USF Tech Changes Mod Changelog

I agree with Sherlock that 30 fuel is too much and lowering it would open up more diverse builds because then the Lt (or Capt) can be picked as the 3rd squad rather than another Riflemen first and a support weapon (HMG) as the 4th unit. Removing the forced 3rd Riflemen would also open up much more options to comfortably field elite infantry later.

20 might be too low though, as it would significantly lower the timing for weapon racks or grenades unlock and potentially create power spike problems in balance. Maybe 25 is better (20-25 FU is what one should have around the 280 MP mark for a third squad). And the MP cost for the officer should be upped to around 200 MP for the same reason. Also if this is changed so the LT can serve as a 3rd unit, the BAR 'upgrade' for the LT should be tied to the weapon racks.

Do you get XP (= progress on commander points) now when you tech as USF at least? It is quite a disadvantage if your opponent has 1-2 commander points more just from building tech structures. You still get a free squad tho so I guess it's fair...

No, you can't do the 3rd option, because you'd float manpower. And that's exactly why I said Lt should be 20 fuel and the 10 fuel put into the unlock tech for light vehicles

My bad, I read the opposite, sorry!

Do you get XP (= progress on commander points) now when you tech as USF at least? It is quite a disadvantage if your opponent has 1-2 commander points more just from building tech structures. You still get a free squad tho so I guess it's fair...

Having to return you engineer in base to spend time to built structure is a disadvantage also.
Having to spend resources researching in battle phases is a disadvantage also.

The grass is not greener on the other side of the fence.

I've always found argument that: "they make factions too same" weird, as its often only refered towards things like, having mortar team for faction or lack of sniper or flamethrower or etc.

I myself believe, that every faction should have access to same basic tools avaiable, mortar, hmg team, flamethrower or hell sniper could be considered as a tool. With units like vehicles, elites and tanks and maybe basic infatry/engineers you can go assymmetrical, like with current medium tank lineup (cromwell most mobile, t 34 cheap, okw pnz4 most durable, ost pnz 4 decent allarounder and sherman very adaptable infantry support vehicle.

I hate the idea we need to keep for example brittish crippled when it comes to mobile indirect fire, forcing its mortars be stationary as it would be "too simular" or force flamethrowers as only doctrinal tool so they are not "too simular".

The problem is not making faction the same, the problem is taking the best a faction has and giving it to another faction without taking into account the weakness of the faction that had it.

Prime examples:
Wer had the best mortar because it suited its combined arm/defensive style, a similar mortar was gives to USF and was completely broken since USF already had the best mainline infantry.

Soviet where given "rifle company riflemen" style penals with flamers, it was proven a disaster since Soviet has better tech tree and plethora of call in units. (see Penal->DSK->M4C spam)

Moving to your example with UKF now, adding a mortar to UKF even at Soviet level will also prove disastrous because UKF will be better than Ostheer defensively (Tommies with heal, spot, duel lmgs, emplacements...) will have indirect fire support and powerful "off maps" like base howizters and doctrinal abilities/units. If one gives a mortar to the UKF faction one has to tone down the rest of the faction to Ostheer levels.

One has to either make all faction very similar and start rebalancing or makes changes keep in mind the strengths and weakness of each faction. What one should not do is go with "grass is greener on the other side of fence" approach taking the best of faction and giving it to another with a completely different design. (see turning Dozer into a Brumbar, Stormtrooper into commandos, M4C into T-34/85 and so on...)

Wer had the best mortar because it suited its combined arm/defensive style, a similar mortar was gives to USF and was completely broken since USF already had the best mainline infantry

The USF mortar was broken because Relic patched in some sort of heat-seeking nuke launcher instead of the mortar they actually tested.

As a unit, it exists as USF's HMG and garrison counter. Before the USF mortar, your first tool to fight a bunker was the Pack Howitzer, and if an HMG got into a building over your fuel or cutoff you just had to leave it there.

OKW has Incendiary Grenades for the exact same reason: to get units out of garrison cover.

The USF mortar was broken because Relic patched in some sort of heat-seeking nuke launcher instead of the mortar they actually tested.

Yeah, it was literally 60 range Ost mortar.

Prime examples:
Wer had the best mortar because it suited its combined arm/defensive style, a similar mortar was gives to USF and was completely broken since USF already had the best mainline infantry.

Soviet where given "rifle company riflemen" style penals with flamers, it was proven a disaster since Soviet has better tech tree and plethora of call in units. (see Penal->DSK->M4C spam)

Moving to your example with UKF now, adding a mortar to UKF even at Soviet level will also prove disastrous because UKF will be better than Ostheer defensively (Tommies with heal, spot, duel lmgs, emplacements...) will have indirect fire support and powerful "off maps" like base howizters and doctrinal abilities/units. If one gives a mortar to the UKF faction one has to tone down the rest of the faction to Ostheer levels.

One has to either make all faction very similar and start rebalancing or makes changes keep in mind the strengths and weakness of each faction. What one should not do is go with "grass is greener on the other side of fence" approach taking the best of faction and giving it to another with a completely different design. (see turning Dozer into a Brumbar, Stormtrooper into commandos, M4C into T-34/85 and so on...)

The stated examples are somewhat poor and there is quite a lot of misrepresentation and misinformation contained within. The Ost mortar is still the strongest. The issue did not arise because USF had strong mainline infantry but because a mortar that was designed to go up against 6 man squads now went up against 4 man squads and for that reason, understandably, overperformed drastically. The same way the ost mortar somewhat overperforms against squads that are smaller than 6 men.

Penals were never given flamethrowers, they had them when the game launched, you can see them in IGN's original review (https://youtu.be/QH7kFOrnYoo?t=158). The DshK, sherman call-in meta was when Penals had already lost the flamethrowers in the run-up and during GCS 1. The dshk was then addressed only last December after it had become a dominant meta (after GCS).

"grass is greener on the other side of fence" I see this expression being tossed around ad absurdum to oppose any and all changes. While I do agree that not everything should be homogenised between factions, the two examples made are rather poor again since they only focus on one aspect while completely ignoring all others. In the case of the dozer, the only thing considered is the projectile and aoe profile, completely ignoring, health and armour which are the other aspects that make the brumbar powerful. For the m4c it's again only its potency against tanks while completely ignoring the bigger health pool the t34 85 has or the fact that it is a toggled ability that lowers reload. If anything the unit is more distinct from the t34 85 than ever since it also loses its soviet veterancy (which is stronger) for the usf one.

The USF mortar was broken because Relic patched in some sort of heat-seeking nuke launcher instead of the mortar they actually tested.

As a unit, it exists as USF's HMG and garrison counter. Before the USF mortar, your first tool to fight a bunker was the Pack Howitzer, and if an HMG got into a building over your fuel or cutoff you just had to leave it there.

OKW has Incendiary Grenades for the exact same reason: to get units out of garrison cover.

That bug was fixed in by "July 28th Hotfix". By march 28th it was finally realized that a wer clone mortar for USF was OP and it was redesigned with 65 range.

OKW incendiary grenades where introduced as answer a the specific tactic of maxim spam.

My suggestion

lieut,captain 150/30-> 200/30

M20 car : 240/20->250/30, skirt equiped basically, delete bazooka

top 50cal penetration 3/2/1 -> 7/6/5

vet 2 +15% accuracy -> increase penetration 30%


Lieutenant : 50cal, M20, AAHT

Captain : 57mm ATgun, stuart, pack howitzer


As USF player, AAHT with ATgun will be OP

i also play axis, dont want USF be OP, just want some "useful change"


Tech chage is good thing but main problem of USF is Rifleman

m1 garand dmg is so low and also accuracy is not good

so they cant deal with heavy coever in mid-range even they are expensive unit

so rifleman need more some change to deal with other axis mid-long ranged cheap infantry

vet 1 rifle grenade -> +10% accuracy
vet 3 garand dmg 8 -> 10

rifle grenade -> need grenade unlock

lastly, plz rework shitty rifle company and nerf guard rifle

The stated examples are somewhat poor and there is quite a lot of misrepresentation and misinformation contained within. The Ost mortar is still the strongest.

That is simply incorrect, currently in live Ostheer and USF mortar are almost identical.

The issue did not arise because USF had strong mainline infantry but because a mortar that was designed to go up against 6 man squads now went up against 4 man squads and for that reason, understandably, overperformed drastically. The same way the ost mortar somewhat overperforms against squads that are smaller than 6 men. As others have stated it was also an error on Relic's part and not the right mortar was implemented initially.

The bugs where fixed by "July 28th Hotfix", yet by March 28 it was deiced ti was op and it was nerfed. Even if one toned down USF to be a "wer clone" vs 4 entities the USF would still have an advantage because their option to flank an enemy position if much better than wer who is forced in more static type of game by faction desing.

Penals were never given flamethrowers, they had them when the game launched, you can see them in IGN's original review (https://youtu.be/QH7kFOrnYoo?t=158).

I never claimed that Penal where given flamer (those where available for year with no problems), I said Soviet where given a "rifle company riflemen" type of infantry in the patches penas only more powerful since 6 men entities, flamers and ourah combination.

The DshK, sherman call-in meta was when Penals had already lost the flamethrowers in the run-up and during GCS 1. The dshk was then addressed only last December after what, after GCS, became a dominant meta.

Penal had flamer for 7 month until march, so regardless when it become a meta it was available. Of course there was no need since they could rolfststomp everything even without lend lease.

"grass is greener on the other side of fence" I see this expression being tossed around ad absurdum to oppose any and all changes.

I can not speak of other, but I use the expression when someone does a comparison without taking into account all relevant factor.
As an example in this thread it was claim that faction that have to build base structures have an advantage because they gain XP when having to actually built basestructures is more of disadvantage.

While I do agree that not everything should be homogenised between factions, the two examples made are rather poor again since they only focus on one aspect while completely ignoring all others. In the case of the dozer, the only thing considered is the projectile and aoe profile, completely ignoring, health and armour which are the other aspects that make the brumbar powerful. For the m4c it's again only its potency against tanks while completely ignoring the bigger health pool the t34 85 has or the fact that it is a toggled ability that lowers reload. If anything the unit is more distinct from the t34 85 than ever since it also loses its soviet veterancy (which is stronger) for the usf one.

The claim that Dozer is not mine it clearly stated by the moderation team.

Sherman 105mm Dozer

The intention has been to give this unit a more devastating anti-infantry and emplacement profile. Stats reflect a less potent Brumbar, with the upside being that the 105mm is turreted.

-AOE damage from 1/0.35/0.0.5 to 1/0.35/0.175
-AOE distance from 0.325/0.75/5.5 to 0.425/1/5
-Range reduced from 40 to 35
-Distance scatter max from 4.8 to 2.5
-Veterancy 2 Bonuses from +20% speed, +20% rotation, +30% Accuracy, +20% Accel/Decel, to +160 health, -15% weapon reload, +20% rotation
-Veterancy 3 Bonuses from 3: +35 weapon rotation, -20% Reload to +35% weapon rotation, -10% weapon reload, +30% Accel/Decel
-Now deals 50% damage on deflection; akin to Brummbar

Changes to units/abilities should reflect on what a faction needs according to its design taking account strengths and weakness and not what another factions has.
Now I am not sure why are going off topic which is USF tech proposed changes.

That bug was fixed in by "July 28th Hotfix". By march 28th it was finally realized that a wer clone mortar for USF was OP and it was redesigned with 65 range.

OKW incendiary grenades where introduced as answer a the specific tactic of maxim spam.

From the patch notes,

Volksgrenadiers

We wanted to give OKW a soft building counter options. This should help OKW deal against garrisoned enemies. (Need an icon)

• Grenade replaced with incendiary grenade

In the case of the dozer, the only thing considered is the projectile and aoe profile, completely ignoring, health and armour which are the other aspects that make the brumbar powerful. For the m4c it's again only its potency against tanks while completely ignoring the bigger health pool the t34 85 has or the fact that it is a toggled ability that lowers reload. If anything the unit is more distinct from the t34 85 than ever since it also loses its soviet veterancy (which is stronger) for the usf one.

Also Stormtroopers were changed because they were pretty identical to Panzergrenadiers and served no real distinct role, with the Commandos approach basically being the only viable option to rework them (except for a utility disruption squad that was apparently decided against). Dozer AOE changes are nothing more than a logical step after the Brummbär experiment, and it should be implemented for other HE (and heavy) tanks too. The M4C changes are comparable to the Stormtroopers situation as moving towards T-34-85 charactaristics was the only way to give it a more distinct role alongside the normal M4.

Also Stormtroopers were changed because they were pretty identical to Panzergrenadiers and served no real distinct role, with the Commandos approach basically being the only viable option to rework them (except for a utility disruption squad that was apparently decided against). Dozer AOE changes are nothing more than a logical step after the Brummbär experiment, and it should be implemented for other HE (and heavy) tanks too. The M4C changes are comparable to the Stormtroopers situation as moving towards T-34-85 charactaristics was the only way to give it a more distinct role alongside the normal M4.

Stormtroopers modeled after commandos is not the only viable option, that is simply incorrect. Stormtroopers should be designed around the "encirclement" commander, else that commander needs to be redesigned.

Dozer being modeled after Brumbar is anything but logical since most people complain brumbar is OP. What makes it even less logical is the fact that it can become available by a simply MU upgrade of the normal Sherman.

I brought up these as examples to explain why units should not be cloned across faction without taking into account the particular weakness and strengths of each faction and not start a debate about them. Can we now pls return to the topic which is USF tech?

So you want Stormtroopers to be a utility disruption squad, which is what I suggested too but the balance team said they decided against such a change. Like I mentioned. So Commandos approach was the only option left.

Again like Sherlock said, it's not the Brummbär's AOE profile that makes it considered OP (it's less wipey than ever) but its combination with high armor and free barrage ability.

But this is going offtopic.

What makes it even less logical is the fact that it can become available by a simply MU upgrade of the normal Sherman.

Someone's clearly never actually used that upgrade.

That is simply incorrect, currently in live Ostheer and USF mortar are almost identical.

"almost" is not identical, is it? No one will dispute that the ost mortar is the strongest.

The bugs where fixed by "July 28th Hotfix", yet by March 28 it was deiced ti was op and it was nerfed. Even if one toned down USF to be a "wer clone" vs 4 entities the USF would still have an advantage because their option to flank an enemy position if much better than wer who is forced in more static type of game by faction desing.

Your original post made it out to be the fact that rifles are stronger was the reason why the mortar in usf hands was too strong, when it is clearly the mortar that is too strong period when going up against smaller squads, that was the thing I was pointing out.

I never claimed that Penal where given flamer (those where available for year with no problems), I said Soviet where given a "rifle company riflemen" type of infantry in the patches penas only more powerful since 6 men entities, flamers and ourah combination.

I quoted your original statement in my response. Your exact words were: "Soviet where given "rifle company riflemen" style penals with flamers, it was proven a disaster since Soviet has better tech tree and plethora of call in units. (see Penal->DSK->M4C spam)"

The intention has been to give this unit a more devastating anti-infantry and emplacement profile. Stats reflect a less potent Brumbar, with the upside being that the 105mm is turreted.

Using an established and known unit to describe how one aspect of a unit will perform (here the damage) doesn't mean they are the same, it simply means they use it to describe it with something that is known. They also highlight the difference to the brumbar in the very part you highlight, it is less potent (the gun), all other differences (health, armour) are still the same.

What makes it even less logical is the fact that it can become available by a simply MU upgrade of the normal Sherman.

I assume you're referring to the mechanised company ability. The munition upgrade doesn't give the sherman the dozer gun, it gives it only the dozer in front of the tank which boosts it health and gives it the ability to clear obstacles and build barricades.


Back to topic:

I've had a chance to have a couple games with a friend.

The initial observations remain: the Lt cost should be lowered in my opinion to open up builds.

The m20 feels more viable but the mine is still a sore spot: too expensive to use it when playing usf, too frustrating when you face it and see your tank completely disabled. My suggestion here still is a teller clone.

I am not sure if it is necessary to lower the cost of nades. I'd rather keep the costs high but make the upgrade for light vehicles global and therefore making backteching (having both lieutenant and captain and all vehicles available cheaper but unlocking the vehicles for one officer with vehicles still as expensive) and therefore open up more builds.

Maybe I'm a bit biased by my own mod (inspired by Lago's ideas in another thread), but I'd agree with others that the officer should be more expensive in terms of manpower. I would also set the research time for the officers identical to the build time of a rifle since they could/should replace another rifleman squad. The unlock of the light vehicle should then be the remaining time so that the overall research time does not change in comparison to the current system.

pak howies in team games?

Must be vs an all ostheer team too. Never do this vs okw and their early game rocket arty.

I love the direction of these changes. However, I think going LT+CPT is too attractive a choice. My recommendation is to only give the first one researched their free officer. In return, the other tier is researched in 45 seconds instead of 90.

Goddamn finally.