USF got too many buffs

IMO USF "free" officers is a unique concept that sets USF apart from other factions so this should probably stay. Same goes for the ambulance and the tank crews.

What has to be changed is that the air dropped weapons need to start costing more MP so spamming them isn´t as easy.

The Paratrooper + Pak Howi combo is still too good and gives USF too much of a power increase in early game.

I would also like to see regular Pathfinders starting on a cooldown like IR Pathfinders.

I dont understand why the 50cal needs to be as good as it is either. It´s a bit like if OKW got the Ost HMG42. 50cal should honestly be more of a Maxim than a competitor of best COH2 HMG.

M20 needs to get toned down slighty, it got buffed while being made cheaper which is never a good combo. It´s a bit weird that the 223 costs as much as the M20 while being WAY worse in combat.

Riflemen are not even nearly as bad as people claim, apart from the first 5-10 minutes against OKW they are really good infantry with snare and cheap grenade access. Vet 3 double bar riflemen eat Axis mainline infantry for breakfast, not sure why people chose to ignore that. I would consider them pretty well balanced overall, same as Volks.

5 minutes of a +7 fuel point in 4v4 is 70 fuel difference and 10 minutes is 140. If OKW dominate two fuel point from USF for 10 minutes in early game, that's 280 fuel difference between them. That's a KT already. It seems you actually have no idea how this game works.

5 minutes of a +7 fuel point in 4v4 is 70 fuel difference and 10 minutes is 140. If OKW dominate two fuel point from USF for 10 minutes in early game, that's 280 fuel difference between them. That's a KT already. It seems you actually have no idea how this game works.

Yeah because in competitive games you can just park LVs at both fuel points and ignore them for the next 10 minutes ... Plus it comes in elite armor which is not a doctrine anyone would use if he´d really want to win considering the state the Sturmtiger is in.

USF design is build around Riflemen squads but nowadays playing USF is about building the minimum of them and maximum of other units

i agree with u about rifleman and actually its good thing because rifle rifle rifle rifle is annoying for evryone. Current state of game its ok. People force themselves to find something to balance so here we are usf is op ? Next thread : okw is still op. Vipper is right about that we all need to adapt and enjoy what we have because this balance threads made by decent players are just annoying.

Plus it comes in elite armor which is not a doctrine anyone would use if he´d really want to win considering the state the Sturmtiger is in.

Excuse me?

Excuse me?

The last time i used sturmtiger its rocket blew up before reching its target. The culprit: An ATG debris left from a fight before

Edit: it was a leftover of the cannon and a wheel, almost invisible within the crater

Excuse me?

Elite Armor is bad in 2v2+, I dont play 1v1.

It really isn't, but whatever. Let's not go off topic.

Since I have been part of all the alpha and beta groups, I am actually in position to know and not just "think".

You should probably check this articles and get more informative opinion:
https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/PeterQumsieh/20150115/233644/Balancing_Multiplayer_Games__Intuition_Iteration_and_Numbers.php and some other of his articles...

Forgive me if this sounds a little confrontational, but what stock does being a part of the alpha or beta feedback group have? Unless I'm misremembering, balance and faction design was all over the place for COH2's release, so being a part of the group responsible for that doesn't seem like a selling - quite the opposite. I guess I'm also confused as to why you're implying that previous, early COH2 design decisions that happened to coincide with a pretty unbalanced game should be what we aim towards. Fair enough, Relic had THESE design principles early on in the game's life...and look how well that turned out. If anything, examples of previous Relic design principles seem like an example of what doesn't work and what we shouldn't be aiming towards. From what I can tell (I want to emphasize the fact that it's hard to tell for sure), people generally seem to think that the past 6 or so months of balance have been the best in the game's entire life (...perhaps ignoring the time right before WFA were released, but I'd say that's not relevant since they only had to balance a single matchup, not 6). Does that not suggest that moving away from these design decisions has been for the better?

This is the part where I get especially confrontational/personal. You were a part of a test group that happened to launch what was a pretty poorly balanced and awkwardly designed iteration of the game, at least in my opinion. Maybe you gave great feedback and were ignored. You could have been a great asset that got talked over by others or ignored - thus resulting in a poor game state in spite of your feedback. If that were the case, however, why were you not further personally consulted with on the game? I could be mistaken - you could have been asked to contribute beyond that, but were too busy with other things to accept...though I do personally doubt that was the case with just how active you are on the forums. But if you were a valuable alpha/beta tester with good feedback that led to or would lead to positive changes, why were you dropped/not brought back on to a feedback group? And to restate my first paragraph, why look to design decisions from an era of the game that people hold in disdain?

From what I can tell (I want to emphasize the fact that it's hard to tell for sure), people generally seem to think that the past 6 or so months of balance have been the best in the game's entire life (...perhaps ignoring the time right before WFA were released, but I'd say that's not relevant since they only had to balance a single matchup, not 6). Does that not suggest that moving away from these design decisions has been for the better?

+1

Forgive me if this sounds a little confrontational, but what stock does being a part of the alpha or beta feedback group have? Unless I'm misremembering, balance and faction design was all over the place for COH2's release, so being a part of the group responsible for that doesn't seem like a selling - quite the opposite. I guess I'm also confused as to why you're implying that previous, early COH2 design decisions that happened to coincide with a pretty unbalanced game should be what we aim towards. Fair enough, Relic had THESE design principles early on in the game's life...and look how well that turned out. If anything, examples of previous Relic design principles seem like an example of what doesn't work and what we shouldn't be aiming towards. From what I can tell (I want to emphasize the fact that it's hard to tell for sure), people generally seem to think that the past 6 or so months of balance have been the best in the game's entire life (...perhaps ignoring the time right before WFA were released, but I'd say that's not relevant since they only had to balance a single matchup, not 6). Does that not suggest that moving away from these design decisions has been for the better?

This is the part where I get especially confrontational/personal. You were a part of a test group that happened to launch what was a pretty poorly balanced and awkwardly designed iteration of the game, at least in my opinion. Maybe you gave great feedback and were ignored. You could have been a great asset that got talked over by others or ignored - thus resulting in a poor game state in spite of your feedback. If that were the case, however, why were you not further personally consulted with on the game? I could be mistaken - you could have been asked to contribute beyond that, but were too busy with other things to accept...though I do personally doubt that was the case with just how active you are on the forums. But if you were a valuable alpha/beta tester with good feedback that led to or would lead to positive changes, why were you dropped/not brought back on to a feedback group? And to restate my first paragraph, why look to design decisions from an era of the game that people hold in disdain?

There is nothing to forgive and you are not confrontational...

The alpha and beta groups I took part where the "closed" one that come after the release of the game (I also was in open ones), if you want more details it probably has to be in private because I have singed a NDA, so feel free to PM.
(I also do not like posting personal staff in balance forums)

The game was balanced quite just good before the WFA release...

And no moving away from this principals has not actually help balancing the game. The improvements had to more do with reducing the asymmetry of factions (make things allot simpler), lowering the RNG and lowering cheese which is competently irrelevant with these principals.

Why do they need to have some of the best support weapons: .50cal, 57mm AT-gun, Pak Howi while at the same time having the best heal that can also be used to recinforce outside of base, 3 different types of OP T0 call-in infantry,

You're just trying to find things to complain about that really aren't issues at all. Play USF a lot and you might have different opinions about these things.

free squads when teching,

If you're paying for it, they ain't free. This mechanic has existed for years, and you're seriously crying about it being broken? USF has consistently been one of the most underpowered factions in the game, and still is to a certain degree. Right now it's in a better place because of the teching changes however.

tank crews, the straight up best TD in the entire game,

You're complaining way too much about mechamics that have existed for years. Also, the Jackson is a good tank, god forbid USF, a faction which lacks any super heavy tanks have the ability to counter Axis's high health, high armor vehicles. I'd also argue that the Jagdpanzer IV is a better TD in most situations because of its health, penetration and veterancy abilities. The Jackson is good, but it needs infantry to spot for it. Jackson used to be a glass cannon with hardly any health and massive sight, is that really where you want to return it, where it could self spot?

a excellent medium tank that wipes infantry like crazy, cheap access to grenades,

Sherman isn't even that much of a wipe machine, in my experience (thousands of hours playing usf) the Sherman is hit or miss most matches I play, it's hard to get them to vet3 where they become very effective and accurate. Most of the time you don't even want HE equipped because of the thread of other tanks that you need to be ready for at that stage of the battle.

As far as the grenades go, they are some of the worst in the game, and most people don't tech them because a) they're expensive to throw and you need munitions for weapons and b) they're easy for any competent player to dodge because of the animation being incredibly obvious and easy to spot. They're usually only useful on the first grenade if a player isn't paying attention, and then after that only useful on unaware units or garrisons.

cheap access to weapon upgrades etc.

Uh, it's not cheap, it's 150mp, 15 fuel and then you have to actually pay for the weapons themselves, which are 60mu each for BARs, 70mu each for M1919, 50mu for Zooks, and Zooks are terrible against most axis vehicles which they can barely penetrate.

Playing vs USF feels a bit stupid at the moment, especially Pathfidner doctrines with cheap weapon drops makes it seem like USF got endless amounts of units/MP.

Pathfinders are 290mp, they are very expensive as a starting unit, but I believe they should have a similar cooldown to I&R Pathfinders.



USF hasn't even seen that many changes, the most substantial was the teching changes, but all the other changes have been commanders, such as the CP reduction to the greyhound, and subsequent nerfs to I&R pathfinders and the pack howitzer. Then the changes to assault engineers in armor company as well as the addition of cavalry riflemen to mechanized.

As far as balance goes I believe USF is in a decent spot right now, my one gripe being Riflemen performance early vs. volks, but that's an issue pretty much all allied factions have.

Pre WFA release, demo wipes hidden on every side cap one shotting your capping pgren, Flamer HT, t-70 wipe machine and recon, call ins...

Dont get me wrong stuff like sniper was balanced against 6 man cons. But there was a LOT of balance issues.

Now the game bar a few op units (Jaeger, command panther, vet 3 Pershing) is in a good place. this is why I am against any crazy redesigns or buffs nerfs

Pre WFA release, demo wipes hidden on every side cap one shotting your capping pgren, Flamer HT, t-70 wipe machine and recon, call ins...

Dont get me wrong stuff like sniper was balanced against 6 man cons. But there was a LOT of balance issues.

Now the game bar a few op units (Jaeger, command panther, vet 3 Pershing) is in a good place. this is why I am against any crazy redesigns or buffs nerfs

game balance != USF balanced (OP/UP)

game balance != USF balanced (OP/UP)

I'm talking about this supposedly golden age pre USF and OKW. The game was a lot worse then balance wise than it is now.

I'm talking about this supposedly golden age pre USF and OKW. The game was a lot worse then balance wise than it is now.

The fact that grenadier, conscripts (even Riflemen,) and many other units have seen very little changes especially at early game suggest that they where balanced.

The majority of changes that have to do with balance and not with removing cheese or homogenizing factions had to do to counter balancing design changes that where made.

And again my point is that there no indication that the principals provided in these articles are wrong or that the game is better balanced because they moved away from those principals. Actually in the patch that redesigned OKW/Soviet the game was in broken state.

Imo the biggest *problem* with rifles being powerhouses is that they can slap some munitions and become literal gods (as per the old design)

I would suggest a trade off:
Buff rifles vanilla performance but reduce them to 1 weapon slot until vetted.
This would smooth the power spike old rifles had that turned them into monsters with minimal counter play but allow them to take their place as king of the mainline infantry comfortably.

Imo the biggest *problem* with rifles being powerhouses is that they can slap some munitions and become literal gods (as per the old design)

I would suggest a trade off:
Buff rifles vanilla performance but reduce them to 1 weapon slot until vetted.
This would smooth the power spike old rifles had that turned them into monsters with minimal counter play but allow them to take their place as king of the mainline infantry comfortably.

I made a thread a few months ago discussing riflemen being too expensive, a slight price drop of 10-20mp is all that I think they need honestly, even if you have to increase the price of captain / Lt. to compensate for this.

I don't think messing with Riflemen stats is the right thing to do. The main issue is Riflemen vs. Volks meta where they're 30mp more expensive, but weaker at all ranges than volks but close range, so in most situations (long / mid range) in cover volks win the earliest engagements.

I don't hate your suggestion though, but it's hard enough to horde munitions to get double BARs on your rifles in the first place, especially with the Recon commander meta. I really don't think Rifles turn into absolute monsters though, no more than I think volks turn into absolute monsters, both squads simply get better with their received accuracy / accuracy bonuses that they get with veterancy.

There's a reason so many players have taken up metas like Pathfinder spam / Assault Engineer spam / I&R Pathfinder spam when it has been powerful, because Riflemen are just so underwhelming at the start of the game that a USF player looks for anything that will give him an advantage to compensate for this.

Even today, in team games at least I do meme RE-spam builds where I usually only get 1 Riflemen maximum and fill in the rest of the gaps with Pathfinders, IR Pathfinders, or some other mixture of forces that simply works better than spamming Riflemen that are just going to not kill anything, die and bleed your MP dry.

Riflemen are slightly too weak overall but not as weak as people say. M20 and 50cal are slightly op. Airborne weapon Drops are vastly overrated. If you take reinforcement cost for initial crewing into account you get close to the normal price. On open maps wehr still clearly beats US. Problem is most people are abysmal at using MGs and Paks (sorry it's true) which is key vs USF.

The main issue is Riflemen vs. Volks meta where they're 30mp more expensive, but weaker at all ranges than volks but close range, so in most situations (long / mid range) in cover volks win the earliest engagements.

[citation needed]

Imo the biggest *problem* with rifles being powerhouses is that they can slap some munitions and become literal gods (as per the old design)

I would suggest a trade off:
Buff rifles vanilla performance but reduce them to 1 weapon slot until vetted.
This would smooth the power spike old rifles had that turned them into monsters with minimal counter play but allow them to take their place as king of the mainline infantry comfortably.

Ill take the risk to say, USF its pretty stable within itself, the only mayor flaw is crowd control with HMG, but nowdays its not that big of a deal. Therefore if tank war is dominated, you can force axis out of VPs or out of their dives, dont get me wrong USF is not OP in tank game, they just have the tools to either push or hold, bring sherman spam push or jackson and ATG. Normally riflemen in lategame resemble obers and if they could get a hand on thos Lmg34 they are godlike. But riflemen can be replaced lategame less punishingly than axis because of the double bar and their awsome performance.
So, closing in my argument, rifles are great but also is the tank support and thank god they only have rocket arty on calliopes or else they would just destroy the game