Infantry Sections, Cover Bonuses and Design

Currently, the Infantry Section cover bonus is implemented as an out-of-cover penalty to weapon cooldown and reload time.

This causes issues with the general design of the faction:

- Royal Engineers with weapon upgrades are better main-line infantry than Infantry Sections because they do not receive the penalty, have better durability with veterancy (especially with Heavy Engineers)and lower reinforcement cost while costing 70 manpower less per squad.

- The PIAT has an extremely fast reload time for infantry AT weapons when not equipped on Infantry Sections. If it could reliably hit units without attack-ground micro, it would be completely OP.

- Infantry Sections are relegated to a utility role once weapon upgrades arrive.

- Literally every other infantry unit in the game is better with British weapons than Infantry Sections

These problems can be solved by changing the current penalty to a bonus and altering the current weapon stats to maintain the current balance.

Suggested Changes:

- Royal Engineers now use the Infantry Section version of the Bren gun
- Bren gun cooldown multiplied by 1.2
- Bren gun reload time multiplied by 1.4
- PIAT reload time multiplied by 1.4
- Vickers K cooldown multiplied by 1.2
- Vickers K reload time multiplied by 1.4
- Lee Enfield cooldown multiplied by 1.2
- Lee Enfield reload time multiplied by 1.4
- Scoped Lee Enfield cooldown multiplied by 1.2
- Scoped Lee Enfield reload time multiplied by 1.4
- Infantry Section cover bonus changed to the following:

Status	In Cover	Out of Cover
Cooldown Multiplier	0.83 (1/1.2)	1
Reload Multiplier	0.71 (1/1.4)	1

An obvious problem I'm sure someone will (rightly) point out is that giving the Infantry Section a bonus will make them OP when using weapons looted from other factions. This is incorrect, for a few reasons.

Firstly, cooldown and reload bonuses are much more potent on bolt-action/semiautomatic weapons and AT weapons than automatic weapons. Given that the majority of droppable enemy weapon upgrades are machine guns or flamethrowers and that Panzershrecks would still have a lower rate of fire than PIATs (despite doing the same amount of damage) it is unlikely that the potency of the bonus would be an issue.

Secondly, looting enemy weapons from axis squads requires squad wipes (Volksgrenadiers, Grenadiers, Obersoldaten) or near squad wipes (Panzergrenadiers) and a fair amount of luck. The weapons in question have only a 33% (1 in 3) chance of dropping when they cannot transfer to another model making dropped weapons fairly rare.

Thirdly, this is not a major issue with a current unit that has a far more potent bonus. Osttruppen have their accuracy multiplied by 3 when in cover and, unlike cooldown and reload, accuracy bonuses have a direct relation to DPS across all anti-infantry weapons. This bonus is balanced by their rifle's extremely low accuracy when outside of cover but does not take into account either looted enemy weapons or their own lmg42 (same as the Grenadier's, 20% chance per squad when using Osttruppen Reserves). As Osttruppen are not currently considered OP, one can reasonably conclude that the suggested changes to the Infantry Section cover bonus are unlikely to significantly unbalance the game.

Thank you for reading all of this.

What do you think?

- The PIAT has an extremely fast reload time for infantry AT weapons when not equipped on Infantry Sections. If it could reliably hit units without attack-ground micro, it would be completely OP.

I think you forgot to take into account fire aim time:

PIAT fire aim time + reload = 6.9

schreck = 8.375

bazooka = 6.375

These problems can be solved by changing the current penalty to a bonus and altering the current weapon stats to maintain the current balance.

it work as a penalty, because changing it into a bonus would turn lmg42 tommies into terminators. it's a pretty rare case, but it does happen.

I think you forgot to take into account fire aim time:

PIAT fire aim time + reload = 6.9

schreck = 8.375

bazooka = 6.375

I did, thank you for that correction. What do you think about the current cover bonus reducing the Infantry Section to a utility role?

it work as a penalty, because changing it into a bonus would turn lmg42 tommies into terminators. it's a pretty rare case, but it does happen.

The Infantry Section cooldown and reload bonuses aren't anywhere near as powerful as the Osttruppen accuracy bonus, especially on automatic weapons like the lmg42 (taking into account the greater effect of burst time and rate of fire on automatic DPS).

In addition, Osttruppen are deployed against enemy units mostly dual-equipping (Riflemen, PTRS Conscripts, Royal Engineers, Infantry Sections), triple-equipping (Captains, Heavy Royal Engineers) or quad-equipping (Guards Rifle Infantry, Vet 3 Infantry Sections) which makes Osttruppen more likely to acquire an enemy weapon upgrade.

Osttruppen are not currently considered OP despite this. Given that the current cover bonus makes the UKF's mainline infantry effectively obsolete past early-game and the low potential effect of my changes (one or two slightly more powerful than normal infantry squads due to enemy squad wipes and luck), I don't think changing the penalty to an equal bonus will unbalance the game to a significant degree

Vet should be fixed first. Nobody really knows how any of the infantry actually works with their vet applied properly.

Either way... I think the problem in itself lies in the Royal Engineers. They need to be toned down a slight bit imo, but maybe it's necessary to have them like that since they're supposed to be the UKF version of sturm pios or something.

I personally agree that engineer types units and especially WFA and UKF hold too much utility but imo it is separated issue from tommies performance.

More on the issue of utility here:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/46004/the-op-utility-of-engineers

Vet should be fixed first. Nobody really knows how any of the infantry actually works with their vet applied properly.

Either way... I think the problem in itself lies in the Royal Engineers. They need to be toned down a slight bit imo, but maybe it's necessary to have them like that since they're supposed to be the UKF version of sturm pios or something.

Looking in the modding tools can give you a fair idea of how units compare. The Royal Engineers have better received accuracy and less than half the reinforce cost at vet 3 compared to the Infantry Sections. While Royal Engineers don't receive any offensive veterancy aside from their cover bonus, half of the Infantry Sections' total offensive veterancy does actually work in the current game and actively makes it easier for Infantry Sections to drop weapons. The non-working portion of offensive veterancy is a 20% accuracy boost which, while not insignificant, is significantly less powerful than the 50% reinforcement cost reduction of the Royal Engineers (the most economic units will always be better than the most powerful ones).

I agree that the problem lies mostly with the Royal Engineers. The reinforcement cost multiplier is ridiculous and it doesn't help matters that the Royal Engineer Bren is better than the Infantry Section version. The issue with Infantry Sections is that the cover bonus actively makes them a worse choice than any other infantry for weapon upgrades, which are the primary way infantry scale when they don't have extremely potent offensive veterancy (Penal Battalions for instance).

Reworking the cover bonus so that it only provided a bonus to the UKF weapon upgrades would be the best solution to the problem. The Royal Engineer cover bonus already works similarly in that it only affects the engineers' sten guns.

I personally agree that engineer types units and especially WFA and UKF hold too much utility but imo it is separated issue from tommies performance.

More on the issue of utility here:
https://www.coh2.org/topic/46004/the-op-utility-of-engineers

My proposed change doesn't actually affect Infantry Section performance. By changing the out-of-cover penalty to an in-cover bonus and nerfing UKF weaponry appropriately, Royal Engineer scaling and utility is reduced without altering the actual performance of Infantry Sections.

Great idea, but it sounds like a nerf to Sappers without really fixing the IS.

Frankly trying to use the Advanced Emplacements doctrine, and therefore building IS, has left me with an 8 game losing streak. Tier 1 for the Brits consists of.... Vickers, for me. The other two units are so crap as to be counter-productive. One tommy for healing and building trenches is all you need. Fucking fantastic for a mainline infantry unit. 280 manpower just isn't worth it.

I'd actually go further I think and remove piats and brens from tommies, giving a buff to compensate ( maybe a scoped Lee Enfield with each vet level?).

With vet3 tommies being nowt but donators of advanced weaponry to the opposition what is the point of allowing them to 'upgrade' in the first place? Sappers are simply better in the field, and scale better too. Tommies seem like their spastic Welsh ginger cousin in comparison.

If anyone wanted to test my suggestion to make sure it's as balanced as I say it is, here's a mod.

Great idea, but it sounds like a nerf to Sappers without really fixing the IS.

It absolutely is. I wanted to avoid this thread being derailed by arguing over how OP/UP Infantry Sections are.

Frankly trying to use the Advanced Emplacements doctrine, and therefore building IS, has left me with an 8 game losing streak. Tier 1 for the Brits consists of.... Vickers, for me. The other two units are so crap as to be counter-productive. One tommy for healing and building trenches is all you need. Fucking fantastic for a mainline infantry unit. 280 manpower just isn't worth it.

The problem with ISs is one of scaling, not poor initial performance. They lack certain necessary abilities (snares or versatile infantry AT) while REs benefit more from the side upgrades and veterancy. Interestingly enough, wasn't IS veterancy (accuracy and received accuracy)nerfed in the December patch? Was veterancy working then?

The Universal Carrier (UC) is actually fairly useful as an early counter to Kubelwagons, flank support and occasional transport. Unfortunately, buying the upgrades is a complete gamble, it's hard-countered by Panzerfausts and it really should have the repair ability at vet 0 (with advanced repair at vet 1).

I'd actually go further I think and remove piats and brens from tommies, giving a buff to compensate ( maybe a scoped Lee Enfield with each vet level?).

With vet3 tommies being nowt but donators of advanced weaponry to the opposition what is the point of allowing them to 'upgrade' in the first place? Sappers are simply better in the field, and scale better too. Tommies seem like their spastic Welsh ginger cousin in comparison.

That would need careful design work. Equipping all five IS models with Scoped Lee-Enfields would increase the squad's long-range DPS less than a single Bren gun, making them scale even worse.

It would be reasonably simple to replace all of the standard Lee-Enfields with the scoped variant at vet 3 without making them slot items, so no increased weapon drop risk over a standard dual-equipped squad. This would change the current 8-10% long-range DPS bonus into a 16% bonus and would probably be a better way of doing it than the current solution.

Either way, removing the whole reason for a faction to have weapon racks is a bit excessive. I'd prefer to fix the cover bonus and then discuss the poor scaling of ISs.

Great idea, but it sounds like a nerf to Sappers without really fixing the IS.

Mainly this. Relic will have to balance the DPS of any affected weapons based on their top performance (Tommy version, according to the proposed changes). Any other infantry that picks up the weapon (Sappers, Commandos, enemy) will suffer a DPS decrease.

In addition, Osttruppen are deployed against enemy units mostly dual-equipping (Riflemen, PTRS Conscripts, Royal Engineers, Infantry Sections), triple-equipping (Captains, Heavy Royal Engineers) or quad-equipping (Guards Rifle Infantry, Vet 3 Infantry Sections) which makes Osttruppen more likely to acquire an enemy weapon upgrade.

Osttruppen are not currently considered OP despite this. Given that the current cover bonus makes the UKF's mainline infantry effectively obsolete past early-game and the low potential effect of my changes (one or two slightly more powerful than normal infantry squads due to enemy squad wipes and luck), I don't think changing the penalty to an equal bonus will unbalance the game to a significant degree

(I have never verified it. I am assuming that the Osttruppen cover bonus also affects slot weapons)

The Osttruppen bonus is badly implemented imo, and it is OP. The main reason people don't complain about it is:
- Osttruppen don't have easy access to weapon upgrades (which would allow them to scale)
- They don't suspect that Osttrupen benefit from this bonus, thus they don't give lmgs to Osttruppen
- Osttruppen have pretty bad received accuracy, and you can't use them offensively (where you would have to constantly reposition)

Thus, don't try to mirror a mechanic that's broken!

Regarding british cover bonuses, they apply EXCLUSIVELY to lee enfields.

Same with REs vet1 bonus, which applies exclusively to STENs.

All other weapons are UNAFFECTED by cooldown and reload bonuses, so PIATs reload as fast on any other infantry.

Plus, to call it cover bonus is just wrong, because tommies perform normally in cover and have debuff out of cover, that hardy can be called a bonus.

"It would be reasonably simple to replace all of the standard Lee-Enfields with the scoped variant at vet 3 without making them slot items."

Been like this since launch so if they were going to change it....

"Either way, removing the whole reason for a faction to have weapon racks is a bit excessive. I'd prefer to fix the cover bonus and then discuss the poor scaling of ISs."

Currently other than attempting not to get a squad to vet3, or not allowing a single model of a vet3 squad to die, there is no way around the bug. So my reasoning is why pay a premium ( 280MP is one of the most expensive units in the game) for something which will actually give the opposition an advantage in the later game?

I'd far rather be able to buy IS for 210 - 250MP which couldn't access the weapons racks.

I take your point about the long range dps but bear in mind that the design of tommies requires them to be stationary in cover, which by mid game makes them not just donators of advanced weaponry but free xp for every ISG or mortar on the field. Yes there is counter battery now but it only seems of any use against really poor players.

"All other weapons are UNAFFECTED by cooldown and reload bonuses, so PIATs reload as fast on any other infantry."

Could be my eyes or an assumption on my part but I'm not sure piats on tommies out of cover do much...

Regarding british cover bonuses, they apply EXCLUSIVELY to lee enfields.

Same with REs vet1 bonus, which applies exclusively to STENs.

All other weapons are UNAFFECTED by cooldown and reload bonuses, so PIATs reload as fast on any other infantry.

Plus, to call it cover bonus is just wrong, because tommies perform normally in cover and have debuff out of cover, that hardy can be called a bonus.

You are correct about the RE Vet1 bonus.

You are incorrect, however, about the Tommy squad bonus (or did they ninja-change it last patch?). You can easily test it with PIATs in-cover and out-of-cover.

You are correct about the RE Vet1 bonus.

You are incorrect, however, about the Tommy squad bonus (or did they ninja-change it last patch?). You can easily test it with PIATs in-cover and out-of-cover.

You have the details in Cruzzies the more you know thread.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if something more was reverted back together with vet recently.

You have the details in Cruzzies the more you know thread.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if something more was reverted back together with vet recently.

That's what I'm referring to, myself.

Tommies, Sappers, Commandos, Sniper gain an additional *0.9 modifier to their received accuracy while in light or heavy cover. Garrison cover is not improved, and thus trenches aren't either.

Tommies have a debuff of *1.4 reload and *1.2 cooldown while OUT of cover.

Vet1 Sappers gain *0.5 reload and *0.3 cooldown on STEN ONLY while IN cover.

Notice that there is no "ENFIELD ONLY" statement for Tommies. The two cover bonuses are implemented differently, which you can view in the attribute editor.

For a 33% increase in firing time. I think it is longer personally at long range, though I haven't tested it. I suspect the cooldown only starts once the piat rounds hit, which can be next tuesday at long range.

Mainly this. Relic will have to balance the DPS of any affected weapons based on their top performance (Tommy version, according to the proposed changes). Any other infantry that picks up the weapon (Sappers, Commandos, enemy) will suffer a DPS decrease.

My changes wouldn't alter the Commando version of the Bren so unless they picked up a dropped Bren (which gives them the IS version anyway), their performance wouldn't change. Enemy squads are unlikely to lose DPS from picking up a Bren unless it locks them out of a lmg42 upgrade.

(I have never verified it. I am assuming that the Osttruppen cover bonus also affects slot weapons)

The Osttruppen bonus is badly implemented imo, and it is OP. The main reason people don't complain about it is:
- Osttruppen don't have easy access to weapon upgrades (which would allow them to scale)
- They don't suspect that Osttrupen benefit from this bonus, thus they don't give lmgs to Osttruppen
- Osttruppen have pretty bad received accuracy, and you can't use them offensively (where you would have to constantly reposition)

Thus, don't try to mirror a mechanic that's broken!

I agree. The Osttruppen comparison was mostly to give a concrete example in the game already but limiting the bonus to the UKF weapons is a better idea.

The mod I posted a link to above does that already, incidentally (bonus limited to the IS Bren, Vickers K, PIAT, Lee-Enfield variants and the Boys AT Rifle).

"It would be reasonably simple to replace all of the standard Lee-Enfields with the scoped variant at vet 3 without making them slot items."

Been like this since launch so if they were going to change it....

We can't blame Relic for this, actually. I tested the method and it only replaces the weapons on current squad models, not reinforcements. We'll see if it changes once veterancy is fixed.

"Either way, removing the whole reason for a faction to have weapon racks is a bit excessive. I'd prefer to fix the cover bonus and then discuss the poor scaling of ISs."

Currently other than attempting not to get a squad to vet3, or not allowing a single model of a vet3 squad to die, there is no way around the bug. So my reasoning is why pay a premium ( 280MP is one of the most expensive units in the game) for something which will actually give the opposition an advantage in the later game?

I'd far rather be able to buy IS for 210 - 250MP which couldn't access the weapons racks.

I take your point about the long range dps but bear in mind that the design of tommies requires them to be stationary in cover, which by mid game makes them not just donators of advanced weaponry but free xp for every ISG or mortar on the field. Yes there is counter battery now but it only seems of any use against really poor players.

Part of this is that the UKF only have the Mortar Pit and AEC to destroy indirect fire in mid-game. Mobility buffs and/or health buffs with the weapon upgrades for the UC would give the UKF a third soft counter.

"All other weapons are UNAFFECTED by cooldown and reload bonuses, so PIATs reload as fast on any other infantry."

Could be my eyes or an assumption on my part but I'm not sure piats on tommies out of cover do much...

Katitof is correct about the RE bonus but incorrect about the IS penalty. The out-of-cover penalty applies to all weapons an IS uses.

The whole suggestion looks like a big mess to me TBH. All those nerfed to the british weapon is not going to be compensated by the changes to the cover system. It's whole lot of changes for nothing.

It absolutely is. I wanted to avoid this thread being derailed by arguing over how OP/UP Infantry Sections are.

it doesn't answer the problem that your changes only really nerfed the sapper without actually buffing the Tommies. It's a half baked solution.

"Mobility buffs and/or health buffs with the weapon upgrades for the UC would give the UKF a third soft counter."


And this is why I am clearly utterly obsessed with trying to get a useful change to the UC. If you lock out with the bofors, or choose neither, you have no defence against ISGs in particular. If you don't pick the AEC you have no way of taking ground and especially garrisons. The only partial solution is an aggressively placed pit, though you have to devote so much manpower to ( unsuccessfully) defending it that you have little map presence.

The above effectively make IS useless to me, they are great on the defence but when you have to deny or take resources in the mid game and contest a second VP they just bleed you dry due to their expense, inability to deal with light armour, inability to take a garrisons and lack of upgrades which don't lead to problems dropping weapons.

Your suggestion would in fact make this far worse, nerfing the only useful non doc infantry that the UKF possess.

The whole suggestion looks like a big mess to me TBH. All those nerfed to the british weapon is not going to be compensated by the changes to the cover system. It's whole lot of changes for nothing. it doesn't answer the problem that your changes only really nerfed the sapper without actually buffing the Tommies. It's a half baked solution.

"Mobility buffs and/or health buffs with the weapon upgrades for the UC would give the UKF a third soft counter."
And this is why I am clearly utterly obsessed with trying to get a useful change to the UC. If you lock out with the bofors, or choose neither, you have no defence against ISGs in particular. If you don't pick the AEC you have no way of taking ground and especially garrisons. The only partial solution is an aggressively placed pit, though you have to devote so much manpower to ( unsuccessfully) defending it that you have little map presence.

The above effectively make IS useless to me, they are great on the defence but when you have to deny or take resources in the mid game and contest a second VP they just bleed you dry due to their expense, inability to deal with light armour, inability to take a garrisons and lack of upgrades which don't lead to problems dropping weapons.

Your suggestion would in fact make this far worse, nerfing the only useful non doc infantry that the UKF possess.

I fully understand that this suggestion is not what the UKF needs in the current context. It is, however, what I think the UKF needs in the long term.

Regardless, what changes would you suggest to ISs and supporting units to both offset my proposed changes and buff the current faction?

I fully understand that this suggestion is not what the UKF needs in the current context. It is, however, what I think the UKF needs in the long term.

Regardless, what changes would you suggest to ISs and supporting units to both offset my proposed changes and buff the current faction?

offering a long term solution is useless without a short term road to get there.

and there are enough needed changes to british's other unit. I would change tommies last.

Vicker and UC need a look at. German sniper themselves can actually use a nerf. Unfortunately, the british's biggest weakness is artillery. Unless the british get a mobile artillery(like a mortar), they are going to be forever at an disadvantage.