M1 Rifle Garand

[Warhawks97]

Is it just me or is it again just garbage that makes you lose almost all rifle rights?


I had increasing numbers or instances where these guys just couldnt stop enemie standard inf from just walking towards them and killing them. Even when i gave them an BAR. It feels like grease guns are the only vital weapon on this squad making it even better at ranged fight as when using Garands.

Just a few days a ago i flanked an enemie inf blobb of volkssturm and grens. I had my guys sitting in bushes with yellow cover. The Volksgren, on which i ordered them to shoo, just walked towards my Rifles with their M40 and shred shred them with m40.

I also had a 7 men rifle squad with captain nearby in a ranged fight with stanfard PE grens with G43 and captain and still losing the fight.
In some matches my ranger captain squads it recking up more kills than any of my rifle squads. Thats so fucking weird and stupid.

Meanwhile they often get shred by Laser bolt rifles and schwimmwagens with laser MG killing like always two men within the first volleys and bursts and thus instantly gaining the upper hand. I have moments where i lose 2-3 men outright so that even the 7 men squad is down to 4 men even before they managed to sort themselves behind a wall for maximum cover.



Perhaps i am the only one who sees it like that. But currently the best way to play seems to be avoiding them alltogehter and instead just get two snipers, two AT guns and two jeeps.

[MarKr]

You say here that Axis infantry destroyed your squad but Axis had SMGs. Garands are not set up to beat SMGs in close range. If they tried to rush you with their stock Kar98s, Garands would have won at that range.

We're not setting Garands (which are free) to beat SMGs (that you have to pay for) at close range.

[Warhawks97]

You say here that Axis infantry destroyed your squad but Axis had SMGs. Garands are not set up to beat SMGs in close range. If they tried to rush you with their stock Kar98s, Garands would have won at that range.

We're not setting Garands (which are free) to beat SMGs (that you have to pay for) at close range.

They just walked over open field losing only 2 men.
If they hadn't gone into close range they would have killed my guys from range

[Walderschmidt]

You say here that Axis infantry destroyed your squad but Axis had SMGs. Garands are not set up to beat SMGs in close range. If they tried to rush you with their stock Kar98s, Garands would have won at that range.

We're not setting Garands (which are free) to beat SMGs (that you have to pay for) at close range.

They just walked over open field losing only 2 men.
If they hadn't gone into close range they would have killed my guys from range

Do you have the replay?

And do you know if debuffs were applied to your rifles or not?

Wald

[Warhawks97]

You say here that Axis infantry destroyed your squad but Axis had SMGs. Garands are not set up to beat SMGs in close range. If they tried to rush you with their stock Kar98s, Garands would have won at that range.

We're not setting Garands (which are free) to beat SMGs (that you have to pay for) at close range.

They just walked over open field losing only 2 men.
If they hadn't gone into close range they would have killed my guys from range

Do you have the replay?

And do you know if debuffs were applied to your rifles or not?

Wald

you saw yourself. My 7 men rifle squad couldnt prevent from being charged and overrun by pios with MP40.

Try to overrun volks like that. Unless you give them Grease guns, they suck at any range. Grease gun makes them actually better at mid to long range than Garand.

[MarKr]

Well as I said - SMGs at close range beat the Garands and it should be like that because you don't pay for Garands but you pay for SMG upgrades.

But it is hard to say what happened there when I haven't seen the situation. You know how the damage system works - it is influenced by many circumstances and modifiers. Can you keep an eye out and post a replay here next time? It would be easier to comment on this after seeing the situation first hand.

[Warhawks97]

Well as I said - SMGs at close range beat the Garands and it should be like that because you don't pay for Garands but you pay for SMG upgrades.

But it is hard to say what happened there when I haven't seen the situation. You know how the damage system works - it is influenced by many circumstances and modifiers. Can you keep an eye out and post a replay here next time? It would be easier to comment on this after seeing the situation first hand.

will try

[Consti255]

i am on Hawks side..

I try to a upload replay.
Last game my rifles with 4 men in green cover got a scout which was 1m away after 15 shots or so.

Garands feel kinda underwhelming or more like really unconsistent.

[Warhawks97]

i am on Hawks side..

I try to a upload replay.
Last game my rifles with 4 men in green cover got a scout which was 1m away after 15 shots or so.

Garands feel kinda underwhelming or more like really unconsistent.

Or That Pgren squad. 5 men got killed by grenade, the last retreated with low HP under fire of like 6 engineer Garands and at least 5 or more Rifle men Garands which were all standing quite close to it. But he made it out.

Or that Assault pios which just so walked into my Rifle squad standing near the tree and shooting at them all the time. The assault pios still made it to my rifle squad with 2 men left despite being under fire by various units and these two guys killed all riflemen and i think the last even managed to escape.

I also had repeated occassions where my Ranger captain unit stood together with a rifle squad and actually killed a lot more guys than my Rifle squad did.

My current opening game is getting combat engineers+ a few jeeps and ranger captain when playing armor doc. There is no point in getting Rifle squads except perhaps for capping.

[MarKr]

You don't have to pile up these "it also happened to me that..." stories. You say it happens often, please upload some replays.

Anyway, I wonder how Garands went in a few updates from "OMG Garands are so OP, Riflemen kill everything" to "OMG Garands are sooooo useless Riflemen are shit" when they haven't been changed in...I don't even know how many updates...

I would also like to say that I am very, very, very (50x more "very") against buffing Garands again because the initial Garand buff led to an extremely long chain of infantry buffs and I'm pretty sure that buffing it again will have the same result.

[Consti255]

Markr is right.
Garands just feel unconsistent. Sometimes they do the role as intended and sometimes they just suck really bad.
idk how to describe.

[Warhawks97]

You don't have to pile up these "it also happened to me that..." stories. You say it happens often, please upload some replays.

Anyway, I wonder how Garands went in a few updates from "OMG Garands are so OP, Riflemen kill everything" to "OMG Garands are sooooo useless Riflemen are shit" when they haven't been changed in...I don't even know how many updates...

I would also like to say that I am very, very, very (50x more "very") against buffing Garands again because the initial Garand buff led to an extremely long chain of infantry buffs and I'm pretty sure that buffing it again will have the same result.

Its now that it starts to become really frustrating that you dont really stand a chance in any gunfight. You simply know that you can do just two things basically: Stay in combat and somehow find a way to support your rifle squad with more firepower, or You lose if you just sit there and do nothing while the enemie inf can just jerk off themselves and relax, knowing they gonna win anyway.


On the other hand, when you get caught just a little bit off cover (like when two men dont stay in perfect cover), two men will die outright by enemie Laser Bolt-Action rifles.


If that game would be a Star Wars movie, the Bolt action guys would be the good guys, always hitting perfectly with their first volleys. Rifle men would be the bad guys. Basically the Star wars Stormtroopers. Lots of shooting, noises and effects but no effect on target.


On top of that the firepower in the early game in HR games is in favour for axis for various reasons. 1. They can field more units at once with 3 buildings able to produce inf, AT guns and vehicles right away. They can reinforce due to HT´s being available right away or have 20 mm vehicles backed by 37 mm assault AT guns with HE rounds. Certain 20 mm vehicles, like the Gepard from BK doc, have powerfull bursts that are far more deadly than those of Pumas, basically one-bursting everything, jeeps, inf etc while able to withstand an RL shot from the Jeep.

The fact that the nature of the Garand forces you already to play more risky by trying to get closer, paired with high reinforce and upkeep cost (and late supply yard), just adds to the pain.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

I agree that Garand sometimes feels underwhelming. Though it’s exactly the same with K98, often my Volks or Panzergrenadiers cannot hit and kill shit.

British rifles on the other hand are great and always seem to do a great damage, it’s such a pleasure to use infantry sections and rifle commando.

[crazzy501]

British rifles on the other hand are great and always seem to do a great damage, it’s such a pleasure to use infantry sections and rifle commando.

+1
Brits infantry even an engineer squads are more useful against volks or panzer grenadiers

[H.Drescher]

I personally find Garand's on Riflemen and Engineers to be performing well. It's only when I use them on Rangers or Airborne do they feel extremely underwhelming.

[Walderschmidt]

I personally find Garand's on Riflemen and Engineers to be performing well. It's only when I use them on Rangers or Airborne do they feel extremely underwhelming.

Rangers and Airborne to me do feel underwhelming.

Wald

[kwok]

I'm not kidding. If the other devs bring this up for discussion I will hardcore bitch. I am tired of the talking, testing, tweaking cycle of ENTIRE FACTIONS due to BASE WEAPON changes. This is my line in the sand as a player and a dev.

Do you guys understand that balancing is all relative? Like... fundamentally there is no "buffs or nerfs". There are relative changes. Any buff to allies is a nerf to axis and vice versa. Yeah no shit "garands feel weak" because all of axis got "buffed" because allies got "buffed" first. If this cycle keeps going on and on then soon the game will be pure line infantry without a need for light vehicles because the meta will be "go basic inf with no support weapons or get fucked. play starcraft until fuel for tanks." Soon garands are going to be stronger than 50cals and 20mms, then we gotta buff 50cals and 20mms. And for people who think this is a hyperbole... it literally isn't. It's why coax guns got buffed because of relative power comparisons.

We spent painstaking patches doing math in models way beyond the "feelings of players" and went through how many cycles of testing just to get it to where it is now? No, garands aren't bad, you just suck with riflemen and are probably engaging at the wrong distance relative to the opposing k98s.

Wow, this is my first post in such a long time since i've been so busy with work. Why am I not surprised this topic would come up again. You can ask Markr, I said this would happen. I called it a mile away.

[Warhawks97]

"Engaging from the wrong distance". Well, thats why i prefer standard res games as alli. In high res its like "Oh, a Volks squad. I can sneak up on them from a side or so". And then i suddenly find my rifles being under fire of 37 mm AT gun HE fire, 20 mm cars, Halfracks with MG42 other shit.

And engaging from somewhat larger distance is a pain. I cant even get sandbags with rifles to at least even out the odds a little bit. As axis (Or even CW) i just sit in my trenches and behind sandbags early on and literally snipe down the first 1-2 entities of the enemie with ease in1-3 Volleys, forcing them to insta retreat.

[Walderschmidt]

"Engaging from the wrong distance". Well, thats why i prefer standard res games as alli. In high res its like "Oh, a Volks squad. I can sneak up on them from a side or so". And then i suddenly find my rifles being under fire of 37 mm AT gun HE fire, 20 mm cars, Halfracks with MG42 other shit.

And engaging from somewhat larger distance is a pain. I cant even get sandbags with rifles to at least even out the odds a little bit. As axis (Or even CW) i just sit in my trenches and behind sandbags early on and literally snipe down the first 1-2 entities of the enemie with ease in1-3 Volleys, forcing them to insta retreat.

Engaging at the right distance has nothing to do with starting resources.

If you rifles are under fire by 37mm AT HE, MG42s, or 20mm, garands aren’t the problem, you are the problem.

No shit that stuff shits on riflemen. It’s a range of hard and soft counters. Where’s your support? If you want sandbags to go with your riflemen, go inf doc. Or get some combat engies.

From now on, I wanna see some replays, because unless I’m playing in game with you I just don’t see the same shit you do. And sometimes, like me, you have a bad day in a game and everything feels like it sucks to use.

As for my comment about airborne and rangers. I don’t want to change anything to do with garands, K98s, or Enfields. Yeah, the Brits feel a little strong but they’ve always felt that way. I hate them no matter what.

Wald

[Warhawks97]

"Engaging from the wrong distance". Well, thats why i prefer standard res games as alli. In high res its like "Oh, a Volks squad. I can sneak up on them from a side or so". And then i suddenly find my rifles being under fire of 37 mm AT gun HE fire, 20 mm cars, Halfracks with MG42 other shit.

And engaging from somewhat larger distance is a pain. I cant even get sandbags with rifles to at least even out the odds a little bit. As axis (Or even CW) i just sit in my trenches and behind sandbags early on and literally snipe down the first 1-2 entities of the enemie with ease in1-3 Volleys, forcing them to insta retreat.

Engaging at the right distance has nothing to do with starting resources.

If you rifles are under fire by 37mm AT HE, MG42s, or 20mm, garands aren’t the problem, you are the problem.

No shit that stuff shits on riflemen. It’s a range of hard and soft counters. Where’s your support? If you want sandbags to go with your riflemen, go inf doc. Or get some combat engies.

From now on, I wanna see some replays, because unless I’m playing in game with you I just don’t see the same shit you do. And sometimes, like me, you have a bad day in a game and everything feels like it sucks to use.

As for my comment about airborne and rangers. I don’t want to change anything to do with garands, K98s, or Enfields. Yeah, the Brits feel a little strong but they’ve always felt that way. I hate them no matter what.

Wald

When i can just sit there and shit some shit from max range, i dont have to worry about running into surprises. If i am constantly forced to get close i run into much higher risk to run into various back up units.


anyways. I already said that standard res feels overall easier for me when playing as US. The early Battlfield is not so crowded and thus its easier to maneuver closer to your targets.

[Walderschmidt]

When i can just sit there and shit some shit from max range, i dont have to worry about running into surprises. If i am constantly forced to get close i run into much higher risk to run into various back up units.


anyways. I already said that standard res feels overall easier for me when playing as US. The early Battlfield is not so crowded and thus its easier to maneuver closer to your targets.

You either contradicting yourself or playing the pronoun game.

Because you talk about shooting at range being better because there’s no surprises whereas if you’re forced to get in close you might run into a sticky situation.

Then you turn around talk about low resources saying it’s easier to get into close range.

So, the problem as I pointed out, is not riflemen. It’s whatever else that your opponent may have. So then you either need to use combined arms or more recons. I don’t really know what to tell you here. High resources allows you to build a flexible combined arms force rather than being forced to play a high risk/reward version of rock paper scissors.

You’re doubling down on what you’re saying but saying the same message twice doesn’t make it any more correct or change my mind.

Wald

[kwok]

Ironically, I find playing as US easier with high resources because the motorpool offers so much more counterplay options against axis. Whereas if I play standard and just a mg42 OR 37mm AT gun shuts down any opening i make unless it's a sniper opening which is easily stopped by a bike opening. Standard feels like rock paper scissors favoring axis, meanwhile in high resource games as US i can actually field a sniper and 50cal jeep to actively DO something other than pray i didn't send my riflemen into a spray of mg fire or HE shells.

[Consti255]

here we go again.png

That one is Gold!!!

Garands just feel kinda unconsistent thats all.
they should still win vs K98 in mid range.
Some times i feel they dont hit anything and a other game they do there job in killing stuff that pushes into them.
Overall i dont think they dont need a buff.

Just wired atm, but i think i need to do more testing while i look specifically at the garands and their performance.

If i see something. I am gonna get replays.
And minimum 3+.

[CGarr]

They feel fine to me, I only pushed for the initial buffs to basic infantry rifles a while back because they felt incredibly shitty compared to elite inf, but that issue has been resolved through the buffs, so I don't see a reason for further buffs to these weapons. The only rifle that feels particularly shitty currently is the M1 Carbine, but I have no idea how that thing should be tweaked, aside from maybe long range accuracy buffs in exchange for damage nerfs, to make it a consistent source of damage, but I'm not going to bother pushing that unless other people end up bitching about it.