USF Pathfinder spam is too efficient (2v2)

On that point it would be interesting to know if Airborne is part of the free 4 commanders. If so, this effect would be quite exacerbated. Is there any site/post to look up the initial commanders for all factions?

It's free.

Honestly I have reached the stage where I welcome any USF nerfs.

That way people will stop using the weakest faction in the game and throwing team matches by using them lol

The main point that many make is not that USF struggles in all circumstances, but that the only way for them to not struggle is by choosing airborne.

I think the only commander where we can see such a heavy bias in loadout is Soviet's Guard Motor commander. Axis commanders seem to be generally more diverse, only Jager Armour stands out for OST in 3v3 and 4v4. OKW commanders in loadout are probably the most equally distributed from all factions.

I am not sure if I'd nail down Airborne as the only "fix" for USF, but the commander data is strongly biased for USF in all modes. What is notable though is that the rate of Airborne increases if you switch to the top200 while the win rate stays the similar, indicating that this doctrine might be required to stay competitive.
On that point it would be interesting to know if Airborne is part of the free 4 commanders. If so, this effect would be quite exacerbated. Is there any site/post to look up the initial commanders for all factions?

Regardless if Pathfinder are a necessity or not it is bad for the game. (Same applies to Guard motor)

Regardless if Pathfinder are a necessity or not it is bad for the game. (Same applies to Guard motor)

What do you mean by "it"?

What do you mean by "it"?

Either USF Faction is weak and can only win using airborne which mean that the commander is over performing resulting in high win rates while masking the balance issues.
or
USF is ok as faction and Airborne is OP.

In both cases having limited meta is bad for the game.

Either USF Faction is weak and can only win using airborne which mean that the commander is over performing resulting in high win rates while masking the balance issues.
or
USF is ok as faction and Airborne is OP.

In both cases having limited meta is bad for the game.

There are no high winrates for USF. They are pretty much 50%, slightly better in 1v1 and slightly worse in 4v4.

We get ~50% WR while seeing heavily scewed commander selection, either for airborne only or a triad of commanders, depending on the mode. I've made those points in the previous post, so I won't repeat them again.
It is no proof, but indication that the core faction is not sufficient for competitive play.

Therefore, saying that USF generally does not struggle might be dismissive of what actually happens, because the win rates on which the argument is based are biased.

This has been a long standing issue for both USF and UKF. Lacking core units at the right timing always makes you rely on doctrines to fill gaps. OKW had similar issues, but they have been relieved for example back when they got the MG stock and more recently with easier access to medics. USF still has some core issues that are not as easy to forgo, that's why we're seeing the current commander selection.


(edited typo)

There are no high winrates for USF. They are ptetty much 50%, slightly better in 1v1 and slightly worse in 2v2.

We get ~50% WR while seeing heavily scewed commander selection, either for airborne only or a triad of commanders, depending on the mode. I've made those points in the previous post, so I won't repeat them again.
It is no proof, but indication that the core faction is not sufficient for competitive play.

Therefore, saying that USF generally does not struggle might be dismissive of what actually happens, because the win rates on which the argument is biased are biases.

This has been a long standing issue for both USF and UKF. Lacking core units at the right timing always makes you rely on doctrines to fill gaps. OKW had similar issues, but they have been relieved for example back when they got the MG stock and more recently with easier access to medics. USF still has some core issues that are not as easy to forgo, that's why we're seeing the current commander selection.

Not really UKF and USF have different issues.

I am not going to argue weather USF as faction is UP or not, Airborne and Pathfinder are dominating the meta and they promoting a certain type of play and that is bad

Not really UKF and USF have different issues.

I am not going to argue weather USF as faction is UP or not, Airborne and Pathfinder are dominating the meta and they promoting a certain type of play and that is bad

I mean it's a fairly easy equation.
We know that airborne and paths are heavily used across all modes. If you assume that pathfinders are OP, yet USF has roughly 50% win rate, then this indicates that USF as a faction could be either weak or easy to exploit. Especially combined with other hints that we have. You were also arguing multiple times about core USF in this thread, so that ship has already sailed.

I agree that the pathfinder spam is bad for the game, no doubt about that. But all data we have rather indicates that is a symptom of core USF, not that paths were OP.

I mean it's a fairly easy equation.

No it not.

We know that airborne and paths are heavily used across all modes. If you assume that pathfinders are OP, yet USF has roughly 50% win rate, then this indicates that USF as a faction could be either weak or easy to exploit.

USF win rates 1vs1:
53/47 vs okw
54/46 vs Ostheer

Feel free to explain what in these number indicates that USF are "weak".

Especially combined with other hints that we have. You were also arguing multiple times about core USF in this thread, so that ship has already sailed.

And I have mostly posted about Pathfinder/Ambulance/Scott all brought by OP and the M1 mortar that imo contributes to issue/strategy. I have responded to what others have brought up in this thead and I have be moderated as "of topic", but if your opinion we should debate a core USF unit feel free to bring it up.

I agree that the pathfinder spam is bad for the game, no doubt about that. But all data we have rather indicates that is a symptom of core USF, not that paths were OP.

Do Pathfinders vet too fast?

Can Pathfinders be produced in numbers providing battlefield intelligence?

Are Pathfinders able to despite their utility greatly replace mainline infantries in that role?

In the end of the day do USF have better win-rates than AXis using Pathfinders than anything else so is that an indication that Pathfinder contribute more to those victories?

Not really UKF and USF have different issues.

I am not going to argue weather USF as faction is UP or not, Airborne and Pathfinder are dominating the meta and they promoting a certain type of play and that is bad

Yes because you just bleed to death against snipers or go for a sub-optimal build with a mortar before 3 rifles and officer against MG42s. Pathfinder fixes both problems.

Lacking core units at the right timing always makes you rely on doctrines to fill gaps. OKW had similar issues, but they have been relieved for example back when they got the MG stock and more recently with easier access to medics. USF still has some core issues that are not as easy to forgo, that's why we're seeing the current commander selection.


(edited typo)

Agreed on everything you said except this part. OKW is not relieved of these issues at all, it just bypasses them with the retarded system of skipping Light Armor to gain access to medium-heavy armor which means that if you play against USF for example and want to bring a Puma to deter Scott or E8 or whatever you have to skip the heal truck. Criminally retarded, but thankfully not a huge deal considering the options of Opel truck which heals and transports troops (Doctrinal though).

Yes because you just bleed to death against snipers or go for a sub-optimal build with a mortar before 3 rifles and officer against MG42s. Pathfinder fixes both problems.

I thought the MG42 whining was done when they gave REs Smoke.

Just enjoy the cheese while you can and don't try to reason this out. Pathspam is fun I guess and gives you a fair chance at victory against some opponents. That's that. Don't try to paint it as an essential answer to every USF problem.

Early MG42 were fixed by giving REs smoke.
Early Gren is never a problem since the usual matchup is 2 Riflemen + 1 RE vs 1MG (Smoked) 1 Gren 1 Pio.
Early 222 is fixed by giving Riflemen snares.

No it not.

Counter argument?

USF win rates 1vs1:
53/47 vs okw
54/46 vs Ostheer

Feel free to explain what in these number indicates that USF are "weak".

October until yesterday yielded 52 and 53 for OST and OKW, respectively. Anyway, that's only one of the stats. The all stats for 2v2 and 3v3 is are very even. Do I cite the subpar win rate of 48% for USF and claim they were weak?
No I don't, that would be wrong.

If you're interested in my reasoning, please re-read the previous posts that I made. I have explained my reasoning on pathfinders in detail.

And I have mostly posted about Pathfinder/Ambulance/Scott all brought by OP and the M1 mortar that imo contributes to issue/strategy. I have responded to what others have brought up in this thead and I have be moderated as "of topic", but if your opinion we should debate a core USF unit feel free to bring it up.

Don't quote me on what I said and do not wrongfully imply stuff I did not say. I'll leave it at that, he said she said is not my style of discussing.

Do Pathfinders vet too fast?

Can Pathfinders be produced in numbers providing battlefield intelligence?

Are Pathfinders able to despite their utility greatly replace mainline infantries in that role?

In the end of the day do USF have better win-rates than AXis using Pathfinders than anything else so is that an indication that Pathfinder contribute more to those victories?

Definitely paths can replace mainlines, that's what this meta build is all about.
Does it make USF overpowered? No.

To re-itereate:
Airborne is a standard commander. Seeing it as a top loadout pick is to be expected in the "all" data. Win rates across all modes are roughly 50%. So either the commander and USF are both fine factions, or - assuming pathfinders are OP - USF has problems on its own. Commander loadout choices indicate a heavily biased loadout for USF, giving a hint it might actually be the latter option.

The last sentence of yours is misinterpreting statistics though. You compare across modes, which by itself is not wrong, but you have to handle conclusions with way more care care. We have better point of reference: For 1v1 and 2v2, there are plenty of games if we filter on the top200. Mode specific effects are completely eliminated.
So what do we see there?
Airborne gets even more popular. Despite looking only at players that likely play a lot, invest more into the game and have more commanders available, they still pick one of the "free" ones, even more frequently than the players that have fewer options (in numbers: 1v1 18,8% of all USF players have airborne in the loadout, compared to 22,1% of top200 players. For 2v2, the numbers are 34,0% and 46,8%, respectively). So surely the win rate goes up, especially in 2v2, doesn't it?
Nope. It doesn't. It stays the same, actually goes down a tiny bit although this might not be significant.


Now, if pathfinder spam is OP - and it actually might be - then it seems to make USF perform similar to other factions. In this sense it would be OP compared to other options that USF have.


Which has been my whole point since I entered this discussion: Pathfinders fix issues of core USF. For this reason, the strategy as a whole does not seem to be OP. Especially not in 2v2 which OP was discussing originally. USF win rate here is very close to 50% (50,5% and 50,2% for all and top200, respectively) while still relying heavily on pathfinders.

If you nerf pathfinders without adjusting anything else, USF win rate will plummet, especially for 2v2.

I thought the MG42 whining was done when they gave REs Smoke.

If you have spare fuel and manpower to unlock it and also the muni to throw it and also your CE are always where the MG42 is then sure it is not a big deal.

Counter argument?

If the equation was easy balance issues would had been solved within a year...

October until yesterday yielded 52 and 53 for OST and OKW, respectively. Anyway, that's only one of the stats. The all stats for 2v2 and 3v3 is are very even. Do I cite the subpar win rate of 48% for USF and claim they were weak?
No I don't, that would be wrong.

If you're interested in my reasoning, please re-read the previous posts that I made. I have explained my reasoning on pathfinders in detail.

Only your previous reasoning does not make sense.

USF this patch have higher win-rates than axis so there is not indication that hey are weak (1vs1 patch duration).

Now if you arguing that let say USF without airborne would have a 40% (thus being weak) and the actually 53% win rates is contributed solemnly to Pathfinder being OP that is a totally arbitrary hypothesis on your part.

In addition the assumption that a doctrinal unit being OP automatically will translate to higher winrates is another hypothesis which is not actually supported by stat. (An easy example is the WC51 that was OP for long itme before becoming meta)

Don't quote me on what I said and do not wrongfully imply stuff I did not say. I'll leave it at that, he said she said is not my style of discussing.

It is not my style either and I did not start it.

My point is that I have not post on "multiple core USF in this thread".

Definitely paths can replace mainlines, that's what this meta build is all about.
Does it make USF overpowered? No.

Yes it does not make USF OP, it however makes Pathfinder OP which is supposed to be reconnaissance unit and has ended up taking the mainline infatry role on top of that.

To re-itereate:
Airborne is a standard commander. Seeing it as a top loadout pick is to be expected in the "all" data. Win rates across all modes are roughly 50%. So either the commander and USF are both fine factions, or - assuming pathfinders are OP - USF has problems on its own. Commander loadout choices indicate a heavily biased loadout for USF, giving a hint it might actually be the latter option.

The first flaw in the theory is the direct link from a unit being OP and guarantee victory.

And the is a second flaw and lets see it with an example:
Currently USF have 54/46 win rate vs Ostheer

Now the following scenarios are possible:
1) Win rate with out airborne would be higher like 58/42 (imo that is highly improbable)
2) Win rate with out airborne would be identical with now like 54/46 (imo improbable)
3) Win rate with out airborne would be lowered but balanced like would drop to 50/50 (imo less improbable)
4) Win rate with out airborne would be reverse like would drop to 44/46 (imo improbable)
5) Win rate with out airborne would be clearly bad like would drop to 40/60 (imo highly improbable)

In cases 3,4,5 that would indicate Airborne commander is carrying faction.
Now I am not sure what you arguing here that we are actually dealing with case 5?

The last sentence of yours is misinterpreting statistics though. You compare across modes, which by itself is not wrong, but you have to handle conclusions with way more care care. We have better point of reference: For 1v1 and 2v2, there are plenty of games if we filter on the top200. Mode specific effects are completely eliminated.
So what do we see there?
Airborne gets even more popular. Despite looking only at players that likely play a lot, invest more into the game and have more commanders available, they still pick one of the "free" ones, even more frequently than the players that have fewer options (in numbers: 1v1 18,8% of all USF players have airborne in the loadout, compared to 22,1% of top200 players. For 2v2, the numbers are 34,0% and 46,8%, respectively). So surely the win rate goes up, especially in 2v2, doesn't it?
Nope. It doesn't. It stays the same, actually goes down a tiny bit although this might not be significant.

Unless one actually knows how many times airborne is used that is speculation.

In addition 2vs2 games add a lot more variables making things even more complicated.

Now, if pathfinder spam is OP - and it actually might be - then it seems to make USF perform similar to other factions. In this sense it would be OP compared to other options that USF have.

Which has been my whole point since I entered this discussion: Pathfinders fix issues of core USF. For this reason, the strategy as a whole does not seem to be OP. Especially not in 2v2 which OP was discussing originally. USF win rate here is very close to 50% (50,5% and 50,2% for all and top200, respectively) while still relying heavily on pathfinders.

And what is that core issue of USF that pathfinder fix?

If you nerf pathfinders without adjusting anything else, USF win rate will plummet, especially for 2v2.

That is yet another hypothesis and has little do with what I posted.

"Either USF Faction is weak and can only win using airborne which mean that the commander is over performing resulting in high win rates while masking the balance issues.
or
USF is ok as faction and Airborne is OP.

In both cases having limited meta is bad for the game."

The limited meta is an issue that simply should be fixed.

(edited to clarify some points and correct some copy mistakes)

Now, if pathfinder spam is OP - and it actually might be - then it seems to make USF perform similar to other factions. In this sense it would be OP compared to other options that USF have.

CoH2.org fucked me up again and deleted my message.

I think this argument is flawed.

I've checked OKW stats from Jan to Sep, during the ST abuse. As expected ST was in top 2 comander picks, while compared to live, OKW had around 3% more W\L across the board.

Now if we look at USF (and we can throw UKF here aswell). We can see that W\L for mentioned factions is increased by around 3-5% now across the board. Path meta was popularised for USF and UKF received buffs for AVRE, Rec.suppers and mobile assault. UKF now has a clear picture of mentioned commanders being top 2 picks in everything but 1v1. At the same time, soviets W\L didn't change almost at all, dispite OP axis stuff being nerfed, all the soviets W\L changes were within a Axis W\L change after the nerfs.

After that we can ask a question. If we consider the fact that Axis in general has an advantage in 3v3\4v4 and we also consider that stock USF\UKF roster didn't receive any major changes and also considered much weaker in teamgames. Does it means that commanders\meta alone is OP, because it can give additional 3-5% W\L for a factions with stock options being weaker?

Its not about making game more balanced, mind you. Simply because USF\UKF without commanders still remain at those ~45% W\L (since again stock options are the same), but commander\meta changes pushes them to 48-49% W\L. If the commander\meta can carry as much, with old stock option, it kinda implies that it might be OP, simply because in order to carry as much you have to be way too stronger then you should be.

So yeah, maybe USF win rate will plummet if path meta is nerfed. Sure. But at least it wont cover up the fact that faction need ajustments. Right now you can clearly say that those W\L are not because faction suddenly became balanced more, but because cancerous or OP metas being used, which require more skill to actually beat them, then to win with them. In the end making the game just frustrating to play.

And this is even without considering players who can master mentioned strats and simply dominate with them.

CoH2.org fucked me up again and deleted my message.

I think this argument is flawed.

I've checked OKW stats from Jan to Sep, during the ST abuse. As expected ST was in top 2 comander picks, while compared to live, OKW had around 3% more W\L across the board.

Now if we look at USF (and we can throw UKF here aswell). We can see that W\L for mentioned factions is increased by around 3-5% now across the board. Path meta was popularised for USF and UKF received buffs for AVRE, Rec.suppers and mobile assault. UKF now has a clear picture of mentioned commanders being top 2 picks in everything but 1v1. At the same time, soviets W\L didn't change almost at all, dispite OP axis stuff being nerfed.

After that we can ask a question. If we consider the fact that Axis in general has an advantage in 3v3\4v4 and we also consider that stock USF\UKF roster didn't receive any major changes and also considered much weaker in teamgames. Does it means that commanders\meta alone is OP, because it can give additional 3-5% W\L for a factions with stock options being weaker?

Its not about making game more balanced, mind you. Simply because USF\UKF without commanders still remain at those ~45% W\L (since again stock options are the same), but commander\meta changes pushes them to 48-49% W\L. If the commander\meta can carry as much, with old stock option, it kinda implies that it might be OP, simply because in order to carry as much you have to be way too stronger then you should be.

So yeah, maybe USF win rate will plummet if path meta is nerfed. Sure. But at least it wont cover up the fact that faction need ajustments. Right now you can clearly say that those W\L are not because faction suddenly became balanced more, but because cancerous or OP metas being used, which require more skill to actually beat them, then to win with them. In the end making the game just frustrating to play.

And this is even without considering players who can master mentioned strats and simply dominate with them.

Along my posts, this one is the most non-retarded reply to this whole matter.

Maybe a strategy of the norm pushes a faction to a meager 2-3% more victorious so fucking what? USF has 1500 problems other than mainline infantry sucking balls, namely a tech tree that can only be fixed by a doctrine, no artillery options (I am not talking about that idiotic "artillery mortar" and Calliope is priced like a fucking PzIV/T34/85 give me a fucking break ) and microintensive upgrades.

Maybe a strategy of the norm pushes a faction to a meager 2-3% more victorious so fucking what?

It actually a lot, when you look at CoH2 history of balance fuck ups. I believe even in the worst case scenarios of the worst balance changes, the W\L difference was around 10%.

In reality it was almost an auto-win, unless you was significantly better then your opponent.

My gut feeling says it's a bit of column A and a bit of column B. USF's roster holes combined with human nature to rely on crutches means that Pathfinders (or possibly just Pathfinder's synergy with other units) are overperforming in some regard to fill that hole. The percentage of the root cause being either that you're being "forced" into Pathfinders due to lack or options or "choosing" them because that lack of options made you discover how good they are are neither here nor there for me personally.

I think the temporal correlation with the Scott buff is hard to ignore and would lead to me presuppose that the issue is the combination of Pathfinder sight and their combat ability. The sight alone is useful for skirting HMGs and coordinating Scott barrages. Combined with massed Sniper Criticals then you get why they are so good generally speaking.

I think the most elegant fix would be to give Pathfinders some kind of T-70 like Recon Mode that toggles better their current sight range with the Sniper Critical being active. That way they retain their utility but you are choosing between them being a spotter and a "mainline replacement".

There are no high winrates for USF. They are pretty much 50%, slightly better in 1v1 and slightly worse in 4v4.

We get ~50% WR while seeing heavily scewed commander selection, either for airborne only or a triad of commanders, depending on the mode. I've made those points in the previous post, so I won't repeat them again.
It is no proof, but indication that the core faction is not sufficient for competitive play.

Therefore, saying that USF generally does not struggle might be dismissive of what actually happens, because the win rates on which the argument is based are biased.

This has been a long standing issue for both USF and UKF. Lacking core units at the right timing always makes you rely on doctrines to fill gaps. OKW had similar issues, but they have been relieved for example back when they got the MG stock and more recently with easier access to medics. USF still has some core issues that are not as easy to forgo, that's why we're seeing the current commander selection.


(edited typo)

Agreed 10,000%


The issue with USF is that in order to do well you have to be a COH2 Micro God basically. Which for me personally isn't an issue since I have been playing RTS games since Command and Conquer and it is the main genre of game that I play wether it be Starcraft, Age of Empires or COH.



When I played Axis throughout COH2s history wether it was dealing with Sniper Clown Cars (Snipers could garrison within the Soviet Scout Car and shoot from inside of it) or when Rifleman had Smoke Grenades with double LMG upgrades, or even UKF Section spam at its height it never posed an issue for me because I always had tools to adapt to the situation wether it be Whermacht or OKW and part of the success was analyzing what the enemy player would go and picking the proper commanders to deal with the situation.


At one point USF had a similar level of accessibility to Axis factions back when they had smoke grenades. Accessibility was removed from USF forcing you to use Sub-Par Rear Echeclon, Riflemen, and or mortars in coordinated efforts just to bypass MG42 which has been overperforming for years now especially with its Vet 1 ability and how it can almost instant delete vehicles without a chance of reacting (UC for example). Combine that with lane maps (which our shit-tastic balance team also brought us) and you have the current situation we have now.

It is not that Pathfinders are good (Rifleman are way better) its that Pathfinders are more accessible. You don't need to worry about coordinating different units, timing your grenades well, timing your smoke, you just Attack Move basically because it is easy to do and pull off and allows people who aren't as good to crutch on Pathfinders.

Also another thing to point out is that Rifleman are not good at long range which forces you to always be in Medium/Close Range. Imagine if OKW could only use Sturmpioneers. Sturmpio's are a good unit but they need to be at their ideal range to be worth while. Then you had to flank Maxim/Vicker Spam with only Sturmpioneers and that basically explains how it is to play USF Riflemen.

Now since USF is heavily based on flanking for Riflemen play it would make sense if they had some way to scout out these MG's that they are suppossed to flank yet they have more vision (due to Pioneers have extra sight) so they can always see you first before you can see them giving them extra time to adjust to your flank.


USF's core faction is in need of dire buffs. One simple solution would be for Riflemen to get extra sight (42 vision like Pioneers) when getting the grenade upgrade. Then we can nerf Pathfinders down to 42 vision as well (it can go back to 50 with Veterancy). This would be the best option for both USF and Whermacht.