Infantry Section stats and some other questions

Hello, fellow forumers

I'd like to ask the people who really know about this game some questions about the infantry sections:

1) How they compare with other axis basic infantry? I've read around that they are basically grens, but if so, is their veterancy equivalent? Isn't their RA better than grens?

2) What is the effect of the scoped Lee Enfields on the sections?

3) How does the Lee Enfield compare with the Kar98?

4) I usually go for 3 sections (2 healing, 1 with flares) - do you have other suggestions?

5) Is there any builds or maps that teching grenades first is a better idea? (1v1 perspective)

6) Sometimes I skip all tech to break fast my first Cromwell. Still, it comes not much earlier than a P4. Do you think it's worth to rush tanks, on a usual match, or is it better to tech extra men on IS and engies first?

7) How often do you build the mortar emplacement? And the Bofors?

That seems to be all. Thank in advance!

So most of the answers to your questions are in here:

https://coh2db.com/stats/

https://www.coh2.org/guides/29892/the-company-of-heroes-2-veterancy-guide

(Note that the vet site is not up to date, but probably less than half of the units on there had their vet bonuses changed since then. I believe sections only had their scoped enfields removed with all of their other bonuses being untouched.)

To go over some of those answers quickly though:

-They'll win against both grens and volks at long range in cover to cover battles. They'll probably win against grens long range in open cover battles. Long range in open cover against volks is probably a toss up.

-Yes, they have better RA than grens (shown on the website).

-Scoped Lee enfields were removed as a vet bonus (again, iirc). They also had no actual affect on the performance of the sections (but they did take priority over brens...).

-3 sections with that kind of split of upgrades is fine. You can go with all healing if you want (if you don't care for the arty flares, that is), but don't get more than one flare squad.

-Nades usually aren't that map dependent I think (its not like they deny cover). They're usually build dependent. If the enemy is heavy on HMGs or you just want to catch them off guard then you should consider nades. I suppose crossroads really facilitates nade spam because of the super safe muni points and high resources though.

-Always extra man in my opinion. The fuel you spend on the upgrade will probably be made up for by the extra territory you'll hold due to the extra power the upgrade gives.

-Usually never. Mortar pit if its the right map (meaning you can protect it and it can fire on key areas), and if you really need the indirect fire. The bofors is never really built seriously. If you want to build it, go ahead though. The sim city style of play can be fun (for you, not your opponent).

-For all of the weapon + vet stats you're asking about, just look at the DPS graphs on the website. Note that the one for the enfield assumes the sections are in cover. If not, their DPS will be lower than what is shown on the graph.

Thank you very much for your answers. I remember now that the scoped Lee Enfields were no longer part of the veterancy because of the “piñata effect” on IS armed with double brens.

Another question: I noticed that a lot of Brit players like to open the tank game with the Centaur. How do you feel about it and how to make it last? I usually can’t make it go past vet2 before being destroyed, and I know it is because I overextended. Is the Centaur a more defensive asset?

From my own experience (as I prefer skipping AEC and rush Centaurs) Centaurs are generally a defensive unit.

Play defensively with your Centaur, and use it to turn infantry engagements. Back it up with credible AT assets. Offensively, use it to support a large push.

it's hard to compare tommies to volks in a vacuum, incediary nades really do balance things massivly into volks favor being able to make cover useless in short-mid engagements (much more so than slight differences to DPS at range or StG which is why you see many top players spamming nades rather that quad upgrading stg).

Vs grens tommies have an easier time, tommy have more RA but grens have free rifle nade and MG42. You can pay upgrade 5man but then also your tommy pop is more expensive and you'll be reinforcing more, so there's a trade off (if there's no indirect etc I usually save the fuel and build another squad or call in commandos).

Scoped enfields were removed and tommy cover bonus was also removed two patches ago. you're better off blobbing and a-moving now.

...and tommy cover bonus was also removed two patches ago.

Reduced*

and tommy cover bonus was also removed two patches ago.

Only the Received Accuracy (-10%) was removed. They still get better ROF from the cover bonus.

Only the Received Accuracy (-10%) was removed. They still get better ROF from the cover bonus.

No the only effective "buff" was the 10% RA in cover

the "better RoF" basically means nothing with enfields and with brens it's noticeable, BUT what people don't realize is that it's effectively a debuff when they are out of cover.

Compare the RoF with Sapper PIATS and the slow RoF of Tommy PIAT out of cover, this is because any picked up weapon is weaker RoF wise on Tommy than say grens or rifles, only in cover do they perform at normal levels. Cruzz explained this in detail

... BUT what people don't realize is that it's effectively a debuff when they are out of cover.

Exactly. So when you say the cover bonus was removed, these people you mentioned, in this case the original poster specifically, will think there is now no tommy specific benefit (id call the removal of a debuff a benefit) to being in cover anymore. If you word things like that and dont actually fully explain the mechanic, then theyre probably going to come away with an incorrect understanding.

Also, its semantics, but the removal of a debuff could be seen as a buff. It depends on what youre taking as the baseline.

Also, its semantics, but the removal of a debuff could be seen as a buff. It depends on what youre taking as the baseline.

This is the sort of thing that just built up the hype to smashing UKF with the nerf hammer until even Hans gave them up. People taking the in cover stats with double brens and ignoring the weaker baseline stats and comparing them to volks begging for nerfs.

So yea I don't like the fact people refer to it as a buff at all, a buff or bonus sounds like you're getting something for nothing on top of regular infantry upgrades... but the DPS of the weapon upgrades is weaker than on other infantry. Hence why I said the "bonus" was removed with the 10% in WBP

This is the sort of thing that just built up the hype to smashing UKF with the nerf hammer until even Hans gave them up. People taking the in cover stats with double brens and ignoring the weaker baseline stats and comparing them to volks begging for nerfs.

You know this how? You're implying you know the actual conversations that led to the UKF nerfs and what reasons were ultimately used to justify them.

IMO baseline should be considered as out of cover performance. The fact that sections perform better in cover than out of cover is more or less a buff regardless of how that’s coded to come around. It’s also worth knowing that sections perform poorly out of cover (then maybe people would stop complaining about PIAT blobs of all things) but it’s still essentially an in-cover buff that they perform better in cover than out of cover, which needs to be stated so people don’t get confused, as Jae said.

Brits got nerfed because they used to be OP. They’re very weak now that they’ve had all their crutches removed and still lack a bunch of basic stuff but there’s no denying that some of their units used to be stupid overpowered.

They’re very weak now that they’ve had all their crutches removed and still lack a bunch of basic stuff

They are weak in 1v1s due to several reasons, but the current 2v2 tourney seems to be proving they are still very capable in team games. So far they are in the lead with a 65% win ratio.

They are weak in 1v1s due to several reasons, but the current 2v2 tourney seems to be proving they are still very capable in team games. So far they are in the lead with a 65% win ratio.

Yeah I should have clarified 1v1. I like using them in teamgames and even do pretty well in 1v1s with them but it is undeniable that there’s a lot of factors that make the faction as a whole kind of shitty for most people to play with, most glaringly the lack of a lot of pretty basic stuff. I only really get by by making the absolute most out of commandos, which, at the risk of sounding a bit self-promoting, does take a ton of micro (point being that they’re very hard to use and not necessarily OP as a result IMO).

And in terms of 1v1 win ratios they won like 2 matches in all of GCS XD

They are weak in 1v1s due to several reasons, but the current 2v2 tourney seems to be proving they are still very capable in team games. So far they are in the lead with a 65% win ratio.

Where are the stats for that tourney posted? Been looking for those

Analysis by Siphon: https://www.coh2.org/topic/83846/ac-2v2-tournament-statistics

Now, I'd like to know your opinion: do you think that IS are well balanced? Are they worth 280 MP? I have the feeling that they cost this just because they can be bolstered. At 4 entities that can't fire without cover, I can't exactly say I'm happy using them.

Now, I'd like to know your opinion: do you think that IS are well balanced? Are they worth 280 MP? I have the feeling that they cost this just because they can be bolstered. At 4 entities that can't fire without cover, I can't exactly say I'm happy using them.

I started playing British a while ago, and i was hearing people saying that British are not good. Well, i have to say that IS are great. Use them behind cover until you get Bren guns. Then they are awesome in firefights

Now, I'd like to know your opinion: do you think that IS are well balanced? Are they worth 280 MP? I have the feeling that they cost this just because they can be bolstered. At 4 entities that can't fire without cover, I can't exactly say I'm happy using them.

Not sure who you are asking, but I guess I'll give my answer.

IS are well balanced. This doesn't necessarily mean I think that they're a well designed unit, because I don't.

The easiest way to evaluate their performance, I find, is to compare them to grens.

IS enfields are like gren kars, except with a more flat DPS curve (higher far damage, lower close damage). Since long range damage is usually more useful than close range damage, this means that IS enfields are generally preferable to gren kars, but only slightly. Of course, this is assuming the sections are in cover, but that's usually not too much of a talking point since you're probably going to lose any engagements in which you're not utilizing cover. Also, its around a 10% loss of DPS for enfields when you're out of cover, so its not the most impactful thing. I make a similar argument for moving performance - you don't want to be firing on the move anyway, so its almost entirely irrelevant.

A large difference is that IS have a target size of .8 while grens have a target size of .91. IS are noticeably more durable.

Veterancy massively favors grenadiers as they get better bonuses and they get the good bonuses earlier. 40% accuracy at vet 2 is a massive advantage.

Grens have snares and rifle grenades tied to regular ostheer teching - they have a really long range on them too.

IS can be bolstered and double equip brens. A single bren is very noticeably weaker than a single lmg42, with double brens being a fair bit stronger.

IS cost 280 with a reinforce cost of 28. Grens cost 240 with a reinforce cost of 30.

So the general comparison is: IS trade roughly evenly with grens out of cover and usually win in cover, which is probably doesn't favor IS quite enough for the 280 mp vs 240 mp comparison but does massively favor them in the 28 vs 30 reinforce costs. Soon upgrades start coming in (usually bolster for IS and the lmg42 for grens), but infantry sections will still win (heavily at close range, and slightly at max range) - bleed inflicted will mostly be the same for each side though at max range. When grens hit vet 2 they'll win long range and lose close range less hard. When infantry sections get brens theyll win long range again.

So assuming both players hit standard upgrade timings, infantry sections should usually win while also being slightly more efficient bleed wise. Grens are very dependent on vet, which really hurts if you have to replace a gren squad. I find this to be alright considering grens are (from what I can tell) balanced as a weak point for ostheer and infantry sections are balanced as a strong point for UKF. The cost and performance of these units balanced in relation to each other in isolation.

Even if the dynamic is balanced, it does mean that IS will probably be slightly overcosted at vanilla performance to make up for their overperformance when fully upgraded, as you thought.