Profile of FelixTHM

I think sandbags stock on mainlines is a bad idea. It should be doctrinal. UKF can keep their trenches as the trenches have a longer build time, only built on friendly sectors and can be used against u. And I think some of the weaker Brit docs should allow sandbags or make it a veteran ability on IS/sappers.

I agree with IpKaiFung. Riflemen ARE in a weird spot. Vs Ost they are far more cost efficient than grens right off the bat. Vs OKW they are a bit lacking at vet 0 but after upgrades and/or vet, they are more than decent. This dictates when to get aggressive. Vs Ost: hit the ground running. Vs OKW: secure your own stuff first and see where OKW is going before leaving your own side of the map. OKW has no mid game unless they get luchs which will in turn jeopardize their late game if their luchs gets killed too quickly.

The original poster just needs to understand that the riflemen easily outscale volks and the only time they are not as cost effective is the first 5min vs OKW. Relic cannot be trusted with faction descriptions. USF is an aggressive faction. Guess what? So is OKW. Don't get mad because OKW can out-aggress you in the first 5 min. USF beats OKW in the 5-20 min mark for 1v1.

Esxile kept attacking me ad hominem for making these exact same points. Waiting to see that rabid dog bite you for making the same reasonable claims.

You basically pointed out the exact same facts that I did: Riflemen can handle Grens early game, struggle when LMGs come online, but regain their footing late game with veterancy and upgrades. And that Riflemen struggle vs OKW early game, but when veterancy and upgrades kick in, really dominate the infantry engagements. For pointing out something that's statistically true I was subjected to slander and non-stop verbal abuse. Which Theodosis did nothing to stop except to censor my rebuttals, but yeah whatever.

I mean, KoreanJesus was telling outright lies, saying that Volks are more durable than Riflemen. Volks at Vet 3 get 0.8 received accuracy and get no combat bonuses after Vet 3, vs Riflemen who have double the ra bonuses (0.6 ra at vet 3). But sure, outright lies by the OP and ad hominem attacks by Esxile get a free pass.

I play both USF AND Axis, so I do agree USF needs some help. I just don't think outright lies and false information are the way to suggest improvements.

Imo, giving every mainline infantry non-doctrinal sandbags or standardising sandbags on engineer units would help to mitigate the problem. Another possibility would be to reduce Riflemen cost while nerfing their veterancy bonuses. Specifically targeting OKW and making them start with a Volks instead of a Sturm might also be a viable solution.

I feel like the rate of progress on the map pool the 6 months to year has been pretty reasonable, especially compared to the rest of the games history and given that it is largely driven by volunteer efforts.

However I am not a mapmaker so perhaps I don't understand whiteflash's frustrations.

Anyway I voted Arnhem because that is a veto for every faction for me. Minsk I don't see as a competition suitable map but I don't mind playing on it as it brings about much different strategies due to its large size, kind of reminds me of Lost Temple in WC3. Kholodny winter is inferior to summer for sure however I wouldn't mind 2 versions of Kholodny in the map pool if the winter version was better and offered some meaningful differences.

Hmmm, I dislike Minsk because its large size and long distance to "enemy" VP leads to annihilation-style games that often take an hour or more, much like why I auto-veto Angoville.

Kholodny Summer has been patched significantly, and East player actually has a chance now. Perhaps we could give the Winter version a chance to be fixed as well, instead of letting it fester as the most imbalanced of all maps in the automatch pool in terms of spawn position. Road to Cutoff has a similar problem, with north spawn being heavily disfavoured. I believe this is what Sturmpanther was alluding to in his reply to you, Whiteflash.

Imho spawn imbalances are the worst type of imbalance - a map being garrison hell or having red cover everywhere simply forces a different playstyle. Certain players don't like certain maps because of playstyle preferences, but being East on Kholodny Winter has nothing to do with how you play. It just starts you off with a massive disadvantage 50% of the time. Whether it gets fixed or it gets pulled, I would definitely vote for something to be done to it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I was wrong i really thought the AVRE couldn't shoot through hedges.

No idea why you would think that. Even LVs can shoot through hedges. Anything with the attack ground feature is able to.