The recent Infantry Sections nerf

In my opinion, removing bolster completely is the way to go and can be done more simply than many are implying.

1. Make Infantry Sections a 5 man squad from the start.
2. Reduce the DPS of Infantry Section Rifles by 20%. Now a 5 man squad has the firepower of an old 4 man squad, but the durability of a 5 man squad. This nerfs the late game power of bolstered infantry sections but boosts early game durability slightly.

Additionally, if double BREN squads become too powerful with the above changes, then do step 3 and 4.

3. Limit BREN guns to 1 per squad.
4. Boost BREN gun stats to be more similar to LMG42, and boost cost up to 60 or 70 munitions

As bolster cant be remove or completely rework. I suggest move bolster to T2,Revert the receive accuracy neft but keep the damage change.

At the same time, add a vet 1 ability that temporary increase moving acc of sections up to 0.5 - 0.6 (as above, there was intend to buff moving acc to 0.5) and allow bren firing on the move. The ability will not increase anything if the squad is static so it will be purely offensively.

In my opinion, removing bolster completely is the way to go and can be done more simply than many are implying.

1. Make Infantry Sections a 5 man squad from the start.
2. Reduce the DPS of Infantry Section Rifles by 20%. Now a 5 man squad has the firepower of an old 4 man squad, but the durability of a 5 man squad. This nerfs the late game power of bolstered infantry sections but boosts early game durability slightly.

Additionally, if double BREN squads become too powerful with the above changes, then do step 3 and 4.

3. Limit BREN guns to 1 per squad.
4. Boost BREN gun stats to be more similar to LMG42, and boost cost up to 60 or 70 munitions

With 20% lower DPS, infantry section models won't be worth 28 MP per model. So you either:

1. Keep this reinforce cost and accept that brens will be essential, or

2. Lower their reinforce cost

If you go with 1, using unupgunned tommies is going to feel about as bad as using 4 man tommies now because each model isn't going to have the firepower of a 28 MP model. Now instead of making tommies feel bad to use until they get bolster, you make tommies feel bad to use until they get weapon upgrades. So then players will rush brens and have (relatively) early 5 man double bren squads because they'll be getting that instead of bolser. The performance loss is then really nominal since youre only dealing with 3 nerfed enfields, and you get 5 man, double bren tommies with a (5%?) slight performance reduction for 150/35 cheaper. As you noted, then you could limit the bren to 1 and make it similar to an lmg42. At this point though, they're basically just grens with extra steps (though maybe half a step stronger). Maybe that's fine, but it seems like it'll make the matchup up far more boring.

If you go with 2, then unupgunned tommies feel fine to use, but upgunned tommies become too efficient. So then you lower LMG performance, possibly limiting it to 1 as above but making it weaker than in the previous example. Then they're even closer to grens as above, which to me would be even more boring.

In either case, it seems very likely to me that you have to limit the brens to 1. Simple, right? But what about sappers then? I guess they also get limited to 1. But what about the vickers drop, does that stay super strong? With the resources you save from not having to bolster, you almost have enough resources to buy the halftrack too. That'll probably end up being too strong. So maybe you limit the vickers to 1, but how? I'm not sure that it's possible that one vickers take up two weapon slots, so you can try working around that - instead of limiting brens to 1, you just limit infantry sections (and sappers) to 1 weapon slot. Well now you have a halftrack that can do the equivalent of giving penals/riflemen/cons two mg42s... What do you do then? I genuinely don't know. And at this point, the suggestion doesn't seem as simple as we would have thought.

And that's not even the end of it. With bolster removed, do sappers start as 5 men too? Maybe they do...except then now maybe sappers become meta. 210 manpower for a squad that has a snare and can run up against grens and win, available fairly early into the game. Do you increase their manpower cost? 230? 250? When we get as high as that, we start to come up against the OKW issue with extra repair squads becoming more and more impractical. Is this acceptable, and if it isn't, is there any work around?

Now, imagine trying to pitch this simple solution to Relic. A simple idea that fixes everything and doesn't take more than 5 minutes before everyone is up to speed with the idea and is willing to accept it. Then suddenly someone on the team mentions any single one of the concerns I mentioned above. You now have to argue it down or come up with a work around. 30 minutes of back and forth and you come up with a work around like I did above, everyone accepts it, and Mirage is luckily around to confirm that the idea is possible (because the alternative is waiting ~2 hours for him to get back home to his computer and maybe shoot down the idea anyway, at which point the european members of the team would already asleep and conversation would have stopped for the day). But then the next day, someone realizes and mentions an issue that the previous work around causes. 2 hours of brainstorming, another day down, and we're lucky if the idea has even been fully thought through and all of the issues adressed. No one has even gotten to the numbers on these changes yet, by the way. Maybe another 3 days of discussion for that, and now we're a week in. Well, to Relic, this simple solution doesn't seem so simple anymore. Best case, you end up pulling back and debating on changes for another week before you make it to a point where you're shipping half of the idea that you came up with. Worst case the idea gets shut down entirely. That's how simple solutions tend to work out.

If it sounds like I'm ranting, it's because it always seems like a lot of people are very naive when suggesting changes and I don't think they realize how much time ideas take to make it through. They suggest a simple, elegant solution to a new patch issue that was "so obvious and everyone should have seen coming" (shockingly, most people usually don't see these issues ahead of time for some reason) and then go about their day because they don't have to address the 5 other issues their simple solution causes.

This is what I don't understand either. It seems like each patch goes into a different direction instead of just keeping one idea about how Infantry Sections should be like and balancing their raw stats in order to make them fair.

That seems like a good idea. I'd like to press this "make infantry sections balanced and fair" button, but unfortunately, I don't quite know where it is though.

Why are people suggesting endlessly tweaking Sections again?

They're functional infantry at this point. What they need is a proper roster of basic tools to support them.

You know, like a mortar.

Why are people suggesting endlessly tweaking Sections again?

They're functional infantry at this point. What they need is a proper roster of basic tools to support them.

You know, like a mortar.

barely function is the issue. for their cost and restrictions they are a joke and bolster is a requirement

With 20% lower DPS, infantry section models won't be worth 28 MP per model. So you either:

1. Keep this reinforce cost and accept that brens will be essential, or

2. Lower their reinforce cost

If you go with 1, using unupgunned tommies is going to feel about as bad as using 4 man tommies now because each model isn't going to have the firepower of a 28 MP model. Now instead of making tommies feel bad to use until they get bolster, you make tommies feel bad to use until they get weapon upgrades. So then players will rush brens and have (relatively) early 5 man double bren squads because they'll be getting that instead of bolser. The performance loss is then really nominal since youre only dealing with 3 nerfed enfields, and you get 5 man, double bren tommies with a (5%?) slight performance reduction for 150/35 cheaper. As you noted, then you could limit the bren to 1 and make it similar to an lmg42. At this point though, they're basically just grens with extra steps (though maybe half a step stronger). Maybe that's fine, but it seems like it'll make the matchup up far more boring.

If you go with 2, then unupgunned tommies feel fine to use, but upgunned tommies become too efficient. So then you lower LMG performance, possibly limiting it to 1 as above but making it weaker than in the previous example. Then they're even closer to grens as above, which to me would be even more boring.

In either case, it seems very likely to me that you have to limit the brens to 1. Simple, right? But what about sappers then? I guess they also get limited to 1. But what about the vickers drop, does that stay super strong? With the resources you save from not having to bolster, you almost have enough resources to buy the halftrack too. That'll probably end up being too strong. So maybe you limit the vickers to 1, but how? I'm not sure that it's possible that one vickers take up two weapon slots, so you can try working around that - instead of limiting brens to 1, you just limit infantry sections (and sappers) to 1 weapon slot. Well now you have a halftrack that can do the equivalent of giving penals/riflemen/cons two mg42s... What do you do then? I genuinely don't know. And at this point, the suggestion doesn't seem as simple as we would have thought.

And that's not even the end of it. With bolster removed, do sappers start as 5 men too? Maybe they do...except then now maybe sappers become meta. 210 manpower for a squad that has a snare and can run up against grens and win, available fairly early into the game. Do you increase their manpower cost? 230? 250? When we get as high as that, we start to come up against the OKW issue with extra repair squads becoming more and more impractical. Is this acceptable, and if it isn't, is there any work around?

.

So obviously the “solution” I pitched was an unrefined and not complete version of it.

You make many valid arguments as to why it’s not a “no-brainer” or a “I can’t believe I’m the only one who thought of this” sort of idea, but it’s not meant to be the perfect end-all, be-all solution anyways. Really it’s meant to spark discussion on possible solutions to the problem at hand. It’s a starting point.

So let’s start:

1: I don’t think 28mp is too much to pay per man to reinforce, but a slight reduction to cost down to 27mp would surely not be too much either if it found to be the case.

2: I don’t think making Infantry Sections like Grenadiers is a bad thing at all. The supporting arms play in the game would make the OST vs UKF matchup interesting even if their core infantry are similar. The proposed IS with stock 5 man size, reduced Lee-Enfield performance and a BREN gun that is more like an LMG42 would be similar to current 4 man Grens with an LMG, but slightly better, but with less utility since they don’t have a snare.

3: Royal Engineers being buffed to have stock 5 men wouldn’t be too much of a problem, in my opinion, since UKF has no current stock CQB unit or alternative to building IS as your mainline infantry, so saying that they too get a free buff is probably a good thing, or at least not too big of a problem. A slight cost increase here of maybe 10-20 manpower per squad wouldn’t break the bank either since they are currently so cheap and would help offset the saved tech cost since you no longer have to pay to unlock bolster.

4: Speaking of tech costs, the weapon racks might need adjustment to account for the saved bolster fuel, but manpower can be accounted for in the more expensive Royal Engineer squads. Saving a little manpower is something the brits rather need anyway to keep them competitive and since the problem is brits underperforming then a “second order of effect” buff to the faction such as this can be seen as a good thing.

5: the Vickers LMG could be balanced to be a very different weapon or perhaps just stay as it is as a way to still get old style double LMG Tommies by going for double Vickers Ks instead of a single BREN. Being locked to a doctrine might be enough to prevent it being used all the time since Brits have other very good doctrines to pick from as well. This is, however, something I had not thought about originally and it’s good that you mention it.

I understand that it must get annoying with people seemingly not grasping the complexities of second and third order of effects that can happen when you make any one change, but we still have to start somewhere with our ideas.

I’m sorry if my first comment came off as yet another complaint about the way the balance team is handling things, but rest assured that it was intended as constructive commentary and not meant as uninformed criticism. By and large the balance team has done a very good job that is often unappreciated, so also consider this as a thank you, as well as an apology.

barely function is the issue. for their cost and restrictions they are a joke and bolster is a requirement

They'd be fine in any other faction.

They feel weak because they have to be overpowered to compensate for the huge gaping holes in UKF's faction design.

Either they need reverting and UKF goes back to being the Section Spam faction, or Relic needs to give up on this stupid 'no indirect is a good idea, honest!' design and give them basic tools.

That seems like a good idea. I'd like to press this "make infantry sections balanced and fair" button, but unfortunately, I don't quite know where it is though.

Instead of overly complicated changes simply try removing the RA changes and keep the DPS changes as they are and see how that works out? Or alternatively keep the cover changes and revert the DPS nerf.

They'd be fine in any other faction.

.

Kind of disagree. They would be fine if it didn't cost as much fuel and MP to make them good. The current 4 Man Sections are worse than Grens for 30 more MP but slightly cheaper reinforcement. Cons, Penals, Riflemen are all better than current Infantry Sections if all things are taken into calculation.

Instead of overly complicated changes simply try removing the RA changes and keep the DPS changes as they are and see how that works out? Or alternatively keep the cover changes and revert the DPS nerf.

Or we could give them a mortar and an anti-infantry LV that functions in the mid-game so they don't need to crutch on Section Spam.

Or we could give them a mortar and an anti-infantry LV that functions in the mid-game so they don't need to crutch on Section Spam.

Never gonna happen. Maybe a (much needed) mortar pit rework but that is the only thing I could see Relic allowing the balance team. There aren't any UKF LV available that could fullfill the role of a Luchs/T70 anyway and we all know there wont be new units implemented.

Never gonna happen. Maybe a (much needed) mortar pit rework but that is the only thing I could see Relic allowing the balance team. There aren't any UKF LV available that could fullfill the role of a Luchs/T70 anyway and we all know there wont be new units implemented.

The Valentine could do it. Durability upgrades for the UC could do it too.

The Valentine could do it. Durability upgrades for the UC could do it too.

I dont see how you could fit the Valentine into the UKF tech tree without completely reworking it (something Relic wont agree to).

Universal Carrier durability upgrade? That would be super awkward and weird considering it's size and design. I don't see how this could be done.

Durability upgrades for the UC could do it too.

Can you guys stop suggesting reverting nerfs that were well deserved and improved the game?

I mean, since they are on Grens level right now we could just drop their price to 240, shorten build time, buff the Vickers and call it a day.

This is ridiculous. I can't believe you are serious here. UKF mine spam was never an issue. Maybe take the mines away too so UKF is even more handicapped and lacking basic tools to fix this insanely OP issue of UKF being able to plant mines with their tech-locked engineer unit. Ohh the horror. Just a small hint: There is indeed a faction that is spamming mines, guess which one it is? I give you a hint, the one with super cheap engineers and no non-doctrinal weapon upgrade for their infantry. And oh btw, their infantry doesn't need muni to heal themselves either.

On a more serious note, UKF brens and PIATS are locked behind another MP/fuel investment. So are the grenades. What is the problem here? Meanwhile spending 60 muni on a game-long STG or LMG upgrade is not a big deal whatsoever. Infantry Sections also require munitions for pyro or heal upgrade so your argument of Infantry Sections not needing upgrades being a huge snowball balance killer is just grasping at straws.

Infantry Sections were OP, they deserved a nerf but literally EVERYTHING but not this awkward back to camp-static gameplay change that no one wanted.

again with this both okw and osther get their mandatory tech and cost more for less we have this discussion every time, both okw and ost pays for upgrades in the tech with a bundle sometimes (okw) it cost more for less but come sightly earlier

again with this both okw and osther get their mandatory tech and cost more for less we have this discussion every time, both okw and ost pays for upgrades in the tech with a bundle sometimes (okw) it cost more for less but come sightly earlier

Yeah? Then add up the fuel tech costs of all factions.

UKF full tech: 30 (T1)+15 (AEC)+35 (Bolster)+15 (Racks)+10 (Grenade)+115 (T3)+ 50 (Hammer/Anvil) = 270 Fuel

Ost full tech: 40 BP1 + 90 BP2 +25 BP3 +10 T1+20 T2+15 T3 +25 T4 = 225 Fuel

OKW full tech: 40 T1 + 60 T2 + 135 T3 + 10 Heal +15 repair station = 260 Fuel

Soviet full tech: 10 T1 + 15 T2 + 85 T3 + 90 T4 + 10 Snare +10 Molo = 220 Fuel

USF full tech: 55 LT +55 CPT +120 Major + 15 racks + 15 grenade +10 ambulance = 270 fuel

Would you look at that!
It seems like Ost does -NOT- pay a single drop of fuel for any upgrade they get and OKW is rewarded with super heavy for full tech.

Yeah? Then add up the fuel tech costs of all factions.

UKF full tech: 30 (T1)+15 (AEC)+35 (Bolster)+15 (Racks)+10 (Grenade)+115 (T3)+ 50 (Hammer/Anvil) = 270 Fuel

Ost full tech: 40 BP1 + 90 BP2 +25 BP3 +10 T1+20 T2+15 T3 +25 T4 = 225 Fuel

OKW full tech: 40 T1 + 60 T2 + 135 T3 + 10 Heal +15 repair station = 260 Fuel

Soviet full tech: 10 T1 + 15 T2 + 85 T3 + 90 T4 + 10 Snare +10 Molo = 220 Fuel

USF full tech: 55 LT +55 CPT +120 Major + 15 racks + 15 grenade +10 ambulance = 270 fuel

Full fuel tech cost mean little without MP cost also and starting resources.

It mean even less when some faction do full tech and others do not.