Profile of Doomlord52

That is true. It is something that they should too also fix. Make it the same price or somewhat cheaper than the MG42. That needs some fixing also.

A single M1919 makes Rifles better by 14-20% at max range (35), and that increases the closer you get. That's why they're more expensive (and doc-locked). I would keep them this way.
Show Spoiler

It would make more sense to give them captured PTRS upgrade as new models or guns are not being added. the axis captured large numbers of these and then put them into service.

Anyone who has played red orchestra 2 will see this

This makes a lot of sense. The single shreck is really strange because it gives incredibly high alpha damage, but very low effective DPS. Replacing it with 1 or 2 PTRS' would fix a lot; less powerful late-game AT, more consistent early game AT.

The Flak HT vs AAHT matchup is interesting.

On the one hand, the Flak HT gets smoke and 360-degree firing, but on the other, the AAHT can fire on the movie / has no setup time. I don't think it needs smoke, but the awkward reverse-movement thing could use some adjustment.

And what about vet3?

3.369 х 3 + 13.588 (mg34) = 23,695 (max range 35)

2.371 х 4 + 12.291 (m1919) = 21,755 (max range 35)

400/23,695 = 16,8 s
320/21,755 = 14.7 s

The difference in DPS - 14.29%

How much more expensive is the unit = 16.67% mp

How much more expensive m1919 = 16.67% muni

At the same time, m1919 is a weapon from the doctrine.

You didn't account for Received Accuracy in those calculations.


(320hp / 0.7ra)/21.755dps = 457.14hp/21.755dps = 21.01 sec
(400hp / 0.64ra)/23.695 = 625hp/23.695dps = 26.37 sec

Difference = 20.32%

So it's actually above your cost-difference numbers.

Given the fact that 1 vet is bad for the rifleman

Vet 1 for Grens is medpacks, and those don't work in combat (and are, in general, awful).

Given the fact that the target size is very poor 0.97 vs 0.91.

No, I actually missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. Factoring in Gren's 0.91ra and Rifle's 0.97ra:

(400hp / 0.97ra)/15.71dps = 412.37hp/15.71dps = 26.25sec
(320hp / 0.91ra)/15.56dps = 351.65hp/15.56dps = 22.60sec

That's a difference of 13.9%, if we're keeping track.

This speaks of large losses at an early stage of the game,

That doesn't make sense, though. In combat, rifles win at every range with the M1919, and by a significant amount, and we're not even accounting for DPS loss due to model loss. On top of that, the reinforce costs for Grens are actually higher; so they're losing more AND paying more.

and the grenadiers, due to cheap and quick access to mg34,

As for unlocking the LMG42, it's behind BP1, which is 100mp/40f, compared to weapon racks at 150mp/15f. Yes, BP1 also gives you access to PGrens and T2, but weapon racks allows you to equip anything on any unit

can be much more effective.

Not according to the math we did above.

So the grenadiers gain vet faster. And only on the 3rd Vete, there is a chance to win. Because vet 3 Grens - 0,7 target size, Rifle - 0,64.

I have yet to see or find Gren vs. Riflemen vet bonuses, but at vet 3, rifles win percentage actually increases from 13.9% to 20.32%.

I'll have to run the numbers with double bars some time, but I'd guess that it just increases their win percentage at medium/close range.

Grenadiers are in a better position. Especially when at the beginning of the game they are covered by the best mg42 in the game.

And using your math, you will not hide the fact that the USF is the worst fraction in tournaments. This is the main reason why I discuss it here.

Grens are in a decent position right now. Not amazing, but not terrible. I would call them 'borderline ok'. However, buffing rifles will push them over that edge into the 'terrible section.

And yea, the math doesn't explain that - that wasn't the intention. The game has a TON of other factors to consider. As others have said, in tournament play, the game just happens to favor Sov/UKF. This is mainly partly due to map choices, but also simply due to flexibility. USF is an extremely strange "one trick" faction right now; but buffing the good units won't change that.

That said, the stats do show that up until the previous major patch, USF had the highest win rate in most game modes at the highest skill brackets.

worst support weapons :


mg34 : a mg 42 just with lower stats same arc
leig : pack howie 2.0 cost almost nothing (so spamable where the howie cost a bunch to unlock and a bunch to produce in a team where rifle cost already tons of mp) can be use with 2 model (howie need 3 or he die) and get doctrinal firestrike.
raketen: at gun with camo and retreat you can scout shoot and retreat, cost nothing (the cheapest at in game so you can make 2- 3 of them together and roam the battlefield)



so yeah really worse collective weapons

While the M34 point is right, the other two have significant downsides. The LeiG is significantly worse than the Pack Howie, so that's not really a fair comparison, and while the Raketten can cloak and retreat, it also has much less range, and a tendency to miss / hit the ground.

Axis players are just fun.
> Given the price of grenadiers 240 mp
> powerfull LMG for 60 muni (better then doctrine m1919 for 70 muni )
> the best faust in the first minutes of the game
> first aid kit
> can build bunkers

"But they are not in t0"
"I want two lmg"
Extreme fanaticism. Fans of the easy game.
Perhaps this is the Ostheer worst faction in tournaments?

Let im start to cry, that usf mg is not in t0?

There's some pretty good reasons as to why they're like that, but you seem to have missed those posts. And nobody actually "wants" 2x LMGs on grens, it would be fun, but horrendously overpowered. There's a difference between 'silly fun' and 'actual balance suggestions'.

Show Spoiler