USF infantry upgrade

Use a mortar? Why shouldn't a unit in a prepared position stand a chance or even beat a squad assaulting it without support? What's the point of cover even?

I agree with you, but do you realize how easy it is for volks to have access to sandbags. You can't just have your mortar going all over the map. Even if you build a mortar, you got one less combat effective squad vs okw. When you barrage them behind cover, they can just simply move away,and your mortar is useless. On the hand, if OKW decided to blob at your cutoff, you are not going to win the engagement with one indirect fire unit.

i do agree on the point main line inf , SHOULDN'T be able to place sand bags, unless a doctrine allows them to do so. (same for UKF INF).

I agree with you, but do you realize how easy it is for volks to have access to sandbags. You can't just have your mortar going all over the map. Even if you build a mortar, you got one less combat effective squad vs okw. When you barrage them behind cover, they can just simply move away,and your mortar is useless. On the hand, if OKW decided to blob at your cutoff, you are not going to win the engagement with one indirect fire unit.

Barraging forces them out of cover and they only win when behind cover so...
Volks are a disgusting mess of reactionary changes there's no denying that. They are better cons with out the drawbacks of cons. They shouldn't have the lava nade and they shouldn't have the STGs, maybe shouldn't have sandbags but as long as Tommy's have them can't complain too much unfortunately. Fighting hard from cover however is EXACTLY how volks should function, sturms are early AI and Obers would fill in later. Right now we have volks volks volks with an Ober or 2 mixed in solely for burst damage. They are poorly designed but from a strictly tactical point needing a mortar to dislodge a prepared position isn't the problem.

I am pretty sure RM does less dps vs volks at long range. It is easy to say than done. Simply volks cost less to build and reinforce, by the time you charge into green cover you probably lost the fight already in a one vs one situation. Grenadiers out scale any infantry with vets and lmg upgrade.

The result of your test probably didn't take gap close in consideration. I agree if both units start behind cover, RM wins mid and close range.
So why a unit cost 280 has to gap close with the support of other units in order to win vs 250 manpower unit?

Gren with lmg upgrade destroys rifleman, you can't even gap close with smoke.

I play against karl everyday, I think he is one of the best OKW players. Blob of Volks sit behind a sandbag at your fuel point is instantly retarded for usf to deal with.

There are more things in play than just DPS in engagements. Rifles are more durable than volks in the RA department.

Stop charging across fields with a single rifle into green cover volks. Of course you lose that engagement. USF would be even more brain dead prior to 2x BARs if they didn’t lose that engagement.

Somehow a 240mp squad and 60 muni upgrade in your mind is somehow better than Thompson rangers or paratroopers....

These results are not my tests. These tests were conducted MANY times, by MANY individuals when volks were receiving their veterancy nerfs. In some tests they didn’t account for gap closure because the rifles still won prior to upgrades vs volks at Max range.

If you play against Karl, why haven’t you tried any piece of indirect to dislodge fortified positions?

OST's buget unit beats the hell out of Riflemen pretty consistently. I get that on paper Riflemen are better stats wise but fact is the costs to keep the Riflemen's edge over it's opponents are way too excessive. 280 MP to build the unit, 28 MP to reinforce each model, 150 MP 25 fuel for a grenade unlock, 150 MP 15 fuel for a weapon rack unlock, 60 munitions each for a BAR and requring a retreat back to base in order to get the upgrade. OST just needs to tech up which everyone has to do and they get everything but the kitchen sink for their Grens. Basically the same deal for the Volksgrens.

Its more or less the same story with Brit Infantry Sections as well especially since they totally screwed up the Bren guns. I still don't know what they were thinking with that change.

OST's buget unit beats the hell out of Riflemen pretty consistently. I get that on paper Riflemen are better stats wise but fact is the costs to keep the Riflemen's edge over it's opponents are way too excessive. 280 MP to build the unit, 28 MP to reinforce each model, 150 MP 25 fuel for a

The definition of bias:

"Riflemen are so bad because they cost so much to reinforce. Grens too gud."

Meanwhile grens are sitting pretty with 30 MP reinforce costs.

Meanwhile grens are sitting pretty with 4 model squads.

Meanwhile grens are sitting pretty with facing higher count squads with superior received accuracy.

Meanwhile grens are sitting pretty in t1 compared to t0.

But i guess since they upgrade in the field that makes them OP

The definition of bias:

"Riflemen are so bad because they cost so much to reinforce. Grens too gud."

Meanwhile grens are sitting pretty with 30 MP reinforce costs.

Meanwhile grens are sitting pretty with 4 model squads.

Meanwhile grens are sitting pretty with facing higher count squads with superior received accuracy.

Meanwhile grens are sitting pretty in t1 compared to t0.

But i guess since they upgrade in the field that makes them OP

Thats only 2 more MP per model and since they have less to replace they aren't nearly as bad a drain on MP as Riflemen.

The fact that Grens are basicallydamn near a 4 man sniper sqaud with unit wiping grenades at only 240 MP a pop is what makes them OP.

Thats only 2 more MP per model and since they have less to replace they aren't nearly as bad a drain on MP as Riflemen.

The fact that Grens are basicallydamn near a 4 man sniper sqaud with unit wiping grenades at only 240 MP a pop is what makes them OP.

That is really the most retarded argument ever. "Smaller squad = less mp bleed"

I can't believe anyone could be so stupid. Oh god. If you need to replace more units than your opponent does it probably means you've been losing the fights.

Riflemen and Grenadiers have exactly the same reinforce cost in proportion to their build cost per model.

If you're losing 4 riflemen while your opponent lost 3 Grenadiers, your opponent pays less MP to reinforce because they OUTPLAYED YOU. They used a unit which costs 6/7 as much to inflict 112mp of damage vs 90mp of losses.

The amount of bleed you suffer is based on the engagements taken, how well you play those engagements, as well as the bleed tools your opponent has.

Sure, RNG plays a significant factor in this game, but since you struggle all the time, the common factor is clearly your inability to use infantry.

Riflemen and Grenadiers have exactly the same reinforce cost in proportion to their build cost per model.

If you're losing 4 riflemen while your opponent lost 3 Grenadiers, your opponent pays less MP to reinforce because they OUTPLAYED YOU. They used a unit which costs 6/7 as much to inflict 112mp of damage vs 90mp of losses.

The amount of bleed you suffer is based on the engagements taken, how well you play those engagements, as well as the bleed tools your opponent has.

Sure, RNG plays a significant factor in this game, but since you struggle all the time, the common factor is clearly your inability to use infantry.

What you say doesn't make any sens in a real game. Grenadiers are cheaper to reinforce because of old game design mechanism USF infantry > Ostheer Infantry. Is it still the case today? Honestly I don't think so when I look at my games or best players on twitch.
When you see Ostheer building almost every games 1 HMG + 4 gren vs USF, it is because Grenadiers can definitively duel riflemen and win in many situations. Remember a year ago or so, 4 gren was a suicidal strategy, you needed HMG sometime 2, mortar and tech fast to 222 and Pzg in order to do your transition into late game. Today you're happy if you see a pak as USF.

Grenadier spam everywhere is the reality today which contradict your saying.

The second point which also contradict your saying is that an upgraded grenadier squad down to 1 man is vastly superior to an upgraded riflemen squad down to 1 man as well. Thanks to the LMG42.

Now I don't think grenadier stats are the problem here, I still think Ostheer (and OKW and UKF once align to other factions) should lose all or some of their extra starting manpower. In my opinion early game balance is more about timing issues than raw unit stats.

And volks to lose their capacity to build sandbag, or to have it behind T1 or T2 or vet1 but no more like it is today.

I agree with you, but do you realize how easy it is for volks to have access to sandbags. You can't just have your mortar going all over the map. Even if you build a mortar, you got one less combat effective squad vs okw. When you barrage them behind cover, they can just simply move away,and your mortar is useless. On the hand, if OKW decided to blob at your cutoff, you are not going to win the engagement with one indirect fire unit.

This and the solution would be not to buff rifles, but to nerf Volks by taking away the sandbag ability. Make it vet1 or just move sandbags to Sturmpios. This would solve the issue with charging into green covered Volks, without gc they will lose with RM like they should.

The definition of bias:

"Riflemen are so bad because they cost so much to reinforce. Grens too gud."

Meanwhile grens are sitting pretty with 30 MP reinforce costs.

Meanwhile grens are sitting pretty with 4 model squads.

Meanwhile grens are sitting pretty with facing higher count squads with superior received accuracy.

Meanwhile grens are sitting pretty in t1 compared to t0.

But i guess since they upgrade in the field that makes them OP

LOL, when you retreat grens you have like 1/4 hp and 3 models alive. Rifles loses at least 2 or 3 before retreat. T1 is up in the first minute of the game dude and you always build it, so that is ridiculous point. Grens mg has really good accuraccy, so they kill 1 model before you can get to them. Not to mention gren blobs. In addition they get nades and pfaust without teching them. Don't complain they are bad please

volks and rifle man have the same dps until 20 range where RM widen the gap by a lot, and guess who has vet 0 reduced target size ? a hint, it's not the volks

What you say doesn't make any sens in a real game. Grenadiers are cheaper to reinforce because of old game design mechanism USF infantry > Ostheer Infantry. Is it still the case today? Honestly I don't think so when I look at my games or best players on twitch.
When you see Ostheer building almost every games 1 HMG + 4 gren vs USF, it is because Grenadiers can definitively duel riflemen and win in many situations. Remember a year ago or so, 4 gren was a suicidal strategy, you needed HMG sometime 2, mortar and tech fast to 222 and Pzg in order to do your transition into late game. Today you're happy if you see a pak as USF.

Grenadier spam everywhere is the reality today which contradict your saying.

The second point which also contradict your saying is that an upgraded grenadier squad down to 1 man is vastly superior to an upgraded riflemen squad down to 1 man as well. Thanks to the LMG42.

Now I don't think grenadier stats are the problem here, I still think Ostheer (and OKW and UKF once align to other factions) should lose all or some of their extra starting manpower. In my opinion early game balance is more about timing issues than raw unit stats.

And volks to lose their capacity to build sandbag, or to have it behind T1 or T2 or vet1 but no more like it is today.

I'm not sure if you even quoted the right post. You make completely zero sense.

I said bleeding more mp means you lost engagements. If you lose lots of Riflemen and your opponent loses very few Grenadiers, your play is likely to be the problem. I don't even know how you can claim that isn't true.

At no point did I ever say "Grens were bad" or "People don't build Grens". I don't know what the garden you're talking about because my post was about basic game concepts which CODGUY doesn't understand. Apparently, neither do you. If you lose lots of troops and your opponent doesn't, you lose more MP than him.

I don't think Grenadiers are bad, and I never said such a thing, so your "contradicting" of a point never mentioned is incredibly stupid.

I had to reread my post like six times to make sure I didn't exactly type "No one uses Grens" or "Rifles are superior to Grens" but your ability to imagine things is pretty impressive.

To be honest, sandbags being moved to all Engineers instead of mainlines might be a way to solve the issue of Rifle vs Volks early game.

Either everyone gets it or no one gets it. IS and Volks being the only ones to have it does make early engagements too favourable for them.

I said bleeding more mp means you lost engagements. If you lose lots of Riflemen and your opponent loses very few Grenadiers, your play is likely to be the problem. I don't even know how you can claim that isn't true.

At no point did I ever say "Grens were bad" or "People don't build Grens". I don't know what the garden you're talking about because my post was about basic game concepts which CODGUY doesn't understand. Apparently, neither do you. If you lose lots of troops and your opponent doesn't, you lose more MP than him.

That is not true. If you put grens vs rifleman on a fair 1v1 grens will lose 2 models and rifleman 3 before the retreat kicks in. A lot of times in game lmg42 grens with 30% hp start retreating with 3 models still alive. (Or maybe i am the unlucky one?) Most of the times you lose a model before rifleman get to medium range and start doing dmg. Thats why you bleed less mp with grens. Unless you go point blank vs rifleman, then thats a different story.

Apart from discussion both are balanced, cause if RM flank grens they are just wrecking them. The topic is about Volks that shouldn't have sandbags so early. I love the idea below:

And volks to lose their capacity to build sandbag, or to have it behind T1 or T2 or vet1 but no more like it is today.

*laughs in UKF Tommies having buildable cover and bonus*

T1 is up in the first minute of the game dude and you always build it, so that is ridiculous point.

Just that it's common doesn't mean it isn't a constraint. Ostheer is forced to invest in T1 structure just to field an infantry presence which means they take longer to tech up. So it is a good point.

I'm not sure if you even quoted the right post. You make completely zero sense.

I said bleeding more mp means you lost engagements. If you lose lots of Riflemen and your opponent loses very few Grenadiers, your play is likely to be the problem. I don't even know how you can claim that isn't true.

At no point did I ever say "Grens were bad" or "People don't build Grens". I don't know what the garden you're talking about because my post was about basic game concepts which CODGUY doesn't understand. Apparently, neither do you. If you lose lots of troops and your opponent doesn't, you lose more MP than him.

I don't think Grenadiers are bad, and I never said such a thing, so your "contradicting" of a point never mentioned is incredibly stupid.

I had to reread my post like six times to make sure I didn't exactly type "No one uses Grens" or "Rifles are superior to Grens" but your ability to imagine things is pretty impressive.

You can't win vs grenadiers without losing models as USF thus bleeding. Or that means you have all the RNG god favors. Should I really explain you the range and cover mechanism to let you see that grens are naturally better at max range and since USF troop hadn't develop personal teleporter at that time they need to take damage and lose models in order to reach their optimal fighting range. That's part of the principle behind Gren4men Rifle5men squads.
So yes your argumentation is wrong, you'll always bleed more as USF whenever you dominate or be dominated.

And to comeback to what I say, this is an issue today because USF bleeding more was balanced with the fact USF had better early game in the past. But successive patch to nerf USF early game made gren powerness a lot closer to riflemen which break this balance between both units. We would never see everyone using builds with 4 gren squad and super late T2 if it wasn't the case.

Also I recommend you (and anyone) to watch players manpower flux on replay or livetwitch, it is incredible how much manpower you can bank with those popular and powerful strats like 4gren or 4volks.
This is why, in my opinion, the actual balance problem (execpt UKF) doesn't lie in units stat but factions economy. Those strats are in fact too safe economically speaking.

Just that it's common doesn't mean it isn't a constraint. Ostheer is forced to invest in T1 structure just to field an infantry presence which means they take longer to tech up. So it is a good point.

Plus their starting unit is in base because EFA doesn't have self building bases meaning a slight loss on map control and support

Gren spam is kind of like RE spam but worse because Grens are actually an effective combat unit individually.