nerf the fking pathfinder and Howitzer

Why are you quoting a 1v1-only player when they were talking about riflemen performance in teamgames?

Why are you quoting a 1v1-only player when they were talking about riflemen performance in teamgames?

Why are they not specifying what they are talking about?, because this thread is full of claim how bad riflemen are like this one:

Pathfinder and howitzer need to be good because riflemen are so bad. Worst mainline in the game by far. Such absolute trash.

There is no need to argue, for teamgames its a fact (riflemen are crap).

Isn't, the whole every USF units is UP, daily rant becoming boring?

Are you saying that Riflemen are fine in 1vs1?

Are you saying that Riflemen are fine in 1vs1?

Idk because I dont play 1v1, but it seems like they're fine in 1v1. I am certainly not claiming they're bad in 1v1, and it looks like nobody else is claiming that either.



It has been thoroughly explained multiple times in the past why riflemen struggle hard in teamgames since a long time now, it can be summarized in a few bullet points:

- the meta and maps in teamgames favour units that perform well at longer ranges since a long time already, and riflemen are terrible at long range for 280mp.

- riflemen were designed around their smoke grenade by Relic. The smoke nade is gone but no overhaul of their stats has happened in the meantime, and now you can see the results

- they are by far the most micro intensive mainline squad. Not only do you have to find the correct engagements while having terrible access to recon tools, you now also have to micro even more once the engagement started while other squads can just a-move and hug cover. And even with this extra effort they usually just lose


Nobody is saying riflemen are 'unplayable' across all levels btw. I am sure they can be viable at the lower ELO. But I am kindly asking anyone who defends riflemen and whines about pahtfinders to please use rifles in 2v2-4v4 against a top 100 player with 60+% winrate that spams lmg grens, volks, obers, JLI (or literally any axis mainline) with double HMG. And then upload the replay and tell us how much fun you had and how successful it was

There is a huge difference between not being cost efficient and being crap.

- riflemen were designed around their smoke grenade by Relic. The smoke nade is gone but no overhaul of their stats has happened in the meantime, and now you can see the results

That is probably a oversimplification.

If riflemen are behind that has more to do with general power creep the simply smoke grenades.

In your opinion was the decision to removed the smoke grenade since the mortar was added a correct one?

Since according to you riflemen are fine 1vs1 and Pathfinder as most popular in 1vs1 2vs2, does the argument that people using Pathfinder because riflemen are crap (at least in these modes) hold any water?

Does the USF faction does fine in 3vs3/4vs4 in 200 with the highest win rates (for allies in 4vs4)?

In the end of the day shouldn't the Pathfinder/Scott combo be fixed and if there is need to something else to be buffed?

There is a huge difference between not being cost efficient and being crap.


That is probably a oversimplification.

If riflemen are behind that has more to do with general power creep the simply smoke grenades.

In your opinion was the decision to removed the smoke grenade since the mortar was added a correct one?

Since according to you riflemen are fine 1vs1 and Pathfinder as most popular in 1vs1 2vs2, does the argument that people using Pathfinder because riflemen are crap (at least in these modes) hold any water?

Does the USF faction does fine in 3vs3/4vs4 in 200 with the highest win rates (for allies in 4vs4)?

In the end of the day shouldn't the Pathfinder/Scott combo be fixed and if there is need to something else to be buffed?

I don’t think winrate has anything to do with how viable a faction is. In every multiplayer game the most used faction/character is usually the strongest and/or easiest to play.

People like to win, and thus flock to the strongest and most forgiving thing. And unsurprisingly the top 3 most played factions are Sov, OKW and Werh. Brits/USF being lesser played factions is not without reason.

I don’t think winrate has anything to do with how viable a faction is. In every multiplayer game the most used faction/character is usually the strongest and/or easiest to play.

People like to win, and thus flock to the strongest and most forgiving thing. And unsurprisingly the top 3 most played factions are Sov, OKW and Werh. Brits/USF being lesser played factions is not without reason.

I agree with most of what you but it's really Sov and Wehr, with the totals always looking skewed because one side has two factions and the other has three. There can only ever be an equal amount of multiplayer games for each side so the one with three is going to look wildly fucked up and the one with two doesn't have any other choice.

Sov and wehr being the most solid factions in terms of dealing with shit thrown at them imo makes the positions at the top pretty reasonable

I don’t think winrate has anything to do with how viable a faction is. In every multiplayer game the most used faction/character is usually the strongest and/or easiest to play.

People like to win, and thus flock to the strongest and most forgiving thing. And unsurprisingly the top 3 most played factions are Sov, OKW and Werh. Brits/USF being lesser played factions is not without reason.

There are some oversimplifications in that theory when it comes to casual players, the theory might hold some water for tournaments.

But that theory does not really explain why there people here playing mainly USF and yet complaining that most of the units of the faction are crap.

Why are they not specifying what they are talking about?

There is no need to argue, for teamgames its a fact (riflemen are crap).

Mkey.

Nobody is saying riflemen are 'unplayable' across all levels btw. I am sure they can be viable at the lower ELO. But I am kindly asking anyone who defends riflemen and whines about pahtfinders to please use rifles in 2v2-4v4 against a top 100 player with 60+% winrate that spams lmg grens, volks, obers, JLI (or literally any axis mainline) with double HMG. And then upload the replay and tell us how much fun you had and how successful it was

And you know something about it since yourself trashtalk people not following the only one path meta.

Anyway even if in 1vs1 rilfemen are ok, the rest of the faction doesn't follow and make USF terribly hard to play at equal level with their opponent. USF lacks of shock units and punishing tools when your opponent makes a mistake and if you don't have a RNG moment to help you, you'll basically slowly lose to your opponent by attrition.

Mkey.

So the theory is that Riflemen are ok in 1vs1 but total crap in 4vs4 so people have to resort to Pathfinders if they want to win correct?

Yet Pathfinders commander seem to be far more popular in 1vs1 than in 3v3 and 4v4 and USF seem to have some of the best win rates in 3vs3.

That does not seem to be inline with that theory...

So the theory is that Riflemen are ok in 1vs1 but total crap in 4vs4 so people have to resort to Pathfinders if they want to win correct?

If your "want to win" implies that its un-winnable otherwise, no. If your "want to win" means playing the game without shooting yourself in the knee, yes.

Yet Pathfinders commander seem to be far more popular in 1vs1 than in 3v3 and 4v4 and USF seem to have some of the best win rates in 3vs3.

You can litteraly find pro-player streaming those gamemodes to see how they they play USF. In 1v1 airborn is picked solely because it allows you to ignore USF tech and get AT gun+MG, no-one spams paths in 1v1 and no-one use airborn in 1v1 because of them.

Speaking off, it even if we forget about pathfinders and imagine that every one plays infantry company. Again it completely changes how rifles are played, because of the LMG. So even if Airborn wasn't even picked, people in teamgames are just avoiding stock rifles gameplay to begin with.

That does not seem to be inline with that theory...

I mean if you want to look at facts objectively and not just push your narrative for the sake on continuous argument, they are actually completely in line.

I've yet to see any attempt to prove why rifles arent sucking balls in teamgames, besides "well win rates", despite people giving clear explanation and reasoning why rifles design isn't working in teamgames.

If your "want to win" implies that its un-winnable otherwise, no. If your "want to win" means playing the game without shooting yourself in the knee, yes.

This is what has been posted in the first page of this thread:

Pathfinder and howitzer need to be good because riflemen are so bad. Worst mainline in the game by far. Such absolute trash.

Do you agree that Riflemen are "absolute trash" and that creates the necessity to for Pathfinder to be OP Yes or No?

You can litteraly find pro-player streaming those gamemodes to see how they they play USF. In 1v1 airborn is picked solely because it allows you to ignore USF tech and get AT gun+MG, no-one spams paths in 1v1 and no-one use airborn in 1v1 because of them.

Do they produce Pathfinder yes or no?

Speaking off, it even if we forget about pathfinders and imagine that every one plays infantry company. Again it completely changes how rifles are played, because of the LMG. So even if Airborn wasn't even picked, people in teamgames are just avoiding stock rifles gameplay to begin with.

And yet Urban assault with no LMGs is more popular than tactical Support with LMGs.

Claiming that Rifle company primarily is LMG is an oversimplification.

I mean if you want to look at facts objectively and not just push your narrative for the sake on continuous argument, they are actually completely in line.


I've yet to see any attempt to prove why rifles arent sucking balls in teamgames, besides "well win rates", despite people giving clear explanation and reasoning why rifles design isn't working in teamgames.

I am neither pushing any narrative nor I am not arguing contentiously.

What I have post is pretty clear:
Contrary to claims Riflemen are not crap/sucking balls (they might not be cost efficient but that isa difrent thing)

Contrary to claims Pathfinder do need to be OP because Riflemen crap

Pathfinder acting as core army units and Pathfinder/Scott combo need to fixed regardless of Riflemen performance.

If you want my opinion on, one the changes that affected USF the most, it was the buff to medics, that made USF faction going from having the best healing in game (allowing player to get more out of their Riflemen) ending up with one of the worse healing.

(edited)

- the meta and maps in teamgames favour units that perform well at longer ranges since a long time already, and riflemen are terrible at long range for 280mp.

For me this is an interesting point, I think it's a good explanation as to why the meta shifted, not just for team-games but also in 1v1.

I remember people trying the barfinders meta years ago, but it never caught on. Now, almost all community maps in the last 2~3 years are large & open with lots of spread out points. The design encourages very few strategies except spamming mainlines and a-moving to cap the points.

It's no wonder long-range inf and anti-inf vehicles are thriving in this environment.

I miss the map with the 2v2 map with 2 munition points south in dense forest and city in the middle

Btw i have no problem with pathfinders as wehr, g43 pgrens owns that commander and my shrek pgrens run in with tactical movement, blows up scotts and retreat.

I miss the map with the 2v2 map with 2 munition points south in dense forest and city in the middle

Btw i have no problem with pathfinders as wehr, g43 pgrens owns that commander and my shrek pgrens run in with tactical movement, blows up scotts and retreat.

classic wehrmacht player strategy: blob the ever living shit out of panzergrenadiers, make them run into enemy armor, destroy a tank, retreat

im an average player, play 80-90% ~ WEHR.
some time ago, i decided to only play airborne commander in 4v4 randoms, and i know MM is fickle, but i jumped from low rank up to level 15-16, only playing Airborne, until i started getting my ass handed to me (completely normal).

If i as an average joe, can do that well with airborne, there must be something wrong.

Edit:
Note that i know that pathspam is sometimes essential to combat axis long range inf. But this commander simply has the best synergy of troops and call ins in the game.

im an average player, play 80-90% ~ WEHR.
some time ago, i decided to only play airborne commander in 4v4 randoms, and i know MM is fickle, but i jumped from low rank up to level 15-16, only playing Airborne, until i started getting my ass handed to me (completely normal).

If i as an average joe, can do that well with airborne, there must be something wrong.

Edit:
Note that i know that pathspam is sometimes essential to combat axis long range inf. But this commander simply has the best synergy of troops and call ins in the game.

Yeah. It does. Hence it's played. Same as how Guard motor is played in every fu**ing game.
Premium medium? Check
Heavy mortar? Check
Elite infantry? Check
Extra damage and penetration on tanks? Check
Extra gravy: Crew repairs

Why is elite armour or overwatch played in every OKW game I've had?
Commander upgrade for that mega vision and offmap which is quite decent. Especially in larger modes where you can't keep track of everything. 221, which is especially great vs USF. 100% no early snare which means you can displace easily any and all infantry behind cover. For a 3 minute mark LV which can be upgraded to give vision and siphon resources later on, a brilliant addition to any build.
HEAT shells for penetration and damage. What's not to like?
Extra gravy: Crew repairs and STiger. Still the best breakthrough tank, especially in capable hands which can use combined arms around it.
But mostly for that absolutely broken 72 vision KT spearhead with HEAT shells.

Overwatch? Pick your poision. Goliaths for teamgames hiding in craters or behind sight blockers wiping infantry. LEFH. Fuc*ton of planes and to top it all off. Extremely strong JLI.
Extra gravy is the buff. Great to defend points against blobbed infantry. People don't use it much though.

Brits are sh*ttier faction, won't comment.

Finally OST. Why is every game spotting scopes + elephant or Command P4? or Spearhead. People like the "GetOutOfJailFreeCard" almost free smoke dispenser on each tank, mortar HT, frag bombs and to top it off. A Tiger tank.
Extra gravy: Recon plane to spot for frag bombs.
Or a 400 armour 70 range monster that shoots through everything with such penetration and damage. Paired with spotting scopes on vetted 222s (unless you're bad and can't keep the 222 alive).

Such commanders give great beneficial additions to their respective factions.
Paths give USF the ability to fight against obers, JLI, MG grens and falls (with paras). Of course, both paths and paras won't really go 1v1 against obers or JLI, but that's why you usually go for more, and bring them in tandem. (I usually have 2 infantry control groups in 3v3s. Path + rifle + para && path + captain + RE, works great, especially if you send the weaker one to be the vanguard, and the other one to flank).
More importantly, paths spot for MG42s. You can't "just flank" an MG42 on most 3v3 maps, since it's arc can cover most maps single-handedly. Rhine, Redball, Whiteball. All maps where one MG42 is enough to hold first 6 minutes of the game, a large chunk of the frontline, easily. Paths make it easier. USF has a problem, if any of your units get suppressed and forced to retreat, you're lost next 3 minutes. A map like Whiteball has 0 green cover on the frontline (VP-fuel horizontal line), making the MG42 extremely deadly. Paths circumvent that.
P47s to push super heavy tanks easily.
MG + AT to not be hampered by the teching.
Extra gravy: paratroopers which are great elite infantry.

I don't play COH2 much, haven't played a custom game in ages, which means all of my games past year have been with USF in ranked. I used to play 90% heavy cav and 9% infantry and 1% paths. I did get to rank 1 and stayed there for a week or so... but it was fu**ing hard. Really fu**ing hard.

Last year or so, I've been playing 50% paths, 50% heavy cav. How much easier it is to play. Haven't been kicked out of top 20 in ages. Easier games, especially against OST. OKW can sh*t on paths with mechanized, but most people haven't realized that yet. If you play heavy cav against a jagd or ele, you know that your Pershing will be useless. Better to just send it to die and get something else. With P47s, you know you can dive the elefant and have a high chance of killing it. Mainly because you won't be only trying to damage it through front armour (good luck flanking on a map like Redball to get on the rear).

All in all. Paths make for a much easier game with USF. A faction, that had been nerfed constantly without really gaining anything in return, unlike Soviets. USF was supposed to have terminator rifles on close-medium range and deadly pak howi due to lack of rocket arty. Nerfed hard.
Jackson is still the king of AT, that's true.
Shermans are meh. Not great, not terrible.
50 cal no longer has the advantage in setup times or retreat speed. MG34 and 42 retain the wide arc and teleporting retreat MG on model death + AP rounds. 50 cal doesn't have anything unique to it.
Teching is weird.
AAHT is bugged AF. Good on paper, but buggy and difficult to use with the constant spinning and lower cannon range than the MG.
AT need munitions to be effective against anything above OST P4.
Scotts are great ATM.
Stuart needs just a slight price buff or AOE against infantry buff. A slight. In a good spot ATM.
M20 is useless.

So a faction without any blob control, elite infantry, premium armour. One good indirect. One good AT.
What do you see in teamgames? Scott + jacksons spam and let the soviet ally infantry cap. USF will just hammer away and barrage with scotts. Who would have thought? A path here and there to spot invisible.

All in all. USF is still very much usable in 1v1s, but the larger the mode, the more restricted you are to certain commanders. I mean, you can play mechanized in 4v4, but don't expect it to be as easy as paths or infantry. OKW, Soviets and OST are not as reliant on commanders.

So with CoH3 being released, I'm guessing we're never going to see a fix for this. It's pretty tiring to see Bar-Finders into PakHowie/Scott every game without fail. At this point I'm almost tempted to quit when seeing PFs, as it's just an un-fun experience; doesn't matter if it's a top 100 or 1000 player doing it.

Is there a viable counter for this? The only 'counter' I've found so far is flawless double-sniper play, both in terms of constant MP drain and unit preservation. Against good players though, that's incredibly difficult, considering PFs are reasonably forgiving.

Hopefully CoH3 gets ranked soon.

Lol without them usf has no chance to be competitive. Some buffs are defenitly needed if those 2 or just 1 gets nerfed (probably into the ground)

I feel like USF can still be played even with a pathfinders nerf. Maybe cap the pathfinders to 2 squads ? The best way to deal with them is probably scout cars or early tanks but that is often not enough ...