[Winter Balance Update] USF Feedback
- This thread is locked
Posts: 713 | Subs: 2
Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1
If the idea was to help USF with snares later in the game, when you might have lost vetted units, after LV phase, then it would be more logical to locked it behind 2 officers or Major, to keep things as they are right now, while improve lategame.
Posts: 372
Rifles get outscaled by axis inf who all get their acc bonuses at vet 2 .
It takes forever to hit vet 3 because of it and usf already bleeds mp like mad due to the close range nature of rifles.
Posts: 69
to Make up for change I suggest riflemen cost lowered to 270 and Rear Echelon given place general purpose mines like Soviet Engineers, Royal Engineers and Sturmpioneers
Posts: 4928
Riflemen should have their weapon slots reduced to one because Double BAR riflemen make Paras and rangers redundant which Hurts Airborne, Heavy Calvary, and Urban Assault
to Make up for change I suggest riflemen cost lowered to 270 and Rear Echelon given place general purpose mines like Soviet Engineers, Royal Engineers and Sturmpioneers
I think it'd help balance quite a lot to remove Double BAR / Double Bren from non-elite units. They would have to have those weapons buffed to compensate and maybe buffs to the squads themselves too, but they'd be brought in line with other line infantry.
That said I don't feel Double BAR is all that overpowered, the BAR isn't that great. In fact it's slightly worse than the Panzergrenadier G43 (nearly identical DPS at all ranges, except around ~8-10 where it's much lower), and actually makes Panzergrenadiers worse at their job to pick up a dropped BAR rather than just keep their StG. The only other automatic rifle type weapon is the FG 42 and that thing overshadows most weapons, let alone the automatic rifles.
Posts: 44
Therefore, I think that other companies that have not appeared in the tournament must be reviewed through this patch. It is necessary to integrate the rifle flare with the field defense of the rifleman company.
And I think it's good to add a ranger squad as a new skill. The Ranger squad needs the same skills as the Soviet penal squad. In order for the Ranger squad to perform an assault mission, it is necessary to be able to install or throw explosives. and Ranger squad's skill points need to be adjusted from 3 to 2.
Unlike the Sherman 76, the Easy8 needs to be able to be used as an outfighter tank. As a user who wants to see the diversity of U.S. tank units, the easy8 is really a tank with no personality. Even if the anti-infantry ability is lower than now, it will be more useful if you increase the range of Easy8 to about 45-50.
Of course, I think that there are many friends who disagree with my opinion. However, whenever I watch the Company of Heroes 2 tournament, the game looks like a duplicate. Particularly after the suppression of the call-in unit, the game is not very fun.
I have been playing games for the past 6 years, and I think that there is not simply a game balance aspect that there are few 1v1 users like now. Starcraft, a genre of strategy games, is also not perfect in balance. However, I think adjustments are necessary to the extent that there are no units that are not used well. In particular, easy8 needs some kind of buff, just like StarCraft's Goliath received Charon booster.
Posts: 62
The only way for REs to become useable in fire support is for them to vet up.
Also USF vehicles could use an armor buff they're very fragile... Especially the utility car and and tanks
Posts: 789
Current problems:
The pack howitzer’s role is pretty unclear. Right now it is mostly a RNG cannon used against infantry. It’s high scatter makes it bad vs. Team weapons, while its high scatter means that when firing even on moving infantry there is a chance the shot will scatter in the direction the squad is moving and it will deal a ton of damage
Meanwhile, the Scott is in a weird spot too. As mentioned earlier by someone else, it can either be practical useless or borderline over powered.
It comes out really late, at around a medium tank timing. To stand a chance of surviving the enemy medium, it has really good survivability in the form of mobility, three shots of HP, smoke, and the ability to shoot over shot blockers. It also deals pretty good DPS.
However, none of this can really help make it viable as a first unit to build, as an enemy medium tank will absolutely destroy it, especially since USF mines are not very good. However, if you can somehow get 2 Scotts and prevent your enemy from threatening them, he is pretty screwed. The range and indirect fire makes AT guns useless against a scott, and they allow you to win lots of infantry engagemts to deny fuel while bleeding the enemy of manpower, meaning it’s hard to get a tank out to kill them.
No amount of buffs will ever make a Scott a viable first unit out at major tech in my opinion, and any big nerfs will just make completely useless.
Ideas:
Making the pack howitzer in major tech and purely good against team weapons would fill the role of rocket artillery that USF is missing.
Making the Scott in Captain tech with the current nerfs in the patch would offset the nerfs due to the earlier timing, and It could still be countered at this timing, as Ost could rush it with Shreck Pgrens and OKW could use the Puma. its survivability could also be finally be nerfed as it wouldn’t be competing against medium tanks.
I am a bit worried about a Scott in Captain tech against Ost. I mentioned Shreck pgrens as a counter, but it would be a pretty weak counter. Maybe the barrage would need further nerfs so that a PaK would be able to somewhat counter it
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Could the Pack howie and Scott’s position in the tech tree be swapped?
...
scott in CT would be uncounterable.
I had suggested, mortar to Cap but both m20 and mortar require only officer. Pack to major scott doctrinal or vice verse.
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
Scot move to rifle company, e8 to armor company.
By doing so, USF have a stock tanky AI specialis, open the path for neftng jackson's durable. Rifle company now have a mobile infantry support gun, armor company now have advance premium medium tank.
i had made a mod on this along with works for other faction if anyone want to check it out.
Posts: 416 | Subs: 1
It's interesting and unique that vehicles need to behave differently around vet 0 and 1 riflemen.
Also note that USF has a chance to retain vehicle vet on death (with crews), so it seems fair enough that late-game squad losses are more punishing.
Posts: 26
Muppets.
Rant over.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Balance team you bunch of muppets. Fix the goddamn USF so we can play OKW again. Im so sick and tired of you tailoring the balance to suit only the top 20.
Muppets.
Rant over.
If you think your problems come from balance, but you are not rank 100 or better, balance is not your problem.
Posts: 132
Jackson first had an armor decrease and now it got a vet pen decrease I think it should be reduced to 140 fuel as it used to be. It got 2 back to back nerfs but it still is a 145 fuel paper AT.
Posts: 26
Why should I have to play the game of my life every game to even have a chance of beating a much lower rank. Against a higher rank winning with OKW is impossible. No chance. OP riflemen, WC51, stuart timing and its ability to neutralize the puma momentarily. Lightning fast 50 cal setups. etc...
The game should be playable by players not in top100.... but i guess not. Thx balance team for your elitist work
Posts: 789
scott in CT would be uncounterable.
I had suggested, mortar to Cap but both m20 and mortar require only officer. Pack to major scott doctrinal or vice verse.
The first change has nothing to do with the Scott or pack howitzer, and how does the second change accomplish anything related to making the Scott and pack howitzer more balanced units?
The Scott and pack howitzer will still be in a terrible spot with no changes for the reasons I discussed in my post, and I see no reason and you gave no reason for how making the Scott doctrinal and moving the pack howitzer to Major or making the pack howitzer doctrinal would make these units more balanced and viable
Also, how would the Scott in Captain be uncounterable? I gave examples for how it could be countered at captain timing, and even admitted it might need further nerfs so that it would be balanced against Ost.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
The first change has nothing to do with the Scott or pack howitzer, and how does the second change accomplish anything related to making the Scott and pack howitzer more balanced units?
The Scott and pack howitzer will still be in a terrible spot with no changes for the reasons I discussed in my post, and I see no reason and you gave no reason for how making the Scott doctrinal and moving the pack howitzer to Major or making the pack howitzer doctrinal would make these units more balanced and viable
Also, how would the Scott in Captain be uncounterable? I gave examples for how it could be countered at captain timing, and even admitted it might need further nerfs so that it would be balanced against Ost.
Imo on the biggest problem of P.H. is its timings
Delaying a unit is nerf and pack howitzer being delayed would amke far more balanced since there would be counter available.
USF already have a plethora of stock indirect fires option like mortar, pack howitzer, Scott, Major barrage and that makes some of them redundant.
So trying to create room for all of them by keeping them stock is in my opinion a waste of time and making some of them doctrinal is a better option.
Posts: 789
Imo on the biggest problem of P.H. is its timings
Delaying a unit is nerf and pack howitzer being delayed would amke far more balanced since there would be counter available.
USF already have a plethora of stock indirect fires option like mortar, pack howitzer, Scott, Major barrage and that makes some of them redundant.
So trying to create room for all of them by keeping them stock is in my opinion a waste of time and making some of them doctrinal is a better option.
I see where you are coming from now, thanks for explaining.
I don’t think moving stuff to doctrines is the solution though because it doesn’t really fix the issues with the units
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I see where you are coming from now, thanks for explaining.
Glad that I could help.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Livestreams
10 | |||||
6 | |||||
1 | |||||
24 | |||||
9 | |||||
8 | |||||
6 | |||||
5 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.35458.859+3
- 4.939410.696+5
- 5.599234.719+7
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
12 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, LegalMetrologyConsul
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM