Company of Heroes 2 Not so Balanced US Forces need real Buff

So tools like generalist and mg shouldn't be goven to okw ?
The moment usf won't have mortar...

How the worst mg in game and an expensive as fuck generalist changed the shape of a faction which has its weaknesses in shitty team weapons and expensive as fuck vehicles ?
Both those tools were in okw commanders..

I'm saying that our argument is hypocritical and doesn't hold up. You were complaining about the "I need a big tank because they have got it" argument. It was the exact same thing for "I need a generalist tank (even though the faction is supposed to be highly specialized and elite but that went out the window) because they have got it" and many players argued they needed an mg because every other faction has one, which is true, you do need an mg period and adding a generalist tank isn't a horrible decision either.

I just think it's funny that you shoot down the guy arguing for usf having a big tank, but turn around and argue a parallel for okw.

Or make smoke tier 0, link at nade to tech and remove mortar...

I would actually be very in board with that. Usf mortar is stupid and shouldn't exist IMO anyway.

I'm saying that our argument is hypocritical and doesn't hold up. You were complaining about the "I need a big tank because they have got it" argument. It was the exact same thing for "I need a generalist tank (even though the faction is supposed to be highly specialized and elite but that went out the window) because they have got it" and many players argued they needed an mg because every other faction has one, which is true, you do need an mg period and adding a generalist tank isn't a horrible decision either.

I just think it's funny that you shoot down the guy arguing for usf having a big tank, but turn around and argue a parallel for okw.


I would actually be very in board with that. Usf mortar is stupid and shouldn't exist IMO anyway.

Usf mortar wasn't even in roster to begin with, not even in commanders, while those tools were, so i don't get how they change somehow the faction shape.
This isn't anything like usf mortar, they just swapped kubel mg with 34 and sturmtiger with panzer 4 BECAUSE ALLIES ONLY "AXIS OPIEOPIE" were drowning relic team with their tears.
Usf mortar has been made, not switched.

If you want more "specialized" and "fitting" units we can give kubel suppression back and make sturmtiger non doc.
Changes like that are normal, like panther swapped with elephant

You see how flawed your point is to begin with ?

1) The discussion was about DURABILITY.
2) No cons have more durability at vet 3 than volks at vet 5,0.6 vs 0.81.
3) If you care so much about true statements, you may want to find out that IS additional cover bonus is just dps
4) triggered ? Why ?

Except that you mentioned dps, and I was replying to your point about dps. 3 is flat out wrong.

I completely agree with you so why ISGs kill models so easily?

Maybe something to do with the fact that it's more expensive, comes later on, doesn't support the strongest infintry and is absolutely crap when shooting out of LOS

And I'm pritty sure it has a lower AOE anyways

Except that you mentioned dps, and I was replying to your point about dps. 3 is flat out wrong.

"Volks have less taget size that any other mainline, aka less durable.
They don't outdps allies wfa mainlines regardless of vetting anyway."

I SAID what is written down there, STOP STRAWMANNING...

Cover bonus IS is implemented by accuracy and cooldown multipliers on their weapons, they don't get ANYTHING ELSE, RA remains unaffected.

Even the in game description and the website guide says it's an offensive bonus that affect dps.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/50217/infantry-sections-cover-bonuses-and-design

Your claims are outright false and the fact that you complain about "TRUE" facts makes you look like a silly billy..

"Volks have less taget size that any other mainline, aka less durable.
They don't outdps allies wfa mainlines regardless of vetting anyway."

I SAID what is written down there, STOP STRAWMANNING...

Cover bonus IS is implemented by accuracy and cooldown multipliers on their weapons, they don't get ANYTHING ELSE, RA remains unaffected.

Even the in game description and the website guide says it's an offensive bonus that affect dps.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/50217/infantry-sections-cover-bonuses-and-design

Can you please stop talking shit, your claims are outright false and the fact that you bitch about "TRUE" facts makes you look even dumber..

From the EFA/WFA Rework Mod page:

"Cover Bonus
- RA from Vet0 removed
- Vet2 increases accuracy by 8% while in cover
- Receives a passive cooldown/reload bonus of 0.94/0.89 to partly offset cover penalties"

But I guess the mod team has NO idea what they're talking about and just removed a completely fictional RA bonus that doesnt even exist. Also, I never mentioned your received accuracy point anywhere in my initial reply. Go ahead and look again. You made a statement about dps, and I replied that it depended on whether you were counting squad or model dps. Then you brought up recieved accuracy even though I never replied to that point. I won't comment on the fact that you just called me out for "talking shit" and making "outright false" claims" when I have significantly better support than you do.

I'd have to check mod tools but i believe that bonus is just a passive bonus that British infantry have that just requires them to be in cover, but I thought that was a flat reduction of damage, not RA.

Anyone around with access to the attribute editor? I might have a chance later on today...

From the EFA/WFA Rework Mod page:

"Cover Bonus
- RA from Vet0 removed
- Vet2 increases accuracy by 8% while in cover
- Receives a passive cooldown/reload bonus of 0.94/0.89 to partly offset cover penalties"

But I guess the mod team has NO idea what they're talking about and just removed a completely fictional RA bonus that doesnt even exist. Also, I never mentioned your received accuracy point anywhere in my initial reply. Go ahead and look again. You made a statement about dps, and I replied that it depended on whether you were counting squad or model dps. Then you brought up recieved accuracy even though I never replied to that point. I won't comment on the fact that you just called me out for "talking shit" and making "outright false" claims" when I have significantly better support than you do.

They reduced the RA tommies get, than BUFFED Cover bonus to balance the general nerf.

Yes, shittalking, like @ZombieFrancis said it's a passive that affect ONLY dps.

"I was talking about dps.."

At any range wfa mainlines dps is better in a paralleled vetting situation where the same muni has been spent in upgrades, it's not relative AT ALL if both long AND close range dps are higher for allies, it means that the dps curve is always higher, and on the top of that IS dps gets boosted by any cover while riflemen are 5 men as well (and IS can get 5th man too).
Penals also outgun volks while being muni free up to vet 3 volks, but keep up with the 6th man.

There is either no numerical advantage (Rifles, 5 men IS) or the individual dps is so worse that 1 more man won't keep 4 men IS from slaughtering volks whenever they are in a hole in the ground (note that 5 men IS will win even out of cover against out of cover volks).

Your claims about dps being relative are nonsense.

From the EFA/WFA Rework Mod page:

The Tommies, Ro.E. Commandos and sniper get a *0.9 received accuracy modifier (reduces target size) when in yellow or light cover that is not negated by point blank mechanism (as far as I know).

Not sure how this is related to USF thou.

Yes, shittalking, like @ZombieFrancis said it's a passive that affect ONLY dps.

You got the passive part right, but I was in no way associating it with dps... by damage I mean received damage, not damage dealt.

They reduced the RA tommies get, than BUFFED Cover bonus to balance the general nerf.

Yes, shittalking, like @ZombieFrancis said it's a passive that affect ONLY dps.

"I was talking about dps.."

At any range wfa mainlines dps is better in a paralleled vetting situation where the same muni has been spent in upgrades, it's not relative AT ALL if both long AND close range dps are higher for allies, it means that the dps curve is always higher, and on the top of that IS dps gets boosted by any cover while riflemen are 5 men as well (and IS can get 5th man too).
Penals also outgun volks while being muni free up to vet 3 volks, but keep up with the 6th man.

There is either no numerical advantage (Rifles, 5 men IS) or the individual dps is so worse that 1 more man won't keep 4 men IS from slaughtering volks whenever they are in a hole in the ground (note that 5 men IS will win even out of cover against out of cover volks).

Your claims about dps being relative are shittalking nontheless.

Lol.

If you look at ZombiFrancis' last post, he just said that he was basically agreeing with me and that you were wrong. Surprised at how you read a post in which the poster backed up my claim and said that yours was wrong, then decided that he was agreeing with you. Guess you'll see whatever you want to see; not surprising since you either completely make up stats or present them entirely out of context.

The fact that Vipper, ZombiFrancis, and a player who is top 10 on the 1v1 leaderboards for the factions he plays (even with frequent computer crashes, sucks losing 3 entire ranks from a single crash) all disagree with you should you give you some idea where your argument stands.

Individual volks models have (negligibly) better dps at max range than riflemen (both at vet 0). Individual volks models have better dps at all ranges than cons. Individual volks models have better dps than infantry sections at close range. Argue cover bonus all you want, but everyone knows that the cover balance is situational while the extra model that a volks squad gets counts for a lot and isnt conditional. Lets not forget that infantry sections and riflemen cost 30 manpower per squad more, and that penals are generally outnumbered because you have to construct a t1 first.

You would expect riflemen to beat volks because they cost more and because the entire faction that theyre a part of was built around them. You would expect infantry sections to win against volks because they cost more. The fact that volks have slightly better dps per model than riflemen at long range means youre factually incorrect, and means that volks have a situation where theyre better than a squad that costs more and makes up a larger portion of its faction's power budget. The fact that volks will beat an infantry section in cover at close range, or an infantry section out of cover at long range also means that they have scenarios where they punch above their weight.

You're saying that WFA core infantry has better dps than volks. I've replied that it depends on whether youre talking about per model or per squad. It is an undebatable fact that the theoretical dps of volks is better than the theoretical dps of infantry sections and riflemen in certain different mixes of range, sometimes per model or per squad.

Vet complicates the argument, but everyone (or nearly everyone) agrees that volks have better vet than the other WFA core infantry. Everyone (or, again, nearly everyone) agrees that the stg upgrade is far more accessible and far more efficient than the other WFA core infantry weapon upgrades.

It's really hard to get a decent/productive discussion going when youre dripping in condescension upon your first reply and constantly making up (literally making up) stats to support your views (ex: "it's not relative AT ALL if both long AND close range dps are higher for allies, it means that the dps curve is always higher"; again, volks FACTUALLY have a higher theoretical max range dps than riflemen and have a higher dps at close range than infantry sections). As much as I'd like to put the argument to rest, it's obvious that at this point, you'll just form a reply and fabricate some entirely new "facts" to attack me, after which 2 other posters and I will tell you youre wrong (just like this time). It's taking me far more effort to disprove all of these literally made up stats than it takes for you to just pull them out of nowhere, so I'll stop here.

They reduced the RA tommies get, than BUFFED Cover bonus to balance the general nerf.

Yes, shittalking, like @ZombieFrancis said it's a passive that affect ONLY dps.

"I was talking about dps.."

At any range wfa mainlines dps is better in a paralleled vetting situation where the same muni has been spent in upgrades, it's not relative AT ALL if both long AND close range dps are higher for allies, it means that the dps curve is always higher, and on the top of that IS dps gets boosted by any cover while riflemen are 5 men as well (and IS can get 5th man too).
Penals also outgun volks while being muni free up to vet 3 volks, but keep up with the 6th man.

There is either no numerical advantage (Rifles, 5 men IS) or the individual dps is so worse that 1 more man won't keep 4 men IS from slaughtering volks whenever they are in a hole in the ground (note that 5 men IS will win even out of cover against out of cover volks).

Your claims about dps being relative are shittalking nontheless.

Also, from what I could gather, the cover bonus doesnt actually work as a bonus per se. Tommies outside of cover receive cooldown and reload penalties. The cover "bonus" is just the removal of these penalties. So its not that "on the top of that IS dps gets boosted by any cover," its more like "on the top of that IS dps gets lowered whenever theyre not in cover." Basically, the IS dps you see is only in the ideal scenario, and in every other situation its actually lower than that. Again, this is all if what I've read is correct.

From the very same thread YOU linked about the cover bonus (see the 14th post):
"Tommies, Sappers, Commandos, Sniper gain an additional *0.9 modifier to their received accuracy while in light or heavy cover. Garrison cover is not improved, and thus trenches aren't either.

Tommies have a debuff of *1.4 reload and *1.2 cooldown while OUT of cover."

Note that the part that you referenced was from, as far as I know, some regular coh2 player, while the part I quoted was later in the thread and was clarification from Mr. Smith (the modmaker; one of the people that relic trusted to balance and change the very mechanics of this game, presumably because he understood how the game's mechanics actually work) who quoted Cruzz (Cruzz who was known throughout the community the past few years as a pretty good player (top 30? top 20?) and as probably THE most knowledgeable high level player about the game's stats and mechanics).

Feel free to make up some facts out of nowhere to argue this point though.

"Volks have less taget size that any other mainline, aka less durable.
They don't outdps allies wfa mainlines regardless of vetting anyway."

I SAID what is written down there, STOP STRAWMANNING...

Cover bonus IS is implemented by accuracy and cooldown multipliers on their weapons, they don't get ANYTHING ELSE, RA remains unaffected.

Even the in game description and the website guide says it's an offensive bonus that affect dps.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/50217/infantry-sections-cover-bonuses-and-design

Can you please stop talking shit, your claims are outright false and the fact that you bitch about "TRUE" facts makes you look even dumber..

Try not to use the term "strawmanning" if you don't know what it is...

Usf mortar wasn't even in roster to begin with, not even in commanders, while those tools were, so i don't get how they change somehow the faction shape.
This isn't anything like usf mortar, they just swapped kubel mg with 34 and sturmtiger with panzer 4 BECAUSE ALLIES ONLY "AXIS OPIEOPIE" were drowning relic team with their tears.
Usf mortar has been made, not switched.

If you want more "specialized" and "fitting" units we can give kubel suppression back and make sturmtiger non doc.
Changes like that are normal, like panther swapped with elephant

You see how flawed your point is to begin with ?

lol did you even read my post? I was comparing your statement that usf shouldn't be complaining about not having nondoc bigger tanks to okw complaining about not having a nondoc mg or generalist tank. I also stated I did not agree with the addition of the usf mortar. My argument does not mean that I want okw to not have the mg34 or the p4 and it's not like the only alternative to the current p4 is the sturmtiger; you could have a short barreled p4 or ostwind or something to fill the same anti infantry role. To be clear, I am not saying this should happen, just that it's not "p4 or sturmtiger hurr durr you're stupid" as you paint it.

I honestly think you see a post from someone who doesn't agree with you and extrapolate whatever the fuck you want from it, or you think like an eighth grader.

lol did you even read my post? I was comparing your statement that usf shouldn't be complaining about not having nondoc bigger tanks to okw complaining about not having a nondoc mg or generalist tank. I also stated I did not agree with the addition of the usf mortar. My argument does not mean that I want okw to not have the mg34 or the p4 and it's not like the only alternative to the current p4 is the sturmtiger; you could have a short barreled p4 or ostwind or something to fill the same anti infantry role. To be clear, I am not saying this should happen, just that it's not "p4 or sturmtiger hurr durr you're stupid" as you paint it.

I honestly think you see a post from someone who doesn't agree with you and extrapolate whatever the fuck you want from it, or you think like an eighth grader.

Wouldn't surprise me...he looks at a post telling him he's wrong then somehow thinks its agreeing with him. He also links a thread that proves he is wrong and that the person he's arguing with right, trying to use it as evidence for points.

On the eighth grader point, he does seem like an eighth grader who was just recently taught in his language arts class what "strawmanning" is and why it's a logical fallacy, then gets all excited and tries to use the term online to look smart but ends up using it somewhere where it isnt applicable. Would also explain why he insults people so immaturely when unprovoked.

I guess this post will get removed for being unrelated to the main topic (and rightfully so), but it just makes actual balance discussion difficult when someone constantly invents facts, insults people, and calls people out for the very thing that he is doing (he makes up facts, then accuses other people of making up facts even though theyre correct and have proof; not to mention the insults he throws in). I may be alone on this view, but I consider it unintentional trolling (that is, if he isn't actually intentionally trolling, which, now that i think about it, seems pretty likely given how he makes stuff up and provokes others).

Just to clarify, I got into the attribute editor for a few minutes and was able to confirm that all british infantry have a passive modifier that is tied directly to the entities as they use cover.

Unlike vet, or the passive cover bonuses that come with the special cover icon that British have, this is a modifier directly attached to the forms of cover.

So, any tommy, sapper, commando, or officer in light, heavy, or garrison cover, gets a bonus 10% RA. This works exactly like the flag for the camouflage upgrade on ostheer units.

....
So, any tommy, sapper, commando, or officer in light, heavy, or garrison cover, gets a bonus 10% RA. This works exactly like the flag for the camouflage upgrade on ostheer units.

According to cruzz it does not work for garrison.

According to cruzz it does not work for garrison.

Good to know. I'm not surprised that it is reportedly bugged.

Lol.

If you look at ZombiFrancis' last post, he just said that he was basically agreeing with me and that you were wrong. Surprised at how you read a post in which the poster backed up my claim and said that yours was wrong, then decided that he was agreeing with you. Guess you'll see whatever you want to see; not surprising since you either completely make up stats or present them entirely out of context.

The fact that Vipper, ZombiFrancis, and a player who is top 10 on the 1v1 leaderboards for the factions he plays (even with frequent computer crashes, sucks losing 3 entire ranks from a single crash) all disagree with you should you give you some idea where your argument stands.

Individual volks models have (negligibly) better dps at max range than riflemen (both at vet 0). Individual volks models have better dps at all ranges than cons. Individual volks models have better dps than infantry sections at close range. Argue cover bonus all you want, but everyone knows that the cover balance is situational while the extra model that a volks squad gets counts for a lot and isnt conditional. Lets not forget that infantry sections and riflemen cost 30 manpower per squad more, and that penals are generally outnumbered because you have to construct a t1 first.

You would expect riflemen to beat volks because they cost more and because the entire faction that theyre a part of was built around them. You would expect infantry sections to win against volks because they cost more. The fact that volks have slightly better dps per model than riflemen at long range means youre factually incorrect, and means that volks have a situation where theyre better than a squad that costs more and makes up a larger portion of its faction's power budget. The fact that volks will beat an infantry section in cover at close range, or an infantry section out of cover at long range also means that they have scenarios where they punch above their weight.

You're saying that WFA core infantry has better dps than volks. I've replied that it depends on whether youre talking about per model or per squad. It is an undebatable fact that the theoretical dps of volks is better than the theoretical dps of infantry sections and riflemen in certain different mixes of range, sometimes per model or per squad.

Vet complicates the argument, but everyone (or nearly everyone) agrees that volks have better vet than the other WFA core infantry. Everyone (or, again, nearly everyone) agrees that the stg upgrade is far more accessible and far more efficient than the other WFA core infantry weapon upgrades.

It's really hard to get a decent/productive discussion going when youre dripping in condescension upon your first reply and constantly making up (literally making up) stats to support your views (ex: "it's not relative AT ALL if both long AND close range dps are higher for allies, it means that the dps curve is always higher"; again, volks FACTUALLY have a higher theoretical max range dps than riflemen and have a higher dps at close range than infantry sections). As much as I'd like to put the argument to rest, it's obvious that at this point, you'll just form a reply and fabricate some entirely new "facts" to attack me, after which 2 other posters and I will tell you youre wrong (just like this time). It's taking me far more effort to disprove all of these literally made up stats than it takes for you to just pull them out of nowhere, so I'll stop here.

Now that's a beautiful post that can explain why so many people "hate" on Volksgrenadiers, they should go back to doing 10 damage per shot among other things really, they have too much value for their cost.

No it doesn't, like ost doesn't need 5-6 man squad.
FBP planned reasonable changes to make jackson more similar to firefly and usf got pershing in a ultra good commander.
We can argue about balance like that, revolving around specific unit.
Other than that if you don't like the usf design feel free to play any other faction.

Please don't reiterate the "i don't care if i have semi auto rifles, free FRP, and best ai mediums in game i need a big tank because they have got it" argument

Well. Late game doesn't mean Big tanks.
I got the idea of the USF late game proposed by the developers, sounds good, doesn't work.
The USF late game should consist in very good TDs with good equipped infantry and commander abilities support but everything seems so lackluster like P47 strafe run that should be the best Late game ability IF IT HIT SOMETHING.