Conscript range

Well, I took the good old science way.

Hypothesis:

We all know Relic got rid of the target tables, which I think was game-design-wise a good move to get a the game easier to look over and balance.

There are instead 2 new stats: Penetration for weaponary and Armor for units. So instead telling a weapon how its chances are to penetrate every single type of armor (-> target tables) now the chance is somehow determind by these two values.

So let's say we have a 50% chance against an abstract "standard armor" target, then this is 50/100, right?
Then the "50" is my penetration factor and the "100" is the Armor factor of the target.
But now we can not only vary the penetration but also the armor factor, so we get "penetration/armor".

For T34/76 76mm gun vs Pz4 fornt armor the chance to penetrate would be 75/160 = 47%
For a Pz4 74mm gun vs the T34/76 front armor it would be 110/115 = 96%.

Because small arms weaponry also have penetration values and regular infantry has armor values instead of target tables, all this also goes for infantry engagements.

A Grenadier Kar98 vs a Conscript would be 1/1 = 100%
A Conscript Mosin Nagant vs a Grenadier would be 1/1.5 = 66.6% (2/3).
(Since basicly all small arms have a penetration of 1 you can see it as a quasi constant for small arms fighting)

So only 66.6% of the bullts of this weapon that hit actually "penetrate" the grenadier and deal damage, the remaining 33.3% are "deflected" dealing no damage, just as it work for tanks.

That's why I was talking about the 2/3


Proof:

Cause I say so!
q.e.d


No, seriously I checked the numbers on inf and vehicles and couldn't find anything that would make this assumption a fail. On the contrary it perfectly balances out the described matchup of Conscripts vs Grenadiers we are talking about.
Furthermore it just makes sense, at least to me.

Regards
ace

Bump

Hoping for Dev clarification on infantry armor!
Community needs your help to understand this!

@ Ace: I think your theory is sound, especially as it plays out and is supported by Cons vs Grens engagements in-game.

It makes sense, and it could be right, but I think it could be a slight variation of this.

The problem with the new system, is that it encompasses global changes. The target tables are good, as long as they only used them in last case scenarios, and very subtly. The new system means that, if Grens get their armor reduced, they will be affected by EVERYTHING shooting at it, when perhaps the only problem was with conscripts.

Its easier to modify and play with, and also easier to understand, but it might take a little longer to hit the sweet spot, because its not as "precise".

I also agree with Nullist, some dev clarification would be appreciated, so we can understand the gears that run the machine

1/1.5 = 0.66

ie 1/3 of the shots won't deal damage.

So, i guess I was right.

1:0 for science!

Statistically they are balanced out to have no advantage at close or long range. Other factors like abilities or squad plans likely skew this to some degree.

i.e. molotovs are close range weapons whereas rifle-grenades are long range.

That makes me sad. I was really hoping to see some depth in the "unit vs unit" design, especially early game. And the differences between the units strength depending on range was one of the best ways to achieve a dynamic early game.

While we are at it. Pios vs Engis?

Engis win vs pios every time (un-upgraded). The MP40 or whatever they're carrying needs about an 8000% damage increase to be combat viable, heh.

The only times I have seen pios able to beat engineers is if they manage to instantly be in close range like turning a corner or something, and even then it is kind of a crap shoot on crits.

From my game experience, pio win vs engi 100% of the time close range, and lose 100% of the time long range.

Kay, good to know.

Well, if CoH-stats isn't wrong....

Combat Engineers have the exact same wepaon as conscripts: Mosin Nagants (the exact same variant), whereas Pioneers have Mp40's that deal much less damage (2.3) vs the mosin nagant (16).

If statistics don't lie, Pio's seem to win up close, because they fire small burts of low damage.

Well, if CoH-stats isn't wrong....

Combat Engineers have the exact same wepaon as conscripts: Mosin Nagants (the exact same variant), whereas Pioneers have Mp40's that deal much less damage (2.3) vs the mosin nagant (16).

If statistics don't lie, Pio's seem to win up close, because they fire small burts of low damage.

Yup, that is my experience. I've had in Engineers in yellow cover and Pio squad strolls up right next to them in NO cover and utterly destroy the engineers. I've also seen Engineers in Green cover lose to Pios in yellow up close time after time.

Why do Engineers cost 40 more MP again?