[Winter Balance Update] USF Feedback

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

I was surely using the HVAP rounds.

I'm not entirely a fan of the medical crates being removed from the M3 halftrack in favor of out of combat healing inside, cuz team weapons won't be able to heal this way. Personally I would either keep the crates or both (crates + heal inside).

Changes for the USF faction in the latest update of the mod: https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/comment/288466#Comment_288466

Show Spoiler

Changes for the USF faction in the latest update of the mod: https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/comment/288466#Comment_288466

Show Spoiler

Great change. I hope this is communicated somehow ingame

Show Spoiler

Step in the right direction but probably not enough to make the Scott viable in 1v1.

Show Spoiler

This will finally end WC51 meta.

USF pop exploit fix is pure genius. WC51 change should put an end to overuse of this doc. I salute you balance team o7

At first glance, most changes and correction seem to be the right direction. Here are some notes:

Lieutenant
Show Spoiler
A similar change with shared CD should be applied to major and barrage. Optionally smoke grenade could simply be removed from major.

Vehicle Crews

Show Spoiler
How about adding an ability at vet 1 that would allow vehicles crews to leave the battle, since they might end up being a dead weight.

Every change looks good though the Scott one is still miles away from giving the faction a real late game artillery option while still been butchered down (which is needed) in general.


I don't know if upkeep works past the 100 mark (if it keeps increasing), so does this means that you could potentially lose mp after the 134 popcap mark?
(201 from pop + 100 penalty)


Does this change affect custom games?

USF pop exploit fix is pure genius. WC51 change should put an end to overuse of this doc. I salute you balance team o7

Does anyone even use the pop exploit? It's super micro intensive when reinforcing, etc. Not to mention that your tanks are exposed if you're not "exploiting" in the base. I mean, it's a good change but I've never ever seen one player do it in teamgames, nor 1v1s.

Changes for the USF faction in the latest update of the mod: https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/comment/288466#Comment_288466

Show Spoiler

Do you ever plan to do any sort of changes on the Pershing? I haven't seen it in teamgames in a long while now, both when playing or spectating.

1. M1918
If it isn't highly rated compared to other droppable weapons. O think ot shouls be remained as 33%. for fairness.

2. M2 50cal
Don't change it. why you guys keep removing differnces btw factions?
Anyway Mg34 and Mg42 has its slow setup time cuz it has a really big cover radius, 120°. And soviet has 6 men.
But without other change just nerfing M2? If you are not happy about m2 movement cuz it is <different> from mg42, why don't you make its radius 120°?

3. packhowi.
it is 340mp, 70 more expensive than okw isg and requires more men.
Shouldn't it be powerful if it is <paired> situation?

4. Scott
It comes out at the final tech and is designed to deal with support weapons, infatries Cuz usf doesn't have non-doctrinal massive artility like panzerwerfer, stuka and katty.
Fine, I can take other changes, but why range 50?
It is damn M8A1 <Howitzer MOTAR> carrier. It is fucking motar not a assault gun like a stug G or brumbar.
if it has to be range 50, make all other mortars, mortar carrier from ost usf range 50, too.

5. jackson
vet2 pen still needs against heavy tank.
And shouldn't vetrang units can't be poweful? why are you making axis tanks can pen allies one easily but why veteran
allies tanks can't? If it isn't no longer need its vet2 penetration bonus, why can't you just leave it?.

6. Wc51
At least give him armor buff and accuracy bonus or nerf to 40, not 35
why so you erase usf traits? You nerfed its ability. why you should erase crew system?
it is worsen version of wc51 before wc51's 45 range change patches.
Remember wc51 came out with guns in that time.

Do you ever plan to do any sort of changes on the Pershing? I haven't seen it in teamgames in a long while now, both when playing or spectating.

I guess changes would come in the next commander patch. I asked the same for Tigers btw.

1. M1918
If it isn't highly rated compared to other droppable weapons. O think ot shouls be remained as 33%. for fairness.

2. M2 50cal
Don't change it. why you guys keep removing differnces btw factions?
Anyway Mg34 and Mg42 has its slow setup time cuz it has a really big cover radius, 120°. And soviet has 6 men.
But without other change just nerfing M2? If you are not happy about m2 movement cuz it is <different> from mg42, why don't you make its radius 120°?

3. packhowi.
it is 340mp, 70 more expensive than okw isg and requires more men.
Shouldn't it be powerful if it is <paired> situation?

4. Scott
It comes out at the final tech and is designed to deal with support weapons, infatries Cuz usf doesn't have non-doctrinal massive artility like panzerwerfer, stuka and katty.
Fine, I can take other changes, but why range 50?
It is damn M8A1 <Howitzer MOTAR> carrier. It is fucking motar not a assault gun like a stug G or brumbar.
if it has to be range 50, make all other mortars, mortar carrier from ost usf range 50, too.

5. jackson
vet2 pen still needs against heavy tank.
And shouldn't vetrang units can't be poweful? why are you making axis tanks can pen allies one easily but why veteran
allies tanks can't? If it isn't no longer need its vet2 penetration bonus, why can't you just leave it?.

6. Wc51
At least give him armor buff and accuracy bonus or nerf to 40, not 35
why so you erase usf traits? You nerfed its ability. why you should erase crew system?
it is worsen version of wc51 before wc51's 45 range change patches.
Remember wc51 came out with guns in that time.

3. The pack howie is powerful, the issue was that it was TOO powerful. Whether the changes were "too much" remains to be seen.

4. It might be called a mortar, but it really is an "assault gun" for most intents and purposes. It's also rather more survivable than other mortars/mortar carriers especially. I do think it should be able to autofire over obstacles, in any case.

5. Axis tanks are intentionally supposed to have armour that confounds allied guns. I'm not 100% on whether i really like that as a balance decision (due to it being rather random), but the fact that the Jackson can just ignore this advantage causes issues, especially given that other allied TDs cannot. Axis tanks pay a premium for their armour.

6.Uh, why? Wait and see how the WC51 performs with the new changes. It severely overperformed previously.
It really can't have a crew when it comes so early, it basically means you can't push it away for more than a few seconds, you do begin the game with the least task-heavy engineer unit in the game, in any case, so its not as though it is now unusable. OKW needs to heal their Kubel manually with Sturmpioneers, and UKF have to use Munitions to repair their UC given that they simply don't have an engineer for the first few minutes of the game. the WC being changed brings a little parity with other units.
The WC-51 was a very overloaded unit before this patch, and hopefully these changes bring it more into line.

"The pack howie is powerful, the issue was that it was TOO powerful. Whether the changes were "too much" remains to be seen."

...But it's alright for the Walking Stuka to come out at CP3 and wipe out defensive positions and multiple squads (Pack Howitzers included!) in a heartbeat, though, right?

If the pack howitzer is receiving a ~33% AOE nerf, then its MP cost needs to be markedly reduced as well. Weakening its performance but leaving its cost at 340 makes no sense at all. A USF player might as well just go for some cheap mortars and skip the unit altogether, which is what Axis fans seem to want, and to whom they're being catered by the balance team.

Again, a point which you completely dodged from prior posts is the fact that the USF has no strong non-doctrinal artillery like the Panzerwerfer, Katyusha, Walking Stuka, or UK Base Howitzers. The Pack Howitzer and the M8A1 Scott are all the non-doctrinal artillery a USF player has, and they were already weak options to begin with compared to said weapons. And yet, some people are still complaining about these weapons, while they busy themselves Stuka-ing Allied positions at CP3. Even if the Scott were as good as the Stuka, one can't even field it until the Major comes out. Meanwhile, the LEIG slaps mortars, MG's, and infantry around while costing just 30 MP more than a mortar.

I find it really tiring to play with the same few USF commanders again and again, knowing that powerful non-doctrinal artillery options don't exist, and knowing that there is only 1 USF commander with a heavy tank (though it's got no more HP/armor than a Panther, and so isn't really a 'heavy' tank, anyway)...

The USF will simply have to receive comparable non-doctrinal artillery to become competitive late in team games. Do you have any opposition to that, Pip?

...But it's alright for the Walking Stuka to come out at CP3 and wipe out defensive positions and multiple squads (Pack Howitzers included!) in a heartbeat, though, right?

If the pack howitzer is receiving a ~33% AOE nerf, then its MP cost needs to be markedly reduced as well. Weakening its performance but leaving its cost at 340 makes no sense at all. A USF player might as well just go for some cheap mortars and skip the unit altogether, which is what Axis fans seem to want, and to whom they're being catered by the balance team.

Again, a point which you completely dodged from prior posts is the fact that the USF has no strong non-doctrinal artillery like the Panzerwerfer, Katyusha, Walking Stuka, or UK Base Howitzers. The Pack Howitzer and the M8A1 Scott are all the non-doctrinal artillery a USF player has, and they were already weak options to begin with compared to said weapons. And yet, some people are still complaining about these weapons, while they busy themselves Stuka-ing Allied positions at CP3. Even if the Scott were as good as the Stuka, one can't even field it until the Major comes out. Meanwhile, the LEIG slaps mortars, MG's, and infantry around while costing just 30 MP more than a mortar.

I find it really tiring to play with the same few USF commanders again and again, knowing that powerful non-doctrinal artillery options don't exist, and knowing that there is only 1 USF commander with a heavy tank (though it's got no more HP/armor than a Panther, and so isn't really a 'heavy' tank, anyway)...

The USF will simply have to receive comparable non-doctrinal artillery to become competitive late in team games. Do you have any opposition to that, Pip?

If you're counting UKF base artillery then you should be counting Major Artillery.

The walking stuka isn't an analogue to the Pack Howitzer or Scott, it is strong against team weapons but not terribly strong vs infantry squads when compared to other rocket artillery due to it's accurate rocket impacts, if you're losing "multiple squads" to it then you are making a mistake.

The LeIG is also an interesting comparison to the Pack Howitzer. It's accurate, and has 20 more range than a mortar, but it's AOE is very small when compared to similar weapons. The Pack Howitzer in comparison, has another 20 range on top of that, possesses average damage (Which becomes ludicrously high with HEAT), ludicrously high AOE (Being toned down this patch, but it was more than double the LeIG's AOE if Stein's chart is to be believed) Oh, and it also has a White Phosphorous Barrage.

The Pack, along with the Scott, give the USF powerful, long-ranged bleeding tools, that both have actual attacks when they aren't firing a barrage (unlike the Stuka, incidentally). Again, i'm not sure why you think they're an analogue to Rocket Artillery, though if you'd really like to make the comparison for some reason, the Pack Howitzer costs 50 less MP and doesn't cost any fuel. The Scott also costs 130 less manpower and 25 less fuel than the Stuka. The population (Pack 8, Scott 10, Stuka 12) are also rather different.

The Calliope is doctrinal, but is arguably the strongest and least vulnerable rocket artillery in the game.

You're welcome to use the USF mortar instead, if you do think that's somehow a comparable tool. I don't know where the Pack Howitzer stands in the USF arsenal at the moment, but you're making some pretty ludicrous arguments.

If you're counting UKF base artillery then you should be counting Major Artillery.

The walking stuka isn't an analogue to the Pack Howitzer or Scott, it is strong against team weapons but not terribly strong vs infantry squads when compared to other rocket artillery due to it's accurate rocket impacts, if you're losing "multiple squads" to it then you are making a mistake.

The LeIG is also an interesting comparison to the Pack Howitzer. It's accurate, and has 20 more range than a mortar, but it's AOE is very small when compared to similar weapons. The Pack Howitzer in comparison, has another 20 range on top of that, possesses average damage (Which becomes ludicrously high with HEAT), ludicrously high AOE (Being toned down this patch, but it was more than double the LeIG's AOE if Stein's chart is to be believed) Oh, and it also has a White Phosphorous Barrage.

The Pack, along with the Scott, give the USF powerful, long-ranged bleeding tools, that both have actual attacks when they aren't firing a barrage (unlike the Stuka, incidentally). Again, i'm not sure why you think they're an analogue to Rocket Artillery, though if you'd really like to make the comparison for some reason, the Pack Howitzer costs 50 less MP and doesn't cost any fuel. The Scott also costs 130 less manpower and 25 less fuel than the Stuka. The population (Pack 8, Scott 10, Stuka 12) are also rather different.

The Calliope is doctrinal, but is arguably the strongest and least vulnerable rocket artillery in the game.

You're welcome to use the USF mortar instead, if you do think that's somehow a comparable tool. I don't know where the Pack Howitzer stands in the USF arsenal at the moment, but you're making some pretty ludicrous arguments.

Major artillery produces a flare, alerting the enemy to the oncoming barrage. Walking Stukas and Panzerwerfers do not, and you know this very well. I spread my forces out as much as possible against OKW players - I'm not stupid. But the span of the Stuka strike is wide, and there are *multiple* bombs that can hit *multiple* squads. And if you water your force concentration down too low in an area, do you really control it?

As for your comments about the LEIG, as I said - if you want to weaken the Pack Howitzer, let's say, to the LEIG level, then the pricetag should come down as well. Problem solved. Furthermore, the White Phosphorous doesn't come until Vet 1.

When it comes to the Pack Howitzer, you're wrong about it not requiring fuel. You have to pay fuel to unlock the Pack Howitzer in the first place. And, in any case, it cannot be driven away in a hurry like the Panzerwerfer or Walking Stuka - so why would it cost fuel? The Pack Howitzer doesn't have an engine.

The Pack, along with the Scott, give the USF powerful, long-ranged bleeding tools, that both have actual attacks when they aren't firing a barrage (unlike the Stuka, incidentally). Again, i'm not sure why you think they're an analogue to Rocket Artillery, though if you'd really like to make the comparison for some reason, the Pack Howitzer costs 50 less MP and doesn't cost any fuel. The Scott also costs 130 less manpower and 25 less fuel than the Stuka. The population (Pack 8, Scott 10, Stuka 12) are also rather different.

You're making my point for me. Again, the USF has no non-doctrinal rocket artillery. The only non-doctrinal artillery the USF has is the Pack Howitzer and the M8A1 Scott. And now they're both being substantially weakened. Do you understand how that might be a problem in team games?

You're welcome to use the USF mortar instead, if you do think that's somehow a comparable tool. I don't know where the Pack Howitzer stands in the USF arsenal at the moment, but you're making some pretty ludicrous arguments.

Which part of my argument is ludicrous? The part where I'm factually pointing out that the US has no non-doctrinal rocket artillery, but has some weaker weapons, the Pack Howitzer and the M8A1 Scott, which are now being significantly weakened?

P.S.

You dodged my question about adding non-doctrinal rocket artillery to the US faction to balance its late-game feasibility in team matches. Do you think that would be fair?

Major artillery produces a flare, alerting the enemy to the oncoming barrage. Walking Stukas and Panzerwerfers do not, and you know this very well. I spread my forces out as much as possible against OKW players - I'm not stupid. But the span of the Stuka strike is wide, and there are *multiple* bombs that can hit *multiple* squads. And if you water your force concentration down too low in an area, do you really control it?

As for your comments about the LEIG, as I said - if you want to weaken the Pack Howitzer, let's say, to the LEIG level, then the pricetag should come down as well. Problem solved. Furthermore, the White Phosphorous doesn't come until Vet 1.

When it comes to the Pack Howitzer, you're wrong about it not requiring fuel. You have to pay fuel to unlock the Pack Howitzer in the first place. And, in any case, it cannot be driven away in a hurry like the Panzerwerfer or Walking Stuka - so why would it cost fuel? The Pack Howitzer doesn't have an engine.




You're making my point for me. Again, the USF has no non-doctrinal rocket artillery. The only non-doctrinal artillery the USF has is the Pack Howitzer and the M8A1 Scott. And now they're both being substantially weakened. Do you understand how that might be a problem in team games?



Which part of my argument is ludicrous? The part where I'm factually pointing out that the US has no non-doctrinal rocket artillery, but has some weaker weapons, the Pack Howitzer and the M8A1 Scott, which are now being significantly weakened?

P.S.

You dodged my question about adding non-doctrinal rocket artillery to the US faction to balance its late-game feasibility in team matches. Do you think that would be fair?

You're right, Major Artillery does produce a red flare, just like UKF base howitzer calldowns, which was the unit that sentence was talking about (Hence it referencing "UKF base artillery" and not mentioning the Stuka or Panzerwerfer.) I'm not sure why you decided to talk about the Pwerfer and Stuka here. The span of a Stuka strike is "Wide", yes, but it is also very thin. If you move your units five meters you go from "Dead" to "Hasn't been touched". If you are losing multiple infantry squads to the Stuka you are playing incorrectly. If your units aren't sitting in a straight line more than two simply will never be hit, incidentally. There is a difference between "Force concentration" and "Blobbing".

If the Pack Howitzer was the same strength as the LeIG then yes, it probably should cost the same. The Pack Howitzer is stronger than the LeIG though, so i'm uncertain what the point of asking that is. You'll be losing 20 range, a significant amount of AOE, and both the HEAT shells and White Phosphorous though, so I guess that's your call.

You also have to pay fuel to unlock the Stuka, and in fact almost every unit in every army, excepting your starting ones. What you are doing, though, is looking at a fuel-costing unit and a non-fuel costing unit and expecting them to be comparable. You are also then looking at the Scott and comparing it to the Stuka despite their completely different roles, and the fact the Scott is significantly cheaper.

It is a "problem" if they're both weakened to the point they are not any good. That doesn't appear to have been the case.

The fact you're comparing entirely dissimilar units is what's ludicrous. The Pack Howitzer and Scott are not the same thing as the Stuka, or any rocket artillery for that matter.

Sure, have nondoc rocket artillery. Have something similar to a Panzerwerfer and give up your Scott and Pack Howitzer. I expect the rest of the USF roster will have to be adjusted accordingly.

Oh, you'd have to lose the Priest as well, from doctrines, as well as the Calliope.

Look, without letting this debate get too acrimonious, I will try to make my point clearer, even though I suspect you already know exactly what I'm saying. Let me boil this down once more.

In competitive 4v4 team games, most USF players choose the same commanders again and again (Calliope, Priest, maybe Airborne, or whatever), if they even choose USF at all. It gets old. The USF has no non-doctrinal rocket artillery, and even its doctrinal artillery comes no where near as quickly to the battlefield as the Stuka, which, as I mentioned, I often rush in by the absurdly early time frame of CP 3. You're waiting until CP 9 for the Priest, and CP 10 for the Calliope. It's not even close. Yes, I understand that they're not exactly the same, and that there's good reason for the later arrival of those pieces. That said, the Walking Stuka is still devastatingly effective at an extremely early stage of the game, when players are even less able to handle large blows to their populations. I'm not complaining about that or saying that that should necessarily be changed. That said, I don't agree with weakening the Pack Howitzer and the Scott.

Furthermore, the USF doesn't have any heavy tanks, with the exception of the Pershing, which, with the same durability as the Panther, isn't as strong as the Tiger, Tiger Ace, King Tiger, etc., and only one can be fielded at a time. And now, we're nerfing the two non-doctrinal artillery pieces, which, in my opinion, aren't anywhere near as powerful as the non-doctrinal rocket artillery offered to other factions (the Walking Stuka, Katyusha, and Panzerwerfer). The Brits are a bit lacking in non-doctrinal artillery, too, but at least they have the base howitzers to handle some static emplacements and offer some area of denial for a while.

Do you see why this imbalance is a problem in 4v4 team games? It pushes USF players into choosing the commanders which have the Calliope and Priest if they want to stand any chance in the late game. Jacksons are great, but have no anti-infantry potential, and are extremely vulnerable to just about everything else on the map. Again, picking USF just to go Jacksons every single game is boring, yet, aside from the doctrinal artillery available to three commanders, you don't really have any other choice but to do so when it comes to contributing meaningfully in the late game (if you want to win, anyway). So, now that I see the Pack Howitzers and M8A1 Scott being weakened, I'm scratching my head. The USF is now, non-doctrinally, going to be even worse against those clustered, late game environments, and yet have no heavy tanks to deal with those environments, either. I don't get it. It's like the 4v4 game isn't even taken into consideration by the balance team.

For the record, I'm not a die-hard Allies fan. I would be happy to see improvements made to the Axis factions, as well. I would argue that the King Tiger should receive a range/vision buff. It's expensive, slow, and takes up a lot of population. Another point - I don't think it's necessary to see the 5-man Grenadier squad removed/weakened. I don't think it's too much to have a commander with really strong infantry. When I play with the USF, I don't mind struggling against 5-man Grenadier squads. I want the game to be fair and competitive, and I love the uphill challenge that the Allies face when there are Elefants and Jagdtigers on the back of the battlefield, with LEFH's raining hell down on everything. I just want there to be some more viable options for the USF, so that all of their commanders can get use. It's the only faction in the game that doesn't have heavy armor and non-doctrinal rocket artillery, and that makes them, in my opinion, the hardest faction to play in 4v4 team games. Again, non-doctrinally, you've got the Jackson for the late game, and that's about it. It's extremely boring.

For the sake of keeping the game balanced and yet still interesting, additional weapons (I suggested some in previous posts) which the US historically used during WWII should be on the table to give the faction some more late game potential. The 203mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M43 (used at Cologne) and the truck-mounted rocket artillery (similar to a Katyusha) used by the US Marine Corps at Iwo Jima comes to mind. I'm also for expanding the Axis factions so that Axis players don't similarly get bored with choosing the Elefant and Jagdtiger commanders in game after game (although at least they all have access to Panthers, Stukas and Panzerwerfers to reliably deal with decent armor and congested defensive positions, respectively). The Japanese and other factions should be added at some point, too, though maybe this would be best left for COH3.

I forgive you for saying that I'm making a ludicrous argument, but I don't think there's anything ludicrous about what I'm saying at all. My intention is not to compare each Allied unit to each Axis unit. I understand, that, in some cases, that would be like comparing apples and oranges. I'm not looking to do that. Asymmetry is what makes this game interesting. If all things were equal, the game would be boring. All I'm saying is that, in the case of the USF, there is nothing in the way of non-doctrinal rocket artillery or heavy tanks to compare to the Axis factions. Such USF weapons simply do not exist. And that's a problem. Compounding that problem by weakening the Pack Howitzer and the M8A1 Scott just doesn't make good sense to me from a team game perspective, but if it's going to be done, the price for those units has got to come down accordingly, so that there is at least some compensation for the change. I agree that the Pack Howitzer is still better than the LEIG, in most situations (although, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't the LEIG maintain its 100 auto-fire range while the Pack Howitzer can only auto-fire at 80?). I'm pretty sure the Pack Howitzer only gets 20+ range than the LEIG when it is barraging units, but I could be wrong - haven't checked the tools in a while.

As for your argument of removing the Calliope and the Priest, then Zeroing, Assault Artillery, and the likes would have to go, and, before you know it, every weapon in the game would have to be removed for the sake of 'equality'. I'm happy to see some factions better at certain aspects of the game than others. But for the USF to be missing both the non-doctrinal rocket artillery and heavy tank options, their other weapons had better be quite strong if they are to have a chance in the 4v4 landscape. And that means maintaining the strength of support weapons like the Pack Howitzer and .50 Cal machine gun, which, in light of the latest balance patch, is not currently happening. Maybe those weapons are "overpowered" in the eyes of 1v1 players, but in big, late team games, they hardly compensate for the lack of the non-doctrinal rocket artillery and heavy tanks that I have been highlighting here. Perhaps separate balance patches for 1v1 and 4v4 game modes is necessary.

It has always been a problem. Difference between 1v1 and 3v3+. 2v2 is probably the best mode to balance around.
USF is barely picked in teamgames as it is. I don't play COH2 as often as I'd like these days but I don't remember seeing a USF partner (I only play 3v3) in a long time.

While pak is strong, it only needs an accuracy nerf in autofire (Since that is the thing whereaboos mostly screech about), be it through scatter or w/e.
Scott should be reworked into an autofiring unit and not a barrage one (Pak barrage stronger, scott autofire). That won't happen since whereaboos will screech that the autofire on scott is too strong (as they do now). It is strong, no doubt about it, but only in 1v1s where alpha strikes are less seen. 1v1 is all about the steady continuous bleed with some alpha probes. 3v3+ is all about population so alpha strikes are a must.
Much more target rich mode (100 enemies in 1v1, up to 400 in one area in 3v3+). And since maps on 4v4 are not much bigger, the population density is much higher. Hence the feeling of "blobbing" and "Stuka OP". It's not OP, it's just situational.

I wouldn't get your hopes up about balancing teamgames as well. Certainly no dual patches (1v1 and 2v2+).

In the USF arsenal the Pershing is nonexistent. It can be utilized well in 2v2 but in larger modes with it's low armour and no abilities (the piercing shot is useless 99% of time), Nah.
Hence the calliope commanders are picked. (not to mention the expensive 50 munitions for offmap smoke in Heavy Cav).

The patch itself is good but the nerfs on the USF are a bit too overbearing compared to the buffs. Again, I only play USF in competitive and OKW in non-competitive. I will only comment about the USF.

EDIT: Of course, I'm all about asymmetric balance. The game, while being quite well balanced these days, is quite stale and repetitious. In 90% of games I can easily guess what the enemy will build and in what order. Seldom do these orders change, even in 3v3 (you'd guess since you have a partner to plug the holes that people will experiment, but no).

Axis: MG42s on chokepoints and/or key buildings. Eg: 1 MG42 with 1 pio and grens can completely lock out the beach VP side on Across The Rheine. 90% of time I win the beachhead but if I lose I just reposition to mid VP and wait for the pak howi + AAHT (I never go for the mortar, waste of pop cap later on). Every single game. It's exactly like that. OST tries to place MG42s behind the sandbags or wrecks and you try to flank. Same with other 3v3 maps. Exactly the same scenario on different surroundings. Same with sturmpios + kubel or volks spam.

That's why you often see captain in teamgames and lieutenant in 1v1s. You want to close the game with superior early game on USF. Captain into AAHT for suppression. Pak howi for dislodging and covering and then a fast sherman for closing the game (of course, if your allies are not losing their sides hard). Late game is all about the Jackson since nothing else can touch Panthers, let alone supported heavy TDs.

USF should receive a larger rework, rather than just some small changes to certain units that do not need changes for teamgames. Will it ever happen? No. Why? Because 1v1s are played in tournaments. Relic would have to see how many players play 1v1s compared to 2v2+. See how many people watch COH2 tournaments and then decide whether the teamgames or the 1v1s are keeping the game alive.
For a 7year old game, 9k+ on average is a great number on Steam. Especially for a poorly optimized game. I'd wager that teamgames are much more popular.

...But it's alright for the Walking Stuka to come out at CP3 and wipe out defensive positions and multiple squads (Pack Howitzers included!) in a heartbeat, though, right?
?

Just so we're clear here, are you referring to the Stuka plane or the Stuka rocket arty that costs 100 fuel and only barrages with a very distinctive sound effect to let the enemy know to scatter if they can? Because if you are really choosing to compare the rocket arty that cost quite literally in the realm of allied medium tanks for cost and will delay the okws own armour by that much to a manpower only super mortar.... That's not really an apt comparison....

Just so we're clear here, are you referring to the Stuka plane or the Stuka rocket arty that costs 100 fuel and only barrages with a very distinctive sound effect to let the enemy know to scatter if they can? Because if you are really choosing to compare the rocket arty that cost quite literally in the realm of allied medium tanks for cost and will delay the okws own armour by that much to a manpower only super mortar.... That's not really an apt comparison....

Just so we're *clear here*, I am fairly certain that there is only one "Walking Stuka" in the game, and that is the rocket artillery. I clearly stated "Walking Stuka" - to be clear

Even if you hear the sound effect, retreating your troops can inadvertently cause you to lose more to the strike. Any decent player will mix it up and attack your retreat line, knowing that you may run or reposition your troops when you hear the rockets going off, and end up retreating or even just moving into the explosion. Some maps have smaller passageways where dispersing your forces can't always be done in a rapid or effective way (Port of Hamburg, Essen Steelworks, Lanzerath Ambush, etc.). Surely you're aware of all of this. Then again, you didn't know what a Walking Stuka was, and you have a "#stalinwept" signature on your profile, so I can only imagine the level of sarcasm you bring to an honest conversation.

A lone allied medium tank won't make it very far getting tangled up with even a single Raketenwerfer/Pak 40 and a single snare, mine, etc. If you played 4v4 COH2, you'd know exactly what I'm talking about. Getting a Walking Stuka out at CP 3 is much more devastating in 4v4 team games, and doesn't carry nearly the same risk that rushing a medium tank does. I routinely do more damage with a Walking Stuka than I do with the T34/76, which doesn't scale nearly as well into the late game. Ask any Allied player what he fears more from OKW: A Walking Stuka or a Panzer IV?

I appreciate the condescension, but nothing you say can distract nor detract from the reality that the US faction is non-doctrinally lacking in strong artillery and armor (and, thanks to this latest patch, is getting even worse), which was the point I think I've very clearly made by now. So, if you want to nitpick and play semantics games with me in an effort to deny reality and tell me that the sky is green, that's your prerogative. I've made my case and it's my opinion after spending a lot of time playing 4v4s, which I suspect you aren't too familiar with. Conversely, maybe you know very well what I'm talking about but aren't objective enough to acknowledge it here. That's fine, too.

P.S. An OKW player can usually field the Walking Stuka before a Soviet, British, or American player can field a medium tank. By the time the Allied player gets a tank with his fuel, you can easily have multiple Raketenwerfers and snare-capable infantry to crush it. There is a reason some expert Soviet players will create a Katyusha before they create a T34/76. The same can be said for OKW players who opt for the early Walking Stuka. It has the potential to do a heck of a lot more damage, and survive for a lot longer into the match. It's often more efficient. You don't have to keep it too close to the danger on the battlefield and can still inflict a lot of damage.