CieZ's State of CoH 2 - November 1, 2015

stuff

while you do address some valid points, if you boil it down it's basically that some DLC commanders are BS for one reason or another and some abilities are just bad for the game.

both of those points have been brought up pretty much since the game has been released (or even before that). the state of the game right now is at least better than it has been for the last two months. while i can understand your frustration with the game, i can't really understand that you think this patch is somehow worse than the last two (especially since at least 4 of your 5 points have been around for ages).

Rifle Flamers are the new Ober's. Although not as problematic on a one for one basis, the sheer amount that can be fielded over the course of the game are just as devastating as the old Ober's were. When you need vehicles to counter a mobile manpower unit, the game is in a bad state.

Relic now find themselves backed into a corner again, having released a premium content commander, when the faction was not ready for it.

Personally, I'd like to see flamer-rifles removed from the game, however, it is a premium content commander, so that is doubtful to happen... My idea for a solution to flamer critical mass (this includes all units that upgrade with a flamer), would be to introduce a slowing mechanic, much like that of the Anvil Royal Engineers, though not quite as drastic (perhaps half the speed decrease of the Sappers).

1. It would be historically relevant. You do not see guys in war reels, sprinting about with two gallons of highly volatile Napalm strapped to their back.

2. The units upgraded with flamers would still be useful versus units in green cover and garrison's.

3. Spamming flamers would seriously impact the spammer's ability to hold onto the map.

4. HMG's would have a chance to stop the attack, before being swarmed.

5. It would promote better play, and forward planning. Want to get that MG out of the church? Okay, well you better have some diversion ready, or some smoke to enable your slow-ass flamer unit to get into position.

Excellent! Nicely written.

Supression on ISGs has to go, agreed.

Abandonment though is a brilliant mechanic and must be kept. Much opportunity for creative fun. Also, historically correct. Going blindly on an anti-rng crusade is not the answer for a good game.

Supression on ISGs has to go, agreed.

Abandonment though is a brilliant mechanic and must be kept. Much opportunity for creative fun. Also, historically correct. Going blindly on an anti-rng crusade is not the answer for a good game.

It has no place in competitive play, every sain organizer or player sees that.
As Relic is saying theirselves 'making COH2 Esport ready, this is something that needs to go.

Rifle Flamers are the new Ober's. Although not as problematic on a one for one basis, the sheer amount that can be fielded over the course of the game are just as devastating as the old Ober's were. When you need vehicles to counter a mobile manpower unit, the game is in a bad state.

Relic now find themselves backed into a corner again, having released a premium content commander, when the faction was not ready for it.

Personally, I'd like to see flamer-rifles removed from the game, however, it is a premium content commander, so that is doubtful to happen... My idea for a solution to flamer critical mass (this includes all units that upgrade with a flamer), would be to introduce a slowing mechanic, much like that of the Anvil Royal Engineers, though not quite as drastic (perhaps half the speed decrease of the Sappers).

1. It would be historically relevant. You do not see guys in war reels, sprinting about with two gallons of highly volatile Napalm strapped to their back.

2. The units upgraded with flamers would still be useful versus units in green cover and garrison's.

3. Spamming flamers would seriously impact the spammer's ability to hold onto the map.

4. HMG's would have a chance to stop the attack, before being swarmed.

5. It would promote better play, and forward planning. Want to get that MG out of the church? Okay, well you better have some diversion ready, or some smoke to enable your slow-ass flamer unit to get into position.

i like the idea with flamer on riflemen would slow them down alot. it would sharpe out the role as anti garrion/cover unit, not rushing/blobbing with it thru the whole map, rather than getting 1 flamer on 1 riflemen for the anti garrion power. they dont need to be fast to clear garrisons, if the enemys leaves the house because he sees slow riflemenflamer approaching you can take it

It has no place in competitive play, every sain organizer or player sees that.

While I do agree that it should be an option to be switched off in custom games for tournament play I don't see a reason to disable it in automatch.
Personally I find it a fun mechanic which makes for some clutch situations but usually it can be finished off quite easily by another unit. And I can't recall the last time I lost a game to an abandoned and stolen vehicle for quite some time now, be it my own or the streams I watched.

First of all , Ciez is right.
Second of all ciez is right.

+1 @ CieZ.

Removing flamers in vehicles would be akin to deleting soviet t1 from the game. Agree on everything else.

Stuff

Like the idea. And considering Ciez's argument regarding LMGs being no brainers, this would make sense. Right now, Flamer on Rifles is also a no brainer and there are no down sides to it. A speed nerf on Flame Rifles might be a good answer.

I pretty much agree with everything CieZ has said and with lots of tweaks suggested by others.

Flame Weapons:
Cover should reduce flame weapon damage greatly (e.g. being behind a wall or behind at AT gun shield) but maybe add a suppression effect to sustained flame attack as well?
However if you are caught in the open (or the flame attack flanks around you so you no longer count as being in cover) then the DOT damage should actually be increased.

Indirect fire:
The suppression should be removed but then the factions needs a direct-fire unit that can suppress to replace them.
I'm happy for mortars not to auto fire but instead their standard attack should be a directed barrage that lasts for at least 30 seconds on the area they are directed to hit.

Weapon Upgrades:
LMGs should either require you to go prone or to be in cover so you can rest them on something (as suggested) in order to avoid a huge accuracy penalty.
Many AT upgrades already have this tactical balance - if you swap out AI weapons for AT weapons you should be less effective against infantry.

Abandons:
Maybe not remove this completely but make it much less frequent - and then (as people have said) the abandoned vehicle also has destroyed main gun and destroyed engine so can't be used again until completely repaired.

Abandons:
Maybe not remove this completely but make it much less frequent - and then (as people have said) the abandoned vehicle also has destroyed main gun and destroyed engine so can't be used again until completely repaired.

That would be ok too. Or like a heavy crit.

If firing flamers from vehicles were removed thus effectively nerfing Soviet T1 it could open up the opportunity to rework penals and the M3 itself.

The M3 could get a better gun and penals could perhaps lose the flamethrower upgrade and instead gain a non-doctrinal PPsh upgrade and become squishy shocks or even come out the gate with them differentiating them from cons

edit: The following post has been edited to showcase that the following poster is biased to the most strategically OP things that take the least amount of control to use, but that aren't so blatantly OP that relic will nerf them next patch, the poster is kinda hipster in that way.

Brace yourselves, this is going to be a long post.

Please read at least the majority of the post before posting a response. I do encourage everyone to respond, but please stay constructive.

None of this post is meant to come off as “salty” although I am sure there will be those out there that try to claim that is what this is about. However, my goal is to express my reasons behind not enjoying CoH 2 recently and what I hope Relic can do to improve the current state of the game.

While the past few patches have had good content on a shallow level, I think they have done much to expose fundamental flaws in the underlying mechanics of the game as well as (in some cases) hurt the game on a tactical level. These past two patches are the first time in awhile that I do not look forward to logging into COH 2. In fact I have been seeking other games to occupy my time.

Grab some popcorn, go to the bathroom… let’s begin.

1) Flame weapon changes:

One of the more recent mechanic changes to the game, flame damage gain an active bonus against units in garrisons and green cover. There are a number of problems with this approach. First, not every faction has equal access to flame weapons. OKW for example only has flamethrowers in a single DLC doctrine, while UKF’s only early access to flame damage is in the form of an extremely underwhelming light vehicle. I am a fan of asymmetric balance, but I believe that each faction needs to have near equal access to a couple of things - one of which is a flamethrower… but let’s assume that I am wrong in that belief and that not every faction needs early flame-based damage. There are still things fundamentally wrong with the way flame damage is handled in these most recent patches.

First off, punishing players for placing their squads in cover seems to fly in the face of everything that the CoH franchise is about. If I get my squads into good green cover positions then, usually, I have outplayed you tactically on some level - thus you should have to actively dislodge me. Prior to these changes this could involve using indirect fire to soften my position, a sniper to whittle down my squad, brute force in the form of multiple squads, or even forcing me to fight on other areas of the map. All of these options present both players with numerous choices, and the player trying to push into green cover is properly punished for allowing their opponent to gain that advantageous position. The ways in which players then utilize cover, and counter cover by making tactical choices on how best to counter that cover given the current situation lent a lot towards differentiating player skill. Under the current changes, should you have access to a flamethrower you just run at the green cover. There are no intricate decisions to be made about how to best dislodge that advantageous position. The flamethrower does all the work for you. Doubly problematic is the rampant availability of flame damage in Rifle Company, the new OKW commander, and the Soviet faction in general. (Although I think molotovs are fine, and potentially underperforming). I also feel that this mechanic does not make sense within the context of the game. Why should I be directly punished for placing my troops in an advantageous position?

My solution: Remove the damage bonus that flame weapons have against cover. Leave them as garrison counters. Give each “engineer” unit access to a 60 munitions flamethrower. Remove all doctrinal access to flamethrowers. Prevent flamethrowers from firing while a unit is garrisoned in a vehicle of any sort.

Now let’s talk about the flame DoT left on the ground by vehicle with flamethrowers. In my opinion this mechanic punishes infantry based AT too harshly. It also creates awkward battlefield scenarios that serve to only limit and frustrate players. The balance of this mechanic is significantly better than it was last patch but the design is, in my opinion, poor. There are plenty of counters to infantry based AT weapons, tanks that happen to have flamethrowers should not hard-counter AT guns by driving straight at them and roasting the crew alive. Properly faced AT guns should punish tanks that drive towards them while improperly faced AT should be punished by being flanked. Driving at an AT gun and winning with fire does not promote this dynamic.

2) Indirect Fire Units

The ISG, Pack Howi, (and historically the Ost mortar/120mm Soviet mortar) have been extremely problematic. These units have never required any degree of skill to use properly, nor have they encouraged much, if any, real counterplay. Formerly, vehicle-based indirect fire (Werfer, Katy, Stuka) has been able to handle these “mortar” units upon finally hitting the field in the late game. Let’s take a look at what has changed:

For the record I think the non-doctrinal Soviet mortar is balanced now that the precision strike is gone. The 120mm still one shots squads a bit too often and it does not make sense in my opinion to give it (even a doctrinal unit) every advantage imaginable over other mortars. Suppression on the ISG and Pack Howi... I wrote another thread on how the recent changes to these two units was not going to resolve the root of the problem. Putting one of the most powerful mechanics in the game (suppression) on long-ranged and highly accurate units breaks any concept of tactically outplaying your opponent. The suppression on these units allows for normally unwinnable fights to be won. Not because of any skill on either player's part, but because the ISG/Pack Howi shell suppressed your squad. These units are essentially extremely long ranged HMGs with the potential to one-shot squads.

Additionally, countering these units has become significantly more difficult now that the gun won’t break while crewed. This results in Stuka/Sturmtiger shots only decrewing the weapon whereas previously the weapon would break for good.

My solution:
Remove the suppression and change all “mortar” units to never autofire. Give them a low cooldown, accurate and highly damaging barrage - basically make them baby howitzers (without the tremendous damage/shot that howitzers have). Properly using these units would then require skill and more planning, plus playing around them would be more realistic because you would have a chance to get your units out of the barrage. Also, these weapons should break even while crewed. Only HMGs and AT guns should not break while crewed.

3) Weapon Upgrades in General

The first problem is that nearly every weapon upgrade is a strict upgrade. What do I mean by this? Purchasing the upgrade does not hinder your squad at any range. I never have to take a step back to think “Should I purchase this LMG on my Grenadier squad?” because the answer is always “Yes.” There is no real overt drawback to buying the LMG. The only thing I can think of is not being able to shoot on the move, but Grenadiers want to be standing still to shoot even without an LMG so I don’t think the purchase of the upgrade hampers them in that regard. This is generally the case with every upgrade in the game (except Con PPSh, that just sucks). In my opinion purchasing a weapon upgrade should provide you with a large advantage at one particular range but punish you at other ranges - or they should be rare (perhaps limited to “elite” units).

Another issue with weapon upgrades as they are currently implemented is the “caveman” sort of gameplay that they produce. Any unit with a LMG can just be attack moved with almost as good of an effect as a skilled player positioning these units. On the other hand any unit with a powerful SMG (Shocks, Rangers, Commandos primarily) just run at stuff and win. These sorts of one-dimensional units do not encourage players to make strategic choices regarding weapon upgrades and they do not promote beating your opponent on a tactical level because there is only one way to use these squads. I find SMG squads to be less problematic than LMG squads because at least they have to get close to win fights - and generally their upgrades only provide a performance increase at close range.

It is my belief that each player should be rewarded or punished based on their use of cover, or how they approach a squad in cover. To this end I think that weapon profiles should have a more linear curve. I don’t necessarily think an SMG squad in green cover should beat an LMG squad at max range, but I don’t think the fight should be as one sided as it currently is given that the SMG squad does have the cover advantage.

My solution: Smooth out weapon profile curves so that units are still advantaged at specific ranges without being completely dominated at all ranges other than their one “good” range - even while having a cover advantage. Change weapon upgrades to significantly increase performance at one range, while reducing performance at at least one other range. For example the LMG upgrade on Grenadiers could greatly improve long-distance damage output while throttling short-range damage output. Perhaps the entire squad could change from KAR98s to LMGs to better illustrate this change in the squad. Of course each LMG would not do the full damage of a current LMG.

4) Loiters (aka Skillplanes)

This post is already getting longer than I wanted it to be, and I think this one is more obvious than the others so I will try to keep it short.

The loiter based plane strafes are too strong for their cost given unequal access to anti-aircraft platforms. Of course it is easy to say “L2P #Adapt and build AA units” but the fact that neither player can directly control what the planes target is awkward at best. Furthermore things like the Ju87 AT strafe frequently target infantry to devastating effect even if you have already moved all of your tanks out of the AoE. These abilities generally provide little counterplay other than “make an ATunit and park it somewhere” at which point the ability is useless. While I do not agree with the way the Close Air Support commander has been implemented I do generally prefer the CAS “skillshot” strafes to loiters.

My solution: Make strafes skill-shots rather than loiters. This provides an increased potential for players to outplay each other. Reduce the cost of loiters to compensate.

5) Abandons/Out of control

Been a stupid mechanic since day one. Nothing more to say. Just get rid of it already.

My solution: Tanks die when they reach zero hp. No bullshit. They just die.

I want to end by saying that I think the core idea behind CoH 2 and the CoH franchise in general is stellar. It provides a level of gameplay that no other RTS can touch. These are just areas in which I think the game can (and should) be improved. Many of these issues have been long-standing. I have expressed my opinion on them in the past verbally, but wanted to finally put them out there in a more concrete fashion. It pains me to say that CoH 2 has just not been fun these past two patches, for the reasons listed above.

Too lazy to edit this at the moment. Hopefully I didn’t make any glaring grammar errors.

I completely disagree.

hand held flamers a fine atm, one could argue about riflemen flamers as many have alreadly done, but in general flamers are fine. (personally don't fine rifle company OP but I'm not like everyone else I play my own style. only time I have seen rifle company be really strong is when backed up by pack howi suppressing everything and that was last patch, so in general I think it is fine.) won;t mind if they where changed to re's though

Flame tanks SHOULD counter paks, in my option they should be a "you no have armor I kill you for this oversight" units. If your spamming at guns and have no tank a flame tank should be able to counter you. The way vehicle flamers is atm is pretty balanced, you can't say the wasp is UP and then complain about vehicle flamers, honestly it feels like half this post is just stuff from last patch.

The isg and pack howi are one thing, haven't played enough vs them or with with them to know if they are "OP". I find isg and pack howi's being "OP" is more map dependent then anything smaller more confined maps they are really good on whereas more wider maps they aren't very good, and may just be a waste of mp in some cases. not a fan of your mortar idea at all, I find mortars other then the isg and pack howi (haven't played enough vs or with to say where they are atm) kinda weak atm as is.

Weapon upgreades idea is just LOL. If I lose at max range in green cover smoothing out the curve for smgs doesn't change anything, just the speed and damage I do to the other sqaud. If I want to win the fight I still have to close in. smgs are generally balnced atm so that then can go up to lmg units in cover and win in most cases (ppsh cons included) the problem with units like ppsh cons is you are forced to make a choice atm to attack or retreat, whereas lmgs just have to get out after the smg closes, unless they can win. In general though I find the way most weapons work atm to be fine.

The planes idea really? I mean really?? Your control bais is showing... ( <-- this sadly lacks the personal touch of the spoken word Personally I find people wanting to add control to something cause it adds more "skill" to be really stupid. OH look I'm better at using a keyboard and mouse then someone, I should be able to win just because of that, is stupid. As long as people have to make a strategic decision in how and when to use something I'm fine with it, as long as there is some form of counter play. As they work now these abilites do have counter play, they create no go zones and the other player has to leave the area. if you leave the area, the planes do nothing but remove you from the area. adding some sort of skill shot requires them to be completely redesigned to be cheaper and have one pass, which means your likely gonna see more of them. Atm none of the abilities is super OP so I think we are ok. The game gives players like you plenty of tools to use your better control to gain advantages. Having direct control over how a plane attacks is just adding more barriers that don't need to exist. One can argue about how strong or weak a certain plane attack is, but needing to add a control check to it is just unnecessary. The way they are now is fine, it takes a certain about of skill to know when to use them and when not to, and most of them cost quite a lot of muni. Haven't seen a game where skill planes where the deciding factor in the game, certainly not like some old patches when that was the case.

The AA in this game could be a better then it is now, but honestly finding a balance that makes it good enough to counter planes but at the same time not just be a "I counter all planes" (making some commanders completely useless vs aa) thing is super tricky and probably impossible to get right especially when you take team games into mind.

Your last point I'll give you that one, nothing wrong with this leaving the game, since plenty of times games get decided because of a decrewed vehicle being remaned.

This too was written in haste and is no doubt littered in mistakes. Love ya brother

Rifleflamers and abandoned vehicles should get out of the game , both are terrible ideas and relic knows it. Flamerdamage against units in cover is ok, you dont hide behind a little wall if a flamethrower is used against you and get away without being heavily injured.

Suppression of indirectfire units is ok , if it´s a barrage. I think all indirect fire should only be barrage,but with light suppression.
Imo with "walking stuka style" barrages it would turn mortar/isgs into handy blobpunishers, the circleshaped barrages are only usefull against stationary targets.

All valid points Ciez.

For me this game has always lacked a sense of basic fundamental gameplay as a foundation. If Relic ever wants to FINISH this game and make it what it should be,then they will look at many of the things you have said and will address them.

If COH2 can fix its fundamental flaws, It will most certainly be a rebirth of the game, as if it was just being released again. I just cant understand why Relic and its Devs, who have jobs and run a business and put so much time into this game, cannot see what has happened to it.

Until its fixed, COH2 will forever be a mess, but it will be our mess that we love to hate

Going to state directly from the outset that I think most of your proposals are bad and would make the game less fun to play.

Flame Weapons
These got changed recently to do less burst and more damage over time. They function now as area denial weapons. The idea behind green cover enhancing flame damage is that cover provides flammable material for flamethrowers to ignite. For example: a big haystack. The gameplay purpose of flamethrowers, which stems from reality, is to flush units out of entrenched positions, whether that be a garrisoned building, a trench, or, yes, green cover. For counter-play, the idea is that you want to focus-fire the hell out of the flamethrower unit so that he cannot deny you good cover. Focusing down flamethrower units is encouraged because of how short their range is, which means they most expose themselves to danger in order to flush entrenched units out. This means they are in range to be shot and must expose themselves and be almost useless as they cover ground.

As for armored flamethrower units (Churchill, Hetzer, Wasp) marching up to an AT gun, you must consider what a unit's prime categorization is. For example, the Flame Churchill and the Flame Hetzers are FLAMETHROWERS mounted onto tank chassis. They are not tanks per se. If my Sherman or my PZ4 can easily approach AT guns head-on and wipe them, that's a problem, because the Sherman and PZ4's prime categorization in gameplay is "tank." A tank's gameplay utility is to be an all-around assault vehicle. Church and Hetzer are merely armored flamethrower platforms. It makes perfect sense that a Flame Church / Flame Hetzer could win a 1v1 battle against an AT gun, because AT guns are manned by infantry and infantry have no protection against flames. A tank has some protection against AT guns because of its armor.

If you are looking to counter a Flame Church, then you must either spread your AT guns and use a snare or use armored AT. Armored AT is the real Flame Church hard counter. Complaining that your AT crews get roasted by a flamethrower platform strikes me as odd. You are arguing against reality at this point. Certain units will be armored enough to close distance and will also have flamethrowers. To make your desired design work, you'll either have to ignore infantry's vulnerability to flames or ignore armor on heavily armored units. You can't really get what you want in gameplay terms unless you just say "To hell with reality!"

Indirect Fire
Another bad idea. Indirect fire platforms auto-firing is fine because they have absolutely no direct combat utility and merely serve as a form of pressure against A)defensive or B) blobbing opponents.

The suppression given to Pack Howitzers and ISGs is to make them a viable blob counter and differentiate them from mortars. Mortars are more versatile than Pack Howitzers and ISGs because mortars can fire straight up over obstacles/buildings/terrtain and thus allow for more versatile positioning strategy. Pack Howies & ISG must be positioned clear of most obstacles. Mortar crews can also retreat while Pack Howie & ISG can't. On the risk vs. reward spectrum, small howitzers are currently well balanced against mortars. Mortars provide more flexibility in terms of positioning because they can fire directly over obstacles and retreat. Small howitzers provide less flexibility but better blob control and longer range. This is balanced by their stricter positioning and helplessness when stormed directly by enemy units.

If you strip Pack Howitzers & ISG of suppression, you take away their anti blob utility. You can't say "Pack Howie & ISG have suppression... therefore they are long range MGs!" This is infantile reasoning. MGs have no minimum firing distance. Pack Howies and ISG do... What this means is Pack Howie and ISG are completely helpless once infantry close in within a certain range. MG has no min range and also has (obviously) a much faster rate of fire, so MG prevents direct assaults.

So, please, remove the suppression and auto-fire from Pack Howie & ISG if you A) love blobs and B)love turtles. If you love blobbing and turtling mechanics, then please continue to argue for these changes.

Removing autofire ,as someone else said, raises the micro tax on players and doesn't do much more than that. The autofire is counterbalanced by these units' complete impotence vs direct assault and their diminished damage potential in contrast to rocket platforms (stuka/pwerfer/katyusha) and full howitzer units.

Weapon Upgrades
If you don't keep a contrast between the weapon profiles, then you end up with a blurry grayness that doesn't reward tactical positioning. You call this contrast "caveman" gameplay. SMGs do work up close and LMGs do work from afar already. What more do you want exactly? You say: "On the other hand any unit with a powerful SMG (Shocks, Rangers, Commandos primarily) just run at stuff and win." This isn't true at all. SMG units that run toward long-range infantry who are in cover get shot to pieces on approach. This is why most of these units are equipped with smoke of some sort. Ranger has doctrinal call-in smoke and Shocks have smoke grenades. Sturmpio could also be placed into this close-assault troop category but their medium-range DPS is also quite high. Their increased versatility means they don't HAVE to be up close to win engagements.

I don't think you should muddy the waters regarding this stuff. Right now you have to intelligently close distance with SMG troops and have to keep distance and user cover to be effective with long-range units. If you smooth the curve then you might enable SMG troops to win battles at medium range they probably shouldn't win, and likewise you enable some long range troops to win engagements they shouldn't win at medium range. The LMGs for Grens and Obers pretty much are net upgrades, as are BARs for Riflemen and LMG for Infantry sections, but these upgrades basically serve as scaling mechanics. You can invest your muni elsewhere and take that gamble. Some weapon upgrades already are sidegrades. Giving Sturmpio or Riflemen a flamethrower is a sidegrade because it completely changes the properties of their default weapons. Riflemen are effective on the move by default and equipping them with flamethrower means they must stop to do damage. Sturmpio have good medium range DPS by default and giving them a flamethrower means their mid-range DPS goes down in exchange for anti-garrison/anti-cover.


Loiters

I'm not opposed to single strafes (the likes of which we had in CoH1) but I do think the loiters serve a useful area denial purpose as well as give the illusion that there's an actual airforce at play. Single planes coming in for a bombing run or strafe don't give that illusion and aren't nearly as epic from a spectacle standpoint (which must be considered). I think AA works fine against planes now... certainly much, much better than it used to work during game launch.

Abandon / Out of Control

The abandon mechanic adds a small bit of RNG to the game. Whether you're in favor of this or not basically depends on how okay you are with RNG being a factor in the game. The mechanic might be better if it were made more consistent, but I don't think it's a bad mechanic strictly speaking. Taking over abandoned enemy vehicles was done in the actual war and adds a cool flavor element to the game.

What about if we make flametrower in rifle company not a upgrade but a rifleman call in that cost you 280 Mp 60 munny and give you riflemen with flamer , so you wont be albe to have all your rifles with flamers without kreeping your early game presence or in very late game.

Do riflemen have satchel charges, come from the same building as a clown car and get Oorah at vet 2?

It's a fucking comparison, they are very similar (Good damage, not squishy) units with flamers. I'm not claiming they're exactly the fucking same.

If penals are okay and riflemen aren't and I'm assuming since you don't agree with me on early vet bonuses they aren't a factor so why don't you crunch penal batt DPS w/flamer and riflemen dps w/flamer, keeping in mind penals are cheaper reinforce and have am extra 80hp. Whatever the difference is must be the balance threshold, eh?

Read what CieZ wrote as a reponse (who did it in a far more polite way then i would have after seeing your "post")
And try to answer the question: when was the last time you saw 3-4 penals running around in a 1vs1 tourney?

Zarok, you are wasting your breath trying to explain something ridiculously simple to pseudo intellectuals on this forum.

They have a position, they wont change it no matter how much you explain to them clearly and concisely. It really is pathetic, but unfortunately thats the case.

Anyone who doesn't see rifle flamers as the main problem in rifle company, I have no hope for you.

Agreed.