nerf the fking pathfinder and Howitzer

I am not geussing anything. You are doing excatly that.
You refuse to acknolidge anything that is not mentioned in the title of the thread. Even obvious underlying issues. Just "go make a thread about x yourself" every time. This is no way to fix anything.
While you also have quite a history of bringing in anything to prove a point.

PLS focus on Pathfinder instead of me. I am not going to follow you in this path that derails the thread.

The issue is with vision in general. Vision is very underrated and it actualy makes some units and synergies to strong. Paths and pio's to a lesser extent imo prove larger vision on main stay units being a problem.
Packhowi and scott on its own are ok imo. Vision wich pathf bring in abundance make the howi and scott much more effective. Rifles not being appealing esp in bigger modes make this even more problematic.

Vision is not the only issue of Pathfinders, its only one, there are others.

And just because it has been "said" by some people it does not mean it true but not really the topic of this thread.


Or that is simply an indication of how good USF elite infatry are


If you want to talk about Pioneer sight I suggest you start a thread about it since this one is about Pathfinders and howitzers.

Both Riflemen and Pio sight range are relevant, please stop trying to levy power or disregard points raised in a discussion with such nonsense.

Riflemen are the direct contender for Pathfinders in the USF roster, so they have immense relevance.

Pathfinders have a vision bonus, something which is granted for 'free' with the Ost Pioneer squad. Again this is thematic to the discussion.

Both Riflemen and Pio sight range are relevant, please stop trying to levy power or disregard points raised in a discussion with such nonsense.

Riflemen are the direct contender for Pathfinders in the USF roster, so they have immense relevance.

I have explained the relevance of Riflemen and that is actually one of issues with Pathfinders.

Of coarse the cost efficiency of Riflemen and of Pathfinder is relevant as to what one will choose to build.

If Pathfinder are more cost efficient than Riflemen does not necessarily mean that Riflemen are an UP unit as some people seem to claim.

Pathfinder where not meant to an alternative mainline infatry yet the are replacing riflemen.

So pls tone down the personal comments.

Pathfinders have a vision bonus, something which is granted for 'free' with the Ost Pioneer squad. Again this is thematic to the discussion.

There are other infatry with "free" extra like like like tommies in vet 1, snipers, JLI, JLI command squad, G43 Panzer fusilier, Partisans, Major, assault officer so you might want to bring them to the debate also.

The main difference here is that, as you pointed before, Pathfinder can replace riflemen and act as mainline infantry, pioneer cant not and thus they poor choice when used for comparison reasons.

Bringing them into the debate seem more like a rant about the grass being greener on the other side than anything else.

PLS focus on Pathfinder instead of me. I am not going to follow you in this path that derails the thread.


Vision is not the only issue of Pathfinders, its only one, there are others.

I dont agree the thread is being derailed. But i agree with focusing to much on you. I will try and avoid doing that.

That pathfinders can replace riflemen is because of their vision. This helps immensly in avoiding damage same esp combined with stealth and long range orientation. If iether is changed that wont change much in them replacing rifles imo. Rifles esp in big modes will still be replaced by paths.

No one argues because its obvious. And axis mains wont listen anyway.

For its timing its beats all other mg's by miles in terms off stopping power. Its closer the .50 and duska then it is to a maxim or vickers. That you wont acknolidge that is telling. Just because it can be flanked (like all others mg's) doesnt make it weak or as good or bad as other mg's.

The mg42 got moved to t0 because early game ost suffered againt usf. That change was a good one. The pio vision bonus from the first second of the game is over the top.

The difference being that OST do not have basic inf T0 on their roster unlike SOVS.

you can be outplayed and thus lose the engagement with an mg-42, but that doesnt mean that the mg-42 isn't really fucking good, it means that you fucked up while playing

agreed with you on this

I dont agree the thread is being derailed. But i agree with focusing to much on you. I will try and avoid doing that.

Good

That pathfinders can replace riflemen is because of their vision. This helps immensly in avoiding damage same esp combined with stealth and long range orientation. If iether is changed that wont change much in them replacing rifles imo. Rifles esp in big modes will still be replaced by paths.

That is not true if it was just vision a single Pathfinder would be enough.

Again one of the issue of pathfinder is that thei are being use as mainline infatry replacing riflemen when that is not their intended role.

As for their orientation there is not since their scope rifles are far oriented but the elite carbines are mid to close weapons.

They should either be designed as a support unit or as alternative mainline but than they would probably have to lose things like camo/scoped m1/extra sight.

One advantage of paths is that you can suddenly pick your engagements. You can avoid the MG42 of Ostheer as well as avoid many ambushes of Sturmpios by OKW or go into a long range slog if necessary. That's something standard Riflemen builds cannot do, and being pushed off in the beginning is very harsh for USF because you're also lacking in squads on the field until your tech up to get the officer squad. Paths by themselves are not that combat capable, but spamming them combined with rather favourable engagements due to high vision can offset that disadvantage.

I would not touch their vision though. They are scout units, having standard vision would be straight up stupid.
They should be transitioned into a less capable fighting squad. Either by charging munitions for the scoped rifle upgrade (40-60 should delay long enough to not allow spamming), or making it free once the officer is out. Both should come with a MP discount though.

The other option is to make them a 3 men squad (with reduced cost and population) which makes them fairly incapable of fighting as well. They'd probably need a late game buff though due to fragility towards artillery

The difference being that OST do not have basic inf T0 on their roster unlike SOVS.

just make tier 1 though?
you are not sideteching for your mainline, you set up the production right away and have MG-42/a gren squad without lagging behind the enemy in unit count

Good


That is not true if it was just vision a single Pathfinder would be enough.

Again one of the issue of pathfinder is that thei are being use as mainline infatry replacing riflemen when that is not their intended role.

As for their orientation there is not since their scope rifles are far oriented but the elite carbines are mid to close weapons.

They should either be designed as a support unit or as alternative mainline but than they would probably have to lose thing like camo/scoped m1/extra sight.

Indeed i said as well that vision isent the only thing. It just contributes a lot just as camo in avoiding damage and also giving situational awarenes. Allowing you to do more damage then you would otherwise.

If you take either away they will still surplant rifles i bigger modes imo. If you take both away well i think usf will be gutted in bigger modes if rifles arent fixed.

Having a cost to their scoped rifles rifles or stealth would be best. And rifles squads need a way to reduce bleed in the late game. Major tech reducing reinforcement costs would be a good and or squads after major start with 1 bar plus reduced reinforce cost.

Indeed i said as well that vision isent the only thing. It just contributes a lot just as camo in avoiding damage and also giving situational awarenes. Allowing you to do more damage then you would otherwise.

If you take either away they will still surplant rifles i bigger modes imo. If you take both away well i think usf will be gutted in bigger modes if rifles arent fixed.

Having a cost to their scoped rifles rifles or stealth would be best. And rifles squads need a way to reduce bleed in the late game. Major tech reducing reinforcement costs would be a good and or squads after major start with 1 bar plus reduced reinforce cost.

Agree. Take away both and you'll see use of USF drop in larger gamemodes. Maybe you'll see the odd person playing with calliope spam for the memes or pershing for the nostalgia. Airborne might stick around as off meta for the LMG paras, but USF will still get spanked without that rocket arty (or the discount path+scott rocket arty). Anybody wanting to be useful for their team is most likely going to be picking a more fun/effective faction for 4s.

Airborne company is very popular in 1vs1 but the popularity drops at mode get larger.

By the time you get to 4vs4 it has fallen to 3 place with infatry being more popular.

Agree. Take away both and you'll see use of USF drop in larger gamemodes. Maybe you'll see the odd person playing with calliope spam for the memes or pershing for the nostalgia. Airborne might stick around as off meta for the LMG paras, but USF will still get spanked without that rocket arty (or the discount path+scott rocket arty). Anybody wanting to be useful for their team is most likely going to be picking a more fun/effective faction for 4s.

Nerfing Pathfinders/Airborne commander will hit 1v1 and 2v2 harder that 3v3 and 4v4, because the commander seems to be chosen more often there according to loadout data. In 3v3+, airborne is one out of three roughly equally chosen commanders, because in these modes the sight bonus is not as important (narrow maps -> you'll always run into an MG with less opportunity to flank) and second the need for artillery becomes more and more important.
The whole pathfinder build is just atrocious to play against though. Those games always turn out in almost exactly the same way, and you always have to get the same counters. This is different from other commanders (e.g. like Ostheer's Jager Armor to get the Elefant), because here at least you'll have 30 mins of a fun and more varied game.

CoH2 could have really used 2 more patches to iron out some of these bumps. Not even necessarily bug fixes, just obnoxious strategies

Riflemen early game is very good and even better when pushed up with an aggro ambulance allowing you early healing and forward reinforcement.

The people i see struggle with RM late game are the same people who dont equip them with BARS or LMGS (doc). It would be better if USF had a choice between smoke on riflemen or mortar and choosing one will lock out the other (or have bothm whatever is best for balance). Regardless, pathfinder strat needs looking at regardless of rifleman's performance.

The only faction i feel riflemen struggle is vs OKW. This due to Volks having STGS and LMG obers, making riflemen struggle hard vs OKW in the middle-late game.

The whole pathfinder build is just atrocious to play against though. Those games always turn out in almost exactly the same way, and you always have to get the same counters. This is different from other commanders (e.g. like Ostheer's Jager Armor to get the Elefant), because here at least you'll have 30 mins of a fun and more varied game.

CoH2 could have really used 2 more patches to iron out some of these bumps. Not even necessarily bug fixes, just obnoxious strategies

"30 minutes of fun and a more varied game" = gets spotting scopes and wehrmacht basically gets map hacks until the end of the game

that is as tumorous as path vision is

The people i see struggle with RM late game are the same people who dont equip them with BARS or LMGS (doc).

That or people who have to begin engagements at long range--against enemies who have troops who specialize in long range engagements and have machine guns and tanks to keep you at long range (I.E. both of them)--in order to enter mid-close range where you actually win the engagement .

A) Rifles are absolute dog**it in combat on most maps and prone to RNG. Sometimes they wipe the floor with volks/cons close range, sometimes they get wiped
B) Lack of vision is a problem for USF, especially against OST in teamgames, where one MG42 can completely shut down one lane

Paths are not really strong combat wise early on. You do need RNG on them to force retreats early on (with BARs, RNG is no longer an issue), and they lack a snare. But early on, they give you that vision and scale much better than rifles, even having 1 less squad member.

Before the rifle nerfs (eg. short distance nerf), you could get away with them, but now, they are pretty much on par with cheaper grens and volks, in 90% of engagements. Those 10% are the engagements where you turn a corner/sight-blocker and start firing close range

Riflemen early game is very good and even better when pushed up with an aggro ambulance allowing you early healing and forward reinforcement.

It is good compared to what? On the allied side they are only better than IS, Cons can literally brute force a win by swarming, Penal are straight up better early on, both can be backed up by a sniper vs OST or car vs OKW while having access to being Soviet. Pathfinders can also use the ambulance so Rifleman are in a really weird place as they are meant to be aggressive but as others have stated just one getting caught in supression can really mess you up.

It is good compared to what? On the allied side they are only better than IS, Cons can literally brute force a win by swarming, Penal are straight up better early on, both can be backed up by a sniper vs OST or car vs OKW while having access to being Soviet. Pathfinders can also use the ambulance so Rifleman are in a really weird place as they are meant to be aggressive but as others have stated just one getting caught in supression can really mess you up.

funny how you compare them to IS and penals, since when do riflemen have to fight them? NEVER lol maybe next for a reason to buff grens ill compare them to Obers yeah?. Regarding riflemen, they mostly beat grens and volks in the early game. the only thing you need to be wary of is the mg42.

If you bothered reading what i said, they need smoke back on them. OKW struggles more vs suppression then USF who LITERALLY have a t0 mortar

funny how you compare them to IS and penals, since when do riflemen have to fight them? NEVER lol maybe next for a reason to buff grens ill compare them to Obers yeah?. Regarding riflemen, they mostly beat grens and volks in the early game. the only thing you need to be wary of is the mg42.

If you bothered reading what i said, they need smoke back on them. OKW struggles more vs suppression then USF who LITERALLY have a t0 mortar

But as a player you have the choice to choose between any of them before the match starts. If you want to play a more aggressive style you have other better MAINLINE options that can do what we all want Rifleman to be able to do.

Your example of comparing a mainline to an Elite was fairly foolish similar to your example of rushing an ambulance. That will literally only work against an inferior player or part of an arranged team. As has been stated by high level players, USF is a snowball faction and losing an extra early unit for a bit of extra staying power is usually unwarranted.

The other issue that arises is how well Pathfinders synergize with mid game units also so it’s not just a comparison of DPS. A AAHT is clumsy as hell, but the vision provided by Paths help reduce being caught out of position. All team weapons benefit even if they are not crewed by paths as the multiple squads allow efficient repositioning and engagement planning. This further helps MP preservation and ROI on short window units like M20/Stuart

Furthermore, even if you give Rifleman smoke it doesn’t solve the issue that Airborne is the favorite commander due to USF tech issues, hell Recon had to get the Airdrop nerfed as it allowed USF two commanders that could work around their tech weaknesses.