German units too cheap or are Allied units too expensive?

M2 .50 cal and Vickers MGs all preform poorly compared to ... OKW counter parts.
Thoughts?

Yeah, the mg34 performs so much better than the 50 cal and vikkers /s

My thoughts are that if you think that is the case I think you may be biased.

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

Right they were nerfed last pat h weren't they? But still... 210mp is a bit cheap...

Sapper have normal repair rate now
weakness sapper are none offensive vet bonus unlike other engineer unit

Right they were nerfed last pat h weren't they? But still... 210mp is a bit cheap...

How is 210 MP for such a crappy unit cheap? Pioneers are 200 MP and way better between their MP40s and flamethrowers. I don't think any unit dies faster than Royal Engineers. I'd take Rear Echeleons over Royal Engineers anyday.

I don't think

We found the problem guys. How about you actually try do look what the stats say about a units survivability instead of being biased?

We found the problem guys. How about you actually try do look what the stats say about a units survivability instead of being biased?

I see what happens to them in the field and that's plenty info right there. Royal Engineers are a completely worthless combat unit, they are a small step above medics.

I see what happens to them in the field and that's plenty info right there. Royal Engineers are a completely worthless combat unit, they are a small step above medics.

What happens to them on the field is due to your atrocious standard of play.

Royal Engineers have significantly higher dps AND higher defense than Pioneers. Maybe you're using your Royal Engineers in long range gun fights vs LMG Grens and raging when you lose.

In any case, the Royal Engineers aren't even a combat unit - they're primarily a repair and utility unit (minelaying, flamer, minesweeping, terraforming).

Have you considered not being so bad at this game? Anyone who thinks Pioneers are good at combat is probably on par with the Normal AI in skill level.

What happens to them on the field is due to your atrocious standard of play.

Royal Engineers have significantly higher dps AND higher defense than Pioneers. Maybe you're using your Royal Engineers in long range gun fights vs LMG Grens and raging when you lose.

In any case, the Royal Engineers aren't even a combat unit - they're primarily a repair and utility unit (minelaying, flamer, minesweeping, terraforming).

Have you considered not being so bad at this game? Anyone who thinks Pioneers are good at combat is probably on par with the Normal AI in skill level.

I don't use Royal Engineers in combat except as PIAT carriers and even at that they are terrible since the PIAT is the worst hand held AT in the game, and a Panzer 4 will consistently wipe 2-3 of their models in one shot.

I play mainly USF and UKF in 1v1 matches but the latter is almost unplayable now due to a balance team repeatedly giving in to Wehraboo moaning over the last few years.

Yes I've made my opinons known on the COH2 Steam forums too.

The .50 cal is a poor MG due to its very narrow arc requring either another MG to be positioned next to the first one to mitigate flanking (not great due to their high 7 pop count a piece) or you have to keep a rifle unit near to protect it. This is required far less often for an MG42 and even the MG34 because of their wide 120 degree fire arcs.

UKF was originally supposed to be the Allied version of Wehrmacht with costly, but high quality units and a few specific and exploitable weakness like no mobile artillery, and no anti-vehicle snares. Now its units while still being expensive, are either roughly equal, marginally better, or i n some cases much worse than their Wehrmacht counter parts.

Might as well close this thread due to dangerous levels of bias

Grens are basically a 4 man sniper sqaud

Ok, are we really going to have a serious discussion after this point?

...
I play mainly USF and UKF in 1v1 matches but the latter is almost unplayable now due to a balance team repeatedly giving in to Wehraboo moaning over the last few years.

...

And here lays your problem. Try to play OKW and Ostheer and reach 200 position in ladder.

Seems like the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

And here lays your problem. Try to play OKW and Ostheer and reach 200 position in ladder.

Seems like the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

Most everyone has a perferred faction or two in fact I'm willing to bet either OST or OKW are the preferred factions for 60-70% of this community. I do have quite a bit more games with USF and UKF as those are my two preferred factions but I also have around 50-60 games each with OKW and OST. I happen to have a higher win rate with those two also. I find OST more challenging than OKW, but OST is more flexible and overall more powerful late game than OKW despite the latter's access to a non-doctrinal King Tiger.

Most everyone has a perferred faction or two in fact I'm willing to bet either OST or OKW are the preferred factions for 60-70% of this community. I do have quite a bit more games with USF and UKF as those are my two preferred factions but I also have around 50-60 games each with OKW and OST. I happen to have a higher win rate with those two also. I find OST more challenging than OKW, but OST is more flexible and overall more powerful late game than OKW despite the latter's access to a non-doctrinal King Tiger.

I am sorry to have to to say this but 50-60 game with a faction are simply not enough to formulate a clear picture. Most of the people you play will probably have X4 times tha many games, the game has been out for quite a long time.

It will actually help you allot in your USF/UKF game if you play more with Ost and OKW as you will learn more about their weakness.

I remember when sappers can walk through open ground and force off a Gren squad.

Good times

How is 210 MP for such a crappy unit cheap? Pioneers are 200 MP and way better between their MP40s and flamethrowers. I don't think any unit dies faster than Royal Engineers. I'd take Rear Echeleons over Royal Engineers anyday.

NO unit dies faster than sappers?
Well there's combat engies (RA of 1, models capped at 4 no rec acc buffs at all ever)
Pios (see above)
RE flip in and out of being more durable depending on timing but end up squishier.
Partisans end up slightly more durable than unvetted 4 man sappers
AT partisans get ALMOST as durable as vetted 4 man sappers
Grens are less durable than 4 man sappers at equal vet
Saying snipers feels like cheating but them too
Any 4 man squad potentially really
Vet 5 volks are actually less durable than vet 3 sappers as well

Someone who is better with numbers than me could do up some EHP calculations but for now you'll have to settle with someone better at numbers than you is saying you are wrong.

Most everyone has a perferred faction or two in fact I'm willing to bet either OST or OKW are the preferred factions for 60-70% of this community. I do have quite a bit more games with USF and UKF as those are my two preferred factions but I also have around 50-60 games each with OKW and OST. I happen to have a higher win rate with those two also. I find OST more challenging than OKW, but OST is more flexible and overall more powerful late game than OKW despite the latter's access to a non-doctrinal King Tiger.

If you're at the level of play where King Tiger isn't a 720mp 280fuel 26pop Victory Strike, you clearly haven't played enough OKW or at a high enough level. It's not even good as a Victory Strike - its monstrous cost can lose you the game. It has similar (probably worse) output compared to p4, and requires a good deal of support because of its vulnerability.

If you can afford to wait for ages and save up billions of resources for a KT you would have won without the KT anyway. In 1v1 it's extremely improbable that a KT swings a losing game into a won one. All of the Allied factions have a non-dcotrinal high penetration 60 range TD that will get auto Vet 3 shortly after the KT appears.

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.

Stats are stats and reality is reality, and in reality mg42 suppresses a squad in one burst, and so does the .50 cal. That would mean they are equal, but then the arc, popcap, price are in favor of mg42.
And about the "dmg statistics" you bring out of context (seriously penetration? like who gives a damn about that), the thing that matters is dps, so:



As you can see .50cal is equal or even slightly worse in dps. don't say its better than mg42 ...

Although i really like the .50cal and wouldn't change a thing about it is, just wanted to say it is worse than mg42

Penetration matters a lot vs Ost. 50 cal can rip through 222, flame HT, and flak ht, and when garrisoned can do enough damage to force a Luchs back.

Having lower penetration means you can't even force back lightly armoured half tracks.

Set-up/tear-down time is also an important consideration.

I think most people would prefer the MG42, obviously, since it's the easiest to use. Just pointing out that it isn't "strictly" superior to the 50 cal.

For fighting lights the mg42 has the edge with its super belts which also improve its AI.. 50 cal is great but mg42 is the best