[TEST] Best Long Range Anti Infantry Unit

So, I'm on vacations now and decided to find out who is the best unit in long-range combat and I came with this order. It should come with a good discussion for the balance

Rules:
All units are maxed vet, so vet 5 for OKW and vet 3 for the rest.
All units are best well armed possible (2 Brens commandos/1 MG34 Obersoldaten) and using free abilities. Guards are using Hit the Dirt.
All units in green cover with the conscripts sandbags
All squad to squad combat.
The squad must win 2 consecutive times.
The range is the limit of the middle VIP of the crossing in the woods.

• Jaeger Light Infantry Squad (G43)
  
• Obersoldaten (MG34)
  
• Guards (2 DPS)
  
• Rangers (3 BARS)
  
• Paratroopers (2 M1919)
  
• Commandos (2 Brens)
  
• Infantry Section (2 Brens)
  
• Sappers (1 Vickers and 2 Brens)
  
• Rifleman (1 M1919 and 1 BAR)
  
• Fallschirmjäger
  
• Grenadier (MG42)
  
• Panzerfusiliers (G43)
  
• Pathfinders (2 BARS)
  
• Jaeger Command Squad
  
  

Notes: Commandos won vs guards once. So I did test two more times.
Obers lost to JLIs even using suppression fire.
I did not test every confront in the low tier. But the high tier is very well tested.
I didn't mention before that Pathfinder was using BARS
Yellow cover tests were done and the only difference was on the matchup between JLIs and Obers when Obers won 3/10 battles and the rest was a pretty close call. So I can conclude that in yellow cover they are almost the same.

If you have any suggestion or you want to know any other confront you can just ask.

I'm surprised to see the jeager command squad perform so poorly.

I'm surprised to see the jeager command squad perform so poorly.

Most of the other units on the list have weapons with DPS curves that improve over distance; they don't.

The test being behind cover also give JLI a pretty big advantage, since that's where their G43 shines.

Guards would have lost to Paratroopers if they weren't using Hit the Dirt, too. They have better RA, but Paras have 30% more ranged DPS. Since paras can also shoot on the move, they're at a pretty big advantage in real engagements.

Where is the most being complained OP all-rounded super versatile rifleman lolll?

Where is the most being complained OP all-rounded super versatile rifleman lolll?

Rifleman is not good at long range, it's better with m1919, but still not near the other units

Bars on pathfinders?

JLI is pretty fookin op things

he is just 1cp 280mp call-in infantry

Why does this unit only receive a high RA bonus?

Even they beat obersoldaten


It's only a result of fantasy about Germany

Its is like: lets make a contest and make the rules so one unit must win, because the rules are made for them.

test the same units without cover and come back.
test the same units at some other ranges and come back.

Thanks for the effort and post - interesting to see JLI as the best unit in 1v1

Not really sure what's the point of that, considering all these squads have very different timing and costs.

Its is like: lets make a contest and make the rules so one unit must win, because the rules are made for them.

test the same units without cover and come back.
test the same units at some other ranges and come back.

Using Cover is the most realistic scenario, being a core component of the entire combat system and all. Using no cover isn't. Because cover is a core component of the entire combat system. The fact that JLI, 1cp 280mp infantry can beat even Obers, who are the latest arriving and some of the most expensive in the entire game is an absolute testiment to their power, that's before even considering they get a 50%accuracy bonus out of camo and camo allows them to select which engagements they want to fight.

This test is SPECIFICALLY testing the best long range squad, using ONLY long range squads, why would they test at any range but each squads optimal range? It's best case scenario for all those units and most likley the targets they will be facing (because trying to close against a long range squad is a guaranteed lost match up, as they can deal damage to you while receiving next to none) or is there something about this match up that you feel is skewed towards a particular long range specialist that makes it far and above other long range specialists?

But for the sake of fairness I too recommend we try the tests at 0 range on neg cover as it is the only way to possibly replicate the real game scenario of how one would use a long range squad.

And after that, I would like to match up shocks, Thompson rangers and commandos at 40 range so we can determine who (if any) is the king of CQB!

Not really sure what's the point of that, considering all these squads have very different timing and costs.

And the top squad is one of the cheapest and earliest hitting squads....

Actually looking at the squads the only ones that are cheaper is grens, and the only 2 that hit sooner are grens and Tommies. (actually fussiliers might fit in to cheaper, I'll admit it's been a while since I used the JT)

Hell, paras have 2 lmgs and 6 men and they lose to them. Guards too, but them ptrs balance that out a bit..

And the top squad is one of the cheapest and earliest hitting squads....

To deploy yes, but as for upkeep they are currently one of the more expensive ones to maintain at 35 MP to reinforce.

AFAIK they are also not the top squad, Obers are. By quite a margin. 2 tests is way too few to properly gauge this as JLI are completely depending on RNG to drop enemy models quickly while units like Obers do steady damage over time.


This test is completely bonkers anyway because of the way testing was done. There is no way to make a proper comparison when you don't test all entries under the exact same circumstances. All these squads should face the same enemy squad, not each other, to get reliable results. Then compare things like time it took to kill enemy squad.

Using Cover is the most realistic scenario, being a core component of the entire combat system and all. Using no cover isn't. Because cover is a core component of the entire combat system. The fact that JLI, 1cp 280mp infantry can beat even Obers, who are the latest arriving and some of the most expensive in the entire game is an absolute testiment to their power, that's before even considering they get a 50%accuracy bonus out of camo and camo allows them to select which engagements they want to fight.

This test is SPECIFICALLY testing the best long range squad, using ONLY long range squads, why would they test at any range but each squads optimal range? It's best case scenario for all those units and most likley the targets they will be facing (because trying to close against a long range squad is a guaranteed lost match up, as they can deal damage to you while receiving next to none) or is there something about this match up that you feel is skewed towards a particular long range specialist that makes it far and above other long range specialists?

But for the sake of fairness I too recommend we try the tests at 0 range on neg cover as it is the only way to possibly replicate the real game scenario of how one would use a long range squad.

And after that, I would like to match up shocks, Thompson rangers and commandos at 40 range so we can determine who (if any) is the king of CQB!

realistically, squads will be fighting in cover and without and at all ranges, just because cover is a core component doesn't mean it will be used at all times,a vet 5 JLI in green cover long range, is the most optimal area for them ofc they will excel in it. But JLI should be 300mp at least

And the top squad is one of the cheapest and earliest hitting squads....

Actually looking at the squads the only ones that are cheaper is grens, and the only 2 that hit sooner are grens and Tommies. (actually fussiliers might fit in to cheaper, I'll admit it's been a while since I used the JT)

Hell, paras have 2 lmgs and 6 men and they lose to them. Guards too, but them ptrs balance that out a bit..

Well, obviously a squad with complete cover ignoring mechanic will be superior in cover to cover firefights(which the game is all about if you're not an utter scrub).

Using Cover is the most realistic scenario, being a core component of the entire combat system and all. Using no cover isn't. Because cover is a core component of the entire combat system. The fact that JLI, 1cp 280mp infantry can beat even Obers, who are the latest arriving and some of the most expensive in the entire game is an absolute testiment to their power, that's before even considering they get a 50%accuracy bonus out of camo and camo allows them to select which engagements they want to fight.

This test is SPECIFICALLY testing the best long range squad, using ONLY long range squads, why would they test at any range but each squads optimal range? It's best case scenario for all those units and most likley the targets they will be facing (because trying to close against a long range squad is a guaranteed lost match up, as they can deal damage to you while receiving next to none) or is there something about this match up that you feel is skewed towards a particular long range specialist that makes it far and above other long range specialists?

But for the sake of fairness I too recommend we try the tests at 0 range on neg cover as it is the only way to possibly replicate the real game scenario of how one would use a long range squad.

And after that, I would like to match up shocks, Thompson rangers and commandos at 40 range so we can determine who (if any) is the king of CQB!

i bet 70% of the real combats are not very good like this. the real game shows you: most fights will be in midrange, on the move, come to close combats, etc etc

not one single dumb monky would stay behind the farest range it is posible when fighting JLI or obers...all enemys would try to come in mid/close range or flank you around corners etc

the 1ww szenario you discripe works not in the real game and not vs good players...

...
And the top squad is one of the cheapest and earliest hitting squads....
...

Not a vet 5 JIL or vet 5 Ober or vet 3 Guards.

JLI vet bonuses are way to high as I have pointed out even during preview...

Falls and JLI do have to hit max vet (which takes a while) before they hit full effectiveness. Try this test with all units having the same experience value (think all squads vet 3, maybe jli and falls vet 4, not sure on the experience numbers), and the tests would look fairly different.

Obviously this doesn't invalidate the results of your test, but it's something to think about. When vet levels are comparable, JLI and falls wouldn't do as well.

Edit: That is something I dislike about this test, or more the conclusions being drawn from it: the squads at the top are at the top because this test favors them. Cover engagements favor jli. Max vet for all favors falls and jli. The engagement being at long range works against the jaeger command squad and panzerfusiliers.

Never have a problem vettig up JLI myself.

Its a small and incomprehensive test, but the results should surprise nobody, and JLI remain broken. Would be good to have a sample size of a hundred each. Got a few days to spare..?

Edit: That is something I dislike about this test, or more the conclusions being drawn from it: the squads at the top are at the top because this test favors them. Cover engagements favor jli. Max vet for all favors falls and jli. The engagement being at long range works against the jaeger command squad and panzerfusiliers.

Even more so the fact that the way these tests were set up (a tested squad facing the previous tested squad) does not produce conclusive results. Or the fact that the incredibly small sample size can potentially favor units that rely more on RNG than others (JLI sniper over Obers LMG for example), or disfavor them. Or the fact that the conclusions drawn do not consider unit cost, timing, role or context. For example Guards do less AI damage for sure, but they have a huge advantage in bringing some light AT as well.

It also seems to use units that are not even remotely comparable (LMG Grens, Jaeger Command Squad, Guards, Panzerfusiliers, etc. all have completely different roles and strengths) to make the top squad(s) seem even better than they really are, although I'm not sure if this was done on purpose.



If one wants to make a truly competetive list, the tests need to be run in a considerable sample size (for the sake of reasonability I'd say 5-10 runs per squad at least, though of course preferably something closer to 100), done in a completely similar testing environment (all tested squads facing the same squad), at different vet levels and in different situations (no/yellow/green cover), comparing only squads that have a very similar role (JLI/Obers/Paras for example) and using something like Time To Kill as a neutral measurement. Then this Time To Kill would have to be brought into perspective by bringing in things like unit cost into comparison.