Bars are the worst upgrade in the game.

My sweet BAR. Why you do this to me Relic?

I don't think anyone buys them currently. What's the point when an early M20 solves most of your problems - including the Kubel?

Well, at this point neither bar nor zooka are worth 60 muni.
Its costs should get reduced by 10 for starter if relic wants to keep them as most inefficient muni upgrades in game. At least in DP-28 case you can have two at once.

considering that theres also the inconvenience of going to pick them up. (spending time out of battle to get an upgrade) its hard to justify even if they cut the muntion costs by 10.

I dont think bars should be giving an insane % boost like 80% like many other upgrade since the riflemen base DPS is already pretty good. But they need to increase the value of the BARs some.

I'm thinking the munitons cost needs be cut by a good 30 munitions, maybe a little less if they choose to increase the value some by adding damage or some other buff to go with it.

Give Volley Fire to BARs as in CoH1?

What I dont understand is if Relic wants them to be this bad why is there an upgrade cost for them?

Seems backwards to me. LMG no upgrade Cost is better. BARs upgrade cost and seem pretty worthless.

Bazookas I can understand because they can break light vehicle play even though they cripple AI DPS and dont scale (wish you could drop them at some point).

Was the 60 Muni idea a way to prevent a minor Riflemen DPS increase through spamming? And upgrade cost a timing thing? If so and we say 20% is the top and compare that to LMGs DPS increase shouldnt it be like 1/3rd the cost of an LMG?

AFAIK it was alot less expensive for the USF to equip their troops then the Germans. Quantity being a quality of its own and all that Jazz? I mean if something is undeniably worse why make it cost the same? Or even close?

If you want a constructive discussion, then please try to not showcase stuff in the way that profits your points omitting anything that doesn't fit.

I can also present stuff in a way that makes it look huge, even with the oh-so bad BAR.

USF Riflemen Garand long range DPS is 1.46
USF Riflemen BAR long range DPS is 2.95

THAT'S 203% THE DMG!!!!!!

If you compare that with the G43

Grenadier Kar-98k long range DPS is 1.97
Grenadier G43 long range DPS is 1.98

That's only a 0.5% improvement.

So USF gets a 103% improvement for 60 munition, while Ostheer gets two 0.5% improvements for 45 munition? BALANCE PLEASE! Even more WTF, USF CAN GET THAT IMPROVEMENT TWICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If you compare such weapons there are many more factors than just the DPS at one single range. LMG is a long range improvement that decreases the closer you get. At 0 range it has close to no improvement. Additionally you cannot use it on the move.



The BAR on the other hand is another kind of upgrade. It's a straight upgrade. It's profile is extremely similar to the Garand one, so there is not one range where it really is a "giant" upgrade, but it just adds like ~4 DPS at every range. Additionally the BAR offers better moving modifiers than the Garand.



So in total I think the BAR is a bit too weak right now, but not much. ~5% or such maybe, if you want to buff it more DPS wise you probably should lower the utility buffs (Firing on the move stuff).

Edit: Probably best would be best to decrease long range damage a bit more, but increase mid damage to emphasize it's a mobility short/mid range upgrade. This would also help to differentiate it more from the M1919A6

Edit2: Fixed the numbers. Thanks Cruzzie.

USF Riflemen Garand long range DPS is 1.46
USF Riflemen BAR long range DPS is 4.11

THAT'S A 282% THE DMG!!!!!!

I should point out your spreadsheet has several wrong values:

aim time multiplier med 1, should be 1.25
aim time multiplier far 1.25, should be 1.5
burst duration multiplier far 1.5, should be 1

Actual BAR dps is currently ~2.95 at far.

Over looking the teching costs at HQ. Come on folks. That fuel is needed for a fast LT.

If you want a constructive discussion, then please try to not showcase stuff in the way that profits your points omitting anything that doesn't fit.

I can also present stuff in a way that makes it look huge, even with the oh-so bad BAR.

USF Riflemen Garand long range DPS is 1.46
USF Riflemen BAR long range DPS is 4.11

THAT'S A 282% THE DMG!!!!!!

If you compare that with the G43

Grenadier Kar-98k long range DPS is 1.97
Grenadier G43 long range DPS is 1.98

That's only a 0.5% improvement.

So USF gets a 182% improvement for 60 munition, while Ostheer gets two 0.5% improvements for 45 munition? BALANCE PLEASE! Even more WTF, USF CAN GET THAT IMPROVEMENT TWICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


If you compare such weapons there are many more factors than just the DPS at one single range. LMG is a long range improvement that decreases the closer you get. At 0 range it has close to no improvement. Additionally you cannot use it on the move.



The BAR on the other hand is another kind of upgrade. It's a straight upgrade. It's profile is extremely similar to the Garand one, so there is not one range where it really is a "giant" upgrade, but it just adds like ~4 DPS at every range. Additionally the BAR offers better moving modifiers than the Garand.



So in total I think the BAR is a bit too weak right now, but not much. ~5% or such maybe, if you want to buff it more DPS wise you probably should lower the utility buffs (Firing on the move stuff).

Edit: Probably best would be best to decrease long range damage a bit more, but increase mid damage to emphasize it's a mobility short/mid range upgrade. This would also help to differentiate it more from the M1919A6

I did have a disclaimer -> "I am going to list dps numbers and state how much more effective a unit becomes after buying an upgrade at their intended role(close range, long range ect.) its understood that there are other consequences to upgrades but i'm just looking at how much better your unit will become at what you want them to do"

The BAR as a weapon isn't bad but equiping them on rifles costs too much for too little benefit.

This game will always have infantry balance issues until they can address the ridiculously good or Bad returns that munitions upgrades can give to units. It eliminates the viability of units who can't get munitions upgrades and makes those that can get it so cost efficient they are a no brainer to buy.

Infantry combat is the both the most important part of balance and the hardest thing to get right. When units win cost for cost in 1v1 engagements it is probably the biggest advantage in the game and right now it's not usually down to RNG or micro its down to which units have better stats which is not fair for any faction. This is what needs to be fixed

So, why is the intended role for the Riflemen 0 range?

Grenadiers are a long range focused squad. The LMG improves them in exactly that role. The LMGs downside (not useable on the move) is only a mild problem, as you usually just a-move them.

Riflemen are a squad that should be good at all ranges, but be especially good against Bolt-Action squads at short/mid. It improves their mid and close range as well as the damage they deal on the move. The improvements for each of those ranges are smaller, but nevertheless they shouldn't be ignored.

As I said previously, the short and mid damage might need a further increase at the cost of long range to better help them in that role, but overall the BAR is by far not as small an improvement as your initial numbers showed. Comparing a squad focused on a certain range with one that does not excel at any range always yields such high number differences.

Thanks for the reply though!

Over looking the teching costs at HQ. Come on folks. That fuel is needed for a fast LT.

This, the allies need to spend extra resources before upgrading their basic frontline infantry to even stand a chance in late-game.

It's not the worst upgrade unless you cannot put G43s on pgrens anymore

Before everyone is jumping to conclusions just keep in mind that Hon3ynuts statistics are incomplete. He doesn't give comparisons on all ranges.

For example of course it looks like the Grenadier has a big boost at long range. However, Grenadier MG42 works at it's highest dps at long range while the Grenadier rifle dps diminishes at long range which creates a huge gap. At short ranges the LMG only increases the dps from 20 to 20.8 which is barely a dps increase. At short range the Grenadier rifle does 5 dps while the MG42 does 5.8 dps.

Meanwhile the BAR dps is 2x higher than a Garand in all ranges.

A more complete stats:

Grenadiers:

regular grenadiers dps: short 20 dps, medium 10.5 dps, long 8 dps.

lmg grenadiers dps: short 20.8 dps, medium 16 dps, long 14 dps.

short. .4 pct increase, medium 52 pct increase, long 75 pct increase.

Riflemen

regular riflemen dps: short 29 dps, medium 14 dps, long 7.25 dps.
1x BAR riflemen dps: short 33.7 dps, medium 16.8 dps, long 8.75 dps.
2x BAR riflemen dps: short 38.4 dps, medium 19.6 dps, long 10.25 dps

short 16 pct increase, medium, 20 pct increase, 21 pct increase.
short 32 pct increase, medium 40 pct increase, long 42 pct increase.

Now you can argue amonst yourself if this is a good idea, However, you should also consider Relics intentions from the last patch. Relic still tries to maintain that riflemen are still better at close and medium ranges while Grenadiers are still able to triumph at max ranges.

Clearly the stats show that you have to get close to medium ranges if you want to beat Grenadier squads.

Should BARs dps should still increase? Sure, but I certainly don't want it to go overkill.

The real debate here should be double if BAR riflemen should triumph over LMG Grenadiers at Max range.

yea don't buy this upgrade if ur playing allies get nades instead

The problem, at least in my opinion, isn't even necessarily that BARs are bad. It's that the USF seems to be designed saying " Hey you! See these Riflemen? Shove 300 manpower/40 fuel and then 120 munitions per squad into them and they'll be strong enough to fight infantry battles the whole game." This just doesn't play out. Even with grenades and double BARs rifles just can't seem to compete with LMG Grens/PGrens/Obers/Falls. If you want to fight Axis elites you need Paratroopers (which you also have to shove munitions into).

Worst upgrade is DP28 because once you buy them, it gets dropped 10 seconds later

The BAR is not awful at all, but the fact that you need to fork over fuel to unlock it (strike 1), go back to base to get it (strike 2), and grab two to make a real difference (120 ammo, strike 3, out) makes it underperform. Compared to the LMG42, which is 60 ammo, no need to be specifically unlocked and offers a bigger improvement at its intended range? And let's not even get into OKW elite infantry which sometimes rivals or beats even double BAR rifles right out of the gate.

Rifles are good, don't get me wrong. But having to spend 300/45 (for grenades and BARS) and then 60/120 ammo per squad (or 140 in case of 1919s) to give them decent scaling seems a bit much. Especially compared to stuff like Obers which require none of those investments and can easily still beat upgraded rifles.

I dont understand why they were nerfed so hard when LMGs were nerfed only by like 10%.


Seriously, nobody even asked them to be nerfed, very few people actually bought them in competitive 1v1.

I find it interesting that the comparisons always seem to go back to Ostheer Grens.

My biggest gripe isnt the Gren/Riflemen balance. Riflemen ARE more expensive after all. Its the OKW elite vs the Riflemen.

And the only solution to this other then to say your Riflemen are now turned into conscripts late game is to allow them to scale as well as Elite infantry if you dump a SHIT TON of resources into them.

Remember back in the day when people would moan that even though they could use both G43s and LMGs to beat Shocks that it was too huge a muni investment?

Where is that logic now? And even with 120 Muni worth of BARs they cannot compete. So this means like the Soviets if you want to compete all game long in the infantry game you must chose a specific doctrine. And that has lead us to the wonderful call in Meta we have.

Its a slippery slope.