Profile of FelixTHM

Who say they lose so badly? Your just doing a strawman + personal insult as main argument, as usual shall I say.
I said they don't perform in their ideal condition as much as SP performs for the same or even larger price tag difference.
OKW early game has been buffed with medic crate, SP buffed and Kubel changes while, as I stated, volks received minimum nerfs. At the same time having enable so much T1 make OKW much more oppressive while back then when T2 was the get to go their early game was less.

RE nerf has just enable more the kubel dominance vs USF, and it was highlighted during the patch preview but put aside by the modding team to reach the situation we're facing today, RE are neither good vs infantry or Kubel. Their bad at everything for an expensive price.

Medic crates for SP at Vet 0 were added like a hundred years ago, in the same patch that T70's HP was increased to 400, and SP vet buffs have nothing to do with the early game. You're literally pulling shit out of your ass. I had to scroll through to fucking 2017 to find the "recent OKW early game buffs" you're talking about.

Literal stats say Pioneers lose so badly to Riflemen that you're a complete joke of a human being. It's not a strawman to point out that you're barely capable of mouth-breathing.

Rifleman absolutely roflstomp Pioneers at any and every range. It's a 5 man squad which out-dpses Pioneers by 25% at 0-10 range, 200% at mid range, and 650% at long range while having 28% more effective HP and way lower DPS attrition. Pioneers literally only hurt because most players stand in knife distance for 10 seconds while trying to flank and kill an mg42.

Do I think REs suck? Yes, I hate them, and I wish they could at least build sandbags and lay real mines. I use them almost exclusively for wiring and back-capping until Zook duty.

The problem with USF early game is that it is by far the weakest. RE is just part of the situation.


Riflemen are overpriced for their performance. Or the other way around, the modding team buffed so much OKW and Ostheer early game that riflemen went from balanced to underperformant by far.

- They get destroyed mid to close range by Sturmpioneer for only 20 manpower more.
- Considering they delta in cost between them and Pioneer (80 manpower), they should perform the same ways vs pioneer as ST perform vs them, but that's not the case.
- They should destroy the same way volks once mid to close range as ST perform vs them for the same cost (20 manpower), but that's also not the case.
- They should destroy the same way grens once mid to close range as ST perform vs them since the cost delta is 40 manpower, but that's also not the case.


USF early game is also the slower, whenever you decide to do 2xriflemen or 3xriflemen your next unit will .

OKW early game was not buffed at all, what crack are you smoking? Starting manpower reduced, Volks cost increased compared to past patches.

I don't know how you can lose engagements so badly early game as USF. Pios absolutely get roflstomped completely at any and every range by Riflemen. Even when Pios come right around a hedge and engage at their ideal range they get stomped by Riflemen. Did you somehow confuse Pios and Ass Grenadiers?

Volks do lose significantly mid to close range. The problem is with Kubel causing lots of health damage and Sturms preventing easy close-ins, creating excellent synergy.

Grens do lose significantly mid to close range. The problem is that they have already dropped a rifle model or two from closing in. The bigger problem is with mg42. If you get one Rifle squad caught by the mg42 then your early game is pretty much game over.

Flak HT is so powerful that it's one of the key units keeping the faction viable in 1v1. I've wiped countless squads and had countless squads wiped by it since many players commonly forget it ignores accuracy bonuses from retreating. Its shock timing is ridiculously early since you can delay medics for a little. The only weakness is that sometimes when firing at long range it loses vision of the enemy in between a burst and then charges forward recklessly by itself, but good players almost always spot properly for their flak HTs.

Arguably the Quad is the best HT overall since it can fire on the move without setting up (and is also the best AA unit), but it does cost a buttload of munitions and competes with the T70 at a similar timing.

Tommies used to be a good infantry unit until like 3 years back when they got beaten silly with the nerf hammer. They've only gotten progressively worse as the faction as a whole got deliberately nerfed into the ground.

In the past it was important for Infantry Sections to be good because UKF had no other long range oriented infantry units to rely on.

What's happened to Infantry Sections since I've started playing circa 2017:

- Long range damage was nerfed

- Brens were nerfed

- Bolster was put behind T2 (without it's high price even being adjusted)

When they nefed the unit repeatedly into the ground the only things that got adjusted was a slight manpower cost reduction from 280 to 270 (almost nothing) and I guess Brens went from 60 munitions to 45. Problem is Brens were worth 60 munitions before the nerf but weren't worth 45 after.

Most people openly admit they nerfed Brits not really for balance reasons but simply because Axis mains just didn't like playing against them.

The only Brit unit I can think of they didn't nerf to hell and actually gave any significant buffs to was the Comet.

It is worth mentioning though they did introduce new Brit infantry over the last few years that wasn't around when Tommies were good, like Assault Sections which are decent, and the Air Assault Officer which was a great idea (one I'd thought of too actually before it was implemented). And now we have Raid Sections but I haven't found any use for them as they seem to be just slightly worse Infantry Sections.

Personally I think they either need to move bolster back to a T0 upgrade or reduce it's fuel cost by 20 if it's going to stay a T2 upgrade because with Tommies being double/triple nerfed it's a required upgrade to keep them competent mid and late game.

Any sane person who plays the game at any competent level hated playing either as or against old Brits because the design was incredibly broken and frustrating. Brits had ridiculously OP auto-win infantry but the faction design was so idiotic that you would then lose the moment light and medium vehicles came out. No flamers no smoke no mortars no cqc units no snares with OP mainline and call-ins and cancer emplacements was literally the 2017 design that every sane person hated and wanted fixed, but Relic kept limiting the scope of what could be changed about Brits. It's braindead fools like you who refuse to admit that the game and factions are much better today than they ever were. Bullshit OP units got reined in, and if the sacrifice is simply a few Brit mains I'm more than happy to trade that in.

Tommies weren't good in the past. They were god-tier infantry who had 1.25 capture rate for no particular reason, sandbagged every point, had bonus sight, became a 4 min mark 5-man mainline with 16 damage rifles, the fastest fire rate and reload as well as highest accuracy as well as smallest target size and on-field healing while weirdly costing less to reinforce than grens. They were so ridiculously OP that even you could win infantry engagements. And honestly after all the nerfs, they still trade decently vs Volks pre-stg and can beat grenadiers at long and mid range. You obviously wouldn't feel it since you keep your units in red cover for 5 to 10 seconds every engagement (based on our past playing interactions).

Brits as a badly-designed faction is Relic's fault. The balance team tried their best to patch together a workable faction, and the game state of Brits today is far better than it used to be. Better for Brits to be the 47% win rate faction they are today than the unplayable mess it was that only you enjoyed.

A reduction in bolster fuel cost would be reasonable actually. But without a JLI nerf Brits are going to have a hard time competing regardless.

Your team has a 3 "random" chances to get bad players if you are a good player.
The enemy has 4 "random" chances to get bad players.
Given enough games that difference will make itself clear.

Excellent summary.

I'd like to add though, that Elo hell feels worse in COH2 because there's not enough of a playerbase for consistently fair matchmaking. And you still lose a fair amount of elo against significantly stronger opponents one or two skill tiers above you. Having played a fair amount of competitive CCGs I can definitively assert playerbase is literally 99% of the issue, and not Relic's algorithm. In competitive CCGs like Hearthstone and Gwent in their prime, matches have less than a 20pt spread, like 5005 vs 4988 would already be rare. (even while using the 5k+ mmr system). Whereas there's just not enough players in COH2 to distribute players across the full elo spectrum. In 1v1 rankings you literally go from level 13 to level 16 between rank 201 and rank 199.

I hover between rank 70-150 depending on RNG + matchmaking - I've hit my skill ceiling for a few years already (since I'm in my 30s). When matchmaking feeds me a bunch of rank 200+, I can get a nice win streak going and get to lvl 17. I dropped from 71 to almost 100 in a 4-game loss streak to players ranked 30 to 50. Given the skill disparity (my win rate is less than 15% against players of that skill bracket), I really shouldn't be losing that much elo at all.

Basically it's a half-and-half between what Rosbone and Stormjager are saying.

Yes, you can climb the ranks rather easily if you are really much better (like multiple skill tiers).
Yes, Elo hell exists for sure because the small playerbase guarantees plenty of unfair matches, and the volume of matches needed to grind through a bad run can be fairly large.

Also: arranged teams fuck up the algorithm