Login

russian armor

Infantry rebalance needed

5 Sep 2016, 17:11 PM
#41
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Sep 2016, 16:47 PMLeo251

But you are forcing me to choose between 1 or 2 Commanders. Command P4 is not a stock unit.


(If we exclude Festung Armor) I count 4 very viable, and varied commanders that have the Command P4 option. Each of those 4 commanders has other abilities that synergise really well with the P4 (e.g., Elefant, Spotting Scopes, CAS, or Ostruppen for, effectively, 7.5-man squads).

If you have issues vs Allied rocket artillery, you are probably playing team-games. Since you are playing team-games only one player actually has to pick the P4 (and the rest of the team can benefit).

Yes, it's limiting. Yes, it's a desperation option. However, it is still an option and I (personally) find it to work really, really, well for the harsh realities of team-games.

However, if you sit down and weight the options, the only heavyweight OST tools you are missing out by picking a command P4 commander are:
- Stuka Dive Bomb (which is ridiculously OP and is long due a reversal of the ninja-buff)
- Tiger (which you don't require in a team-game, since KT is always better)
5 Sep 2016, 17:13 PM
#42
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072

Allied infantry are better than axis infantry at close range and medium range when upgraded. I'm ok with this. However, the axis are supposed to use support weapons to be able to counter allied infantry using hmgs. On top of great infantry the Allies also have extremely powerful ok indirect fire both early and late game (USFS mortar, 120 mm, mortar pit, calli, LM etc) which negates the effectiveness of hmgs by bleeding them AND MAKING YELLOW COVER EVERYWHERE. The craters made by all the indirect fire combined with the high RA bonuses of allied infantry combined with their high DPS allows allied infantry to effortlessly walk up to hmgs and wipe them even when supported.

I wouldn't mind preventing yellow cover from giving its bonus -25℅ RA to units on the move. This will allow the hmgs to actually suppress (perhaps pin) the infantry then be able to relocate before the indirect fire hits them. It'll allow the axis to keep the allied infantry at long range with the use of combined arms without making hmgs over powered.


If you're having problems with allied infantry in other scenarios I think it's mostly a l2p issue.

What do you guys think?
5 Sep 2016, 17:34 PM
#43
avatar of Leo251

Posts: 311

Allied infantry are better than axis infantry at close range and medium range when upgraded. I'm ok with this. However, the axis are supposed to use support weapons to be able to counter allied infantry using hmgs. On top of great infantry the Allies also have extremely powerful ok indirect fire both early and late game (USFS mortar, 120 mm, mortar pit, calli, LM etc) which negates the effectiveness of hmgs by bleeding them AND MAKING YELLOW COVER EVERYWHERE. The craters made by all the indirect fire combined with the high RA bonuses of allied infantry combined with their high DPS allows allied infantry to effortlessly walk up to hmgs and wipe them even when supported.

I wouldn't mind preventing yellow cover from giving its bonus -25℅ RA to units on the move. This will allow the hmgs to actually suppress (perhaps pin) the infantry then be able to relocate before the indirect fire hits them. It'll allow the axis to keep the allied infantry at long range with the use of combined arms without making hmgs over powered.


If you're having problems with allied infantry in other scenarios I think it's mostly a l2p issue.

What do you guys think?

Completely agree. Allies has too many options to negate the only unit Axis has that is able to stop infantry blobs: HMG42, I mean, granades, yellow cover made by crates, arty and smoke.
5 Sep 2016, 18:51 PM
#45
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474



Aaaaaannnnnnddd the point is? I don't see that Obers are very like Tommies.

Long range Obers: 15,8
Long range Tommies: 12,32

Close range Obers: 31,3
Close range Tommies: 19,6

Long Obers on move: 7,52
Long Tommies on move: 2,69

Close Obers on move: 15,6
Close Tommies on move: 4,56
i Say that it's already a problem that they have comparable stats (if we count cover bonus) to a unit that is tier 4 can't upgrade to 5 men and can't have 2 lmg and cost almost 50% more with more reinforce cost
And your point was about ober having similar stats to lmg 42 and look at that is are similar too
5 Sep 2016, 19:29 PM
#46
avatar of TheMachine
Senior Caster Badge

Posts: 875 | Subs: 6

The problem is Double Bar Riflemen, Double Bren Tommies and Vet 5 Volks are simply above Cons and Grens.

You can't buff Grens without breaking the balance vs Cons. You can't really nerf Bars and Brens without breaking the balance vs Volks.

All 5 basic infantry squads need to have their scaling toned down to the same balanced level. To do this, Vet 5 needs to be toned down so it provides the same bonuses as Vet 3 in exchange for having STG's only take one 1 weapon slot and not 2, remove Double equipping Bars, Brens and M1919's.
5 Sep 2016, 19:47 PM
#47
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

The problem is Double Bar Riflemen, Double Bren Tommies and Vet 5 Volks are simply above Cons and Grens.

You can't buff Grens without breaking the balance vs Cons. You can't really nerf Bars and Brens without breaking the balance vs Volks.

All 5 basic infantry squads need to have their scaling toned down to the same balanced level. To do this, Vet 5 needs to be toned down so it provides the same bonuses as Vet 3 in exchange for having STG's only take one 1 weapon slot and not 2, remove Double equipping Bars, Brens and M1919's.
2 stg is equal to 1 bar and volks vet bonus are inferior to rifle men
5 Sep 2016, 20:20 PM
#48
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Why not including cover bonus of Tommies ?


IIRC:
Tommies receive PENALTIES out of cover
Royal Engies receives BONUSES while in cover

5 Sep 2016, 20:36 PM
#49
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



IIRC:
Tommies receive PENALTIES out of cover
Royal Engies receives BONUSES while in cover


Also, RE bonuses apply exclusively to their SMGs. Any picked weapons do not receive them.
5 Sep 2016, 21:25 PM
#50
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

Balancing infantry performance 1.0:


General:
-Improved squad spacing on several units (mostly 4 man squad and the biggest offender Falls).
This will mostly affect when moving through no cover or craters. This does not affect on map or player generated cover such as sandbags.

-(Somehow) Replace cover generated through explosives to be a 2nd type of yellow cover which DOESN'T grant suppression multiplier (1.0 from 0.5).
This mostly affects the mid to late game, when the whole map might be painted on yellow cover.
PD: why is it that demos generate green cover and other big artillery calls doesn't ?

-Veterancy: i think the following 3 units can be adjusted on vet 3. Penals, Rifles and RE. For both Penals and Rifles, their respective accuracy and RA big bonuses only applies on cover. RE vet 3 50% reinforce cost buff needs to be completely adjusted or removed. For some reason they don't receive combat bonuses at vet 2 while other units do at this level.

USF/UKF:
-(Somehow) Units can only pick 1 LMG from RACKS (1919/Brens). This does not affect the capability of units to pick a 2nd weapon from the floor (Special Weapon Regiment Buff).

-BAR performance to be more in line with ARs and differentiate it a bit more from LMGs*. Adjusted DPS from 25 to 35 range


The 2.0 version is a really long one and takes elements from different mods. Might make a thread about it.




6 Sep 2016, 09:16 AM
#51
avatar of tightrope
Senior Caster Badge
Patrion 39

Posts: 1194 | Subs: 29

I'm on board with no double lmg from weapon racks. Volks STG to one weapon slot. Obers coming out sooner somehow and Penals veterancy experience requirements going up.

I don't feel like huge overhauls are needed.

If they nerf the t70, stuart and USF mortar then spacing probably won't be as big of an issue, except on falls.
6 Sep 2016, 13:18 PM
#52
avatar of ABlockOfSalt

Posts: 70

I feel like being able to pick up just the one LMG would be a huge boon and a big change in and of its self. Just having the item take up two slots would be fine as the ability to pick up an additional death-ray really does mess with trying to balance them.

Double bar seems like it's probably okay since it's suited to middle/close like the unit it tends to go on but something to keep an eye on.

Double Vickers/1919 has to go though, it creates alot of issues that could be handwaved away rather quickly.

6 Sep 2016, 14:53 PM
#53
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1

If that change goes through I see no reason why even commanders with 1919s would pick them over BARs, like ever, you would be missing out on firepower.
7 Sep 2016, 03:41 AM
#54
avatar of United

Posts: 253

Grens need more special privileges for being a 4 man squads VS motars. The mine change(2 model kill limit) was a godsend from Relic, but we need more resistance towards indirect explosives.

Okw need their weapons upgrades reevaluated. I really don't know whats going on with them, their upgrades are garbage. STGS are already never worth paying for and for them to just have 2 is bullshit. Storms need the double shreck package, make it cost 140-160 munitions (penalty for not being panzergrens.)one shreck is terrible and shoots your squad in the foot. You don't pick up a AT rifle with panzer grenadiers, and you don't upgrade your strum with a shreck, because you get less than what you already have.
7 Sep 2016, 05:49 AM
#55
avatar of TheGentlemenTroll

Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1

IMO just some better vetting for the Pgrens would make them a lot better.
7 Sep 2016, 08:49 AM
#56
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930

If that change goes through I see no reason why even commanders with 1919s would pick them over BARs, like ever, you would be missing out on firepower.


the m1919 originally had suppression fire as an ability.
7 Sep 2016, 15:29 PM
#57
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1



the m1919 originally had suppression fire as an ability.


Back when it had Defensive Stance you could still equip two, for more surpression, but it was buggy at it was why it was removed.
Unless buffed, no one will pick a single two slot 1919 vs 2 BARs, while more expensive they will be always a better choice.
7 Sep 2016, 16:22 PM
#58
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2



Back when it had Defensive Stance you could still equip two, for more surpression, but it was buggy at it was why it was removed.
Unless buffed, no one will pick a single two slot 1919 vs 2 BARs, while more expensive they will be always a better choice.


More than bugs, it was OP. It wasn't a "defensive" stance, it was an "A move offensive stance".

1-You can block the access to a 2nd 1919 but leave the option for a Bar/Zook pick up from rack. Requires tech and adjusting the BAR to be more of an AR wouldn't be OP (no one picks atm bars if they have 1919 and the combo wouldn't be strong).

2-If no other weapon from rack can be picked, then you can increase the performance to be a bit higher than now and lower to LMG34.

3-Leave performance as is, limit to 1 (with either option 1 or 2) and give defensive stance a return WITHOUT SUPPRESSION. Long cooldown, non toggleable during combat, which grants def/off buff.
7 Sep 2016, 16:28 PM
#59
avatar of ABlockOfSalt

Posts: 70

The idea between picking a bar or a 1919 should be "how do I want to engage" not "what is the most dakka I can fit on a squad"

A 1919 is going to have less damage but allow you to engage from green cover and long range. They will do less damage over all but be doing it from a favorable range that they would normally lack.

Double bar should be a choice you make when you decide you want your squad to be more mobile and close/mid oriented. To that effect I think they should suffer quite a bit at range but I don't have the stats handy to suggest by how much.

As it feels right now double 1919 is a no brainer because its alot of dakka, it's at max range and it turns the riflemen into a unit that is good at all ranges and generally unapproachable when in the ball of doom.
7 Sep 2016, 16:29 PM
#60
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1



More than bugs, it was OP. It wasn't a "defensive" stance, it was an "A move offensive stance".

1-You can block the access to a 2nd 1919 but leave the option for a Bar/Zook pick up from rack. Requires tech and adjusting the BAR to be more of an AR wouldn't be OP (no one picks atm bars if they have 1919 and the combo wouldn't be strong).

2-If no other weapon from rack can be picked, then you can increase the performance to be a bit higher than now and lower to LMG34.

3-Leave performance as is, limit to 1 (with either option 1 or 2) and give defensive stance a return WITHOUT SUPPRESSION. Long cooldown, non toggleable during combat, which grants def/off buff.


1- I'm sure some more casual or amateur players would love this to be allowed, many people do quip about a single bazooka on each squad makes the "rifle blob" anti-everything, I dig it.
I prefer BARs myself because I like to always be moving.

2- Compare the 1919 to the Grenadier LMG42 and see that the one from the racks actually costs more munitions, the issue only appears when you can double equip them, which means a bigger investment or a huge lead on munitions.

3- But without surpression, what's the trade-off from mobility? I know Rifles can't fire them on the move, but standing still is dangerous, with how many powerful one shot grenades the Nazis have.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 6
unknown 5
Germany 669

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

821 users are online: 821 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49110
Welcome our newest member, jhonnycena0400
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM