Profile of Dullahan

Is it really normal all that close relation the devs keep with the best players and broadcasters?
Or am I the only one striked by how close they are between each other?

I update the game just recently, I get in, and what do I see?
Helping Hans on the front page, this is joke lol?

Do you realize how influent they are on choices they keep doing to balance the game so far?
Imperial Dane himself is a moderator on their forums.
Helping Hans get to be on first page of the game.

If I'm not mistaken, they let one of them also write up a guide for beginners, that they link to in the game ?

It's a good thing as long as certain players don't get their ear more than the rest. (Which does tend to happen, honestly.)

There have been a lot of changes to CoH2 that I really dislike thanks to this sort of feedback, but if most people like it better than I guess I'll be the grumpy odd man out.

I don't find them very useful, even though I have a soft spot for them and attempt to use them from time to time.
One, long range weapons, so mg42, are superior for a variety of reasons in coh, two, the weapon is really not that great.
And then, instead of fighting allied infantry at long range which is axis comfort zone, you get a weapon which is effective at ranges where grens have no staying power and will simply be destroyed by anything but cons. The way I see it you're turning your grens into makeshift riflemen, except infinitely worse. Close range is not the place for a fragile 4 man squad, and I think that by choosing this upgrade you're giving up their strong suit.

It's a great medium range upgrade.

Pairs well with suppression too because you'll obliterate them up close and they can't fight back.

Pretty sure the crew weapons get swaped otherwise you'd have ridiculous damageoutput on like shocktroop maxims
But the stats stick so the extrta armour from shocks is nice.

And the DPS charts from Relic's attribute editor states that these things are hardly more than a slight improvement/side-grade on a unit with very good weapons. The only place where the G43 performs more effectively is the 30-35 mark.

What about on the move?

The stg44 has much shorter bursts when moving, which will significantly reduce damageoutput.

Because yeah of course, losing a model in a squad of 4 men isn't as big of a deal as losing a model in a squad of 5 or 6. Captain Nonsense ? When you lose 1 guy in a gren squad, you lose 25% dps, then 33%, then you retreat because you can't afford to lose the squad or it is gg. While having 5 men squads allows your squads to fight longer (obvious i know), have more dps in the long run (even if both squads do the same damage when they are full health/models), and is far less punishing for a mistake. That's exactly like Gbpirate explains: where allies are more micro intensive in the late stage of the game (because more squads and generally more units to handle), WM is terrible in the early. One unchecked mine, one grenade, one lucky squad wipe on the retreat can spell doom for the whole game. I already battled in another thread on this exact matter, and even uploaded couple replays of a US player losing 3-4 squads at the 15th min mark, and still fighting tooth and nail until the 45th mark, where WM finally won (and these were not casual players' 1v1s). I have yet to witness a WM player losing even 2 squads at the 15th mark, being able to fight toe to toe versus USF until 40 minutes into the game, let alone 4 squads. But as usual, i'm being told that i know shit, and holy grail holder noobitof pushes his allies agenda for another 500 posts.

It all depends on how you are trading and engaging. Grenadiers are weak in the early game, which is why you either need to outnumber him or use support weapons like MG42 and Sniper to win the engagement. Once they get the LMG, losing that one man isn't 25% of their DPS anymore. The single LMG grenadier alone does more damage than the other three models combined at effective ranges. This makes Wehrmacht surprisingly immune to snipers as a force multiplier since they're not taking away much damage by targeting your grenadiers or support weapons, they're just pressuring you. An example of what I'm talking about is A riflemen squad at 3 men will lose to a Pio squad for example, due to the loss of DPS. Manpower bleed is still manpower bleed, but a sniper doesn't "turn the tide" of fights against Grenadiers once they get those LMG's.

Smaller squad sizes have their advantages and their disadvantages. They're better in cover, especially against MG's, better in buildings and generally don't spend as much on reinforcement since they retreat earlier. The disadvantages is that an unlucky mine or mortar hit can be really bad for you. They also work really well with in field reinforcement like Halftrack or reinforcement bunker, because you can actively gain a huge percent of your damage back when you reinforce and is a wholly underused aspect of Wehrmacht quite frankly.

Chances are if a US player gets tons of squad wipes and can still compete it's because the german player isn't pushing their advantage hard enough. Lots of players in this game are really passive. This is why Allies typically win if German loses a few squads: they are very aggressive with their infantry and light vehicles and they punish you harder for those early game mistakes. A great follow up to early game squad wipes is to bolster your support weapons with things like mortars or more machine guns which limit his options of moving around the map even further. (While mining up of course)