USF and MP bleed

You can micro a single Pz4 to deal with 9 zooks in Cover to Cover?
Whats the shooting range or Brumbar & Zook? Whats the running speed of Brumbar & infantry in Cover to Cover?

You dont get what I mean, 9 zook Ranger isnt a big problem. 9 Zook Ranger with Cover to Cover is the problem. The speed boost it gives, the ability to pass through MG crew & MG nest.

Cover to cover is a known ability.

Units need to be in a big green AOE before the ability is popped to actually get the bonus. The smoke drops on the green flare. Stuka the area around the green smoke and use ground target. I mean, as soon as you see the green flare drop, you know you're getting CoC-ed. You can also expect a calliope barrage before hand to clear out the MG nests behind the smoke. Brummbar has an easy target here, with it's large AOE to really easily ground target the smoke and catch sprinting infantry. Cover to cover is an ability that you really have to react to. You can't expect to sit still and wait it out. The ability is doctrinal and can be nasty in teamgames, but as I've said, the USF will lack combined arms, HARD. Once cover to cover is dealt with and the calliopes have fired, you know they lack everything.

Point is, react to Cover to cover, don't engage, fall back and use indirects against smoke, place MGs in defensive positions. IR searchlight is not a bad unit vs that, neither the vetted kubel if you manage to save it. If you have obers, drop the poison smoke in front of the CoC smoke to slow down units.

A single P4 won't deal with the zook blob, but you can be sure that if you have a combined force, it will bleed. Heck, I usually go for one 3x zook rangers and don't know how many times I've had P4s take down 4 models in one shot, especially when walking over craters (tend to clump up).

Is CoC a good ability? Yes
Are ranger zooks an absolute menace against tanks? Also yes
Are they fuc*ton expensive to maintain? Yes.

Calliope + ranger zooks are also pop expensive, and since calliopes have a cooldown on the barrage, you play around that. Same as other cheese tactics, this one just takes getting used to. I've never used that tactic as USF and I've had it used against me when I play OKW in standard custom games with whoever joins the lobby. I've also seen allies use it in both ranked and unranked. As OKW I always went for a stuka or two, bound them to ctrl-6, and used tab to just carpet bomb in an X around the dropped smoke while I moved the MG. And if I heard the calliope, I soft retreated sideways.
Same as how you need to adjust and get used to playing against certain toxic units. ISU-152, ST, KT, Ele/Jagd, early MG42 spam or kubel + Spios as USF, or maxims as OKW, etc.
The object/unit itself is not OP, just the way to use it is toxic

With all the recent USF threads popping up recently and the fact this has gone on for 6 pages makes me feel like its evident that USF MP bleed is real or at the very least in need of some tech adjustments.

I've already suggest give USF a similar MP cost decrease late game akin to OST and Sovs.
Change to MP bleed:
Once major is on the field, decrease reinforce cost for rifles by 1~2, RE's by 1~2 (needs tested to)


Changes to tech that might help mitigate USF problems back teching problem:
move AT/.50 to T0, still require tier unlock. once cpt/lt building is upgraded allow for the building of the other support unit type respectively.

Can the community balance team at least attempt at making a change to see how well it scales in a beta patch?

With all the recent USF threads popping up recently and the fact this has gone on for 6 pages makes me feel like its evident that USF MP bleed is real or at the very least in need of some tech adjustments.

I've already suggest give USF a similar MP cost decrease late game akin to OST and Sovs.
Change to MP bleed:
Once major is on the field, decrease reinforce cost for rifles by 1~2, RE's by 1~2 (needs tested to)


Changes to tech that might help mitigate USF problems back teching problem:
move AT/.50 to T0, still require tier unlock. once cpt/lt building is upgraded allow for the building of the other support unit type respectively.

Can the community balance team at least attempt at making a change to see how well it scales in a beta patch?

I don't want it to be a free unlock, if adopted. I always liked the idea of side techs, as they add strategic depth. In addition, the rifle manpower issue only really shows up far lategame IMO. I would put it behind a side-tech in the HQ, which can be purchased at either Major tier or all 3 officer unlocks. We don't want US getting another powerspike so quickly, after their strong midgame.

Cover to cover is a known ability.

You dont have enough time for MG crew to pack up and soft retreat out of the smoke and reset up with their sprint.

Having most your units (and teammate) retreat because of a Ranger zook blob is a free path for enenmy to Blitz through. I have seen many time they Cover to Cover and attack ground on teammate PzHQ. Having arty, Brumbar, infantry, MG to focus on a zook blob in smoke is already a win for them. As requires too many attention from many players and units with micro, vs a few click from a single player.

I was one of the 4-5 people suggest this commander, but my idea was Ranger + Priest not Calliope. And it was before zook buff on ranger. Cant believe one day I hate my own suggestion on this commander because of changes they made.

Since I mostly use Fall to ambush the blob. And friend is expert in using his werfer. Definitely having Fall in camo in their own smoke throwing Blend nade to slow them down for friend to use his werfer is something we should try.

Actually, the aaht was the focus of multiple nerfs if memory serves. Consecutive too. 1v1 players felt that when they played usf it was too easy for them to lock out their opponents. It was quite the offensive beast when it came out. The machine guns actually shot bullets instead of nerf darts. The main cannon actually hit infantry and would mess them up. I think the suppression applied like the mg42 as well, it had this large area of effect that could stop large blobs pretty quick.

it was sort of a buff and a nerf at the sametime. they made it slightly sluggish however it can fire 360deg angle arc unlike the locked 210 deg rear facing arc. The damage of the 40mm bofors was nerf too, which in my opinion is good thing.

The biggest change is the timing of it, the old AAHT could be out during the first 5min in 1v1 games which has a huge impact on early and mid game before any direct counters against it. Apparently Ostheer players dont like it, hence it was delayed behind tech requirements for a unit that dependent on early to mid game to shine. Note that OKW has the same amount bullshit AAHT early game, hence they were locked behind tech too.

USF at the current state, most player would just prefer M5stuart because it come out earlier and its less frustrating to micro at mid to late game

The stuart is overpriced. It does well against most light vehicles, but against infantry it's pretty bad.

The stuart is overpriced. It does well against most light vehicles, but against infantry it's pretty bad.

Yes, the T-70 is miles ahead of the Stuart and costs the same.

Problem with the stuart is very lackluster AI performance, but also not that great AT capability. In terms of anti-tank, it is better than the T-70, but realistically can only engage the exact same units as the T70 and expect to win (halftracks, scout cars, luchs, rocket artillery).

I wouldn't want to buff the Stuart's AI, in case it makes USF midgame too oppressive, but maybe a pen buff to make it more consistent against medium tanks (which the Stuart should be able to support in attacks against like the AEC).

Problem with the stuart is very lackluster AI performance, but also not that great AT capability. In terms of anti-tank, it is better than the T-70, but realistically can only engage the exact same units as the T70 and expect to win (halftracks, scout cars, luchs, rocket artillery).

I wouldn't want to buff the Stuart's AI, in case it makes USF midgame too oppressive, but maybe a pen buff to make it more consistent against medium tanks (which the Stuart should be able to support in attacks against like the AEC).

Stuart becoming more AT-oriented would make LT tier too strong though. It's already picked the majority of the time in 1v1 games because you have 50 cals and m20 to dominate enemy infantry while the Stuart provides help to handle 222s/Flak HT/Luchs, which gives USF a very strong mid-game and also allows you to go BARs instead of Zooks for even more anti-infantry dominance.

USF certainly doesn't need more help in the mid-game; I wonder if cheaper back-teching once Major is unlocked might be the way to help USF late-game instead. The AT gun/hmg split has always been the thing I've hated most about USF. I'm guessing it's too late in the game's life cycle to experiment with that though.

I do like the idea to get a reinforce cost reduction kinda similar to Ost, maybe pairing it with unlocking all officers could make the backtech route more palatable. Heck, you could even put it in a commander if that makes it more thematic.

Knocking a bit of fuel off of the previous tiers vehicles once major is unlocked could actually be really nice.... Cheaper AA. An affordable m20 for mine laying and a Stuart that might be cost effective without having to be a shock unit.... Could actually be decent....

I wouldn't want to buff the Stuart's AI, in case it makes USF midgame too oppressive, but maybe a pen buff to make it more consistent against medium tanks (which the Stuart should be able to support in attacks against like the AEC).

Exactly this. Pen buff does nothing for it's shock value but would give it better late game usefulness. Late game the abilities are really all it can contribute

Late game you swap the crew into a more relevant unit.

Knocking a bit of fuel off of the previous tiers vehicles once major is unlocked could actually be really nice.... Cheaper AA. An affordable m20 for mine laying and a Stuart that might be cost effective without having to be a shock unit.... Could actually be decent....

I like this idea and is interesting as a faction trait.

there is nothing too strong or oppressive about usf and changing the stuart will not change that lmao

Yes, the T-70 is miles ahead of the Stuart and costs the same.

Since USF was nerfed into the ground everything that they have is mediocre at best including the Stuart.


Compared to T-70 the Stuart is significantly worse in the Anti-Infantry department while having a similar cost to these units. T-70 synergizes well with Soviets since it can support your infantry (Conscripts/Penals) or Cover your Maxims from Flanks. Meanwhile it can capture Territory and has a very useful Recon ability providing it sight without needing to gain veterancy.

Panzer II "Luchs" also significantly better in the Anti-Infantry role and though it does have worst AT performance it is not needed due to easy access to Raketenwerfer, Sturmpioneer Panzershreks and OKW can lay mines to cover potential retreat paths for the Luchs. It can turn invisible as well to scout.

AEC has terrible AI but its AT performance can soft counter medium tanks and the Target Tread Ability remains useful in all stages of the game so it never feels like a waste of fuel to invest into an AEC.

Puma is similar to the AEC but it has massive sight (50 vision compared to the Stuarts 35 vision) so not only is it effective at scouting but can disable Vehicle Turrets winning you future engagements. If you grab heat rounds you can tackle medium tanks easily making Puma an excellent choice that never feels like a waste of fuel. To add insult to injury here the Puma also has similar AI levels as the Stuart while surpassing it in both vision and AT performance.


Compared to the other Light Vehicles Stuart is easily the worst one in the game hands down. Both in its performance, its abilities and its ability to Scout as it needs to get to Vet 3 just to be able to provide similar vision to a Kubelwagon or a Puma/AEC without Vet. Considering that OKW has many options for Sight (Even Volksgrenadiers gain sight through VET) the Stuart should excel in the Sight department without the need for Veterancy considering USF's lack of options in that department and the lack of shock value the Stuart has compared to a T-70 or Luchs. Its not like USF has the option to call in a Spotlight Halftrack providing 90 Vision or other vision options spread across numerous units.

Since USF was nerfed into the ground everything that they have is mediocre at best including the Stuart.


Compared to T-70 the Stuart is significantly worse in the Anti-Infantry department while having a similar cost to these units. T-70 synergizes well with Soviets since it can support your infantry (Conscripts/Penals) or Cover your Maxims from Flanks. Meanwhile it can capture Territory and has a very useful Recon ability providing it sight without needing to gain veterancy.

Panzer II "Luchs" also significantly better in the Anti-Infantry role and though it does have worst AT performance it is not needed due to easy access to Raketenwerfer, Sturmpioneer Panzershreks and OKW can lay mines to cover potential retreat paths for the Luchs. It can turn invisible as well to scout.

AEC has terrible AI but its AT performance can soft counter medium tanks and the Target Tread Ability remains useful in all stages of the game so it never feels like a waste of fuel to invest into an AEC.

Puma is similar to the AEC but it has massive sight (50 vision compared to the Stuarts 35 vision) so not only is it effective at scouting but can disable Vehicle Turrets winning you future engagements. If you grab heat rounds you can tackle medium tanks easily making Puma an excellent choice that never feels like a waste of fuel. To add insult to injury here the Puma also has similar AI levels as the Stuart while surpassing it in both vision and AT performance.


Compared to the other Light Vehicles Stuart is easily the worst one in the game hands down. Both in its performance, its abilities and its ability to Scout as it needs to get to Vet 3 just to be able to provide similar vision to a Kubelwagon or a Puma/AEC without Vet. Considering that OKW has many options for Sight (Even Volksgrenadiers gain sight through VET) the Stuart should excel in the Sight department without the need for Veterancy considering USF's lack of options in that department and the lack of shock value the Stuart has compared to a T-70 or Luchs. Its not like USF has the option to call in a Spotlight Halftrack providing 90 Vision or other vision options spread across numerous units.

Mostly fair except for the insanely wrong "similar AI performance" between Puma and Stuart. Puma has almost no AI, Stuart has okay AI stats, but it feels bad because everyone compares it to the T70 which has insane AI.

The real problem is that the Stuart falls into the same type of generalist trap that several other vehicles fall into - they never feel good enough but actually they're quite balanced for their cost. They provide modest AI and modest AT for a modest price. A huge difference between the Stuart and the T70 is that Stuart kills Luchs and flak HT a lot easier and faster, and comfortably beats 222s without any risk. Stuart stands up very well to Ostwind and its abilities are insanely good (albeit micro-intensive). Personally I don't like EZ8s because they're not as good as HE Shermans vs infantry, and I prefer to use Jacksons for AT, so I do feel the same way about the Stuart.

But for its super cheap cost it is definitely good enough for its price and timing. Targeting actual USF issues late game makes more sense than over-buffing a unit which is already picked virtually all the time in 1v1 games.

Mostly fair except for the insanely wrong "similar AI performance" between Puma and Stuart. Puma has almost no AI, Stuart has okay AI stats, but it feels bad because everyone compares it to the T70 which has insane AI.

The real problem is that the Stuart falls into the same type of generalist trap that several other vehicles fall into - they never feel good enough but actually they're quite balanced for their cost. They provide modest AI and modest AT for a modest price. A huge difference between the Stuart and the T70 is that Stuart kills Luchs and flak HT a lot easier and faster, and comfortably beats 222s without any risk. Stuart stands up very well to Ostwind and its abilities are insanely good (albeit micro-intensive). Personally I don't like EZ8s because they're not as good as HE Shermans vs infantry, and I prefer to use Jacksons for AT, so I do feel the same way about the Stuart.

But for its super cheap cost it is definitely good enough for its price and timing. Targeting actual USF issues late game makes more sense than over-buffing a unit which is already picked virtually all the time in 1v1 games.

This is absolutely spot on. The Stuart is a jack of all trades and, as such, does of course feel quite a bit underwhelming if you compare it with more specialized light tanks in areas where these excel. Still, it has much better AT than a T-70 as well as much better AI than both the Puma and AEC, making it extremely versatile in most scenarios.
This versatility may arguably get more and more redundant in teamgames where other players can easily cover the weaknesses the more specialized lights leave in your roster, but in 1v1s the Stuart is no doubt a great unit.

This is absolutely spot on. The Stuart is a jack of all trades and, as such, does of course feel quite a bit underwhelming if you compare it with more specialized light tanks in areas where these excel. Still, it has much better AT than a T-70 as well as much better AI than both the Puma and AEC, making it extremely versatile in most scenarios.
This versatility may arguably get more and more redundant in teamgames where other players can easily cover the weaknesses the more specialized lights leave in your roster, but in 1v1s the Stuart is no doubt a great unit.

I used to go LT- Stuart all the time, but recently discovered how insanely good the Captain's "On Me" is, so I've been playing with LT-Cpt builds a lot more since I do feel that way about the Stuart as well. Decent for its price but I would rather get two specialists which only cost manpower (50 cal and AT gun) and save the fuel for a Sherman rush.

must be hard to get 3 free squads while teching and thinking their terminator sqauds are too weak.

lets give USF the T1000 model, which cant be killed. the t800 model is to weak.

must be hard to get 3 free squads while teching and thinking their terminator sqauds are too weak.

lets give USF the T1000 model, which cant be killed. the t800 model is to weak.

At least trying to be unbiased must be even harder.

Those 3 "free" squads compensate for not having elite/semi elite inf stock, rocket arty stock or stock heavies tanks or heavies in general?
Or do they compensate for the to high mp bleed for usf?