USF Pathfinder spam is too efficient (2v2)

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.

I couldn't really follow everything that has been claimed here.
If the statement was that Panzerfusilier-G43 and Riflemen Garand or even that upgrades PFusies have a different profile than Riflemen or they were not "mid range squads", I don't agree with it. They are very similar in their profile, even despite PFusies having mixed weapons.
The classification of short/mid/long range squads does not come from a 1on1 comparison, but from "sorting" all squads and comparing every squad with all others. Usually, there is no reason to push into an SMG squad, because you will only improve their performance, not yours. The same goes for LMG squads and long ranges. Carbines and other mid ranged weapons/squads are sorted based on these extremes, stay away from SMG, but close into LMG squads.
Obviously this doesn't mean that you should stick to mid range at all cost. Close range fighting with PFusies makes sense against infantry sections with Bren guns, despite PFusies being a "mid range" squad. It is a guideline what your squad can do and what it can't. E.g. if you can't really leave your cover, you can still stick around with Riflemen at mid to long range to deal at least some damage. If it is an SMG squad, there is no reason to do that, since you won't deal any significant damage in the first place. That's how I think the classifications should be understood. In that sense, SMGs (and maybe pistols, didn't check) are short range weapons. Thompsons are an exception to SMGs, definitely. For all other SMGs, the rule of thumb is still correct. Although Thompsons have mid range DPS, they don't follow a classical carbine profile. Their damage still goes to near 0 at max range, and if possible you still benefit from closing in as quickly as possible in basically all circumstances. They still don't falsify the statement that SMGs are close range weapons, just because - as an exception to the rule - they are still okay at mid range.

As a side note, what I said about mosins was with the old Conscript/Gren match up in mind, which is probably also the main reason for their special long range DPS drop. In the late game, using Conscripts at long range can still be benefitial, their gain for closing in is despite everything still comparatively small. You probably just want to push them in 5m further than you would any other bolt action rifle squad, meaning, you stick around at 25-30 meters instead of 30-35. You can still summarize them as bolt action profile and the general guideline still makes sense for Conscripts and all other similar squads.

Of course weapon profiles can be changed anytime, but just for improving intuition, at some point it makes more sense to upgrade to hand out different weapon types instead of the same looking weapon with a completely different profile.

I couldn't really follow everything that has been claimed here.
...

It all started from these claims:

... LMG on Rifles is pretty bad in 2v2+. Well, maybe not "Bad", but definitely not optimal. In 1v1s it can still be used as the fighting there is mostly medium range, where the rest of the rifle squad with carbines will contribute. Generally putting LMGs on rifles in 2v2+ is sub-optimal. You have 4 models that are close range and one model that is long range. Why not have 5 models that are close range and use more micro to close in. This is where pathfinders come in.... less micro for that long range firepower...

That create the impression that garrand's long range performance can be ignored because it a "close range" weapon so it does not work with well with LMGs.

It not even the first, the second or even the third time that user has described gareands as "close range weapons".

The claim is simply false (but it seems that some people like to disagree with person that makes a post and not with what it has actually been posted).

It all started from these claims:


That create the impression that garrand's long range performance can be ignored because it a "close range" weapon so it does not work with well with LMGs.

It not even the first, the second or even the third time that user has described gareands as "close range weapons".

The claim is simply false (but it seems that some people like to disagree with person that makes a post and not with what it has actually been posted).

It is false in the sense that Garands are not a pure close range weapon in the sense of SMGs, yes.
In what it is true though is that Rifles should close in whenever possible against Volks, Grens and even Obers. That's what the Garand profile dictates them to do. PGrens are the only exception here, but also a rather rare occurrence.
LMG Rifles have a quite odd profile of having no real benefit of closing in between ranges 35 and ~15, but then still have quite a DPS growth below range 15 despite having an LMG.
Some numbers on that:
LMG Rifles deal about 51% of their max damage at range 35, 67% at 15 (+16%) and peak at range 6 with 100%.
For comparison, Grenadiers deal 69% of damage at range 35, 83% at 15 (+14%) and peak at range 0 with 100%.

Combine this with the fact that LMG Rifles and LMG Grens have similar DPS until range ~18, at least against Ostheer it puts Rifles into an odd position.
Staying at far range makes you only trade evenly and is a suboptimal use of your squad (only 51% of max damage, other long range squads deal significantly more).
Closing in from far is not worth it since you gain little DPS in the first place and will even lose your short range models.
Closing in from mid MIGHT be worth it if you don't lose too many of your Garand models.
Staying close is absolutely worth it, but for that you can just buy a BAR.

Against OKW it might look different again, I have not thought it through in detail. Against Volks, I however see that the weird Rifle+LMG profile leads to having better DPS roughly above range 20 and below range 10, in between it is pretty even. So you'll get a better squad, but the behaviour is odd.
But I also did not find the LMGs really worth it in team games. The commander ability technically allows you to skip the rack upgrade, but also this is suboptimal. If you don't buy racks, your rifles still will have a free, unused weapon slot and your echelons stay pretty useless since they can't get zooks.

The upgrade is not super bad on paper, but does not offer that much benefit either. Other weapon upgrades that mix different weapons do it in a way that the whole profile of the squad gets changed, but the LMG upgrade on Rifles doesn't. It creates an odd hybrid.

It is false in the sense that Garands are not a pure close range weapon in the sense of SMGs, yes.
...

Glad to see that we agree.

...

The upgrade is not super bad on paper, but does not offer that much benefit either. Other weapon upgrades that mix different weapons do it in a way that the whole profile of the squad gets changed, but the LMG upgrade on Rifles doesn't. It creates an odd hybrid.

That is one way to look at. Another would that the upgrade allows LMG riflemen VG and even Lmg grenadier at range effectively while retaining the ability to also fight mid/close units.

In sort LMG riflemen in cover are hard to dislodge.

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.

avoid answering my arguments and declare yourself smarter.

you're obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer but that's ok

It is false in the sense that Garands are not a pure close range weapon in the sense of SMGs, yes.
In what it is true though is that Rifles should close in whenever possible against Volks, Grens and even Obers.

The 2nd statement is what I and other players have been saying. Vipper posted great information but I never claimed that Garands and the like were better or equal to SMGs and short range. All I said was that they are short range focused. Like Hannibal said you should be closing the distance whenever possible.
Also as a player, we should know how to best use each one within their characteristics such as his cons example and chasing with PF due to their great moving acc.

At this point I think Hannibal did a good job of expressing the data and I am agreement with his statement don't really see the point in continuing but it was a good jog down memory lane. Reading thru the notes about buffing Guards LMG to Gren LMG performance gave me shivers.

avoid answering my arguments and declare yourself smarter.

you're obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer but that's ok

bad comeback, GiaA clapped you in his reply

The upgrade is not super bad on paper, but does not offer that much benefit either. Other weapon upgrades that mix different weapons do it in a way that the whole profile of the squad gets changed, but the LMG upgrade on Rifles doesn't. It creates an odd hybrid.

Main benefit of LMG rifles, comes from the fact of how LMGs work in the game. Considering that LMGs are focus fire models, you usually can just try to snipe few models via LMG on range and then push in.

Since LMGs are such powerhouses in CoH2, they have like 90% of squad DPS anyway.

avoid answering my arguments and declare yourself smarter.

you're obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer but that's ok

I think you meant to say that to the mirror. It applies better there

bad comeback, GiaA clapped you in his reply

But....but.... he has a PhD...

Main benefit of LMG rifles, comes from the fact of how LMGs work in the game. Considering that LMGs are focus fire models, you usually can just try to snipe few models via LMG on range and then push in.

Since LMGs are such powerhouses in CoH2, they have like 90% of squad DPS anyway.

I agree with most of what you said, I think several balance issues would be fixed by just removing the focus fire on LMG and give them damage spread that SMGs have. My issue is with the last statement, that only applies to Obersoldaten as the LMG is almost 70% of the damage when at range compared to Gren/Rifles where it is a more even 50% split.

EDIT: Airborne Guards are similar to Obers(75% of DPS) but there damage is spread across 3 LMGs so kind of hard to compare.

Defensive riflemen?

Like backstabbing a rando from the shadows in case he might rob someone?

Pathfinders are too strong, especially with the ability to give them additional weaponry.

Can cloak, kill near instantly enemy snipers, can hold their ground against main line infantry. What else do you want?

Pathfinders are too strong, especially with the ability to give them additional weaponry.

Can cloak, kill near instantly enemy snipers, can hold their ground against main line infantry. What else do you want?

Why would paths not be good at killing snipers when they killed the m20 timing. Near instantly killing enemy snipers idk about that either I wpild call them a counter to enemy snipers but not really a hard counter. Why would they not be able to hold their own against axis mainlines pretty much ever axis call in can do the same, as well as paths are expensive.