Testing various SMG units

Jump back to quoted post31 Oct 2022, 10:39 AMHannibal

This was referring to PPSh unit vs Grenadiers
1. base close range accuracy of PPSh Shock troop variant: 0,816
2. Shock troops accuracy veterancy: +40% (0,816 * 1,4 = 1,1424)
3. Grenadier target size: 0,91 (1,1424 * 0,91 = 1,039584)
4. For G43 Grenadiers, the additional 0,9 RA does push the overall accuracy down to 0,9356.... So it has an effect, albeit not the intended 10% in this very specific setup of vet3 PPSh troops vs G43 Grenadiers.

Since Grens do not get further RA buffs with vet, but "only" damage reduction, they are an extreme example for accuracy calculations here. Volksgrenadiers get 0,77 RA which pushes the overall accuracy below 1. Again, all this assumes that capping the accuracy at 1 happens after step3 and not step2, which I think should be the case but I am not 100% sure anymore if I tested exactly that.

I think this is where my "confusion" is coming from. I thought Grens had a target size of 1, but their starting target size is .91 so the G43 upgrade makes more sense. The whole reason I was using Grens was for their "unique" for axis infantry target size along with their over all unique Damage reduction. That is why I was asking if they could in effect CAP the damage coming in as Acc would be 1.04 So anything above that is not used and the damage reduction would cause a drop by 20% from the PPSH.








I was probably thinking about Airborne Guards that get PPSh, not Assault Guards with their Thompsons. In that case it would make sense for Rangers to lose.
Looking at the numbers, I find it hard to believe that Assault Guards are supposed to be THAT strong. It actually looks like they don't have that much going for them. RA both at vet0 and vet3 is pretty mediocre. The weapon loadout also doesn't look super special to me. The vet is nothing super special either besides getting +40% accuracy instead of the more usual +30%. That's a nice buff, but not sure if worth it.

If I have time, I'll test them myself.
Rangers won more often than not it was just surprising that AssG could win at all as when they were both Vet0 I tested several times and Rangers would always win with 2-3 models.
But I think its more than just looking at the Acc differences between them.
For Rangers they get 25% Acc, 20% cooldown and 29% RA
For AssG they get 40% Acc, 25% cooldown and 29% RA
Comparing VET0 to Vet3 performance in a head to head comparison AssG will do more damage as their Acc outscales the Rangers RA while also reducing the incoming damage as AssG RA bonus outscales the Ranger Acc bonus.
Again the test is useless overall as they wouldn't fight each other unless playing a custom game. But the issue illustrates the issue people have with Rangers. AssG Vet is fairly common to Soviets, OKW elites and OST which means they scale negatively offensively and defensively against Obers/JLI/PG/Storms/Falls(more apparent when cloaked) while getting hit with a 3rd weakness of having to move in on LMG Obers/JLI and Falls. They scale negatively defensively against JCS/Fussi as their Acc bonus outscales Ranger RA and JCS/Fussi RA bonus is close enough to Ranger Acc bonus that it is a wash.

Edit: Also if I crunched the numbers correctly Rangers gain no DPS against Grenadiers when both are vetted while receiving more DPS from the Grens which are not only significantly cheaper but also have a more favorable long distance profile and in most in game scenarios having a VET advantage.


Example- Lets say Ranger thompson does 16 DPS, against Vet0 Grens that would be 14.56
At Vet 3 the Thompson would do 20 DPS, against .91 target size 18.2 and factoring in damage reduction 14.56

Jump back to quoted post31 Oct 2022, 15:42 PMHannibal

I never fully realized before, but generally speaking, veterancy just negates itself. E
This means, that the RA buff of -29% is negated by +40% accuracy, the -23% by +30% accuracy for the opponent. They cancel each other out, what is left over is the cool down, but the effect here is usually not THAT great.