[Winter Balance Update] USF Feedback

Everything is fine except a timing and vet1 cooldown of AT rifle grenade.
At current version of the game we have a perfect sinergy between snares, which are buggy and are avalaible harder and decent AT-weapon, which is avalaible for any infantry unit.
At this patch USF gets insane snare, zooks and high ROF AT-gun.
2/3 things which USF has now are more than fine, there is just no need to improve USF survivability that much.

My thoughts about the proposed changes to the USF, as they apply to team games:

Ambulance:

This makes sense, considering the high manpower expense of the ambulance. The fact that this -20% damage received only applies when in the HQ sector is more than fair. If you want to reinforce forward, the risk is on you.

M1918 BAR:

This should have been done long ago. Riflemen are on the expensive side, yet still struggle to compete with vetted/elite Axis infantry units. Dropping expensive BAR's all over the place was a real problem, especially considering that one needs to pay a considerable price to unlock them in the first place.

Rear Echelon:

I'm fine with these changes. If you're using them to fight anything except for vehicles (with Bazookas), you're probably in trouble anyway.

Riflemen:

This change makes sense, considering how easy it is to get wiped by Stukas and Panzerwerfers. When you replace your riflemen, and still cannot snare vehicles in the late game, it's pretty unfair.

M1 81mm Mortar:

I don't think these changes are going to make a big difference, but any improvement is welcome considering the power that the early Wehrmacht MG has to quickly lock down critical fuel/VP territories.

M2HB 50cal:

I'm not sure there is any need to weaken the USF's MG capability... US infantry already struggles against elite infantry like Fallschirmjager, Panzergrenadiers, and Obersoldaten, and the MG is only a 4 man squad as it is... I have gotten my 50cal's, even in cover, picked off by a couple of groups of elite Axis infantry.

M20:

From the perspective of a USF player, these are welcome changes. I almost never see this being used in team games, as it is too costly and takes too long to arrive on the battlefield for what it does. The mines it lays are great for the late game, but that's about it.

M5 Stuart:

These changes seem alright, despite the nerf to the engine shot ready aim-time.

Pack Howitzer:

Completely unnecessary changes. The Pack Howitzer was already nerfed by having its crew size reduced by one. Also, this unit has to be unlocked for a fuel cost, and the unit itself is very expensive at 340 manpower, and takes quite a while to produce. Furthermore, it is not a retreatable unit, and is easily de-crewed by Walking Stuka strikes, as well as just about anything else within range of it. The whole point of the last nerf it received was to maintain its offensive power while making it more vulnerable. If you're now also going to weaken its offensive power so drastically like this, it will be pointless to pay 340 manpower for it, especially in light of the mortar changes and the mortar availability from T0. I'll just go for mortars, and this will be even more rarely used in team games. The USF don't get access to a sniper, so this is a must have weapon for seriously jammed up positions. Meanwhile, I routinely lose multiple infantry squad models in single shots from the LEIG, which only costs 270 instead of 340 manpower. This nerf makes no sense to me at all. If the offensive power is being reduced by 33%, then so too should its manpower cost be accordingly reduced.

Major:

These changes could offer a subtle improvement to the recon ability.

M8 Scott:

I'm ok with removing the human crush, that's an acceptable nerf. But what's the point of nerfing the anti-infantry capabilities of this vehicle, which costs nearly as much in fuel as the Sherman tank? I won't bother making these anymore, I'll just save up the extra 35 fuel or whatever and go straight for the Sherman. You make it sound like the decreased anti-infantry capabilities will be offset by an increase in "splash damage", yet the stats you cite show a barrage AOE distance nerf, a barrage damage nerf, a barrage damage decrease, and even an increase in angle scatter on the barrage. These are already fragile in team games, so I'm puzzled by the major nerf here.

M36 Jackson:

This nerf doesn't make sense. I'm beginning to think that whoever decided upon these changes does not play USF in team games. Every single OKW commander gets access to a King Tiger for the late game. Jagdtigers are commonly used, and it is common to see multiple Elefants on the field in the late game. Just yesterday there were masses of Panthers on the field of a Hill 400 game, with 2 Elefants controlling the middle, 1 Jagdtiger behind them, and 1 King Tiger up front. The guy with the King Tiger even had a Sturmtiger on the field. Only one single USF commander gets a heavy tank (the Pershing), which is no more durable than a Panther, and only one can be fielded at a time. Is it really necessary to reduce the Jackson's penetration? How else are US players supposed to deal with King Tigers, Elefants, Jagdtigers, Brummbars, Panthers, and the list goes on? The AT guns are not a great solution, as they constantly fail to penetrate, even when using the munition-costing Sabot round. Worse, when they are lost, Axis players can pick them up and penetrate American Jacksons with ease, since the armor has already been nerfed into oblivion on these paper tanks. On top of this, Jacksons aren't always a great solution to enemy armor, when the field is full of infantry with Panzerschrecks, PaK 88mm emplacements, and even just mines and small AT guns. I don't see how further weakening the Jackson is going to encourage players to choose USF in team games, and I am beginning to think that your 'balance' changes only apply to 1v1 matches. You might want to consider implementing separate balance changes for 1v1 mode and for team game (2v2, 3v3, and 4v4) matches, because this makes no sense at all.

Case in point: I recently fought a Tiger head-on with two Vet 3 Jacksons, WITH the HVAP rounds activated, and bounced 2 consecutive shells with my first Jackson. My second Jackson bounced its first shell off of the Tigers frontal armor as well. Of course, I would have liked to flank the tank, but he had it in a Lienne Forest passageway which didn't allow my Jackson to pass by it and do so. I ended up losing one Jackson and retreating the other. If two vet 3 Jacksons with HVAP rounds enabled can already occasionally struggle to deal with a single Tiger, I don't see how weakening the penetration is appropriate for the late game.

WC 51:

I don't have a major problem with this nerf, although this won't scale so well if its peak range is limited at 40 instead of 45. It is already quite fragile and weak against MG's and Panzerfusiliers, which are super common to see early on in team games. Again, I am commenting about this from a team game perspective (mostly 4v4).

Calliope:

I'm ok with this change if all rocket artillery in the game is being nerfed in the same way. My issue with reducing American rocket artillery is that only two commanders get Calliopes to begin with. Contrast this with the fact that every single OKW commander gets access to the Walking Stuka, and every single Wehrmacht player gets access to the Panzerwerfer. Only two American commanders get access to rocket artillery anyway. Is it really necessary to further weaken their ability in team games? Furthermore, they don't come until CP 10. CP TEN! Walking Stukas can arrive by CP 3 - I rushed one the other day and absolutely devastated my opponent with it. I don't understand how an expensive Calliope, which already became more fragile after the previous nerf, and which arrives so late in the game, needs another nerf.

Conclusion:

All in all, I think that these changes make little sense from a team game perspective, though I'm ok with the WC-51 nerf and the M8 Scott human crush nerf. Nobody will bother playing with the USF in team games if their units continue to become weakened through 'balance' patches like these, though. Again, it's the only faction in the game that doesn't have a strong non-doctrinal artillery piece (like the Walking Stuka, Katyusha, Panzerwerfer, and British HQ artillery). Couple that with no heavy tanks at all aside from the Pershing (which even had its AI capabilities recently nerfed), and one will struggle to keep up with the heavy Axis armor in 4v4 gameplay. Nerfing the Pack Howitzer and M8 Scott, the only two non-doctrinal artillery pieces that the US has (which are still weaker than Walking Stukas and Panzerwerfers) just doesn't make any sense to me.

On a final note, why isn't every US commander allowed to call in a Pershing? What's the counter argument for this suggestion? I find it odd that every single OKW commander can call in a King Tiger, complete with its 375 armor, 240-damage-per-shot gun (with high pen), but USF players are forced to rely on Jacksons only, which become quite boring (though essential) to play with in 4v4 matches. They are also super weak against Panzerschrecks and die in a hurry if not kept way back, which limits their offensive potential drastically. I understand that there are some die-hard Axis players who will come here and cheer every nerf to USF, but being objective about these changes and the detriment they will cause to the already-weakest team game faction is important unless we want to see only British and Soviet units on the 4v4 battlefield.

Why does every Wehrmacht player get access to Panzerwerfer rocket artillery, but only two USF commanders can say the same? The USF needs some major re-working to be competitive in the late stages of team games. This patch addresses virtually none of that. I would be interested in seeing the Pershing become an available call-in tank to make every US commander more viable in 4v4 team games. An alternative and/or additional option could be the introduction of the 203mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M43, which was indeed used in the capture of Cologne during World War II. Even if its gun were no more effective than the similarly sized Soviet B-4 (which is of moderate value at best, currently), it would at least make the games more interesting and give the US Forces SOMETHING besides the Priest to handle Pak 88mm emplacements, LEFH pieces, masses of armor, etc. If I think of anything else along the way, I'll come back here and edit my post.

Fact Check: False

Double Fact Check - FALSE

You count up the buffs and tell me then, what % of USF changes are buffs and nerfs?

Looking forward to your answer.

Double Fact Check - FALSE

You count up the buffs and tell me then, what % of USF changes are buffs and nerfs?

Looking forward to your answer.

I see that you weren't replying to my post directly, but the percentage of USF changes being buffs versus nerfs is a bit irrelevant. What matters is the scope of the impact the changes made will have upon the gameplay thereafter. If you make a lot of tiny changes which don't matter too much, but then make just a couple of big changes to critical elements of an army, the net gains can easily be overshadowed and/or outweighed by the net losses.

Double Fact Check - FALSE

You count up the buffs and tell me then, what % of USF changes are buffs and nerfs?

Looking forward to your answer.

I'm amazed by the mental gymnastics you are making by counting each individual change as a plain buff/nerf without taking into account the context of the change.

If i give you 5 bucks twice and then tax you for 50, do you have more money than before ?

Case in point: I recently fought a Tiger head-on with two Vet 3 Jacksons, WITH the HVAP rounds activated, and bounced 2 consecutive shells with my first Jackson. My second Jackson bounced its first shell off of the Tigers frontal armor as well.

That is literally impossible. The minimal pen for vet 2+ Jackson HVAP is 325, the Tiger's armor is 300. They have 100% chance to pen at all ranges. And by the way, this particular scenario won't change with the nerf.

Double Fact Check - FALSE

You count up the buffs and tell me then, what % of USF changes are buffs and nerfs?

Looking forward to your answer.

USF Ambulance: Minor Buff

Bar drop rate: Buff

Rear Echelon: Minor Buff
Minor Nerf
Net: Zero

m1 81mm Mortar: Minor Buff

50cal: Nerf

M20: Minor Buff

m5 Stuart: Buff

Pack Howie: Nerf

Major: Minor Buff(?)

m8 Scout: Major nerf

Jackson: Minor Nerf

WC51 Truck: Nerf

Calliope: Nerf

Riflemen sandbag building: Nerf

Riflemen Tech: Buff

Total: 7 buffs (8), 8 nerfs

Osteer:

BP changes: Minor Nerf(?)

Pioneers: Buffed

Grens: Minor buff
Minor nerf

Sniper Buff

Pgren: Minor Nerf

Ostruppen: Minor Nerf
Buff

Panzerwerfer: Buff
Nerf

S mines: Minor Nerf

Panther: Major Buff

Second Sniper Buff

Total: 7 Buffs, 5 Nerfs (4)

So not only was USF nerfed more than it buffed, Osteer was buffed more than it was nerfed.
Add-on top of all the other faction nerfs and buffs(especially to OKW) I can only assume your a wehraboo, which is exactly why I decided to fact check you.

That is literally impossible. The minimal pen for vet 2+ Jackson HVAP is 325, the Tiger's armor is 300. They have 100% chance to pen at all ranges. And by the way, this particular scenario won't change with the nerf.

That's what I said! But it happened. Maybe the 325 value is outdated? I'll have to check the COH2 tools again.

That's what I said! But it happened. Maybe the 325 value is outdated? I'll have to check the COH2 tools again.

Maybe you thought you were using HVAP rounds?
Either that or a bug.

Riflemen
We are adjusting Riflemen by giving them direct access to their AT grenades when the USF player has purchased the correct tech. This will allow fresh Riflemen to be able to snare vehicles late game without being gated behind veterancy while having minimal impact on the early game.
- Veterancy 3 ability -50% ability recharge bonus moved to veterancy 1
- AT Rifle Grenades now require any of the following: Mechanized Platoon Command Post, Mechanized Company Command, or both officers deployed
- AT Rifle Grenades veterancy 1 requirement removed

AT no longer being tied to vet is nice, but halving cooldown time right at vet1, daam, doesn't that sound a tiny bit op? Haven't tested yet, but I can imagine small rifleman groups chasing and bringing down LVs all alone quite early. Not even mentioning frag grenade spam.

AT no longer being tied to vet is nice, but halving cooldown time right at vet1, daam, doesn't that sound a tiny bit op? Haven't tested yet, but I can imagine small rifleman groups chasing and bringing down LVs all alone quite early. Not even mentioning frag grenade spam.

Aye, cooldown at vet 1 is now 13 seconds which is even faster than the Panzerfaust (notorious for having a short cooldown). We'll probably need to decrease the recharge bonus towards -25%. I'm not worried about the grenade, the munitions costs will properly gate that.

Aye, cooldown at vet 1 is now 13 seconds which is even faster than the Panzerfaust (notorious for having a short cooldown). We'll need to increase the stock recharge by 3-4 seconds. I'm not worried about the grenade, the munitions costs will properly gate that.

You move the recharge to vet 1 to replace snare unlock and then you wanna nerf the stock recharge? No thanks.

Just move something else to vet 1 instead of nerfing riflemen for no reason. Move the pineapple throwing range and snare range to vet 1 and keep recharge at vet 3.

Just move something else to vet 1 instead of nerfing riflemen for no reason.

Anything else is a combat buff. So no, we can't "just" move something else to vet 1. Unless you'd want to further buff Riflemen for no reason?

They will have vet 1 or be very close to vet 1 when the snares unlock anyway, so a stock recharge increase would barely have any impact beyond the intended goal of normalizing the new vet 1 recharge.

Move the pineapple throwing range and snare range to vet 1 and keep recharge at vet 3.

Weren't you up in arms before about 18 snare range for Pfussies being totally OP? Now you want to give Rifles 19 range at vet 1?

Anything else is a combat buff. So no, we can't "just" move something else to vet 1. Unless you'd want to further buff Riflemen for no reason?

They will have vet 1 or be very close to vet 1 when the snares unlock anyway, so a stock recharge increase would barely have any impact beyond the intended goal of normalizing the new vet 1 recharge.

Sure, give them -10% or -20% recharge at vet 1 and the rest of the 50% at vet 3. There, easy fix.

Weren't you up in arms before about 18 snare range for Pfussies being totally OP? Now you want to give Rifles 19 range at vet 1?

Fusiliers: 6man Axis squad with 3 G43s and an extra weapons slot, flare, sprint and grenade. And 18 snare range on top because why not.

Very fair

I misremembered the recharge bonus being -25% instead of -50%. In that case the stock recharge can stay and the bonus can be scaled down to around -25%.

The AT Grenade changes was so non-vetted Rifles could snare, helping those who were rebuilt.

In most cases, the AT Grenade change shouldn't change many things. Kubels and 221s arrive before the Americans can even get veterancy 1 on their Riflemen.

Futhermore in test matches with mode in almost every scenario Riflemen got their AT nade earlier than vet1.

Those changes are a well deserve help to rebuilded riflemen later in the game.

lower cooldown but usf have lot Munition investment faction
I think cannot frequency use skill
but I low skill player

Is the greyhound being considered for any changes?

I've noticed it's really good against OKW's Luchs, is it intended to counter light vehicles or early infantry? It's great against both.

What about a little armour nerf? So small arms (and luchs) do a bit more damage to it.

Lots of good changes here.

Expect Urban Assault, Infantry Company and Tactical Support to rise in popularity, on 2s and above, with the nerfs to Pack Howi and M8 Scott, you'll need doctrinal indirect fire more than ever, helps that Riflemen will be able to snare when rebuild and will drop their BARs less often.

Overall, good patch, for it's focus.

Is the greyhound being considered for any changes?

I've noticed it's really good against OKW's Luchs, is it intended to counter light vehicles or early infantry? It's great against both.

What about a little armour nerf? So small arms (and luchs) do a bit more damage to it.

It can deal some damage to it.
Its not good against it in any way.

Both are AI specialist vehicles of similar price, its only natural they will put some kind of fight against each other.