Action Items: Balance Feedback Required!

For long range combat, do LMGs ever reload? Increasing the reload time, or the time between bursts, could help short range combat units close the gap without taking as much damage.

1) I agree the whole instant vet thing breaks the game; veterancy is a fundamental system and you're overriding it. If you must have it, make them more expensive, 300-320 mp...

2) I disagree that Maxims should have fewer crew members. I think the problem is really spam in 2v2 and up, where Maxims are disproportionately effective compared to a conscript squad, both costing 240. My solution: 260-270 MP. They really are not that durable, it's just that on certain maps 2-3 Maxims covering each other is essentially overpowered. I don't think a cost increase to 260 would affect the 1v1 meta that bad.

3) The uber LMGs, the airborne and obersoldaten mgs, might need to be toned down a tad at ultra long range. I think gren LMGs are fine, it's still possible to close on those with conscripts or rifles if pathed through cover.

something has to be done with maxim.

a)nerf the damage and suppression
or
b)increase the cost to 300
or
c)decrease the sov support weapon sizes to 4

i like c the best. why shouldn't they have 4 man support squads? all the other armies do.

About vet 2 Rifles callin, it is fine if those Rifles CP is higher, a replacement of vetted Rifles are fine in mid-late game, it's totally breaking balance in the first 5 minutes.

About Soviet weapon team, I don't care about maxim and 82mm.

But 120mm needs to be 4 man, those guys are too monstrous and even able to retreat with 1 man left, and the snipers, THOSE FUCKING SNIPERS. Just make them like Ostheer, one man and fast reload, high risk high reward, and not some fucktard spamming them whole game and keep them alive without requirement of decent skill. There is still no decent counters against them, 222 is even more an epic fail with USF around.


About LMG, they are fine, except in USF vs Ostheer matchup.
Rifles can equip two M1919 but Ostheer can only have one LMG42.

My main complaint about long range weapons is not approaching to the enemy and having loses, you can play against that using smoke, cover, etc. Instead, retreating is what makes me hate those long range units, as they can give the finish blow to my retreating units from fa LOOOONG range.

Soviets can't kill retreating as easily units because they lack of a long range infantry, meanwhile other factions can wipe retreating squads much more easily.

As far as soviet weapon teams go, 4 is too harsh, 5 could work though.

Hey BC & Relic team,

First off, thanks for doing this. Pretty cool to open up to the community in large. Much appreciated, rawr. I want to comment on the long range combat item in detail. When I was typing up my thread on over all core soviet faction design I came to realize that small weapons was a much larger issue than just the Soviet's but I wanted to stick to my topic. This seems like a perfect opportunity to bring it up as it deals mostly with long range combat.

How does relic define the range categories? I'll be using the following three groups for the rest of my post.

Short 0-10
Medium 10-20
Long 20-35

And the small weapons categories are:

Rifles Kar98k, Mosin-Nagant, M1 Garand
Submachine Guns PPSH, Thompson, Greasegun, MP40
Assault Rifles MP44, StG66, FG42, BAR
Carbines G43, SVT, M1 Carbine, M1 Garand, M1A1 Garand
Light Machine Guns DP, M1919A6, LMG34, LMG42

Reference material

My observations are as follows:

• Rifles weapon category is rather tight except for Obersoldeten and Panzerfusiliere. Obersoldeten and Panzerfusiliere Rifles lead the pack in terms of DPS at close and long range. Obsersoldeten maintain a clear lead in DPS and their ability to project the damage amongst all three range categories. Panzerfusiliere DPS drops at a steep curve which brings it in line with the other in the weapons category at long range.
  
• Submachine guns are all effective at close range and all drop efficiency to project damage past 15 range. Their role is clearly defined with no weapon over performing when compared to others in the same weapons categories.
  
• Assault rifles are just as effective as submachine guns at close range but continue to project damage past 15 range. Obsersoldeten maintain a clear lead in DPS and their ability to project the damage amongst all three range categories up until 30 range. The Soviet faction has a gap with no assault rifles.
  
• Carbine rifles are double the damage of the Rifles at 0-5 range, and drop steadily as range increases. They remain better than rifles at all range categories. The G43 is over represented as 4 of the 8 units in this weapon category are equipped with G43’s.
  
• Light machine guns are all effective at all ranges and do not drop efficiency to project damage at any range. Obsersoldeten maintains drastic lead in DPS and their ability to project the damage amongst all three range categories. Their role is clearly defined.
  

So what does this all mean?

• Light machine guns and submachine guns have a clearly defined role.
  
• Rifles, carbine rifles, and assault rifles overlap in their ability to project damage and lack a clearly defined role. They appear to just be better at DPS but all follow a similar curve in projecting their damage.
  
• Obsersoldeten perform significantly better in their weapon categories.
  

This is a lot of stuff. How does this apply to long range?

• Every weapons group aside from sub machine guns can apply damage in the long range category.
  
• Obsersoldeten have a clear advantage in all ranges.
  

So what can we do to fix it?

• Rifles, carbine rifles, and assault rifles need to be adjusted so that range advantages and disadvantages are clearly defined. For example, instead of following a similar range curve as Rifles and carbines, assault rifles could have a bell curve. They could be effective at medium range but less effective at close and far. Carbine rifles could be good in short to medium and lose out at far when compared to rifles.
  
• Obsersoldeten need to be adjusted to reduce either their damage or their ability to apply it over all range groups. The LMG34 is clearly out performing all others in the LMG catagory by a significant amount.
  
• Soviets lack an assault rifle, unsure if you are looking for commander ideas but the RPD could be introduced in future expansions.
  

PS: I'm in Vancouver on Friday the 8th. If anybody from Relic wants to meet up and talk to a fan I'll ditch work.

If anything were to be done with Veteran riflemen, then i think they should be given a CP requirement between 1-3. I dont like how they become part of your first units fielded. None of your first units fielded should have vet, no matter what you pay. Itll be much better if it serves as a replacement for dead riflemen later in the game, so you dont lose all your vet. If that happens, then the cooldown wouldnt be needed as explained by the CP requirement. I will never pay fuel for anything that has to do with infantry. Thats terrible. I havent touched Elite Troops in months for that reason. Its just bad for both players.

The maxim could be called overperforming because it is the most useful unit to use against grenadiers and OKW units. Low quality soviet infantry dont cut it. I believe that changing the maxim in any way wont change anything in the long run. I think the entire faction needs a lookover, especially because of WFA and every OKW unit except the volksgrenadier will beat every soviet squad in nearly every situation.

As for LMG's, i really like Cruzz's idea. His is worth considering.

In an effort to discourage blobbing, I'm an advocate for penalizing infantry with negative cover when moving in groups of 3 or more squads over open ground.

Think opposing members should just get an accuracy increase, more bodies to hit.

I do not like any abilities that give free exp. This includes both the Elite rifle callin as well as the Ostheer Elite troops doctrine. I think they fundamentally break the game balance by giving easy, guaranteed access to abilities that are gated behind exp for a reason. I'd rather see them both changed to things like increased exp gain for units, even if that would be a passive ability that is fairly boring gameplay wise.



They don't overperform in 1vs1, period. Anyone complaining about them based on 1vs1 just needs to learn to play against them. Meanwhile in team games, all of the possible soviet early game infantry choices (penals and conscripts and combat engineers) just scale badly, maxims and snipers are the only things that can remain relevant throughout the game so you end up seeing them every single time with more organized teams. Before any sweeping changes to maxims, the long-term performance of conscripts and penals should be looked into to give more actual options for team game soviets.

If you were to reduce the durability of these squads, the performance of the guns would have to go up by quite a bit, which would create a whole boatload of new balance problems and would likely lead to just as many complaints from the anti-soviet crowd.



While there are some minor performance issues with short range firearms, the fundamental issue is just ease of use. With how the system is setup right now, you get very good performance just by selecting all your LMG armed long-range infantry, and amoving towards the enemy. By contrast trying to use short range troops generally involves much more roundabout maneuvering to setup flanks, use of smoke, and so on, yet the cost performance of these short range units is generally not THAT much better than the LMG blob.

While just reducing long range damage somewhat is an option, I do think it could be interesting if the LMG damage was made to spread damage on the entire enemy squad instead of focused on a single model. Right now a big part of the power of LMGs is that they will very quickly snipe off members from the enemy squad, forcing shorter range troops to just run away because having half a squad in melee doesn't really help them. Spread the damage out and you'll instead have a much larger though lower health squad coming into melee instead, which could actually do something. It would also make MGs a bit more efficient against LMG blobbing, because right now the gunner just gets instakilled in a row because all the fire is focused on him due to him being the most forward member of the MG squad.

Cruzz, wisest of all the Pandas.

Elite Riflemen: Increase CP requirement. Make it a mid-late game perk to replace lost squads to keep the US player in the game in the infantry war.

Sov Weapon teams: If you are going to reduce the number of models, consider reducing pack up time.

Long range combat: Consider giving units that lack gap closers either a smoke or sprint.

I do not like any abilities that give free exp. This includes both the Elite rifle callin as well as the Ostheer Elite troops doctrine. I think they fundamentally break the game balance by giving easy, guaranteed access to abilities that are gated behind exp for a reason. I'd rather see them both changed to things like increased exp gain for units, even if that would be a passive ability that is fairly boring gameplay wise.

IMO any purchase of vet should require a fuel investment. If you want to fast track your units to vet then you should be punished by delaying your tech/infantry upgrades. Keep the cool down timer at the start of the game and attach a fuel cost. This makes it less of a no brainier ability and would require you to consolidate your early game advantage in order to justify the fuel cost.

While there are some minor performance issues with short range firearms, the fundamental issue is just ease of use. With how the system is setup right now, you get very good performance just by selecting all your LMG armed long-range infantry, and amoving towards the enemy. By contrast trying to use short range troops generally involves much more roundabout maneuvering to setup flanks, use of smoke, and so on, yet the cost performance of these short range units is generally not THAT much better than the LMG blob.

While just reducing long range damage somewhat is an option, I do think it could be interesting if the LMG damage was made to spread damage on the entire enemy squad instead of focused on a single model. Right now a big part of the power of LMGs is that they will very quickly snipe off members from the enemy squad, forcing shorter range troops to just run away because having half a squad in melee doesn't really help them. Spread the damage out and you'll instead have a much larger though lower health squad coming into melee instead, which could actually do something. It would also make MGs a bit more efficient against LMG blobbing, because right now the gunner just gets instakilled in a row because all the fire is focused on him due to him being the most forward member of the MG squad.

LOVE this idea. I think this alone could drastically improve the quality of life of short range units without changing the dynamic too much by changing the weapon damage outright.

Fuel should never be integrated into infantry. Vet should never be available at the start of the game. A CP requirement for Veteran riflemen is all that is needed.

Fuel should never be integrated into infantry. Vet should never be available at the start of the game. A CP requirement for Veteran riflemen is all that is needed.

Why should fuel never be integrated into infantry?

Why should fuel never be integrated into infantry?

Its inhumane. I want a replacement for my dead vet riflemen. Im in desperate need of getting a tank. Then this... nope. Buying normal riflemen. I havent used Elite Troops in months. I only see people use it on one squad and then thats it. Some ability.

For something that only includes riflemen, it isnt needed. Vet riflemen can easily come at a later CP. They dont need to tip the truck driver for rushing to the battlefield.

Soviets lack an assault rifle, unsure if you are looking for commander ideas but the RPD could be introduced in future expansions.

Please, no more doctrinal units. Give that weapon to penals o make it available to vet2 conscripts.

Its inhumane. I want a replacement for my dead vet riflemen. Im in desperate need of getting a tank. Then this... nope. Buying normal riflemen. I havent used Elite Troops in months. I only see people use it on one squad and then thats it. Some ability.

For something that only includes riflemen, it isnt needed. Vet riflemen can easily come at a later CP. They dont need to tip the truck driver for rushing to the battlefield.

I like to look at commander abilities in the context of how they fit into the entire commander. At the moment the Rifleman Commander is really, really strong early, mid, and late game. It features a no brainier insta vet rifleman that have a nominal manpower cost, an extremely reliable munitions dump off map, and the most cost effective medium armor in the game. From a game play perspective, purchasing rifle vet for manpower is a no brainer. It doesn't matter if its at 0 CPs or 2, if you need another rifle squad, it will always be advantageous for it to hit the field with at least 1 level of vet if it only costs you manpower. I think no brainer abilities are boring, and they feel cheap to play with with/against. It makes your opponent feel like he is fighting an uphill battle just because you picked the free vet commander. Attaching a fuel cost to the ability would require the Rifle Company player to actually use the advantage he has to extend his map control to justify the fuel cost in gaining an early game advantage.

The fact that you think its "inhumane" (not sure exactly what this means from a game play stand point) and you want an easy replacement for your lost vetted rifleman doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

Please, no more doctrinal units. Give that weapon to penals o make it available to vet2 conscripts.

Fitting to the war, it would be as rare as IR stg44's. It would have to belong to a doctrinal unit...

Elite Riflemen: add in a fuel cost just as in OH Elite Troops case and everything will be fine. Those who are complaining about the non-fairness of such an ability have to remember that every decision has a cost. If insta vetting will cost mp and fuel, this will result in a small teching delay every time you use it. So it's a matter of decision. The more options you'll have, the better game will be.

Team crews. That's a tough one. No, I don't think decreasing squad members' number will be the right way. But making soviet mortars more vulnerable to indirect fire and increasing for just a little the setup time for maxim I think it will be nice to see.

Long range weapons. Listen, I guess your initial logic, roughly speaking, was like this: ok, soviets will perform worse than germans at long range, but hey, we will compensate: we will give them 6 squad members. This way, they will have a good chance to reach close combat and be effective. Also, green cover system is verry important, good, and needs no changes that could tone down its effects. Cruzz suggestions related to long range weapons might appear ok, but in fact, spreading damage among squad models will actualy have the opposite effect. I think that reaching close combat with a soviet infantry squad with 4 members in full health would be prefferable compared to reaching close combat with a squad of 5 halfed-health members.
As a conclusion, my suggestion will be lowering a little the efficiency of lmgs at long distance while increasing a little the mid and close range efficiency compared to actual state.
Also, G43 needs to perform like a long range rifle, not like a carabine like it is now, and THAT should be the difference between it and the lmg. Performing better at longest range while performing worse in mid and close range.

I like to look at commander abilities in the context of how they fit into the entire commander. At the moment the Rifleman Commander is really, really strong early, mid, and late game. It features a no brainier insta vet rifleman that have a nominal manpower cost, an extremely reliable munitions dump off map, and the most cost effective medium armor in the game. From a game play perspective, purchasing rifle vet for manpower is a no brainer. It doesn't matter if its at 0 CPs or 2, if you need another rifle squad, it will always be advantageous for it to hit the field with at least 1 level of vet if it only costs you manpower. I think no brainer abilities are boring, and they feel cheap to play with with/against. It makes your opponent feel like he is fighting an uphill battle just because you picked the free vet commander. Attaching a fuel cost to the ability would require the Rifle Company player to actually use the advantage he has to extend his map control to justify the fuel cost in gaining an early game advantage.

The fact that you think its "inhumane" (not sure exactly what this means from a game play stand point) and you want an easy replacement for your lost vetted rifleman doesn't really add anything to the discussion.

Im calling it inhumane because its an unnecessary tax simply replacing manpower price, cooldown, and CP requirements.

If its 5-10 fuel, then sure. Its only for riflemen that dont even get a guarantee for vet 2.