USF Pathfinder spam is too efficient (2v2)

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".

Ideal fix would be to remove pioneer extra vision. It was given when Ostheer was in a really bad position but today it doesn't make anymore sense for them having such free ability on cheap starting unit.
Then removing every vision range abilities given to any unit that isn't a reco unit. Tanks and infantry alike. Keeping only the historical scope for Ostheer since it already come with a downside.
Then removing the weapon slot on Path.

In 2vs2 you must pick pathfinder because your opponent's doctrines of choice give extra vision to their tanks and infantry when they themselves aren't already picking JLIs.
How are you supposed to fight a P4/P5/Tiger when it has more armor, more vision and more penetration + arty barrage in bonus.
A KT that have incendiary round + extra vision
A Tiger ACE that can self-repair and extra vision
Command Panther that have extra vision
etc...

Well you pick a unit that also provides you vision.

You have the right to disagree, but all that is irrelevant to Pathfinder/Ambulance and no there are very few similarities between USF and Soviets.

And USF have better win-rates than other allied factions and appear superior to axis faction in 1vs1 so they do not seem to struggle.

And once more flexible units allow players to "dictate the fight" easier.

I am not talking about the factions directly. Only that usf as a faction is now dependend on doctrines to be competive in bigger modes, just as su has been in the past.

Flexible units dictating the fight more often is your opninion. Nothing more. If true what you say soviets of the past and usf currently would not have releid on specific doctrines so much. When rifles still had smoke you are correct but they lost that.

I am not talking about the factions directly. Only that usf as a faction is now dependend on doctrines to be competive in bigger modes, just as su has been in the past.

Only you have not really provided anything to establish the USF "dependence" and in the end of the day it does not really prove much.

One can easily claim that Ostheer are "depended" on Jaeger armor since it is the most popular commander in 4vs4 by far.

Flexible units dictating the fight more often is your opninion. Nothing more. If true what you say soviets of the past and usf currently would not have releid on specific doctrines so much. When rifles still had smoke you are correct but they lost that.

If your theory held any truth, UKF who are also long oriented, can build sandbag and can selfheal from start and have the no bleed UC would be "dictating the fight" but they simply do not.

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.

I've stated multiple times now that USF has about 50% win rate across all modes, being better in 1v1 and worse in 4v4, following the general trend of Allied factions.
If you keep citing a 53% WR for USF in general, at least note that this is only true for 1v1 and no other mode. Otherwise the WR of 53% is misleading, as would be citing the 4v4 WR of 48% and generally stating that this was "USF winrate". I already pointed this out earlier.

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)

Do you have any stats for that? Honest question. Although I like digging data, I just don't have the time to look up all possible time frames and data myself.

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.

OP by default because they are misdesigned? Wouldn't say so. Are they too cost efficient for their price? I also wouldn't say so. 1-2 paths are reasonable and helpful in the build without them feeling OP by any means. But as I already said I do agree with your previous post that this path spam strategy is bad for the game or at least a consequence of badly designed pathfinders. This has been the actual topic of the thread.

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

I never said anything about a "guaranteed victory". Please don't state things I did not say.

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 like 54/46 (imo improbable)
3) Win rate with out airborne would be identical like would drop to 50/50 (imo less improbable)
4) Win rate with out airborne would be identical like would drop to 44/46 (imo improbable)
5) Win rate with out airborne would be identical 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?

I'll skip this part for clarification: I assume in 3 through 5 the "would be identical" is a copy and paste error and not supposed to be there?
Also, where is the qualitative difference in options 3 to 5?

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.

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

I think others have explained this better than I did. Not needing to push into enemy lines, being able to dodge enemy MGs and not bleeding against snipers are probably the most important.
And if you read my posts you will see that I regularly stressed that the stats are no proof, but only indication. Still, we have to deal with them.


Show Spoiler

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?

ST was buffed in June, not January.
I wouldn't compare the situation back then to live regarding win rates, since many other units of other factions have changed as well. But there are some important differences between the ST meta and pathfinders.
1. Elite armor was not as dominant back then as Airborne is today, at least not in 1v1 and 2v2. 1v1 still has Grand Offensive as the by far dominant commander. In 2v2, Elite Armor is first place, but closely followed by a selection of other commanders. In 3v3 and 4v4 it was actually placed #1, unlike today's USF Airborne. Looking at the over commander data, OKW still had a more diverse selection than USF has today. Today's airborne in 4v4 is played almost exclusively (slight hyperbole for clarity) on 3 commanders.
2. ST was at 8 CP back then, which should come around the ~18-20 (?) minute mark at the very earliest. If you build a P4, everything is delayed by another 5-6 min. Looking at game lengths about 30% of games end before that, another 20% within the next 10 minutes. Therefore, the ST can in the best case influence "only" 70% of the games, but likely less, leading to smaller translation into WR (assuming this were the case at all). Combine this with point 1., and the influence of the ST on the overall WR is naturally lower. I am more interested in the WC51 data that Vipper is hopefully going to share, since here we have a much more comparable situation. A great comparison would be the JLI meta back when they were patched, but unfortunately we don't have data.
3. Elite armor is to my knowledge not in the "free" commanders that come with the base game. Top200 players increasingly choosing Elite Armor is therefore no clear indication of the faction needing to rely on the commander. However, loadout rates are fairly high on the "all" data, so maybe contrary to what I assumed more players have access to pay walled commanders and that part of the data indeed doesn't mean anything in the first place.
4. Similar to point 3., commander selection data for OKW was more diverse back then, even with ST meta than the data for USF is today. This >could> indicate that OKW was back then already a more well rounded faction, relying less on specific commanders.

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.

I am fully with you on this one. I'd be more than happy to have another patch that makes USF a better core faction and removes path spam.
The original topic as OP started it was if path spam strategy in 2v2 is OP.
From the data we have - just to stress this: which is cluttered by quite some noise - we have to say: it's not. Heavily scewed commander selection towards Airborne, still ~50% win rate. So Axis seem to have a fair chance at winning.
Is this the case? Hard to tell due to the noise in the data. Only Pagep could provide data on games that are with compared to games that are without airborne, at least in the loadout selection to create a better picture. But we don't have that. I try to remove noise as much as possible, but that's the best I (and probably anyone) can do.

And based on this, I don't think that pathfinder spam is covering it up other USF issues, at least not if you look closely enough. The lack of rocket arty is a long standing and well known issue among quite some others.

But pathfinder spam as a complete package together with USF does not seem OP. Pathfinders themselves? Might very well be. That's what I have said multiple times now.

It might also very well be that this whole discussion around Paths is actually nonsense. We don't know how many people that chose airborne actually spam them.
But what the data suggests is, that USF relies on very few commanders in all modes with Airborne being one of them. In my eyes this means that these commanders likely fix issues, especially considering all the other hard and soft data and experience in the game.

I've stated multiple times now that USF has about 50% win rate across all modes, being better in 1v1 and worse in 4v4, following the general trend of Allied factions.
If you keep citing a 53% WR for USF in general, at least note that this is only true for 1v1 and no other mode. Otherwise the WR of 53% is misleading, as would be citing the 4v4 WR of 48% and generally stating that this was "USF winrate". I already pointed this out earlier.

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

Now if you want number from 2vs2 that are less "contaminated" one should probably look at the same faction matches where double USF have 51/49 vs double OKW and 54/46 vs double Ostheer for this patch.

Do you have any stats for that? Honest question. Although I like digging data, I just don't have the time to look up all possible time frames and data myself.

I had pointed out how OP WC51 even when first patched (20 Dec 2017) the unit remained OP until February 26th 2021 that is 4 years...

OP by default because they are misdesigned? Wouldn't say so. Are they too cost efficient for their price? I also wouldn't say so. 1-2 paths are reasonable and helpful in the build without them feeling OP by any means. But as I already said I do agree with your previous post that this path spam strategy is bad for the game or at least a consequence of badly designed pathfinders. This has been the actual topic of the thread.

They are both misdesinged and OP.

1) XP value us way to low (OP)

2) They come with Elite carbines that else are available to CP 3 and are superior to Riflemen M1. To add salt to would the weapon is very good at close range making Pathfinders and I&R pathfinder able to dish damage at all ranges (bad design)

3) Beacon with no cost/down side (bad design)

4) Able to spam (timing/cost/pop)/Critical kill carbines (OP)

5) Rack 2 weapon slot, no mu cost/slot for scoped carbines (OP)

6) Extra range with vet even to slot weapons/ combined with extra sight to take advantage of the range (OP)

I never said anything about a "guaranteed victory". Please don't state things I did not say.

Show Spoiler

I'll skip this part for clarification: I assume in 3 through 5 the "would be identical" is a copy and paste error and not supposed to be there?
Also, where is the qualitative difference in options 3 to 5?

Sorry but I failed understanding your question.

My question is simply since you have claimed that nerfing Air would make USF's win rates plummet what is your rough estimation for that "plummet"?

I think others have explained this better than I did. Not needing to push into enemy lines, being able to dodge enemy MGs and not bleeding against snipers are probably the most important.
And if you read my posts you will see that I regularly stressed that the stats are no proof, but only indication. Still, we have to deal with them.

"Fixing" these "core problems" of the USF will create "core" problems to Ostheer since it would invalidated their combined arm strengths and leave Grenadier at the mercy of riflemen blobs.

And USF have stock option to counter those (even if not optimal) unlike UKF and that was my point.

Show Spoiler

Show Spoiler

OKW didn't rely on ST to win like USF today.

They are both misdesinged and OP.

1) XP value us way to low (OP)

2) They come with Elite carbines that else are available to CP 3 and are superior to Riflemen M1. To add salt to would the weapon is very good at close range making Pathfinders and I&R pathfinder able to dish damage at all ranges (bad design)

3) Beacon with no cost/down side (bad design)

4) Able to spam (timing/cost/pop)/Critical kill carbines (OP)

5) Rack 2 weapon slot, no mu cost/slot for scoped carbines (OP)

6) Extra range with vet even to slot weapons/ combined with extra sight to take advantage of the range (OP)

Then what happens with 290mp 4 man squad, high reinforce cost, m1a and scoped m1 garand have conflict profiles, no nade of any kind that super vunerable with any light vehicle, easily get wiped if get caught out of position?

Then what happens with 290mp 4 man squad, high reinforce cost, m1a and scoped m1 garand have conflict profiles, no nade of any kind that super vunerable with any light vehicle, easily get wiped if get caught out of position?

In your opinion are pathfinder OP and misdesinged or not?

As for high reinforcement cost you are actually wrong their reinforcement cost is low in game terms considering it the same (30) with as the 240mp 4 man grenadiers. It should actually be closer to 36.

If your pathfinder are "caught out of position" frequently, although having 50 sight and camo your are probably doing something wrong.

Then what happens with 290mp 4 man squad, high reinforce cost, m1a and scoped m1 garand have conflict profiles, no nade of any kind that super vunerable with any light vehicle, easily get wiped if get caught out of position?

how do you get caught out of position with 50 sight? and lv's should not be a problem considering that American lv's are flat out better than the axis counterparts

I am fully with you on this one. I'd be more than happy to have another patch that makes USF a better core faction and removes path spam.

I honestly would rather see USF having a commander with somewhat more long\mid range orientated inf, proper one without gimmicks. I\R pathfinders remaining the same and regular pathfinders being made into a recon unit, not a fighting one. At least its more realistic approach imo.

Some stock USF options might be lacking in 2v2-4v4, but in 1v1 they perform alright, without even relying on Paths, so hard to tell if buffing stock options is a good idea to begin with.

And based on this, I don't think that pathfinder spam is covering it up other USF issues, at least not if you look closely enough. The lack of rocket arty is a long standing and well known issue among quite some others.
But pathfinder spam as a complete package together with USF does not seem OP. Pathfinders themselves? Might very well be. That's what I have said multiple times now.

It really depends on how you look at it, I'd say opposite honestly. I say that pathfinders are more or less alright in a vacuum, but completely broken as a package with airborn commander. I mean, technically I\R Paths are much better, but you rarely see them. As a matter of fact, before the howi nerf, I\R paths were used much more often, with a respectable rush for howi.

Problem is super multilayered. Starting from the fact that Airborn pretty much gives you everything except armor for CP, ending up with aggressive ambu and un-intentional synergy with scott. If paths were put in a different commander, even as they are right now, and removed from airborn then path meta probably wouldn't have existed or at least to a much lesser extend.

As for covering up USF problems, hard to say. To some extend it does, but as I've said before, path meta is supposed to either end game early or snowball via VP bleed, so by the time enemy gets a lot of armor you will be able to end game quickly. Thats the main problem with it, you have to play almost perfectly for the first 15-20 mins, in order to be able to stand in the game and the main goal of paths is to kick you out of the game before you objectively can start pushing them back.

I honestly would rather see USF having a commander with somewhat more long\mid range orientated inf, proper ones without gimmicks....

2 commander provide LMGs
2 commander provide Ranger
2 commander provide LMG Paras

all suitable for long range fighting, that is 6 out of nine.

2 commander provide LMGs
2 commander provide Ranger
2 commander provide LMG Paras

all suitable for long range fighting, that is 6 out of nine.

Well, one of the main arguments of path abusers is that unlike other long range options, paths are available in early game at 0 CP. Its kinda true, because depending on the map, playing with rifles until 3CP might be problematic sometimes depending on the map.

Well, one of the main arguments of path abusers is that unlike other long range options, paths are available in early game at 0 CP. Its kinda true, because depending on the map, playing with rifles until 3CP might be problematic sometimes depending on the map.

And USF could beat Grenadiers at long range cover to cover fights OStheer would simply be doomed since they would not able to do anything...

And USF could beat Grenadiers at long range cover to cover fights OStheer would simply be doomed since they would not able to do anything...

Its not like they can do anything reasonable against paths right now

To be more serious, dont think so honestly. Even if we imagine that this theoretical squad is a 5 men gren clone, Ostheer would still have assess to sniper\MG\mortar for gren support and unlike path this squad wont be able to spot them miles away.

There is at least room to balance them out. Maybe they also should cost 290MP, maybe they could be vulnerable in close range, maybe they should start as a 4 men squad with an upgrade to 5 later on, who knows. A lot of reasonable solutions could be found and it already would be better compare to what paths do right now.

Its not like they can do anything reasonable against paths right now

To be more serious, dont think so honestly. Even if we imagine that this theoretical squad is a 5 men gren clone, Ostheer would still have assess to sniper\MG\mortar for gren support and unlike path this squad wont be able to spot them miles away.

There is at least room to balance them out. Maybe they also should cost 290MP, maybe they could be vulnerable in close range, maybe they should start as a 4 men squad with an upgrade to 5 later on, who knows. A lot of reasonable solutions could be found and it already would be better compare to what paths do right now.

The idea that USF need a long range infatry from start to beat Ostheer is flawed and it would creates more issues that it would solve.

Soviet do not have such an infatry and they do just fine.

The idea that USF need a long range infatry from start to beat Ostheer is flawed and it would creates more issues that it would solve.

No, they dont need them to beat Ostheer. Its one of the excuses made that Path are needed because rifles cant do shit.

Main problem with USF, especially in teamgames is that maps are either very tightly packed making flanks really hard or way too exposed. Rifles really do struggle on such maps, because you usually cant flank or get into mid range without taking additional damage.

Such unit should not be insta pick to beat long range axis inf, but rather simular to an ass.grens, in other words unit which you pick if you understand that on particular match up\map rifles wont really cut it.

Again, no illusions here. People abuse paths not because reason X, but because paths and airborne commander is just very strong. But USF in teamgames indeed does have problems with long range combat, its just used as an excuse to defend soyfinders meta.

Soviet do not have such an infatry and they do just fine.

To be fair here, even if we ignore all the possible openings and support units soviet can have based on the map\opponents, cons at very least can use stock sprint which helps them either close the gap\soft retreat\flank.

2 commander provide LMGs
2 commander provide Ranger
2 commander provide LMG Paras

all suitable for long range fighting, that is 6 out of nine.

You are leaving out a decent amount of relevant information.

1. LMG commanders provide only 1 LMG at CP3 to a short range focused squad vs a long range focused squad that is cheaper and upgrades earlier.
2. You are comparing a significantly more expensive unit with less utility and asking them to withhold their upgrade while also appearing at CP3 so they will have a vet disadvantage which would exasperate MP bleed.
3. Those 2 commander both provide Pathfinders which would provide the long distance fighting instead while not requiring muni to do so at CP0. For recon it is even worse in that you need to spend muni to call in the the Para on top of the 120 muni needed not to mention the opening cooldown is longer for IR pathfinders.

Taking that into account you only have 1 option for long range combat that also helps with USF tech issues.

The idea that USF need a long range infatry from start to beat Ostheer is flawed and it would creates more issues that it would solve.

Soviet do not have such an infatry and they do just fine.

Sorry on phone don’t mean to make 2 posts.

It is unfair to compare USF to Soviets. Soviets only do fine using conscripts in high end games. You will be on your way to your 4th conscript squad by the time you are building or finish making your 3rd rifleman. Using sheer numbers to overwhelm the MG along with the extremely cheap reinforce cost allows Soviet to do just fine. Making a 4th rifleman is suicide and due to tech timing it takes a bit of time for LT or CPT to hit the field allowing OST to get 4th Gren squad which gives them DPS superiority.