Rifles overperforming?

Okay Commandos are tied for the 16th best veterancy instead of the 17th best veterancy out of ~20 infantry squads

Well Ranger get the same veterancy with Paras and even guards get bonuses of similar level...
(many elite infatry with high base stats do not get as high vet bonuses as other units.)
(For instance Osttruppen get better vet bonuses than grenadier but that does not make scale better )

Commandos used to have bad veterancy bonuses as many UKF units, but that was patched out. Relic had many units with low base stats get good vet bonuses and many units with high base stat have low veterancy bonuses.

I have read the argument that commandos "do not scale well" again and again and it simply does not hold water. It is simply a myth to downplay commandos and present worse than they actually are.

The unit has powerful bases stat and its veterancy bonuses are inline with other elite infantry like Paras/Ranger.

Commandos are a cost efficient unit and very difficult to kill once they reach vet 3.

Okay Commandos are tied for the 16th best veterancy instead of the 17th best veterancy out of ~20 infantry squads

He will always find something to comment on and will casually not state in numbers the exact thing that might make his comment rebuttal look worse (19% difference in RA).

Also, it's not like he can read the context of what was been discussed.
Reminder that the whole point of the discussion was why Falls (post buff/pre nerf) were a worst offender than Commandos with their cheese back then.

He will always find something to comment on and will casually not state in numbers the exact thing that might make his comment rebuttal look worse (19% difference in RA).

Also, it's not like he can read the context of what was been discussed.
Reminder that the whole point of the discussion was why Falls (post buff/pre nerf) were a worst offender than Commandos with their cheese back then.

B/c the Rifle Buff was considered smaller than the fall buff

I have never seen an infantry unit more powerful than 125 dps commandos though
I think they are around ~70 dps right now

He will always find something to comment on and will casually not state in numbers the exact thing that might make his comment rebuttal look worse (19% difference in RA).

Also, it's not like he can read the context of what was been discussed.
Reminder that the whole point of the discussion was why Falls (post buff/pre nerf) were a worst offender than Commandos with their cheese back then.

Read my post again I clearly state the difference:

Vet 3
0.9 received accuracy, Squad drops a big smoke grenade on retreat vs -20% weapon cooldown, -29% received accuracy
point goes to Paras

All and all better RA accuracy bonus (but worse total number) vs 0.5 accuracy and -20% weapon CD on top of that Commandos get healing earlier a smoke grenade and smoke bomb on retreat.

I would call them in line.

And actually the difference is 22% not 19% but commandos end up having better RA.

And as for context, I have clearly stated that I am pointing out that the myth about commandos and their veterancy simply does not hold any water.

Unit has great bases stats and thus its vet bonuses are inferior but inline with other elite units. Unit is cost efficient both at Vet 0 and at vet 3.

Read my post again I clearly state the difference:



And actually the difference is 22% not 19% but commandos end up having better RA.

And as context I have clearly state I am simply point out that the myth about commandos and their veterancy simply does not hold any water.

Read again the post i answered to before jumping to show up how much you know about the game. If my interpretation of his post saying that people didn't whine as hard when Commandos were at their peak, then my answer failed to be proper to the context but doesn't make it less true.

I didn't say they scale bad (NOW), that is something more complex than just vet. I've specifically said that their vet is the worst.
YOUR OPINION is that it's equivalent to Paras/Rangers. I don't think that the case and we can still agree to disagree. It would still put it in the lower end of the spectrum.
Someone has to be the worst, that doesn't mean it's imbalanced.

I didn't say they scale bad (NOW), that is something more complex than just vet. I've specifically said that their vet is the worst.
YOUR OPINION is that it's equivalent to Paras/Rangers. I don't think that the case and we can still agree to disagree. It would still put it in the lower end of the spectrum.
Someone has to be the worst, that doesn't mean it's imbalanced.

I can easily agree with that.

And I did not posted that you personally have made a claim that commandos are UP. The problem is that other users pick up lines like that and they repeat them again and again using them as an argument to prove that the unit is in someway lacking. Then myths are created that hold no water at all.

For instance for years this myth was repeated that Sherman somehow had a disadvantage because it had HE round and it had to switch to engage tanks.

I can easily agree with that.

And I did not posted that you personally have made a claim that commandos are UP. The problem is that other users pick up lines like that and they repeat them again and again using them as an argument to prove that the unit is in someway lacking. Then myths are created that hold no water at all.

For instance for years this myth was repeated that Sherman somehow had a disadvantage because it had HE round and it had to switch to engage tanks.

Did someone brought that point up?

Did someone brought that point up?

Yes I have read it plenty of times. Not very recently thou.

Yes I have read it plenty of times. Not very recently thou.

In this thread. Between the guys we were talking with.

In this thread. Between the guys we were talking with.

No

USF as a whole needs some nerfs not just Riflemen. So sick and tired of this faction

USF as a whole needs some nerfs not just Riflemen. So sick and tired of this faction

This goes for the entire wfa.

USF as a whole needs some nerfs not just Riflemen. So sick and tired of this faction

This goes for the entire wfa.

Only problem is how do you bring down M1 Garands and StG's to the level of Kar 98's without it being ridiculous?

Edit: Thinking about it, you could give the Volks StG the Sturmpioneer profile, which has a much harsher dropoff and would very likely put the StG as below Kar effectiveness past ~18 meters. Still don't see how you could nerf the M1 Garand so hard without making Riflemen worthless though.

Only problem is how do you bring down M1 Garands and StG's to the level of Kar 98's without it being ridiculous?

Edit: Thinking about it, you could give the Volks StG the Sturmpioneer profile, which has a much harsher dropoff and would very likely put the StG as below Kar effectiveness past ~18 meters. Still don't see how you could nerf the M1 Garand so hard without making Riflemen worthless though.

The question always comes down to "should unupgraded, unvetted Riflemen beat unupgraded, unvetted Grenadiers at X range?", where the answer colors the rest of the balance debate (An expensive mainline infantry squad uncompetitive at range and faced with nondoctrinal elite infantry opponents, one of which is itself close-mid range geared, does not fare well overall.)

Then you throw BARs in, and the ability to double-purchase them, and everything gets a lot messier: 120 munitions of anti-infantry upgrades should be worth the cost, presumably, but then people complain about it handily beating the 60mu final iteration of axis mainlines (StG44 Volks, LMG-42 Grens) (again at X range).

Weapon racks were a mistake tbh. Have caused way more issues than interesting gameplay options (BARs inevitably go to Riflemen, and occasionally Pathfinders. Bazookas get dumped on REs and maybe Rangers...)

That aside, I really think RM are fine, probably where they should be atm. They struggle versus the vet1 + StG-44 power spike on VGs and then come out above them with veterancy and BARs added later on. They fare well versus unupgraded Grenadiers most of the time but the arrangement seems mostly fair to me against LMG-42s.

If the rifle Garand buff (+0.4DPS at range 10) was to be fully reverted I honestly think they'd struggle versus VG again. And I certainly wouldn't follow up with a nerf after that.

There is one match up where RM clearly over perform and that is when they fight Assgrens. Before the RM buff this was a solid match up for Assgrens on the right maps, right now i would not even pick Assgrens against USF anymore.
Its ok that RM dominate on long and mid range but its ridiculous that Assgrens lose close quarter fights against RM.
I>f a dedicated close combat unit with the same price like RM not/barely wins cq engegements something is clearly wrong.