So Axis SMGs really are intentionally inferior?

Your list.

Pretty much agree with everything.

However, the fg42, bar, and volks stg shouldnt even be on there imo. The fg42, bar, and volks stg have such abnormal curves and performances that its pretty hard to classify them or meaningfully compare them with anything.

...

Same with SMGs. Weapons that only deal damage in melee range are not viable, at all. Shock Troops are an exception because they're "armored".

Dane is right when he says there's no incentive to bring out SMGs and that the game is dominated by rifles, assault rifles, and LMGs, because when your weapon does nothing until you get in melee, even flanking does nothing, because a rifle unit can just turn and fire at your flanking SMG unit and kill it before it gets into range to deal any damage.

...

This is true for some SMG units, but some of them have the necessary tools and deal enough dps to make it worth using them:
- Revamp stormtroopers: very strong cloak + smoke nade
- Commando's: very strong cloak + smoke nade (or super nade)
- Shocktroopers: high survivability + smoke nade

Then there are the weaker SMG units that scale much worse and have weaker tools, which makes the trouble of using them not really worth it:
- Assgrens/feuerstorm volks/arty officer: MP40's have low dps and aren't good on the move.
- PPSH conscripts: Only get three PPSH's with low total dps. Although conscripts don't scale that well anyway and once they've closed in they can use hit the dirt which makes them 50% harder to hit.
- Assault engineers: Good dps with 5 men, but no tools to close in on the enemy.

Squads with more of an assault rifle profile, like rangers and panzergrenadiers, don't get these luxuries, but instead get stronger midrange damage. This makes them useful at a distance from the enemy, but also makes it harder for them to close in to deal their maximum dps.

---
The problem with close range combat in CoH2 is:
1. Long range units are easier to use.
2. Close range units will be focused fired on by the enemy while closing in / when closed in.
3. Close range units will be shot at for longer when retreating.

This doesn't mean close range squads are useless, it just means you shouldn't compose your core army around it. A good flank with a strong close range units can absolutely devastate your opponent because he often has no way to deal with the massive dps once they've closed in.

Keep these tips in mind:
1. Don't use them on their own; make sure the enemy is occupied with something else. (Less important when you have cloak or the enemy squad is on its own).
2. Close in when the enemy has low hp or target the retreat path when your enemy has something like a bar blob or something else that has strong close range dps.
3. Be creative at which angle you come in.

I'm pritty sure he means that as the game goes on, a 30 munitions cost difference is a neglible cost compared to the overall increase in killing power. Which is fair

Not really. Cost opportunity and timing are a thing. The impact of a 60muni flamer is not equal during the first 5 mins of the game compared to 25 mins into the game. You can't just analyse impact of a unit in a vacuum. Another example: Paratroopers on paper sound great, you don't see much use to them because by the time they became online, you already have a big enough army and your needs are not for another "Rifleman" squad with elite AI.

For example, a shitload of people overreacted to the 222 buffs when it first went live.

If only Relic did actually fix the bug with their cost after they buffed the unit. They upped the HP of the unit from 240 > 320 but they used an old build of the 222, cause they made the unit cost 210mp 15f from 230/20f.

Show Spoiler

This comment /thread.

Just to make that comment complete.

IR STG: reminder that it still works as a pseudo non aoe flamethrower cause it partially ignores cover bonuses including garrison.

All assault Rifles (BAR, FG42 and all STG variants) have focus fire = false, which means they have a hidden extra DPS which can't be measured by any chart. They basically can hit other entities outside the model they are currently firing upon.

Thompsons do not have this property (both Paras and Rangers). Neither Royal Engineers.

Commando stens, grease guns, Shocks, Pios, Ass Grens, Ass Guards, Partisans, PPSH cons, Mp40 Volks, etc they all work properly.


UKF and USF "SMG" are unintentionally inferior

The problem with close range combat in CoH2 is:
1. Long range units are easier to use.
2. Close range units will be immediately focused fired on by the enemy while closing in / when closed in.
3. Close range units will be shot at for longer when retreating.

4. They will deal much less damage and have a harder time wiping units on retreat.
5. They rely on most if not all of their models having the same weapon. This means a harder drop off in damage compared to LMG and less likely to deal model kills.

What excuse can there possibly be for just blatantly making Axis weapons and units objectively, observably worse?

Since you're talking about SMGs, let me help you with that!

• almost all are non doctrinal
  
• most are on T0 units, 0CP call-ins and team weapons or otherwise units that arrive much, much earlier then allied equivalents and on a much cheaper squads
  
• The one that is doctrinal and comes later is better then commandos stens
  

If that short list does not convince you, you upgraded too much anti common sense armor and made yourself immune to logic.

They're cheaper.

/thread

Show Spoiler

+1

IIRC 4 Stormtrooper mp40s have a similar dps output to 5 commando stens (so the squads are fairly even on the whole). I don’t see the problem here. A lot of the people claiming the new stormtroopers are bad obviously have no idea how to use camouflage or normal smgs (as opposed to stgs and/or Thompsons). Thompsons are the only smgs that are good out to midrange, and neither of the units that use them can camouflage like commandos/stormtroopers or sprint or throw smoke like other smg troops. Stgs also exist.

Just to make that comment complete.

IR STG: reminder that it still works as a pseudo non aoe flamethrower cause it partially ignores cover bonuses including garrison.

All assault Rifles (BAR, FG42 and all STG variants) have focus fire = false, which means they have a hidden extra DPS which can't be measured by any chart. They basically can hit other entities outside the model they are currently firing upon.

Thompsons do not have this property (both Paras and Rangers). Neither Royal Engineers.

Commando stens, grease guns, Shocks, Pios, Ass Grens, Ass Guards, Partisans, PPSH cons, Mp40 Volks, etc they all work properly.


UKF and USF "SMG" are unintentionally inferior

Thank you, didn't know about some of this information. Also: besides ignoring cover, IR STG's also have extraordinary dps on the move.

4. They will deal much less damage and have a harder time wiping units on retreat.
5. They rely on most if not all of their models having the same weapon. This means a harder drop off in damage compared to LMG and less likely to deal model kills.

Can you elaborate on point 4? What SMG's do you mean in comparison to what other weapons?

Agreed on point 5.

By the nature of the weapon, only when you are at close range you have a great DPS. A unit retreating will move out of your "comfort" zone.

A bolt action non sniper rifle, won't lose DPS because they close in and have much higher chances of doing anything when the unit starts to retreat.

By the nature of the weapon, only when you are at close range you have a great DPS. A unit retreating will move out of your "comfort" zone.

A bolt action non sniper rifle, won't lose DPS because they close in and have much higher chances of doing anything when the unit starts to retreat.

I understand what you mean, but that's just ignoring the fact that theyre doing SIGNIFICANTLY more damage while in their effective range. The only way a rifle is going to do more damage than almost any smg is if the enemy retreats right at 10 units away, and at that point both the damage done and difference in damage done is insignificant. It's a similar thing for stgs vs smgs. Stgs are doing so little damage closing in that the smgs (the ones that dont suck) make up for it once they finally do close in. And, again, if the enemy retreats before the smgs overtake the stgs, then the damage damage done and difference in damage done are probably insignificant - especially since you've accomplished the goal of winning the engagement by forcing the retreat.

Of course rifles will do more damage in raw long range battles, but at that point it's just an unfair comparison. Rifles being more flexible - sure. Rifles doing more damage - hardly.

I understand what you mean, but that's just ignoring the fact that theyre doing SIGNIFICANTLY more damage while in their effective range. The only way a rifle is going to do more damage than almost any smg is if the enemy retreats right at 10 units away, and at that point both the damage done and difference in damage done is insignificant. It's a similar thing for stgs vs smgs. Stgs are doing so little damage closing in that the smgs (the ones that dont suck) make up for it once they finally do close in. And, again, if the enemy retreats before the smgs overtake the stgs, then the damage damage done and difference in damage done are probably insignificant - especially since you've accomplished the goal of winning the engagement by forcing the retreat.

Of course rifles will do more damage in raw long range battles, but at that point it's just an unfair comparison. Rifles being more flexible - sure. Rifles doing more damage - hardly.

Agreed. Also SMG's often have better multipliers while moving than bolt-action rifles, which means they can chase whereas bolt-action rifles should stay still. SMG squads are also often closer to the enemy, which gives them a longer window of opportunity to shoot. LMG's have the opposite where they deal less damage at close range than long range. They also have to reposition often. Generally from best to worst at chasing:

1. Assault rifle squads
2. SMG squads
3. LMG squads (besides BAR squads)
4. Rifle squads

Paratroopers and rangers with thompsons are by far the best squads at chasing. Paratroopers almost guarantee a kill when they use focused fire (I rather have 3 rifles on my retreat path).

Edit: just remembered I haven't tested stg obers yet, they might be better.

As an aside, people keep saying "assault rifle profile." But I'd argue that such a thing doesn't even exist in a meaningful sense; it's kind of just a buzzword of sorts.

If you say an assault rifle profile is "decent damage long range, good damage short range," then I'd argue that criteria is very much up to interpretation. At that point, you could count fg42s and bars as assault rifles - which apparently many people do. However, the fg42 and bar have vastly different curves than any of the stgs, therefore missing the entire point of naming weapon profiles. Why lump them into a category when they behave extremely different from each other?

You could say an assault rifle profile is for whichever weapon has a similar profile to the only assault rifle in the game: the stg. The question then is "which stg?" The pgren stg curve is pretty different from the spio stg curve which are both very different from the volks stg curve. Worse than that, no other weapon in the game that I know of actually has a similar curve to any of these stgs. So you could choose an stg, call whichever profile it has the "assault rifle profile," and again entirely miss the point of profiles: to group weapons that have similar behaviors/curves.

And yes, I would argue that an "smg weapon profile" exists. Min range (max dps) is set to 10 for weapons of this profile with DPS VERY sharply rising starting at around range 13 and the curve beyond that being almost entirely flat. Each of the criteria here are either objective points, or very distinct qualities that apply to a large set of weapons with little ambiguity. To that end, this criteria actually groups together weapons that behave similarly.

Under these distinctions, I'd argue that thompsons and IR stgs actually follow a (generous) smg profile, not some vague assault rifle profile.

(Many edits were had)

Profiles aren't a real and strict term and aren't even used in the actual game coding. It's just something relic came up with when they rebalanced a bunch of units back in 2014 to give some consistency when they described the changes. Volks stgs weren't even a thing then.

There is no point in comparing the actual stats between weapons with arbitrary profiles. Just compare the stats.

Good bias post trying to justify it with the most biased youtuber there is with the name PROPAGANDACAST

Smh

There is no point in comparing the actual stats between weapons with arbitrary profiles. Just compare the stats.

I agree as far as balance discussions are concerned. However, I believe describing weapons in terms of profile (when applicable) really helps the teaching/learning experience. Its much easier for players to learn how a few classes of weapons perform than to look up/ask about the stats for each indiviual weapon. Its also much quicker to write out and makes players that ask for help focus on the important stuff. It allows you to describe a weapons performance while keeping the focus on how a player pilots an engagement.

I agree as far as balance discussions are concerned. However, I believe describing weapons in terms of profile (when applicable) really helps the teaching/learning experience. Its much easier for players to learn how a few classes of weapons perform than to look up/ask about the stats for each indiviual weapon. Its also much quicker to write out and makes players that ask for help focus on the important stuff. It allows you to describe a weapons performance while keeping the focus on how a player pilots an engagement.

This isn't really a teaching/learning thread

This isn't really a teaching/learning thread

Some of the users here would have me think otherwise

Where do CavRifles fall in this discussion, I wonder.

Where do CavRifles fall in this discussion, I wonder.

Assault engineer grease guns and ranger thompsons. So probably better than assault grenadiers and worse than rangers.

Assault engineer grease guns and ranger thompsons. So probably better than assault grenadiers and worse than rangers.

I do really like them, can use smoke and defend themselves from light vehicles, available sooner while being cheaper and likely benefit from Riflemen Bulletins too.

Rangers are like OKW units with veterancy.

Do you see the difference between Kar98K and M1 Grand in the game? M1 Garand should have much better fire rates then Kar98K, since it is semi-automatic rifle.