Riflemen Vet breaks balance (with comparisons)

So Rifleman -43% + Grenadier +40% creates a net of -3%

Vs. Grenadier -23% + Rifleman 30% creates a net of +7% (although I believe Grenadier has a native -7% at Vet 0 if I'm not mistaken) so... Even.

Does seem that bad... or am I missing something here?

Now I'll admit that Rifleman Vet3 places Vet 0/1 Grens at a pretty bad disadvantage but squad preservation should be rewarded and Vet 0/1 squads will struggle versus any Vet 3 squad.

If you look at recieved accuracy you need to look at overall models in a squad. If Grens have .8 recieved accuracy and Rifles as well, then rifles will have a 25% advantage over Grens.

Looks like austerlitzs first non biased post. kinda neutral supported with background informations. thumps up.

grens need simply a small adjustment thats it and a reinforcment cost decrease, because they are too expensive to reinforce

Austerlitz you forgot to mention the base accuracy certain units get:

Check out Sections for example:

Base received acc: 0.8
Vet Bonus: 33 %

0.8*0.67 = 0.536

Riflemen:

Base Received Acc 0.97
Vet Bonus:20 % & 23 %

0.97*0.8*0.77 = 0.59

Compared to Grens:

Base received acc: 0.91
Vet bonus 23 %

0.91*0.77 = 0.7

Volks:

Base received acc: 1

Vet: 10 % & 10 %

1*0.9*0.9 = 0.81 (worse than what sections get from the go)

Cons:

Base received acc: 1.087

Vet 40 %

1.087*0.6 = 0.65

Biggest joke ever : Sappers

Base received acc: 0.8

Vet 33 %

ANVIL TACTICS UPGRADE: 2 Armour.

0.8*0.66*0.5 = 0.26 for free



The funny thing is fanboys justify this by 40 mp difference. 40 mp difference means shit, I'm sure every player regardless of faction choice would gladly pay 40 mp more for squads that perform not just by a margin, but by a giant leap better. The statement of "costing more" is not even true because of this, as grens for example cost more to reinforce than allies infantry and they bleed you harder than Rifles & Sections in late game due the received acc vet Rifles & Sections get.
The funny thing hereby is that allies infantry gets also more lethal (except for cons) due double weapon upgrades in late game. So allies infantry is more lethal and can take more hits, while becoming cheaper to maintain. This arguments become even more dull when you check what sappers get for 210 mp.
Saying Axis have a late game advantage becomes due this stats comparison a joke.
Right now USF have the advantage in every state of the game.

These received acc bonuses are also the problem why okw became so weak. Axis need tanks to deal with late game infantry, while allies can deal with late game infantry by using infantry. Okw gets to field less tanks and it takes longer to replace tanks that get destroyed, thus you have bigger problems dealing with infantry in late game.

Axis simply need infantry that can deal with late game infantry even if they sustained wipes. When I lose rifles or sections, I just get double BAR's or BAR & Flamer (far more popular atm) or I get Sections with double Bren. If you lose your vetted Grens or vetted Obers/Falls/Pios whatsoever it becomes far too hard and too punishing to win engagements.
In my opinion, positioning, flanking and tactics should play the most important role in every state of the game. Not the bonuses each faction gets with their vet. They should play a role, but right now they frustrate players more than it actually adds tactical deepth.

Snip

Well said. This Axis late game supremacy myth is getting out of hand (talking about 1s and 2s). OKW is rekt, no map control leads to less resources along with .7 fuel income means less and late tanks. You are also pretty much forced to rush a JpZIV since USF and UKF field tanks faster (a Schreck or two is enough versus SU to deal with T70s).

Ost on the other hand, in another post someone said "it feels like reacting to my opponent, rather than planning" (credit to who ever said that, I don't remember). So you are forced to camp and greatly outmaneuver, outmicro and outplay your opponent, just like USF when it was weak a couple of month ago.

All and all, these vet bonuses for USF and UKF are stupid. Cons don't get non-doctrinal upgrades, and the doctrinal ones are also "meh" at best (For the record, upgrades should be like Con PPSH or PTRS, should be decisions not no-brainers) so people are not concerned about them. Make their upgrades worth the price. For UKF, just nerf their RA, they are not expensive, can have a 5th man and can get 2 LMGS. For usf, nerf Flamers (I think an overhaul is needed though, veteran rifles should be a 4 man squad dedicated for flamer). Then buff BAR's price (45-50).

.....
Saying Axis have a late game advantage becomes due this stats comparison a joke.
.......

Strategist?
You only want your favorite faction stronger

If you have asymetric factions, you cannot have all units with the same stats.


Next time allies fanboys will start topic "We want Sherman equal the Panther."

I am angry from destroing this nice game, with different factions.
Axis and allied fanboys kill this comunity and this game.

Strategist?
You only want your favorite faction stronger

If you have asymetric factions, you cannot have all units with the same stats.


Next time allies fanboys will start topic "We want Sherman equal the Panther."

I am angry from destroing this nice game, with different factions.
Axis and allied fanboys kill this comunity and this game.

Yeah, completely ignore all what I wrote. I've been top 20 with allies & axis in 2vs2 and rank 1 in 3vs3+ games for allies & axis (not that this matters as 3vs3+ is easy as fuck) Seeing that you haven't played axis in at least a month, anything you say doesn't mean anything. Especially since you don't even play competitive modes (1vs1 & 2vs2). Seriously instead of posting in balance forums you should play the game and get better.

Strategist?
You only want your favorite faction stronger

If you have asymetric factions, you cannot have all units with the same stats.

pls.... with this comment, you look like a complete moron.

You only want your favorite faction stronger from someone who haven't played axis for a long time. But I don't expect much from someone, whos fighting against hordes Jagdtigers and Elephants

Achtachter explained the problem objective and correct. No one wants to perform grens like rifles(maybe fanboys) but they need something. reiforcment decrease, small vet adjustment etc.

Yeah, completely ignore all what I wrote. I've been top 20 with allies & axis in 2vs2 and rank 1 in 3vs3+ games for allies & axis (not that this matters as 3vs3+ is easy as fuck) Seeing that you haven't played axis in at least a month, anything you say doesn't mean anything. Especially since you don't even play competitive modes (1vs1 & 2vs2). Seriously instead of posting in balance forums you should play the game and get better.

Competitive modes play 50%. Large team games another 50%.

If you nerf riflemans, you simply again remove USF from game.

And play more? Can you explain this my wife and childrens? I will very grateful to you.

pls.... with this comment, you look like a complete moron.

You only want your favorite faction stronger from someone who haven't played axis for a long time. But I don't expect much from someone, whos fighting against hordes Jagdtigers and Elephants

Achtachter explained the problem objective and correct. No one wants to perform grens like rifles(maybe fanboys) but they need something. reiforcment decrease, small vet adjustment etc.

Grens are designed to fight together with mg42. Riflemans must fight alone. That is bad desing this faction. Before riflemas buff and Pershing come, i cannot play USF in team games. In late game , they simply was not enough. If you start searching game it was 90% searching as axis vs 10% as allies. Now it is 50% vs 50%. It is good for this game.

And hordes Jagtigers and Elephants? In large team games you meat 2-3 this monsters. You only advantage is well play with riflemans and clear way for m8s ZiS-3 and 6-pounders.

The funny thing is fanboys justify this by 40 mp difference. 40 mp difference means shit, I'm sure every player regardless of faction choice would gladly pay 40 mp more for squads that perform not just by a margin, but by a giant leap better. The statement of "costing more" is not even true through this, as grens for example cost more to reinforce that allies infantry and they bleed you harder than Rifles & Sections in late game due the received vet Rifles & Sections get.
The funny thing hereby is that allies infantry gets also more lethal (except for cons) due double weapon upgrades in late game. So allies infantry is more lethal and can take more hits, while becoming cheaper to maintain. This arguments become even more dull when you check what sappers get for 210 mp.
Saying Axis have a late game advantage becomes due this stats comparison a joke.
Right now USF have the advantage in every state of the game.

Make gren 40mp more expensive and a week later we will see the usual whiners coming again because you cannot field enough units early in the game and need an additional MP advantage at start.

Is it so complicated to read Ostheer gameplay? strong AI HMG42 supported by cheap long range gren but expensive to reinforce so you can't be too greedy at the beginning of the game. As a strategist can't you really see the problem of having strong grenadiers when you also have HMG42 right from T0? When around 5 minutes mark you can reinforce them anywhere in the field with a sdfk? Is it too complicated or are you too much bias to acknowledge that? Late game is exactly the same, you have the option to mix gren with pzgren + HMG42 and this is one of the many solution you have to combine your forces as Ostheer.

Competitive modes play 50%. Large team games another 50%.

I play all modes. 100 % for me

If you nerf riflemans, you simply again remove USF from game.

The vet 3 changes were made in order to decrease mp bleed of rifles in late game. There are 2 Solutions for this, either you reduce this vet bonuses further, so Riflemen don't enter the matrix at vet 3. Or you can give decreased reinforce costs on vet 3 as a bonus.

And play more? Can you explain this my wife and childrens? I will very grateful to you.

True. But then again why do you post in balance forums were you game knowledge is rather limited? Strategy sections offers more for you here.

Grens are designing to fight together with mg42. Riflemans must fight alone. That is bad desing this faction. Before riflemas buff and Pershing come, i cannot play USF in team games. In late game , they simply was not enough. If you start searching game it was 90% searching as axis vs 10% as allies. Now it is 50% vs 50%. It is good for this game.

And hordes Jagtigers and Elephants? In large team games you meat 2-3 this monsters. You only advantage is well play with riflemans and clear way for m8s ZiS-3 and 6-pounders.

The problem wasn't the rifleman, it was the fact their support unit and armor units were either underwhelming or just poor.

The problem with the recent terminator buff is the fact it reinforce the mentality that the only unit in the entire USF faction was the rifleman. What should have been buff were stuff like the 57mm or the sherman instead.

True. But then again why do you post in balance forums were you game knowledge is rather limited? Strategy sections offers more for you here.

I play hundreds games in AT 3v3 and 4v4. I have quite a bit of experience.

I'm not so good as you and others profi gamers. But I want to keep playing this game in another years also. And this game has never been so good Balanced, as it now.
http://coh2chart.com/ not so large differences in factions.

Make gren 40mp more expensive and a week later we will see the usual whiners coming again because you cannot field enough units early in the game and need an additional MP advantage at start.

Is it so complicated to read Ostheer gameplay? strong AI HMG42 supported by cheap long range gren but expensive to reinforce so you can't be too greedy at the beginning of the game. As a strategist can't you really see the problem of having strong grenadiers when you also have HMG42 right from T0? When around 5 minutes mark you can reinforce them anywhere in the field with a sdfk? Is it too complicated or are you too much bias to acknowledge that? Late game is exactly the same, you have the option to mix gren with pzgren + HMG42 and this is one of the many solution you have to combine your forces as Ostheer.

Everything you mentioned also applies to Infantry sections. They have everything you mentioned and still get better vet, a 5th men, double lmgs & green cover. The game has changed since the vanilla factions have been released. Ostheers combined arms are on par with the combined arms of other factions, while other factions can rely on using mainline infantry only.
You can use Rifles combined with .50 cal & pak howi and get a force that is stronger than Ostheer combined arms, truly a bit more expensive, but just as viable and thanks to the fact that rifles are stronger and more versatile even better than Ostheers combined arms.

The mantra that USF has only Rifles is simply no longer true, because the team weapons were buffed or rather fixed. That's why you often see Lieutenant -> Captain -> Major builds. I was in the alpha and made even suggestions that lead to this, e.g. Zooks & Bars together, Pak howi buff & cost decrease.

Relic wanted to fix the factions, but decided to fix Allies factions first or seems to have forgotten to fix the Axis factions too.

Looks like austerlitzs first non biased post. kinda neutral supported with background informations. thumps up.

You wish

He conviniently "forgot" to mention the base stats these vet bonuses apply to, mainly default rec acc modifiers, which make tommies as well as EVERY SINGLE AXIS SQUAD except for volks and pfussiliers scale better then vet indicates and have better rec acc then raw vet bonuses indicate.

edit: crap, AchtAchter beat me to it

grens need simply a small adjustment thats it and a reinforcment cost decrease, because they are too expensive to reinforce

And then reduce reinforce cost of guards and conscripts and shocks for the same reasons?
Reinforcing grens from 1 men to full already costs less then doing the same for cons and they cost exactly the same.

Relic wanted to fix the factions, but decided to fix Allies factions first or seems to have forgotten to fix the Axis factions too.

This is probably why HMG42 has been moved to T0 and see its suppression increased, Ostheer teching cost has been reduced and readjusted, USF T3 delayed to the point Sherman is now out at the same time as a Pz4, 222 has see its upgrade made for free etc...

Isn't enough evident that HMG42 is the Ostheer backbone unit since it has been moved to T0 and not grenadiers? What should be done to make it more comprehensible?

And then reduce reinforce cost of guards and conscripts and shocks for the same reasons?
Reinforcing grens from 1 men to full already costs less then doing the same for cons and they cost exactly the same.

This is not an honest view of the problem. Reinforce per man is a better assessment. Not every squad is going to be retreated with the last man standing - it's often not worth the risk of being wiped along the way. This is specially true with axis. You gotta agree that, for example, Infantry Sections are now on a very confortable having hefty bonuses and still reinforcing for 28 MP.

Remove rifle vet 3 received accuracy; buff 50 cal HMG, AT gun, sherman, and jackson in return. Will lead to less rifle spamming and more combined arms like relic wanted USF to be

Can't you people just accept that this game will never be balanced and will remain shit for the rest of its life span?

Isn't enough evident that HMG42 is the Ostheer backbone unit since it has been moved to T0 and not grenadiers? What should be done to make it more comprehensible?

Put it back at 240 MP, the special bullets should be ready faster, and if I'm going to have it as backbone of my army, it should better have a nice setup and deploy buff. I'd be very weary of having my mainline unit having to be stationary to fire.