USF “problems” (mine at least)

In 1v1, the options are still wide open but in team games, they seem to get locked into spamming Jacksons and scotts to deal with heavies and team weapons.

For lategame in teamgames you have three ways to go (all of them are good at supporting the team):

spam Jackson + Scott
spam Jackson + Priest
spam Jackson + Calliope

lets reduce it to: spam Jackson + some piece of artillery

In early teamgames you go Rifleman mainly, so its the midgame only very you can get out some diversity, maybe even something unpredictable before lategame kicks in. I really do think the other factions have a little bit more diversity in early game openings as well as lategame situations.

Contentwise this may be right. But thats a little too much american pathos for me.

It’s more of a comment about the “theme” of the faction rather than a comment on historical reality.

Whether it is true or not isn’t really important compared to how the game presents itself.

Most WWII games present a version of history based on stereotypes of the “common narrative”, both good and bad.

The company of heroes games focuses on the “tactical stereotypes” of each army to create interesting and diverse factions based on the common narrative and how we collectively remember WWII. It is also very careful to remain non political about a subject that can very easily become toxically political.

In many ways these stereotypes are actually good as it allows players to identify with factions and units based on what their own preconceived notions on what they think they ought to be like.

“Germany had good tanks, therefore in the game German tanks are good.”

“Russia had lots of men, therefore Russian units have bigger squads in game.”


If the game were strictly historically accurate the every army would be basically identical, each having equivalent mortars, machine guns, anti tank guns and rifle squads with some sort of LMG, SMG and bolt action rifle. Even the number and general features of medium tanks are about the same when you compare actual stats.

This would be boring. So they didn’t do it. Instead they chose to take artistic liberties and make a game that is fun and we all love. After all, that’s why we’re here.

For lategame in teamgames you have three ways to go (all of them are good at supporting the team):

spam Jackson + Scott
spam Jackson + Priest
spam Jackson + Calliope

lets reduce it to: spam Jackson + some piece of artillery

In early teamgames you go Rifleman mainly, so its the midgame only very you can get out some diversity, maybe even something unpredictable before lategame kicks in. I really do think the other factions have a little bit more diversity in early game openings as well as lategame situations.

I don’t play a lot of team games so I guess this is where our opinions diverge, but I see rifles, assault engies, path finders, wc-51, mortar, or heck even extra REs with the new commander as being viable early game options. Depending on your definition of early game, cav rifles at 1cp come pretty early too.

It’s more of a comment about the “theme” of the faction rather than a comment on historical reality.

It was this comment that triggered me: "Riflemen are symbolic of the American in WWII, the average GI Joe who would leave his home, clad in olive green uniform and shouldering his M1 Rifle, to liberate the oppressed people of Europe as just one of many citizen soldiers."

I just can't stand this romantic glorification of war. There is nothing romantic about war, war always brings up the most vile sides of humanity. We don't have to talk about the many horrible crimes that were commited by the Third Reich but I heavily want to question the word liberation when we talking about heavy bombardements of cities overflowing with refugees or two atom bombs on Japan. I'm not entirely sure if I want to be liberated that way. Still it was important to bring down the Third Reich and its allies, thats out of question.

Coming back to the game: Maybe it would already be sufficent to specalize LT and Captain to have very distincitive abilities like the Major has. That could spice up the Rifleman centrism that may be historical accurate but is a bit lame regarding diverse gameplay with combined arms in a strategy computer game.

I don’t play a lot of team games so I guess this is where our opinions diverge, but I see rifles, assault engies, path finders, wc-51, mortar, or heck even extra REs with the new commander as being viable early game options. Depending on your definition of early game, cav rifles at 1cp come pretty early too.

With the exception of the mortar you are calling for the doctrinal units here. The mortar itself is very situational especially in teamgames. In most cases one of our team just goes Soviet T2, there you have a mortar with smoke AND recon flare. That flare is great when you want to put pressure on your opponents (and you have to do that). So the USF mortar is rarely build at all.

So lets look at the three possibilities of lategame, only the one with the Scott is non-doctrinal and thats the last appealing one. Priest and the new buffed Calliope bring a lot more unique artillery weight to the battlefield. The single Priest commander and one of the two Calliope commanders have none of this early game doctrinal units. The other Calliope commander has the upgrade for the REs. But this is very situational, its only good when you are in a cover to cover fighting situation and very bad if you get pushed. When you are pushing yourself at static positions with MGs Smoke is way better than the rifle nade. So the REs with rifle nades remain a supporting unit with use for some combat situations.

It was this comment that triggered me: "Riflemen are symbolic of the American in WWII, the average GI Joe who would leave his home, clad in olive green uniform and shouldering his M1 Rifle, to liberate the oppressed people of Europe as just one of many citizen soldiers." .

I’m finding that a lot of people are misinterpreting what I was saying. I was speaking about the THEME of the faction, not about the actual history.

Each faction has themes that are in general very positive themes that are not political in nature. These themes strive to delineate the factions from each other so they are distinct and interesting to play.

The USF theme is basically take all of the best parts of Fury, Saving Private Ryan, and Band of Brothers and combine them. Hence Rangers and Paratroopers with Thompsons are heavily featured but US tanks are crap except Brad Pitt in his Easy Eight.

I’m sorry you got “triggered”.

I’m finding that a lot of people are misinterpreting what I was saying. I was speaking about the THEME of the faction, not about the actual history.

Each faction has themes that are in general very positive themes that are not political in nature. These themes strive to delineate the factions from each other so they are distinct and interesting to play.

The USF theme is basically take all of the best parts of Fury, Saving Private Ryan, and Band of Brothers and combine them. Hence Rangers and Paratroopers with Thompsons are heavily featured but US tanks are crap except Brad Pitt in his Easy Eight.

I’m sorry you got “triggered”.

Because I'm not an english native speaker I'm not sure if triggerd was the right word, but if you take that into account I think you got what I wanted to say.

More importantly: I'm not challenging your aspect of the theme of US faction. I totally understand you there. I just don't liked that romantic glorification in that last sentence. Yes, its totally hollywood and its just not true at all.