Ostheer HMG too strong now

How do 270 Rifles with 27 reinforcing, and ultra-high upkeep, being cheap?

6 man rifles were cheaper than 5 man Volks. That's pretty cheap.

I wish Rifles in this game cost standard 240 with 6 men, with greatly reduced long range dps.

6 man rifles were cheaper than 5 man Volks. That's pretty cheap.

I wish Rifles in this game cost standard 240 with 6 men, with greatly reduced long range dps.

The basic infantry that having the highest upkeep in the game, you said it is cheap.

How about you build 4 Rifles without the SY and see how the US manpower income had become?
I had seen tons of noobs blobbing BAR with airbornes and NEVER getting a SY.
Assume you are not trolling, you are very likely to be one of them.

No true Scotsman, we are discussing price and how it relates to flanking 3 man hmg teams supported by Volks. And rifles were the cheapest basic infantry besides panzgrens. (Right?)

MGs not being able to cap probably helped balance too along with rifles high cap rate.

Sure upkeep is a lot but it's not relevant at all to the issue at hand, hmgs ruining USF early game for some. (I don't mind the changes other than mg42 deserving to be 280 mp.)

No true Scotsman, we are discussing price and how it relates to flanking 3 man hmg teams supported by Volks. And rifles were the cheapest basic infantry besides panzgrens. (Right?)

MGs not being able to cap probably helped balance too along with rifles high cap rate.

Sure upkeep is a lot but it's not relevant at all to the issue at hand, hmgs ruining USF early game for some. (I don't mind the changes other than mg42 deserving to be 280 mp.)

1) Starting price is irrelevant in COH1 because each unit have their upkeep.
When the moment US can sustain 2 Engi, 4 Rifles, Wehr can have 2 Pios, 2 Volks, 1-2 MG, Sniper, and even more. Wehr units are having very low upkeep and they are constantly having surplus, if you play them right.

2) There were working heavy MG build in Wehr.

3) In COH1 it is IN FACT easier to defend flanks thanks to mines, MP40, bunkers, FTFL, etc.

I agree with what your saying. Pretty much my point though is you can't really compare the situation now to then because of shitty maps, HMGs capping, and the WFA being limited as hell. (Tbh I was a vcoh comp stomper, so I'll take your word on multiplayer balance.)

1) Starting price is irrelevant in COH1 because each unit have their upkeep.
When the moment US can sustain 2 Engi, 4 Rifles, Wehr can have 2 Pios, 2 Volks, 1-2 MG, Sniper, and even more. Wehr units are having very low upkeep and they are constantly having surplus, if you play them right.

2) There were working heavy MG build in Wehr.

3) In COH1 it is IN FACT easier to defend flanks thanks to mines, MP40, bunkers, FTFL, etc.

But less map control. It has never been a problem to sustain 2xE, 4xR 1xRanger or 1xPara if you use them properly without bleeding hard. You had 3/4 of the map to compensate your upkeep and as reward real option to shutdown his own resource income and popcap (This is exactly why the system has been changed). The problem for the US has always be the transition into the motor pool/tank depot, BARS first or motor pool first. And of course, unless being newbie, you always build your SY as soon as possible, same if you went airborn and skip the motorpool.

Flanking was easier in Coh1 because you had more tools and Mgs were weaker.
1- HMG More expensive, only 3 guys and by the way less durable. And the arc of fire were shorter and pio didn't give you extra vision range
2- Volks weaker a mid range and you had to decide to upgrade them to make them short range or leave them as they were until building a bunker and starting gren zombie spam. they were cheap to reinforce but cost only 10mp less to build and didn't scale at all late game.
3- Engi beating pio 80% of the time, not like pio beating RE 120% of the time.
4- Engi having flammer. In fact many flank was performed by your Engies + rifles
5- Werhm mine were strong but not denying a super large area like in COH2
5- M8 was 10x stronger than the actual M20
6- BARs upgrade was global and volks didn't scale at all. So as Axis you were force into teching to get grenadiers, you hadn't access to LMG in your basic units. LMG was far more expensive because the ammo income reduce, in many years playing Coh1, I have never see anybody able to build LMG on any of his grenadiers in 1vs1, unlike in coh2.
7- Atgun more effective
8- halftrack could reinforce in the frontline and wasn't that pain to micro like the ambulance is.

But less map control. It has never been a problem to sustain 2xE, 4xR 1xRanger or 1xPara if you use them properly without bleeding hard. You had 3/4 of the map to compensate your upkeep and as reward real option to shutdown his own resource income and popcap (This is exactly why the system has been changed). The problem for the US has always be the transition into the motor pool/tank depot, BARS first or motor pool first. And of course, unless being newbie, you always build your SY as soon as possible, same if you went airborn and skip the motorpool.

Flanking was easier in Coh1 because you had more tools and Mgs were weaker.
1- HMG More expensive, only 3 guys and by the way less durable. And the arc of fire were shorter and pio didn't give you extra vision range
2- Volks weaker a mid range and you had to decide to upgrade them to make them short range or leave them as they were until building a bunker and starting gren zombie spam. they were cheap to reinforce but cost only 10mp less to build and didn't scale at all late game.
3- Engi beating pio 80% of the time, not like pio beating RE 120% of the time.
4- Engi having flammer. In fact many flank was performed by your Engies + rifles
5- Werhm mine were strong but not denying a super large area like in COH2
5- M8 was 10x stronger than the actual M20
6- BARs upgrade was global and volks didn't scale at all. So as Axis you were force into teching to get grenadiers, you hadn't access to LMG in your basic units. LMG was far more expensive because the ammo income reduce, in many years playing Coh1, I have never see anybody able to build LMG on any of his grenadiers in 1vs1, unlike in coh2.
7- Atgun more effective
8- halftrack could reinforce in the frontline and wasn't that pain to micro like the ambulance is.

1) Bike or schrimm, and it has pushing too
2) Volks being weak? I have no idea what are you talking about, just played 5 1v1 games this morning to be sure
3) Who wins, depends on skill and positioning, same as Volks vs Rifles
4) Are you talking S-mine? Shit, it has sign, for the love of God
5) The teching is difference, compare M8 to current Stuart please
6) BARS, yes. Volks NEVER means to scale well, but they are fine. They are always zombie food for free Grens
7) NO, COH1 57mm is even easier to counter
8) You have HT too, but it is irrevalent

1) Bike or schrimm, and it has pushing too
2) Volks being weak? I have no idea what are you talking about, just played 5 1v1 games this morning to be sure
3) Who wins, depends on skill and positioning, same as Volks vs Rifles
4) Are you talking S-mine? Shit, it has sign, for the love of God
5) The teching is difference, compare M8 to current Stuart please
6) BARS, yes. Volks NEVER means to scale well, but they are fine. They are always zombie food for free Grens
7) NO, COH1 57mm is even easier to counter
8) You have HT too, but it is irrevalent

1- I don't love god.
2- S-mine are denying an area, same if you can be smart and not go in. You have to use a RE squad to remove it and it covers very well your flank, probably better than in coh1.
3- Volks are weaker than rifles and only better at long range, like gren but no LMGs on them.
4- M8 isn't a Stuart, Stuart doesn't have AT mine, Stuart doesn't have an MG and M8 hasn't any AT abilities to stun or engine damage.
5- US HT could be upgrade with airflak and still reinforce and was enough durable to only be countered by pak, shrecks and tanks.

I don't know why you are trying to tell us USF flanking is fine in coh2 because it was fine in coh1. In Coh1, it was core design, it is not in coh2.
The game coh2 has been designed to be accessible to the mass, to blob, to not rely on flanking because that too complicated etc... We are probably agreeing on that point, that is a shitty design and coh1 is by far better. But now they decided to bring coh2 to coh1 level of micro without giving USF the tools to do so and still leave to Axis the side compensations: larger arc of fire, pio vision, pio better than RE, hmg42 dealing more damage.

On Me! Is the new Fire Up

The ironic thing is the mg buff has actually resulted in an increase in USF infantry spam.

I am not sure if it has to do with the Stuart buff or if people feel it is easier to flank with 4 or 5 rifles plus LT.

Maybe more squads allow for a greater capping presence.

1v1 perspective.

The ironic thing is the mg buff has actually resulted in an increase in USF infantry spam.

I am not sure if it has to do with the Stuart buff or if people feel it is easier to flank with 4 or 5 rifles plus LT.

Maybe more squads allow for a greater capping presence.

1v1 perspective.

Funny thing that with hmg crazy buff and other recent buffs of germs their winrate has dropped (top 200 players).
I think their ranks are actualy inflated by the imbalance of the game.

Im ok if oponent has a stong abilities units until i have answer to them. But current hmgs are so absurd that game is becoming trash like starcraft did already.

They win the opening so tech faster. And it just snowbals.

Surprise, surprise after 2 weeks of adaption 2vs2 winrates on coh2chart.com show that 2vs2 is the most balanced game mode at the moment. It probably was really just a matter of sorting rank inflated players out.

Wonder what happens after Guard Motor gets nerfed.

Surprise, surprise after 2 weeks of adaption 2vs2 winrates on coh2chart.com show that 2vs2 is the most balanced game mode at the moment. It probably was really just a matter of sorting rank inflated players out.

Wonder what happens after Guard Motor gets nerfed.

Given tier changes that will make it finally in?
Other doctrines will get second wind for soviets, allowing for much more diverse playstyle as call-in armor dependency won't be such huge issue anymore. Call-in infantry dependency will remain a problem though.

Given tier changes that will make it finally in?
Other doctrines will get second wind for soviets, allowing for much more diverse playstyle as call-in armor dependency won't be such huge issue anymore. Call-in infantry dependency will remain a problem though.

Decent players won't have a problem, I just think about all those Molo style players. That use guard motor in 80 % of their games.

Decent players won't have a problem, I just think about all those Molo style players. That use guard motor in 80 % of their games.

Well, sucks to be them then. Molo will have to learn 2nd BO in 2 years? What a tragedy!

If penals were to become a proper infantry(just slap them 280-290 mp cost and performance similar to pfussies/rifles) and maxim gets its fixes, soviet stock units should be in good enough shape to finally open some freedom in doctrine choices after tech changes.

Well, sucks to be them then. Molo will have to learn 2nd BO in 2 years? What a tragedy!

If penals were to become a proper infantry(just slap them 280-290 mp cost and performance similar to pfussies/rifles) and maxim gets its fixes, soviet stock units should be in good enough shape to finally open some freedom in doctrine choices after tech changes.

Penals being Pfuss is a fairly interesting idea, would need balancing because Pfuss spam is very much in the meta right now.

Thats because pfuss have excellent scaling, great upgrade and rifle AT nade as well as infantry flares and nades.

Penals lack most of their utility, they would simply be a squad that actually can fight from green cover on long range, while still being best at mid/short and would be competely helpless vs armor, so AT support would still be needed.

I can't see a single negative side to making penals that way outside of annual QQ fest about another soviet stock unit suddenly being able to fight something cost effectively.

Thats because pfuss have excellent scaling, great upgrade and rifle AT nade as well as infantry flares and nades.

Penals lack most of their utility, they would simply be a squad that actually can fight from green cover on long range, while still being best at mid/short and would be competely helpless vs armor, so AT support would still be needed.

I can't see a single negative side to making penals that way outside of annual QQ fest about another soviet stock unit suddenly being able to fight something cost effectively.

Well trading the satchel charge for the useless rifle AT nade would probably make some people mad. The damn thing hasn't worked in ages. That shit nade is pretty much the only downside to Fuss.

Pfuss spam mostly occurs due to a lack of effective allied MGs. Maxims can only pin a single squad while the American 50cal 4 man squad melts with a big enough blob.

I think it would be more appropriate to compare penals to rifles if you wanted to upgrade their damage profile and examine match ups they'd encounter. Specifically riflemen from elite rifles that can upgrade a flamer.

Would they be spammed? Possibly, it would depend on the meta, but rifles without smoke, without a standard grenade, and without an AT snare with vet probably wouldn't fare all that well by themselves. Sachel is nice but it is only going to work against emplacements and buildings. Oorah at vet2 is again helpful but doesn't dramatically change what a squad of penals can do in an engagement.

Penals can be fine being long range infantry with decent utility (flamer and satchel vs ostheer static building play)
Also most player forgo satchel - you can easilly destroy okw hq with 3 of them.

If maxim and penal would be buffed and call in meta fixed , russian can play diverse competitive game


Also i think partisant should be buffed and cons ppsh should be buffed too so we can use and see many underused russian commaders in 1 vs 1 games