General USF ineffective weapons

I'm going to attach what I believe is the poster child of my position of this argument. Several units within the USF arsenal are just really ineffective. usually requiring what I consider to be a crutch in order to become effective. I've been playing this game since release, I've seen all the patches. Most of the nerfs over time could be tolerated and some were really necessary (the initial aaht was a monster).

I suppose for now I want to draw attention to rear echelon the most, but it's not just them. In the attached game I got a pretty decent flank with initial troops. Rifle men got suppressed at long range and rear echelon flanked mg42. I left them at mid range where USF is supposed to be very effective, plus the mg crew has close range weapons. It took the rear echelon so damned long that the supporting Grenadiers who initially went to take out the rifles where able to force off the rifles and then come finish off the RE, who of course died on retreat lmao.

How do you get a flank on a weapon team and be so ineffective to shoot dudes in the back that the whole squad dies on retreat?! Asymmetric balance right? That's been the key buzzword for COH longer than many of you have even known of this game. However, that meant different things throughout time. This is just asymmetric. It's not balanced. One of the fundamental principles of COH, COH2, war games, war in general, is that flanking an opponent tends to be devastating. This isn't a unique occurrence, I play a lot of USF, it happens a lot. The reason it isn't balanced, is because the opposite situation, however you set it up, never plays out like that. Whether you use okw or wm, if you flank a .50 or any other allied MG, even with a lowly pioneer squad, you're going to have devastating results and you will win, fairly quickly too. The problem isn't that axis is OP. Axis is fine. The USF is not, it's over nerfed, under powered, whatever term you want to use. To a degree in which I believe it creates imbalance. Asymmetrical imbalance.

the effect of USF just generally being weak, allows players to get away with riskier behavior. If you look at my card, which many of the numerous axis defenders will to discredit me, you will notice I play USF pretty much exclusively. The reason I do this, is because I like challenge. I have the most difficulty winning as USF. The other allied groups are not as weak. Playing as axis has been far too easy to win with (eventually it stops when I get matched against people of better skill/rank, expected).

This is reflected in numerous player behaviors. Individual allied players are much quicker to throw in the towel. To lose moral. Play a disadvantaged game out. Axis players, when facing usf opponents especially see value in risky behavior. You can see that easily in the attached game with the numerous armor dives directly into anti armor weapons.

That brings me to the other weapon I would like to highlight. AT guns, especially the USF 57mm. Once I had an opponent mock me that I was shooting tennis balls at his panther, because shot after shot was harmlessly bouncing off the front of his panther. He could play lazy. Why not? I do as axis. How hard is it to just drive through an at gun or 2? Even though something like the panther sucks at AI, the impulse buy pintle gun doesn't suck and will drop the at gun crew alone. The brumbar and the sturmtiger just fight them head on with minimal damage received. Again, not a big deal if the same were true on the other side. It's not though. It's pretty common for axis players to play really risky with their at guns. They can too, because where I can push with axis troops and focus my fire on a 57mm with my squads and drop it pretty quickly, allies can't do this. USF especially can't. So the pak and the raketenwerfer are able to be used offensively, instead of being stuck in defensive positions. It's extremely common, especially with WM players to frequently use the pak to effectively force fire at things in the fog. It works. Now the real problem isn't so much the bouncing at long range, but the bouncing at shorter ranges. This goes into real life even and the game is set up to offer additional penetration at closer ranges. However, the values set now are too low. The 57 is cheaper in MP price, but considering this game is limited in how many assets you can actually put on the field (not very asymmetric with at guns) you can not rely on cheap prices and multiple assets.

It's interesting that just about every USF tool was at some point in this games life, deemed too strong. Too strong is difficult to quantify in this game. There are so many variables. I've taken a liking to something I like to call exposure. This metric is easy to understand and I think in a cognitive sense, it's easy for a human to grasp, without a vast mathematical base.

This concept is very simple: How long can your asset be exposed to enemy forces before crossing different thresholds?

exposure differs for different situations. armies are composed differently. However typically with better players, you will face exposure to enemies with effective tools, or at least the most effective tools they have. Exposure for axis is typically high across the board. Panther being one of the best. If you decide to put it at such an exposure risk that it will be a loss, most times you can accomplish your goal. A good example, diving into enemy territory to knock out an artillery piece. The main goal for success is typically just as simple as reaching the position to provide sight for an off map attack. Sometimes it's using the panther to destroy the target and then escaping. The fact is, the panther will get the job done. All USF armor has very low exposure ratings. They cannot last very long in battle. Even an ostwind is effective on a sherman...why? It's got what...a 40mm cannon? I know around the coh community shermans are seen as tin cans, but their sloped armor was actually quite formidable, especially to a 40mm gun. The okw t4 base should not be able to penetrate a sherman. It does though.

I'm going to conclude this here, there are other units I could go on about, who's counterpart on the axis side is far more effective, but I think that's enough for now.

I also want to highlight numbers from the replay. Over time, I've noticed damage numbers from games like this go up for allies. It used to be that axis damage numbers were through the roof. You can see here the axis absorbed much more damage taking far less casualties. Some of this is skill, some of it I believe is an indicator of the imbalance I am highlighting.

•  
  

  0

  VS

  Vaz Freddy Finkel Hareun [HAN]SexyBeast

  steel ItsMeAgain G"N =OOXX[.T_T.]:-D=

  2

  funny close game

  by: Vaz map: Unknown

  1

  -

Team weapon crews may as well not have weapons. The MP-40s that OST MG and PAK crews have are basically pistols, nothing like Pioneer MP40s, and certainly nothing like Assgren MP40s. You don't want to be midrange, you pretty much want to be inside them with RETs to get rid of them.

Also, regarding the M1 AT gun: You're expected to use the APDS rounds to fight medium and heavier armour. Assuming you have the munitions it's one of the better AT guns, though this is debated by people.

Also: Unit K/D and Damage in the endscreen is completely misleading. Damage is boosted primarily by shooting vehicles, which doesn't necessarily require their death, and there are a lot of idiosyncrasies that cause the K/D numbers to not actually match your killed and lost units. As an example: When an USF vehicle dies, the vehicle's crew counts as "deaths" along with the tank, and when an S-Mine field is triggered, each mine counts as a "death" for the ostheer (or OKW) player for some reason.

Don't put too much stock in that.

Regarding the panther: If you want to stop a Panther diving you you ought to be liberally placing mines. Its intentionally survivable because it's supposed to dive.

As a final thing: The Ostwind is not "Effective" against the Sherman. How exactly are you losing fights to an Ostwind with a Sherman?

Regarding the panther: If you want to stop a Panther diving you you ought to be liberally placing mines. Its intentionally survivable because it's supposed to dive.

As a final thing: The Ostwind is not "Effective" against the Sherman. How exactly are you losing fights to an Ostwind with a Sherman?

He's USF. USF stock light AT mines are rare because you have to lay them with rear echelons. To stop Panther dives just make Jacksons and keep kiting the Panther. It's really not that hard. Even one Jackson can 1v1 a Panther if the Jackson is on the defensive.

He's USF. USF stock light AT mines are rare because you have to lay them with rear echelons. To stop Panther dives just make Jacksons and keep kiting the Panther. It's really not that hard. Even one Jackson can 1v1 a Panther if the Jackson is on the defensive.

REs arent exactly overloaded with duties though, and the light AT mines are very cheap due to their temporary nature. Surely an USF player would be able to find some RE man-hours to get mines down? There's also the M20 mine, though as far as I know the M20 isnt exactly "meta" at the moment. (And as evidenced with the 251, vehicle-placed mines arent hugely popular)

Also: Yeah, correct usage of the Jackson can ward off Panthers, especially given that the Panther is likely to have to go through Rifles in order to reach the Jackson, risking a snare.

L2P

Good points. The fundumental problems with USF relate to several units being way over priced, the improved but still badly designed tech tree, and having no flexibility in the early game, and a community that constantly demands nerfs to it's units that are effective.

Rear Echeleon troops are highly ineffective, in fact they can basically be ignored during combat. Yet, they cost 200 MP, and some people will point to the ability to equip them with BARs, as if there isn't a significant cost associated with doing that. They can be good if they survive to Vet3 and have weapon upgrades but the odds of doing that are slim, and they're very fragile but still have a high reinforcement cost.

Riflemen are decent against other mainline but cost quite a bit more for upgrades and everything. Ignore the whole "good at medium range" talk, it just means they don't excel at either short range or long range, and they struggle a lot against the standard elite Axis infantry like Panzer Grens and Obersoldaten. You have to equip them with double BARs to survive later on but they often drop those.

They will ignore you and use catchphrase like "L2P" or use slurs to cover their bias. I hope someday this community put their bias other side and act fair.

They will ignore you and use catchphrase like "L2P" or use slurs to cover their bias. I hope someday this community put their bias other side and act fair.

I already gave him accurate feedback.

They will ignore you and use catchphrase like "L2P" or use slurs to cover their bias. I hope someday this community put their bias other side and act fair.

Playercard?

Playercard?

Pretty sure hes CODGuy burner account so 3K+ USF UKF only

Yea, the l2p argument...I'm talking about anyone, not just me. There's people out there better than me. I've seen people play as axis and then play USF and they do way better with anything but USF, even other allied armies. It's not about I suck at USF. It's that ANYONE who plays USF will have to work harder than their opponent. If you are a 7/10 skill with other armies, you are a 5/10 skill with USF. Just because you chose USF.

You can ignore RE's basically. They are the lowest priority USF target. They do close to nothing, unless you pay to arm them.

Yes you can't fully judge effectiveness via endgame stats, but you can gain a piece of the overall perspective. When you are putting out way more damage and still struggle, there is an imbalance. It doesn't mean the higher damage or higher k/d team should win, but battles and risk/reward should be playing out differently.

I can stop a panther easy with m20 mines for now. Until the community deems them to be OP vs axis(you know, because they do their job making dives even more risky). When the top players decide to discover them during some patches meta, I'm sure it's eventually going to come under the microscope. USF can stop panthers. Usually, the panther will still get it's job done though, if it's after a soft target, like artillery truck. The allied stuff, especially usf, cannot do that. Axis weapons are ALL effective. I can't think of a single axis weapon that sucks at its job.

The ostwind is not going solo vs a sherman, it will lose. The sherman will take damage though, which it shouldn't. From the front, it should block every shot (fail to penetrate). Honestly, I don't even bother to position my armor as USF. Nearly everything penetrates, it's extra micro I don't need to bother with. I will position with smaller weapons, like the ostwind gun and other 37-40mm guns, they are the only exception. You can block some of those shots. I think there is tiny itty bitty chance to block a panzerIV shot. It's super rare, much less rare than panzerIV blocking a sherman shot.

Without responding to the wall of text in OP and just addessing this single point, don't you think since most of your experience is in USF 4v4 where USF is probably the weakest in 4s and 100% reliant on doctrines, it's possible that your experience in other modes doesn't show you how great USF actually is in lower modes?

It's not about I suck at USF. It's that ANYONE who plays USF will have to work harder than their opponent. If you are a 7/10 skill with other armies, you are a 5/10 skill with USF.

I've been winning games with USF even with 3 second input lag. In fact it's the only faction that can survive playing with so much lag. USF is literally the most forgiving faction to play. WC51 just sniping enemy infantry at obscene range. A-move 50 cals that win engagements by themselves. Free squads to buffer the ones you lose due to lag. Pack Howie auto-deleting enemies without me needing to micro it at all. Single Jackson zoning out a Tiger with ease even with significant input lag.

Well it certainly is the case that you suck at USF, and since you only play USF, you have a skewed perspective of it being "bad". If you decided to only play Ost or Soviets from now on, and continued being this bad, you would still be coming back to this forum and crying that Ost or Soviets were unplayable, with all their units "weaker than other factions".

Yea, the l2p argument...I'm talking about anyone, not just me. There's people out there better than me. I've seen people play as axis and then play USF and they do way better with anything but USF, even other allied armies. It's not about I suck at USF. It's that ANYONE who plays USF will have to work harder than their opponent. If you are a 7/10 skill with other armies, you are a 5/10 skill with USF. Just because you chose USF.

You can ignore RE's basically. They are the lowest priority USF target. They do close to nothing, unless you pay to arm them.

Yes you can't fully judge effectiveness via endgame stats, but you can gain a piece of the overall perspective. When you are putting out way more damage and still struggle, there is an imbalance. It doesn't mean the higher damage or higher k/d team should win, but battles and risk/reward should be playing out differently.

I can stop a panther easy with m20 mines for now. Until the community deems them to be OP vs axis(you know, because they do their job making dives even more risky). When the top players decide to discover them during some patches meta, I'm sure it's eventually going to come under the microscope. USF can stop panthers. Usually, the panther will still get it's job done though, if it's after a soft target, like artillery truck. The allied stuff, especially usf, cannot do that. Axis weapons are ALL effective. I can't think of a single axis weapon that sucks at its job.

The ostwind is not going solo vs a sherman, it will lose. The sherman will take damage though, which it shouldn't. From the front, it should block every shot (fail to penetrate). Honestly, I don't even bother to position my armor as USF. Nearly everything penetrates, it's extra micro I don't need to bother with. I will position with smaller weapons, like the ostwind gun and other 37-40mm guns, they are the only exception. You can block some of those shots. I think there is tiny itty bitty chance to block a panzerIV shot. It's super rare, much less rare than panzerIV blocking a sherman shot.

The thing Im going to focus on here is the idea that the Ostwind can penetrate the Sherman from the front.

It cannot.

The Sherman has a 55% chance to pen the P4 frontally from max range, both being vet1. The P4 has a 68% chance vs a sherman.

Use this spreadsheet to see your mistakes. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H5z6szCfhmAAnDprmgwLzc-viZg4HPhKZshNLErvnck/edit#gid=1638665511

Also: The M20 mine is merely a worse teller. Why would it be deemed "OP"?

Even an ostwind is effective on a sherman...why? It's got what...a 40mm cannon? I know around the coh community shermans are seen as tin cans, but their sloped armor was actually quite formidable, especially to a 40mm gun.

1. the ostwind has a 37mm FlaK 43
2. the ostwind loses to the sherman handedly unless youre using HE rounds
3. the ostwind even loses to the worst medium tank in the game (T-34-76)

i dont see the problem with the ostwind here....





in any case i feel this whole post is unjustified rage... i highly doubt USF is in any need of buffs in its current state considering its one of the if not the best faction in the current meta...

I've been winning games with USF even with 3 second input lag. In fact it's the only faction that can survive playing with so much lag. USF is literally the most forgiving faction to play. WC51 just sniping enemy infantry at obscene range. A-move 50 cals that win engagements by themselves. Free squads to buffer the ones you lose due to lag. Pack Howie auto-deleting enemies without me needing to micro it at all. Single Jackson zoning out a Tiger with ease even with significant input lag.

Well it certainly is the case that you suck at USF, and since you only play USF, you have a skewed perspective of it being "bad". If you decided to only play Ost or Soviets from now on, and continued being this bad, you would still be coming back to this forum and crying that Ost or Soviets were unplayable, with all their units "weaker than other factions".

Fair enough, I've been playing long enough to where I should be top 10, but I'm not. However, when I play axis and other allied factions, I don't have these problems. I spent about a month not long ago playing soviets and didn't have a problem. The units were effective. Sniper is kind of slow to pull the trigger, but still got the job done. Still can't really do lol panther stuff, but tank battles were fine.

The thing Im going to focus on here is the idea that the Ostwind can penetrate the Sherman from the front.

It cannot.

The Sherman has a 55% chance to pen the P4 frontally from max range, both being vet1. The P4 has a 68% chance vs a sherman.

Use this spreadsheet to see your mistakes. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H5z6szCfhmAAnDprmgwLzc-viZg4HPhKZshNLErvnck/edit#gid=1638665511

Also: The M20 mine is merely a worse teller. Why would it be deemed "OP"?

Cool Spreadsheet, I'm a little short on time, so I couldn't figure out where to plug numbers in, but the calculation seems simple for a calculator. Penetration divided by armor, so 55/160. I get .34, so 34% chance for an ostwind to penetrate a sherman at close range. That seems consistent with my in-game experience.

The complaints about the m20 mine are that it instantly blows up light vehicles and immobilizes anything heavier. Most people I catch with them say it should just damage the engine, instead of immobilize. I really wouldn't see the point of going through the trouble to lay those mines, if it did that. I'd just lay regular mines with riflemen or a bunch of the RE mines, even though they suck. If you think I rage, these people getting kt stuck are worse.