The Essential Infantry Balance
Posts: 556
Posts: 1653
Posts: 640 | Subs: 1
To cure the piat blobsNot sure if serious.
Posts: 960
Riflemen: VET 3 : -20% received accuracy bonus changed to -40% reinforcment costs
This modifier - reduced reinforcement cost - needs to. From the entire game. It's simply a horrible, imbalanced, gameplay breaking vet upgrade which ruins the effectiveness of late-game model wipes and encourages blobbing and general "all-in" attacks which undermine the entire point of the game.
Basically once you get your squad to vet 3 (iirc currently only Royal Engies), they become half price to reinforce (something like 13mp?). This means there's very little reason to preserve squad models - just the squad entity. You rush in with your squad (which, since it's vet 3, does crazy damage), do as much damage as possible, then retreat when you're at 1-2 models. Since your squads are essentially 50% off, you've lost at most 39mp (for royal engies). If you wipe even two gren MODELS, you've come out ahead.
The gameplay essentially goes from actually worrying about unit preservation and MP loss to simply doing all-in rushes since in 99% of cases, you'll always benefit. Do it enough, and you'll be floating a ton of MP while the other team can't keep up, even if they're taking half the model losses you are.
This 'bonus' simply needs to go - removed from the entire game, never to return.
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
The gameplay essentially goes from actually worrying about unit preservation and MP loss to simply doing all-in rushes since in 99% of cases, you'll always benefit. Do it enough, and you'll be floating a ton of MP while the other team can't keep up, even if they're taking half the model losses you are.
This 'bonus' simply needs to go - removed from the entire game, never to return.
Kinda confused, shouldn't replacing combat stat bonuses with a comparable reinforcement cost reduction lead to greater losses because the former's vetted models suck by comparison to the others? Obviously it's a tad more complex than that (for example, a reduced reinforcement cost helps a squad's effect on your economy against tanks when no accuracy, received accuracy or cooldown bonus ever would), but I'm not seeing the concept as inherently problematic. I'd suspect the reason it's pants-on-head retarded on RoyEs is because RoyEs in general are.
Posts: 960
Kinda confused, shouldn't replacing combat stat bonuses with a comparable reinforcement cost reduction lead to greater losses because the former's vetted models suck by comparison to the others? Obviously it's a tad more complex than that (for example, a reduced reinforcement cost helps a squad's effect on your economy against tanks when no accuracy, received accuracy or cooldown bonus ever would), but I'm not seeing the concept as inherently problematic. I'd suspect the reason it's pants-on-head retarded on RoyEs is because RoyEs in general are.
In theory yes, reinforce cost reductions does make the unit less combat effective; however, the cost reduction end up being better, in terms of mp/damage per model.
2 Grens vs. 2 RoyEs
At long range, the grens will win; at close range, the RoyEs will win. This is pretty much a given, and honestly expected, considering their equipment (SMGs vs. Rifles). However, let's look at the cost. Royal engineers cost 210/26mp, whereas grens cost 240/30mp (and both are 4-man). So, initially, we have 420mp vs. 480mp, and if each squad gets knocked down to 1 man, that costs 156mp vs. 180mp to bring them both back to full. Again, this makes sense. When you consider all ranges and all abilities (faust, repair, building, etc.), grens are probably a bit better: in fact, the cost suggests that the total "advantage" grens have is about 15%, in terms of base cost and reinforce cost (yes, this isn't exact).
The problem is that vet 3 breaks this math by an insane degree. While the base cost is the same, the reinforce on RoyEs goes to 13mp vs. Grens 30. Now if both squads get knocked down to 1 man each, it costs the grens 180mp to get back to full, while the RoyEs only need 78mp. That's 102mp difference, which is MORE than reinforcing another gren squad back to full (90mp), or almost exactly half the cost of getting another RoyE squad.
Now, yes, grens will be better at fighting, since they get a combat bonus instead of a cost reduction; the problem is that it doesn't nearly make up for the insane price difference. On a per-model basis, each gren model needs to trade with 2.3 RoyE models to brake even; anything less and you're losing in the MP cost battle. But as said before, grens are only around 15% better than RoyEs in terms of all-around power. That vet 3 bonus (or really any bonus) on grens isn't going to make up for the insane 115% more power they need.
Now imagine that on rifles. I'm not going to do the math on those (unless you really want me to), but you'd basically need to bring back CoH1's KCH, but with them being 4-man squads all with IR-STGs and costing ~30mp/reinforce to even have a chance against that level of rifle spam.
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
In theory yes, reinforce cost reductions does make the unit less combat effective; however, the cost reduction end up being better, in terms of mp/damage per model.
See, that's what I'm saying, I don't think the issue is the bonus conceptually, it's that the bonus'/RoyEs value is just absolutely ridiculous.
Compare to Rears where their 200 cost selves are pretty much completely screwed against Grenadiers at all ranges, which is fine because Rears are engineer units with other purposes than combat. So I believe it should be quite possible to make a cost reduction veterancy bonus balanced - but I will not disagree that RoyEs are gawddamn joke right now.
Posts: 362
They should be 7 population imo. The current 6 is too little and 8 is too much imo. They're more or less comparable to Riflemen and Tommy Sections, which are both 7. I do think they could get a price increase to 330 manpower from 290 and I've suggested removing the bonus sight they get with the G43s as well.
Also, Fusiliers don't need a veterancy XP requirement decrease. They're actually one of the few OKW units that vets up at a reasonable rate. JLI could do with a veterancy XP requirement decrease however.
Posts: 960
See, that's what I'm saying, I don't think the issue is the bonus conceptually, it's that the bonus'/RoyEs value is just absolutely ridiculous.
Compare to Rears where their 200 cost selves are pretty much completely screwed against Grenadiers at all ranges, which is fine because Rears are engineer units with other purposes than combat. So I believe it should be quite possible to make a cost reduction veterancy bonus balanced - but I will not disagree that RoyEs are gawddamn joke right now.
Possibly. I just don't want it to become some slippery slope of it being applied to units which are "too weak", and then suddenly making units insanely cost effective late game. IMO it's just too "risky" of a bonus. Too low and it's a wasted perk, too high and everything becomes amazing due to cost efficiency. Keeping it at a "sane" level would reduce vet 3 (or whatever vet level) from being an amazing "wow that squad hit vet 3" to an almost pointless "huh... vet 3". I'd rather mess around with received accuracy, RoF, etc. which seem to be much better suited for vet bonuses.
Posts: 747 | Subs: 2
Changing the obers and falls to a bit higher dps would give you a ligimate reason to choose one of those 2, instead of STG Volks.
There are already enough reasons for them. The best reason is their long range dps (which has not changed for volks).
Posts: 721
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
did germans used anything similar to ptrs at rifle in world war 2...???
The Panzerbusche 39 was an AT rifle that continued to be throughout the war, though production ended in 1941.
Posts: 37
yeah thats why i said optional
i think they are fine
Read carefully and you'll see that I was saying that grens need better early game performance. Until they have lmg they just suck, and even then they need vet 2 to be able to hold back riflemen. IMO vet 3 riflemen wit 2x bar or 2x 1919 lmg are better than vet 3 grens with mg42
Posts: 61
Read carefully and you'll see that I was saying that grens need better early game performance. Until they have lmg they just suck, and even then they need vet 2 to be able to hold back riflemen. IMO vet 3 riflemen wit 2x bar or 2x 1919 lmg are better than vet 3 grens with mg42
Grens are kind of meh currently, probably more due to power creep then anything else.
They should really get a decent vet 1 that on its own would fix them.
Their in alot better state then cons though
Posts: 5279
Read carefully and you'll see that I was saying that grens need better early game performance. Until they have lmg they just suck, and even then they need vet 2 to be able to hold back riflemen. IMO vet 3 riflemen wit 2x bar or 2x 1919 lmg are better than vet 3 grens with mg42
Which is totally unreasonable considering that match up is a 240MP squad with a 60mu upgrade vs a 280MP squad with 120-140mu in upgrades plus the unlock if its bars and then grens still have a nade over rifles...
Posts: 37
Which is totally unreasonable considering that match up is a 240MP squad with a 60mu upgrade vs a 280MP squad with 120-140mu in upgrades plus the unlock if its bars and then grens still have a nade over rifles...
I didn't say grens need a late game buff to change that, I just pointed out that riflemen are superior at almost all stages when equipped, so grens don't even really have much of a late game advantage. Honestly the 40mp difference isn't that much considering that riflemen reinforce for less per model. I just think grens are too easily overwhelmed early game.
Posts: 721
Which is totally unreasonable considering that match up is a 240MP squad with a 60mu upgrade vs a 280MP squad with 120-140mu in upgrades plus the unlock if its bars and then grens still have a nade over rifles...
yeah okay then make gren 280 mp and let the mhave dual lmgs...?? see..the point here is the perfomance at their maximum po..its not a rare thing u regularly see double bar vet 3 rifles.
Posts: 5279
It will also help vs general Rifle blobbing.
Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1
Posts: 677
Rifles vs MG42 meta has already shifted more in favor of the MG42 due to the excellent change of reducing grenade throw range when units are suppressed. No need to also remove smoke from rifles.
The reduced range affects frag grenades but smoke grenades are affected far less because they do not have to land on the HMG to be effective.
I would argue that the change has nerfed infantry using frag grenades but infantry using smoke grenades are nearly untouched.
Livestreams
811 | |||||
22 | |||||
4 | |||||
0 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.599215.736+14
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1107614.643+8
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.273108.717+24
- 8.722440.621+4
- 9.1041674.607-2
- 10.17146.788+1
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Modarov
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM