Why USF so bad in tournaments?
Posts: 1351
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
I don't like the fact that USF is essentially required to build riflemen until they tech, and when they tech they also get infantry squads. It's simply too much infantry and leaves very little room for alternate infantry (pathfinders/ass engies) or elite infantry (paras/rangers). By the time you actually get to major, you've got roughly 6 infantry squads. Typically OKW builds only ever run 5 infantry and try and fill up with support teams, but you're basically required to build 6 with USF. And then you don't get 1 of your support teams with tech.
Basically I don't like being required to play with infantry I don't want and your support teams are locked behind heavier paywalls than all other factions. The units within said paywalls are very strong and nice, but getting to them takes a lot.
Because I don't think they're cost ineffective. The unit isn't designed like all other mainlines in the game i.e. to fight at long range, which all our maps are centered around. It's part of the reason why USF get ultra dumpstered on heavy longrange maps like langreskaya and crossing in the woods. Too say their cost ineffective would be to say they're garbage at all ranges for price, when infact they're only marginally close to volks at long.
How many riflesquad do you build? vs OKW I'll build 3 of them + 1 officer, vs Ostheer 2 of them + 1 officer on a regular build without callins infantry to transition the faster possible into early hmg or m20.
Riflemen are cost inefficient early game because they can't carry the early game with even more cost inefficient Rear Echelon. They don't trade efficiently vs volks at any range (even if they win) and are bullied by Sturm on a level that let you think the price difference cannot really be 20 manpower. Vs Ostheer they get simply outspamed by Gren with a super early HMG in support (who don't build 4gren + 1 hmg early game?) and its even more pathetic when Assgren are called.
Every game I watch on 1vs1 is about the USF player trying to avoid the maximum to build riflemen. I can recall a recent game seen on VonIvan channel where he had 3 riflesquads hold by 1 Sturm squad...
Know I agree the things are changing once you can equip some BARs on them but before reaching that state, there are too much opportunities for your opponent to end you quickly.
Posts: 818
How many riflesquad do you build? vs OKW I'll build 3 of them + 1 officer, vs Ostheer 2 of them + 1 officer on a regular build without callins infantry to transition the faster possible into early hmg or m20.
Riflemen are cost inefficient early game because they can't carry the early game with even more cost inefficient Rear Echelon. They don't trade efficiently vs volks at any range (even if they win) and are bullied by Sturm on a level that let you think the price difference cannot really be 20 manpower. Vs Ostheer they get simply outspamed by Gren with a super early HMG in support (who don't build 4gren + 1 hmg early game?) and its even more pathetic when Assgren are called.
Every game I watch on 1vs1 is about the USF player trying to avoid the maximum to build riflemen. I can recall a recent game seen on VonIvan channel where he had 3 riflesquads hold by 1 Sturm squad...
Know I agree the things are changing once you can equip some BARs on them but before reaching that state, there are too much opportunities for your opponent to end you quickly.
I you bring up a good point with RE's, they are the least cost effective combat unit early game, they can scale better but are nonetheless a weakness early on. Additionally I find without building 3 rifles your shooting yourself in the foot for several key minutes where you can take excess loses while outnumbered before officers and support weapons come out. The cost "saving" of 280 mp doesn't really pay off if you lose fights and get pushed off.
Posts: 359
USF has the worst doctrines hands down and they play with one hand tied behind their back because of it. No command vehicle to call in, no map wide howitzers, no stock rocket arty for late game support weapon walls. Just rifles, rifles and more rifles. Oh and a Jackson(which half the forum wants deleted from the game).
Posts: 268
“Oh and a Jackson(which half the forum wants deleted from the game)”.
Posts: 1954
How many riflesquad do you build? vs OKW I'll build 3 of them + 1 officer, vs Ostheer 2 of them + 1 officer on a regular build without callins infantry to transition the faster possible into early hmg or m20.
Riflemen are cost inefficient early game because they can't carry the early game with even more cost inefficient Rear Echelon. They don't trade efficiently vs volks at any range (even if they win) and are bullied by Sturm on a level that let you think the price difference cannot really be 20 manpower. Vs Ostheer they get simply outspamed by Gren with a super early HMG in support (who don't build 4gren + 1 hmg early game?) and its even more pathetic when Assgren are called.
Every game I watch on 1vs1 is about the USF player trying to avoid the maximum to build riflemen. I can recall a recent game seen on VonIvan channel where he had 3 riflesquads hold by 1 Sturm squad...
Know I agree the things are changing once you can equip some BARs on them but before reaching that state, there are too much opportunities for your opponent to end you quickly.
Even just building two rifles, I often end up with 5-6 infantry squads, plus a RE, which is generally two more than I want. I'd gladly give up the "free" squads to get the free side tech that OST and OKW get, plus making both the AT gun and MG available if either Captain or Lt is purchased.
RE's were overnerfed because they became too cost efficient late game when equipped with upgrades like 1919's. They're the same price as Pioneers but don't trade well with them at any range, nor are they even close to 2/3 of a SturmPio squad.
Posts: 818
I don't like the fact that USF is essentially required to build riflemen until they tech, and when they tech they also get infantry squads. It's simply too much infantry and leaves very little room for alternate infantry (pathfinders/ass engies) or elite infantry (paras/rangers). By the time you actually get to major, you've got roughly 6 infantry squads. Typically OKW builds only ever run 5 infantry and try and fill up with support teams, but you're basically required to build 6 with USF. And then you don't get 1 of your support teams with tech.
Basically I don't like being required to play with infantry I don't want and your support teams are locked behind heavier paywalls than all other factions. The units within said paywalls are very strong and nice, but getting to them takes a lot.
Because I don't think they're cost ineffective. The unit isn't designed like all other mainlines in the game i.e. to fight at long range, which all our maps are centered around. It's part of the reason why USF get ultra dumpstered on heavy longrange maps like langreskaya and crossing in the woods. Too say their cost ineffective would be to say they're garbage at all ranges for price, when infact they're only marginally close to volks at long.
What if USF teching came with a 50 cal or ATG rather than LT or CPT? You would be forced into a support weapon to complement your rifles, rather than a rifle to complement your other rifles.
Posts: 54
only usf tank that can damage axis tank.
axis player: this tank is op
Posts: 1351
What if USF teching came with a 50 cal or ATG rather than LT or CPT? You would be forced into a support weapon to complement your rifles, rather than a rifle to complement your other rifles.
I'd just have some manpower+fuel cost to unlock the tier and than just buy what you need. It would give much more diversity to the faction.
Posts: 818
I'd just have some manpower+fuel cost to unlock the tier and than just buy what you need. It would give much more diversity to the faction.
Yes that could work in terms of function, it would be best for build diversity. It would be a significant nerf to the faction by adding an extra build time on the LT/Captain and making USF pay an extra 100 mp for their officer + new tech costs. This would not help them in tournaments ^^. There is probably some way to make up for said change though.
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
Are guys sucking at each other ? U all say the rifle man are cost ineffective or glass canon, but u didn’t post a single stats
Actually only 1 person said it glass cannon. I've seen more people point out that they're just not good on some of the maps that happened to have gotten picked because they were longer range maps. That has been mentioned much more than "glass cannon infantry"
Not being cost effective is not something you can show JUST with unit stats. You can't just post a target size and say "see their cost effective!" In game KDR would be more helpful, but we don't have things like that
I mean you didn't even mention their cost when talking about whether or not their cost effective...
Posts: 4183 | Subs: 4
How many riflesquad do you build? vs OKW I'll build 3 of them + 1 officer, vs Ostheer 2 of them + 1 officer on a regular build without callins infantry to transition the faster possible into early hmg or m20.
Riflemen are cost inefficient early game because they can't carry the early game with even more cost inefficient Rear Echelon. They don't trade efficiently vs volks at any range (even if they win) and are bullied by Sturm on a level that let you think the price difference cannot really be 20 manpower. Vs Ostheer they get simply outspamed by Gren with a super early HMG in support (who don't build 4gren + 1 hmg early game?) and its even more pathetic when Assgren are called.
Every game I watch on 1vs1 is about the USF player trying to avoid the maximum to build riflemen. I can recall a recent game seen on VonIvan channel where he had 3 riflesquads hold by 1 Sturm squad...
Know I agree the things are changing once you can equip some BARs on them but before reaching that state, there are too much opportunities for your opponent to end you quickly.
I usually build 2x rifle and try and pray I can make it to LT vs OKW. Unless I go airborne, in which case I always just tech CPT for pakhowi and just drop MGs. I buy paths instead of a 3rd rifle and down the line get paratroopers. I go CPT vs OST.
I don't really see how OST can outspam USF in terms of infantry when they need to build both the T1 and an HMG vs USF. Going straight gren spam vs USF sounds honestly awful. G43s are good vs closing the gap units like rifles, until BARs where the BARs just win at long even vs G43s. And 2x BAR rifles can close the gap through open field and beat LMG grens. The only thing that saves OST from that is the HMG. Not to mention that AAHT is a murderous unit to gren spam.
I wouldn't use VonIvan as the bar for meta builds or gauges. He's a great guy and player and tbh one of the last few consistant coh2 pro streamers, but he does a lot of trolly builds that I'd say aren't always the pinacle of meta. Maybe he was trying full meta that game idk, I can't say I didn't watch it probably.
I mean yeah OKW vs USF is a rough matchup early game because of the starting sturms, but what else are sturms meant to do? They fall off at like the 8 minute mark and get pushed to sweeper/repair duty, something USF brags about with their double zook REs + sweeper and self repair tanks. Sturms need to do something.
What I really think is a major issue is how damn long it takes to tech LT/CPT. It delays teamweapons too much IMO. TBH though I don't know what to do with USF. Their infantry are meant to be a do all/be all infantry that you're meant to spam. Imagine if rifles became meta. You think OKW could stop them with their mediocre team weapons? or anything less than Obers when they get 2x BARs?
Also it's rumored that volks are going to 260mp in next patch so we'll see how that goes probably.
What if USF teching came with a 50 cal or ATG rather than LT or CPT? You would be forced into a support weapon to complement your rifles, rather than a rifle to complement your other rifles.
tbh they shouldn't give anything for free, make LT cpt tech faster and take some mp off the ambo. It'd be better if LT/CPT had to be built for a cost but were significantly stronger in some area, be it firepower or utility. I think giving away a free 50cal would be ok, since the 50cal you almost always get because its so good, but free AT gun is really unwanted I'd say. Yes you do want preemptive AT but building it too early it just sits around and takes popcap with little to do. Similar to how when OKW is forced to built a raketen against clown car. Yeah it might kill the m3, but now you have a useless AT gun till t70 hits that could've been a fighting volks squad.
Posts: 4474
they have same long range dps as volks but comes with much better mid and close range dps, better vet and better stating target size all for 30 more mp, i think they are effective as they are
Actually only 1 person said it glass cannon. I've seen more people point out that they're just not good on some of the maps that happened to have gotten picked because they were longer range maps. That has been mentioned much more than "glass cannon infantry"
Not being cost effective is not something you can show JUST with unit stats. You can't just post a target size and say "see their cost effective!" In game KDR would be more helpful, but we don't have things like that
I mean you didn't even mention their cost when talking about whether or not their cost effective...
Posts: 1487
strange matchup i wpuld say
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
snip
I let you check how many infantry squad you get with other factions, hint: approximatly the same. USF/Oshteer matchup is balance but I fail to see who's not doing 4 gren or rush Pzgren for a similar result of 4 infantry squads supported by 1 or 2 hmgs.
What I find quite funny about the actual situation is that couple of years ago, USF was hated for being tide to only be able to spam RM and seeing that today its the complete opposite. 4 IS, 4 volks, 4 gren but not more than 3 rifles and only 2 if you think you can make it.
I ws not talking about VonIvan strategy but pointed out that with 3 riflemen he couldn't force a retreat of a single Sturm squad on early game.
They'll continue to give officers for "free" even if we told them X times that is a really bad idea. As for the solution to get out of this situation, let's see what they'll do.
Posts: 818
I was actually thinking about taking $ off the ambo too, fwd ambos are a nightmare in teamgames though. I agree the ATG tech would probably suck. They could probably make the cpt a long range squad and the LT a cqb squad with upgrades if you wanted to adjust the units. Nothing free from the tiers would be best for strategy diversity, but I think unfortunately it would be hard to get a relic sign off on killing officer tech.
260 MP volks? Panzer Fusilier Meta Here we come
Posts: 4474
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
they have same long range dps as volks but comes with much better mid and close range dps, better vet and better stating target size all for 30 more mp, i think they are effective as they are
They're not bad, but they're not as cost effective as volks. It's not just 30mp it's the upgrades too
Posts: 4474
like ? bar are much better than stgs and u even get zook if u want
They're not bad, but they're not as cost effective as volks. It's not just 30mp it's the upgrades too
Posts: 495 | Subs: 1
Make the cap and the liut 2 specialized squad , one with 2 elite zook and the other with 1/2 lmg (not bar), that are unlocked after the second upgrade tier
I’ve been doing a study on WWII infantry tables of organization and equipment for the US, British and German forces. Real US infantry platoons had one sniper rifle that was unallocated to a specific man and kept as part of the Platoon Headquarters section with the Lieutenant. Additionally, there were no Thompsons at the platoon level and the Lieutenant himself would’ve had an M1 carbine.
At the Company level, the Captain has access to six unallocated Thompsons, six unallocated BARs and five unallocated Bazookas. He would also have been armed with an M1 carbine as would several other members of the Company Headquarters element unlike the Platoon HQ which would’ve all had M1 Garand rifles. Additionally, support elements in the weapons platoon of the company had M1919A4 or M1919A6 Machineguns and would be dispatched at the discrediting of the company commander (the Captain).
Considering all of that, here is how I would rework the USF officers.
Lieutenant: 5 man squad with 3 M1 Garands on Riflemen models, 1 M1 paratrooper carbine on the Lieutenant himself and 1 M1C sniper rifle on a Rifleman model. The squad has better vision than a regular Riflemen squad and has access to regular grenades and smoke grenades when teched and starts with an AT rifle grenade shot at Vet 0. No upgrades are available but can still take up to two weapons from the weapon racks. No changes to abilities or veterancy. This unit functions like a superior rifleman squad that can snipe at long range like a pathfinder squad, but with only one sniper rifle. It would also have less overlap with dedicated SMG units like Rangers and Paratroopers.
Captain: 5 man squad with 2 Riflemen models with M1 Garands, 1 Captain model with a Paratrooper stat M1 Carbine and 2 Rear Echelon models with the weaker Rear Echelon M1 Carbines. Abilities stay the same but has two mutually exclusive upgrade options. An M1919A6 upgrade for 70 munitions where one of the Rear Echelon models gains the LMG making the squad a dedicated long range squad that is good at supporting against infantry and a double bazooka upgrade for 100 munitions that gives the two Riflemen the Bazookas making the squad a good bazooka support squad but has almost no anti infantry ability. Squad abilities and veterancy remains the same. The squad can still upgrade with weapons from the weapon racks and still gains smoke grenades from the grenade tech.
Major: 4 man squad of three Rear echelon models with rear echelon M1 Carbines and 1 Major model with his trusty pistol. No other changes to abilities, but now he can be used to recrew weapons and is slightly less easy to wipe out, which should encourage using him more aggressively rather than just throwing him away.
I think these changes would make USF officers more unique and have better defined roles as well as encourage side teching to both LT and Captain and also better reflects the real US table of organization and equipment.
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34957.860+14
- 3.587233.716+3
- 4.1095612.641+19
- 5.882398.689+4
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.997646.607+1
- 8.379114.769+1
- 9.300113.726-1
- 10.717439.620+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
4 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, kubetstore
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM