USF Pathfinder spam is too efficient (2v2)

and of couse. I am sure that you dont count Ambulance into USF core tech meanwhile your OKW fuel count has it ?.
10/10 bias.
as if We asumme both OKW, USF not spend 10f for healing. OKW still got med kit from Sturm (pay ammu of couse). An advantage of 10 fuel healing must be so big bruhhh.

So now we 180f + 15 fuel for nade/weapon = ? ?. And oh yes. OST clearly cheaper (5/10 + 15 fuel side tech) than USF and they can acess everything. Meanwhile USF had to lose some and grain some little advanatage ?.
And if I go dual officers to gain both AT, MG and give up LV phease: 35 fuel + 35 fuel + 10 fuel healing + 120 fuel major = 200 fuel + 15 fuel "optional" . Oh yeah. cheaper my ass.

Yeah, and in the end ostheer (being the cheapest faction to get tanks) requires 10 less fuel, then USF. WOW SO MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE, JEEZ lOUISE. Which is literally the cost of you getting healing btw.

Now we are back to USF winrate in 2v2:
- From 9/2021 to today as the last balance patch which M8 scout got barrage buff after heavy nerf:
+ winrate of USF is around 50%-51% top 200.
+ winrate all rank also around 50%
Of couse there were some spike to 52-53% winrate after 4v4 Tournament when Everyon see Path + maxim stat.
- From 7/2021 to 9/2021: This is a time when USF got both heavy nerf in .50 cal, M8 scout, Pak Howie.
+ winrate of USF is around 48%-50% top 200.
+ Winrate all rank always below 47-48%.

Yeah, and now for the last 7 months, USF winrate in 2v2 is more then 50%, with airborn being picked almost exclusively. Surely only because USF is on life-support and sub-optimal faction.

and of couse. I am sure that you dont count Ambulance into USF core tech meanwhile your OKW fuel count has it ?.

Use calculator, plz, before posting.

you clearly type 170 fuel + 10f healing for USF.
meanwhile OKW is 190f ?. Why seperated healing fuel cost in USF ?? huhuhuhu ?
170 to 190f is big deal, but 180f to 190f and still missing weapon support, no weapon upgrade, no elite troop during LV phase to med tank is big fucking different.

Tech and side tech cost went down over the patches to match with other factions changes. USF side tech and tech were expensive because you weren't supposed to get all of them, the HMG T1 and Atgun T2 concept. At that time Stuart was T2 and AAHT T1 with the M20 and HMG. Keep in mind that the design was somewhat inspired from COH1 where or you tech BAR or M20 first and if you get the two of them you'll be behind for the medium timing. That a choice the play had to take.

Now we are in a design that impose the USF player to get those upgrades, they aren't anymore optional in term of gameplay. You can't keep your riflemen unupgunned, you can't only rely on your LVs to maintain the pressure, you need those BARs, grenades and LV altogether to stay relevant thus making USF tech more expensive.

And here, to come back to Path, USF tech is more expensive but you're not gaining anything from it, there isn't a momentum provided, the M20 has an extremely short windows of opportunity and even if you want to rush it, you must sacrifice map presence with one RM less and BAR come way after LMG upgrades because you must pay additional fuel to get them.

As opposed Path give you momentum with their camo and vision letting you decide when to engage.

Yes I agree to almost all of that.
What you describe is a design, not a balance issue. The faction design has become more 'boring' in exchange for not being broken. The momentum now comes from when you have to make investments rather than if. OKW for example has a very efficient early game, especially MP wise, because their tech is fairly inexpensive. After their first tech structure, they don't get much anymore and rather have to respond to what Allies throw at them. Bar-Rifles beat Volks and Grens around this timing. Soviets get a great T70 to push back until the first medium hits the field. Similarly, Soviet early game is quiet MP efficient with Conscripts and gets pushed back once Axis arrive with weapon upgrades and you have to get medics. It is abput timing, not what you get. Same goes for muni expenditure etc.

The initial discussion point though was if 'side tech' should be considered additional cost for infantry squadds and therefore be taken into account when discussing balance.

Pathfinders give you initiative because you see everything Axis can throw at you until the first LV before the engagement happens. But that is a different discussion than tech cost.

panzerfusiliers!!!

kek

universally agreed to be essentially the best mainline infantry in team mode games and probably in 1v1s as well --->>>> "But...bro...they aren't cost effective!!" (they are)

The only """bad""" thing with PF is the fact that G43 upgrade gives them CRAZY moving accuracy modifiers making them the best A-move rape mob. However that comes at a steep cost of 70(?) muni and takes effect only after 10-12 mins of game time.

Stop coping, get good.

G43 PF's are definitely toeing the territory of 'elite' infantry close enough for it not to be worth arguing over.

They could easily be considered the best infantry in team games once they have their G43 upgrade and sixth man.

The double panzershreck upgrade isn't exactly shabby either although it is often ignored in the current double/triple rak meta.

Double shrecking in general I believe to be overshadowed by the straight up buying of an atg. Having 2 shrecks mean your squad becomes a medium tier antitank squad but loses every bit of sustainable firepower and is useless in infantry engagements.

Are Tommies bluntly superior to everything with bolster+2x brens? No they arent, they are very strong but they arent superior. In early game they can be punished just as bad as rifles if you didn't play it right, thats why whole UKF early game is handled by UC\rec.team call in, yet, its still completely possible to play full inf sections openings, its just harder.

x2 Bar rifles are perform perfectly fine at close\mid range, which sometimes could be the problem on open maps, but as I said you have m1919 for this situations, and inf company to cover almost every single USF weak spot in teamgames, with an exception of MG\AT gun choice.


Because they want to play USF, without wanting to accept how faction works and how its supposed to be played, therefore relying on cheesing, the same way Ostheer heroes abused pre-nerfed 5-men squads, with the exact same fucking argument that "Grenadiers suck ass, because reason X makes 4 men squads non-viable, therefor the only way to play ostheer is 5 men squads".

In other words, its just the easiest way to play USF right now and the hardest one for enemy to counter, plain and simple.

I don't want to sound like I am coping, but ain't no way in hell i'm paying 120muni for 2 shitty bars on a shitty infantry squad like riflemen.

I don't want to sound like I am coping, but ain't no way in hell i'm paying 120muni for 2 shitty bars on a shitty infantry squad like riflemen.

One Piece riflemen fans telling you it gets better after 120 episodes munitions

2 Bar rifleman is like telling Axis to ready to get free bar drop everywhere

2 Bar rifleman is like telling Axis to ready to get free bar drop everywhere

drop rate reduced to 20% from 33%

One Piece riflemen fans telling you it gets better after 120 episodes munitions

having 120munis for a vital weapon upgrade is seriously bad design. it makes you play ultra defensively on a very offensive-oriented faction until you get the 120orangnes to buy weapon it's cancerous

drop rate reduced to 20% from 33%

Out of topic (but we are already out of topic for long), I think we should also give bren for UKF the same buff.

But once again, we won't see any patches in a foreseeable future. Haha...

Is their a particular post your talking about on there?
These changes were implemented 9 years ago at this point, over several iterations of balance patches.

I don't really know how the profiles looked like after implementation, but this is a selection of weapons how they look like now. It is slightly a mess, sorting them and coloring them is a bit of a hassle, but you can figure it out. The graph shows DPS normalized to maximum, in easier words it shows the damage drop as a fraction of the maximum damage it can do.



Vipper is right, there are some "archetypical" profiles. Weapons obviously differ a bit and some weapons are in between those archetypes, but they can help to quickly describe how a weapon is used best. Additional notes might be necessary depending on the weapon.

To stick with Vipper's list:

LMG - DPS increases at long ranges (Ober and Gren LMG basically have an identical profile)
Bolt action - maximum close with relatively linear and slow decrease with range, retaining 40-50% of DPS at far range
Carbines (semi automatic) - short plateau to about range 5, non-linear drop with higher range, retaining 25-30% at far
Assault rifles - I think this is basically the StG. short plateau to range 5, then linear drop to 10 % at far
Smg - plateau to range ~10, steep decrease. They basically lose most of their DPS until range 15-20 and do almost no damage at far
Pistol - not shown


There are some weapons that are somewhat in between or have larger variations to these archetypes. The Ranger Thompson for example looks like an SMG at first glance, but has some extended damage at mid ranges. The SVT for example has a short plateau like a carbine, but an almost linear drop off and retains DPS similar to bolt action rifles at far.

A smaller variation would also be the Conscript mosin. This bolt action weapon has the most pronounced DPS loss past range 25 to force Conscripts into closer engagements.

you clearly type 170 fuel + 10f healing for USF.
meanwhile OKW is 190f ?. Why seperated healing fuel cost in USF ?? huhuhuhu ?
170 to 190f is big deal, but 180f to 190f and still missing weapon support, no weapon upgrade, no elite troop during LV phase to med tank is big fucking different.

USF: 170 fuel + 10 for heal
...
After that if you add up cost of the first medium tank, you end up with:
USF: 290 Fuel (add rak 305 fuel)
...

Sherman cost 110 fuel. 170 + 110 = 280, how I ended up with 290\305 fuel If I didnt count USF heal as a mandatory spending?

I mean sure, allies mothers will always try to prove that their USF child is crippled and disabled in every way imaginable, but come on, at least check info, before accusing of axis bias conspiracies.

Everybody forgets veterancy and veterancy requirements. Grens get +40% accy at vet 2, they vet faster and get weapon upgrades earlier. Meanwhile Rifles get majority of their veterancy dps upgrade (+30% accy) incredibly late at vet 3, which takes 2.5 times more experience to acquire than vet 2 of most mainlines who get their accy bonuses earlier.
To anyone saying Rifles get rec accy bonus at vet2, it's not as meaningful as the accuracy itself. Cons do just fine with their massive target size because they can build cover and they start to deal decent damage at vet 2 due to Vet2 accy bonus too, just like Volks.

Exp source below:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H5z6szCfhmAAnDprmgwLzc-viZg4HPhKZshNLErvnck/edit#gid=1644472724
Veterancy bonuses below:
https://www.coh2.org/guides/29892/the-company-of-heroes-2-veterancy-guide

Things are not as straight forward as that for a number of reasons like.

XP is awarded according to entity value and damage done so killing an grenadier entity or even doing the same damage to an entity does not award the same XP.

Squad with more entities can stay in combat for longer times without risking a wipe

DPS bonus effects is reduced received accuracy modifiers

Certain abilities like grenades and snared help infantry gain fast

In am pretty sure the numbers you brought up do not really correspond to the actual vetting speeds.

...

thanks for clarifying better.

Another thing worth noting it that apart from any difference in DPS there is also differences on how that damage is delivered. For instance bolt action rifles do more damage per shot so the damage come in "volleys (waves)" while damage from an smg is delivered in more continuous manner

I don't really know how the profiles looked like after implementation, but this is a selection of weapons how they look like now. It is slightly a mess, sorting them and coloring them is a bit of a hassle, but you can figure it out. The graph shows DPS normalized to maximum, in easier words it shows the damage drop as a fraction of the maximum damage it can do.



Vipper is right, there are some "archetypical" profiles. Weapons obviously differ a bit and some weapons are in between those archetypes, but they can help to quickly describe how a weapon is used best. Additional notes might be necessary depending on the weapon.

To stick with Vipper's list:

LMG - DPS increases at long ranges (Ober and Gren LMG basically have an identical profile)
Bolt action - maximum close with relatively linear and slow decrease with range, retaining 40-50% of DPS at far range
Carbines (semi automatic) - short plateau to about range 5, non-linear drop with higher range, retaining 25-30% at far
Assault rifles - I think this is basically the StG. short plateau to range 5, then linear drop to 10 % at far
Smg - plateau to range ~10, steep decrease. They basically lose most of their DPS until range 15-20 and do almost no damage at far
Pistol - not shown


There are some weapons that are somewhat in between or have larger variations to these archetypes. The Ranger Thompson for example looks like an SMG at first glance, but has some extended damage at mid ranges. The SVT for example has a short plateau like a carbine, but an almost linear drop off and retains DPS similar to bolt action rifles at far.

A smaller variation would also be the Conscript mosin. This bolt action weapon has the most pronounced DPS loss past range 25 to force Conscripts into closer engagements.

I fully understand everything you and Vipper are saying. My issue is that according to vipper only SMG/Pistol count as short range weapons. I am saying that is to narrow minded. He is stating that Rifleman are not a short/mid favoring squad when they follow same damage as G43 which per Relics words a short/mid range upgrade. And your conscript example is what I am talking about, just because a weapon falls under an archetype doesn’t mean it has to follow the design 100% it can be changed as needed per balance needs. As such you cannot state only SMG are close range squad since Thompsons are also mid range.

having 120munis for a vital weapon upgrade is seriously bad design. it makes you play ultra defensively on a very offensive-oriented faction until you get the 120orangnes to buy weapon it's cancerous

it doesn't make anyone play defensively, no one plays rifles defensively, you're just saying random things that sound vaguely coherent but make no sense upon 1 second of reflection

Creating a pool of coh2 related words and making a bot arrange them randomly would produce similar results.