Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.1 Update

To all whinny whiner who think greyhound is bad.

It is actually good right now because it got indirectly buffed by nerfing all ligh vehicles without nerfing greyhound itself.

So you have pre nerfed stuart for cost of 45 fuel with cool ability and lower survivability. I´m not even taking into account nerfs of 222. If you can fight it on your terms then you´re still wining because greyhound cost 45 fuel and 222 30 whitch is almost the same price.

Only thing that is problematic about greyhound is his doctrine (really shitty one but I think it can be usable to some extend) and timing. 3CP(or4 idk ) is too late becuase USF doesn´t get XP from building base but 2CP would be too low ...

"Puma (LIGHT VEHICLES)
Aimed shot was being used less for its utility and more for its guaranteed ability to wipe infantry on retreat. This gave the Puma too much anti infantry capability for something designed to be anti vehicle, thus, aimed shot can no longer target infantry."

Since aim shot has been nerfed considerably, I would suggest reduce or remove the time of aiming the shot.

In addition I would suggest using target tables to reduce the damage of Centaur vs Puma since Puma is almost useless against it although it should be a valid pray for it.

About the wasp I would recommend reducing the Aplha damage for more DOT damage, and use target table to reduce damage from 222 so it does not die to singe burst (one shoted). Same goes for AA emplacement vs all light vehicles/tanks

Kubelwagen veterancy is out of scope? Othervise it would be good if the acquirements got lowered a bit. Just to give okw some alternatives.

Mr Smith please consider, if conscripts get AT nade for free, and other weapons upgrade u give more options to soviet players and not only t1 + guards.

Sry for my english.

Yes they are stronger combo than penals right now but I think you´re missing the core thing. Why aren´t guard with PTRS and penals combo OP but penals with PTRS are ?
Guards come at 2CP when you already have infantry composition already done (at least in 1v1) so you will get mostly 1-2 guard to suplement your 4 squads if you want to tech afterwards for tanks. Otherwise you will bleed like pig.

Penals with PTRS are problem because penals can become core infantry while guards cannot. The same apply to other factions - volks with schrecks were OP, pgrens are not.

Also guards come at 2CP so enemy have chance to counter M3 with fast 222 even before enemy hits 2CP.

And one last thing. Because penals are core combat infantry, you will have PTRS everywhere and you will be albe to use any squad on field to jump into car and kill damaged 222 while with guards it a bit complicated becuase you have 1 max 2 guard squads at time when 222 come and M3 tend to extint. Hope you understand

For timing I guess you could tie the upgrade to soviet T3, which would give a rushed 222 a window of about 1 to 2 minutes. Also, you could fiddle around with the times the upgrade needs to complete. That said:

If I understand correctly, the Penal-PTRS damage against infantry will be nerfed, so there should be a real trade-off to the upgrade. Like, an upgraded penal squad should be significantly worse in the AI department than a non-upgraded. Simply upgrading all penals should leave you at a severe disadvantage in the AI department, latest when upgrade axis infantry appears, no?

For timing I guess you could tie the upgrade to soviet T3, which would give a rushed 222 a window of about 1 to 2 minutes. Also, you could fiddle around with the times the upgrade needs to complete. That said:

If I understand correctly, the Penal-PTRS damage against infantry will be nerfed, so there should be a real trade-off to the upgrade. Like, an upgraded penal squad should be significantly worse in the AI department than a non-upgraded. Simply upgrading all penals should leave you at a severe disadvantage in the AI department, latest when upgrade axis infantry appears, no?

Yep. Even if we apply an additional 50% damage nerf to PTRS vs infantry, 6-man upgraded penals will lose to 4-man unupgraded Grenadiers.

Thus, the meta-game of the enemy might become to force you to upgrade as many of your squads as possible, in order to sap your late-game potential.

Like, if the enemy can force 2 of your squads to upgrade with PTRS by fielding 1 single 222, you are already screwed.

Our goal with a non-tech upgrade is balance it in a way so that the opponent can actually reliably make it to the late-game, where the table-turning can start taking effect. Because, if PTRS Penals seal the deal, there is obviously no reason to hold blobbing back.

For instance, as Hector is already demonstrating, PTRS Penals & the doctrinal DoucheGun might be all that is needed to make sure that there will never be an end-game.

For timing I guess you could tie the upgrade to soviet T3, which would give a rushed 222 a window of about 1 to 2 minutes. Also, you could fiddle around with the times the upgrade needs to complete. That said:

If I understand correctly, the Penal-PTRS damage against infantry will be nerfed, so there should be a real trade-off to the upgrade. Like, an upgraded penal squad should be significantly worse in the AI department than a non-upgraded. Simply upgrading all penals should leave you at a severe disadvantage in the AI department, latest when upgrade axis infantry appears, no?

I hope so, haven´t tested new penals yet. Also keep in mind snipers that will come with them and possibly even dushka (lend lease will be new meta I think).

They themselves are fine, but I don´t know if 6 man core infantry squad with AT weapons and still decent AI is something that won´t scale too well with snipers.

Main difference between guards and penals is this one: you cannot spam guards like core infantry in 1v1 while you can do so with penals (guards come at 2CP, when you already have at least 3 infantry squads and you cannot afford more than 5-6 squads in 1v1 balanced match if you want to buy vehicles and tech as well)


I once again really hope this change will be enaugh, but I´m not 100% sure before I test new penals.

Hey guys! First of all, great work on the balance mod! I thought I was done with this game but you brought me back with your hard work.

After some time playtesting, I have a few issues I would like to bring up.

1) The M3 HT buff for USF was great, but it does have an issue. The CP cost is still set to 2, which means that USF is able to get the M3 out at about the same time as the Ostheer gets their 251. This should not happen, because this allows the USF player to sustain pushes deep into the Ostheer rear and generally gives USF too much of an advantage in the early/mid game IMO. I would not be against moving it to 3 CP, though I do still think that 520mp may be a bit high at that CP for AEs and an HT. perhaps look into specializing the AE on the HT? (Give them flamers or bazooka on spawn and call them demo AE?)

2) I believe that you guys should look into vehicle-mounted flamethrowers. Currently, they all have different ticker values, and as a result some flamers are simply off, while others overperform in comparison. It seems pretty odd and not very well implemented IMO. Definetly unintuitive for newer players.

3) You MAY want to look into the cost efficiency of the cromwell compared to the P4. It is still far too close in stats compared to what the price differential would lead one to expect. Perhaps give the P4 some of its stat bonuses at vet 0, to compensate for its higher cost as a medium. Perhaps make the cromwell a low armor unit that relies on speed micro and its gun for its strength, instead of having it as a better sherman.

4) Perhaps add a new upgrade for all US vehicle crews called "Crew survival package." This package should supply the crew with a bazooka and access to emergency vehicle repairs. I think this would be a good change because the current emergency vehicle repair is just something you have at vet 1, which isn't all that hard for vehicle crews to gain, resulting in it being a fairly common ability being used. Would add more to the risk/reward of vehicle crews, but its not that big of a deal.

5) Remove the minimum range on all infantry snares. They don't really add anything but annoyance, and I am fairly sure that the reason the snares bug out is because of them. More of a QoL thing than anything else.

These are just some little issues I have found, and not all of them are all that important. I wish you guys the best of luck in your work.

Also, since you guys are talking about the WC51, I would like to toss an idea in for it. I have used it in lots of 1v1s at fairly high levels, and I think its biggest issue is non-scalability and a very cheesy role. Perhaps make it into a support fire unit like the kubel?

Make it have a fairly powerful gun (it is a .50 after all) and make troops in it either unable to fire from the rear or unable to ride inside period. I believe this would be more than warranted considering the high fuel cost and low maneuverability of the vehicle. It could also be nice to see it gain some scouting utility, either as a T/70 style toggle or a passive vision boost, giving it more utility later into the match, and allowing you to set up more mobile gameplay.

You are choosing a doctrine, drastically slowing teching, and giving up an early rifle for it, so I believe it should at the very least allow for some increased mobility in firepower in the early game, as the doctrine claims to provide. Currently, it is too bad at maneuvering to be a good sniper hunter or harasser.

As a QoL change, can we consider having units ignore flame throwers when they are hit by them? Currently units respond to flamethrowers by dropping to the ground, as if a round had detonated nearby to the squad. This is extremely problematic against the Wehr FHT which has two flamethrowers and can effectively cause suppression on units it hits.

To replicate this effect take a captain and attempt to attack a FHT within range of the flamethrower.

One other thing, can the USF rifle nade frequently bugging out and not firing be fixed? It is annoying that there is basically little to no animation for the action already.

Main difference between guards and penals is this one:

The problem lies with the AI power Penal have without the PTRS...
Patch difference from live
flamer removed, Xp value increase, vet 3 armor decreased.

All this have little impact on the initial punch of the unit thus the problem remains, just replace guards with AT partisans or PTRS conscripts or PTRS conscripts and the blobbing remain the same...

It would be a different story if Penal come out already equipped with PTRS but now they are about the same spot as before with the added option to upgrade to PTRS if and when they like, I would actually call that buff from live and not nerf since they can stay relevant for even in later stages of the game...

in addtion

"Penal Battalion
To continue our attempts at finding a good fit for Penals in Soviet teching, we are going to trial a second version of Penal squad. This time, we are restoring part of their veterancy so that Penals excel as hard-hitting long-range skirmishers, which will allow them to defend against advancing short-range squads."
If the role of Penals is long range skirmishers they should be equipped by bolt action rifles and lmg and not semi auto.

In addition the only sort range infantry is axis side is pio and the doctrinal assault grenadiers so there is little point in having them....

One other thing, can the USF rifle nade frequently bugging out and not firing be fixed? It is annoying that there is basically little to no animation for the action already.

this might have to do with the minimum range of the AT rifle grenade that should be removed from all rifle AT grenades including PF.

"Puma (LIGHT VEHICLES)
Aimed shot was being used less for its utility and more for its guaranteed ability to wipe infantry on retreat. This gave the Puma too much anti infantry capability for something designed to be anti vehicle, thus, aimed shot can no longer target infantry."

I missed this change, why is another of OKWs few sniper counters being nerfed? Also does this mean it will no longer hit weapon teams? How is this increasing its utility? Why all the hate for the pumas meagre anti inf capability?

I missed this change, why is another of OKWs few sniper counters being nerfed? Also does this mean it will no longer hit weapon teams? How is this increasing its utility? Why all the hate for the pumas meagre anti inf capability?

Because all light vehicles are being conflated together and being balanced mostly as a whole rather than individual units being used for certain strategies and counters.

WC51 is more tricky to balance than the other two due to its early arrival.

I would have to request 5 replays from 60 people to consider lifting my veto on this unit.

Just remember, that those replays need to come fast (within 2 weeks), so that any changes we can thoroughly playtest whichever changes we make to non-meta units.

does that mean 300 replays in total? is there a way to compute all that data?

I missed this change, why is another of OKWs few sniper counters being nerfed? Also does this mean it will no longer hit weapon teams? How is this increasing its utility? Why all the hate for the pumas meagre anti inf capability?

i think it's because it is a guaranteed wipe. well, that is why i agree with this change, not really because i thought puma's AI was too strong.

i think it's because it is a guaranteed wipe. well, that is why i agree with this change, not really because i thought puma's AI was too strong.

Its not 100% guaranteed, the puma still needs to maintain LOS and range.

Furthermore why not make all retreating units invulnerable, most other light vehicles can run down and kill a squad, why is puma not allowed to kill a single squad member at vet 1 for 45 munitions, when a clown car can run down a squad of 3-4 for free?

Plus if you're retreating on the last man, its kinda your fault, isnt this game about being punished for mistakes and playing well enough so that you minimise such mistakes?

Its not 100% guaranteed, the puma still needs to maintain LOS and range.

Furthermore why not make all retreating units invulnerable, most other light vehicles can run down and kill a squad, why is puma not allowed to kill a single squad member at vet 1 for 45 munitions, when a clown car can run down a squad of 3-4 for free?

Plus if you're retreating on the last man, its kinda your fault, isnt this game about being punished for mistakes and playing well enough so that you minimise such mistakes?

While true, it's not much of a drawback to it considering its 50 sight, range, 7.2 speed and 4.5 acc.

Because they can't actually guarantee a squad wipe (also, nerfs so they can't so easily any more! ). It's also closer to the point of them compared to the Puma's former "Light anti-vehicle kiter, except when it's vet 1 and becomes a sometimes squad wiper."

Shit happens, squads of 3 men remaining sometimes go down to 1 from one shell and lead to sudden retreats, and its just kinda cheesy to be able to take advantage of that and get a guaranteed squad wipe. We've all seen plenty of squads surviving their retreat by one hair, after all - why should the Puma be able to avoid those odds entirely for 45 muni?

Speaking of which, the Wehr Sniper's vet 1 ability isn't guaranteed to hit a model any more while retreating too, right? If so, then there's a clear consistency.

While I personally liked the Puma's surprisingly decent MGs, I can totally get this removal.

I have also noticed some weird behavior in live and patch from the UC. Many times it enters the map in reverse and also uses reverse even when order to move very far away...

I have also noticed some weird behavior in live and patch from the UC. Many times it enters the map in reverse and also uses reverse even when order to move very far away...

Ah give em' a break, they drive on the left side over there you know

(Fuck pathfinding bugs)

Shit happens, squads of 3 men remaining sometimes go down to 1 from one shell and lead to sudden retreats, and its just kinda cheesy to be able to take advantage of that and get a guaranteed squad wipe. We've all seen plenty of squads surviving their retreat by one hair, after all - why should the Puma be able to avoid those odds entirely for 45 muni?

There are plenty of cheesy things in this game, and this ability isn't the worst offender. Why is it being removed when crushwells still exist? Furthermore, why shouldn't it, there is no rule saying abilities should not kill things.

Speaking of which, the Wehr Sniper's vet 1 ability isn't guaranteed to hit a model any more while retreating too, right? If so, then there's a clear consistency.

Im pretty sure that one auto hits too. Even if it didn't, its hardly consistent for wher to hit X% of the time and the puma to hit 0% of the time.

This was an unnecessary and unasked for change and because according to the patchers the aimed shot was not utility enough, and to fix that they are removing its utility.

Why they didnt just decrease the 1000% to accuracy of the aimed shot to a level where it will always hit vehicles, but leave a chance for it to miss inf, i dont know.

Speaking of which, the Wehr Sniper's vet 1 ability isn't guaranteed to hit a model any more while retreating too, right? If so, then there's a clear consistency.

While I personally liked the Puma's surprisingly decent MGs, I can totally get this removal.

OST sniper incendiary shot accuracy is still 1100% accurate. Sniper changes are out of scope for this patch.