Allies weapon racks upgrade and USF smoke

So this is from one of my posts in another thread somewhere, i think weapon racks are really bad in form of balance. Since you can upgrade any kind of infantry with weapons from the weapon racks. Making all ukf/usf infantry regardless of what unit, usefull in fights. Would it be At or AI.
Like say you save the crew as usf on one of your vehicles and put double bazookas on them or bars / m1919's. But now having very good AT or good dps, witch otherwise would be useless in fights, now able to withstand even Axis mainline infantry or tanks/light vehicles.

I'd suggest removing weapon racks and make it an upgrade for some units. Like the riflemen having the ability to upgrade with 2xbars or 1xm1919 (two are just ridicules),and echelons with two bazookas. Same for brits, rifles 1 or 2x brens and 2xpiats on engineers. Something around that i think would be better then what we have now.

The outline of what factions cant upgrade in terms of weapons are:

including commander passives/abilities, main inf on these factions can have:
okw = 2x stgs (no lmgs but still) only volks
ukf = 2x brens/vickers/piats can be upgraded on any other infantry unit
usf = 2x m1919/Bars/bazookas can be upgraded on any other infantry unit
Soviets= 3x ppsh/ 2x ptrs only cons
ostheer= 1x mg42/2x g43 only grens

also, why should usf now have smoke on with the grande upgrade.. the reason as to why they got smoke grenades, was because they didn't have much to counter early hmgs like a morter to lay down cover... now they have. So why should they still get to keep smoke on them. It's kinda crazy how much smoke USF gets on their units without any doc lock-in

Not counting in other smoke abilities in the commanders.

Riflemen: smoke grenades (and you will ofc have multiple rifles squads. Having the ability to smoke down a whole area)
m20: smoke cover
scott: smoke cover
Sherman smoke cover
morter smoke barrage
pack how smoke barrage


but the other factions gets smoke on(not counting commanders):

ostheer: on the morter

okw: gets it on the halftrack(vet 1) ,puma and blencover

brits: has it on the comet, AEC, churchill and cromwell and morterpit

soviets: on the morter

Riflemen: smoke grenades
m20: smoke cover
scott: smoke cover
Sherman smoke cover
morter smoke barrage
pack how smoke barrage

Pack Howie doesn't have a smoke barrage. It has the phosphorous smoke but only after unlocking it at vet 1.

The scott also doesn't come with smoke, it unlocks it at vet 1, it does also have a smoke barrage however.

The riflemen smoke is a pay on use ability and is therefore okay in my book since it will then deny other ammo investments for example in weapons.

Double equipping has already been hotly debated and most agree that 1919s should not be able to be double equipped on any regular infantry. Bars are debatable.

Personally, I would like bars to be a global upgrade again like in coh1. However, certain units would severely suffer, like pathfinders, if they cannot be upgraded as they are quite overpriced in regard to their cost and reinforce cost without the upgrade.

With regards to zooks/piats I don't see them as problematic.

I don't see the problem in the racks it's more the overperforming usf mortar, ukf sim cities and double equipable 1919s and to a lesser degree bars/brens.

Riflemen M1919 is overperforming and needs a DPS nerf but dual wield capability is fine, the factions are designed around it so you cant just remove it.(Lack of a good US MG team, lack of nondoc elites for UKF/USF, other stuff i cant think of right now.)

Rifle smoke is less for countering MGs and more for harassment and blocking los of AT guns and stuff imo.

As I see it, because of weapon racks, all US and Brit infantry outclasses all axis infantry except Obers and Panzerfusiliers. Jaegers match up when vetted only.

Guards are on the same level as US and UKF infantry and come in docs with powerful tanks and mark target.

Ost grens are pathetic. Volks will hold until mid game and then the Bars and Brens own them.

Tears, salt and tears >:'/

Idk but it seems like way to much script work.

It easier and faster to adjust stats, like keep double 1919 but make their DPS similar to DP28.

Idk but it seems like way to much script work.

It easier and faster to adjust stats, like keep double 1919 but make their DPS similar to DP28.

All LMGs need cost nerfs imo. Look at the G43 upgrade for Grens, the upgrade itself is fine but there is no reason for it when 15 munis more gets you the LMG42. Same principle with the BAR vs the LMG42.

I'm fine with Obers LMG staying cheap because the unit itself is MP intensive however.

All LMGs need cost nerfs imo. Look at the G43 upgrade for Grens, the upgrade itself is fine but there is no reason for it when 15 munis more gets you the LMG42. Same principle with the BAR vs the LMG42.

I'm fine with Obers LMG staying cheap because the unit itself is MP intensive however.

There is one reason.
With G43 Grens can become mobile without losing much DPS

There is one reason.
With G43 Grens can become mobile without losing much DPS

DPS>mobility in almost all cases, unless a weapon does full DPS while on the move because then you open up potential for kiting and flanking. When was the last time a USF player said "I would rather have BARs than M1919s because they can fire on the move?" Practically never.

DPS>mobility in almost all cases, unless a weapon does full DPS while on the move because then you open up potential for kiting and flanking. When was the last time a USF player said "I would rather have BARs than M1919s because they can fire on the move?" Practically never.

Not when you are playing agasint USF mortar.


When was a last time? Practically always. 1919 are not better than BARs. They are different.
It all depends on which map do you play, how your opponent plays.

Would you pick 1919 over BARs on La Glieze? I don't think so. On the other hand you have Mink Pocket, perfect map for 1919.
Or think about old Stalingrad. Would you buy BARs or LMGs? Would you upgrade Paras with Thompsons or 1919?

Like I said, DPS is just part on a weapon but higher DPS doesn't mean that the weapon is superior right away.

Not when you are playing agasint USF mortar.


When was a last time? Practically always. 1919 are not better than BARs. They are different.
It all depends on which map do you play, how your opponent plays.

Would you pick 1919 over BARs on La Glieze? I don't think so. On the other hand you have Mink Pocket, perfect map for 1919.
Or think about old Stalingrad. Would you buy BARs or LMGs? Would you upgrade Paras with Thompsons or 1919?

Like I said, DPS is just part on a weapon but higher DPS doesn't mean that the weapon is superior right away.

it has to do more with the dps curve as well, favoring positive MP engagements.

DPS>mobility in almost all cases, unless a weapon does full DPS while on the move because then you open up potential for kiting and flanking. When was the last time a USF player said "I would rather have BARs than M1919s because they can fire on the move?" Practically never.

That is the exact reason why I chose BARS over M1919s.

Many USF players do say that lol. Rifles need to be mobile and charging LMGs and getting close. Use smoke for cover

DPS>mobility in almost all cases, unless a weapon does full DPS while on the move because then you open up potential for kiting and flanking. When was the last time a USF player said "I would rather have BARs than M1919s because they can fire on the move?" Practically never.

I like BARs more than M1919s, I feel they are more effective but LMGs require almost no input, so I can focus on keeping my paper tanks alive.

rifles need the bar to get up close, and rifles get up close because they use the bar. it seems like circular logic tbh, if m1919 was nondoc i guarantee that the BAR would see almost no use, except for possibly giving a squad 1 bar and 1 m1919 to get a little bit of both worlds.

Like the riflemen having the ability to upgrade with 2xbars or 1xm1919 (two are just ridicules),

And you don't think two BARs are ridiculous? Let's just take a closer look at that. Keep in mind that the numbers here are maximums, and that Rifleman numbers are calculated with double-BAR upgrades (3x Garand, 2x BAR per squad). The numbers are taken from stat.coh2.hu:

DPS (vet 0, raw damage w/o rec. accuracy factors)	Rifleman Squad	Grenadier Squad
close range	38.30	24.88
close range w/ LMG	52.38	26.32
long range	9.20	9.64
long range w/ LMG	15.52	14.42

So two BARs take away any advantage that the LMG 42 gave Grens on Riflemen. Okay, but what about actual numbers, that matter in the game (i.e. numbers with received accuracy factors)?

DPS (vet 0, raw damage w/ rec. accuracy factors)	Rifleman Squad	Grenadier Squad
close range	34.85	24.13
close range w/LMG	47.67	25.53
long range	8.37	9.35
long range w/LMG	14.12	13.99

Hey, there's a difference. Does it change the story? Doesn't look like it. And that difference only grows bigger as the game goes on, because Riflemen suddenly get massive received accuracy bonuses and some weapon bonuses. That is not just "different roles, just L2P and move your Grens correctly!", that looks like massive overperformance.

So what some people in this thread said about the BAR simply isn't true: Riflemen with double BARs don't need to get close. They sure as hell should, but doing so just became a nice,. big, red cherry on top of the cake, because they already outdamage any other infantry squad at long range, except Obersoldaten and Riflemen with at least one M1919. Not to mention that the BAR behaves like an SMG ingame (all LMGs that can be fired on the move do, as do all assault rifles, there is basically no difference), so you don't really lose that much when using it like one compared to non-mobile LMGs.

Double weapon upgrades as a whole are entirely fucked up. Be it PzGren's double Panzerschreck, double BAR and M1919s, or anything else that can be slapped on infantry in pairs. They all need to go, and they all need to go now rather than later. And if you don't believe me, just take a look at the numbers above again, and do the math for vet3...



P.S.: While we're at it: Some people would now go on and say that the BAR costs the same as an LMG 42, and thus two of them should outperform it. Sure, but that is neither part of the problem (if you can pick up a second BAR that was dropped, nobody will complain), because I'm not calling for a nerf of the BAR. I should simply be made impossible to pick up a second one on an already upgraded squad, is all.
On top of that comes of course the American mortar. Why would you go for grenades and invest micro and ammo to use them, when you can simply outsource that job to a manpower investment?

What this actually means is, that USF now needs to spend less ammo on extras, and can go straight for the BAR-craze. Grenades are handled by the mortar which, while being less effective at wiping a careless enemy, means you're floating ammo like a Soviet without PPSH-upgrades.

And you don't think two BARs are ridiculous? Let's just take a closer look at that. Keep in mind that the numbers here are maximums, and that Rifleman numbers are calculated with double-BAR upgrades (3x Garand, 2x BAR per squad). The numbers are taken from stat.coh2.hu:

DPS (vet 0, raw damage w/o rec. accuracy factors)	Rifleman Squad	Grenadier Squad
close range	38.30	24.88
close range w/ LMG	52.38	26.32
long range	9.20	9.64
long range w/ LMG	15.52	14.42

So two BARs take away any advantage that the LMG 42 gave Grens on Riflemen. Okay, but what about actual numbers, that matter in the game (i.e. numbers with received accuracy factors)?

DPS (vet 0, raw damage w/ rec. accuracy factors)	Rifleman Squad	Grenadier Squad
close range	34.85	24.13
close range w/LMG	47.67	25.53
long range	8.37	9.35
long range w/LMG	14.12	13.99

This. Ost Grens are getting D*cked by riflemen, from early game to late game. That's even without the mortar that forces Grens to move around, thus not using their LMG, while the roflmen melt them away, while walking around. The 5th man makes them less wipeable and the +10% vet bulletin gets them vetted up quicker than grens.

Add to this the free infantry squads the USF gets with tech, RE with double BARs and Ost's lack of a light tank and you get some nasty disbalance.

snip

Not sure if coh2.hu is perfect for talking about DPS on small arm fire for infantry when it just talks about averages with just "near and far" as options (which probably is just an average or taking a specific range as value). If this has been done correctly and is up to date, then it's way better.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LOYMDi_XR7rILsk6HbAZqGihsk22t-45C_6NbQEP-m0/edit#gid=0

Edit: problems with stats.coh2.hu

- HU only shows DPS at longest/closest range. CRUZZ shows the entire DPS graph for all ranges
- (even for the ranges displayed), the HU website uses an incorrect formula to derive the DPS values
- (even when the correct formula is correct), HU sometimes altogether displays incorrect weapons for several squads
- We have no way to contact the admins of the HU website to rectify those errors (whereas, Cruzz is a prominent patron of this website, and is always open to suggestions).

PD: rip Cruzz dps website

You could put more emphasis on reducing the long range DPS on some of the AR to differentiate them from LMGs. At first this should apply to BAR. Once some QoL changes are done to OKW, squad formation and unit call in, i could see the same treatment apply to IR STG and maybe FG42.

Reduce DPS from range 25-35 from (6.03/5.17/4.37) to something around (5/4/3)

Gren + LMG42 at (25-35): 17.99/17.03/15.98
Rifle + 2xBar at (25-35): 19.08/16.25/13.75
New Rifle 2xBar at (25-35): 17.02/13.91/11.01

If LMGs are limited to 1 from rack pick, i wouldn't mind BAR + 1919 as this requires teching and shouldn't be as effective with the new weapon profile (you are mixing a weapon which is better at close range and on the move vs something which needs to be static and at range).

Rifle + 1x1919: 18.04/16.89/15.84
Rifle + duo weapon: 20.07/18.92/17.17

Bonus:
Show Spoiler

Should we also decrease RM price to 240mp and BAR price to 30mo so 2xBAR= 1xLMG?

Not sure if coh2.hu is perfect for talking about DPS on small arm fire for infantry when it just talks about averages with just "near and far" as options (which probably is just an average or taking a specific range as value). If this has been done correctly and is up to date, then it's way better.

Well, what exactly is the correct formula? And sure, more distance numbers would be nice, but for an essential overview close and long range is enough.

Should we also decrease RM price to 240mp and BAR price to 30mo so 2xBAR= 1xLMG?

Why? A single BAR at long range already is only insignificantly worse than an LMG 42 (ca. 5 DPS vs. 7 DPS respectively), while a single BAR deals more than twice the damage at close range, which is topped off by being able to fire on the move. Why should that be made even cheaper?

When I asked Miragefla for some advice for my mod, he made me realise that the XP-feeding values of certain low-member elite squads (4 or less people), e.g., Panzergrenaders are awarding XP which is way higher than their reinforcement cost.

1. One option is to tweak how much vet Riflemen feed.

Thus, I had a wild idea:
- What if we kept USF Rifleman veterancy bonuses as is, but instead spread them out to 5 veterancy levels (thus slowing down the process)
- In addition to this, we could make that the riflemen higher-vet-levels (vet4 and vet5) make them award way more XP than currently (sort of how much XP PGrens CURRENTLY award, and a bit more XP than Obers SHOULD award).
- (nerf USF mortar, obviously)

The idea is that Riflemen can retain their broken vet. At the same time, if the player misuses them, they can feed the entire enemy faction so much vet they can wipe USF off the map. This will act more like a balancing mechanism that will allow elite squads to buy into the game, when Rifles have already reached terminator-levels of vet.

inb4 "OMG non-OKW gets 5-levels of vet". Well; Riflemen 3-vet bonuses are already way better than several other squads' 5-vet bonuses. Why not make Riflemen earn that vet level instead?

2. Another option is to rework infantry abilities and ban certain abilities from use when the squad carries too many weapons.

E.g.,, carrying 2 LMGs should mean that the squad gets no access to side-utility (snares, smoke, sandbags, heals etc)

The problem with this approach is that I am too lazy to figure out how to equate BARs to LMGs (2 BARs = LMG, obviously. However, what about 1 BAR?). Also how many/which abilities become available if the squad carries only 1 LMG or only 1 BAR.

A subtler problem with this approach is that the current UI options only show one of the slot weapons that is equipped. This makes it difficult for the player to tell from the UI which squads are double-equiped (thus, e.g., lack snares), and which aren't.

Well, what exactly is the correct formula? And sure, more distance numbers would be nice, but for an essential overview close and long range is enough.



Why? A single BAR at long range already is only insignificantly worse than an LMG 42 (ca. 5 DPS vs. 7 DPS respectively), while a single BAR deals more than twice the damage at close range, which is topped off by being able to fire on the move. Why should that be made even cheaper?

Maybe because while being able to fire on the move, RM/1BAR lose vs Gren/LMG at max distance and trying to close the gap.