Profile of Hannibal

Unfortunately, I don't have a good idea.
The allowIncompatibleReplays command worked fine for me, maybe just make sure that all it has been entered correctly. It is actually the intended "fix" for seeing replays from older versions

It all started from these claims:


That create the impression that garrand's long range performance can be ignored because it a "close range" weapon so it does not work with well with LMGs.

It not even the first, the second or even the third time that user has described gareands as "close range weapons".

The claim is simply false (but it seems that some people like to disagree with person that makes a post and not with what it has actually been posted).

It is false in the sense that Garands are not a pure close range weapon in the sense of SMGs, yes.
In what it is true though is that Rifles should close in whenever possible against Volks, Grens and even Obers. That's what the Garand profile dictates them to do. PGrens are the only exception here, but also a rather rare occurrence.
LMG Rifles have a quite odd profile of having no real benefit of closing in between ranges 35 and ~15, but then still have quite a DPS growth below range 15 despite having an LMG.
Some numbers on that:
LMG Rifles deal about 51% of their max damage at range 35, 67% at 15 (+16%) and peak at range 6 with 100%.
For comparison, Grenadiers deal 69% of damage at range 35, 83% at 15 (+14%) and peak at range 0 with 100%.

Combine this with the fact that LMG Rifles and LMG Grens have similar DPS until range ~18, at least against Ostheer it puts Rifles into an odd position.
Staying at far range makes you only trade evenly and is a suboptimal use of your squad (only 51% of max damage, other long range squads deal significantly more).
Closing in from far is not worth it since you gain little DPS in the first place and will even lose your short range models.
Closing in from mid MIGHT be worth it if you don't lose too many of your Garand models.
Staying close is absolutely worth it, but for that you can just buy a BAR.

Against OKW it might look different again, I have not thought it through in detail. Against Volks, I however see that the weird Rifle+LMG profile leads to having better DPS roughly above range 20 and below range 10, in between it is pretty even. So you'll get a better squad, but the behaviour is odd.
But I also did not find the LMGs really worth it in team games. The commander ability technically allows you to skip the rack upgrade, but also this is suboptimal. If you don't buy racks, your rifles still will have a free, unused weapon slot and your echelons stay pretty useless since they can't get zooks.

The upgrade is not super bad on paper, but does not offer that much benefit either. Other weapon upgrades that mix different weapons do it in a way that the whole profile of the squad gets changed, but the LMG upgrade on Rifles doesn't. It creates an odd hybrid.

I fully understand everything you and Vipper are saying. My issue is that according to vipper only SMG/Pistol count as short range weapons. I am saying that is to narrow minded. He is stating that Rifleman are not a short/mid favoring squad when they follow same damage as G43 which per Relics words a short/mid range upgrade. And your conscript example is what I am talking about, just because a weapon falls under an archetype doesn’t mean it has to follow the design 100% it can be changed as needed per balance needs. As such you cannot state only SMG are close range squad since Thompsons are also mid range.

I couldn't really follow everything that has been claimed here.
If the statement was that Panzerfusilier-G43 and Riflemen Garand or even that upgrades PFusies have a different profile than Riflemen or they were not "mid range squads", I don't agree with it. They are very similar in their profile, even despite PFusies having mixed weapons.
The classification of short/mid/long range squads does not come from a 1on1 comparison, but from "sorting" all squads and comparing every squad with all others. Usually, there is no reason to push into an SMG squad, because you will only improve their performance, not yours. The same goes for LMG squads and long ranges. Carbines and other mid ranged weapons/squads are sorted based on these extremes, stay away from SMG, but close into LMG squads.
Obviously this doesn't mean that you should stick to mid range at all cost. Close range fighting with PFusies makes sense against infantry sections with Bren guns, despite PFusies being a "mid range" squad. It is a guideline what your squad can do and what it can't. E.g. if you can't really leave your cover, you can still stick around with Riflemen at mid to long range to deal at least some damage. If it is an SMG squad, there is no reason to do that, since you won't deal any significant damage in the first place. That's how I think the classifications should be understood. In that sense, SMGs (and maybe pistols, didn't check) are short range weapons. Thompsons are an exception to SMGs, definitely. For all other SMGs, the rule of thumb is still correct. Although Thompsons have mid range DPS, they don't follow a classical carbine profile. Their damage still goes to near 0 at max range, and if possible you still benefit from closing in as quickly as possible in basically all circumstances. They still don't falsify the statement that SMGs are close range weapons, just because - as an exception to the rule - they are still okay at mid range.

As a side note, what I said about mosins was with the old Conscript/Gren match up in mind, which is probably also the main reason for their special long range DPS drop. In the late game, using Conscripts at long range can still be benefitial, their gain for closing in is despite everything still comparatively small. You probably just want to push them in 5m further than you would any other bolt action rifle squad, meaning, you stick around at 25-30 meters instead of 30-35. You can still summarize them as bolt action profile and the general guideline still makes sense for Conscripts and all other similar squads.

Of course weapon profiles can be changed anytime, but just for improving intuition, at some point it makes more sense to upgrade to hand out different weapon types instead of the same looking weapon with a completely different profile.

Tech and side tech cost went down over the patches to match with other factions changes. USF side tech and tech were expensive because you weren't supposed to get all of them, the HMG T1 and Atgun T2 concept. At that time Stuart was T2 and AAHT T1 with the M20 and HMG. Keep in mind that the design was somewhat inspired from COH1 where or you tech BAR or M20 first and if you get the two of them you'll be behind for the medium timing. That a choice the play had to take.

Now we are in a design that impose the USF player to get those upgrades, they aren't anymore optional in term of gameplay. You can't keep your riflemen unupgunned, you can't only rely on your LVs to maintain the pressure, you need those BARs, grenades and LV altogether to stay relevant thus making USF tech more expensive.

And here, to come back to Path, USF tech is more expensive but you're not gaining anything from it, there isn't a momentum provided, the M20 has an extremely short windows of opportunity and even if you want to rush it, you must sacrifice map presence with one RM less and BAR come way after LMG upgrades because you must pay additional fuel to get them.

As opposed Path give you momentum with their camo and vision letting you decide when to engage.

Yes I agree to almost all of that.
What you describe is a design, not a balance issue. The faction design has become more 'boring' in exchange for not being broken. The momentum now comes from when you have to make investments rather than if. OKW for example has a very efficient early game, especially MP wise, because their tech is fairly inexpensive. After their first tech structure, they don't get much anymore and rather have to respond to what Allies throw at them. Bar-Rifles beat Volks and Grens around this timing. Soviets get a great T70 to push back until the first medium hits the field. Similarly, Soviet early game is quiet MP efficient with Conscripts and gets pushed back once Axis arrive with weapon upgrades and you have to get medics. It is abput timing, not what you get. Same goes for muni expenditure etc.

The initial discussion point though was if 'side tech' should be considered additional cost for infantry squadds and therefore be taken into account when discussing balance.

Pathfinders give you initiative because you see everything Axis can throw at you until the first LV before the engagement happens. But that is a different discussion than tech cost.

Now the problem begin, without side tech (weapon rack, nade, snare, boster...}. Alies mainline inf lost their power overtime. Now we back to same problems everytime in 2v2 match:
- Has to stick in cover > less agressive attack meaning you give Axis a room to breath.
- Has to depend on LV, support weapon > easily zoned out by axis superior weapon team.
- has to take more bleed and spend more mirco than enemies (which is cause more stress and less pay attention].
Logically, Everyone will spam long range inf because why not do the same as axis. Not to mention a fucking combo: OST Jeager armor + OKW Overwatch just straight OP.

I don't understand how this relates to side techs and cost.

I can just second what Gachigasm said: you're fully supposed to get all side techs, you're just given the option when you will get them. That does not mean that it is viable to ditch all of them until after your first tank, usually the decision is which one you will unlock after your first LV and the rest will be bought after your medium.
After all, they don't work well, the 'versatile Allies' design that Relic intended held up badly and we're stuck with some remnants of that.