Re-distributing the power of USF

A single schreck is good enough vs tanks (that's the equivalent of 2 bazookas). Double schrecks on 4-men squads is an overkill; and that's for a purpose.

Forced double-schrecks on PGrens is actually a nerf that is necessary to keep their power in check. Their STGs are comparable to riflemen BARs (though, obviously, worse).

If you had blob made out of squads with 3 STGs and a schreck each, you would trivially a-move your way to victory, every single game.

I recently told you that your comparison of Schreck vs. Bazooka balance is way off (and I gave you the numbers as to why). Again, the comparison is 1,5 bazookas for every Panzerschreck.
You also forget to mention that PzGrens have a high entry and reinforcement cost, preventing a player from outright spamming them (more than three squads at any given time is impossible to uphold simply due to the cost and bleed they inflict on the player when used against infantry).

This of course doesn't mean that their StGs couldn't be adjusted, but regardless of that we won't see a new Volksgren situation with them simply due to their high manpower cost. If that weren't the case, we would see that happen with OKW and their Sturmgrenadiere, who are even more effective at working that way. That we don't see that happen should be proof enough.

P.S.: Orthography, Y U NO LIKE ME?

The first option doesn't have anything to do with the problem at hand (it would of course be still welcome, due to the higher vulnerability of smaller squads to explosives).

At least when I play this game as Ostheer my grenadiers get one hit squad wiped by grenades and mortar hits. That would be avoided by changing the squad formation, and then I would have some more grenadier squads with veterancy alive in the late game.

At least when I play this game as Ostheer my grenadiers get one hit squad wiped by grenades and mortar hits. That would be avoided by changing the squad formation, and then I would have some more grenadier squads with veterancy alive in the late game.

That doesn't change the fact that especially with veterancy, which is still harder to reach with Grens due to significantly higher requirements than on Riflemen, and even with adjustments to Rifleman veterancy (unless you want to completely nerf it into the ground, which I don't want), double upgrades allow Riflemen to overcome their defining weakness against especially Grens: Long range performance. The difference is there, don't get me wrong, but compared to how much damage double BAR Riflemen dish out at close range, the difference at long range is almost negligible when they have two BARs.

Meanwhile, their performance with only one BAR drops of properly at long range, and still massively outdamages most line infantry at close range. That means they would still be truly effective at close range, and enough so to neglect the penalties from firing on the move, while at long range they would more easily be sent running. Together with light adjustments to their veterancy, this would make them work like they were intended to be used.

I'm sorry if this sounds a little bit one-sided (as if I would be adamant on nerfing only Allied infantry), but this is one of most glaring issues that currently exist in the game, together with the mortar problem (both actually go hand in hand). We could of course also talk for hours about bullshit mechanics on Axis units (the sniper is still totally bonkers, for example), but these changes would in my opinion not have a similarly big impact on the overall balance of the game.

I recently told you that your comparison of Schreck vs. Bazooka balance is way off (and I gave you the numbers as to why). Again, the comparison is 1,5 bazookas for every Panzerschreck.
You also forget to mention that PzGrens have a high entry and reinforcement cost, preventing a player from outright spamming them (more than three squads at any given time is impossible to uphold simply due to the cost and bleed they inflict on the player when used against infantry).

This of course doesn't mean that their StGs couldn't be adjusted, but regardless of that we won't see a new Volksgren situation with them simply due to their high manpower cost. If that weren't the case, we would see that happen with OKW and their Sturmgrenadiere, who are even more effective at working that way. That we don't see that happen should be proof enough.

Against any decently-armoured target it's 2 zooks ~ 1 schreck. With each double zook volley causing about 5-10% more damage per average (nobody will stick around for that many volleys, where the reload frequency would make a difference).

However, this comparison doesn't even take account for the number of slot items double zooks use, or the number of entities that need to carry them.

It's the carrier that causes the issues, not the zook vs schreck discrepancy.

For what its worth, here is my suggestion to the light vehicle part:

The problem I see is that the Stuart is too much of a generalist right now. It's great against infantry, and with his abilities, the captain's zook and the AT gun, can at least annoy the hell out of mediums. On the other hand a few patches ago nobody would even consider building a Stuart. Anyways:

• Make the Stuart damage one model max with each shot of its main cannon.
  
• Crit Repair should be more expensive and take a tiny bit longer.
  
• Make the armor skirts for the M20 more expensive (not dramatically, maybe 100 MU?), currently those seem to be a no-brainer.
  
• Switch the AT gun with the AA-HT (which then in turn can be 5 FU cheaper).
  

The reasons for the last point in particular are:

• The Stuart now lacks support from an ATG when mediums start to show up.
  
• Teching Lt. => Major is more viable.
  
• Both Lt. and Cpt. now have suppression as well as some means to scare off medium armor. The options in the Lt. tier are more static, but less expensive in terms of fuel.
  
• If you want to rush for the AA-HT, yeah, it's 5 FU more expensive this way, but with the Cpt.'s "supervise" you probably can get it at least as early on the field as you do now.
  
• This is also makes Airborne a little more attractive, as the call-in ATG and 50.cal is now in the same tier which thus can be skipped more easily.
  

I am fine with allied infantry being better than axis infantry, its part of the 'balance of power' in this game. Provided I can reasonably beat or push back their Inf with some other mechanic. Normally that would be the axis MG42 dealing suppression and knocking part of the enemy force out of the fight, allowing your weaker grens to fend off the remaining force. The counter play here is that if you fuck up with your HMG they can win that fight.

The problem is currently that Light tanks and the mortar remove the ability for Ost to properly use this mechanic. Thus if we fix the mortar and light tank play (which would also require fixing the rest of the call in meta to keep things balanced) we can again properly use this mg cat and mouse system to beat riflemen.

Now i agree that the double lmg rifles are too strong but with a small situational nerf like slowing them down you force the USF player to use them with more care and be smarter about where they place them. A slow blob means the opponent can take the rest of the map. It would also give more time for the mg to move and to suppress and make them highly flankable.

Given that rifles are pretty much the only inf unit USF has (non-doc) and other units tend to be very expensive and not too viable and axis having non-doc elite infantry on hand (obers and pgrens), having them limited to one bar or one lmg would, i think force USF into a do or die attack for an early game win because they would have no ability to win a late game infantry fight. Nor do USF have much ability to win a late game tank fight.

The main source of imbalance comes from light tanks and the mortar, double lmg rifles should be toned down but not crippled.

Also RE's shouldn't be able to equip any weapons apart from maybe a zook.

I am fine with allied infantry being better than axis infantry, its part of the 'balance of power' in this game. Provided I can reasonably beat or push back their Inf with some other mechanic. Normally that would be the axis MG42 dealing suppression and knocking part of the enemy force out of the fight, allowing your weaker grens to fend off the remaining force. The counter play here is that if you fuck up with your HMG they can win that fight.

The problem is currently that Light tanks and the mortar remove the ability for Ost to properly use this mechanic. Thus if we fix the mortar and light tank play (which would also require fixing the rest of the call in meta to keep things balanced) we can again properly use this mg cat and mouse system to beat riflemen.

Now i agree that the double lmg rifles are too strong but with a small situational nerf like slowing them down you force the USF player to use them with more care and be smarter about where they place them. A slow blob means the opponent can take the rest of the map. It would also give more time for the mg to move and to suppress and make them highly flankable.

Given that rifles are pretty much the only inf unit USF has (non-doc) and other units tend to be very expensive and not too viable and axis having non-doc elite infantry on hand (obers and pgrens), having them limited to one bar or one lmg would, i think force USF into a do or die attack for an early game win because they would have no ability to win a late game infantry fight. Nor do USF have much ability to win a late game tank fight.

The main source of imbalance comes from light tanks and the mortar, double lmg rifles should be toned down but not crippled.

Also RE's shouldn't be able to equip any weapons apart from maybe a zook.

That completely ignores the fact that (if we have it your way) Riflemen still hold all the answers US needs in a single unit, while any other faction has to diversify their army and thus limiting their field presence. This goes especially of Axis HMGs, as they are significantly less mobile than their Allied counterparts, except for the Vickers.
Light vehicle play actually isn't a big problem here (aside from perhaps the double 222 issue and the T-70, both of which could easily be fixed with cost adjustments), because it arises from the USF mortar, which allows for a way too early Stuart. Adjust the mortar, and the Stuart will come out at a proper time, allowing opponents to properly prepare.

The LMG issue on the other hand exists not only for a certain part of the game, it basically pops up as soon as USF gains access to LMGs. A single BAR already performs well enough to let Riflemen do their job, while a second one is simply overkill. If you were to adjust that "slightly", the change wouldn't be strong enough, while a large nerf would make many USF players (rightfully) wonder why they would have to pay for twice for effective equipment.

P.S.: I also fail to see why Rear Echelons shouldn't equip anything but a single Bazooka. If we follow that thought process, we should simply remove weapon racks and implement Bazookas as a RE only upgrade and BARs as a Rifleman upgrade, but then Relic could just generally stop doing asymmetric balance...

USF now looks like a starcraft 2 units, soo op spams...

4 squads bazookas rip all tanks, tanks = paper armor, infantry = god mod.

Every high level player i know of thinks the stuart and T-70 massively over preform. Same with the US Mortar. And the Stuart came out very early before the mortar was introduced. The biggest problem with the Mortar is that is wipes, without warning.

I don't think a single Bar is good enough. When you have to be so aggressive with USF (even now with USF late game is hard if your opponent gains an equal footing) you need a squad with A LOT of punch, against axis mgs sometimes you will only get one or two squads though. Those squads you do get though need to be able to carry on doing damage. If you make it one bar you are likely to simply not do enough damage. Mix in Obers and pgrens and the rifles cant win.

One of the biggest problems with facing USF is that they can be balls out aggressive and flank your mg/mg's which makes OST main way of defeating opposition infantry null. With a slower unit thats only effective at long range you allow for OST to react with their mg. Tone down the effectiveness of the lmg and reduce the price a little then make them slow. Could even take smoke away with one lmg and AT nade away with the other.

Instead of reducing the effectiveness of rifles across the board, make them highly effective in one or two ways. Make it a strategic decision, not just less of a no-brainer.

unfortunately USF don't have many infantry options, if their one inf squad cant do everything (non-doc) they will simply be left without those options.

Well if you have ever seen Capt. S. Price play USF you will understand why RE's that can equip anything are a problem.

The mortar needs to be like what Mirage is doing in his mod. So big ups to Mirage for that one.

My way to fix the stuart is to buff its MGs. In real life that little tank could have like 5 or something MGs firing at once. Nerf the main gun to AEC levels and replace stun shot with a smoke canister like the shermans. This would give it some utility that requires micro to either attack or escape.

Rifles ain't as op as you make them out to be, sure they be good, but not gamebreaking unless they have double m1919, which is an atrocity. Double bars are okay. The problem lies more in the 4 man squads and their bunching. I made a post a while back where I suggested to have a sergeant upgrade with an MP40. This 5th man would be attainable through individual squad upgrades for a munition cost after BPH 2. He would not offer much in terms of medium and long range firepower, but would help survivability and short range capabilities. Of course this would warrent something for conscripts as well, but if you buff vanilla inf to be more on par with western front armies, then the whole balancing proces will be easier.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/51459/are-grenadiers-worth-their-30-mp-reinforce-cost/page/4#post_id517066



The .50cal needs to be a 5 man squad, it dies way faster due to more precise axis infantry, a flanked .50cal is a dead one, where a MG42/34 actually have a better chances of surviving. Anyhow that''s my oppinion on the .50cal.

Now things that really needs to be fixed in IMO are: forward retreat points, ambient building spawn, Mortar pits(needs to be replaced by a mobile mortar squad) and all the god damn call in meta XD but that's their own topic entirely!

I'd reduce LT tier 20 fuel and increase Captain tier by 20 fuel.

Then I'd put the mortar in LT.

Additionally I'd replace AT nades as riflemen vet 1 bonus with smoke grenades, or just spread their vet bonuses across three levels instead of the final two.

Then I'd add a 15-25 fuel upgrade to unlock AT nades for riflemen and the Weapons Rack unlocks along with the LT tier, or the upgrade for would be available in LT tier.
OR
Increase grenade package 10-20 fuel and include AT nades.

Stuart is slowed down by 20 fuel. Stronger incentives for LT tier and a teching upgrade for AT nades also contribute.

where can you find the vet requirements for units?

Not like you could make out any sense out of it but unless you want to mess up with game files:

GOTO any unit profile:
http://stat.coh2.hu/squad.php?filename=assault_pioneer_squad_mp
Then click on the X
http://stat.coh2.hu/vetraw.php?filename=assault_pioneer_squad_mp
Look for experience value:
experience_value = 640
experience_value = 1280
experience_value = 2560

The site doesn't list vet 4/5 for OKW. Reminder that xp gaining exponentially increases when the game goes into late stages as there are vehicles + higher vet units (which increases unit value by 1.2 per level of vet).

Not like you could make out any sense out of it but unless you want to mess up with game files:

GOTO any unit profile:
http://stat.coh2.hu/squad.php?filename=assault_pioneer_squad_mp
Then click on the X
http://stat.coh2.hu/vetraw.php?filename=assault_pioneer_squad_mp
Look for experience value:
experience_value = 640
experience_value = 1280
experience_value = 2560

The site doesn't list vet 4/5 for OKW. Reminder that xp gaining exponentially increases when the game goes into late stages as there are vehicles + higher vet units (which increases unit value by 1.2 per level of vet).

Oddly enough, the site messes up the veterancy requirements for Riflemen. It doesn't list a vet 1 value and insists that the vet 2 and vet 3 requirements are 560 and 1120 respectively.

Here are the Riflemen veterancy requirements from the tools:

vet 1 = 560
vet 2 = 1120
vet 3 = 2576

Grenadiers for comparison:

vet 1 = 480
vet 2 = 960
vet 3 = 1920

Oddly enough, the site messes up the veterancy requirements for Riflemen. It doesn't list a vet 1 value and insists that the vet 2 and vet 3 requirements are 560 and 1120 respectively.

Here are the Riflemen veterancy requirements from the tools:

vet 1 = 560
vet 2 = 1120
vet 3 = 2576

Grenadiers for comparison:

vet 1 = 480
vet 2 = 960
vet 3 = 1920

Allied unit tend to vet faster cause of the high cost and reinforce cost of axis unit so they get more vet as they do damage