Sander's personal balance changes

Since we are talking about sperimental changes and not a patch with a specific scope I would suggest looking into some doctrinal units to improve both underused doctrines and avoid overlapping units and abilities

USF

1) Swapping the M7 Priest from the Infantry Company with the M2 flamethrower of the Rifle Company would both be thematically more consistent and better completement each doctrine

Rifle Company would get an indirect support fire unit instead of leaving the Priest in a doctrine with the mortar halftrack and ToT offmap

Infantry would benefit thematically from a combat upgrade for rear echelon that has no business with riflemen

As @UnitG17 pointed out, some other changes could be applied, like the m3 ht to rifle company.

The browning upgrade (NOT the one for paras of course) doesn't warrant a single slot any more than mp40 volks does. I would bundle it with the m2 flamethrower in the Infantry company and Tactical Support company, I can't see more fitting commanders, aside from Urban Assault which has already the urb ass kit

OKW

Falls as of now are essentially less expensive and less powerful Obers with less utility. They aren't bad, but admit it or not, the main selling point of Luftwaffe is Falls, that are a sidegrade of a non doctrinal unit. They also share the same role of ambush unit as the long range oriented JLI, and JLI will never be able to compete as ambush unit compared to Falls, no matter how good it actually is.

While I agree with the sentiment behind removing the faust, I can hardly ever see this unit put in use.
I'd consider as design model similar Osttruppen vs Grenadiers from the Ostheer
Trying to change the unit so it can be an actual alternative, rather than a sidegrade would make the doctrine more interesting. A 5 men squad with 3 grens rifles that loses both ambush and the high dps by trading survivability with 2 of its fg42.

Nerf brits, "officially", please.
Anything else is irrelevant.

May OKW get a T0 smoke option? I mean they have a hard time dealing with mgs on open maps in early game.

Ostheer can get mortars and snipers, soviets can get M3 scout car, snipers, ATG barrage or mortars, usf can get mortars or rear echelon smoke, brits can get UC and bring a squad behind mg. OKW can only rely on flanking, the kubel won't last long to a vickers or maxim mg.

My proposal is that the sturmpioneer's stun grenade gets replaced with smoke grenade, available at vet0. Vet1 reduces cooldown time on it. Alternative idea is that the kubel gets panzer tactician smoke, which in turn would further increase its survivability, tho it would be less practical to use against mgs.

Jaeger Light Infantry upgrade (G43 Grenadiers)

• Now gives a total of 3 G43s to Grenadiers
  
• Now takes 1 weapon slot
  
• Cost from 45 munitions to 60
  
• Reduced moving accuracy of Gren G43 so that now three rifles have the same total moving DPS as two rifles had previously.
  

What's going to happen to the Jaeger Command Squad? They already have 3x grenadier G43s. Are they gonna get a 4th G43? Or maybe they receive Panzergrenadier G43s instead?

I think the JCS should still be fine. It has 5 models and an array of special and useful abilities (snare, riflenade, flare, smoke) while also having stock camo and not requiring a munitions upgrade. Plenty of advantages left even when they'd lose some of their firepower advantage.

Good call though, as it is something that's worth considering. They'd lose some of their moving DPS. Replacing their G43s with 4x Gren G43 or 3x PGren G43 would be an unnecessarily large buff. Replacing them with 2x PGren G43 would give slightly worse close range DPS (from ~32 to 26,5) but same mid and better long range DPS as well as better DPS retention (with most DPS concentrated in 2 weapons rather than 3) and better moving DPS (compared to 3 changed Gren G43s).

Good call though, as it is something that's worth considering. They'd lose some of their moving DPS. Replacing their G43s with 4x Gren G43 or 3x PGren G43 would be an unnecessarily large buff. Replacing them with 2x PGren G43 would give slightly worse close range DPS (from ~32 to 26,5) but same mid and better long range DPS as well as better DPS retention (with most DPS concentrated in 2 weapons rather than 3) and better moving DPS (compared to 3 changed Gren G43s).

Actually if we also calculate with with the K98s' dps, then 2x Pg G43s + 3x K98s does the exact same DPS at close range as 3x Gren G43s + 2x K98s. I like this change.

I like most of these changes, I would also like to propose some changes and see what people think.

Partisan tank hunter squad: unlock a extra panzerschreck for 100 muni (maybe even 120) after tier 3 or 4 has been build. This would allow them to have more long term staying power while not killing light vehicles right after they spawn.

PPSH Assault package: Allow the upgrade to upgrade the penals with 6 ppsh's (maybe 4) so the doctrines don't force you into a conscript playstyle as much and give more unit composition options. It could also unlock 3 ppsh for the engineer to use in tandem with the flamethrower (or without if it proves to be OP). Besides gameplay considerations it would fit the faction because of the large amounts of smg's used by the red army.

Also a fix or replacement of the broken Il2 strafe in advanced warfare would be nice.

I appreciate the effort of removing the fuel cost of ostheer t1 in order to make grenadiers more appealing choice, but I think that there is more drastic action that is damn overdue. And no I'm not gonna cry about changing them, I've come to terms that they are considered taboo and relic would rather change 4 factions mainline to balance the game rather than one:

Moving grenadiers to t0 and MG42 to T1.

Ostheer is currently "forced" into using MG42 by design should you go for your mainline infantry. This means that the first thing you do as ostheer compared to any other faction that goes mainline is that you start building T1. You are from the start punished for going grenadiers as you immediately fall behind in map presence. The mg42 build time is also slower compared to other t0 units which again puts you behind in map presence.

Sure mg42 is great but if you want it to actively be used to its full potential it requires support in form of vision from pioneer to possibly get that early suppression and force retreat that you need. This is reduced from your capping potential. In addition to this versing USF or SOV you KNOW that they have the potential to flank & spank that MG if left alone, so you cannot use it for capping as effectively. The opponent can choose to try and hunt your mg after hitting that 2nd RM or 3rd con which means that by the time your 2nd gren rolls out those two grens and pio have to be close to your precious mg.

If you choose not to go mg42 not only are you being punished for having dead idle time not building early unit or you are left with a non-combat support unit in form of pioneer. You again also lose the time of having to build T1.

IF you really want to make grenadiers more appealing choice without modifying the unit you NEED to have them in T0. This would put ostheer to level playing field in competitive setting where early game is everything and can snowball you one way or another.

I would really like to hear especially from sanders perspective on why this structural reversion shouldn't be introduced. If we want to make grenadiers into more competitive option without changing them as a unit, I cannot come up with any logical arguments as to why this change should not be gone through with.

I appreciate the effort of removing the fuel cost of ostheer t1 in order to make grenadiers more appealing choice, but I think that there is more drastic action that is damn overdue. And no I'm not gonna cry about changing them, I've come to terms that they are considered taboo and relic would rather change 4 factions mainline to balance the game rather than one:

Moving grenadiers to t0 and MG42 to T1.

Ostheer is currently "forced" into using MG42 by design should you go for your mainline infantry. This means that the first thing you do as ostheer compared to any other faction that goes mainline is that you start building T1. You are from the start punished for going grenadiers as you immediately fall behind in map presence. The mg42 build time is also slower compared to other t0 units which again puts you behind in map presence.

Sure mg42 is great but if you want it to actively be used to its full potential it requires support in form of vision from pioneer to possibly get that early suppression and force retreat that you need. This is reduced from your capping potential. In addition to this versing USF or SOV you KNOW that they have the potential to flank & spank that MG if left alone, so you cannot use it for capping as effectively. The opponent can choose to try and hunt your mg after hitting that 2nd RM or 3rd con which means that by the time your 2nd gren rolls out those two grens and pio have to be close to your precious mg.

If you choose not to go mg42 not only are you being punished for having dead idle time not building early unit or you are left with a non-combat support unit in form of pioneer. You again also lose the time of having to build T1.

IF you really want to make grenadiers more appealing choice without modifying the unit you NEED to have them in T0. This would put ostheer to level playing field in competitive setting where early game is everything and can snowball you one way or another.

I would really like to hear especially from sanders perspective on why this structural reversion shouldn't be introduced. If we want to make grenadiers into more competitive option without changing them as a unit, I cannot come up with any logical arguments as to why this change should not be gone through with.

Lots of very good points. Finally somebody wrote that t0 mg can actually be more of a problem than a blessing earlygame. Especially, when contrary to brits, tier0 does not give the player mainline inf units.

Show Spoiler

Ostheer has to stay a little longer in their base (building T1) to get the most diverse unit selection early game, it's balanced as it is imo.

Ostheer has to stay a little longer in their base (building T1) to get the most diverse unit selection early game, it's balanced as it is imo.

Diverse - yes. Better - no. Other factions get access to their mgs, snipers, mortars not that much later to make it a significant difference. What makes the difference is the fact that allied infantry will simply become much stronger and durable, which will create imbalance.

Diverse - yes. Better - no. Other factions get access to their mgs, snipers, mortars not that much later to make it a significant difference. What makes the difference is the fact that allied infantry will simply become much stronger and durable, which will create imbalance.

Well, if we look at grens alone in early game they are definitely worse, yes, but the team weapons are much better imo. In late game, especially in team games on open maps, lmg gren blobs are quite scary actually, only challenged by bren section blobs (and doctrinal m1919 lmg riflemen blobs).

Ostheer has to stay a little longer in their base (building T1) to get the most diverse unit selection early game, it's balanced as it is imo.

Well first off personal opinion has little validity behind it if you do not even show playercard or hold active rank according to this site. You also are plain wrong in many ways: Soviet has the access to most diverse units early on. Ironically enough they do not get punished for this the same way ostheer does.

I clearly went through the flow of 1v1 game if one would choose to play ostheer without current meta call in units. Even though you have limited 1v1 experience in form of only 24 games played you should understand why this is unbalanced. There is no need for mortar or sniper in current meta within the first 4-5 minutes so that variety you claim that balances out being handicapped in map presence and arguable poor performance of grens does not happen.

If your claim of ostheer having such great team weapons is true then wouldn't this change actually nerf them in teamgames? From your teamgame perspective with this change HMG would be few seconds later and gren a bit sooner, for those who want to go for HMG.

As it stands in the current 1v1 meta people are desperate to fix this early weakness by using ostruppen and assault grenadiers. With this change the builds incorporating HMGs would change very little but in addison we could also allow another competitive option for those who do not want to go HMG first in and make grenadiers meta mainline again without touching the unit. As they should be.

Cost of Panzerschreck upgrade from 70 munitions to 60 munitions
Panzerschreck upgrade no longer mutually exclusive with Minesweeper upgrade

I can't see Sturm ever being effective with panzershreck at all, especially if the global panzershreck changes affect them too

It would be much better if sturmshrecks were removed entirely, especially when Panzerfusiliers have them

I don't mind the OKW changes, particulary of the timing. Good on ya for proposing TTB changes on the bases and splitting costs.

Fallschirms proposed changes are a bit 'eh', because double FG42 Fallschirms are the only reliable infantry counter to assault troops OKW has. They come early enough to do good. My only proposed change would be to substitute the Nuke nade for a quick nade similar to shocks nade. Perhaps a model 24 'cooked nade'

You already get the nuke nade with Obers if you want it, and Volks have the flame nade.

I think splitting the Ausf J. upgrade is unneccessary, but I don't see it as a hindrance either.

Don't mind the Stuka changes.

Would request a 'scuttle' ability for Flak emplacements. They are easily counterable once spotted, and have weak HP. Increase their cost to 35 and have them refund 50mp and 15 fuel.

Also would like to see some more survivability in Vet 5 Volks. They just get chewed up by most units at all ranges near end game.

Would lower the schreck upgrade to 50 rather than 60 for Strums. Its merely a 'don't dive your vehicle here without support' upgrade.

Show Spoiler

I don't play 1v1 that often, true, but I usually watch pro casts and still see plenty of 1v1 ostheer victories without ostruppen, assault grens or even infantry company.
As for teamgames I would dislike the idea to have grens instead of the mg in t0, especially when skipping T1.

I would really like to hear especially from sanders perspective on why this structural reversion shouldn't be introduced. If we want to make grenadiers into more competitive option without changing them as a unit, I cannot come up with any logical arguments as to why this change should not be gone through with.

It'd be quite a radical change with a lot of ifs and buts. Map presence/control arguments don't really matter for teamgames, removing T1 costs might risk new strats with people just spamming Grenadiers to overwhelm the enemy and it'd be a buff to the already strong 5 men Grens (used without or with a late HMG 42 a lot of the time), faster Grens might have quite a big effect on Ostheer's early game, early sniper strats might become too powerful, it'd probably hurt diversity because quite a lot of non-Gren non-T1 strats (Osttruppen, Assgrens and 2xPio/2xHMG 42 into PGrens) rely on the HMG 42, etc.

I'm not a 1v1 player so I can't really judge how good or bad this would be. I don't think it's needed or wanted for teamgames. It could work, but it would require a lot of testing or taking a big gamble. Not really something I'm aiming for with my personal changes. Trying to keep things small and simple, mostly just numbers tweaks and safe changes.

..It could also unlock 3 ppsh for the engineer to use in tandem with the flamethrower (or without if it proves to be OP). Besides gameplay considerations it would fit the faction because of the large amounts of smg's used by the red army.
...

That would a nerf to CE since the ppsh would contribute less DPS at range 20. Actually one should consider giving K98 to pioneers when equipping flamers...

That would a nerf to CE since the ppsh would contribute less DPS at range 20. Actually one should consier giving K98 to pioneers when equiping flamers...

Or change thier default to k98.

That would a nerf to CE since the ppsh would contribute less DPS at range 20. Actually one should consider giving K98 to pioneers when equipping flamers...

This is fair enough i suppose but my broader point is to make The PPSH upgrade available to more units in some form or another to make the ability more attractive and less restrictive in its use (only con builds). Maybe even the guards in guard rifle combined arms could receive them since the doctrine also has PPSH. It might not be ideal but it gives the player options.

On a similar note im also in favor of combining the 1919 and flamethrower abilities for USF in one slot and IR STG with mp40's and or SP flamethrowers in OKW.