[Winter Balance Update] General Discussion

The Paratrooper M1 Carbine is superior to the Rifleman M1 Garand at range, so giving them Garands doesn't serve your purpose of making them better at long range. The only thing you could do is give them an M1919 or create another M1 Garand that is better at long range. Perhaps an M1 Garand with the close range DPS of a Vet 3 Garand (which itself closely mirror's the Panzerfusilier G43) with the long range DPS of the Panzergrenadier G43.



I've never heard of any Springfield rifle models. Even the DMR is an M1 Garand, and those were exceptionally rare.

Rare never stopped COH, or we wouldnt see many of the doctrinal units.

A M1C scoped Garand Sniper would fit the bill historically, without needing to change anything. Use the scoped Lee-Enfield model from UKF.

The Paratrooper M1 Carbine is superior to the Rifleman M1 Garand at range, so giving them Garands doesn't serve your purpose of making them better at long range.

M1 is inferior close thou and if one gives them M1 one can lower the cost so that Pathfinders can become a support unit instead of fighting unit.

The only thing you could do is give them an M1919

That is out of the question unless one want to increase cost and pop.

or create another M1 Garand that is better at long range. Perhaps an M1 Garand with the close range DPS of a Vet 3 Garand (which itself closely mirror's the Panzerfusilier G43) with the long range DPS of the Panzergrenadier G43.

The weapon of the unit should be good at long range and unit should be weak at close range. It does not need good DPS at close range.

Rare never stopped COH, or we wouldnt see many of the doctrinal units.

A M1C scoped Garand Sniper would fit the bill historically, without needing to change anything. Use the scoped Lee-Enfield model from UKF.

Of course not, I was just mentioning that they chose to use the M1C instead of the more common Springfield, thus there is no model of a Springfield that I know of.

M1 is inferior close thou and if one gives them M1 one can lower the cost so that Pathfinders can become a support unit instead of fighting unit.

That would simply be a nerf to an already incredibly niche unit though, and I don't believe any significant part of their cost is in their close range DPS. If they are to be a long-range fighting unit, they could at least out-damage a basic Grenadier squad.

That is out of the question unless one want to increase cost and pop.

I agree, an LMG for a marksman squad is an inelegant solution.

The weapon of the unit should be good at long range and unit should be weak at close range. It does not need good DPS at close range.

The Vet 3 M1 Garand is roughly on-par with their current Carbine's at close range. Their limited squad size, with one handling a DMR (which should have it's stats altered to also support long range combat) make them inappropriate at close range despite the admirable individual DPS.

I believe the best solution might be to create new M1 Garands along the lines of the ones mentioned, and retool the DMR to have an inverted DPS curve like LMG's. If not, leave the Carbines alone and focus on just inverting the DPS for the DMR instead.

That would simply be a nerf to an already incredibly niche unit though, and I don't believe any significant part of their cost is in their close range DPS.

I&R Panther spawn before minute 1 equipped with 3 elite weapons available to CP3 units. The carbines are part of their cost.

If they are to be a long-range fighting unit, they could at least out-damage a basic Grenadier squad.

Not if the cost was set at 240. There is a bad habit of trying to make units attractive by increasing their DPS which imo is a mistake. Unit can become attractive by being cheap but bringing something new to the table and the scouting abilities of Pathfinder is enough. Or one could even increase their utility but turning them into sniper counters.

The Vet 3 M1 Garand is roughly on-par with their current Carbine's at close range. Their limited squad size, with one handling a DMR (which should have it's stats altered to also support long range combat) make them inappropriate at close range despite the admirable individual DPS.

If they "inappropriate at close" they do not need close DPS which they pay for. Currently the IR Pathfinder at range 4 have the DPS close to that of riflemen and that make little sense.

I believe the best solution might be to create new M1 Garands along the lines of the ones mentioned, and retool the DMR to have an inverted DPS curve like LMG's. If not, leave the Carbines alone and focus on just inverting the DPS for the DMR instead.

The scoped rifle already has an inverted weapon profile.

Think at the end of day we agree that long range units should be weak at close range.

I&R Panther spawn before minute 1 equipped with 3 elite weapons available to CP3 units. The carbines are part of their cost.

A 3 man squad isn't a major threat to anybody. Even Pioneers have a good chance at winning that battle, and they cost less. Every model lost is -33% of their firepower. Their cost prevents you from doubling up on them to get makeshift early Airborne.

The scoped rifle already has an inverted weapon profile.

The stats website shows the Scoped M1 as having the exact same stats as the Paratrooper M1 Carbine, with (ironically) moderately lower accuracy.

Think at the end of day we agree that long range units should be weak at close range.

Which they are already, owing to their small squad size. I have no concerns that they will be used as shock troops any time soon.

A 3 man squad isn't a major threat to anybody. Even Pioneers have a good chance at winning that battle, and they cost less. Every model lost is -33% of their firepower. Their cost prevents you from doubling up on them to get makeshift early Airborne.

Both path finder are 4 men squad. The fight better than people claim.

The stats website shows the Scoped M1 as having the exact same stats as the Paratrooper M1 Carbine, with (ironically) moderately lower accuracy.

Check cruzz:
https://coh2db.com/stats/#6

Which they are already, owing to their small squad size. I have no concerns that they will be used as shock troops any time soon.

No they will not be used as shock troops but their are not vulnerable to CQC as they should be.

Both path finder are 4 men squad. The fight better than people claim.

I thought IR Pathfinders were 3 men, I haven't used or seen them in a long time.

Check cruzz:
https://coh2db.com/stats/#6

I've been using https://coh2.serealia.ca/# because it's more up-to-date. Possible that the Pathfinder stats listed there are bugged.

Show Spoiler

meanwhile bunkers and s-mines and trenches are also huge bonuses that everyone and their mothers get acess into when using fortifications doc...

Do smines and trenches give minimap info and allow you to reinforce your elite infantry models including any crew weapons on field?

Can we just undo the sniper change? Snipers suck if they can't self spot.

Can we just undo the sniper change? Snipers suck if they can't self spot.

They were meant to be used from behind infantry anyway.
At vet they are self sufficient again.

They were meant to be used from behind infantry anyway.
At vet they are self sufficient again.

Having to use a sniper behind infantry removes their purpose. They become similar to JLI/Pathfinders in their role and combat effectiveness except they are about a hundred times more risky to use.

Having to use a sniper behind infantry removes their purpose. They become similar to JLI/Pathfinders in their role and combat effectiveness except they are about a hundred times more risky to use.

Isn't that wonderful?

Snipers are a cancer mechanic anyway. At a certain player level the only way to kill them is either a lucky RNG hit or a counter sniper. If you have a faction that does not have access to a counter sniper you are in for a rough game.

Every decent sniper player will spam mines (especially ez as Soviets with 30 ammo mines and hardly any ammo requirements) to counter any light vehicle that dares coming close.

Glad to see snipers being nerfed.

Snipers suck

This is a great change. If only Relic had done this years ago.

No unit should be self sufficient at vet0, snipers included. It's a good change.

This is a great change. If only Relic had done this years ago.

They did. Snipers used to see further than they could shoot, they lowered it to what's in live

No unit should be self sufficient at vet0, snipers included. It's a good change.

Snipers aren't self sufficient in live. They always need support so they don't get rushed by vehicles and killed or rushed by infantry and being pushed off the field after only inflicting 1 kill.

In the patch version they don't just need infantry as back-up, they need the infantry to actually advance into the enemy LoS to do any damage. It makes the Snipers unable to perform one of their primairy functions of clearing HMGs and other infantry from buildings/entrenches positions before assaults.

The main problem with the Sniper change is they no longer counter Machine Gun teams (especially in building), as they now need to expose themselves to MG fire to take their shot.

Snipers aren't self sufficient in live. They always need support so they don't get rushed by vehicles and killed or rushed by infantry and being pushed off the field after only inflicting 1 kill.

In the patch version they don't just need infantry as back-up, they need the infantry to actually advance into the enemy LoS to do any damage. It makes the Snipers unable to perform one of their primairy functions of clearing HMGs and other infantry from buildings/entrenches positions before assaults.

Except they are. If they have a LOS that is equal to the weapon range, they are self sufficient. Being easily killable does not make them non-self-sufficient. It just makes them vulnerable. Being able to clear HMGs on their own is by their definition, self sufficient. It's not my opinion, it's not semantics, it's just a definition.
Your words: Snipers -> primairy functions of clearing HMGs
Can they do it on their own right now? Yes == self sufficient
Primary function is a singular, it's nonsensical for multiple primary functions to exist but let's assume that one can have leeway and define another role for sniper to bleed enemy units and check if it's self sufficient at that too ATM.

Rifles range on all infantry units: 0-35
Sniper range: 0-50 --> Sniper is still self sufficient.

Don't mix vulnerability with self sufficiency. Regarding OFFENSIVE roles, self sufficiency has nothing to do with needing support.
Sniper is non self sufficient (ergo, needs support) when it comes to it's defensive capabilities.
However, one could argue that no unit is self sufficient in that regard. KT needs support, elefant even more so. Obers, volks, rifles, paks, ZiS guns.... etc. No unit is self sufficient in both offensive and defensive statistics.

If you can think of a counter argument to refute it, I'd be more than willing to hear it.

EDIT: One thing a sniper is not self sufficient in the offensive is: Can it kill tanks? No. Needs support, not self sufficient. Get the jest?

snip

Snipers will have less then 45 sight range.
HMGs have 45 shooting range.

Sniper no longer is viable HMG garrison counter without sacrificing a unit for HMG to shoot at, at which point you might just use 2 infantry pincer and toss a nade.