Commandos are too good!

Read the full sentence and full post and the points presented by other users. I said EHP is only good in relationship to another unit. EHP on its own isn't enough. Even Hannibal says something along the lines of. Of course if you only read and bold one part of a sentence taken out of context that it changes its meaning. Even Vipper agrees to it, as he then replied to contain another unit to compare the EHP with.

1) I have not agree with anything you have said, pls stop writing fictional thing about me.

2) Sander93 has said:
"They are simply the only way to effectively compare units. In the case of infantry durability versus small arms, with wildly varying factors such as number of models and target size, effective hitpoints is the only way to compare their durability."


3) Katitof borough up both Ober and Stormtroppers and so I did provide a comparison of commandos with ober in EHP since ober have even more EHP than ST.

4) Hannibal pointed that ober are not ideal for comparison (a unit kaitof chose to bring up) so in addition also provided the comparison of ST and commandos and proved that commandos have more EHP than ST

5) I do not agree with you (nor does any one else as far as I see), I have not claimed that Commandos are op, I have taken no sentence out of context, I am not "generally wrong", I have not tried to mislead anyone as you claim, that is all in your imagination.

On the other I have claimed that commandos have good EHP but have not done so in vacuum as you claim but in relationships with some of the most durable axis infatry.

6) Sander93 has said:
"In this case, Commandos do have relatively high durability despite not having very high combat bonuses from veterancy, because most of their power comes from their base stats"

Now pls give it a rest.

Exactly, a very poor bonus for vet3 stats wise. The smoke makes up for it.

I mean, the smoke by itself would still be a really good vet 3 bonus for that squad. And -10% isn't even poor, it's just contextual

It's a smaller % bonus than what most infantry get sure, but commandos start out .72 to begin with, have 5 men, and have stealth. They also have that passive sprint ability

I don't think it illustrates it well.

Snipers ARE killed basically immediately in a fight. EHP shows effectively that they are squishy as intended. There are some other factors such as camouflage and extended sight that would allow a unit to have less EHP than an otherwise identical unit, but for comparisons within the same unit category they are an okay mark. If some stats are "too low" (whatever that means) for the price of the unit, you can deduce that they need to make up for it in utility. To stay with the snipers: They are very squishy and expensive compared to front line troops, therefore they make up for it with high range, sight, camouflage and insta kills. The EHP correctly shows that they would lose a 1v1 despite being more expensive.
The comparison of Obersoldaten and Commandos is quite off in most cases, but Stormtroopers fit quite nicely into the picture.

Not quite, I'd argue. In a 1v1 between a Sniper and any squad but another Sniper, the sniper wins every single time without taking any damage, assuming it's being used as it should. It's EHP doesnt come into it because the Sniper simply isn't meant to be getting shot. Best case scenario, of course.

Perhaps a better example might be a TD versus a medium tank. Similar story. The idea is that the TD fights mediums where it cannot be touched, or at least is able to output damage to offset it's lower EHP before the medium can retaliate.

"1v1 final destination" isn't a great way to compare units in many cases. Many units are intended to not take "fair" fights. Assuming they are, and getting hung up on EHP, can lead one to the wrong conclusion.

Even in the Commandos/Stormtrooper comparison it's not all that enlightening. Commandos do indeed have higher EHP, as Vipper has stated, but differences in the units' function and abilities make this even more pronounced. Stormtroopers are intended to make themselves much more vulnerable to fight at full performance, with Tactical advance reducing their EHP, and slowing them. Commandos, in comparison, fight at full efficiency merely by beginning to shoot from camouflage, they don't need to become more vulnerable. They also have their Gammon bomb, whereas Stormtroopers have no explosive.

I really just think EHP is too highly regarded when trying to compare units. It certainly is important in 1v1 slugfests, but it's really not the be-all-end-all stat.

5 man Grens > Commandos

5 man Grens > Commandos

Katyusha > 5 man Grens

snip

I think we are basically arguing around the same point and agreeing with different words.

No one said that EHP is the "end all" stat to define the class and quality of infantry units. But it is a decent stat to compare beefyness of units and how much beating they can take vs small arms.

On the sniper example my intention was to highlight that the EHP of the sniper correctly tells you that it is not meant to be used on the front lines in direct shoot outs.

On the other hand EHP can roughly indicate if a unit is well placed. Shortened and very simplified examples that leave out other factors etc etc to not drag this discussion on any further: Shock troops and commandos are both meant to be used at short range to burst down the enemy. But Shocks don't have camo to approach the enemy, so they get more EHP to compensate that they will be under fire for the whole approach.

Again, no one said that EHP is the only thing that infantry squads should be judged by. I don't know why this blew so out of proportion.

I think we are basically arguing around the same point and agreeing with different words.

No one said that EHP is the "end all" stat to define the class and quality of infantry units. But it is a decent stat to compare beefyness of units and how much beating they can take vs small arms.

On the sniper example my intention was to highlight that the EHP of the sniper correctly tells you that it is not meant to be used on the front lines in direct shoot outs.

On the other hand EHP can roughly indicate if a unit is well placed. Shortened and very simplified examples that leave out other factors etc etc to not drag this discussion on any further: Shock troops and commandos are both meant to be used at short range to burst down the enemy. But Shocks don't have camo to approach the enemy, so they get more EHP to compensate that they will be under fire for the whole approach.

Again, no one said that EHP is the only thing that infantry squads should be judged by. I don't know why this blew so out of proportion.

Yeah, I suppose you're right.

I've just seen people be very hung up on EHP before, and seemingly in the first page of this thread. I think my post was more directed at others than you specifically, we do seem to broadly agree.