General USF ineffective weapons

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.

If you've tried Soviets (which are good in their own way, to be fair), you'll find that Riflemen are really obscenely good compared to pre-7 man Conscripts. Riflemen are the best mainline in the game and stomp grens and volks in a vacuum.

My biggest complaint with USF is that the roster isn't complete - no non-doc flamers, need to go m20 or use a doctrine just to lay "real" mines, no rocket artillery, no sniper counter. If your complaint had been that USF has restrictive teching and lacks many tactical options due to not having certain units, I'd have wholeheartedly agreed with you.

Tldr: USF units are very powerful, but the faction as a whole has plenty of weaknesses, some of which are irritating (retreating units getting stuck in the bloody pizza base) and some of which are way too painful, like not having flamers on a garrison-heavy map or having to rely on pack howie RNG to counter snipers.


By the way, in your initial post, you mentioned you kept REs at mid range. When flanking an MG you should run up to knife-range always. Especially with REs, who're practically only able to do damage when bayoneting people.

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.

The endgame stats are trash for judging a game.
The damage is next to arbitrary. In the sense that it is not even the actual damage you dealt in game, but economic damage. Killing an Obersoldat model will give you more "damage" than killing a Volksgrenadier (even just damaging the model will give different results).
Same goes for vehicles. Damaging a Panther is worth more than a Sherman. The damage values do not correspond to "who did better" in the fight. It just tells you who fought the most against vehicles because they usually account for at least two thirds of your total damage. But damaging a tank does not bleed anything off your enemy, while a couple of models will cost you your late game MP income for a minute. Still the damage on the tank is valued higher although no real "harm" was dealt.

And what just came to my mind are all the off maps and muni abilities like snares and grenades that completely lead this approach ad absurdum. Since technically they should be partially counted as economic damage towards the user because he spends mun. Afaik they do not though.

I just want the redesign of the USF base to happen. On average, I lose 5-10 seconds just by the units retreating in place in the pizza base as Felix so eloquently put it. It's annoying AF. Those 5-10 second retreats pile up in one average 3v3 game. God forbid you need to blob your way out of a encampment and will thus retreat a good chunk of units after the job is done. USF is a strong faction, even in 3v3 (4v4 it's weakest, too much arty fest and [super]heavy tanks.).

Don't know why people complain about USF, it's strong and balanced.