WINTER PATCH v1.1

My point is quite simple if grenadier require another buff after years of being fine, it mean that the power level has been increased and now they are up. And IS are UP also (I would say conscripts were also UP until they received the OP SVT and & men upgrade).


Actually Ostheer is the more complete faction including most units type thus the better candidate for a benchmark and thus Relic choose it, it was not me who made that choice. You actually brought that up with Croc example.

In addition which faction is the benchmark is quite irrelevant. Its like saying I prefer to call my length units meter over feet.

Actually the easiest way, is to revert some of the changes that make other units OP compared to Grenadier instead of buffing grenadier. It much easier to identify the right spot for other units since it is between their pre buff and current state.

Buffing grenadier further is moving into uncharted waters. And grenadier are not the only UP unit so are IS and even conscripts that had to received OP abilities to leave up to new power level.

I agree on the line infantry part.

You have been arguing for OST as a benchmark a lot. In some parts it makes sense IF the whole concept of a benchmark makes sense, which I briefly remarked that this is often not the case. Also your benchmark faction must be balanced within itself. What do you do if you have good line infantry but the cost/performance for an AI vehicle of zhe benchmark faction is absolutely shitty? Give every faction usable line infantry and nerf the shit out of their AI vehicle?

In the current state of the game, it does not make much sense to have a benchmark faction. The best thing is to cluster units that perform well for their cost and potential counters, and then balance other units according to them. In one situation we can nerf the IS2 because the Tiger is decently balanced. But this does not mean that the 251 has to be nerfed until people don't really use it anymore like the M5 (just exemplary)

I believe the justification of increasing (17%) the Bren Carrier's armor is ridiculous. If this patch is supposed to help balance - Then why do Brit's have a unit (armored vehicle - Tier 0) that can punish with impunity? Barring a snare and small arms fire, the Bren can effectively attack any static mg placement, effectively removing the MG's main role (statically defend an area) when the opposite faction has no ability (no: unit/armored vehicle) to do the same...
The t0 Bren in itself if unbalanced but to increase it's armor further is wierd...

I believe the justification of increasing (17%) the Bren Carrier's armor is ridiculous. If this patch is supposed to help balance - Then why do Brit's have a unit (armored vehicle - Tier 0) that can punish with impunity? Barring a snare and small arms fire, the Bren can effectively attack any static mg placement, effectively removing the MG's main role (statically defend an area) when the opposite faction has no ability (no: unit/armored vehicle) to do the same...
The t0 Bren in itself if unbalanced but to increase it's armor further is wierd...

Because nobody knows, I think that is the ansewer.

I agree on the line infantry part.

You have been arguing for OST as a benchmark a lot. In some parts it makes sense IF the whole concept of a benchmark makes sense, which I briefly remarked that this is often not the case. Also your benchmark faction must be balanced within itself. What do you do if you have good line infantry but the cost/performance for an AI vehicle of zhe benchmark faction is absolutely shitty? Give every faction usable line infantry and nerf the shit out of their AI vehicle?

In the current state of the game, it does not make much sense to have a benchmark faction. The best thing is to cluster units that perform well for their cost and potential counters, and then balance other units according to them. In one situation we can nerf the IS2 because the Tiger is decently balanced. But this does not mean that the 251 has to be nerfed until people don't really use it anymore like the M5 (just exemplary)

While not trying to sound too pedantic, I think they key thing to note is "In the current state of the game, with the current development resources, it does not make much sense to have a benchmark faction." Conceptually, the idea of a "benchmark" makes a lot of sense, and as Vipper pointed out, OST is probably the best candidate to be that 'benchmark', since they're the most "complete" faction (no missing tools).

One thing that may be worth looking into, however, is how these changes have affected the game speed over the years. If, for example, after all these changes, infantry TTK in 2015 and 2020 is about the same, then there really hasn't been power-creep. Yes, the numbers could all be "bigger and better", but they've cancelled each other out. Since no one's looking at the numbers while playing, their actual values don't matter too much - instead its the end result that's important (i.e. gameplay).

To continue on Vippers comment

In addition which faction is the benchmark is quite irrelevant. Its like saying I prefer to call my length units meter over feet

Maybe the best approach is to actually copy what the International System of Units did, and move away from using a physical thing as the benchmark (grens, or an actual 'prototype Kg') and instead move to a concept (TTK should be X seconds, a Kg is now conceptually defined).

Right now, units seem arbitrarily balanced around each-other, with the 'balance point' constantly shifting. Because of this, I'm not entirely convinced achieving balance is possible, simply due to the complexity of the system. We might like the balance between Grens and Cons, but a 'too strong' T70 might mean that Grens need a slight buff, which then shifts the Grens/Cons match up (simplified example). With a longer "chain" of unit interactions, finding a balance point for all the units is likely impossible.

An alternative approach could be to define a single match up (ex. Gren:Cons should end in X seconds, with Y health/models), then 'lock' those two units' stats, and then balance around that; adjusting similar units to that match up, and then units with less and less relations (ex. mainlines -> MGs -> mortars/light IDF -> LVs -> ATG, etc.).

I believe the justification of increasing (17%) the Bren Carrier's armor is ridiculous.

I had the exact same change in my UKF redesign mod. It only increases the WASP UC's armor back to what it had been, and that can only happen after T1. The WASP is the faction's only non-doctrinal flamethrower, and it comes late for that. The faction's weakness is in attacking fixed positions, so they NEED something that can do that.
The WASP wasn't even that popular before the UC armor nerf, but now it's gaining back some ability to push, which is its only job.

I'm just going to keep saying this-

I dislike the Grenadier reinforcement change because it homogenizes the factions. Their higher cost is unique.

Instead, I'd recommend improving their cost-effectiveness by increasing their firepower. It has the added benefit of scaling control. You could increase rifle DPS for early game, or MG DPS for late.

I'm just going to keep saying this-

I dislike the Grenadier reinforcement change because it homogenizes the factions. Their higher cost is unique.

Instead, I'd recommend improving their cost-effectiveness by increasing their firepower. It has the added benefit of scaling control. You could increase rifle DPS for early game, or MG DPS for late.

To be honest on Grenadiers, I wouldn't even mind reverting it, but Grenadiers I believe in terms of damage output deal enough. Yes they will get swarmed by other units are there like the MG 42 and PGs to zone out units like Rifles or control units like Tommies.

Their firepower is already very good and they can attack at max range.

As for the WASP, the WASP needs to be closer than the Vickers variant, needs time to deal damage, doesn't have an instant suppress button and is more difficult to obtain. It needs that armor far more especially given its timing and lack of durability vs non-small arms.

The reinforcement change on grenadiers is only a pseudo buff. In a 30 min game, where U lose 50 gren models, u pay 100mp less to reinforce them, it is nothing in a 30 min game what U will notice.

Make them harder to hit or something like that, that they can remain longer in battle, would be a better change.

To be honest on Grenadiers, I wouldn't even mind reverting it, but Grenadiers I believe in terms of damage output deal enough. Yes they will get swarmed by other units are there like the MG 42 and PGs to zone out units like Rifles or control units like Tommies.

Their firepower is already very good and they can attack at max range.

That's a very good point. I was hesitant to suggest an RA buff, since I like the idea of them as expensive glass cannons, but I would even prefer that over making them cheaper.

Make them harder to hit or something like that, that they can remain longer in battle, would be a better change.

Yeah- maybe drop the RA to .88 from .91? Or could be tied to vet to adjust scaling, of course.

I'm just going to keep saying this-

I dislike the Grenadier reinforcement change because it homogenizes the factions. Their higher cost is unique.

Instead, I'd recommend improving their cost-effectiveness by increasing their firepower. It has the added benefit of scaling control. You could increase rifle DPS for early game, or MG DPS for late.

Increasing damage or durability would be the actual definition of "power creep" assuming it exists.
That change just very slightly increases cost effectiveness.

After losing 14 gren models you'll be able to get 15th "free" compared to current balance.

Hardly impactful.

Certainly not anywhere near con 7th man cost decrease(cons die like flies so it stacks up fast) or tommies got in the past due to single sniper meaning GG to their manpower.

Reduce PanzerGrenadier reinforcement cost too,plz

How about changing tier

what if tT3 has ostwind,stug tech up for brummbar and T4 p4,panzerwerfer and tech up for panther(yeah looks like usf tiers)

with adjusted cost ofc and yeah the is a lot need to be changed

Like how much fuel every tech up will cost and how to balance it or what to do with ostruppen mg42,it is going to be too cheap or too early?

A lot of work and i don't know if it worth it

Grens changes also can lead to unexpected results,for example they perform ok when facing conscripts,but lack against rifles/penals/brit sections,but they also have pretty good mg to support them

it's very difficult to change something about OST,so i think others factions must be changed more than OST

Reduce PanzerGrenadier reinforcement cost too,plz

It was already done years ago.

It was already done years ago.

You sure？When？

I agree on the line infantry part.

You have been arguing for OST as a benchmark a lot. In some parts it makes sense IF the whole concept of a benchmark makes sense, which I briefly remarked that this is often not the case. Also your benchmark faction must be balanced within itself. What do you do if you have good line infantry but the cost/performance for an AI vehicle of zhe benchmark faction is absolutely shitty? Give every faction usable line infantry and nerf the shit out of their AI vehicle?

Think you are still missing the point:
1) Any faction can used as the benchmark
2) If that faction is wins more game vs other you buff the other faction
3) If that faction loses more games vs other you nerf the other faction


Finally the just because a faction is balanced it does not mean that some of components can not be up or op if it part of the design of the faction. And this is how ostheer were designed. Less cost efficient infatry more cost efficient support weapon. Weaker light vehicles more powerful medium tanks.

In the current state of the game, it does not make much sense to have a benchmark faction. The best thing is to cluster units that perform well for their cost and potential counters, and then balance other units according to them. In one situation we can nerf the IS2 because the Tiger is decently balanced. But this does not mean that the 251 has to be nerfed until people don't really use it anymore like the M5 (just exemplary)

Again it does not matter what you use as your benchmark as long at it stay the same.

You sure？When？

Couple of years ago. One of the first units to reinforce cheaper than their unit cost divided their model count and then by 2.

Think you are still missing the point:
1) Any faction can used as the benchmark
2) If that faction is wins more game vs other you buff the other faction
3) If that faction loses more games vs other you nerf the other faction


Finally the just because a faction is balanced it does not mean that some of components can not be up or op if it part of the design of the faction. And this is how ostheer were designed. Less cost efficient infatry more cost efficient support weapon. Weaker light vehicles more powerful medium tanks.



Again it does not matter what you use as your benchmark as long at it stay the same.

But that would work only when you have 2 factions facing each other. Once you introduce the possibility of facing multiple factions on each side the logic behind a faction benchmark breaks. And this mostly would apply to 1v1 only.

You can have OH as a benchmark and balance around the allied factions against it, but have completely different results against OKW.
What do you do when you have a faction which is OP against OH but UP against OKW? What you do you do when that faction only works in 1v1 but is horrible on teamgames and viceversa. What about discrepancy on skill level as well?

Rather than a FACTION as a benchmark, you want a certain unit archetype to be the benchmark. Giving you the upper limit of how strong a type of unit can be.

I'm just going to keep saying this-

I dislike the Grenadier reinforcement change because it homogenizes the factions. Their higher cost is unique.

+1

Tbh Relic using OST as benchmark was a gameplay design choice from before WFA/Brit was released and before the impact of numerous diverse totally asymmetrical factions were felt. The game design balance methodologies have clearly moved onwards towards a more agile and reactive approach which has had several major successes as undoubtedly demonstrated by the current mod team. Hanging on words from patch notes and blog posts from years ago is antique schematics as endless points tried in the past have been made void with recent and ongoing changes.

....
But that would work only when you have 2 factions facing each other. Once you introduce the possibility of facing multiple factions on each side the logic behind a faction benchmark breaks. And this mostly would apply to 1v1 only.

You can have OH as a benchmark and balance around the allied factions against it, but have completely different results against OKW.
What do you do when you have a faction which is OP against OH but UP against OKW? What you do you do when that faction only works in 1v1 but is horrible on teamgames and viceversa. What about discrepancy on skill level as well?

Quite simply first you balance all allied faction vs Ostheer and then you adjust OKW accordingly.

Rather than a FACTION as a benchmark, you want a certain unit archetype to be the benchmark. Giving you the upper limit of how strong a type of unit can be.

Again what you use as benchmark is irrelevant as long as it constant and used for direct comparison.

actually a gren must often retreat after losing the first model...since most mediums shell/ indirect fire / close combat unit / long retreat would wipe them, if you wait longer.

give them standard 5 models. (maybe with upgrade.)