The recent Infantry Sections nerf

I feel like this needs its own thread. I respect the balance team but they have really really fucked up here.

So almost exactly one year ago we had a Christmas balance patch where Infantry Sections got adjusted. This one right here:

Infantry Section (All variants)

We feel that Tommies come out of the gate with too much raw power but also lack the offensive ability to assault positions. Therefore, to make Tommies feel more reliable and to improve their consistency on the battlefield, we've made the following changes:

Received accuracy cover bonus removed
Moving accuracy from 0.25 to 0.35
Cone of fire from 1 to 5
Population from 7 to 6
Pyrotechnic Flares cooldown from 150 to 80
Flare range reduced by 33% when suppressed
Veterancy 2 received accuracy from 0.76 to 0.78
Veterancy 3 scoped Lee Enfields removed

Everyone agreed that Infantry Sections are designed awfully because they are OP in long-range static combat but at the same time horrible at anything else. So in order to make this less of an issue, they removed the received accuracy cover bonus and made them better on the move.

Then after people figured out spamming Infantry Sections is OP especially against OKW the balance team decided to, for completely unknown reasons, go back to the old horrible design of cover bonus but Infantry Sections being complete dogshit without cover.

They made this gem of a balance adjustment two months ago.

Lee Enfield Accuracy from 0.598/0.564/0.529 to 0.676/0.637/0.598
Lee Enfield Damage from 16 to 14
Received Accuracy from 0.8 to 0.9
Squad models gain 0.89 Received Accuracy when in cover. Restores original value back to 0.8
Assault Tommy Upgrade removes the cover bonus and grants it as a passive instead; upgraded Received Accuracy Bonus from 0.95 to 0.8444.
Pyrotechnics Supplies upgrade sight range from 50 to 42

Why weren't Infantry Sections adjusted WITHOUT going back to this horrific old OP in cover but shit without it design? It's literally completely mind boggeling

It's always the same story with UKF, over and over.

The faction is incomplete, but has one or two deeply overpowered units it crutches hard on. The Balance Team of the day finds the OP crutch unit, correctly concludes it's OP, and nerfs it.

Then the entire faction collapses for the next few months until the community finds another overpowered unit to crutch on.

Relic's already accepted their 'incomplete factions with batshit powerful crutch units' experiment was an abject failure from their patches to USF and OKW. It's long past time UKF got the same treatment.

Received accuracy bonus in cover is pretty bad especially since it is not effected by the "point blank" mechanism.

Imo there are a couple of thing that should change that would allow IS to be balanced better.

1) Reduce close (range 0) DPS of bolt action rifles (maybe about 15%-20) so that closing the distance with no bolt action infatry becomes more rewarding. (or even make the weapon profile flat from 5-10 range)

Currently IS (and other infantry) can inflict enough damage to win point blank fights or cause causalities and simply retreat when enemy units close in. Crossing open ground attack should not be encouraged but CQC fight should be less rewarding for bolt action troops.

2) Replace the cover RA bonus with a normal RA bonus

3) Move sandbag/trenches (trenches could go back to have cost and and be "password" protected but could also be allow to be "captured" and/or dismantled thus spamming trenches for future use will not be viable) to Ro.E.

Part of the reason why IS are so powerful is that they can cap a point on their own and then defend for along time behind green cover and heal requiring the enemy to attack in numbers to dislodge a singe IS, while taking loses in the processes and IS simply retreating.

It would have been an easy, straight forward adjustment to make Infantry Sections less potent at max range. The +5% accuracy at vet 3 is also very weird because the issue Infantry Sections have is not late-game scaling.

IMO they should revert both the initial RA nerf and at the same time the cover buff and keep the damage as it is and see how good/bad Sections are. At the moment they are a horrible design and force you into defensive playstyles because as soon as you leave cover and move your expensive infantry just acts like Osttruppen. Not sure why defensive camping playstyles are encouraged when everyone agreed that this is not fun.

It would have been an easy, straight forward adjustment to make Infantry Sections less potent at max range. The +5% accuracy at vet 3 is also very weird because the issue Infantry Sections have is not late-game scaling.

IMO they should revert both the initial RA nerf and at the same time the cover buff and keep the damage as it is and see how good/bad Sections are. At the moment they are a horrible design and force you into defensive playstyles because as soon as you leave cover and move your expensive infantry just acts like Osttruppen. Not sure why defensive camping playstyles are encouraged when everyone agreed that this is not fun.

I think the issue is less that IS being fantastic in cover, but hot shit out of cover, and more that the intended use of Brit infantry (Hammer and anvil tactics) is only half complete. They simply dont have a "Hammer" unit.

My understanding is that Sappers were meant to act in this fashion, but they just aren't strong enough to perform that role. I've suggested giving them an "Assault package" upgrade to rectify this.

Maybe it's the wrong way to go about things, but I like the concept of Sections being longrange cover fighters, It's just that they cant JUST do that with the faction's current roster.

Why weren't Infantry Sections adjusted WITHOUT going back to this horrific old OP in cover but shit without it design? It's literally completely mind boggeling

Because we felt it was the only way to keep Infantry Sections strong (power level is problematic because of Bolster early scaling, so they do need to have some drawbacks to restrain their early power) while nerfing the near unbeatable A-move blobs. By moving some of their target size to the cover bonus, we aimed to keep most of their early game power level, but stop them from running rampant across the map. It was very hard to predict the full extend of the Lee Enfield damage change, so we changed both to be sure. Given how fed up everyone was with Infantry Section spam, we went for a better safe than sorry approach (imo). Better to make the faction slightly underperforming and do some adjustments soon after, than keeping it overpowered and toxic, especially with the world tourney on the horizon.

To be honest, it was obvious that nerfing the crutch unit was likely going to cause some problems, although obviously we hoped it wouldn't have too much of an impact, but it was needed, and we can't predict every outcome. We just had to throw out the changes and see where the faction landed so that now we can identify some holes and attempt to fix them in the next patch. Balance isn't done overnight. In my opinion UKF is still very playable and good, at least in 3v3 and 4v4, even if not competitive for high level 1v1, but they could use some adjustments now that the dust has settled.

We have thought out some (hopefully) exciting changes for UKF, although all still very WIP at this moment, one of which is changing Lee Enfield moving accuracy to ~0.5 so Infantry Sections can fight more mobile.

They made this gem of a balance adjustment two months ago.

Would appreciate discussing this without throwing around sarcasm.

We have thought out some (hopefully) exciting changes for UKF, although all still very WIP at this moment, one of which is changing Lee Enfield moving accuracy to ~0.5 so Infantry Sections can fight more mobile.

I know his has been talked about a lot, but still I think an anvil/hammer choice in company cmd post (the 1st building you tech to) with better moving accuracy training&Valentine&mortar thrown in might be q great way to induce variety to builds as well as help the faction out.

Because we felt it was the only way to keep Infantry Sections strong (power level is problematic because of Bolster early scaling, so they do need to have some drawbacks to restrain their early power) while nerfing the near unbeatable A-move blobs. It was very hard to predict the full extend of the Lee Enfield damage change, so we changed both to be sure. Given how fed up everyone was with Infantry Section spam, we went for a better safe than sorry approach (imo). Better to make the faction slightly underperforming and do some adjustments soon after, than keeping it overpowered and toxic, especially with the world tourney on the horizon.

To be honest, it was obvious that nerfing the crutch unit was likely going to cause some problems, although obviously we hoped it wouldn't have too much of an impact, but we can't predict every outcome. We just had to throw out the changes and see where the faction landed so that now we can identify some holes and attempt to fix them in the next patch. Balance isn't done overnight. In my opinion UKF is still very playable and good, at least in 3v3 and 4v4, even if not competitive for high level 1v1, but they could use some adjustments now that the dust has settled.

We have thought out some (hopefully) exciting changes for UKF, although all still very WIP at this moment, one of which is changing Lee Enfield moving accuracy to ~0.5 so Infantry Sections can fight more mobile.



Would appreciate discussing this without throwing around sarcasm.

Honestly, removing (or changing) Bolster would probably help. IS have another problem, in that either 4man tommies are total shit, and 5man are good and usable, or 4man tommies are OK, and 5man tommies are broken.

You'd then maybe be able to fiddle with IS veterancy to maintain their power curve, rather than relying on a totally mandatory upgrade. Or is there another reason Bolster is kept around?

Or is there another reason Bolster is kept around?

Simply put, Bolster is a huge can of worms that we don't really want to open. Changing or removing it would require huge changes to the faction, while having no idea what implications it'd have and what would be needed to compensate for it. Which is something we can't really afford and/or aren't allowed to do at this point. Relic (rightfully) wants changes to be as simple as possible at this point in the game's lifecycle.

What about delaying bolster, and maybe make them gaining vet slower ?
So they don't become terminators in early/mid game but keeping a great scaling for late game to fight against elite inf.

Simply put, Bolster is a huge can of worms that we don't really want to open. Changing or removing it would require huge changes to the faction, while having no idea what implications it'd have and what would be needed to compensate for it. Which is something we can't really afford and/or aren't allowed to do at this point. Relic (rightfully) wants changes to be as simple as possible at this point in the game's lifecycle.

I worry that Brits aren't gonna be able to join the big boy table without some fairly major changes, is the problem. How "Advanced" are relic gonna let changes even be?

Have you guys considered trialling significant balance changes in a mod more often, in the same fashion as the December patch? Just throwing ideas at a wall and seeing what sticks?

Because we felt it was the only way to keep Infantry Sections strong (power level is problematic because of Bolster early scaling, so they do need to have some drawbacks to restrain their early power) while nerfing the near unbeatable A-move blobs. By moving some of their target size to the cover bonus, we aimed to keep most of their early game power level, but stop them from running rampant across the map. It was very hard to predict the full extend of the Lee Enfield damage change, so we changed both to be sure. Given how fed up everyone was with Infantry Section spam, we went for a better safe than sorry approach (imo). Better to make the faction slightly underperforming and do some adjustments soon after, than keeping it overpowered and toxic, especially with the world tourney on the horizon.

To be honest, it was obvious that nerfing the crutch unit was likely going to cause some problems, although obviously we hoped it wouldn't have too much of an impact, but it was needed, and we can't predict every outcome. We just had to throw out the changes and see where the faction landed so that now we can identify some holes and attempt to fix them in the next patch. Balance isn't done overnight. In my opinion UKF is still very playable and good, at least in 3v3 and 4v4, even if not competitive for high level 1v1, but they could use some adjustments now that the dust has settled.

We have thought out some (hopefully) exciting changes for UKF, although all still very WIP at this moment, one of which is changing Lee Enfield moving accuracy to ~0.5 so Infantry Sections can fight more mobile.

I am confused. What is the plan with the Infantry Sections? Last christmas patch they lost a RA cover buff but got compensated with better out of cover performance. Then the balance team decided to revert this and went back to the more static defensive style no one likes. Now you want to give them better accuracy on the move again? Seems very contradictory to me.

And I also think the UKF OP phase is insanely overstated. When USF and Soviets dominate tournament after tournament it's somehow ok but when UKF is actually used in 1-2 tourneys it's suddenly toxic and needs immediate nerfs. Let's not forget UKF was basically completely ignored until Sappers got a snare. How many 1v1 and 2v2 tournaments did UKF actually dominate with insane W/R and win?

I am sorry but it does seem to me that the balance team is overly harsh on UKF while USF and Soviets get away with broken OP shit much more. Not only that, this insane power level of USF and Soviets makes both Axis factions (Ost in particular) seem pretty weak now outside certain crutch units (Tiger, Falls, etc.)

Also regarding the underlined part. This pretty much proves my suspicion that the balance team is simply not applying the same criteria for all factions. I hope when certain other factions get patched later the same "better safe than sorry" approach is used. Let's make some more factions shit on purpose in the next patch and then keep them like this for 3 months OK?

I don't think bolster as a mechanic will ever be balanced as long as its a global upgrade because you either have underwhelming infantry because they can be bolstered and then normal infantry after bolster or normal infantry before bolster and OP infantry after which is just a giant balance issue all together. I really think the best way to go about it would be making it a squad by squad thing as it makes it easier to tweak pros and cons if it's a case by case choice.

I don't think bolster as a mechanic will ever be balanced as long as its a global upgrade because you either have underwhelming infantry because they can be bolstered and then normal infantry after bolster or normal infantry before bolster and OP infantry after which is just a giant balance issue all together. I really think the best way to go about it would be making it a squad by squad thing as it makes it easier to tweak pros and cons if it's a case by case choice.

Making work on separate squads and taking up a weapon slot is an good option that creates an option for the player. More durable squads or 4 men with 2 weapons.

But I would give up on being a global upgrade just yet.

One could lock it behind T1 upgrade and make so that:
1) affects only IS
2) increases the entity counter to 5 globally but does not provide the extra model. The IS price go to 260

With the current performance and price, can we consider moving HEAT grenade from royal engineer to infantry section, lock behind grenade tech and increase cosf to 280. I mean, if raw power cant be adjust then throw in utilities?

With the current performance and price, can we consider moving HEAT grenade from royal engineer to infantry section, lock behind grenade tech and increase cosf to 280. I mean, if raw power cant be adjust then throw in utilities?

No

I am confused. What is the plan with the Infantry Sections? Last christmas patch they lost a RA cover buff but got compensated with better out of cover performance. Then the balance team decided to revert this and went back to the more static defensive style no one likes. Now you want to give them better accuracy on the move again? Seems very contradictory to me.

Step 1) Make brits able to survive without hogging cover all game
Step 2) Nerf IS damage output with the guise of 'equal dps`
Step 3) Make them bad out of cover again, because it was so much fun the first time, saying it's to address bobbing
Step 4) Propose buffs to their moving accuracy that they never had before, because that is clearly how you discourage the bobbing which is apparently the problem

Genius. True genius.

The faction is incomplete, but has one or two deeply overpowered units it crutches hard on. The Balance Team of the day finds the OP crutch unit, correctly concludes it's OP, and nerfs it.

Then the entire faction collapses for the next few months until the community finds another overpowered unit to crutch on.

Pretty much this. UKF's core design is missing a ton of basic "tools" all other factions have access to (mobile mortars, snares, etc.), and on top of that, is designed around broken and/or gimmicky mechanics that don't really fit into CoH2's base gameplay (cover bonus, mutually-exclusive tech, etc.). Without allowing a full re-work similar to OKW's a while back, I don't see UKF ever being competitively viable - I could be wrong about this, but I don't see how.

With that said, I think one of the major reasons for UKF infantry being so imbalanced isn't the core stats, but instead the "Double Bren" upgrade when combined with bolster. Without these two upgrades, even at vet 3, IS are incredibly squishy, with very low DPS when they reach end-game. This is quite different than, for example, Grens; who are quite strong with no upgrades at vet 3, and only become stronger with them (LMG and/or VSL).

Double-Bren+Bolster gives IS' an insane amount of DPS (especially with vet) combined with a very high effective HP pool; and it only gets better when in cover. As a result, many UKF games turn into a blob of ~3 double-bren/bolster/vet3 IS' A-moving across the map, melting anything they see. If the Axis player(s) can destroy the blob, they basically win instantly; if they can't, they lose.

This needs to change, and the best way I can see this happening is by either (1)lowering the long-range DPS for Brens, (2)limiting them to one per squad, or by (3)drastically increasing the ready-aim/fire-aim/etc. times, so that they aren't so quick when A-moving (should be as slow as the Gren LMG). Once that happens, the base stats of IS' can be brought up to levels comparable to other mainline infantry units. Without those changes, any buffs just power-creep that bren-blob even more.

Simply put, Bolster is a huge can of worms that we don't really want to open. Changing or removing it would require huge changes to the faction, while having no idea what implications it'd have and what would be needed to compensate for it. Which is something we can't really afford and/or aren't allowed to do at this point. Relic (rightfully) wants changes to be as simple as possible at this point in the game's lifecycle.

Couldn't you simply require T3 before bolster, then adjust Tommies so they're okay early game?

Buff the Bren to approximately MG42 levels but cap them at 1 per squad, like the m1919s got, and surely you cap the worst of the double upgrade late game squad issues?

Vickers K can remain an inaccurate but nonsense RoF alternative for when you want to have a pair frowning out everything else on the map.