My solution to this:
![](https://us.v-cdn.net/6026685/uploads/editor/6b/dn9tpxbkvz9y.png)
here's this chart showing pre and post patch, i'd reduce it to half, see what happens, i agree that pre patch rifles were kind of bad but now they overperform in every matter
Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6
Posts: 591 | Subs: 1
Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Well they were already good before the last buff. They only struggled with OKW early game dominance and Volks+Sturm combo.
Now that OKW early game power was reduced they are just too good considering they always bullied Grens anyway.
It's true that they always beat Volks in close to mid-range but now the margin is so big that even if they have to close in they often end up winning. Plus Sturmpioneers are terrible against Riflemen now, before they could get a lot more work done in the early minutes prior to bar upgrades.
Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6
Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1
OKW early game power is unchanged.
Following volks simply arrive 1-2 seconds later. Nothing else changed.
Posts: 1094 | Subs: 20
Posts: 4474
To be honest the bigger problem in my opinion is the power spike when the extra LT squad + M20 + Stuart hits the field. Rifles before felt awkward and now them are worth their price.what are u talking about don't u know that having a free LT is actually a draw back
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
How can it be unchanged when they start with less MP and Volks cost more? These timings are important for early game engagements.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Ah yes. Their marginally better results specifically between the distances of 4 and 10 make them mad OP.
You know, the distance they *already* thrashed Volks at.
Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2
1st volk arrives at exact same time.
2nd volk arrives ~6 seconds later.
Following ones arrive ~1-2 seconds later.
Its not going to make or break the early game.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
To be honest the bigger problem in my opinion is the power spike when the extra LT squad + M20 + Stuart hits the field. Rifles before felt awkward and now them are worth their price.
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Posts: 2458 | Subs: 1
Posts: 3041 | Subs: 3
You mean making every usf unit better than their counterparts AND giving them free squads makes them overperform?
Woah
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Can rank 500+ players please stop sharing their opinion on balance?
Posts: 1002 | Subs: 2
You mean making every usf unit better than their counterparts AND giving them free squads makes them overperform?
Woah
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
USF had similar performance for most units during GCS2. Stuart was the same, AA HT the same, 50 cal (iirc) the same, m1 AT gun the same, sherman the same, mortar was the same, REs were nearly the same (same DPS anyway), pack howitzer was stronger, the jackson was stronger, scott was stronger, LT was stronger by virtue of the fact that it came with weapon upgrades, and the m20 was much costlier though I would say better performing.
Considering USF's performance and presence in GCS2, I'd say having "every usf unit better than their counterparts AND giving them free squads" isn't quite the issue as you paint it to be.
(Also consider that a lot of the units the above would be compared to were the same or weaker - mg42 was the same, maxim was weaker; AT guns unchanged + raketen buffed; p4 and cromwell buffed; indirect fire was the same; TDs were the same, etc.)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
25 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
248 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
27 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
17 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
5 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
3 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
2 | ||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
1 |