Riflemen, LMG or Assault rifles, it performs as both. LMG due to range, but assault rifle due to move while firing.
Not true though. The BAR has a damage curve like the FG 42. LMG's have a very different damage curve.
Posts: 4928
Riflemen, LMG or Assault rifles, it performs as both. LMG due to range, but assault rifle due to move while firing.
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
Not true though. The BAR has a damage curve like the FG 42. LMG's have a very different damage curve.
Posts: 98
Posts: 1124
Is that the ISU152 that almost was a counter to the Elefant and JT, but was overnerfed to where it isn't built much anymore? Do you want riflemen to join the ranks of the B4, ML-20, M8 greyhound, etc, etc?
Posts: 1124
Not true though. The BAR has a damage curve like the FG 42. LMG's have a very different damage curve.
Posts: 513
Really. Like does it look like I'm trying to do actual stats and statistics? I'm simply saying the changes are encouraging blobbing and support blobbing. The BAR is able to move and have range to it. Simple
Posts: 1124
Nice Axis playercard
Posts: 440
Whoever though giving basic 5 and 6 man infantry absurd levels Rec Acc should be put in a home. Every game now is literally nothing but "Wait until critical mass of Cons and Rifles is Achieved then sweep the map".
It's like the old days of Vet 5 Volks.
Posts: 1194 | Subs: 1
Here's a replay to satisfy you hunger: http://www.coh2.org/replay/40602/2v2-with-rollo-versus-cancer
Posts: 440
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
I just watched that game. Didn't change my mind in the slightest. Here is why:
1) Trois Ponts. Seriously, what did you expect? This game has plenty of hilariously badly designed maps, and this is a perfect example.
2) Unsupported team weapons. You iterally left 1 MG42 and 1 PAK gun and expected them to hold back the enemy. He dropped Sherman smoke on you, then WP arty, and you lost your defensive line. What you need to do is have at least 2 MG teams, so they can cover each other. You also need infantry in front of your teams to spot enemies. Not playing on cancer lane maps like Trois Ponts helps.
3) Blobbing. You didn't blob much, but your ally several time in the game just right clicked all their units towards the middle of the enemy blob and expected results. The 2 vet3 Flamer rifles and 4x vet3 no weapon REs complied and wrecked them, since close is the ONLY range they would have won that engagement.
There were many issues that game, but even non-buffed vet 3 rifles would have done well that game. They were blobbing even at vet 2, and were still wrecking face.
Posts: 1194 | Subs: 1
Yeah exactly, the Vet 3 Rifles and Vet 3 Cons were punching way above their cost. Yes our opponents were being kinda dumb on occasion (like the whole leaving thing) but I don't really understand why I need to recreate a perfect replay for you that tests all the changes in vacuums to show you that .56 Rec Acc on a 280 MP Squad that has 5 men is not okay.
If you want USF to play better and not like some gimmick faction for a-movers then consider more skill based options like adding elite infantry, reducing reinforce cost at vet 3, and or adjusting RE's. Because sledgehammer changes like this suck.
Insanely durable Vet 5 Volks were unbalanced, Insanely durable Vet 3 Rifles are unbalanced, Insanely durable Vet 3 cons are somewhat unbalanced but well at least they don't have freaking weapon pick ups.
EDIT: I'm really going to have to actually make that table for how much high recieved acc impacts Kar98k using unit's aren't I? Because it's a problem.
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
How were they punching above their weight? He used a smoke barrage, then walked forwards. You had nothing but 1 MG42 and a PAK. You lost. You guys lost that game from a combination of poor positioning, poor map, and poor decisions. Like seriously, you can't show me that game and use it as proof that the rifles were being OP.
Posts: 1144 | Subs: 7
Posts: 362
please keep in mind that using small arms is the LEAST effective way to deal with late game infantry. mortars, tanks, and other explosives should be the primary method of killing them.This is true, although I'm not sure that it should be. I feel that small arms should be as effective as any other weapon.
Posts: 1930
Posts: 1144 | Subs: 7
I'm so tired of "it costs more and therefore should be better" arguments. If that were true, Shock Troopers should always beat Panzerfusiliers and Assault Grenadiers should always beat Conscripts. Obviously those are special cases, but I want to point out that that logic alone cannot be used to justify balance changes.
The US late-game deficiencies have more to with a lack of decent late-game tanks and AT options rather than with Riflemen underperforming anyways. Not saying that Riflemen aren't a problem, but they aren't the biggest issue.
This is true, although I'm not sure that it should be. I feel that small arms should be as effective as any other weapon.
Posts: 392
Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1
as long as all units have high recieved accuracy bonuses, small arms will never be the most efficient way to kill units unless you have units that have insnaely high dps such as vet 2 obers or shocks/commandos at close range.
Posts: 1653
2 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |