Received Accuracy bonus

I think Relic should fix this veterancy bonus. The problem is, this bonus works as a cover, allowing your infantry to run freely out in the open. Usually allied infantry reach it on vet2, and they reach vet2 pretty fast.

The worse of all is riflemen. Average allied infantry get ~20% rec.acc.bonus at vet2. Riflemen receive 23% and an additional 20% on ve3. 43% decreased received accuracy is HUGE. Basically vet3 rifles are running out of cover like they would be in cover constantly.

This has been fixed for Volks because Volks ware like public enemies until the latest patch. How come other factions can walk away with it?!

Personally i would move these bonuses to vet3, because vet2 can be reached too fast. Also ofcourse this bonus shouldnt be more than 20% for any faction. What you think?

Yeah the riflemen RA veterancy is a bit much, they sorta went overboard when they buffed it. I wouldn't reduce it by much though (maybe 5-10%) since usf relies so much on riflemen and usf manpower bleed will become a thing again.

Recevied ccuracy bonus should be taken away IMO.

It's like matrix ability when infantry running in open field can dodge bullets lel.

I can understand that infantry with experience can shoot more accurately, reload faster, use cover better, throw nade further etc but received accuracy is pudding.

Removinf rec.acc. and in exchange giving bonus to cover would make game better - no more unlimited blobs running in open field but searching for cover - that's how it should be.

Recevied ccuracy bonus should be taken away IMO.

It's like matrix ability when infantry running in open field can dodge bullets lel.

I can understand that infantry with experience can shoot more accurately, reload faster, use cover better, throw nade further etc but received accuracy is pudding.

Removinf rec.acc. and in exchange giving bonus to cover would make game better - no more unlimited blobs running in open field but searching for cover - that's how it should be.

You need to run out of cover when you make flanking assaults though, you can't sit and hump cover all the time, not to mention once the battlefield turns into the Moon surface, a.k.a. full of craters, there is yellow cover everywhere and it would be pretty much the same thing only buffing Rocket Artillery like the Calliope to create more craters.

You need to run out of cover when you make flanking assaults though, you can't sit and hump cover all the time, not to mention once the battlefield turns into the Moon surface, a.k.a. full of craters, there is yellow cover everywhere and it would be pretty much the same thing only buffing Rocket Artillery like the Calliope to create more craters.

Use smoke, true vision, bait for flanks.

I don't see how late game yellow cover is problem if everyone has access to it.

Same way I could say that now late game is full of high rec. acc. bonus units.

Miragefla's already reduced it Relic, now it's your turn.

You need to run out of cover when you make flanking assaults though, you can't sit and hump cover all the time, not to mention once the battlefield turns into the Moon surface, a.k.a. full of craters, there is yellow cover everywhere and it would be pretty much the same thing only buffing Rocket Artillery like the Calliope to create more craters.

Late-game craters are more advantageous to assaulting units actually, it lets them move into ranged enemies while being protected and then both sides ignore it while the assaulter is in close-range and (of course that's why you're assaulting with them) greatly outstrips the defender's DPS...but that's all I'm going say, I can't theorycraft any harder than that.

Use smoke, true vision, bait for flanks.

I don't see how late game yellow cover is problem if everyone has access to it.

Same way I could say that now late game is full of high rec. acc. bonus units.

This wouldn't be a very good approach since the flanking player is already doing more in terms of micro than the player getting flanked, further taxing flanking by adding even more micro requirements to make it successful only further encourages stationary, reactionary and ultimately stale play styles.

Units made for flanking therefore require a certain amount of received accuracy. Personally, I don't think that the rifle received accuracy is too high (maybe slightly 2-5%). The problem is that they can pick up 1919s which is not a weapon a unit intended for flanking should have since it does max damage at max distance and therefore eliminates the need to close in to do damage. If rifles only had bars, they would have to close in. Bars unlike lmgs do drop off in damage with distance significantly, thereby making it necessary to flank and close in.

Recevied ccuracy bonus should be taken away IMO.

It's like matrix ability when infantry running in open field can dodge bullets lel.

I can understand that infantry with experience can shoot more accurately, reload faster, use cover better, throw nade further etc but received accuracy is pudding.

this. it's been discussed before, but i think RA bonus should only apply in cover. tons of combat experience doesn't help you when you're crossing a road under MG fire. it DOES teach you to use cover more effectively.

one of the modders (perhaps mirage, though i don't remember for certain) broke down the vet bonuses a little more evenly over all three ranks. right now vet 1 pretty much only unlocks abilities, but if instead of a massive RA bonus for rifles (for example) you got smaller ones at each vet it would make more sense.

RA bonuses with vet are necessary because the increased lethality of high-vet infantry (combined with weapon upgrades) would otherwise make late-game infantry engagements insanely fast and frustrating.

If rifles only had bars, they would have to close in. Bars unlike lmgs do drop off in damage with distance significantly, thereby making it necessary to flank and close in.

That's based on the assumption that the double-BAR upgrade doesn't turn Riflemen into excellent any-range units. Hint: That assumption is wrong. Riflemen with 2 BARs even at vet0 are accurate enough, to fight anything from any range without lagging behind enough for their "squad-size to DPS"-ratio to become hampered enough to not be competitive with long range units.

And here we come to the problem, that the game heavily favours short range units, assuming they can close in unharmed enough (which Riflemen can at vet3, thanks to their received accuracy). At long ranges, damage drops off for ALL handheld weaponry. It drops off more on some weapons than on others, but in general, long range engagements go on longer and give both opponents less chances of actually wiping the enemy's units (unless the enemy is braindead, that is). On top of that, DPS differences at long ranges don't differ as strongly as they do at short ranges - in other words, a short range weapon is usually massively superior to a close range one (compare BARs to lMG 42s) at close range, while the long range weapon only makes a relatively small difference at long range (again, compare BARs to lMG 42s).
This is of course not exclusive to Riflemen, considering the general problems of focus on long range vs. short range units.

Now, nobody wants to make short range units completely useless by having them die while approaching the enemy, but as it stands the game doesn't properly emulate the lethality of long range weaponry at long ranges, while it does show the lethality of close range weaponry at close ranges. So instead of simply buffing long range performance of long range weapons, a nerf to the long range performance of close range weaponry would be in order - and here we could also finally implement the difference between assault rifles and SMGs, by differing their damage profiles.

i personally put my vote on removal (or at least MASSIVE reduction) and apply in as a cover bonus as previously said, this makes a more dynamic game:

the defender has an advantage, but it can be reduced by a properly composed army- a mortar can try and dislodge an enemy and smoke will be more than just an anti suppression measure- it would be a necessity! (okw will need access to smoke obviously)
support vehicles like halftracks suddenly find themselves a role outside soft retreat point

blobs will be properly punished (omg charging head on into that mg backed by a squad of grens so i can toss a grenade killed more than 1 model!!!!)

...And here we come to the problem, that the game heavily favours short range units, assuming they can close in unharmed enough (which Riflemen can at vet3, thanks to their received accuracy)...On top of that, DPS differences at long ranges don't differ as strongly as they do at short ranges - in other words, a short range weapon is usually massively superior to a close range one (compare BARs to lMG 42s) at close range, while the long range weapon only makes a relatively small difference at long range (again, compare BARs to lMG 42s).

This is of course not exclusive to Riflemen, considering the general problems of focus on long range vs. short range units

...a nerf to the long range performance of close range weaponry would be in order - and here we could also finally implement the difference between assault rifles and SMGs, by differing their damage profiles.

I cannot see by this view point at all - PPShes, Grease Guns, Stens and MP40s (no matter who holds them) do less DPS than Conscripts' infamously low-DPS Mosins at long range and Para Thompsons are basically the exception with more or less the same DPS as the aforementioned Mosins at the cost of basically being the most expensive SMG squad in the game. I would thus conclude there is definitely not such an issue with close-range weapons across the board.

I also find assault rifles to be sufficiently different from SMGs - they will tend to win a fight that starts at max range against SMGs, are less advantaged the closer the fight starts, and the mid-range DPS is noticeable (aside from Sturmpioneers where I regard that as an issue needing fixing).

I really feel like what you're saying applies to only BARs.

I don't think the vet3 RA bonus is unbelievable. Experience does help avoid fire. You can easily see this with any fps game out there. Noobs are poor at dodging fire, experienced players are more difficult to hit. Considering the massive accuracy bonuses axis troops get with their veterency, it should more or less cancel out. I'm not advocating sloppy late game play, but I also don't want to see riflemen get outclassed in late game vet where they can't contest valuable land, It's the only reasonable fighter USF has that is non-doctrinal. Both axis have 2 choices.

I don't think the vet3 RA bonus is unbelievable. Experience does help avoid fire. You can easily see this with any fps game out there. Noobs are poor at dodging fire, experienced players are more difficult to hit. Considering the massive accuracy bonuses axis troops get with their veterency, it should more or less cancel out. I'm not advocating sloppy late game play, but I also don't want to see riflemen get outclassed in late game vet where they can't contest valuable land, It's the only reasonable fighter USF has that is non-doctrinal. Both axis have 2 choices.

I love FPS games and can't agree.

When standing/running on/through the open field it's easy to hit noob just as easy is hitting experienced player.

It changes when player use cover - it's easuer to hit noob behind cover than expierienced one.

Plus I would say different - experience doesn't help you avoid bullets (unless using cover) but it helps you with you accuracy.

Expericned player needs 3 bullets to kill you / Noob player needs whole magazine.

On the other hand, when running through heavy fire, bot will die as easily.

People aren't mentioning the huge implications that reductions or removals of received accuracy would have on the game.

Firstly Weapon upgrades would become even more stronger than they currently are, and gaining access to them would provide a huge power spike. In other words anything carrying an lmg will shred even more than they currently do as close ranged infantry will take too much damage before they are able to close in.

Support weapons will be indirectly buffed since these units will do more damage to infantry and reductions in RA won't matter for their squad since they usually don't have them in their veterancy anyway. You wanna see maxim spam become a problem again?

Close/mid ranged units like ppsh cons, rangers, ass grens, sturms, bar rifles etc will be hurt badly by a received accuracy nerf. These units need to close the distance to be able to deal significant damage but if you lose half of your squad members before you can get into range then whats the point? Received accuracy bonuses are what allows these units to cross ground under fire and still remain relatively useful in the late game where lmgs dominate.

You can't make it a cover bonus unless you reworked all the weapon accuracy since most units get 30-40% more accuracy and will be shooting faster at higher levels. It means you can't really assault or maneuver unless you got things like smoke, etc, but that takes time to drop.

It'd just be far to lethal to leave cover.

The better solution would be to change the high RA modifiers some units get.

You can't make it a cover bonus unless you reworked all the weapon accuracy since most units get 30-40% more accuracy and will be shooting faster at higher levels. It means you can't really assault or maneuver unless you got things like smoke, etc, but that takes time to drop.

It'd just be far to lethal to leave cover.

The better solution would be to change the high RA modifiers some units get.

You basically just copied what I said

Recevied ccuracy bonus should be taken away IMO.

It's like matrix ability when infantry running in open field can dodge bullets lel.

I can understand that infantry with experience can shoot more accurately, reload faster, use cover better, throw nade further etc but received accuracy is pudding.

Removinf rec.acc. and in exchange giving bonus to cover would make game better - no more unlimited blobs running in open field but searching for cover - that's how it should be.

this would automatically make the game way better imo. would kind of be a nerf to close ranged squads though.