USF is fine when I play vs players below top 20 players, I don't think you have experienced enough frustration vs a really good OKW player.
VS okw players, even you killed two squads if they manage to produce their lucs out around 6 mins, they are completely fine. Still can gain half of the map control. AT gun as you mentioned, you will never kill the lucs vs a good okw player, and you just bleed out in manpower when he pokes you at max range. Which also means, you can't play on both side of the map, you can only play the side where you have at gun. And btw, if you screw up early first grouped engagement vs Volks, then there is no way you winning the game. Volks then build sandbags at fuels and key location waiting for you to attack. They have a better chance of winning since they are long range and don't have to gap close. Still, have SP to flank. Same population caps, volks and sp has more combat potential than USF, since RM is expensive and squishy. You can't get to the late game when you can't survive the early game because of manpower bleed and if their p4 comes before your Sherman it is pretty much game over.
AA half track, can easily be killed by a hold fire camo rekton.
If you go t1, your light vehicle naturally at disadvantage vs OKW 's light vehicle since they have no tech needed at gun.
If you go t2, RM not going to win vs Volks with STG since your don't have .50 cal support.STG always cheaper to get vs tech upgrade bar. So volks have much early power spikes vs RM.
Moreover, one puma from axis completely shutdowns USF light vehicle.
So unless you use some off meta-strategy like WC trucks, MG spam you don't really have an advantage vs OKW.
I believe this is also the reason why USF pick rate is low in gcs.
Either buff RM by give them smokes back or remove the sandbag from Volks. You don't need to remove the sandbag from tommies since their cap rate got nerfered.
People complained about how OP the double LMG on RM was, with the captain's on me ability it was OP. But one single LMG on RM is super bad, you put it on a vetted RE is decent. IMO, LMG 42 is much better than USF LMG, which is also 15 muni cheaper, can be upgraded after battle phase one. LMG 42 comes earlier than 3cp USF lmg. On maps like crossroad, single LMG 42 upgrade on GD makes them 100 to 0 RM. This is the reason why RM needs the smoke to gap close and win closed up engagements. I think relic can make the same change on RM rifle smoke, reduce the range of smoke when RM is supressed, allows the machine gun to reposition. Maybe reduce the dps of USF lmg, and make it 2x for the riflemen.
RM is currently not the backbone of the USF force.
I agree with 90% of your post, but I'm not sure giving back smoke to RM is the good answer even if I also would like too. I'm also not sure if nerfing late game RM is the good answer, don't forget Obers/falls/pzgren exist and RM need to be able to fight them equaly.
OKW / USF match is an uphill battle for USF from minute 0 to 25, if the balance team want it like that, I have no problem with but USF design as a faction is not calibrate for this meta.
I really would like to see sandbag being removed to see how it balance the early game with USF. |
I'd rather lower the effectiveness of all other rocket arty. Rocket arty should be a tool to dislocate enemy defenses rather than cheesy wiping entire armies. Artillery is cancer imo.
Agreeing with you on this point. |
Unlike what you claim, it's actually possible to win engagements and come out ahead MP-wise as every faction. What you are claiming is that in every situation, USF loses mp-wise, which is utter bs. Not to mention the fact that countless posters have already pointed out Riflemen's superior veterancy and scaling make up for the early game weakness with cost-efficient trading in the mid and late game. We are almost the same rank as USF, so it's not even possible to justify your incredibly biased and lopsided view.
USF's weak early game is definitely something to be looked at, but not through spreading outright lies like the way you're doing. The worst thing is that we actually agree that USF has a weak early game and that the sandbag issue is a problem.
So first paragraph: USF early game is fine because reasons... second paragrah USF early game weakness is something to be looked at. Effectively with such way of argumenting you cannot lose.
I don't know what lie I am spreading, USF bleeding more than Ostheer is just the basic understanding of the matchup since day one. USF need to reduce the bleed the maximum while keeping the pressure and Ostheer need to bleed them harder while keeping the line. Why do you think USF need light vehicle: to keep the pressure and reduce the bleed. Why Ostheer always had a poor AI performance light vehicle: to not break this balance.
And by the way USF riflemen superior veterancy is there to compete with panzergrenadiers, not grenadiers. You can't just spam grenadiers, skip panzergrenadiers and complain that riflemen outscale you late game. |
I'm not sure if you even quoted the right post. You make completely zero sense.
I said bleeding more mp means you lost engagements. If you lose lots of Riflemen and your opponent loses very few Grenadiers, your play is likely to be the problem. I don't even know how you can claim that isn't true.
At no point did I ever say "Grens were bad" or "People don't build Grens". I don't know what the garden you're talking about because my post was about basic game concepts which CODGUY doesn't understand. Apparently, neither do you. If you lose lots of troops and your opponent doesn't, you lose more MP than him.
I don't think Grenadiers are bad, and I never said such a thing, so your "contradicting" of a point never mentioned is incredibly stupid.
I had to reread my post like six times to make sure I didn't exactly type "No one uses Grens" or "Rifles are superior to Grens" but your ability to imagine things is pretty impressive.
You can't win vs grenadiers without losing models as USF thus bleeding. Or that means you have all the RNG god favors. Should I really explain you the range and cover mechanism to let you see that grens are naturally better at max range and since USF troop hadn't develop personal teleporter at that time they need to take damage and lose models in order to reach their optimal fighting range. That's part of the principle behind Gren4men Rifle5men squads.
So yes your argumentation is wrong, you'll always bleed more as USF whenever you dominate or be dominated.
And to comeback to what I say, this is an issue today because USF bleeding more was balanced with the fact USF had better early game in the past. But successive patch to nerf USF early game made gren powerness a lot closer to riflemen which break this balance between both units. We would never see everyone using builds with 4 gren squad and super late T2 if it wasn't the case.
Also I recommend you (and anyone) to watch players manpower flux on replay or livetwitch, it is incredible how much manpower you can bank with those popular and powerful strats like 4gren or 4volks.
This is why, in my opinion, the actual balance problem (execpt UKF) doesn't lie in units stat but factions economy. Those strats are in fact too safe economically speaking. |
Riflemen and Grenadiers have exactly the same reinforce cost in proportion to their build cost per model.
If you're losing 4 riflemen while your opponent lost 3 Grenadiers, your opponent pays less MP to reinforce because they OUTPLAYED YOU. They used a unit which costs 6/7 as much to inflict 112mp of damage vs 90mp of losses.
The amount of bleed you suffer is based on the engagements taken, how well you play those engagements, as well as the bleed tools your opponent has.
Sure, RNG plays a significant factor in this game, but since you struggle all the time, the common factor is clearly your inability to use infantry.
What you say doesn't make any sens in a real game. Grenadiers are cheaper to reinforce because of old game design mechanism USF infantry > Ostheer Infantry. Is it still the case today? Honestly I don't think so when I look at my games or best players on twitch.
When you see Ostheer building almost every games 1 HMG + 4 gren vs USF, it is because Grenadiers can definitively duel riflemen and win in many situations. Remember a year ago or so, 4 gren was a suicidal strategy, you needed HMG sometime 2, mortar and tech fast to 222 and Pzg in order to do your transition into late game. Today you're happy if you see a pak as USF.
Grenadier spam everywhere is the reality today which contradict your saying.
The second point which also contradict your saying is that an upgraded grenadier squad down to 1 man is vastly superior to an upgraded riflemen squad down to 1 man as well. Thanks to the LMG42.
Now I don't think grenadier stats are the problem here, I still think Ostheer (and OKW and UKF once align to other factions) should lose all or some of their extra starting manpower. In my opinion early game balance is more about timing issues than raw unit stats.
And volks to lose their capacity to build sandbag, or to have it behind T1 or T2 or vet1 but no more like it is today. |
From Cruzzi's stats
BARs are 10.8/8./4.4
Garands are approximately 4.4/2.8/1.7
Both Garands and BARs have higher moving accuracy, and Riflemen have a smaller target size.
STGs are 7.8/5.4/2.0
Volks KAR98s are 3.5/2.7/1.8
So if we're talking early game, yes you are correct. Sturms and Volks beat the hell out of Rifles in the early game.
The problem is that you can't make a one-sided argument by ignoring how advantageous the mid to late game infantry engagements are for USF. You can't buff Riflemen early game while ignoring the vastly superior scaling of USF Riflemen. A Vet 3 Rifle squad without upgrades will narrowly beat Vet 3 Volks with STGs. Riflemen have much better combat bonuses from veterancy than Volks, and the ability to double BAR them makes them incredibly efficient for a single squad population-wise.
Not sure when you started playing, but double LMG Riflemen were removed from the game because they have similar ranged dps (approx 23) to an LMG Obers squad (approx 25). The fact that they're more easily spammable, cost less to reinforce and build, have utility abilities, and will already be Vet 3 by the time Obers appear made that combination way too powerful.
If Riflemen gets early game buffs, then USF vet scaling definitely needs to be tuned down in exchange.
Buffing Riflemen is stupid but not because of late game. Late game OKW has Obers to do the AI damage.
Imo Sandbag should be removed from volks or put behind vet1. |
Penetration matters a lot vs Ost. 50 cal can rip through 222, flame HT, and flak ht, and when garrisoned can do enough damage to force a Luchs back.
Having lower penetration means you can't even force back lightly armoured half tracks.
Set-up/tear-down time is also an important consideration.
I think most people would prefer the MG42, obviously, since it's the easiest to use. Just pointing out that it isn't "strictly" superior to the 50 cal.
It is: hit the field first by a larger margin, cost less, larger arc of fire, longer burst and vet1 incendiary round over the top.
Basically the HMG.50 is only better in setup time.
|
Maybe the usf should get free squads when they tech up to help accommodate diversifying their BO. I mean sure the mortar will force things out of garrisons and provide smoke for mgs out of them but really if you can't just spam rifles to make your problems disappear are you really playing USF?
fun fact tho! Just like how the usf pay mp for their mortar Ost ALSO pays mp for theirs! So they Also impact their field presence by building one. Although they also need a unit to build their base and don't get free squads when they do it.
How do you diversify a BO with the same unit given for free? |
In all my games I have yet to see a volks and Sturm Bar blob...
Just replace BAR with STG then  |
|
Nobody want it back to its old OP status, just that now it is simply too bad. IMO they should tie it to T3 and remove the CP requirement, that would be a good push. |
Relic Entertainment
