nerf the fking pathfinder and Howitzer

i dont call him good, im saying that he is probably lying on maining sov...

Gotcha. Yeah honestly I would be kinda surprised if this was the case, though Reverb does talk about issues from the POV of both sides so it could easily be our own personal bias

...but he is SORTA correct, Sov is probably the easiest to do well with, but that is because the other two factions suck ass structurally (ukf gets hard countered by 2 leigs and usf loses the game to a fucking VOLKSWAGEN with a passenger)

Absolutely. No vanilla rocket artillery is my main gripe ofc. The limiting--though unique--teching structure of USF and the lack of mobile light artillery in UKF, while much easier to cope with in 1v1s, really hamstring the factions...

-in 4v4

Realistically whole USF problem, is happened because balance team brainfarted about them massively.

For instance, pre-nerfed pak howi. Ok, was really strong, but OP only when it was combined with recon howi pak howi cheese para-drop. When it was teched properly it was fine by its timing. Yet, instead of fixing recon company, pak howi was nerfed for some reason. And funny enouth, soviet 120mm is much worse now, in terms of how its abused in teamgames, then pak howi was.

Rifles. Kicked in the nuts, because mainly they were problematic due to early forward ambulance, which on its own keeps bringing problems. Yet, rifles were changed and not the forward ambu.

And pretty much all USF problems comes exclusively because of this. UKF was given like 3 options to change their playstyle depending on the mode\map. Rec.Engis\Raid Sections\Ass.Tommies.

Yet, USF got nothing, besides path finders which is literally another brainfart and over-sight from a balance team. Rifles are objectively the weakest mainline for its cost. For instance, Penals cost 290MP and literally destroy pretty much everything if played right, Rifles cost 280MP and trade almost 1to1 with Grens, unless its 1v1 and you can close distance instantly.

Against penals, you are expected to lose with cheaper inf but you either can overwhelm them, out-position them or lose but end up winning MP wise. Rifles on the other hand can just plain and simply lose against cheaper units, even if played right.

Point being, instead of fixing synergy\design problems which led to USF over-performance, for some reason core units were nerfed\changed.

Point being, balance team literally put USF in a position, where patch after patch, they had to rely on cheesing and abusing something in team games, even in 2v2. But at the same time, its either 1 brain-cell abuse or self handicapping.

Realistically whole USF problem, is happened because balance team brainfarted about them massively.

For instance, pre-nerfed pak howi. Ok, was really strong, but OP only when it was combined with recon howi pak howi cheese para-drop. When it was teched properly it was fine by its timing. Yet, instead of fixing recon company, pak howi was nerfed for some reason. And funny enouth, soviet 120mm is much worse now, in terms of how its abused in teamgames, then pak howi was.

Rifles. Kicked in the nuts, because mainly they were problematic due to early forward ambulance, which on its own keeps bringing problems. Yet, rifles were changed and not the forward ambu.

And pretty much all USF problems comes exclusively because of this. UKF was given like 3 options to change their playstyle depending on the mode\map. Rec.Engis\Raid Sections\Ass.Tommies.

Yet, USF got nothing, besides path finders which is literally another brainfart and over-sight from a balance team. Rifles are objectively the weakest mainline for its cost. For instance, Penals cost 290MP and literally destroy pretty much everything if played right, Rifles cost 280MP and trade almost 1to1 with Grens, unless its 1v1 and you can close distance instantly.

Against penals, you are expected to lose with cheaper inf but you either can overwhelm them, out-position them or lose but end up winning MP wise. Rifles on the other hand can just plain and simply lose against cheaper units, even if played right.

Point being, instead of fixing synergy\design problems which led to USF over-performance, for some reason core units were nerfed\changed.

Point being, balance team literally put USF in a position, where patch after patch, they had to rely on cheesing and abusing something in team games, even in 2v2. But at the same time, its either 1 brain-cell abuse or self handicapping.

Amen to that. Pretty much on point IMHO.

Never understood the mega nerfs some units received. Sometimes small, sometimes large, but patch after patch, a nerf on core units instead of a decent rework. But you get what you payed for, and Relic paid them squat.

Realistically whole USF problem, is happened because balance team brainfarted about them massively.

For instance, pre-nerfed pak howi. Ok, was really strong, but OP only when it was combined with recon howi pak howi cheese para-drop. When it was teched properly it was fine by its timing. Yet, instead of fixing recon company, pak howi was nerfed for some reason. And funny enouth, soviet 120mm is much worse now, in terms of how its abused in teamgames, then pak howi was.

Rifles. Kicked in the nuts, because mainly they were problematic due to early forward ambulance, which on its own keeps bringing problems. Yet, rifles were changed and not the forward ambu.

And pretty much all USF problems comes exclusively because of this. UKF was given like 3 options to change their playstyle depending on the mode\map. Rec.Engis\Raid Sections\Ass.Tommies.

Yet, USF got nothing, besides path finders which is literally another brainfart and over-sight from a balance team. Rifles are objectively the weakest mainline for its cost. For instance, Penals cost 290MP and literally destroy pretty much everything if played right, Rifles cost 280MP and trade almost 1to1 with Grens, unless its 1v1 and you can close distance instantly.

Against penals, you are expected to lose with cheaper inf but you either can overwhelm them, out-position them or lose but end up winning MP wise. Rifles on the other hand can just plain and simply lose against cheaper units, even if played right.

Point being, instead of fixing synergy\design problems which led to USF over-performance, for some reason core units were nerfed\changed.

Point being, balance team literally put USF in a position, where patch after patch, they had to rely on cheesing and abusing something in team games, even in 2v2. But at the same time, its either 1 brain-cell abuse or self handicapping.

hope usf on coh3 will not be like that

You can't expect good work from people that do it for free

100% this

Idk about them working for free. All other factions more or less got decent to good reworks.

Soviets got needed late game inf buff and semi-elite inf, Ostheer got its tech prices fixed and bleed fix, UKF can off-set its weaknesses with commanders to some extend.

USF on the other hand got dog-shit. Hell, faction which is supposed to rely on mainline exclusively didn't even receive late game MP bleed adjustments, while factions which rely on combined arms did.

I mean, realistically speaking. What would have had changed, if Rifles had AI of a 5 men penal squad. Just lock forward ambu reinforcement, until your T1\2 is unlocked, to make reinforcement similar in timing to other factions and its literally it. Its not like, soviet T1 play is making ostheer\OKW unplayable, why USF should. If anything, starting USF MP could have been lowered a bit, to delay third rifle if it would have been needed. On top of the fact that, unlike soviets, RE is actually a completely useless unit, which cant even be equipped with a flamer without commander, unlike CE.

...
USF on the other hand got dog-shit. Hell, faction which is supposed to rely on mainline exclusively didn't even receive late game MP bleed adjustments, while factions which rely on combined arms did.
...

USF stopped relying on mainline infatry and got easier access to support weapon with the Tech rework.

Fact remain that Pathfinders being used as mainline infatry is an issue that should be addressed.

USF stop relying on mainline infatry...

Well I can tell you they sure as hell aren't relying on the 50 cal and M1 at gun lmao.



-in 4v4

USF stopped relying on mainline infatry and got easier access to support weapon with the Tech rework.

Easier access doesn't mean, they aren't relying mainly on inf. Other factions aren't relying on mainline, because ostheer and soviets have plenty of support weapons early into the game to mix or skip their mainlines. On top of having a lot of call-in options.
UKF can either spam mainline, chose one of the dozens of mainline replacements or even go for support weapons as well.
OKW can either go for PFs, STs, Volks or even stale with kubels until call-in elites.

What USF can do? You are still, no matter how you want to play will go for at least 2 rifle squads + officer, if you aren't picking PFs\Ass.Engis. Even with easier access to support weapons\LVs, your core army will still be made out of rifles and first 5 mins you will be playing with them almost exclusively.

Easier access doesn't mean, they aren't relying mainly on inf. Other factions aren't relying on mainline, because ostheer and soviets have plenty of support weapons early into the game to mix or skip their mainlines. On top of having a lot of call-in options.
UKF can either spam mainline, chose one of the dozens of mainline replacements or even go for support weapons as well.
OKW can either go for PFs, STs, Volks or even stale with kubels until call-in elites.

What USF can do? You are still, no matter how you want to play will go for at least 2 rifle squads + officer, if you aren't picking PFs\Ass.Engis. Even with easier access to support weapons\LVs, your core army will still be made out of rifles and first 5 mins you will be playing with them almost exclusively.

The Faction had an original design that has being changed patch after patch. Same applies for USF.

Mainline infatry are supposed to be the core of faction army. Same applies for USF.

The Faction had an original design that has being changed patch after patch. Same applies for USF.

And this led USF to be in the place where it is. Because original unit design was changed, while core design ideas of faction were left. Besides PF abuse, the only saving grease of USF in teamgames, is min 0 forward reinforcement abuse, which is just as cancerous to play against.

Mainline infatry are supposed to be the core of faction army. Same applies for USF.

Facts. Problem is, even if we left alone the fact that literally all other factions have units to support mainline early and not go for x3/4 mainlines, before getting support units, Rifles aren't performing as 280MP mainline, especially when you have either 10MP cheaper IS or 10MP more expensive Penals, both of which out perform rifles straight off the bat + have support units to back them up straight off the bat as well.

And this led USF to be in the place where it is. Because original unit design was changed, while core design ideas of faction were left. Besides PF abuse, the only saving grease of USF in teamgames, is min 0 forward reinforcement abuse, which is just as cancerous to play against.

That is inaccurate. The original designed had USF with limited access to support weapons so they either got light vehicles support or support weapons (because of that those those units where OP).

Facts. Problem is, even if we left alone the fact that literally all other factions have units to support mainline early and not go for x3/4 mainlines, before getting support units, Rifles aren't performing as 280MP mainline, especially when you have either 10MP cheaper IS or 10MP more expensive Penals, both of which out perform rifles straight off the bat + have support units to back them up straight off the bat as well.

USF get a T0 mortar which is a support weapon.

IS do not have a mortar as support weapon or snares or the mainline infatry and they have to carry the faction. Actually UKF are worse designed than USF so I am not sure why you want to bring them up.

T1 and Penal are also badly designed and one has to build time and MP on building T1 before having access to them.

As shown from stat USF are doing fine in 1vs1 and have higher win ratios than OKW/Ostheer so do not see any indication that faction is doing bad.

None of that changes the fact that Pathfinder should not have the role of mainline infatry.

As shown from stat USF are doing fine in 1vs1 and have higher win ratios than OKW/Ostheer so do not see any indication that faction is doing bad.

And here is where the disconnect lies. People, if you want to talk about faction performance, you had ought to specify the gamemode you're talking about. As always, my comments are about faction performance...


-in 4v4

And here is where the disconnect lies. People, if you want to talk about faction performance, you had ought to specify the gamemode you're talking about. As always, my comments are about faction performance...


-in 4v4

This raises the following question. Does anyone think they would ever realistically consider attempting to balance the factions differently across different team modes, so for example a differently balanced USF for 1v1, vs 3v3 or 2v2 etc etc... Or would this just be a really, really bad and confusing idea?

Because I've had discussions (arguments) with people about balance where to read it, it looks like one of us or both of us are completely insane... From reading it, you can so tell that one of us only plays 1v1 and the other guy a much larger team mode where you can get away without building x unit, or spamming another one... It's like we're talking about two completely different games sometimes. Does the game just have so many variables that it becomes incredibly difficult to balance it fairly this way?

And here is where the disconnect lies. People, if you want to talk about faction performance, you had ought to specify the gamemode you're talking about. As always, my comments are about faction performance...


-in 4v4

Win rates in 4vs4 last patch:

USF 48.5
UKF 47.9
Soviet 46.4

Top 200

UKF 47.7
USF 46.9
Soviet 46

Seem that USF are doing better than other allied factions...

This raises the following question. Does anyone think they would ever realistically consider attempting to balance the factions differently across different team modes, so for example a differently balanced USF for 1v1, vs 3v3 or 2v2 etc etc... Or would this just be a really, really bad and confusing idea?

Because I've had discussions (arguments) with people about balance where to read it, it looks like one of us or both of us are completely insane... From reading it, you can so tell that one of us only plays 1v1 and the other guy a much larger team mode where you can get away without building x unit, or spamming another one... It's like we're talking about two completely different games sometimes. Does the game just have so many variables that it becomes incredibly difficult to balance it fairly this way?

I'm not going to sit here and pretend like it would be easy. Solving for X when X equals both shocks blob and and at the same time a single shocks squad is not a simple task.

All I can do is put in my own personal ideas, contribute my own personal experience and hope they're worthwhile.

And for the record, if you asked me how to balance 4v4, I would probably just say: "Balance the vanilla units for 1v1, include commanders with supplemental units which are specifically meant to perform better in one gamemode (like how the Elefant is so cost prohibitive it only really makes sense to build in 4v4s, and at the same time it is most useful in 4v4s).

Which, to a degree is what the mod team has already been trying to do. But honestly, it's a job that should be done by people who do it for a living. As much as I respect the mod team for what they *have* done, I don't think it's controversial to say that.

All in all, I have to say that riflemen and USF are stinky.

That is inaccurate. The original designed had USF with limited access to support weapons so they either got light vehicles support or support weapons (because of that those those units where OP).

Question still remains, why rifles, being 280MP unit have problems fighting much cheaper mainlines. Considering in early game, you have access to nothing but mortar and your starting unit is actually the weakest one in the game.

USF get a T0 mortar which is a support weapon.

Thats nice. Still it doesn't help, that 280MP squad have troubles fighting 240MP grenadiers, unless they are able to close the distance like conscripts.

IS do not have a mortar as support weapon or snares or the mainline infatry and they have to carry the faction. Actually UKF are worse designed than USF so I am not sure why you want to bring them up.

Again, purely 1v1 thing. In teamgames, where you can stale or rely on your teammate a bit, UKF is doing just fine. Not to mention, that 2 commanders comes with 0CP mortar call-in, and 2 have access to it. I'm bringing exactly to point out that unlike USF, UKF at least got commanders to cover different playstyles based on a gamemode.

T1 and Penal are also badly designed and one has to build time and MP on building T1 before having access to them.

In 1v1 yes. In teamgames they work just fine.

As shown from stat USF are doing fine in 1vs1 and have higher win ratios than OKW/Ostheer so do not see any indication that faction is doing bad.

And I am not speaking about 1v1 what so ever, because in 1v1 USF can actually make use of rifles.

None of that changes the fact that Pathfinder should not have the role of mainline infatry.

And I never said they should.

...

I just provided the winrates of USF in 4vs4 games and they are doing as good or better than other factions. What makes you think that USF are worse than soviet or UKF in teamgames?

USF stopped relying on mainline infatry and got easier access to support weapon with the Tech rework.

Fact remain that Pathfinders being used as mainline infatry is an issue that should be addressed.

- The chance for easier access Support weapon is an adpation for early game change from Okw, Weh and help USF less suffer from the techtree itself. The truth is USF Replying on Rifleman in Whole game.

As shown from stat USF are doing fine in 1vs1 and have higher win ratios than OKW/Ostheer so do not see any indication that faction is doing bad.

None of that changes the fact that Pathfinder should not have the role of mainline infatry.

hmmm... but but tournament is Soviet is Axis.
If USF " are doing fine and have higher win ratios vs Axis than why Pro player not favor USF over Soviet ?