USF Pathfinder spam is too efficient (2v2)

Aren't we on a topic complaining about how everyone use Path to avoid riflemen? But you nailed it, they are on pair with other faction which is the problem since riflemen must have an edge to function. investing on nades and raks should make them superior, not on pair.

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.

Now you can disagree if you want and continue to wonder why nodoby use them and spam Pathfinders.

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.

People play pathfinders because it's easy, and most Axis players do not invest into LVs besides the 222. Going full paths without rifles is just begging to get pushed back by LV spam. Paths also allow you to scout out the pio/MG42 before they spot you, and on a lot of teamgame maps, that's a Godsend given how the MG42s arc is extremely wide and suppression kicks in instantly in most cases.

And finally it's easier to micro as paths are long range oriented. With rifles you need to micro much more than just put the paths behind some sort of cover and let them slug it out, whereas rifles you need to close, risk MG arcs and whatnot. I mean, 1 in 15 games I play Airborne and it's much much easier than the Heavy Cav which I love the most. MG42 spams? No problem. Grens/volks long range slugfests? No problem. Less micro? Great. I only build one pathfinder though.

All in all, paths are meta in teamgames because they are so much easier to play. I have yet to see a map where infantry engagements begin at close ranges so that Rifles can actually utilize their close range specialty. Not to mention MG42s locking down entire sectors with their arc. (and the USF mortar is beyond sh*t and overlaps with pak howi/scott, so it's actually better to play around the MG42 until you get proper indirects)

Why its broken? USF literally is on pair with any other faction if they invest into either nades or raks, with the total amount of resources spent. Hell, even if they invest into raks+nades, they will be like 15 fuel and 50 MP behind which is less then 15 seconds of income.

The only questionable part is that you have to retreat to the base in order to upgrade your inf, which is not a problem in 1v1\2v2 but its frustrating in 3v3\4v4. Without side grades, USF has second cheapest teching in the game, thats why side grades are mandatory. Getting USF sidegrades arent putting you in any resource disadvantage what so ever, against OKW\Ost.

The only single valid concern about USF is that they have to chose to have either MG or AT gun, both of which are kinda needed sometimes. Other then that airborn is just used for cheesing USF tech tree, abusing idiotic "snipe mechanic" and rushing scotts because of the saved resources, plain and simple. Abusing the fact that faction costs\tech were balanced with side tech in mind, and airborn is allowing you to just ignore it.

And, no offence, but arguments about "rifle performance", sidegrades and why not, which ppl bring here in defence of Airborn meta are utter bullshit.

USF literally has infantry company, which allow you to skip weapon rak in favor of nades\skip, makes rifleman be actually good on open maps and trade well with Axis inf at ranges, allow USF to have mines, allow USF to have proper cover, allow USF to have proper mortar and artillery. Covers almost every single point why usf is on "life support" and the weakest faction.

YET for some reason every one abuses Scottfinder meta, wonder why.

USF was balanced around having smoke on rifleman since Rifles were supposed to be the most versatile mainline in the game. Everything since then has been attempting to bandaid the removal of that along with shitty tech choices.

Mortar is literally a smoke machine, you ask it to bombard a building and there is a good chance that it will miss.

MG was originally designed to be aggressive with fast placement and pick up but bad arc, that was nerfed since it wasn't fair but bad arc was kept.

Pak howi was supposed to be mid/late game bleeder and the aoe was nerfed hard, now you need two and sight for them to pay off which is quite an investment.

Stuart has some of the worst AI performance but it is ok because it has high armor which is high enough against 222/Luchs but useless against snares/Puma/At gun. Its high armor serves no purpose, I would rather have the armor dropped and improve AI performance so that in can actually be used to bleed oponent.

LMG was nerfed to just one since they traded to well, despite the fact that at range most of the Rifleman don't contribute damage. Long range squads literally force Axis out of comfort zone so why wouldn't you pick Paths if they are the only viable option.

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.

UKF!=USF

x2Bar rifles are performing poorly atm since its a late game setup and knowing you're always facing elite infantry spam from OKW that outperform riflemen and how gren vet3 are simply OP and perfectly stand their ground vs them.

Players aren't doing Path because they're stronger, Path aren't any stronger than riflemen statwise so your comparison with 5men gren doesn't make any sense here. Path provide an edge which is vision and good long range stat but if you give USF a real stock option to get vision range early game (other than being forced to build a M20, like give RE 42 sight range as pio) and you'll see path strat drop.
I've been playing more than 20 2vs2 games this week-end and 80% of which with at least 1 OKW players had overwatch selected, and if it wasn't Overwatch, pfuss or JLI. Ostheer side, Scope everywhere.
You can't come here and say how boring is it to face Path and at the same time spaming JLI/Pfuss or Scope or reco loiter + Lefh, every single game.
I've been almost exclusively using Infantry doc myself so those 40/60 players who insta picked their long vision range doctrine can't really argue they did it because of Path.

Riflemen are bad, Path being overly used is just a consequences of bad gameplay decisions made by the modding team when they decided to give free vision range to everyone except USF (and then decided that it wasn't fair so the Major could get it as well lolol@trolltheplayers)

Talking about M1919, let me tell you it is a mew upgrade. Here again you would expect to win Gren but that's not really the case and vs OKW elite infantry roaming everywhere well you're not going to contest any JLI/Obers/Falls/Pfuss on the field with them.
Now I use them because even being bad, for their cost and being techfree they're better investment than BARs.

USF was balanced around having smoke on rifleman since Rifles were supposed to be the most versatile mainline in the game. Everything since then has been attempting to bandaid the removal of that along with shitty tech choices.

Mortar is literally a smoke machine, you ask it to bombard a building and there is a good chance that it will miss.

MG was originally designed to be aggressive with fast placement and pick up but bad arc, that was nerfed since it wasn't fair but bad arc was kept.

Pak howi was supposed to be mid/late game bleeder and the aoe was nerfed hard, now you need two and sight for them to pay off which is quite an investment.

Stuart has some of the worst AI performance but it is ok because it has high armor which is high enough against 222/Luchs but useless against snares/Puma/At gun. Its high armor serves no purpose, I would rather have the armor dropped and improve AI performance so that in can actually be used to bleed opponent.

LMG was nerfed to just one since they traded to well, despite the fact that at range most of the Rifleman don't contribute damage. Long range squads literally force Axis out of comfort zone so why wouldn't you pick Paths if they are the only viable option.

Pretty much this. Everything on spot perfectly. It was all cookie-cutting-band-aid balance which led to discrepancies. 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.

Pretty much this. Everything on spot perfectly. It was all cookie-cutting-band-aid balance which led to discrepancies. 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.

And here we go again with theory that everything USF have are "sub optimal" and "pretty bad" that is posted daily.

Now according to stats, DPS 35:
Lmg grenadiers 2.26*3 + 8.9 = 15.7

Lmg Riflemen 1.7*4 + 8.77 = 15.57

Now some how according to some Grenadier are best long infatry while riflemen with 0.23 DPS less and an extra entity are "sub optimal"

Lmg/BAR riflemen 1.7*3 + 3.94 + 8.77 = 17.81 and for some reason LMG/BAR riflemen are also bad although they have superior DPS to grenadiers.

And once more M1 is carbine rifle using a carbine profile weapon and not an SMG so IT IS NOT A CLOSE RANGE WEAPON and work just fine with both bar and LMG.

And here we go again with theory that everything USF have are "sub optimal" and "pretty bad" that is posted daily.

Now according to stats, DPS 35:
Lmg grenadiers 2.26*3 + 8.9 = 15.7

Lmg Riflemen 1.7*4 + 8.77 = 15.57

Now some how according to some Grenadier are best long infatry while riflemen with 0.23 DPS less and an extra entity are "sub optimal"

Lmg/BAR riflemen 1.7*3 + 3.94 + 8.77 = 17.81 and for some reason LMG/BAR riflemen are also bad although they have superior DPS to grenadiers.

And once more M1 is carbine rifle using a carbine profile weapon and not an SMG so IT IS NOT A CLOSE RANGE WEAPON and work just fine with both bar and LMG.

LMG grenadier cost: 240 manpower, 60 munitions
Riflemen cost: 280 manpower, 70 munitions, (sidetech BARs), 60 munitions

LMG grenadier cost: 240 manpower, 60 munitions
Riflemen cost: 280 manpower, 70 munitions, (sidetech BARs), 60 munitions

Once more if you want to count the sidetech of weapon rack you also have to count the T1 tech cost.

I'll put this into a spoiler. Although the state of Rifles is quite important for Pathfinders, this is getting admittedly slightly offtopic.
Show Spoiler

And once more M1 is carbine rifle using a carbine profile weapon and not an SMG so IT IS NOT A CLOSE RANGE WEAPON and work just fine with both bar and LMG.

Why just SMG? Is it because they drop after 15 range?

The carbine/rifles in the game don't all follow the same profile. Certain units hold onto significantly more DPS as range increases compared to others. I used range of 25 also as that is on the safer side of mid range/start of long range along with non-vetted numbers since some vet calculations are wrong.

Grens
Close 5.988
R25 3.001 50%
MAX 2.263 37%
Gren G43
10.763
3.257 30%
2.227 21%
PG
15.492
5.022 32%
1.054 .06%
PG G43
13.263
5.056 38%
4.103 31%
Rifles
10.763
3.257 30%
2.227 21%
Paths Snipe Carbine
8.709
2.278 26%
1.596 18%
Path Carbine
10.016
2.622 26%
1.837 18%
Cons
3.614
1.757 49%
1.06 29%
Penals
5.176
2.607 50%
1.808 35%
Tommies
4.914
3.443 70%
2.607 35%


Couple thoughts and questions:
The different rifles all behave differently a blanket statement should not be used by weapon type.
If you compare G43 Grens to Rifles they follow the same damage spread but you don't consider it a close range unit despite the game calling G43 a close range upgrade.
PG are considered a close/mid range yet lose almost all damage at max range. Would you consider them a close range specialist?
Tommies are freaking beast at range.
Paths are considered long range squad but their dps is horrendous, if it weren't for crit ability they would be useless. When I first saw it I thought/think it is a mistake maybe it wasn't updated.

Edit: cleaned up formatting and added cons

Why just SMG? Is it because they drop after 15 range?

The carbine/rifles in the game don't all follow the same profile (or they should).
...

Carbines and bolt action rifles follow different weapon profiles and relative positioning.

Weapon profiles includes:
LMG
Bolt action
Carbines (semi automatic)
Assault rifles
Smg
Pistol

I suggest you read the post about weapon profiles here and relative positioning:

https://www.coh2.org/topic/4307/coh2-changelog/page/2

(Now for some strange reason certain weapons have not been full implemented to this system but that is another story)

Pistol and SMG are consider close range weapons.

Carbines and bolt action rifles follow different weapon profiles and relative positioning.

Weapon profiles includes:
LMG
Bolt action
Carbines (semi automatic)
Assault rifles
Smg
Pistol

I suggest you read the post about weapon profiles here and relative positioning:

https://www.coh2.org/topic/4307/coh2-changelog/page/2

(Now for some strange reason certain weapons have not been full implemented to this system but that is another story)

Pistol and SMG are consider close range weapons.

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.

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.

The parts about the creation of weapon profiles:

"Show Spoiler

there are also graphs to see

the part about relative positioning:
Show Spoiler

The parts about the creation of weapon profiles:

"Show Spoiler

there are also graphs to see

the part about relative positioning:
Show Spoiler

I'm still confused as to where it states only SMG/Pistol are short range squads. Reading the paragraph underneath the graphs it literally states G43 are a short/midrange weapon. Since they perform exactly the same as Garands aside from better moving accuracy how are Rifleman not short/mid squad. Their peak performance is up close with a fairly sharp drop off past mid range.

The weapon profiles are also more of a guide. Thompsons hold onto most of their DPS compared to all other SMGs, they are still decent at mid range. PPSH are worse on per unit basis but due to their better moving accuracy make for better chase squads especially if fully manned compared to every other SMG. LMG MG42 has 1.2 armor penetration, why is that still needed after the change from armor to RA.

What I am saying is that they intended something 9 years ago and after several balance changes and faction introductions the weapons themselves follow the idea to a certain extent.

I'll put this into a spoiler. Although the state of Rifles is quite important for Pathfinders, this is getting admittedly slightly offtopic.
Show Spoiler

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.

And here we go again with theory that everything USF have are "sub optimal" and "pretty bad" that is posted daily.

Now according to stats, DPS 35:
Lmg grenadiers 2.26*3 + 8.9 = 15.7

Lmg Riflemen 1.7*4 + 8.77 = 15.57

Now some how according to some Grenadier are best long infatry while riflemen with 0.23 DPS less and an extra entity are "sub optimal"

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

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

This is why the LT and Captain should get 50 vision like Pathfinders do. USF relies on flanking which is hard to do when both Axis factions have significantly more sight options and or units with Map Hack abilities (Scout Car and Kubel) it makes Rifle play difficult especially for lower skilled players.

Wanted to answer to previous post, but after the last one dont see reason to.

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.

You've been provided with numbers of how much everything cost, USF tech is not expensive, its one of the cheepest. Yet, even with blank numbers of MP\Fuel costs, you still saying USF tech is more expensive. Like wtf dude.

Also can you explain to me, how this satanic black magic works, that 150MP 15Fuel raks cost more then, 180MP 50Fuel for ostheer T1+BF1?

You can agrue, that "Well, what about USF tech unlock", sure thing, 350MP 50Fuel + 1 unit, and you dont need to unlock mech company\platoon super early anyway, if you want to get your bars at the same time with LMGs.

from this
Show Spoiler
to this

You've been provided with numbers of how much everything cost, USF tech is not expensive, its one of the cheepest. Yet, even with blank numbers of MP\Fuel costs, you still saying USF tech is more expensive. Like wtf dude.

Also can you explain to me, how this satanic black magic works, that 150MP 15Fuel raks cost more then, 180MP 50Fuel for ostheer T1+BF1?

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.


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%.


As you can see, Everything is bAlaNEced as if it should be.

You've been provided with numbers of how much everything cost, USF tech is not expensive, its one of the cheepest. Yet, even with blank numbers of MP\Fuel costs, you still saying USF tech is more expensive. Like wtf dude.

Yeah, from your number,
On the way to the fist sherman, if USF get rack, nade, ambu and go for full Lt or Cpt they pay 305 fuel.
On the way to the fist P4, built all buildings except BP3 and t4, ost pay 295 fuel.

So, up to this moment, usf is paying 10 fuel more for "on par" infantry and a worse medium tank while still missing at least 1 key weapon team.