USF infantry upgrade

Correlation does not equal causation boys

I think riflemen need to trade mid-range damage for far-range damage. Rear echelon can fill the mid-range/close-range gap.

maybe make unit that support eh riflemen a bit better like the rear echelon. or maybe reduce riflemen price and reinforce a itty bit.

or reduce riflemen price a lot but limit number of special weapon bought to only 1 per squad(but hey woudl look a lot like brits...).

Correlation does not equal causation boys

Brings me back to my Data Analysis class last semester LOL

I will still say tho, Rifles are quite a bleed nowadays, I'm not sure if they are worth it when late-game volks and grens are cheaper/have better long range damage.

I think sandbags stock on mainlines is a bad idea. It should be doctrinal. UKF can keep their trenches as the trenches have a longer build time, only built on friendly sectors and can be used against u. And I think some of the weaker Brit docs should allow sandbags or make it a veteran ability on IS/sappers.

I agree with IpKaiFung. Riflemen ARE in a weird spot. Vs Ost they are far more cost efficient than grens right off the bat. Vs OKW they are a bit lacking at vet 0 but after upgrades and/or vet, they are more than decent. This dictates when to get aggressive. Vs Ost: hit the ground running. Vs OKW: secure your own stuff first and see where OKW is going before leaving your own side of the map. OKW has no mid game unless they get luchs which will in turn jeopardize their late game if their luchs gets killed too quickly.

The original poster just needs to understand that the riflemen easily outscale volks and the only time they are not as cost effective is the first 5min vs OKW. Relic cannot be trusted with faction descriptions. USF is an aggressive faction. Guess what? So is OKW. Don't get mad because OKW can out-aggress you in the first 5 min. USF beats OKW in the 5-20 min mark for 1v1.

Esxile kept attacking me ad hominem for making these exact same points. Waiting to see that rabid dog bite you for making the same reasonable claims.

You basically pointed out the exact same facts that I did: Riflemen can handle Grens early game, struggle when LMGs come online, but regain their footing late game with veterancy and upgrades. And that Riflemen struggle vs OKW early game, but when veterancy and upgrades kick in, really dominate the infantry engagements. For pointing out something that's statistically true I was subjected to slander and non-stop verbal abuse. Which Theodosis did nothing to stop except to censor my rebuttals, but yeah whatever.

I mean, KoreanJesus was telling outright lies, saying that Volks are more durable than Riflemen. Volks at Vet 3 get 0.8 received accuracy and get no combat bonuses after Vet 3, vs Riflemen who have double the ra bonuses (0.6 ra at vet 3). But sure, outright lies by the OP and ad hominem attacks by Esxile get a free pass.

I play both USF AND Axis, so I do agree USF needs some help. I just don't think outright lies and false information are the way to suggest improvements.

Imo, giving every mainline infantry non-doctrinal sandbags or standardising sandbags on engineer units would help to mitigate the problem. Another possibility would be to reduce Riflemen cost while nerfing their veterancy bonuses. Specifically targeting OKW and making them start with a Volks instead of a Sturm might also be a viable solution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSpjWnDko2I
Newest GCS USF game, you can see easily why riflemen are bad between two similar skill level players. More model drops on the riflemen than grens.

You deliberately chose a map which at least 90% of the community acknowledges to be favourable to Ost due to the abundance of long-ranged engagements.

1st engagement was 2 Gren squads vs one Rifle squad trying to flank a HMG.
2nd engagement was Grens in cover vs Riflemen charging across red cover.

Cherry-picking bad engagements is obviously the only way you can support your argument, since the stats are totally against you.

You deliberately chose a map which at least 90% of the community acknowledges to be favourable to Ost due to the abundance of long-ranged engagements.

1st engagement was 2 Gren squads vs one Rifle squad trying to flank a HMG.
2nd engagement was Grens in cover vs Riflemen charging across red cover.

Cherry-picking bad engagements is obviously the only way you can support your argument, since the stats are totally against you.

It is true what you are saying, but why is there a map where USF has no chance to win unless your opponent is trash? Every time you find your self in a long range engagement with rifles vs grens RM lose. Late game RM outshine grens, but before you will get there you will would have already lost the game. If your Light vehicles sucks as USF and your infantry is worse than enemy's for about 5-10 mins of the game, how can you win a game?

The problem is bigger in 2v2s, where you have to get at least one fuel point. I don't know the solution, because every suggestion ends with "it would be op", "don't you remember X years ago they were OP", "your infantry can't be good against everything", "double bar 3 vet rifles are op".

I found the only real solution = stop playing USF and go for Soviets. For Mother Russia!!!

I don't play 2 v 2 much, other than at a very low rank with some casual friends, so I can't comment on team games.

In 1v1 it's other USF problems (tech structure that splits AT gun and HMG, lack of mines, lack of flamer) that really cause me problems. I usually go for a doc with Riflemen mines + sandbags to mitigate that key faction weakness. Garrisons are still hell though.

I've never felt Rifles were the problem - for example in your post you commented that USF LVs are not fantastic. I'd agree, m20 utility car isn't good enough, and while the Stuart is decent, it always gets compared to the T70, which is godly. I think USF and UKF share some design issues that are causing them to struggle.

Imho, I think standardising important/basic faction tools like mines, infantry snares, sandbags, flamers, light mobile artillery would be needed. Lacking basic tools isn't about factional flavour/uniqueness, they're crippling weaknesses in the faction design that make them USF and UKF extremely vulnerable in a large number of common game situations.

I don't play 2 v 2 much, other than at a very low rank with some casual friends, so I can't comment on team games.

In 1v1 it's other USF problems (tech structure that splits AT gun and HMG, lack of mines, lack of flamer) that really cause me problems. I usually go for a doc with Riflemen mines + sandbags to mitigate that key faction weakness. Garrisons are still hell though.

I've never felt Rifles were the problem - for example in your post you commented that USF LVs are not fantastic. I'd agree, m20 utility car isn't good enough, and while the Stuart is decent, it always gets compared to the T70, which is godly. I think USF and UKF share some design issues that are causing them to struggle.

Imho, I think standardising important/basic faction tools like mines, infantry snares, sandbags, flamers, light mobile artillery would be needed. Lacking basic tools isn't about factional flavour/uniqueness, they're crippling weaknesses in the faction design that make them USF and UKF extremely vulnerable in a large number of common game situations.

- Replace major with M20 command car, gives command bonuses to nearby vehicles or can deploy into forward retreat WITH weapon racks.

- Replace M20 with greyhound, then move AAHT to captain and 57mm to Lt. Lt is now 57mm/Greyound/HMG. Capt is a heavier support tier howie/AAHt/Stuart.

LT has all the nessessary stuff.

Capt has some mid-game boost options if you're not in a position to tech to major.

- Replace major with M20 command car, gives command bonuses to nearby vehicles or can deploy into forward retreat WITH weapon racks.

- Replace M20 with greyhound, then move AAHT to captain and 57mm to Lt. Lt is now 57mm/Greyound/HMG. Capt is a heavier support tier howie/AAHt/Stuart.

LT has all the nessessary stuff.

Capt has some mid-game boost options if you're not in a position to tech to major.

Interesting suggestions.

Greyhound in LT tier wouldn't work - it would be too powerful. It would hit the field at the same time as Luchs while countering it effectively. I'd prefer to reduce the MP cost of the m20 so that it hits the field earlier, and has more of an effective window. Something like 260mp would be a lot more manageable.

Swapping AAHT and AT Gun would make sense though. That would give the Captain a Light Vehicle specialty and LT the support weapon specialty.

I dont think the Luch is countered by Greyhound, tho it is very wipey against infantry when compared to the stuart and if it arrives too early it would act a bit like a T-70 on roids.

Interesting suggestions.

Greyhound in LT tier wouldn't work - it would be too powerful. It would hit the field at the same time as Luchs while countering it effectively. I'd prefer to reduce the MP cost of the m20 so that it hits the field earlier, and has more of an effective window. Something like 260mp would be a lot more manageable.

Swapping AAHT and AT Gun would make sense though. That would give the Captain a Light Vehicle specialty and LT the support weapon specialty.

Greyhound is impotent vs vehicles.
Only Kubel and 251 does not give it a hard time.

I don't play 2 v 2 much, other than at a very low rank with some casual friends, so I can't comment on team games.

In 1v1 it's other USF problems (tech structure that splits AT gun and HMG, lack of mines, lack of flamer) that really cause me problems. I usually go for a doc with Riflemen mines + sandbags to mitigate that key faction weakness. Garrisons are still hell though.

I've never felt Rifles were the problem - for example in your post you commented that USF LVs are not fantastic. I'd agree, m20 utility car isn't good enough, and while the Stuart is decent, it always gets compared to the T70, which is godly. I think USF and UKF share some design issues that are causing them to struggle.

Imho, I think standardising important/basic faction tools like mines, infantry snares, sandbags, flamers, light mobile artillery would be needed. Lacking basic tools isn't about factional flavour/uniqueness, they're crippling weaknesses in the faction design that make them USF and UKF extremely vulnerable in a large number of common game situations.

+1

I kinda wish usf teaching was just made linear. They’d probably have to either take out or rework either lt or cpt squad though (as 2 free combat units out of a trench structure appropriately priced to be linear would be a bit much) among other changes as well.

Interesting suggestions.

Greyhound in LT tier wouldn't work - it would be too powerful. It would hit the field at the same time as Luchs while countering it effectively. I'd prefer to reduce the MP cost of the m20 so that it hits the field earlier, and has more of an effective window. Something like 260mp would be a lot more manageable.

Swapping AAHT and AT Gun would make sense though. That would give the Captain a Light Vehicle specialty and LT the support weapon specialty.

Fair point on the Greyhound being to powerful
Swapping the AT gun the most important one yeah.

But more than anything the dismounted bazooka team is so risky, would be nice if it got a toggle ability where the M20 gunner pulled up a zook and fired it from the hatch instead of the .50cal, would be great for chasing down 222s. But with the 57mm at Lt could be too much, so if the zook is removed completely it could be used to justify the price reduction you suggested? Or maybe make the shooting the zook from the hatch a munitions ability. So it could be used as an occasional chase-down after using the At Gun.

tbh more than anything I'd love light vehicles to retain some kind of use late game as support/utility vehicles. e.g (M20) https://www.coh2.org/topic/78085/suggestion-replace-major-with-an-m20-car-upgrade/page/1#post_id684383

I feel like the T70's recon mode makes it useful in spotting for Td's and at guns late game. and it's always decent at chewing through infantry like the luchs.

I don't know what could be given to the 222 tho? Perhaps give it an upgrade or vet to a command vehicle and replace the P4 command tank with something else in the commanders.

And i'd make the brit treadbreaker shot on the AEC work in one shot, it could make up for the snarelessness of brit infantry. Have one single very powerful, long range snare in exchange for none on inf. AEC could then be good for snaring heavies late game.


And Making the teching linear would be amazing, perhaps give LT the 'on me' ability on top of the smokes so there's just one officer squad for rifleman to follow, then just remove CAPT and make that tier have no free unit.

So after all of that ^

T0 - Inf
T1(free lt squad) - Rifle support units (.50cal, 57mm, M20)
T2 (no free unit)- Light vehicles/ heavy fire support (howie/Stuart/AAHT)
T3 (M20 car upgrade for forward retreat) - Tanks

And? Do you think the HMG can unsetup and resetup facing 2 squads flanking?

Brit doesn't need light, that's probably why everyone build a carrier and upgrade the vicker asap in every game I see and the same for the AEC. Light is meta, every faction get access to it and should use it. In the current state of the game if the USF doesn't need to build light that's probably because the player outplayed his opponent on the early game, and this is the same for every faction, in that case you can skip light and rush medium if you want.

Vickers is upgraded because wasp is poop after the nerf last patch, works ok Vs okw and kubel but against ostheer bren carrier is suicide

You don't even need 222 or pak to kill Brit UC, just Panzerfaust range bullitin and grens lol

Esxile kept attacking me ad hominem for making these exact same points. Waiting to see that rabid dog bite you for making the same reasonable claims.

You basically pointed out the exact same facts that I did: Riflemen can handle Grens early game, struggle when LMGs come online, but regain their footing late game with veterancy and upgrades. And that Riflemen struggle vs OKW early game, but when veterancy and upgrades kick in, really dominate the infantry engagements. For pointing out something that's statistically true I was subjected to slander and non-stop verbal abuse. Which Theodosis did nothing to stop except to censor my rebuttals, but yeah whatever.

I mean, KoreanJesus was telling outright lies, saying that Volks are more durable than Riflemen. Volks at Vet 3 get 0.8 received accuracy and get no combat bonuses after Vet 3, vs Riflemen who have double the ra bonuses (0.6 ra at vet 3). But sure, outright lies by the OP and ad hominem attacks by Esxile get a free pass.

I play both USF AND Axis, so I do agree USF needs some help. I just don't think outright lies and false information are the way to suggest improvements.

Imo, giving every mainline infantry non-doctrinal sandbags or standardising sandbags on engineer units would help to mitigate the problem. Another possibility would be to reduce Riflemen cost while nerfing their veterancy bonuses. Specifically targeting OKW and making them start with a Volks instead of a Sturm might also be a viable solution.

Bro, when you get top 30. Snipe me in solo queue. "Nobody" plays USF in GCS

Bro, when you get top 30. Snipe me in solo queue. "Nobody" plays USF in GCS

Being higher ranked than me doesn't change the fact that your arguments are based on outright lies, and you repeating them multiple times doesn't make it true.

The worst thing is that we're actually on the same side. We actually agree fundamentally that USF needs help or changes. The difference between you and me is that I posted actual arguments and actual solutions. You posted misinformation and nonsensical exaggerations. When people read your rubbish, they will not take the issue seriously.

Even if DevM or Luvnest said something blatantly false like "T34-85 has higher penetration than Panther" to say Soviet is the best faction, I would point out that the numbers are incorrect. Being a highly ranked player doesn't give you the right to distort the truth. Even a rank 1000 player can point out blatant mistruths.

I've no doubt that you have higher mechanical skill than me, since your rank is easily 50 to 100 spots higher. But you're also the guy who insisted Vet 3 Volks (0.8ra) have higher durability than Vet 3 Riflemen (0.6ra).

Being higher ranked than me doesn't change the fact that your arguments are based on outright lies, and you repeating them multiple times doesn't make it true.

The worst thing is that we're actually on the same side. We actually agree fundamentally that USF needs help or changes. The difference between you and me is that I posted actual arguments and actual solutions. You posted misinformation and nonsensical exaggerations. When people read your rubbish, they will not take the issue seriously.

Even if DevM or Luvnest said something blatantly false like "T34-85 has higher penetration than Panther" to say Soviet is the best faction, I would point out that the numbers are incorrect. Being a highly ranked player doesn't give you the right to distort the truth. Even a rank 1000 player can point out blatant mistruths.

I've no doubt that you have higher mechanical skill than me, since your rank is easily 50 to 100 spots higher. But you're also the guy who insisted Vet 3 Volks (0.8ra) have higher durability than Vet 3 Riflemen (0.6ra).

Bro, in a perfect situation yes rifle out damage volks. You have to take other factors into consideration. Rifle takes forever to fire snare, no sandbag, more expensive to reinforce, no long range damage.

Bro, in a perfect situation yes rifle out damage volks. You have to take other factors into consideration. Rifle takes forever to fire snare, no sandbag, more expensive to reinforce, no long range damage.

So basically your saying if they are used poorly, they perform poorly.

Bro, that isn't a balance issue, you just need to l2p.

Oh and you are still lying when you say riflemen have 0 long range dps just like when you said volks were more durable.

I have a feeling Korean Jesus and CODGUY are the same person...... The level of exaggeration coming from these two is unsettling.