Grens vs riflemen

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

I think having to tech twice for Pgrens isn't a viable option cause by the time you commit to this they have a small swarm of unstoppable troops.

They win in close combat so WHY would they be a range unit when rushing up is a winning choice now.

They can smoke our MGs, mortors are risky cause they out number you so its to likely one will go chasing it. BARs eat scout cars like no tomorrow.

snipers can bleed them sure, but they will just rush him as well so a early sniper wont save you.

All I can think is double mg early game. give up on trying to hold your sides fuel as allies always rush German fuel; cause if you get caught moving a mg, its good by squad.

Suggestions?

The matchup seems much the same, just that lmg grens will have a slightly harder time vs riflemen. Advice is the same as ever, keep your early troops together and use your mgs intelligently to support them, focussing on defending your cutoff. In even engagements your grens will gain veterency faster than riflemen, giving you less of a disadvantage as the game progresses. Well-protected mortars decimate US infantry with accurate fire. Panzergrenadiers now better perform their role as medium-range flanking infantry, so use them accordingly. The Pak adequately counters pretty much all American armour, so you're generally in a pretty good spot if you survive to mid-late game.

Try getting a few grens, a mg42 and a sniper. Something like gren-gren-sniper-mg42-gren -> bp1.

The mg42 is there to cover the sniper. If the sniper gets rushed, they have to walk into the mg42 cone of fire and will be suppressed.

Bonus tip: your enemy will likely counter with vehicles. Delay lmg42s and save ammo for teller mines and panzerfausts. Get a PAK40 after you finished T2.

Versus Riflemen

Slightly disadvantaged at long ranges
Disadvantaged at mid ranges
Disadvantaged at short ranges

I think Grens should be able to beat Riflemen at long Range, or at least make it an equal fight.

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?

So the idea would be to hangh on somehow through lower-tech units (e.g. Paks from T2 to counter T4 tanks), then somehow effect a late-game comeback?

Gneckes, yes, though by mid game (thinking about building T3) you should have a few options available to you. How much map control you can take early and how aggressive you can play will depend on your preferred doctrines and the map you play on.

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

I think having to tech twice for Pgrens isn't a viable option cause by the time you commit to this they have a small swarm of unstoppable troops.

They win in close combat so WHY would they be a range unit when rushing up is a winning choice now.

They can smoke our MGs, mortors are risky cause they out number you so its to likely one will go chasing it. BARs eat scout cars like no tomorrow.

snipers can bleed them sure, but they will just rush him as well so a early sniper wont save you.

All I can think is double mg early game. give up on trying to hold your sides fuel as allies always rush German fuel; cause if you get caught moving a mg, its good by squad.

Suggestions?

Have you ever play as USF?
riflemen dont beat grens in all circumstances.grens beat rifles at long range, rifles win at close range and maybe be a bit better in mid range. Also rifles are quite squishy in the later game and their at rifle nades take ages fire.

Smoke requires a upgrade which is quite expensive and will slow teching a fair bit. Getting your mortar or sniper rushed is not a balance.

gren are still the best squad in the game

Have you ever play as USF?
riflemen dont beat grens in all circumstances.grens beat rifles at long range, rifles win at close range and maybe be a bit better in mid range. Also rifles are quite squishy in the later game and their at rifle nades take ages fire.

Smoke requires a upgrade which is quite expensive and will slow teching a fair bit. Getting your mortar or sniper rushed is not a balance.

gren are still the best squad in the game

From the friggin' patch notes:
Riflemen
Versus Grenadiers

Slightly advantaged at long ranges
Advantaged at mid ranges
Advantaged at short ranges

And if you think 150 Manpower and 25 Fuel for the ability to completely render all MGs useless is expensive, I suggest you never play Ostheer. The Teching costs would come as a rude shock to you.

Guys, I can't win vs USF. Rifles are too strong. All USF players use blobbing and I can stand against it without reinf-bunker or half-truck. Sometimes I manage to reach mid or late game but then I get rolled by E8. Am I noob or USF is OP?

Guys, I can't win vs USF. Rifles are too strong. All USF players use blobbing and I can stand against it without reinf-bunker or half-truck. Sometimes I manage to reach mid or late game but then I get rolled by E8. Am I noob or USF is OP?

You have to understand you are at a disadvantage from the start of the game. You have to be prepared for his strong infantry WHILST preparing a pak for utility car or even worse AA Halftrack.

Your best bet is to secure a part of the map until you can get some form of tech.

It gets to the point that I usually just have an elite troops commander if they are running rifle doctrine and just steam roll the late game with a P4 Tiger ace vet 3 lmg squads and a pak and MG sitting in the rear. It's cheesy as hell but I really can't be arsed to resort to an inferior playstyle to deal with that.

Thanks a lot. I'll do my best.

early game opinions for US: Riflemen and RE.
early game opinions for WM: Grens, MG42, Sniper, mortar, Pios.

1. Use combined arms as a WM player
2. Try to get an Vet1 MG42 for AP Rounds to counter a fast utility car.
3. Prepare to only defend at the early game.
4. Hope that Relic fixes the unupgraded WM bunker soon.

But seriously, 4 grens(keep relatively together) mg, into whatever else you want to go(unless playing Meirka', then get AT Gun.)

Guys, I can't win vs USF. Rifles are too strong. All USF players use blobbing and I can stand against it without reinf-bunker or half-truck. Sometimes I manage to reach mid or late game but then I get rolled by E8. Am I noob or USF is OP?

Try the following, it served me well in my few games 1v1. Timing is very (very) important in this game, keep that in mind.

Build 2-3 mgs then a mortar. You want to keep your fuel and munitions point, so work towards and around that point. 3 Mgs are enough to even repell a skilled player, youll get the positioning. Send your pio to cap the other side of the map. Tech to T2 the moment you can, retreat Pio when tech is 1/2 done. Get a Scout car, dont get to cocky with it (Reverse hotkey spam close behind it is your friend). Advance mgs to favorite position. Get Pgren or pak, judge depending you think flakht is coming. Get a second PGren. When you have grens start advancing with them and go for opponents ressources (fuel mun cut off). Dont loose your Scoutcar, when it has vet, dont get near rifles when vet1+. Tech T3 and get a P4. E8 should come long after this...

And most importantly even if something might be a little stronger than it should - be sure your abiltiy to react to, or prepare for it can be improved exceptionally more than the difference that slight advantage makes!

Statsictics say rifles should win b/c of their cost and role which makes sense, however pio cost 40 extra manpower and the t1 building costs 80 manpower so the Ostheer player is disadvantaged in the first fight b/c of these additional costs b/c it will be 3 grens vs 3 rifles. which isn't fair

However after you get your first lmg grens obliterate rifles even if they have a bar especially if the grens are vetted, even though they cost more. This also isn't fair.

The balance between these units is silly and really hurts the matchup as both players are disadvantaged during different phases of the game because of them, needs to be fixed for the sake of USF and ostheer players everywhere

I think Grens should be able to beat Riflemen at long Range, or at least make it an equal fight.

they do very good against rifleman at long range ... and consider the fact that you can ONLY use rifleman as the US in early game while as OST you have mg's snipers mortars everything in the first tier .. and not to mention the cost difference .. + with 60 muni lmg you turn grens into terminators

There's a bit too much whining go on in here. Rifles are well balanced given the game's dynamic. In COH1, Rifles were better at everything except long range. Now rifles are slightly better at long range, but that's probably because USF is so limited compared to COH1 (in COH1 they could start off going a weapons support strat). This allows the rifles to close distance with a grenadier squad early game and have a good chance to win.

I camped my opponent's fuel spot on Semois with a full-life grenadier squad and the other guy approached me with one squad of riflement to take it back. I ended up getting a lucky crit which snowballed. 4 riflemen died and I had 4 very low HP grenadiers. In general, I would normally expect to lose that fight. But the riflemen advantage at different ranges is a lot more muted when they have to move forward out of cover to attack you.

*********************

As for dealing with riflemen, OST have a lot of options. You can simply always pair your grenadiers and use smart LOS and cover to isolate and engage lone riflemen squads. Because of the snowball effect, you can often kill 3-4 riflemen with the loss of only one grenadier if you are smart.

2 Grenadiers squads can beat 2 riflemen squads this way if you isolate each squad first and kill them. This is easier said than done of course, but should always be taken into consideration.

Pairing 1 Grenadier with an MG is also an effective strategy. Combined arms should always win out. This is best done on more open maps and is not that effective on urban ones like Stalingrad. I usually only like to get one mg because they scale so badly into the late game but against Americans it seems worth it in order to not get overwhelmed by the short retreat distance of an ambulance and constant attacks by 5 riflemen squads. You can trade profitably without 2 mg's but often you will lose at least 1 or 2 capture points and that will eventually mean game loss if he's doubling your income.

MG spam seems like it could work too but I am always weary to play such a cheesy build. MG's also don't scale particularly well into the end-game. But if it gives you the advantage you need to tech then it may well be worth it.

******************

The basic thing you have to concede is that the USF will always have more map control early game. There's is nothing you can do, they have 4-5 mobile squads that individually can beat any single one of your squads. Using combined arms is great but limits capping power. As long as you have one fuel and one munitions you are fine. Just survive, trade well in the MP battle, and save up for some beefy German tanks.

I'm not sure - my experience shows that rifles are extremely versatile one squad army. I personally don't like it as you can rush them everywhere and be quite sure they can deal with most threats, especially with rather cheap upgrades. Ostheer vs USF matchup is not equal 1 vs 1 (that's the only way I play). The USF player can risk a lot and be careless and doesn't get punished, while osthreer's one imperfect move and they quickly lose map control + supply USF with an mg, AT or mortar.