How much were infantry sections nerfed this patch?

Talking about hard numbers, because figuring out from this:

Lee Enfield Rifle Reload penalty decreased from 1.5 to 1.4
Lee Enfield Rifle Cooldown penalty decreased from 1.3 to 1.2
Lee Enfield Rifle Target Size increased from 0.8 to 0.9
Veterancy Rank 2 Received Accuracy buff increased from 0.66 to 0.76
Veterancy Rank 3 Weapon Accuracy buff decreased from 1.4 to 1.2

Only tells me about how much their accuracy with vet was nerfed(can't read the stats very well). What about received accuracy compared to pre-patch and now? Help would be greatly appreciated from stat experts

Talking about hard numbers, because figuring out from this:



Only tells me about how much their accuracy with vet was nerfed(can't read the stats very well). What about received accuracy compared to pre-patch and now? Help would be greatly appreciated from stat experts

Since i requested this information from him, shameless bump.

Also. WHY were they nerfed like this at all? I read the preview patch closely and more than half of these nerfs werd agreed by relic themselves to be too much and removed from the preview patch.

Why the hell are they in the live version? Change of heart without explanation? Or rather my guess poor version control and the release of parts of the wrong one?

I would post the link but atm on my cell. Maybe some1 else can post it.

Only tells me about how much their accuracy with vet was nerfed(can't read the stats very well). What about received accuracy compared to pre-patch and now? Help would be greatly appreciated from stat experts

Here you go!

Received Accuracy:

Vet Level	Pre-patch	Current
Vet 0	0.8	0.9
Vet 2	0.528	0.684

Effective Squad Health (4/5 Men):

Vet Level	Pre-patch	Current
Vet 0	400/500	355.55/444.44
Vet 2	606.06/757.57	467.83/584.79

Infantry Sections actually have an out-of-cover penalty to cooldown (time between shots/bursts) and reload time. It's about a 7-8% buff to reload time and cooldown when out of cover.

Because sections overperformed pre patch as seen in the table above. They were as durable as vet 3-4 obers. On baseline inf. The out of cover bonus was too penalizing, but the incover bonus made them stomp anybody. Winning in close-midrange or dealing heavy damage primarily close range units.

DPS nerf was understandable, double Rec Acc nerf was markedly less so. While sections do perform a little better out of cover now, they are also far easier to hit. Triple nerf was also technically included, as Bolster costs more now. They probably shouldn't have nerfed starting rec acc, just the vet.

Interesting thing about Infantry Sections is that their (in)accuracy barely changes with range. All other infantry small arms increases rather considerably at close range. IS barely see an increase as distance closes, which in a sense, puts them in a long range role. (More accurately, they're just not good at close range.) However, this changes when they get into cover, where the bonus is applied in the same way across all ranges.

So in a convoluted sense: Out of cover Infantry sections have around the same accuracy at all ranges as other infantry do at max range. In cover, Infantry sections have around the same accuracy at all ranges as other infantry do at close range.

In short: cover makes and breaks the effectiveness of Infantry sections, offenseively as well as defensively. It's not just the cover bonuses that they have, the entire squad was designed around utilizing cover, and as such, don't behave in the same way as all other infantry.

i think infantry sections were overnerfed. they are now just a little bit like glorified grenadiers. grenadiers have that starting 0.91 rec acc and have better rifles, but cost 40mp lesser and abilities without super expensive upgrades.

granted they dont need so much dps as before, but they do need that durability back.

due to the lack of any early mortars or anti building tools, tommies need that durability to hold out and win grinding firefights again garrisoned units.

Best guess I have is that this was a retroactive nerf that makes up for the previous patch when their reinforce cost was reduced?

I too am perplexed that they reintroduced the Received Accuracy nerf after removing it from the preview patch (to the point that I assumed it was a typo in the notes). Wouldn't surprise me if they rolled back the Vet R. Acc nerf to help make the Brits stop getting stomped so bad as their win rates are still bottom of the barrel even after the hot fix.

It's because prepatch infantry sections were somewhat unbeatable in a 1v1 scenario if they had green cover, and because they were innately tank it was very easy for them to cross open cover into green. They also had a tendency to become undislodgable in the first few engagements if they managed to secure a vital house. Pair that with 16 damage per hit and very high rate of fire, you have an extremely powerful squad in the right hands.

Now their base received accuracy is in line with other mainline infantry, and they get punished more often when players choose to keep them out of cover. Dont forget that you also benefit from a possible 5th man as well.

I found relics post.

December Balance Preview Notes

Mod available @ http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=557952243

OKW starting resource increased from 0 to 10
Battlegroup HQ reduced from 30 fuel to 25
Mecahnized Regiment HQ increased from 40 to 50 fuel
Schwerer Panzer HQ cost increased 100 fuel to 105 fuel
Volks regular grenade removed again
Luch Penetration reduced from 25 to 20
Infantry section damage reverted back from 14 to 16
Infantry section targets reverted back from 0.9 to 0.8
Infantry section veterancy 2 recieved accuracy modifer increased from 0.66 to 0.76
Bolster Infantry cost increased from 100/25 to 150/35
German Supply Drop zone plane comes in from longest path so that you can shoot down the plane now.

So I dont understand. There is no mention of half of those nerfs anymore and the rec acc at vet 0 is even explicitly! Returned to 0.8. Yet in the live version..?

Interesting thing about Infantry Sections is that their (in)accuracy barely changes with range. All other infantry small arms increases rather considerably at close range. IS barely see an increase as distance closes, which in a sense, puts them in a long range role. (More accurately, they're just not good at close range.) However, this changes when they get into cover, where the bonus is applied in the same way across all ranges.

So in a convoluted sense: Out of cover Infantry sections have around the same accuracy at all ranges as other infantry do at max range. In cover, Infantry sections have around the same accuracy at all ranges as other infantry do at close range.

In short: cover makes and breaks the effectiveness of Infantry sections, offenseively as well as defensively. It's not just the cover bonuses that they have, the entire squad was designed around utilizing cover, and as such, don't behave in the same way as all other infantry.

Could you please post the data? It sounds cind of to general to me. I have never found a true list about what cover actualy truly does for IS. Also, does green or yellow matter?

I read that it reduces reload time and cooldown resulting in an about 8 % dps increase vs no cover. If you refer to only this then they would still be abysmal at close range and medium range compared to their counterparts who as you said have a much higher accuracy the closer the enemy gets.

Is there another bonus that cooldown and reload? If so what exactly?

Also why did they leave in the 1.2 acc at vet 3? Most inf gets either 1.3 or even 1.4 yet are cheaper.

I truly dont get relic on this one... IS have no snare or anything else besides a grenade you have to tech for and cost 40 mp more than grens for example. I believed that this is what qualifies them to simply be better than other infantry and AI. Yes they were close to ober level with 2 brens 5 men and vet 3. But they also cost 280 mp and 120 mun whilst also only beeing AI purely so I found it only fitting that they come close.

It's because prepatch infantry sections were somewhat unbeatable in a 1v1 scenario if they had green cover, and because they were innately tank it was very easy for them to cross open cover into green. They also had a tendency to become undislodgable in the first few engagements if they managed to secure a vital house. Pair that with 16 damage per hit and very high rate of fire, you have an extremely powerful squad in the right hands.

Now their base received accuracy is in line with other mainline infantry, and they get punished more often when players choose to keep them out of cover. Dont forget that you also benefit from a possible 5th man as well.

I will agree with their scaling potential and how ridiculous a horde of dual bren tommies can get.

Yet it feels like each patch since UKF release have focus on what's overpowered with the UK without paying any attention to buffing their weakness.

Interesting thing about Infantry Sections is that their (in)accuracy barely changes with range. All other infantry small arms increases rather considerably at close range. IS barely see an increase as distance closes, which in a sense, puts them in a long range role. (More accurately, they're just not good at close range.) However, this changes when they get into cover, where the bonus is applied in the same way across all ranges.

So in a convoluted sense: Out of cover Infantry sections have around the same accuracy at all ranges as other infantry do at max range. In cover, Infantry sections have around the same accuracy at all ranges as other infantry do at close range.

In short: cover makes and breaks the effectiveness of Infantry sections, offenseively as well as defensively. It's not just the cover bonuses that they have, the entire squad was designed around utilizing cover, and as such, don't behave in the same way as all other infantry.

your terminology is a bit mixed. Cover bonus doesn't affect their accuracy, it affects their rate of fire.

and the cover penalty on lee-enfield wasn't that big:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LOYMDi_XR7rILsk6HbAZqGihsk22t-45C_6NbQEP-m0/edit#gid=1496803838

I haven't updated the sheet, but the sheet show that the old cover penalty only have a 7% effect on the lee-enfield's dps.

the sad thing is that the cover penalty's biggest effect was on the bren lmg, and decreasing the cover penalty meant that a bren blob is more deadly.

I will agree with their scaling potential and how ridiculous a horde of dual bren tommies can get.

Yet it feels like each patch since UKF release have focus on what's overpowered with the UK without paying any attention to buffing their weakness.



your terminology is a bit mixed. Cover bonus doesn't affect their accuracy, it affects their rate of fire.

and the cover penalty on lee-enfield wasn't that big:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LOYMDi_XR7rILsk6HbAZqGihsk22t-45C_6NbQEP-m0/edit#gid=1496803838

I haven't updated the sheet, but the sheet show that the old cover penalty only have a 7% effect on the lee-enfield's dps.

the sad thing is that the cover penalty's biggest effect was on the bren lmg, and decreasing the cover penalty meant that a bren blob is more deadly.

Great! Thank you! Exactly what i was referring to. I keep reading statements lile his and then begin to wonder whether i missed something about the IS cover interaction. So it actualy is only a 7 % dps difference, or rather was, now it must be even less. Meaning that IS realy dont have much to go for them making up for their highee cost, tech requirements for 5th man and no snare or other utility. Additionaly they now even vet worse than other similar squads

Grens get +40 % acc -23 rec acc
Is gets 20% acc -23 rec acc...
Riflemen get + 30% acc and -23 rec acc + another -20 rec acc.

Yeah IS also get 2scoped einfields but ive been told they are a very marginal dps increase not compareable to the accuracy bonus especiaöy since that one effects the brens too. Also the damn scoped einfields count as weapons in a sense that double equipped IS can loose brens as soon as the 4th man dies similar to guards which is a huge risk that again should factor in to their performance.

Great! Thank you! Exactly what i was referring to. I keep reading statements lile his and then begin to wonder whether i missed something about the IS cover interaction. So it actualy is only a 7 % dps difference, or rather was, now it must be even less. Meaning that IS realy dont have much to go for them making up for their highee cost, tech requirements for 5th man and no snare or other utility. Additionaly they now even vet worse than other similar squads

they still have good long range capability with 5 men and a dual bren gun set up. I've face them several times in the current patch and preview, and they are frightening to fight once the british have invested a high amount of resources.

emphasis on high resource investment. The benefit stack high but the base unit itself is kind of crap. I felt like the tommies kept getting nerf because they can get really powerful if you let them.

I dislike lmg spam and with british it's easy to lmg spam once you have the resource. Unless the bren gun is actually limited to one I think the british are always going to be balanced with the expectation that the player will get two of them per tommies.

they still have good long range capability with 5 men and a dual bren gun set up. I've face them several times in the current patch and preview, and they are frightening to fight once the british have invested a high amount of resources.

emphasis on high resource investment. The benefit stack high but the base unit itself is kind of crap. I felt like the tommies kept getting nerf because they can get really powerful if you let them.

I dislike lmg spam and with british it's easy to lmg spam once you have the resource. Unless the bren gun is actually limited to one I think the british are always going to be balanced with the expectation that the player will get two of them per tommies.

This sounds again highly subjective. How do they hold up actual stats wise at vet 3 vs double lmg equipped rifles (ofc also vet 3) for whom the US doesnt have to research weapons or squadsize (yeah i know its a commander) or double brownings? And they still have an AT grenade and possibly smoke.

Or against vet 5 volks? Whom they should not only beat but beat very clearly since they can hold the best AT weapon ingame, let alone if they pick up weapons. Say a bren?

Or even against a vet 3 single lmg gren? And what about vet 3 lmg gren vs vet 3 single bren thommy? I'm even guessing theyd loose that fight. Yet the grens have tje awesome rifle grenade on top and a pfaust and no tech cost for their goodies (partialy included in normal teching cost, partially..)If some1 had the numbers to either defuse or strengthen my claim would be great.

Fact is, they were slightly to good for their price before, i agree. Questionable weather they were to good at all given their role in the UKF lineup and them not having an at snare. But now they are just overpriced for what they do. I would utterly hate to go back to the days of commandos or sappers as mainline inf...

I dislike lmg spam and with british it's easy to lmg spam once you have the resource. Unless the bren gun is actually limited to one I think the british are always going to be balanced with the expectation that the player will get two of them per tommies.

I never went for more than 1 lmg per squad because of the reasons mentioned before that its a) a huge investment in 1 squad and much stronger b) from vet 3 on they have 4 weapons (scoped lee einfield still non dropable but still count) on 5 entities, meaning the moment 1 guy dies you are endangered of loosing weapons. As opposed to when the last man dies (grens, obers, volks) when the last 2 men die (riflemen, paras etc). And the LAST thing you want is volks, obers or grens to walk arround with a bren.

I was rank 1 2v2 with brits before i stopped playing once this patch hit so i dont believe my decicion was so wrong.

Pressed quote instead of edit... stupid phone with tony buttons ☺

Could you please post the data? It sounds cind of to general to me. I have never found a true list about what cover actualy truly does for IS. Also, does green or yellow matter?

I was mistaken in believing that the cover bonus affected accuracy. Since it's cooldown and reload, then a more accurate statement is to say that Infantry Sections suck at all ranges, but when in cover, they fire fast enough to make up for it.

But here's the Infantry Section's accuracy at far/mid/near : 0.529/0.564/0.598

For Comparison:

0.598/0.661/0.748 < Grens' Kar98k
0.5175/.0.667/0.713 < Rifles M1 Garand

**edit**

While I was at it:

Tommies when out of cover get a 40% increase to their reload timer and a 20% to their cooldown.

cooldown:0.375-0.6 seconds
far/mid/near multiplier: 1/0.875/0.75

So, In cover:
0.375d-0.6s/0.328s-0.525s/0.281s-0.45s

(I'm assuming the modifier is applied to the base value, before range modifiers)

Out of cover:
0.45s-0.72s/0.393s-0.63s/0.337s-0.54s

As you can see, the base range of the cooldown has more of a factor than the cover bonus/penalty.

Reload duration is 1.25 seconds, every 9 shots, and this does not vary at any range (1/1/1).

This means every 9 shots, it takes them half a second longer to reload than if they were in cover.

The bonus (or rather, the penalty is removed) in light, heavy, and 'garrison_cover' which I'm not sure what is applied to. (buildings, halftracks, both, or at all, etc)

I was mistaken in believing that the cover bonus affected accuracy. Since it's cooldown and reload, then a more accurate statement is to say that Infantry Sections suck at all ranges, but when in cover, they fire fast enough to make up for it.

But here's the Infantry Section's accuracy at far/mid/near : 0.529/0.564/0.598

For Comparison:

0.598/0.661/0.748 < Grens' Kar98k
0.5175/.0.667/0.713 < Rifles M1 Garand

**edit**

While I was at it:

Tommies when out of cover get a 40% increase to their reload timer and a 20% to their cooldown.

cooldown:0.375-0.6 seconds
far/mid/near multiplier: 1/0.875/0.75

So, In cover:
0.375d-0.6s/0.328s-0.525s/0.281s-0.45s

(I'm assuming the modifier is applied to the base value, before range modifiers)

Out of cover:
0.45s-0.72s/0.393s-0.63s/0.337s-0.54s

As you can see, the base range of the cooldown has more of a factor than the cover bonus/penalty.

Reload duration is 1.25 seconds, every 9 shots, and this does not vary at any range (1/1/1).

This means every 9 shots, it takes them half a second longer to reload than if they were in cover.

The bonus (or rather, the penalty is removed) in light, heavy, and 'garrison_cover' which I'm not sure what is applied to. (buildings, halftracks, both, or at all, etc)

Great! Thank you very cindly. So these are dome more facts. Now the question remains to be answered whether people agree that they do not hold up to the price, role and other abilities from the IS. I believe i made my point clear in the posts above.

Since it's cooldown and reload, then a more accurate statement is to say that Infantry Sections suck at all ranges, but when in cover, they fire fast enough to make up for it.


cooldown:0.375-0.6 seconds
far/mid/near multiplier: 1/0.875/0.75

So, In cover:
0.375d-0.6s/0.328s-0.525s/0.281s-0.45s

Out of cover:
0.45s-0.72s/0.393s-0.63s/0.337s-0.54s

as the stats show, the effects of the cover penalty on the lee enfield are measured in milliseconds.
considering that the bolt working animation of 1.3 seconds are far longer than the cooldown, the cover mechanic barely affect the lee enfield.