How are Infantrysections since patch?

No - I'm much better with brits And it is so much more forgiving playing them. But I'll have to put some more effort into ost after patches - I'll report in a month or two

No, you're not.
If you were, your win ratio would be higher, proving your point.

You have higher rank exclusively because of population distribution across factions, ost and soviets have most since they are here since day 1, while ukf is youngest and dlc locked faction, meaning least players play them. You simply have less players to compete with, therefore higher rank, remember that ranks are for the faction, not across the board. It was always the easiest to climb brit ladder due to lack of players in it.

And inb4 you go there, yes, its confirmed, no guessing.

Anyway, again, this is just "grass is greener on the other side" issue.

It is not. I lose mainly to OKW not to ost. Play ostheer!

No, you're not.
If you were, your win ratio would be higher, proving your point.

No, because I don't smurf and my win ratio (for all factions) includes all my games since the game beginning including internet failures, players cheating against me, phone calls, my kids needing a nappy change, etc.

You have higher rank exclusively because of population distribution across factions, ost and soviets have most since they are here since day 1, while ukf is youngest and dlc locked faction, meaning least players play them. You simply have less players to compete with, therefore higher rank, remember that ranks are for the faction, not across the board. It was always the easiest to climb brit ladder due to lack of players in it.

Well, I'm not so sure her - UKF has been here for a while now.

And inb4 you go there, yes, its confirmed, no guessing.

I'm not sure I understand - cna you explain?

It is not. I lose mainly to OKW not to ost.

It is only what you think, if you want to prove it then make your own thread about ost. This thread is about infantry sections and i believe that anyone here already done with arguing about unit's performance and move on to discuss about how to improve the unit and maybe the whole faction. You are derailing the thread.

It is only what you think, if you want to prove it then make your own thread about ost. This thread is about infantry sections and i believe that anyone here already done with arguing about unit's performance and move on to discuss about how to improve the unit and maybe the whole faction. You are derailing the thread.

Well, I could say the same about You. You want to boost the faction which is very strong. Infantry sections just got buffed and you keep suggesting there is something wrong with them. Somebody just needs to give counterarguments as there is a real risk that buffing infantry sections will derail the whole game.

Well, I could say the same about You. You want to boost the faction which is very strong. Infantry sections just got buffed and you keep suggesting there is something wrong with them. Somebody just needs to give counterarguments as there is a real risk that buffing infantry sections will derail the whole game.

Counter argument base on your... Feeling ?
And nobody here, including me are asking for sections buff, we move on from that by
a long ago, it just you are in back foot. Infantry sections just got "buff" because they were over neft, a point already been proved. The "buff" include 10mp discount and 5% at last vet.

And "very strong" is not so fit with the UKf as a description, since the faction has the lowest player base and win rate in aall mode. It have "strong units", which all has been neft/standarized, while still left with a bunch of gaps/missing pieces in the line up.

Counter argument base on your... Feeling ?

I gave you lots of valid arguments. What are you talking about?

And nobody here, including me are asking for sections buff,

But you just wrote (a post or two above)... that you want to discuss how to improve IS

And "very strong" is not so fit with the UKf as a description, since the faction has the lowest player base and win rate in aall mode. It have "strong units", which all has been neft/standarized, while still left with a bunch of gaps/missing pieces in the line up.

Mate - you don't refer to most of the things I wrote, you don't want to show your playercard, and keep accusing me of things I don't do. We'll have to agree to disagree. In my opinion it is just another l2p issue and accusing people with differnt opinion that give you a lot of valid arguments of what you yourself are doing - that is precisely thinking that "grass is greener on the other side ...."

I'm not sure I understand - cna you explain?

https://www.coh2.org/news/92866/automatch-stats-factions-teams-and-maps

https://www.coh2.org/news/54445/the-ladder-1v1-matchmaking

http://www.companyofheroes.com/leaderboards#global/1v1/german/by-rank?page=70

http://www.companyofheroes.com/leaderboards#global/1v1/british/by-rank?page=33

ELO: hidden skill value. This determines your rank.

Rank = your position compared to other ranked VISIBLE players.

Level = your position in the ELO percentage.
For lv16 onward, this are given to those who are top200 in the world, disregarded of their ELO percentile with those who are hidden.

Any ladder with less tha 4K players in it, will have hidden levels. OH 1v1 doesn't have lv15. UKF doesn't have lv15 to lv 13.

Your OH r549 is way better than your UKF r361. Cause as OH that puts you at lv12 (even if bordering lv11) while the UKF is in the middle of the Lv10.

Someone who is barely scrapping the top200 for factions with lower amount of players, even if they are listed as lv16, they could be equally skill wise as someone who is lv12.

I gave you lots of valid arguments. What are you talking about?

The only time you gave "valid" argument is in post #235, and i already reply all your point in post #236. After you stat talking about your ukf rank in post #238 and keep using your personal experience as argument while i already say that i wont comment about your rank in post #240. Basically, from post #238 onward, your argument is. "I can play UKF easier than i play OST, so UKF is the better OST", and this is purely your personal feeling. Also, your case of having better UKF lv than ost lv has been explained by elchino7 above.

But you just wrote (a post or two above)... that you want to discuss how to improve IS

Mate, "improve" doesn't mean flat buff if it is what you are refer to. "improve" is make the unit/faction more consistency, less chessy, easier and fun to use WITHOUT making it OP. You can track back to see what has been discussed, we were talking about reworking sections's bolster, reprofile bren gun, adjust weapon slot, medical and pyro upgrades, add lacking tools in the faction's line up, etc.

ELO: hidden skill value. This determines your rank.

Rank = your position compared to other ranked VISIBLE players.

Level = your position in the ELO percentage.
For lv16 onward, this are given to those who are top200 in the world, disregarded of their ELO percentile with those who are hidden.

Any ladder with less tha 4K players in it, will have hidden levels. OH 1v1 doesn't have lv15. UKF doesn't have lv15 to lv 13.

Your OH r549 is way better than your UKF r361. Cause as OH that puts you at lv12 (even if bordering lv11) while the UKF is in the middle of the Lv10.

Someone who is barely scrapping the top200 for factions with lower amount of players, even if they are listed as lv16, they could be equally skill wise as someone who is lv12.

Thanks for all nice links. The guy who made put so much effort and it is awsome. Still, if I understand correctly, ostheer has the worst results of all. Seems that's before latest patches, though.

Thanks for all nice links. The guy who made put so much effort and it is awsome. Still, if I understand correctly, ostheer has the worst results of all. Seems that's before latest patches, though.

You understood wrong then.

Ost has most players.

I'd call 5% fluctuation from 50% WL pretty balanced.

You understood wrong then.

Ost has most players.

Yes but it loses most, too, especially in with top players who win most with USF.

Yes but it loses most, too, especially in with top players who win most with USF.

That's, in my opinion factions issue/feature.

In top level, player who puts pressure enough to lead the game has an advantage, ost is a reactive-defensive faction, they rarely can dictate the game and are built to respond to everything opponent does(therefore each tier comes with variety of units allowing you to counter everything you need to).

And that isn't going to change.

USF problem was identified and "fixed" by M20 change, so no idea why you're touching on that subject still.

That's, in my opinion factions issue/feature.

In top level, player who puts pressure enough to lead the game has an advantage, ost is a reactive-defensive faction, they rarely can dictate the game and are built to respond to everything opponent does(therefore each tier comes with variety of units allowing you to counter everything you need to).

And that isn't going to change.

USF problem was identified and "fixed" by M20 change, so no idea why you're touching on that subject still.

Maybe because I feel that most reasons for IS buff come from the perspective of playing against OKW. Buffing IS may lead to problems with ostheer that will become too weak as a result. I'd start from making sure OKW is not too OP at certain game stages. The only problems with UKF I've ever had were connected with playing against super early OKW agression. So it is more about doing something to OKW rather than buffing IS. Another approach would be to keep buffing grens together with sections.

The only time you gave "valid" argument is in post #235, and i already reply all your point in post #236.

To me most of your replies were just not convincing. They all could be summarised to: I want more and I don't see how much I have already.

Mate, "improve" doesn't mean flat buff if it is what you are refer to. "improve" is make the unit/faction more consistency, less chessy, easier and fun to use WITHOUT making it OP. You can track back to see what has been discussed, we were talking about reworking sections's bolster, reprofile bren gun, adjust weapon slot, medical and pyro upgrades, add lacking tools in the faction's line up, etc.

You don't have some tools. But you have other tools. Assymetrical balance. I can't really understand your need for smoke, for example. You have long range specialists (IS) and smoke is, generally, sth you don't need. It can be used against you by cqc specialists. Sort of fundamental stuff. Another thing that I can't understand is that you keep forgetting that you have mgs in t0. You should use them to support your IS. You must learn to reposition and play just like ost plays with grens + mgs. The only difference is that sections are better than grens, and have many more uselful abilities. This gives you the edge that should allow you to play effectively even if you don't have cqc specialists. This is how you move to higher tiers where you have stock heavies, snipers, etc. On top of that you have doctrines which can close the gaps in your stock build (commandos, assault sections, mortar, etc.)

To me most of your replies were just not convincing. They all could be summarised to: I want more and I don't see how much I have already.

But you dont reply to them, instead, you only talk about your ukf rank and try to prove that UKF is better than ost because you have better rank with them, nonsense.

You don't have some tools. But you have other tools. Assymetrical balance. I can't really understand your need for smoke, for example. You have long range specialists (IS) and smoke is, generally, sth you don't need. It can be used against you by cqc specialists. Sort of fundamental stuff. Another thing that I can't understand is that you keep forgetting that you have mgs in t0. You should use them to support your IS. You must learn to reposition and play just like ost plays with grens + mgs. The only difference is that sections are better than grens, and have many more uselful abilities. This gives you the edge that should allow you to play effectively even if you don't have cqc specialists. This is how you move to higher tiers where you have stock heavies, snipers, etc. On top of that you have doctrines which can close the gaps in your stock build (commandos, assault sections, mortar, etc.)

Finally you bring in Assymetrical balance. If you understand that then why bring up "The whole faction is designed around all concepts that were asked for by ostheer players and rejected (close range grenade, 5th stock man gren squads, ability to build sandbags, heavy stock tanks, etc.)" as a reason why UKF is better than ost in the fisst place, isn't this "i want more but i dont see how much i have in already" ? Remember, it was you who is trying to prove UKF is much better than OST, not me trying to prove that OST is better.

If you say smoke is not necessary then tell me how to overcome MG and bunker spam with pio scout an gren to faust UC in choke point with UKF in the fist 4 minutes, what "other tools" i have in this situation ? It is very nonsense to say that some thing critical to dealing with mg and perform flanking tactic like smoke can be considered "not necessary". Further more, tommy is no better than gren out of the box by now, they only better far later on, after tons of investment but they dont have any edge early game any more.

And, I clearly aware of ukf have a MG in T0 but i dont mention it because you not say anything about it untill now, while i was replying to you.

But you dont reply to them, instead, you only talk about your ukf rank and try to prove that UKF is better than ost because you have better rank with them, nonsense.

No, I wrote why UKF Infantry Sections are more than ok. You just disregard all arguments and just don't seem to see the fact that: they can build cover, they have unique effective healing, they can become 5 men stock, they can equip 2 weapons (lmg or at), they have close range grenades AND access to gammon bombs (which you keep saying that they don't have - you just repeat that pzgrens have "nuke nades"), they have special bonus in cover, they can be upgraded with pyro, etc. - you just write that all of this does not matter. I can't agree here at all. You also stated that I didn't know what I was writing about. So I gave you my rank, etc. Nothing special - just to show that I know a bit and I play them. I'd like you to tell me how much you know about factions you play against. Because for some reason I feel like you should play them to see their weaknesses just like you see those of UKF. There is no other way - you just have to play all factions to balance them right.

Finally you bring in Assymetrical balance. If you understand that then why bring up "The whole faction is designed around all concepts that were asked for by ostheer players and rejected (close range grenade, 5th stock man gren squads, ability to build sandbags, heavy stock tanks, etc.)" as a reason why UKF is better than ost in the fisst place, isn't this "i want more but i dont see how much i have in already" ? Remember, it was you who is trying to prove UKF is much better than OST, not me trying to prove that OST is better.

Not really - my point is clear. If you keep buffing Infantry Sections you will murder the gameplay against ost. They already are very potent. If you want to retain balance imo grens should be buffed together with Infantry Sections (but tiny not to exaggerate, like ability to build sandbags). However, I feel the problem is more on OKW side and their early game dominance with incredibly powerful cqc sturmpio and versatile volks.

If you say smoke is not necessary then tell me how to overcome MG and bunker spam with pio scout an gren to faust UC in choke point with UKF in the fist 4 minutes, what "other tools" i have in this situation ? It is very nonsense to say that some thing critical to dealing with mg and perform flanking tactic like smoke can be considered "not necessary". Further more, tommy is no better than gren out of the box by now, they only better far later on, after tons of investment but they dont have any edge early game any more.

And, I clearly aware of ukf have a MG in T0 but i dont mention it because you not say anything about it untill now, while i was replying to you.

All the above is more about adapting by using strategies and doctrines. Generally, on higher level is rarely a good investment to build 150mp static construction, and it should give you an edge that your opponent wastes so much manpower. It is perfectly counterable. This is not a strategy thread. Just upload the replay and many ppl here will be happy to comment.

No, I wrote why UKF Infantry Sections are more than ok. You just disregard all arguments and just don't seem to see the fact that: they can build cover, they have unique effective healing, they can become 5 men stock, they can equip 2 weapons (lmg or at), they have close range grenades AND access to gammon bombs (which you keep saying that they don't have - you just repeat that pzgrens have "nuke nades"), they have special bonus in cover, they can be upgraded with pyro, etc. - you just write that all of this does not matter. I can't agree here at all. You also stated that I didn't know what I was writing about. So I gave you my rank, etc. Nothing special - just to show that I know a bit and I play them. I'd like you to tell me how much you know about factions you play against. Because for some reason I feel like you should play them to see their weaknesses just like you see those of UKF. There is no other way - you just have to play all factions to balance them right.

if you are refering to post #183 then i thought we already come to an end with that ? i hasn't say anything about sections underperform since i know about newest buff to them, nor request any direct buff to the unit itself. And, i enevt admit that i was carried away in arguring whitout making a clear point in post #201.
My whole pint is sections as an unit is fine, but the faction have gaps in its line up with lacking tools and limitted choices, which are subjects for improvement. We were event came close to an agreement one time when you said in post #178 that "You are right that there is no variety but the way IS scale is great."

Not really - my point is clear. If you keep buffing Infantry Sections you will murder the gameplay against ost. They already are very potent. If you want to retain balance imo grens should be buffed together with Infantry Sections (but tiny not to exaggerate, like ability to build sandbags). However, I feel the problem is more on OKW side and their early game dominance with incredibly powerful cqc sturmpio and versatile volks.

And again, i got this point of you and i dont ask for direct sections buff at all so gren dont have anything to do with this. What i want is a faction wwith more choice and diverse gameplay, less clust/chessy units. And, i totally agree wwith you about OKW issues.

if you are refering to post #183 then i thought we already come to an end with that ? i hasn't say anything about sections underperform since i know about newest buff to them, nor request any direct buff to the unit itself. And, i enevt admit that i was carried away in arguring whitout making a clear point in post #201.
My whole pint is sections as an unit is fine, but the faction have gaps in its line up with lacking tools and limitted choices, which are subjects for improvement. We were event came close to an agreement one time when you said in post #178 that "You are right that there is no variety but the way IS scale is great."



And again, i got this point of you and i dont ask for direct sections buff at all so gren dont have anything to do with this. What i want is a faction wwith more choice and diverse gameplay, less clust/chessy units. And, i totally agree wwith you about OKW issues.

So we'll have to agree to agree?