USF players ragequiting in team games

What, USF players RQing after their blob fails or is shot to pieces by superior enemy late game infantry forces?

*Thinks in Obers* Yes, I have seen this happen very frequently. Sadly the faction design encourages you to blob (eg: CPT + RE smokes and BAR/M1919A6 blobs) and rewards you for it. But, you will never recover a lost vet III rifle squad in the late game. Not if your opponent is decent. And you might not have doc elite infantry loaded in. To that end, some ppl prefer to just drop rather than bleed horribly in the face of pzgrens and Obers.

Time and time again, USF players in 3v3s prove to be completely and utterly horrible

is their only strat to have a frontline ambulance and blob? then they outright lose early and quit, quit after map control hasn't been achieved (when they don't see the whole tac. map as blue), or quit when the enemy gets rocket arty and kills their whole army

The late game MP drain of USF in games larger than 1v1 is normally the problem regardless of micro (no you can't sit in a nade and get mad you lost a squad, micro is still important). The loss of a vet squad is the real kicker since you'll lose the scaling for late game required to keep the damage up to equal the investment, factor in the extra 2x BARs (b/c base rifle men are ass) and you end up with a CoH2 equivalent of a money sink.


Throw in other things like

• Late game insta wipe abelites (sturmtiger, Stuka, etc)
  
• More cost effective units ( Falls, Obers, Hell even Pro-stropen beat rifles in cover)
  
• 5th man on rifle drops in 20~40 seconds of combat if feels regardless of cover.
  
• USF's railroaded tech 10 extra fuel to grab both tech = late Sherman
  
• MP expensive TD - Jackson which bounces more than it should for the cost
  
• Lack of late game rocket arty - multitude of posts asking for Major getting ColliOP
  

I can keep going into the nitty gritty, there's a lot that can go wrong in larger games for sure with micro, bad strats, and positioning but out of all the factions USF rly could do with a late game some sort of reinforce cost reduction seen with Wehr.

Agreed 100%. I am of the opinion that USF need a full rework at this point.

USF units in general are expensive glass cannon. Unlike Ost and OKW, which often could turn around in late game with their cost efficient infantry and tanks.

the jackson is really the only glass cannon. The rest of the lineup is just below average at this point from years of nerfs, but for the same price others are paying for more efficient units.

actually on the topic, yes I have noticed it. Although I do think allies in general are very low moral. People playing as axis are far more likely to try and regain the upper hand. Even after devastating losses. As discussed in the other topic about the mp bleed of USF, I think it's related to efficiency. Nearly all of the USF units have been nerfed over the years to reduce the ability of a USF player to hit axis players hard. Very little has been done in reverse(much less 1 hit kills now from brumbar yay). USF requires strong micro and awareness to be successful. You cannot lean on having many advantages over others.

+1

Once you get into a downward spiral as Allies, forget it. Axis can stage a comeback at almost any point by being conservative and stalling for fuel/ armour

+1

Once you get into a downward spiral as Allies, forget it. Axis can stage a comeback at almost any point by being conservative and stalling for fuel/ armour

Dude, most of the balance team plays axis in 70%+ of their games. Don't be surprised that USF has been nerfed patch by patch without giving anything in return. They are still viable in 1v1s due to the nature of the mode. I play USF competitively only and OKW leisure and I don't remember when was the last time I had trouble dealing with anything allies related. There is some cancer in ISU152 and units like that but as I know USF in and out, I can say that you cannot lose vs USF if you're on par skill-wise. Only time you lose vs USF is when you are way worse than them.

Dude, most of the balance team plays axis in 70%+ of their games. Don't be surprised that USF has been nerfed patch by patch without giving anything in return. They are still viable in 1v1s due to the nature of the mode. I play USF competitively only and OKW leisure and I don't remember when was the last time I had trouble dealing with anything allies related. There is some cancer in ISU152 and units like that but as I know USF in and out, I can say that you cannot lose vs USF if you're on par skill-wise. Only time you lose vs USF is when you are way worse than them.

Nonsense. 95% of USF nerfs were completely justified. Things like pak howie, scott and Calliope were overperforming and screwed the balance in 1vs1/2vs2.
On the other side things like no stock rocket arty and axis 70 range tds are beyond their reach cause relic designed the game like this and won't allow changes.
So stop blaming the balance for the current 4vs4 gamestate. Maybe give some valuable (!) input instead of this worthless crying?!

Nonsense. 95% of USF nerfs were completely justified. Things like pak howie, scott and Calliope were overperforming and screwed the balance in 1vs1/2vs2.
On the other side things like no stock rocket arty and axis 70 range tds are beyond their reach cause relic designed the game like this and won't allow changes.
So stop blaming the balance for the current 4vs4 gamestate. Maybe give some valuable (!) input instead of this worthless crying?!

Well, the moment you give proofs or arguments that pak howi and scott were overperforming, I'll give my arguments. Try playing USF in teamgames and get back to me with some arguments. If you need 2 pak howis to reliably kill one MG then you know it's BS. Same with scott. One scott won't kill an MG or mortar with the barrage. Calliope was overperforming but they basically made it a light vehicle with the 2shot hp, instead of lowering agility/velocity and making it slower after the barrage. So many options, they decided to just gut it's uniqueness.
USF never dominated 1v1s and 2v2s the way both axis factions dominate 3v3s and 4v4s. Heck, the 1v1 winrates were constantly even around 50% +- 1%

https://coh2stats.com/stats?range=month&statsSource=all&type=1v1&race=wermacht&timeStamp=1625097600

Check each and every month for 1v1 USF winrates and you'll see it's around 51%. Then check axis winrates for teamgames and you'll see a big disparity.
The way you put it, 2 core indirect units were "overperforming" yet made no difference in the overall winrates..

AND if you really want your proof of "USF STRONG IN 1v1" then check TOP 200 winrates for USF in 1v1 and you'll see that top 1v1s are even lower than 49% for USF month in - month out. Go ahead:
lowest for this month: https://coh2stats.com/stats?range=month&statsSource=top200&type=1v1&race=wermacht&timeStamp=1625097600

So yeah, I'm calling BS. The balance team is incompetent at best and even though some nerfs were justified, they never gave anything in return, just straight out nerfed a unit into obscurity.
Pak howi got the 6 man crew which makes absolutely no difference as they are even more clumped up and the survivability maybe went up 5% while offensive stats went down 50%.


Please show me a month where USF dominated everything in terms of winrates, any game mode. I can show you each and every month where axis dominate in the winrate department.

Well, the moment you give proofs or arguments that pak howi and scott were overperforming, I'll give my arguments. Try playing USF in teamgames and get back to me with some arguments. If you need 2 pak howis to reliably kill one MG then you know it's BS. Same with scott. One scott won't kill an MG or mortar with the barrage. Calliope was overperforming but they basically made it a light vehicle with the 2shot hp, instead of lowering agility/velocity and making it slower after the barrage. So many options, they decided to just gut it's uniqueness.
USF never dominated 1v1s and 2v2s the way both axis factions dominate 3v3s and 4v4s. Heck, the 1v1 winrates were constantly even around 50% +- 1%

https://coh2stats.com/stats?range=month&statsSource=all&type=1v1&race=wermacht&timeStamp=1625097600

Check each and every month for 1v1 USF winrates and you'll see it's around 51%. Then check axis winrates for teamgames and you'll see a big disparity.
The way you put it, 2 core indirect units were "overperforming" yet made no difference in the overall winrates..

AND if you really want your proof of "USF STRONG IN 1v1" then check TOP 200 winrates for USF in 1v1 and you'll see that top 1v1s are even lower than 49% for USF month in - month out. Go ahead:
lowest for this month: https://coh2stats.com/stats?range=month&statsSource=top200&type=1v1&race=wermacht&timeStamp=1625097600

So yeah, I'm calling BS. The balance team is incompetent at best and even though some nerfs were justified, they never gave anything in return, just straight out nerfed a unit into obscurity.
Pak howi got the 6 man crew which makes absolutely no difference as they are even more clumped up and the survivability maybe went up 5% while offensive stats went down 50%.


Please show me a month where USF dominated everything in terms of winrates, any game mode. I can show you each and every month where axis dominate in the winrate department.

Are you serious? Your linked dataset ranges back to march 2021. The latest Scott/pak howie changes are from February 21. And the major nerfs to those units are way older. What exactly do these stats prove? That you have no clue?

Are you serious? Your linked dataset ranges back to march 2021. The latest Scott/pak howie changes are from February 21. And the major nerfs to those units are way older. What exactly do these stats prove? That you have no clue?

Winter balance patch was in march 2021. Setting aside the BS argument you just put out. The stats show that USF loses which ever way you put it. Each game mode except 1v1 sees USF losing hard month after month. 2v2 is horrible, 3v3... I mean, it's not just USF, you can even see a 60% winrate for axis in one month in teamgames.

I am pretty fu***** certain that USF did not have 60% winrates across the board before the March 2021 winter update. Yet axis have vastly superior winrates month after month. Unless you want to bash on the numbers themselves, then go **** yourself. You can claim that those numbers are not proof of anything, and you would be somewhat right as it's a complex system, but they show trends. Nobody can deny it.
Even though for July with 317 games played in 4v4 top200. the 65% winrate for OKW is mind boggling. You can't say that OKW is OP but you can definitely see a following trend: If your overall skill is the same as that of the axis player, you will probably lose. Now Soviets have some teamgame options. UKF has a stock heavy tank and a breakthrough tank.
USF?

So again, make some arguments instead of just bashing anything that does not suit your view. Arguments. Instead of saying that the stats are later than the balance patch, take a look at the stats and claim that USF is OP in any game mode. They are "OK" in 1v1s but "UP" in 2v2+, considering the statistical data obtained by that site. The data is weak in top200 but even there you can see the trends.

And considering the clue. If I wanted to compare winrates before and after the patch, then you would be correct. But I did not, so read again and see that I put out the stats AFTER the patch which show just how poorly USF is doing.
Go back to primary school for some information extraction exercises from a text.

Winter balance patch was in march 2021. Setting aside the BS argument you just put out. The stats show that USF loses which ever way you put it. Each game mode except 1v1 sees USF losing hard month after month. 2v2 is horrible, 3v3... I mean, it's not just USF, you can even see a 60% winrate for axis in one month in teamgames.

I am pretty fu***** certain that USF did not have 60% winrates across the board before the March 2021 winter update. Yet axis have vastly superior winrates month after month. Unless you want to bash on the numbers themselves, then go **** yourself.

Without pre patch winrate these stats say absolutely zero about the work of the balance team. USF could have even worse winrate in 4vs4 before the community patches. The only thing these stats prove is that USf is inferior in 4vs4 ATM. No way you could prove any long-term alteration.

They have 49% in 2vs2 and 60% in 3vs3 since March and top 200 only. The only heavy axis favored mode is 4vs4 statswise.

Justifications and rationalizations for nerfing USF have been ample since they were brought into the game. Right off the bat it was over the AAHT. The pak40 could still deal with it back then. Teller mines still worked. Yet they felt it was too strong. I'm sure the win rates were similar. The changes to USF was never about extreme difficulty in beating USF players.

Modding team never gave any justification for pak and scott last nerfs. No video, no replay. One just say when dual they overperform but thats relevant for any support weapon. Dual atg 2 shots tanks, dual hmg lock half the map, dual isg murder team weapons, dual r-arty wipe half armies...

And since they're not accountable for their changes, expect more OPstruppen and more nerfs to USF.

The accusation that the MOD team is biased are non constructive, unfounded and simply false.

As for this thread it seem more like someone's speculation and is not backed up with any sort of numbers or theories that make sense.

Dude, most of the balance team plays axis in 70%+ of their games. Don't be surprised that USF has been nerfed patch by patch without giving anything in return. They are still viable in 1v1s due to the nature of the mode. I play USF competitively only and OKW leisure and I don't remember when was the last time I had trouble dealing with anything allies related. There is some cancer in ISU152 and units like that but as I know USF in and out, I can say that you cannot lose vs USF if you're on par skill-wise. Only time you lose vs USF is when you are way worse than them.

I sometimes feel helpless to win a particular match as allies, like yesterday against a ST in 2v2, both OST and OKW sucked bad until they got the ST and it was all downhill from there, thats actually how low the skillceiling for axis is, but at the same time you get stronger units.

Let me just list some things that Axis gets that allies never will:

>PZGREN get speed boost just by being nearby to a vehicle, this is a passive NON-DOCTRINAL ability unlocked at vet 1.
>OST can use AMBUSH CAMOUFLAGE on the godforsaken MG42, the best insta-suppress HMG in the entire game, oh and also PZGREN and GREN for some reason.
>The entire concept of Ferdinand/Jagdtiger, they are cancerous to play against.
>A 5man, camouflagable(vet1) AT gun that you can build in T0, at 270-290MP, that you can easily spam for cheap wipes on weaker allied armor if you caught them offguard.Oh and if it fires out of camouflage it is guranteed to penetrate and deal more damage.
>Teller mines, 50muni that can OHK light vehicles for no other reason than fuck you.
>Double shreck on PZGREN that can deal 240 burst damage to allied armor, whilst also being almost guranteed to penetrate due to having so much pen.
>The design of the PZfusilier is godawful, a 6man squad with G43 snipers for 270MP 80MU, that can get 5 levels of vet and also shoot flares for Jagd to spot?
>The Sturmtiger, don't need to mention anything more than it's invicible due to it's 1440HP health pool, even if you get chased by two SU85 from the rear you can survive.
>Early access to rocket arty(Stuka) to deal with blobs or emplacements easier.
>Have stronger tanks, inf and AT weaponry whilst facing WEAKER tanks, inf and AT weaponry.Logically you would guess that it would make sense to give one side superior AT and the other superior tanks, but axis gets both.
>They can fight against dogshit factions like the USF.
>The balancing team majority plays axis, so expect more bullshit things like the ST to pop up in the future favouring the axis.
>The STUG, the fact that you can use this thing en-masse to kamikaze into any allied armor and unless the allied player has mines/AT inf waiting for you, you are basically guranteed to kill whatever it is that you wanted to kill due to the STUG's broken reload time, speed etc.
>The fact that the allies have NO DIRECT EQUIVALENT to the Panther except the Comet(somewhat because it still loses majority of the time).
>The Command Panther exists, having the speed of a Formula 1(even more so than a regular Panther), overall superior stats, buffing aura, VET5, mark vehicle that you can use with the Command Panther alone in a 1v1 engagement to basically gurantee it wins against any allied tank head-on, and also bullshit flares.
>Ostruppen being able to be used as mainline infantry (not what Relic intented them as) for 200MP and less reinforcement than Cons, whilst having a cover bonus so they don't get stomped by allied infantry like they're supposed to.If you use Ostruppen as your mainline inf, you completely negate one of the Axis' inherent weaknesses(small squad size) whilst at the same time having the BEST team weapons in the game and also will float more manpower than if you used grens so you can tech faster for PZGREN/rush for P4/Panther/Brummbar/whatever.
Know this sounds like a rant but this game will never be balanced as long as the developers are axis mains.

The accusation that the MOD team is biased are non constructive, unfounded and simply false.

As for this thread it seem more like someone's speculation and is not backed up with any sort of numbers or theories that make sense.

What bias? Check their player cards and you'll see a majority of games played are axis. Balance team should comprise of people that play all factions equally to remove as much bias as possible.

What bias? Check their player cards and you'll see a majority of games played are axis. Balance team should comprise of people that play all factions equally to remove as much bias as possible.

The first patch not made by Relic buffed Soviets to broken state and they remained so for 6 months (60% winrates if I remember correctly) so claiming they are axis biased does not really make much sense.

Funny that you choose use the playcard argument since according to your playcard you are completely USF biased. So pls try to avoid silly arguments like that.

Imo you should be happy that someone bothers to patch the game.

The first patch not made by Relic buffed Soviets to broken state and they remained so for 6 months (60% winrates if I remember correctly) so claiming they are axis biased does not really make much sense.

Funny that you choose use the playcard argument since according to your playcard you are completely USF biased. So pls try to avoid silly arguments like that.

Imo you should be happy that someone bothers to patch the game.

Well yeah, I should and would never be on the balance team. I can criticize as much as I want. I don't owe anyone anything, nor answer to anyone how I play the game. The balance team on the other hand... They do since they have "the power" to make changes as they see fit.


How do you know it was 60% winrate? One patch taken out of your a** claiming that soviets were broken (could be, I don't remember but it's quite possible) with a non referenced winrate claim is quite funny (or sad?).

Well yeah, I should and would never be on the balance team.

You can play the game however you want. But know that one-faction heroes are biased. They all think their faction of choice is weak and the other side is OP. This dark conspiracy has their puppet-master in Relic/balance team/illuminati.

For some reason though, you never hear this from people who play both sides equally.