Why does Overwatch(commander) exist?

In sort Pathfinder should get 2 for free and OKW should pay 60 munition (and tech cost) for one, yes that sounds "way more balanced".

I see way too much sarcasm for so little excuse of a response. Tech is not cost that should be considered - OKW can tech really fast and it isn't a hinderance. Also, you'll and should do it as fast as possible.

About the cost - really? I'd pay those 60muni for the crit any day over free paths.

I see way too much sarcasm for so little excuse of a response. Tech is not cost that should be considered - OKW can tech really fast and it isn't a hinderance. Also, you'll and should do it as fast as possible.

About the cost - really? I'd pay those 60muni for the crit any day over free paths.

perhaps pathfinders should pay an exclusive manpower & fuel cost to unlock a weapon upgrade, and then pay 120 munitions to become effective combat units, to truly balance them as units?






Jokes aside, tech cost literally doesn't matter (as you will get it anyway), and pathfinders only become strong combat units when you put so much resources in BAR sidetech and muni

I see way too much sarcasm for so little excuse of a response.

And yet you respond only to a part of my post which is in a parenthesis ignoring the important points.

Tech is not cost that should be considered - OKW can tech really fast and it isn't a hinderance. Also, you'll and should do it as fast as possible.

Yes it is hindrance, Pathfinder come out with critical kills before minute one while JLI get that later.

That contributes to Pathfinders gaining veterancy much faster.

About the cost - really? I'd pay those 60muni for the crit any day over free paths.

Only they get 2 sniper rifles for "free" while JLI would pay for one with your suggestions.

In sort what you have suggested would not make things "way more balanced" on the contrary.

And yet you respond only to a part of my post which is in a parenthesis ignoring the important points.

The fact that you responded further points down here kinda beats your own point here.

Yes it is hindrance, Pathfinder come out with critical kills before minute one while JLI get that later.

That contributes to Pathfinders gaining veterancy much faster.


Only they get 2 sniper rifles for "free" while JLI would pay for one with your suggestions.

In sort what you have suggested would not make things "way more balanced" on the contrary.

I can only say that we agree to disagree.

Imagine the sniper not being able to shoot while under fire. Or have the sniper only be camoed standing still in cover. So whenever it moves it's visible.

Edit: interesting, for some reason this was posted in the wrong thread.

Imagine the sniper not being able to shoot while under fire. Or have the sniper only be camoed standing still in cover. So whenever it moves it's visible.

Edit: interesting, for some reason this was posted in the wrong thread.

Now I'm just imagining the model holding the sniper rifle just randomly visible while the rest of the squad has normal camo lmao.

i think it is 2 AT planes and 2 AI plane. Still it make straffing support look like a joke. I dare anyone saying this is not the strongest loiter of the entire game atm.

it is bro

I struggle to find a valid reason to answer the title.Guard Motor always seems to be in the discussion of being OP/broken yet never Overwatch, despite being the most used OKW doctrine by far.

Overwatch is viable 1v1 to 4v4 and is beneficial throughout the match.Apparently the post UKF-launch salt of Axis players was strong enough to birth this commander into existence, at least that's my assumption considering I started playing in 2017.

That assumption seems to have a lot of ground to stand on though, considering how thoroughly this doctrine counters UKF.I'd say that it's justified to just outright /l a match if you see JLI whilst playing UKF, it's probably part of the reason why my playtime with UKF has dropped so much in the past couple of months, every OKW player given the chance instalocks Overwatch when they see the UKF faction icon.

JLI will make your life living hell if you play UKF(not that they aren't strong against other allied factions too).JLI also mesh well with KT+JP4 "strategies", not as strong as just having Spearhead+Panzer commander sight but it still means a lot to be able to cloak your inf in light cover and use them as free extended vision.

...

Sector Assault is utterly broken, no two ways about it.A single player should NOT be able to call in 4
AT planes that oftentimes can simply overwhelm a allied defense despite AA being present due to the sheer number of planes.This is now an even bigger issue after the M5 Quad has been nerfed in it's AA ability.

...

I agree that the commander is very strong. It's also kind of weird thematically. I think the loiter, despite being probably the best in the game (the Fallschirmjaeger one is also quite good) fits with that, at least - as does the LefH, but JLI and the Goliath are weird picks.

I'm beyond trying to come up with ways to balance this dead game, but I do think just tuning JLI down would help in that regard.

On that topic:

pathfinder_m1garand_scope_mp
DPS 1.8/2.2/2.5/3.3
acc 34.50%/57.50%/92%


jaeger_light_recon_g43
DPS 2.2/2.5/2.7/2.8
acc 57.50%/92%/115%

keep in mind accuracy is capped at 1 (not sure at what point of check)

G43 has lower accuracy penalty vs cover not a bonus.

It has really bad moving accuracy at 0.1.

Both 'sniper' rifles do 16 dmg per shot. Infantry have 80 hp.

JLI sniper crits at 75%. Another way of saying it is that it can do 60 damage. The crit can activate after 2 shots by either the G43 or any of OKW's standard rifles, be they 16 or 10 damage.

Pathfinder sniper crits at 40%. The crit therefore can do 32 damage. It requires 3 hits by the Pathfinder sniper to activate, or 5 hits by 10 dmg Pathfinder carbines, or 6 hits by 8 dmg Riflemen or Rear Echelon weapons.

This disparity, besides the G43's ability to mostly ignore cover, makes a standard DPS comparison meaningless, as the crit capability is not factored in. It also makes the much greater base accuracy of the JLI G43 more significant - and accuracy over 1.00 is still useful, particularly against lower received accuracy targets. This stat alone puts into question the significance of the DPS profile you give. You can also prove that accuracy does not cap at 1.0 via the attribute editor.

Anyway, if Pathfinders were made effectively clones of JLI, with only one rifle (with current G43 stats), it would be an overall buff, even if gated behind a 60 munitions upgrade. The only downside would be the 1CP start limiting the flanking potential versus Ostheer. Likewise, if JLI were made a complete stat clone of Pathfinders, it would be a straight nerf for JLI. Particularly as the JLI would then lose their incredibly competitive RA and RA vet.

Personally, I'd like to see these 'marksman rifles' changed to be something maybe geared specifically to killing team weapon crews via target table, or something like that. I forget if that's even possible - if there's a target type for crews, particularly those of recrewed weapons - but I like the idea of specializing like that rather than contributing to the oversaturation of effective long range infantry DPS that this game has. I also think base model sight range should be reduced (for all of these types of units), and the extra sight put into the marksman rifle upgrades.

...
Both 'sniper' rifles do 16 dmg per shot. Infantry have 80 hp.

JLI sniper crits at 75%. Another way of saying it is that it can do 60 damage. The crit can activate after 2 shots by either the G43 or any of OKW's standard rifles, be they 16 or 10 damage.

Pathfinder sniper crits at 40%. The crit therefore can do 32 damage. It requires 3 hits by the Pathfinder sniper to activate, or 5 hits by 10 dmg Pathfinder carbines, or 6 hits by 8 dmg Riflemen or Rear Echelon weapons.

This disparity, besides the G43's ability to mostly ignore cover, makes a standard DPS comparison meaningless, as the crit capability is not factored in. It also makes the much greater base accuracy of the JLI G43 more significant - and accuracy over 1.00 is still useful, particularly against lower received accuracy targets. This stat alone puts into question the significance of the DPS profile you give. You can also prove that accuracy does not cap at 1.0 via the attribute editor.

DPS stat I provided prove that Carbine fire faster than G43.

You comparison say very little for the performance of this weapons in game also. Comparing each weapon on it own mean very little since a there are many factor that you do not take into account like:

Number of shot that can critical (1 weapons vs 2 with better ROF)
Squad sizes
Fights with more than 1 squad
Weapon that spread damage like BARs
and so on

One can give as high accuracy as one want to a weapon in the editor that does not mean that during the roll check it will not be caped.

Anyway, if Pathfinders were made effectively clones of JLI, with only one rifle (with current G43 stats), it would be an overall buff, even if gated behind a 60 munitions upgrade. The only downside would be the 1CP start limiting the flanking potential versus Ostheer. Likewise, if JLI were made a complete stat clone of Pathfinders, it would be a straight nerf for JLI. Particularly as the JLI would then lose their incredibly competitive RA and RA vet.

Again this comparison means very little and it flawed since you are comparing different commander in different faction.

Would JLI as USF be OP? Sure because once it had double bar equipped it would be unstoppable by any infatry in any range.

In any case it not the Pathfinder on their own that create so much issue but the combination of Pathfinder providing excellent vision and of Scott of massacring any soft target.

But you are wrong about CP 0 Pathfinder as an OKW unit and you are also wrong about that impact of CP 1 on USF.

Pathfinder used to be CP 1 and they where far less of an issue because one could only fit 1 (maybe 2) to their built.

Personally, I'd like to see these 'marksman rifles' changed to be something maybe geared specifically to killing team weapon crews via target table, or something like that. I forget if that's even possible - if there's a target type for crews, particularly those of recrewed weapons - but I like the idea of specializing like that rather than contributing to the oversaturation of effective long range infantry DPS that this game has. I also think base model sight range should be reduced (for all of these types of units), and the extra sight put into the marksman rifle upgrades.

DPS stat I provided prove that Carbine fire faster than G43.

We're not talking about the paratrooper carbine, we were talking about the scoped rifles. Don't bring up irrelevancies like this again.

You comparison say very little for the performance of this weapons in game also. Comparing each weapon on it own mean very little since a there are many factor that you do not take into account like:

Number of shot that can critical (1 weapons vs 2 with better ROF)
Squad sizes
Fights with more than 1 squad
Weapon that spread damage like BARs
and so on

One weapon versus two matters little when the effective crit damage is basically halved. It just means the squad with one weapon capable of doing the crit earlier will pick off a model sooner, and will perform better as its own squad decreases in size due to damage concentration.

Spread damage (or already damaged squads) or multiple squad firefights still push the advantage in JLI's favor since - again - the G43 crit point is much higher than that of the M1C, and it is more likely to hit in all situations.

You understand this - don't bother arguing about it.

One can give as high accuracy as one want to a weapon in the editor that does not mean that during the roll check it will not be caped.

Not what I meant. 200% accuracy versus a target size of 0.5 will result in a 100% hit chance. In this sense, 115% accuracy makes for guaranteed hits on targets with a lower target size than 1 (like most combat infantry in the game). This can be tested via modding with the attribute editor - it just doesn't show up in DPS calculations since these presumably use a target size of 1 - where 115% would make no difference compared to 100%.

You should know this already.

Again this comparison means very little and it flawed since you are comparing different commander in different faction.

Would JLI as USF be OP? Sure because once it had double bar equipped it would be unstoppable by any infatry in any range.

Actually, no. It would be the very low target size of the Pathfinder squad using JLI stats. Though double bars on top of the much stronger G43 sniper rifle wouldn't hurt at all.

In any case it not the Pathfinder on their own that create so much issue but the combination of Pathfinder providing excellent vision and of Scott of massacring any soft target.

It is indeed unfortunate that USF had so many indirect fire reworks to put them in this position. You share a great deal of the blame for the situation becoming as it is now, though, so I'm not sure you can talk much about it. This also has nothing to do with the comparison of JLI and Pathfinders.

But you are wrong about CP 0 Pathfinder as an OKW unit and you are also wrong about that impact of CP 1 on USF.

Pathfinder used to be CP 1 and they where far less of an issue because one could only fit 1 (maybe 2) to their built.

A change back to CP1 would make Paths harder to fit into the USF infantry build, yes. But if they were a clone of JLI, people would build them anyway, since JLI are actually good in and of themselves, as a combat unit or a utility unit.

You do not have to publicly acknowledge this point, since everyone knows it's true.

On the other hand, I do think it is a bit insulting that you do not accept that JLI as a CP0 Pathfinder clone for OKW would be worse. It almost looked like you would, since you were talking about how strong 120 munitions of BARs make Pathfinders. This behavior is not unexpected, however - it is unusual for you to admit such things given your incredible and unfortunate tendency to succumb to your biases when posting on this forum.

We're not talking about the paratrooper carbine, we were talking about the scoped rifles. Don't bring up irrelevancies like this again.

We are talking about "pathfinder_m1garand_scope_mp", so it very relevant.

The weapon simply has a better rate of fire than the scoped G43.

(Now pls stop being aggressive by barking orders.)

One weapon versus two matters little when the effective crit damage is basically halved. It just means the squad with one weapon capable of doing the crit earlier will pick off a model sooner, and will perform better as its own squad decreases in size due to damage concentration.

Spread damage (or already damaged squads) or multiple squad firefights still push the advantage in JLI's favor since - again - the G43 crit point is much higher than that of the M1C, and it is more likely to hit in all situations.

You understand this - don't bother arguing about it.

Who gets a critical first is not the only that matters who wins the fight matter more. Two weapons firing with a higher ROF able to do critical, can have a solid advantage in many cases so things are simply not as black and white as you try to present them.

If a HE weapon like a Scott (or mortar) is firing on soft target, the Pathfinder get many more chances to get a critical simply because the fire more bullets.

As for weapon that spread damage Pathfinder have access to BARs that do spread damage and JLI simply do not.
(Again pls stop being aggressive by barking orders.)

Not what I meant. 200% accuracy versus a target size of 0.5 will result in a 100% hit chance. In this sense, 115% accuracy makes for guaranteed hits on targets with a lower target size than 1 (like most combat infantry in the game). This can be tested via modding with the attribute editor - it just doesn't show up in DPS calculations since these presumably use a target size of 1 - where 115% would make no difference compared to 100%.

You should know this already.

Feel free to contact such tests yourself and provide the results because in game I have seen shot that mathematically should not be able to miss to actually do.

(once more pls stop being aggressive .)

Actually, no. It would be the very low target size of the Pathfinder squad using JLI stats. Though double bars on top of the much stronger G43 sniper rifle wouldn't hurt at all.

Feel free to test such unit (its quite easy in cheat mode) and see what an actual huge boost the double bar on JLI is. It spread damages across squad member making critical happen more often and while BAR has a big DPS advantage as over the K98.

I am not even sure what you want to argue here since you seem to agree that a double BAR JLI would be OP.

It is indeed unfortunate that USF had so many indirect fire reworks to put them in this position. You share a great deal of the blame for the situation becoming as it is now, though, so I'm not sure you can talk much about it. This also has nothing to do with the comparison of JLI and Pathfinders.

Pls elaborate on why in your opinion I am to blame for the current state of the game.

My involvement in developing the game end when Alpha and beta teams where closed and that was way before any redesign of the USF faction. Even so Relic and only Relic are responsible for the changes that where made in their game.
(once more pls stop being aggressive .)

A change back to CP1 would make Paths harder to fit into the USF infantry build, yes. But if they were a clone of JLI, people would build them anyway, since JLI are actually good in and of themselves, as a combat unit or a utility unit.

You do not have to publicly acknowledge this point, since everyone knows it's true.

On the other hand, I do think it is a bit insulting that you do not accept that JLI as a CP0 Pathfinder clone for OKW would be worse. It almost looked like you would, since you were talking about how strong 120 munitions of BARs make Pathfinders. This behavior is not unexpected, however - it is unusual for you to admit such things given your incredible and unfortunate tendency to succumb to your biases when posting on this forum.

The only thing "insulting" here is that instead of talking about the overwatch commander you see more eager to use add hominem "arguments" making your forum warrior mentality quite clear.

PLS if you wish to continue this debate focus on the overwatch commander and try if you can to avoid the personal comments attacks.

We are talking about "pathfinder_m1garand_scope_mp", so it very relevant.

The weapon simply has a better rate of fire than the scoped G43.

(Now pls stop being aggressive by barking orders.)

Which is not a carbine - why call it one?

A higher rate of fire doesn't overcome guaranteed hits via over 100% accuracy, nor does it change the difference in crit point. Hell, rumartinez89 already went over this with you back when you posted the different DPS stats without this context.

I will politely request you acknowledge these things because you otherwise attempt to scurry around the point or ignore the content of posts entirely. It is a sad state of affairs, but also entirely your own doing after so many years.

Who gets a critical first is not the only that matters who wins the fight matter more.

Actually, it kind of is.

Two weapons firing with a higher ROF able to do critical, can have a solid advantage in many cases so things are simply not as black and white as you try to present them.

If a HE weapon like a Scott (or mortar) is firing on soft target, the Pathfinder get many more chances to get a critical simply because the fire more bullets.

The Pathfinder critical is basically a double damage shot - excepting a situation of heavy cover (which the JLI G43 mostly ignores anyway) it's one less hit the Pathfinder rifle would have to make. And the Pathfinder M1C is less accurate in these situations and also receives less veterancy bonuses towards accuracy (20% to 40% for JLI).

Given a situation where damage has been done via either AOE or non-focus-fire weapons like the BAR, having a crit point at 60 rather than 32 is going to be more significant, particularly if those AOE weapons have been leaving yellow cover all over the place.

As for weapon that spread damage Pathfinder have access to BARs that do spread damage and JLI simply do not.

120 munitions worth of BARs will certainly help a unit out, and should definitely beat Kar98s. The range bonus Paths (and JLI) get also makes any kind of slot item weapon rather impressive, focus fire or not, but you literally think double BARs are OP on Riflemen, so it's kind of meaningless when you talk about them on Paths. A unit which you previously said is a problem largely for its sight range, not its potential weapon loadouts - a distinction you do not make for hypothetical BARs on JLI, which you acknowledge as a superior combat unit.

Feel free to contact such tests yourself and provide the results because in game I have seen shot that mathematically should not be able to miss to actually do.

Why not post your own evidence, then? The burden is on you, given many weapon profiles and target type bonuses are designed around utilizing more than 100% accuracy. This is not the same thing as weapon scatter.

I am not even sure what you want to argue here since you seem to agree that a double BAR JLI would be OP.

And you agree that they would be worthless as Pathfinders for OKW. I know - there isn't really any reason to be arguing, is there? The superior performance of the JLI squad as compared to Pathfinders has never been in question - you basically admit it here - yet you go on.

Pls elaborate on why in your opinion I am to blame for the current state of the game.

Your massive post history is enough for that. Years of regurgitated and biased attempts to 'rework' various units on this forum have had an undeniable effect on the direction of balance updates. And I specifically remember defenses of both JLI in their older, far more broken state, and - relevant to this tidbit, demands to rework USF indirect fire options. This is however not relevant to the Overwatch commander, so I won't delve into details, as it would simply allow you to derail the thread.

The only thing "insulting" here is that instead of talking about the overwatch commander you see more eager to use add hominem "arguments" making your forum warrior mentality quite clear.

The only thing insulting is your stubborn refusal to discuss balance in a productive, unbiased way, or show other posters the respect they deserve by actually reading their posts in their entirety, or stay on topic in the threads you post in. This has been such a recurring theme over your 13,000+ post history on this forum that I must immediately preface anything I say to you with certain demands. Believe me, I wish I did not have to.

Which is not a carbine - why call it one?


A higher rate of fire doesn't overcome guaranteed hits via over 100% accuracy, nor does it change the difference in crit point. Hell, rumartinez89 already went over this with you back when you posted the different DPS stats without this context.

I will politely request you acknowledge these things because you otherwise attempt to scurry around the point or ignore the content of posts entirely. It is a sad state of affairs, but also entirely your own doing after so many years.

A higher fire rate can easily overcome guaranteed hits via over 100% accuracy that is why weapon are compared in DPS and not accuracy.

Different critical does not change the fact that there 2 scoped rifler with a higher ROF.

(once more try to avoid the forum warrior mentality of ad hominem "arguements")

Actually, it kind of is.

No it not.

The Pathfinder critical is basically a double damage shot - excepting a situation of heavy cover (which the JLI G43 mostly ignores anyway) it's one less hit the Pathfinder rifle would have to make. And the Pathfinder M1C is less accurate in these situations and also receives less veterancy bonuses towards accuracy (20% to 40% for JLI).

Given a situation where damage has been done via either AOE or non-focus-fire weapons like the BAR, having a crit point at 60 rather than 32 is going to be more significant, particularly if those AOE weapons have been leaving yellow cover all over the place.

Nope it is simply a critical kill shot.

As for vet bonuses Pathfinder have a clear advantage since the vet up much faster the JLI.

When firing on damaged squads able to deliver more than double critical shots (even if these shot need a lower HP threshold) can be more effective.

120 munitions worth of BARs will certainly help a unit out, and should definitely beat Kar98s. The range bonus Paths (and JLI) get also makes any kind of slot item weapon rather impressive, focus fire or not, but you literally think double BARs are OP on Riflemen, so it's kind of meaningless when you talk about them on Paths. A unit which you previously said is a problem largely for its sight range, not its potential weapon loadouts - a distinction you do not make for hypothetical BARs on JLI, which you acknowledge as a superior combat unit.

What I have said is that BARs on JLI clone is OP if you agree I advice to move on if you disagree feel free to argue your case.

Why not post your own evidence, then? The burden is on you, given many weapon profiles and target type bonuses are designed around utilizing more than 100% accuracy. This is not the same thing as weapon scatter.

You are the one questioning weather accuracy is capped at 100% in check not me so the burden of proof lies to you. And here what people with more knowledge of game mechanics have to say:

Calculating DPS

Total damage:
accuracy(incremental, range, target_size, moving, cover)*damage(cover)*penetration(range, armor)*burst bullets(range, moving)*(1+reload frequency)
Burst bullets:
1 if single fire, otherwise Burst duration(range, moving)*rate of fire(range)

Time required:
(wind up+fire aim(range)+burst duration(range, moving)+wind down+cooldown(range, moving))*(1+reload frequency)
- cooldown(range, moving) - fire aim(range) + ready aim(range) + reload duration(range)

DPS: total damage/time required

Accuracy, penetration chance are capped at 1. Burst duration for non burst weapons is 0.125 (this game generally operates on 8 ticks a second, any amount of time is rounded to the closest 0.125). You will have to adjust rate of fire, burst duration, accuracy, cooldown and reload duration all with range. The one -cooldown is because there won't be a cooldown after the last burst before a reload."

And you agree that they would be worthless as Pathfinders for OKW. I know - there isn't really any reason to be arguing, is there? The superior performance of the JLI squad as compared to Pathfinders has never been in question - you basically admit it here - yet you go on.

Of coarse I do not agree that CP 0 Pathfinder clones would be "worthless" for OKW or for any other faction for that matter.

I doubt that you will find many people that would describe Pathfinder clones as "worthless" for OKW

Your massive post history is enough for that. Years of regurgitated and biased attempts to 'rework' various units on this forum have had an undeniable effect on the direction of balance updates. And I specifically remember defenses of both JLI in their older, far more broken state, and - relevant to this tidbit, demands to rework USF indirect fire options. This is however not relevant to the Overwatch commander, so I won't delve into details, as it would simply allow you to derail the thread.

So your theory is because I posted something this forum suddenly Relic decided to implemented, ok this theory is simply ridiculous.

If there is someone derailing this thread that is you with you add hominem "arguments" and not me.

The only thing insulting is your stubborn refusal to discuss balance in a productive, unbiased way, or show other posters the respect they deserve by actually reading their posts in their entirety, or stay on topic in the threads you post in. This has been such a recurring theme over your 13,000+ post history on this forum that I must immediately preface anything I say to you with certain demands. Believe me, I wish I did not have to.

Actually you describing what you are doing.

And what exactly is the point you are trying to make?
That JLI are more OP than Pathfinders?
To personally attack me?

A higher fire rate can easily overcome guaranteed hits via over 100% accuracy that is why weapon are compared in DPS and not accuracy.

DPS is a function of accuracy. Again, you know this, but deliberately misrepresent important details in your posts to further whatever your current argument is supposed to be.

Different critical does not change the fact that there 2 scoped rifler with a higher ROF.

It does, and this has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people. Your refusal to listen does not change that. If you are going to complain about 'ad hominems', you should start respecting fellow posters by actually reading and engaging with what they have written.

Nope it is simply a critical kill shot.

That activates at 32 HP. Which is 16*2. Again, you are deliberately engaging in toxic behavior by misrepresentation and selective ignorance.

As for vet bonuses Pathfinder have a clear advantage since the vet up much faster the JLI.

The vet bonuses JLI recieve are still greater, and base survivability as well as more consistent damage via greater accuracy makes up for the steeper vet requirements.

When firing on damaged squads able to deliver more than double critical shots (even if these shot need a lower HP threshold) can be more effective.

This is your opinion.

What I have said is that BARs on JLI clone is OP if you agree I advice to move on if you disagree feel free to argue your case.

You said the problem with Pathfinders (who currently can equip two BARs) was related to their sight profile and interaction with Scotts. You then say JLI would be specifically OP with BARs. While you are free to change whatever your public stance is, I think it's pretty clear you understand the difference in combat ability between the two units, however you choose to backtrack. This does, however, make a constructive balance discussion with you very, very difficult.

You are the one questioning weather accuracy is capped at 100% in check not me so the burden of proof lies to you. And here what people with more knowledge of game mechanics have to say:

Calculating DPS

Total damage:
accuracy(incremental, range, target_size, moving, cover)*damage(cover)*penetration(range, armor)*burst bullets(range, moving)*(1+reload frequency)
Burst bullets:
1 if single fire, otherwise Burst duration(range, moving)*rate of fire(range)

Time required:
(wind up+fire aim(range)+burst duration(range, moving)+wind down+cooldown(range, moving))*(1+reload frequency)
- cooldown(range, moving) - fire aim(range) + ready aim(range) + reload duration(range)

DPS: total damage/time required

Accuracy, penetration chance are capped at 1. Burst duration for non burst weapons is 0.125 (this game generally operates on 8 ticks a second, any amount of time is rounded to the closest 0.125). You will have to adjust rate of fire, burst duration, accuracy, cooldown and reload duration all with range. The one -cooldown is because there won't be a cooldown after the last burst before a reload."

Your own post illustrates accuracy in DPS calculation as a final figure assembled after calculation against all the various modifiers that weapon accuracy interacts with. For DPS calculation's sake, this must eventually cap at %100, but even in this specific case, that final accuracy statistic is arrived at after weapon accuracy's multiplication against target_size. While this is not damning evidence, given it is only a formula for generation of damage statistics, it supports what I have said (and what is the common belief, rather than your specific claim of an weapon accuracy cap within the engine, which requires evidence to support it.)

If you took the time to read other people's posts and respect what they have said, you would not have run into this issue. Understand I am not trying to be mean here by repeating myself - it is just that I am tired of this issue occurring whenever I have to respond to you.

Of coarse I do not agree that CP 0 Pathfinder clones would be "worthless" for OKW or for any other faction for that matter.

I doubt that you will find many people that would describe Pathfinder clones as "worthless" for OKW

OK.

So your theory is because I posted something this forum suddenly Relic decided to implemented, ok this theory is simply ridiculous.

This is how the balance forum works. The team looked to this forum for feedback, support, and discussion, and you happened to be a very active part of that. I am curious why you would claim not to have this influence - why else would any of us post here?

If there is someone derailing this thread that is you with you add hominem "arguments" and not me.


Actually you describing what you are doing.

And what exactly is the point you are trying to make?
That JLI are more OP than Pathfinders?
To personally attack me?

I wanted to better contextualize JLI, as a unit itself and within this commander, specifically with regard to Pathfinders, since there have been comparisons between these two units since the first page of this thread, and you have tried to make JLI out to be less problematic of a unit in its current state than it actually is, including by claiming (baselessly) that weapon profile accuracy cannot exceed 1.

I do not intend to attack you personally. I only do what I have to in order to further the truth, which is neccesary to discuss balance in a meaningful way.

I am have not intentional of following down the path you have chosen that derail this threat.
What you seem to fail to understand is that you are more focused in picking a fight with me than arguing or contributing anything to this thread.

Pathfinder/Scott if problematic combination, but is not very relevant to overwatch commander since they are different commander across different factions.

On post I have 54 I have explained why rumartinez89 comparison is not very help it does not take into account an number of variables.

I have also posted the about the problems with JLI/Pathfinder and I have suggestion on how to fix them (timed ability).

(edited)

I am have not intentional of following down the path you have chosen that derail this threat.
What you seem to fail to understand is that you are more focused in picking a fight with me than arguing or contributing anything to this thread.

Pathfinder/Scott if problematic combination, but is not very relevant to overwatch commander since they are different commander across different factions.

On post I have 54 I have explained why rumartinez89 comparison is not very help it does not take into account an number of variables.

I have also posted the about the problems with JLI/Pathfinder and I have suggestion on how to fix them (timed ability).

(edited)

My lack of response was due to us agreeing that they should not be spammable not that I agreed with any of the points that you made.

1. The fact that half the squads need to close in is a win for the OKW player. That means that the JLI and any supporting units are receiving less damage as the Allied units position themselves for better engagements. But, what about the long range focused squads as they cost more they should in theory perform better.

Taking Airborne LMG guards as an example since I tested this one about a month or 2 ago.
A 360MP, 100muni and CP2 unit wins by a significant margin when both units are out of cover. 6 out of 6 times with Airborne having 3/4 models remaining.
The mere addition of light cover which I made using a land mattress with both units at max range as that is where they are both supposed to be used had JLI winning 4/6 times with a model or 2 remaining. Behind green was a stomp in favor of the JLI which I don't remember the Airborne winning once.

I haven't tested Rangers, but I would assume they would lose also despite being a CP3 long range focused unit until they are upgraded with Thompsons.

Point being JLI(and Paths vs Gren damage reduction) sniper weapon can disregard some of the strongest attributes of Allied elites such as Armor for Shocks or RA for Rangers. They have extended vision which allows them to react preemptively to their counter.

2. This point only stands for 1v1, in 2v2 and above there are players that go Kubel into 2 volks/2 JLI or sometimes 2 Kubel into 3 JLI. They have similar strengths so what works for one can work for the other. Any LV weakness can be covered by T0 rak, despite it being unreliable no one is going to keep their LV around as JLI can easily spot for it in the same way you mentioned Scott/Paths.

3. All this means is that the Pathfinders can do it more consistently, any dropped LMG will make a JLI self sufficient maybe even self-aware. Jokes aside, OKW has stock access to LMG Obers which will feed the crits for JLI.

4. It is only 1 CP it is not that much later. CP1 vs CP2 is similar time, CP1 vs CP3 is quite a distance yet JLI compete with those units especially if any light cover is present. And yes the Pathfinder lower XP is a problem and should be corrected but they also have lower vet bonus compared to JLI and most if not all other mainlines

My lack of response was due to us agreeing that they should not be spammable not that I agreed with any of the points that you made.
...

I have not claimed that you agreed with my points.

I do not know what you are trying to prove with this test you are making or how it is related to overwatch commander.

I rather obvious that if one is facing JLI one should avoid a static fight at long range behind cover with most unit.

4. It is only 1 CP it is not that much later. CP1 vs CP2 is similar time,...

You are dead wrong about this.

This was clearly proven when Relic in their infinite wisdom moved Shock troops and Guards to CP1 and the Soviet become completely broken.

The same actually applied to both JLI and Pathfinder since the started becoming an issue when their CP was requirement where reduced (JLI from 2 to 1) (Pathfinder from 1 to 0)

I have not claimed that you agreed with my points.

I do not know what you are trying to prove with this test you are making or how it is related to overwatch commander.

I rather obvious that if one is facing JLI one should avoid a static fight at long range behind cover with most unit.


You are dead wrong about this.

This was clearly proven when Relic in their infinite wisdom moved Shock troops and Guards to CP1 and the Soviet become completely broken.

The same actually applied to both JLI and Pathfinder since the started becoming an issue when their CP was requirement where reduced (JLI from 2 to 1) (Pathfinder from 1 to 0)

Interesting how you're saying Shock/Guards at 1CP made Sov broken, which I agree on. But what are your thoughts on JLI being 1 CP?

Looking at how they perform. I feel like JLI should arrive at 2 CP, like most other elite infantry call ins.

I have not claimed that you agreed with my points.

I do not know what you are trying to prove with this test you are making or how it is related to overwatch commander.

I rather obvious that if one is facing JLI one should avoid a static fight at long range behind cover with most unit.


You are dead wrong about this.

This was clearly proven when Relic in their infinite wisdom moved Shock troops and Guards to CP1 and the Soviet become completely broken.

The same actually applied to both JLI and Pathfinder since the started becoming an issue when their CP was requirement where reduced (JLI from 2 to 1) (Pathfinder from 1 to 0)

As JLI are part of overwatch commander, the total strength of the commander is decided by the abilities and units that are unlocked once it is chosen. The combat performance vs other units decide how the opponent will respond. Once again, picking a short range focused squad is overall win for OKW as most maps are long range focused along with LMG Obers arriving later to completely negate any push as JLI also have vision and other utility.

Why is this obvious? Why should a more expensive and later arriving unit with a LONG RANGE focus lose? Airborne Guards are an AI focused ELITE unit with no utility outside of combat, why should this unit lose to a cheaper scout unit? Which unit should win long range against JLI behind light cover?

So what am I wrong about? Unit performance is tied to unit timing, and as I have said several times JLI arrive to early for a unit that can fight mainlines and scale to fight elites. I think I was unclear in my wording when responding to your comment about Pathfinder timing. What I meant to say is it takes about 2.5 mins to 3.5 mins to reach CP1. That means JLI do not arrive much later than Paths, with a dedicated build it is easy to spam JLI. CP2 usually arrives late 5 to early 7 min window(same time gap), so JLI have plenty of time to start vetting before they have to compete with Allied elites.

Yes it was broken when shocks arrived that early, but CP cost wasn't the only issue. If I remember correctly at that time Shocks could still throw smoke and HE with separate cooldowns and Guard LMG had Gren LMG performance.

Instead of nerfing JLI so they would be less spammable, a significantly longer cooldown was given. So performance was known to be an issue but it was never meaningfully address.