Grens vs riflemen

Focus on your cutoff early game and get 2-4 grens with 1-2 mgs supporting them if they try to close in. Problem is the broken m20 which you are only able to counter with a PaK, which needs a lot of teching with which you will fall behind MP wise. On the other side if you survive this early to midgame pressure with the inevitable sherman rush, you have the upper hand with tigers and such. Stug E is very good at AI too for midgame. Just support it with support weapons.
Here is a replay of Romeo vs me on crossing in the woods. You will see that I lose the early and to an extend midgame pretty damn hard but manage to hold some ground to survive for the later game.
http://www.coh2.org/replay/28572/medics-op-pios-suck-epic

So what do you guys think of the US riflemen always having Grens beat in all circumstances.

Disagree with all circumstances...

yeah Rifles have advantage in first 3-4 mins and the advantage expands to few more mins if he goes LT.. but after that 1 LMG gren 1 Flame pio and a HMG ( add in a tactical Smine) can hold against Rifle blobs (3-4 with LT ) about 7-9 mins into game. your rest of units can concentrate on the other end and cut him off.

first few minutes play conservatively and dont over extend let him come to you.

Garrisoning critical buildings early can be annoying to US player as they dont have any effective way to flush you out until hey can field a M20 or research grenades.

(...)as they dont have any effective way to flush you out until hey can field a M20 or research grenades.

Apart from shredding garrisoned units with their semiauto rifles while sitting behind green cover?

Apart from shredding garrisoned units with their semiauto rifles while sitting behind green cover?

Its situational, if you have garrisoned a critical building then you can your second squad of grens or HMG to defend the garrsions.. US players will find it hard to flush garrisons early in game without sacrificing a squad ( by sacrificing i mean losing enough models forcing them to retreat)

Grens are disadvataged in many ways:
1. Very bad on the move. Dodging granades, mortars, artillery means actually not fighting/shooting - good players will use it against grens in many ways. Any sort of moving combat and they are completely useless (you can make them "dance" with tanks for example - they stop shooting completely - if you're lucky they won't even fire a shreck/panzerfaust as they can't "find" the position; another example would be running around them with any infantry unit - sometimes it looks as if you were circlestrafing an anti tank gun - often an undecided lmg operator won't fire at all before the opponent stops).
2. Effective long range only. Generally damage output long range is low - even when some unit is relatively good at it - that means it takes forever to inflict damage and it is much better to be effective medium short range. By being fought long range players don't have to be so focused as you have more time to react and retreat the unit that is being shot at. Close range you may lose the whole squad very quickly because you were doing something on the other side of the map.
3. A stationary unit is extremely vulnerable to all sorts of mortars, grenades and artillery. The unit is also very much "predictable" on the map as it has to seek for cover (which again makes it even more susceptible to mortars). Units on the move usually dodge mortars unless you predict where they will be in a moment and attack ground. Of course they are vulnerable when they stop - but this would be the players mistake when he/she knows there is a mortar around. Grenadiers "fighting style" is perfect for mortars operators.
4. Because it's a range unit tactically it will lose in many "soft" ways - for example a capping rifle squad will usually manage to decap the point being under fire (and retreat to heal before losing models) as grens must shoot from further away, that is from outside the capping circle - it could be a game winning factor in tight battles.
5. Another "soft" tactical inferiority of grens is that they are usually unable to finish off a retreating squad - even when it's retreating "through" groups of them. Very often they won't even be able to pick off any models on a relatively weak unit (sappers, rear echolon - which very often means they will be able to finish what they were doing and retreat only then).
7. Because they are four men squads they are much more vulnerable to wipes. Additionally, they are very bad at picking abandoned weapons - very often either you recrew the weapon and loose the squad or leave the weapon abandoned (I don't understand why you can't pick weapons with 2 people for four men squads - especially if there are 3 models on the squad left). Also after picking the weapon they must retreat immediately as one man that is left is completely useless. Picking weapons under fire impossible or you lose the squad - other infantry can do that to finish off a tank, for example.
8. Connected with the above - you must retreat them more often because when they've lost one or two models. Then they become very fragile and their damage is reduced. Because of that their battlefield presence is shorter in comparison to other squad.

This is the longest post in my life Some of the thoughts I have about them.

This is the longest post in my life Some of the thoughts I have about them.

Good points, and I also agree on the crew weapon pickup mechanic silliness.

I also agree on the crew weapon pickup mechanic silliness.

And it really makes grenadiers much less useful - the funny thing is that the number on the weapon to pick is 2 - you pick it with a three man squad and some player might think one model will be left but... ...surprise you're squad is gone - sometimes with an lmg. It should be fixed asap - it would make grenadiers a little bit more useful and the game a bit more balanced.

Luvnest, wouldn't you say that while they may ultimately lose the engagement, they'll still cost-effectively fight riflemen at range considering their lower cost, especially given their higher rate of veterency gained?

That isn't the whole story. If the U.S. player wins the engagement and forces you to retreat, who cares about the vet and the reinforce cost? God forbid you lose your cut off as Ostheer early game, good luck getting it back.

That isn't the whole story. If the U.S. player wins the engagement and forces you to retreat, who cares about the vet and the reinforce cost? God forbid you lose your cut off as Ostheer early game, good luck getting it back.

Well, at least you know it's over and can surrender within first 5 mins of the game

grens have rifle granade which is super imba in late game against riflemen

Those granades are extremely easy to dodge - especially that you're dodging with units that are good at shooting while moving. USF granade wipes squads much more and makes grenadiers move when dodging them which makes them not shoot and gives you time to close on even if the granade it's dodged.

When it comes to being pushed - with wehr you lose a lot then (team weapons and so on). When they are used against ostheer there is no easy method countering them (no smoke and units that deal damage when closing). Another problem is that grens are not an offensive unit - they can't charge any unit especially in cover - the possibility of coming back is almost zero. And that's the biggest problem of grens - if the ostheer player is better than the usf player they wil manage to defend somehow with a bit of luck. But once they are forced to retreat its gg unless usf player makes some really serious mistakes. Grens and mgs are terrible on the attack against a similarly skilled player. The biggest problem is that they suck on the move and close fight. I don't understand sometimes why there is no upgrade such as mg44 or mp5 instead of lmg to make them fight close better.