German units too cheap or are Allied units too expensive?

I can't really decide where the imbalance seems to be here. For example RIflemen, Infantry Sections M2 .50 cal and Vickers MGs all preform poorly compared to their Wehrmacht or OKW counter parts. I'm wondering what could maybe fix this if it would involve increasing the cost of Axis units to better align with USF or UKF or decreasing the cost of western Allied units to put them on a more even playing field.

Some don't see this disparity but it shouldn't be hard to notice. US Rear Echelons are only 40 MP less than Grens and think about how poorly they preform compared to Grens. Grens are 40 MP less than Riflemen, but they often out class them in most engagements. The M2 .50 cal was nerfed and left to cost 20 MP more than it's superior Wehrmacht counter part besides the fact its locked behind tech (which isn't necessarily bad).
Thoughts?

The wording of this makes it sound like something that belongs in Balance Discussion.

Anyways, back to the topic: I would not say that allied units perform poorly compared to their WM or OKW counterparts. It is simply a matter of where they perform well (what is their intended role, intended engagement distance, etc.).

Grenadiers beat Rear Echelons because they are designed to fight. They're designed to win engagements. Rear Echelons are designed to be support units. They can build a ton stuff, repair things like tanks, and (finally!) plant mines.

Directly comparing a combat unit to a utility unit isn't a fair comparison. You can say REs are 40MP less than Grens and perform poorly against them; I can say Pioneers are 40MP less than Conscripts and perform poorly against them.

In the days when I had way too much time to spare I actually conducted mass vacuum tests of all 1v1 infantry engagements that I knew of. Riflemen beat Grens and Volks at close and mid ranges in all circumstances (stock, upgraded, max vet & upgraded, no cover, yellow cover, green cover), even beating Volks at long range in the upgraded and max vet upgraded tests.

The M2HB .50 cal was nerfed only when they removed the Sprint ability, which is a perfectly reasonable as team weapons should be punished for being flanked. Popcap adjustments and adjusting suppression are minor yet also very reasonable. Even so, it has great suppression and amazing damage. The mighty MG42 does less damage but has a wider arc.

Arguing that it is locked behind tech is invalid, as the Maxim is also locked behind tech. The OKW MG34, as paltry as it is, is also locked behind tech (albeit is unlocked with any tech). Out of all the MGs locked behind tech, the M2HB is easily the most powerful one.

In all honesty, the cost-to-performance of most units in CoH2 is relatively well tuned at the moment; the biggest issues I can recall (off the top of my head) lie with heavy tanks, which are more difficult to use due to their massive hitboxes and their slow, cumbersome nature.

A serious and informative response to a troll post. Props to you AR.

My only issue with the 50cal is that they seem to cluster a lot more than other hmg crews. I wonder if others have the same experience?

CODGUY it's you who's performing poorly compared to your counterpart. Look at the DPS charts or run some tests. Or try playing Axis, you'll discover that your positioning, micro, and decisions are the underperforming factors.

Actually, Allied infantry units perform better than their Axis counterparts. I won't even mention the doctrinal units they have, which are devastating. Vet 3 riflemen, in synergy with Lieutenant and Captain are just too strong for Axis infantry to face them

LoL try buying a Panther

https://www.coh2.org/topic/55418/state-office-rules

Unless there's a well-hidden strategy question in here somewhere this is a balance argument.

I do play Axis when I feel like winning games.

Anyway, I don't really think whatever small bonus Allied MGs have in damage vs vehicles or other units is that relevant because its not the job of a machine gun to fight vehicles or necessarily kill infantry and besides the vetted MG42 with AP rounds is even better in that area anyway lol! I mean the Vickers can't even cover a capture point and keep a signle enemy sqaud from taking it from you. The Browning is okay but costs more than its superior Wehrmacht counter part for no apparent reason and its more on pop. With the preformance and stats the way they are then a Browning being 280 MP and 7 Pop means an MG42 should be 300 MP and 8 pop and a Vickers should be almost free (half joking). The MG34 for OKW isn't nearly as good as the MG42 for Wehrmacht but it still seems as good or better than the Browning or Vickers. The fact that the Browning is locked behind USF tech is pretty relevent because usually you have to pick between AT guns or MGs since its rarely viable to get both in most games (yes yes I know you can do the Airborne thing and avoid that but you shouldn't have to depend on a doctrine to survive). This of course is something neither Axis nor Brits or Soviets have to worry about

Can't someone just ban CODGUY already for always creating trolling and toxic threads? It's getting really old ...

Can't someone just ban CODGUY already for always creating trolling and toxic threads? It's getting really old ...

LOL I'm just telling you what happens. You nerf several allied units into the ground and then don't do anything about the axis counter parts this is what you get, unit pricing that makes no sense. I mean inferior units should be cheaper than superior ones right? Grens are supposedly inferior to Riflemen (not by much really) and they're cheaper but allied support units are priced equal to or more costly than than Axis ones which are better, why does that make any sense?

Maybe if you spent more time playing the game in order to get better, and less time complaining on the forums, you might finally understand why no one agrees with you.

Maybe if you spent more time playing the game in order to get better, and less time complaining on the forums, you might finally understand why no one agrees with you.

Look at my steam account.

Look at my steam account.

Grens are basically a 4 man sniper sqaud they are a much better value than Rifles. I know technically the stats favor Riflemen but in most games Rifles just aren't good enough between their initial cost, reinforcement cost, weapon rack upgrade cost, and double BAR cost.

Look at my steam account.

Clicking on your playercard results in an error.

I do play Axis when I feel like winning games.

Anyway, I don't really think whatever small bonus Allied MGs have in damage vs vehicles or other units is that relevant because its not the job of a machine gun to fight vehicles or necessarily kill infantry and besides the vetted MG42 with AP rounds is even better in that area anyway lol! I mean the Vickers can't even cover a capture point and keep a single enemy squad from taking it from you. The Browning is okay but costs more than its superior Wehrmacht counter part for no apparent reason and its more on pop. With the performance and stats the way they are then a Browning being 280 MP and 7 Pop means an MG42 should be 300 MP and 8 pop and a Vickers should be almost free (half joking). The MG34 for OKW isn't nearly as good as the MG42 for Wehrmacht but it still seems as good or better than the Browning or Vickers. The fact that the Browning is locked behind USF tech is pretty relevant because usually you have to pick between AT guns or MGs since its rarely viable to get both in most games (yes yes I know you can do the Airborne thing and avoid that but you shouldn't have to depend on a doctrine to survive). This of course is something neither Axis nor Brits or Soviets have to worry about

Allow me to ask you this: what is the role of heavy machine guns?

Also, you arguments are grounded in feeling, not facts. You mention statistics yet you use none to support your argument. Even worse, in your Grens v Rifles post you mention that the statistics favor Riflemen.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where reasoning is used to persuade people.

I've already mentioned in my previous post that the M2HB has way more suppression (0.0006 vs 0.00012) than the MG42. It also has better mid and far accuracy (0.55/0.4 vs 0.45/0.35), way better penetration (7/6/5 vs 2.2/1.8/1.4), and way more damage (16 vs 4).

The only things and MG42 has on it is close accuracy (0.7 vs 0.6), burst duration (1.625 vs 1), popcap (6 vs 7), wider arc (unsure, IIRC 120 deg vs 90 deg) and way higher rate of fire (16 v 6).

The Browning M2 is the better HMG. On paper and in-game. However, they are different machine guns, thus they must be used in slightly different ways.

EDIT

Moved from Strategy Forum to Balance Forum.

You must be delusional to think M2HB are worse than MG42 or Rifles are worse than Grens. Try not charging Rifles into Grens over open areas would be my advice. M2HB are also godly with the only weakness being the crew dies to a small wind. AP rounds are also very effective against LVs, though their speed means they can just get away with no snares.

Though I would say that in this patch the strongest Allied faction currently is SU>USF>UKF meanwhile Axis OST>OKW

since i played sov ..i realized penals can beat volks and losing only 2 models.

Compare Core unit

Riflemen 280 have good Fire power Damage 8 but can shot 2.5 per Bolt action Rifle one shot
Tommy 280 have Start With Target size 0.8 mean hard to kill in long-mid range
in early

What about sappers? 210mp vs pios 200.. 0.8 target size, buffed stens in cover, 5 man squad possibility, destroy cover, weapon rack ready, reduced reinforcement AND a huge eec acc buff with vet... Plus not required to build the base.
Vs. Los and flamethrower. Teller mines are pretty cool too I reckon.
Some how sappers come in harder to hit than 50% more expensive Sturm pios....

Sapper have Target size 0.9

and Sten is short burst fire like shotgun
(0.4-0.625 per burst with 26 ROF by damage 2.5 per hit )
unique weapon

You must be delusional to think M2HB are worse than MG42 or Rifles are worse than Grens. Try not charging Rifles into Grens over open areas would be my advice. M2HB are also godly with the only weakness being the crew dies to a small wind. AP rounds are also very effective against LVs, though their speed means they can just get away with no snares.

Though I would say that in this patch the strongest Allied faction currently is SU>USF>UKF meanwhile Axis OST>OKW

I agree with this from a 1v1 standpoint, but in 1v1 the strongest factions were always the most complete factions I.e. EFA. Simply because they have all the tools at their disposal to deal with most/all threats. The few times I've seen non-EFA become meta would be when UKF was busted on release up through Comet/Crom nerfs or OKW in teamgames. OR When a single doctrine would supplement all a factions weaknesses like the 5CP landmattress.

so, you've moved from steam forums to here?