Cruzz's Fantasy Patch Thread 2: WTFWFA Edition

This thread is so good it shouldn't be on page 2.

Agreed

Why should MG34 cost more than MG42, rather nerf MG34 and/or buff MG42...and please give the 42 its distinctive sound back.

Why should MG34 cost more anyway?

Because it out performans the 240mp mg42 by a mile.

One more thing, if the cons get upgrades to scale into late-game their reinforcement cost cannot remain 20, 22-23 is better for a multipurpose unit.

One more thing, if the cons get upgrades to scale into late-game their reinforcement cost cannot remain 20, 22-23 is better for a multipurpose unit.

I don't see volks or grens or rifles reinforce cost go up the moment they get weapon upgrade.

I don't see volks or grens or rifles reinforce cost go up the moment they get weapon upgrade.

Cons would be cheap if they would scale better. 240 mp unit with 6 pop cap and 20 reinforcement cost is too cheap.

And the higher reinforce cost would be basic, upgrade or not.

If you buff a unit, you adjust it's cost if you have common sense.

Because it out performans the 240mp mg42 by a mile.

Same goes for 240 mp Maxim but I'd argue they behave differently rather than over performing one another.

On that note I'd swap MG42 stats with MG34 as it makes more sense.

Cons would be cheap if they would scale better. 240 mp unit with 6 pop cap and 20 reinforcement cost is too cheap.

And the higher reinforce cost would be basic, upgrade or not.

If you buff a unit, you adjust it's cost if you have common sense.

Volks already start off stronger than cons and get a very useful upgrade and have vet5 and don't pay for their grenade tech. Yet they are fine like this while cons needs to be made more expensive at all points in the game if they are given a weak weapon upgrade with teching? Can replace volks with grens in this example too, only difference is conscripts do a bit better against grens than volks early on.

Cons would be cheap if they would scale better. 240 mp unit with 6 pop cap and 20 reinforcement cost is too cheap.

And the higher reinforce cost would be basic, upgrade or not.

If you buff a unit, you adjust it's cost if you have common sense.

What?

Cons cost 240mp.
Grens cost 240mp.
Cons have AI and AT nades only if you invest additional fuel and menpower.
Grens have AI and AT nades by default.
Reinforcing 5 cons=100mp.
Reinforcing 3 grens=90mp.
Cons don't scale at all into late game.
Grens scale really well into late game due to LMG.

What you have written makes absolutely zero sense.

Grens RNade is BP1, not default.
Cons have native Merge and Oorah.
The difference in Con/Gren reinforce is a result of the last Gren model being unreinforceable, and hence indivisable in cost, because the unit is wiped at that point. It makes sense, mathematically, because you cant divide zero. Dont worry, it is balanced and already considered.

Grens scale, at Muni cost, to endgame, but are counteracted but generally stronger AI on Sov mid-late units.
Cons on the otherhand soak mid-lategame better, thanks to 6man hp dispersal, especially vs the general AI weakness of Ost mid-lategame armor.

Aside from LMGupgrade, at Muni cost, Grens and Cons scale very similarly to late game.
Vet is unilaterally quite unilaterally balanced on that. So the base balance, is maintained.
Note: This is now only comparing Cons and Grens, as was your argument. There is definately leeway for arguing Penals and PGrens also as native units, and even moreso on callin infantry, but those where not relevant to your own Cons/Grens specific comparison.

I dont know if you do it deliberately, but its considered dishonest to leave out such details in argumentation, unless you are one of the guys who doesnt care about the whole truth.

Its not unusual. Some kids unfortunately take the wrong lesson from school, and think arguing a point places responsibility to be show its flaws on the antagonist, rather than fairly representing them yourself. Its actually ones own responsibility to consider and include elements which weaken your argument, not your opponents.

Infact, if you do leave them out, you give the opponent a free automatic win in rebuttal when he matter of factedly refutes the veracity of your claim, quite simply, by expressing those elements which you deliberately left out. Basically, it makes you look pretty bad, and biased, and makes it easy for opponent to discredit your validity.

Thing is, leaving them out may supeficially make your argument "look" better, or STRONK!
But actually it leaves you wide open for a very easy and simple riposte.

Its like leaving yourself wide open for a sucker punch right to the jaw while being all bravado, and no technique.

Basically, it only works against the uninformed, the unprepared and idiots.
It relies on success to the fact that nobody will call you out on it.
However, as the case is here on Coh2.org (thankfully), there is always someone who knows the situation, and will respond accordingly. So a pretty poor bet, and option of argumentative maneuvering, considering where we are...

PS: I havent forgotten that you didnt answer my question for an explanation of how you claimed Snipers can outrun HMGs.
To my knowledge, all infantry has the same base movement speed. Care to answer that now, since you overlooked it before?

Oh yea, I will merge your grens to death when you'll be reinforcing on field with command bunker and 251 halftruck.

And BP1 is fully optional side upgrade, not something that you always get because its your teching.

Sarcastic denial and reference to further additional irrelevancies, as well as no refutation/rebuttal of core arguments.

Nice.

Sort of paints a pattern of behavior, dont you think?

This is what would be considered in argumentation and moot organisations, as a "belligerent opponent".

The purpose of such an approach is not to reach a concensus of understanding, or fact, but rather to represent only ones own bias, at whichever cost, with whichever means.

Ultimately, they are always doomed to failure, because their mechanism of argumentation is, strategically, only in summary refutation, stonewalling, biased representation, without proof or due full considerarion, of the topic on hand.

To paraphrase, its someone who wants to "win", from his perspective, no matter the cost to the issue, the audience, or their own dignity.

The purpose is not a constructive, unilateral dialogue, towards a mutual understanding and concensus, but rather a one sided monologue that either conveniently ignores, otherwise indirectly subverts and misdirects the issue in its own favor, or simply says "no", without explanation or plausible explained refutation, to everything.

Grens scale, at Muni cost, to endgame, but are counteracted but generally stronger AI on Sov mid-late units.
Cons on the otherhand soak mid-lategame better, thanks to 6man hp dispersal, especially vs the general AI weakness of Ost mid-lategame armor.

What stronger AI, what AI weakness of lategame armor?

The StuG has higher anti-infantry performance than several SU76/SU85 combined

PIV is stronger against infantry than the T34 is. Since the last buff to it, it now has the slightly more accurate gun, while having nearly 3.5 times the DPS of the T34 in machineguns when the pintle has been upgraded.

The Tiger maingun is much better than the IS2 against infantry, while they both have roughly the same DPS from machineguns (the IS2 MG dps being 90% from the munition upgrade, while the Tiger gets 50% from upgrade)

Don't try to say Panther, because nobody makes them.

ISU is in fact the only soviet armor unit that is notably better against infantry than its counterpart.

Aside from LMGupgrade, at Muni cost, Grens and Cons scale very similarly to late game.
Vet is unilaterally quite unilaterally balanced on that. So the base balance, is maintained.
Note: This is now inly comparing Cons and Grens, as was your argument. There is definately leeway for arguing Penals and PGrens also as native units, and even moreso on callin infantry, but those where not relevant to your own Cons/Grens specific comparison.

Yes, aside from the 60 munition upgrade that permanently increases the DPS of a grenadier squad by over 80%, they scale roughly equal to a conscript squad. That is if you ignore that riflenades and fausts are much more valuable than atnades and molotovs later on because of their greater range and damage/penetration.

Same goes for 240 mp Maxim but I'd argue they behave differently rather than over performing one another.

On that note I'd swap MG42 stats with MG34 as it makes more sense.

umm, maxim and mg 42 have different roles within the HMG sphere, thus comparing performance of both is more complicated than comparing mg34 v. mg42.

mg34 is just better version of mg42. and please don't state your opinion like a fact. maxim is > than mg42 is not a universal claim.

The StuG has higher anti-infantry performance than several SU76/SU85 combined

Ill take your word for that.
But.
SU76 free barrage.
SU85 AT efficacy.

Im not sure why you compare these two specific units to a Stug.

PIV is stronger against infantry than the T34 is. Since the last buff to it, it now has the slightly more accurate gun, while having nearly 3.5 times the DPS of the T34 in machineguns when the pintle has been upgraded.

Oh, so its stronger vs AI when it upgrades, at Muni cost and gets within range of the Pintle?
Seems alright to me.

The Tiger maingun is much better than the IS2 against infantry, while they both have roughly the same DPS from machineguns (the IS2 MG dps being 90% from the munition upgrade, while the Tiger gets 50% from upgrade)

Granted, Tiger and IS2 are still two problematic units.
But, as related to this point, the Tiger is firing at 6man units in Sov, wheras the IS2 on only 4man units.
Stands to reason the AI efficacy is necessarily nominally greater, to offset the infantry hp pool of the respective targets.

Don't try to say Panther, because nobody makes them.

Hmm I wonder why though, eh? Probably because its shit? Which sort of reinforces my position, dont you think?

ISU is in fact the only soviet armor unit that is notably better against infantry than its counterpart.

Which counterpart are you referring to?
And when you sat its the only one, I think I have already demonstrated how the Pintle upgrade, at Muni cost, is that which increases the AI efficacy? Is that unreasonable? No. What would be the point of the expenditure if it sidnt improve performance? None.

Yes, aside from the 60 munition upgrade that permanently increases the DPS of a grenadier squad by over 80%, they scale roughly equal to a conscript squad. That is if you ignore that riflenades and fausts are much more valuable than atnades and molotovs later on because of their greater range and damage/penetration.

Im disappointed in you Cruzz. You are being dishonest, like Katitof.

Whats wrong with a 60 Muni upgrade increading AI efficacy?
Especially when located on an inherently more vulnerable 4man unit?
Especially when they lack any direct equivalent to Oorah or Merge?

Faust vs ATNade:
Yes, (tiny marginal )better penetration, but also directional. Range is identical iirc. ATNades, due to parabolic trajectory, frequently can and do hit rear armor in a way no Faust can, meaninf the penetration value is applied to a lower armor quotient. Furthermore, ATNades are a guaranteed hit, whereas Fausts still do impact on terrain rather than the target. The ewuivalency is fine.

RNade vs Molotov:
This issue has been discussed absolutely to death, ages ago, and many times. Im tired to death of this.
Yes, RNade has greater range which is conducive and inline with Grens range optimum, same as Molotov is to Cons optimum.
It would be very silly, if Cons had RNade (especiallynvs 4man units) and Grens had Molotov.
RNade has a range prerogative, whereas Molotov has a persistent area denial preorgative.
Crucially, Cons have Oorah to fill this gap, for purposes of applying Molotov.
Especially in building combat, an RNade will cause attrtition, but a Molotov will flat out, without question, require you to vacate the building or fry to death. Also, though it is less prevalent in current meta, essentially due to Pgrens being shit, a Molotov can also be thrown to deny cover/approach of an enemy unit.

I am so dissappointed to hear ypu try to bring these long established and essentially balanced elements into this discussion, somehow in aupport of Katitofs categorically and deliberately one sided portrayal of Cons/Grens.

This shit has been done to death, a hundred times over. All these points, and counterpoints, have been expressed a hundred times over too. And to what conclusion? That they are balanced. That is established and fact. Repreating them does not change that. It just hearkens back to some of the worst troll wars we ever had here, and which finally reconciled by mass aggregate and concensus that they are "ok".

Crucially:
I dont understans why you rehash the old Faust/ATNade+RNade/Molotov issue when NOTHING in your fantasy patch actuallyneven remotely involves changing them? There is no entry for any of the,. Why suddenly now, in defende of Katitofs obviously partisan and one sided expression of Grens/Cons balance, tonwhich I listed the essential omissions he left out, do you bring up this old trash?

I dont get it man, really, I dont. This stuff is handled LONG ago, and if it want in your opinion, whynis it not adjusted in your proposal?

As to the equally age old issue of Cons/Grens balance, the only point in your patch, is to provide an upgrade to EITHER 2xSVT or DP, for 50 muni. You dont touch Grens at all. On that topic, I prefer the DP option, but without testing, I cant honestlybtheorize on the outcome. But thatnis besides thenpoint here. I am not disputing your suggested patch, I AM however, disputing Katitofs biased and incomplete representation of Cons/Grens in his post. It was just flat out dishonest, and in some senses wrong.

There can be no constructive, respectful and objective discussion when someone deliberately leaves out core facts in their argument. Its wrongm and unfair, to do that on purpose, just so the other guy has to spend an entire post filling in the gaps on the things even the poster knows are true (but which he left out, strangely, and for whichever reason.)

Are we discussing for a better game and bteer balance? Or only in favor of one single persons preference at deliberate omission of key facts?

Im not sure why you compare these two specific units to a Stug.

Because they're all assault guns with relatively stronger AT compared to the main generalist tanks (PIV/T34)

Oh, so its stronger vs AI when it upgrades, at Muni cost and gets within range of the Pintle?
Seems alright to me.

It's stronger even without the pintle.

Hmm I wonder why though, eh? Probably because its shit? Which sort of reinforces my position, dont you think?

I'm pretty sure this particular conversation isn't about the uselessness of Ostheer T4 units, so no, it doesn't reinforce your position.

Which counterpart are you referring to?

The elefant.

Im disappointed in you Cruzz. You are being dishonest, like Katitof.

I try my best.

Whats wrong with a 60 Muni upgrade increading AI efficacy?

Nothing, so why is it such a problem if conscripts were to get something of the sort?

Yes, (tiny marginal )better penetration, but also directional. Range is identical iirc. ATNades, due to parabolic trajectory, frequently can and do hit rear armor in a way no Faust can, meaninf the penetration value is applied to a lower armor quotient. Furthermore, ATNades are a guaranteed hit, whereas Fausts still do impact on terrain rather than the target. The ewuivalency is fine.

40% to 60% higher penetration against on average weaker allied armor is not tiny or marginal in any way. Faust is 25, atnade is 20 range. Frankly I never really see any parabolic behavior to atnades, they'll just explode on contact, but if you assume it exists then you should acknowledge that when you are throwing at the rear of a tank then it'll frequently hit the front armor instead. Fausts don't impact on map objects any more often than atnades just disappear into thin air.

I dont understans why you rehash the old Faust/ATNade+RNade/Molotov issue when NOTHING in your fantasy patch actuallyneven remotely involves changing them?

Because people were arguing about grens and cons?

I don't think the special abilities need to be changed, but I do think they give an edge to grenadiers as the game goes on so even without the lmg they end up being more valuable in the long run than conscripts.

Is gren vs cons scaling even up for debate?

For 60 ammo grens become one of the best infantry units in the game, getting great DPS at all ranges and being able to conceivably stand toe to toe with any Allied infantry save Shocks and 1919 paras, both of which are doctrinal and significantly more expensive.

Conscripts, without the PPSh which are barely used, are scraping the bottom of the barrel all game after the 5 minute mark. You will not make them work against elite infantry unless your opponent is a vegetable who makes them stand in Molotovs (and even then). They lose to basically anything but pios and unvetted or unupgraded Volks/grens.

There's no reason not to give conscripts a bit of a boost late game. I'm pretty damn certain it won't throw balance out of the window if they suddenly can do anything more than tickle Axis elite infantry, when all other faction's basic units get much better scaling than them.

Is gren vs cons scaling even up for debate?

For 60 ammo grens become one of the best infantry units in the game, getting great DPS at all ranges and being able to conceivably stand toe to toe with any Allied infantry save Shocks and 1919 paras, both of which are doctrinal and significantly more expensive.

Conscripts, without the PPSh which are barely used, are scraping the bottom of the barrel all game after the 5 minute mark. You will not make them work against elite infantry unless your opponent is a vegetable who makes them stand in Molotovs (and even then). They lose to basically anything but pios and unvetted or unupgraded Volks/grens.

There's no reason not to give conscripts a bit of a boost late game. I'm pretty damn certain it won't throw balance out of the window if they suddenly can do anything more than tickle Axis elite infantry, when all other faction's basic units get much better scaling than them.

+1

Some discussions are just a waste of bandwith and time. Defending that Cons are as useful as Grens, or that they didn't deserve a buff is just absurd.

By the way, all cheese soviets strategies that axis players complain of have their origin in the utterly disappointing conscripts and non-doctrinal soviet infantry.