This is irrelevant, ostheer also got tech and core army buffs. Over-all picture of sov\ost relation pretty much remained the same.
Most soviet fillers were weak in comparison in 2013 and they are still weak in 2022, compared not only to Ostheer but all the other factions. Their saving was the fact that most of the call-ins were OP AF. Who cares about anything when you had 1CP shocktroops and 60 range one-shotting ISU
Even mentioned Partisans commander was overpowered, because of how easily you was able to pop them on retreat path and wipe. Sure it wasnt ok and should have been toned down, but balance team or who ever was behind changes, clearly never had any intentions of actually trying to fix this system where whole commanders are being carried by either combination of few abilities or few call-ins.
What soviet power level of commanders comes from to begin with? Ok we, so basically say if commander doesn't have 120mm mortar\elite inf and some sort of armor call-in, its basically a useless commander for soviets, because abilities besides that are simply cant compensate for soviet design.
It is relevant since the original for weak stock unit no longer applies. Problem is that no actual "new" designed was implemented and Soviet commander still have access to a plethora of doctrinal units (some of the reall good as you say).
That left certain commander being overpowered and that messed up faction balance since if someone buffed stock units the faction would balanced but certain commanders would be OP.
Baseline here is that problem has little to do with "filler abilities" (that are actually needed) and more to do with difference in power level of soviet commanders. Soviet still have some of the most cost efficient doctrinal units like:
Guards
Shock
T-34/85
I really don't get what would be wrong with 'the whole doctrine being carried by one ability.' At the end of the day, commanders are selected based on what they bring to the table. Looking at faction win rates, basically every game mode and faction is balanced (except crazy 4v4s), which means that the most powerful Soviet commanders are not out of the overall strength curve.
In other words, there is no reason to nerf good Soviet doctrines to make weak ones better. Its a stupid argument. Thus, the fix to partisan doctrine would require the doctrine to go to the level of other commanders it competes with, or atleast to be strong enough at a niche to compensate for what it lacks. You can either do this by shoring up the doctrine's weakness (giving it a better lategame), or by making the unique aspects of the doctrine stand out more.
In my opinion, the Partisan doctrine hinges on the idea of superior intelligence and planning. As such, I think all the abilities fit the doctrine very well (except maybe the ATG ambush).I believe mark target + spy network are more than enough of a lategame edge. Stacking more has a risk of making the doctrine OP.
Thus, the obvious fix appears to be with the partisans themselves. They need to bring something to the equation to make up for the lack of elite infantry in the doctrine. Currently, after the initial call in, partisans fall off hard, as they have terrible received accuracy and reinforce cost (thus bleeding hard when fighting German squads that have high DPS). I think an interesting change would be to allow a way for partisans to reinfiltrate. Maybe add a 'tunnel' that partisans can build in friendly territory, which allows them to move around the map faster. It should be fairly easy to find and destroy for the opponent to make it fair. As an easier and less insane fix, I think partisan reinforce cost could be changed to be based on a full 5 man squad, rather than the starting 4 man squad (210/(2*5) = 21)
The unit load out is a bit weird when it is upgraded. It’s kind of strange that the PPSH upgrade gets both DOT/HE and AT gets snare plus AT weapon. Not sure why but it bugs me, I feel PPSH should get the snare and it would be a way for Penal or Support weapon player to have access to a snare squad. As it doesn’t”t require tech it could be very appealing. AT upgrade getting HE would allow for some AI capability against unsuspecting squads as Partisan cloak is better than Airborne cloak.
It would also standardize and make it easier to balance around PPSH cons/SMG VG power levels.
I really don't get what would be wrong with 'the whole doctrine being carried by one ability.' At the end of the day, commanders are selected based on what they bring to the table. Looking at faction win rates, basically every game mode and faction is balanced (except crazy 4v4s), which means that the most powerful Soviet commanders are not out of the overall strength curve.
There is little wrong in one ability carrying a commander when that ability is a late game ability like an IS-2/ISU-152 or Anti tank barrage.
It is quite another when that ability is a CP 1 call in infatry. Ostruppen have illustrated this issue.
In other words, there is no reason to nerf good Soviet doctrines to make weak ones better. Its a stupid argument. Thus, the fix to partisan doctrine would require the doctrine to go to the level of other commanders it competes with, or atleast to be strong enough at a niche to compensate for what it lacks. You can either do this by shoring up the doctrine's weakness (giving it a better lategame), or by making the unique aspects of the doctrine stand out more.
Yes there. If 3 commander are far better than other 19 several issues are created.
1) One has to "fix" 19 commander instead of 3
2) stock issues of the faction remain hidden since the commander can carry the faction
3) Power creep
For instance the decision to remove heavy bombing abilities from "ISU/Ele" (as I had suggested) was a solid one that improved the game since those commander simply brought too much to the table.
Same goes for "mark target" that is quite a potent ability.
In my opinion, the Partisan doctrine hinges on the idea of superior intelligence and planning. As such, I think all the abilities fit the doctrine very well (except maybe the ATG ambush).I believe mark target + spy network are more than enough of a lategame edge. Stacking more has a risk of making the doctrine OP.
Thus, the obvious fix appears to be with the partisans themselves. They need to bring something to the equation to make up for the lack of elite infantry in the doctrine. Currently, after the initial call in, partisans fall off hard, as they have terrible received accuracy and reinforce cost (thus bleeding hard when fighting German squads that have high DPS). I think an interesting change would be to allow a way for partisans to reinfiltrate. Maybe add a 'tunnel' that partisans can build in friendly territory, which allows them to move around the map faster. It should be fairly easy to find and destroy for the opponent to make it fair. As an easier and less insane fix, I think partisan reinforce cost could be changed to be based on a full 5 man squad, rather than the starting 4 man squad (210/(2*5) = 21)
The commander provides:
No elite infatry
No premium medium
No artillery
No Super heavy
No powerful off map
thus is unsuitable for most modes and requires lost of micro to get the most out of it.
Even with the changes you propose I doubt it would enough to make the commander attractive.
Partisan would have to be buffed to stupid levels to carry the commander and at that point it would simply frustrating to play against camo units as it is against commandos/Pathfinder.
Ostheer despite having same crap load of commanders, doesn't suffer from it. Sure it has meta commanders, which are just almost always a better option (just like soviets), but almost all of them can be picked and played without the feeling that you are intentionally handicapping yourself.
this is because sov get a lot of their power from doctrines. Wehrmacht, on the other hand, has a relatively "complete" arsenal of units and doctrines aren't that crucial to make the faction complete.
"Their reinforcement cost is also inline with their cost of 210 (210/8=26.25)"
I am not sure to what you disagree since you just posted what I said.
Relic calculated a cost of each unit and used the formula to calculated reinforcement cost. Unit that good spawn from ambient buildings come at higher cost and that is why their reinforcement cost was lower than that of the formula so no what I have post is simply not "straight up wrong" since spawning form buildings was not just "utility" according to Relic.
I don't care what Relic says. The formula was designed for a CoH2 that has seen huge changes, many units do not follow it anymore despite them being balanced. Which means this formula cannot make a point about balance.
I thought you bring this formula up to make the point that their reinforcement cost is fine. If that was not your intention, then why did you post it in the first place? The formula does not prove anything.
Stormtroppers are an example of what I just explained they used to be 340/100(?) mu PGs with camo so the extra MP cost of spawning with 4 K98 was justified because they where paying a premium for infiltration.
I brought this up to emphasize how little the above mentioned formula means. Stormtroopers should be 340/8=42,5 MP in reinforcement cost, yet they cost only 33.
210 manpower 60 munition for AT partisan is not dirty cheap compared to 340 60 munition CP2 AT stormtoppers with no mines or snares? 130 more manpower because they start with 0.75 target size?
You made no such comparison to any other unit whatsoever, neither did you specify AT partisans. You said generally they are dirty cheap. I put this into context to avoid misunderstandings for other readers, because "dirty cheap" will often be understood as affordable and expendable, which is not the case. Soviets have other, similarly priced options, especially considering health, damage and reinforcement cost. Overall, Partisans are not a "cheap" option for Soviets, they are average to even slightly on the expensive side.
I've made my point to hopefully avoid confusion for other users, so I'll leave it at that.
Partisan start with good weapons especially on the move compared to cost.
SPG partisan can set an ambush and with mines/grenade/trap/first strike can easily force retreat or wipe most units. That is how they are meant to be used.
Compare them as scout with 290 manpower/6 pop Pathfinder.
If you have the exact weapon stats, I would be glad if you could provide them. The patch notes are quite cryptic with an alleged Kar98 that performs somewhat worse than a Guard's Mosin. The fact remains that they have less EHP, staying power on the field and damage (static for sure, moving damage depends on the exact profile. Patch notes mention reduced moving damage specifically) than both Conscripts and Penals, even correcting for their price. This again makes the point that calling them cheap is potentially misleading. They are about average cost considering their utility.
I have provided you with an article on how Relic calculated cost .
I know this article. While it is an interesting read, but hard to directly relate to CoH2 because the author abstracted his examples for clarity of his point. It also gives no information where their formula comes from and why they set it as true. But this now leads a bit far off this thread's topic.
As far as I have seen you have compared them with conscript and penals.
As for roles they have the added role of being scout with superior vision and to disrupt lines with faster cap.
Please don't twist my argumentation. The comparison to Conscripts and Penals was done to show that Partisans are not a "dirty cheap" unit for their combat potential compared to other choices that a Soviet player could invest in. The comparison to Stormtroopers and Commandos was done to show that they are also not cheap compared to other units with similar functions. I've stated my overall intention above already.
For 45 mu they get an extra entity and 4 PPsh feel free to explain why in you opinion that is expensive.
This is twisting what I have said. Their upgrade costs as much as most infantry upgrades, that's what I said. The exact bonuses and upgrade provides is tailored to the specific unit. I've explained previously already that the number of weapons that calculating the "munitions cost per weapon" usually does not make sense.
I am not sure why arguing all previous points since this the thing that matters.
One could lower the reinforcement cost of SMG partisans because generally SMG troops become les cost efficient as the game progress or could allow merge since the no reason against anymore.
Lowering the reinforcement cost of At partisan should be avoided since the last thing the game need is shreck blobs again.
Glad that you agree.
I'd probably assume that partisans generally could see a reinforcement cost buff. It's not worth bringing back Schreck blobs, especially not camouflaged ones, but just by gut feeling I don't think that 2 MP less will bring them back that heavily. It's very easy to get a Partisan squad wiped due to their low EHP and model count, an occasional wipe will likely offset the reduced bleed in MP.
Glad that you agree.
I'd probably assume that partisans generally could see a reinforcement cost buff. It's not worth bringing back Schreck blobs, especially not camouflaged ones, but just by gut feeling I don't think that 2 MP less will bring them back that heavily. It's very easy to get a Partisan squad wiped due to their low EHP and model count, an occasional wipe will likely offset the reduced bleed in MP.
The majority of Smg troops should have a reinforcement discount and large LMG troops might need a penalty.
The doctrine still gets used even in top level, but very rarely. The most prominent example who I know would be Brosras, he loves that doc, though not because of the partisans.
The doctrine has literal maphacks with 0 counter or notification for the enemy, which is especially devastating when searching for Katyusha targets in the FoW.
The other abilities are just nice as well.
Also I remember DevM winning a 1v1 tournament with partisans on a custom map with a lot cover, maybe 1 year ago.
Uhm no, a statement like this would imply that the doc was used (more) often before the rework patch, which it was absolutely not lol.
What "killed" the doc was the cheese-nade nerfs in CoH2 five years ago when all infiltration squads were changed to spawn with their grenades on cooldown
I proves exactly what I posted:
"Their reinforcement cost is also inline with their cost of 210 (210/8=26.25)"
When you say things like this Vipper I have a hard time discerning whether you are just a very convincing troll or if you just have the incredible skill of always missing the point.
When you say things like this Vipper I have a hard time discerning whether you are just a very convincing troll or if you just have the incredible skill of always missing the point.
Then, I suggest that you clarify what, in your opinion, is the point instead of making ad hominem arguements.
He already told you what he meant two different times.
User Hannibal is quite good ta expressing his opinion and does not really need you to advocate for him. On the other hand if you have your own personal opinion on the matter feel free to share it.
You can laugh as much as you like but there is not real reason for you to post about it here.
Vipper, you can't facts and logic someone out of making a joke. I did it because I wanted to, not because I scientifically deduced that the thread required comedic input at 9 October 2022, 23:34.
And why in your opinion are meh?
Because they're a middling unit trapped inside a poor commander.
You know, I had ought to write a disclaimer that whenever I'm talking about a unit or commander, it's in relation to 4v4.
Vipper, you can't facts and logic someone out of making a joke. I did it because I wanted to, not because I scientifically deduced that the thread required comedic input at 9 October 2022, 23:34.
Only you seem to be making more "jokes" (that are less funny and more insulting toward a specific person) than any meaningful contribution to the actual thread.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
