreform USF units despite the claim "Allies (especially USF) have better infantry". So the truth is USF doesn't actually have better infantry at all. The only exception is doctrinal Paratroopers, I don't think there is a better infantry unit in the game but that's limited to Airborne or Recon.

I have to admit that this is one of the rare times you're making a valid point, albeit tangentially.

It is something I really hope to see for greater balance - that all factions have access to important strategic tools non-doctrinally. Flamers, indirect fire and rocket artillery are all important tools that have been locked behind doctrines for the sake of "faction flavour".

The reason you think only Axis elite infantry have super-high dps is that you only play Allies/USF.

My comment really wasn't so much about elite infantry, as it is infantry as a whole. Have you seen the damage a vet3 ost grenadier can do to a full health retreating squad? The units are effective at all ranges. The fact that a pgren doesn't do a 2 second wipe at long range doesn't mean it's innefective at long range. Pio's are innefective at range. Rear Echelon are innefective at ANY range. Does it take 2000 axis games to understand this? It must not since that's the best rebuttal is to attack me.

Obers and Panzergrens out class Riflemen but what do all three of these units have in common? They're all non-doctrinal units. So you have standard Axis units that will outpreform USF units despite the claim "Allies (especially USF) have better infantry". So the truth is USF doesn't actually have better infantry at all. The only exception is doctrinal Paratroopers, I don't think there is a better infantry unit in the game but that's limited to Airborne or Recon.

The fact that you are comparing Maine-line inf to semi-elite ones, which are not awalable strate off the bat and cost more and by the time they come there're LVs and vetted inf to fight against. Does this bothering you or you have US flag over your eyes? I know it's the second but I'm just curious.

My comment really wasn't so much about elite infantry, as it is infantry as a whole. Have you seen the damage a vet3 ost grenadier can do to a full health retreating squad? The units are effective at all ranges. The fact that a pgren doesn't do a 2 second wipe at long range doesn't mean it's innefective at long range. Pio's are innefective at range. Rear Echelon are innefective at ANY range. Does it take 2000 axis games to understand this? It must not since that's the best rebuttal is to attack me.

You might know your allied units but don't pretend to know how Axis ones work because almost all of that was pretty bad.

I have to admit that this is one of the rare times you're making a valid point, albeit tangentially.

It is something I really hope to see for greater balance - that all factions have access to important strategic tools non-doctrinally. Flamers, indirect fire and rocket artillery are all important tools that have been locked behind doctrines for the sake of "faction flavour".

The fact that double BAR rifles exist kind of cancels this out though. They'll stand a decent chance against pgrens and obers and there should be a lot more of them in the lategame.

Also HE sherman exists.

The fact that double BAR rifles exist kind of cancels this out though. They'll stand a decent chance against pgrens and obers and there should be a lot more of them in the lategame.

Also HE sherman exists.

Valid, but having to pay 120mu for a decent chance is inefficient. HE rounds are so RNG. You have to get lucky and you have to make sure there is no obstructions between the Sherman and target. HE rounds will always hit the obstruction instead of the target if so. The accuracy/scatter of HE rounds is so bad, sometimes you can be sitting there firing for half a minute before getting that lucky shot. Most opponents I face aren't bothered by it, until that lucky shot happens.

The sloppy play axis efficiency affords players in larger team games is a joke. It's not even fun for me to play axis. I have to play against an allied team way over my skill to sweat as axis. Why are axis infantry lobbing bundle grenades as far as other units are lobbing smaller grenades? The extra explosives must be heavier. Satchels and gammon's aren't being thrown so far.

The accuracy/scatter of HE rounds is so bad

The Sherman HE shell has 6 scatter angle and 5.5 scatter max, which is actually significantly better than comparable units like the OST Panzer IV (7.5/6.4), T-34/76 (7.5/6.9) or Cromwell (7.5/6.4) and on par with the OKW Panzer IV (6.5/5.54), but all of these have vastly inferior AOE values. Without going into detail of how scatter works, in short, the lower these numbers the better.

There is also no statistical basis for your claims that Axis infantry has better DPS/accuracy or that they are effective at all ranges. Generally speaking Allied (mainline) infantry (except Cons) is statistically better across the board, although also more expensive to build and to fully upgrade.

My comment really wasn't so much about elite infantry, as it is infantry as a whole. Have you seen the damage a vet3 ost grenadier can do to a full health retreating squad? The units are effective at all ranges. The fact that a pgren doesn't do a 2 second wipe at long range doesn't mean it's innefective at long range. Pio's are innefective at range. Rear Echelon are innefective at ANY range. Does it take 2000 axis games to understand this? It must not since that's the best rebuttal is to attack me.

Erm, have you seen the damage a Vet 3 Double BAR rifle can do to retreating squads?

If you play only USF, you will mistakenly think Axis infantry are better. This is basically a CODGUY situation - only ever playing one faction so you have wildly flawed evaluations of actual unit performance. Just look up the actual unit/weapon stats and you'll realise you're dead wrong.

If you play all 5 factions (or at least both sides), you will understand that Grenadiers are pretty terrible, and widely regarded as the worst mainline right now. They're not "effective at all ranges" since they are rubbish close range and the only infantry they trade decently with are pre-7 man Cons.

Valid, but having to pay 120mu for a decent chance is inefficient.

Obers costs 80 ammo + a lot of MP, are late game and have no snare. Having more than a decent chance with Rifles against them would be more than unfair

Valid, but having to pay 120mu for a decent chance is inefficient. HE rounds are so RNG. You have to get lucky and you have to make sure there is no obstructions between the Sherman and target. HE rounds will always hit the obstruction instead of the target if so. The accuracy/scatter of HE rounds is so bad, sometimes you can be sitting there firing for half a minute before getting that lucky shot. Most opponents I face aren't bothered by it, until that lucky shot happens.

The sloppy play axis efficiency affords players in larger team games is a joke. It's not even fun for me to play axis. I have to play against an allied team way over my skill to sweat as axis. Why are axis infantry lobbing bundle grenades as far as other units are lobbing smaller grenades? The extra explosives must be heavier. Satchels and gammon's aren't being thrown so far.

I mean that's the price you pay for having a mainline infantry squad that you've had since minute zero and has snares as well be able to go toe to toe with anti-infantry elite infantry.

Sherman HE is easily the best anti-infantry medium round in the game.

ive suggested it in the past, but what about looking again at the relationship of rifles and BARs?

BARs are mostly there to help rifles scale and double armed rifles take the mantle of elite infantry... what about embracing that a bit more?

reduce rifles to 1 weapon slot

buff BARs tlightly so that they perform more like a 60mu upgrade that has a unlock cost as well

this makes rifles better at the 280mp/60mu pricepoint than currently

unlock 2nd weapon slot with some other gate, be it vet or full tech
this enables vetted rifles to act more like lite elite troops when heavily invested in WITHOUT early game snowballing

the result is that they are more cost efficient, but full power is delayed so that other abilities like nades, mines, HVAP ECT is more accessible and making rifles "elite" is more of a conscious choice than "hand out BARs like oprah as soon as you can afford it so they generate value ASAP"

basically higher ceiling, but with taller walls.

officers retain their 2 slots to keep them unique and their impact centralized

Obers costs 80 ammo + a lot of MP, are late game and have no snare. Having more than a decent chance with Rifles against them would be more than unfair

That is true. But they do reward you for their cost. Unless it's 2v1 scenario with upgraded infantry, you really want to be using tanks vs obers (no snare as you said).

Rifles are a great infantry that scales well into the late game if you preserve them with BARs. The usual starting 3 rifles into captain/lieutenant gives you 4 infantry squads. Upgrading them is costly but effective if you keep them alive. I mean, as a general rule you want to fight elite infantry with AI vehicles and mainline infantry with your mainline. Obers and falls don't have snares but cut through infantry like hot knife through butter...buuuut no snare so they need to be supported with AT.... the asymmetric balance works here and rifles are completely okay.

The higher ceiling with taller walls can go either way.

The statistical base of the HE round being the best doesn't matter, because other units are still effective enough. It's like the income struggle between having 1 million dollars and 1.5 million, it doesn't really change much, you can still afford nice things. The stats to me are secondary to experience. Not my experience. The shared experience among everyone of what does and does not happen in the live game. When all variables are taken into account. I have played axis. It's extremely easy to beat most people in team games. In 1v1 it's a bit different since there is more territory per person to watch over. The difference in impact between the arrival of a pIV and the arrival of a Sherman HE into an infantry area is night and day. unprepared axis will try to faust the sherman to death. Unprepared allies can try to use snares like that, but usually are forced into retreat before that happens. I'm talking just 1 tank. I'm not gonna go spending hours trying to dig out a statistical explanation, but there is an experience difference in impact. When I play axis, I'm really not that intimidated by a sherman. I'm not very intimidated by rifles either. artillery and big soviet tanks tend to be the greater threat. I can hold an entire infantry advance back with as little as a brumbar or piv. The weapons are so effective it's really easy against most. One of the biggest tells of this is the morale. Allied players quit so fast, but people are far more willing to stick through a difficult axis battle.

....

You're arguing the "feels" rather then arguing observable efficacy. Some people crap their pants when an axis player drops a tiger into the match, decent players have already gotten a tank destroyer in preparation.
Your feels are not relevant to balance unless you can show what you are feeling has relevancy to balance and isn't just dunning Kruger syndrome. Stats go a long way to giving validity to your claims.

experience is not feels. When you have a panzerIV come clear a position out in 15 seconds vs sherman he getting chased away with less than half health form fausts, it's a big difference. It's not feels, it happens. There isn't anything wrong so much with the p4, but it's gen purpose rounds do the same work the HE rounds do, I'd argue better, but at least equal. It's not something made up, it's observable.

experience is not feels. When you have a panzerIV come clear a position out in 15 seconds vs sherman he getting chased away with less than half health form fausts, it's a big difference. It's not feels, it happens. There isn't anything wrong so much with the p4, but it's gen purpose rounds do the same work the HE rounds do, I'd argue better, but at least equal. It's not something made up, it's observable.

Well my experience does not line up with yours. In my experience, a sherman with HE rounds will clear out a squad of infantry a fair bit faster then a panzer 4 on average. Both of us cant be right. So how do we determine which is more accurate?


Simultaneously I could argue from "experience" that the T-34/76 seems to penetrate the tiger 50% of the time from the front. It may very well be the case that in a a couple memorable games, T-34/76 got lucky penetrations, but this is a statistical outlier not the norm regardless of my "experience".

experience is not feels. When you have a panzerIV come clear a position out in 15 seconds vs sherman he getting chased away with less than half health form fausts, it's a big difference. It's not feels, it happens. There isn't anything wrong so much with the p4, but it's gen purpose rounds do the same work the HE rounds do, I'd argue better, but at least equal. It's not something made up, it's observable.

You just had one of the lead balance members literally tell you the stats and you're instead telling us that he's wrong because you don't believe him because experience and that you back off after 3-4 fausts (how the fuck?) and that what you see isn't made up.

Incredible. Sort of sad, but incredible.

experience is not feels. When you have a panzerIV come clear a position out in 15 seconds vs sherman he getting chased away with less than half health form fausts, it's a big difference. It's not feels, it happens. There isn't anything wrong so much with the p4, but it's gen purpose rounds do the same work the HE rounds do, I'd argue better, but at least equal. It's not something made up, it's observable.

HE Sherman has an AOE of 4.0. P4 has an AOE of 2.5. It's literally impossible to pretend that the HE Sherman doesn't have the best anti-infantry shell amongst the generalist mediums.

Your "experiences" are basically just super biased, cherry-picked anecdotes which do not conform to observable reality.


An Axis-only player could argue like you and say "Obers die really fast to small-arms fire, their RA is crap and they don't do well vs infantry, they should only cost 300mp with 30mp reinforce". Yeah that's basically how you sound to everyone who actually understands the game mechanics.


Bonus pt: If you're getting fausted 4 or 5 times with a Sherman, you would have gotten AT naded 4 or 5 times with a P4. P4s don't have special anti-snare prevention.

How does the statistic translate in-game? Because here again nickpicking one stat to define a unit doesn't really show anything.
The pz4 is good vs infantry, the sherman HE is better indeed but it doesn't matter for the pz4? It remains good vs infantry.

So for having a better than good tank vs infantry, what counter-parts are there, because if statistic help understand the funcion of a unit, it matter much less in game once all pieces are on the table.

Let's take an example here, the PUMA is bad vs infantry as per its stat but what if there are no counter available to it or no other unit equal to it for the next 10 minutes to be build. Wouldn't you build it everytime to fight infantry? No counter, nothing can harm it, stat wouldn't matter at all here unless you remove entirely its MGs.

Let's take another example, what is better between having a better than good AI tank but no AT support available to defend it or a simple good AI tank but enough AT support around it to make it uncontested where it stand.

So to come back to the Pz4 vs ShermanHE, the comparison isn't really about stat because both units are good vs infantry in the same way but how is supposely established the situation in the game the moment they hit the field. A shermanHE that hit the field facing a dual pak40 or dual raketen isn't going to be as effective as a Pz4 that face a single stuart. Does the extra AI damage compensate it?
And then here again there are so much more variables to be taken in account, the infantry around, other support weapons etc...

----

About the riflemen, vet3 riflemen with dual BAR is an accomplishment that usually come on the late game. I don't think obers are an issue anymore but pzgren that comes before you can even equip 1 BAR on one of your squad is an offender for the balance.
The ostheer can have 1 gren with LMG (which is superior to vanilla rifle) or 1 pioFLT and a PZgren before you can equip a first BAR. That's a problem imo.