Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.1 Update

We are aware of this. This is why Penals will not drop their PTRS (just like conscripts PTRS). Thus, the only version of PTRS that will drop is the guards one (which is always the good version).

The reason why Penals need to get worse anti-infantry PTRS has to do with the opening phase of the game. With Guards PTRS (even the nerfed one) you can literally spam penals out from the get go, and upgrade to PTRS without having to worry about infantry counters or vehicle counters.

There is no counter the enemy can throw at you, apart from MG spam. Even though vanilla-PTRS penals would not scale that well into the late-game either way, there might not ever be a late-game in the first place. We are talking Volksblob 3.0, here.

Also pea-shooter PTRS makes them different from Guards and AT Conscripts.



That's a good idea. Though it depends on what role assault guns should have. Stug-E could still use a little bit of love.



That's pretty doable, and I think that's what we will actually aim for if PTRS begins to look too good. It is the longest-range handheld AT gun, and it may cause issues when spammed.



We have to think about this. With all tiers and all factions having some soft AT the luchs could become cheaper. We're giving out buffs little by little, though.



Can't do anything more than prevent the Universal Carrier from being a command vehicle, unfortunately.

Wouldn't it be better to introduce 100% weapon drop chance when squad is annihilated, that squad then will drop at least 1 weapon and if it has more weapons than 50% will be dropped only (choosen randomly), you know, just to avoid some retarded RNG where last PG retreats and drops 1, 2 or 0 shrecks, that's kinda annoying, tbh, that's one of the biggest RNG's in CoH2.

About Stugs... i was thinking to give more love to G version That's pretty sad that G version is totally useless vs any type of AT infantry, unless you get top gunner but it's still not worth it, ohh and Stun abilities should be removed from those (E and G) cuz they are too much OP, and soviet assault gun, which is SU-76 could use HE shells instead of barrage, which was useless before the nerf


BTW, you talking about changes that will be made for some units in this patch, is there a chance you give us info on what you guys want to change next? we might give you some pro tips on how it could be changed, i hope this patch wont end on these included units only

Grenadiers can now use their own medikits as for flares, unless you go Churchill so the 25PDRs do more than scare the enemy off, Grenadiers can get sprint and camouflage from Commanders.

These things require commanders that will not help you much in 1v1s. You have to go full cheese or loose as Ostheer. Although this balance mod has done much, Ostheer will still be limited in options due to its lower squad sizes, weaker medium tank and underperforming Panther.

I agree that tommies have less utility, but claiming, like others do, that they are usesless without double brens is a pretty far throw from reality if you ask me.

I would prefer to see the command vehicle recon to get a munitions cost, rather than removing it as an option from the UC.

+1

Invissed five posts. You know who you are, and I've warned you both before, keep in check over your volatile emotions or say nothing at all. For one of you, this is the last warning you will receive.

Stug E

Since stug has changed role the veterancy abilities and bonuses should also be looked at.

TWP changes can be reverted or TWP can be replaced by something more suiting the new role. A barrage or mode where the unit would 4 ballistic shells or some sort of spotting ability

The vet 2 bonus armor should be changed maybe with the some rotation speed or by some range or Aoe or projectile speed or sight.

It also seem to be doing little damage to world object like walls and houses...

It be kind of cool if soviets got that light AT gun from the urban warfare doctrine placed into t1 with some slight balance adjustments added to it. I honestly feel like that would be a much better unit to add for "light AT" vs giving PTRS to penals.

penals, to me, always had a (suicidal) tank hunter theme, so I think PTRS would feel right on them, intuitively.

Make the Penal PTRS upgrade requiring an additional building (T2/T3), and you can even increase a little its performance.
Otherwise people will simply spam Penals, get half of them PTRS and wait till IS-2/ISU or M4c sherman spam.

In general, more tech-dependant unit upgrades would make the tech tree more interesting, while making it feel more rewarding and giving a sense of progression.

Ok. So what should tommies be good at? And why should anybody invest in UKF infantry upgrades?

Do note that:
- At some point we also need to consider the utility of Tommies to the cost disparity
- Received accuracy is a garbage stat for long-range infantry. Having veterancy bonuses slanted more towards hard-hitting accuracy is what makes a long-range unit scale well. This is why Grenadiers, who are so cheap, can punch very well above their weight
- The veterancy bonuses are applied ON TOP of the equipped items. Thus, further widening the gap between the LMG42 and the Bren gun.

Limiting Tommy Brens to 1 single one would make them:
- Unable to trade with the far superior utility-wise Grenadiers
- Make them completely useless vs upgraded Volks
- Make even fewer people consider to invest in infantry upgrades

But thinking about the faction concept, the UKF doesn't need to have the absolute best mainline infantry, because it has pretty fucking good everything else. It is the only allied team with krupp stahl equivalent non-doc armour (which is also on the whole better than Ostheer armour). It is the only faction with viable emplacements. Where do these major bonuses factor into your decision to make IS the equal of Grenadiers?

And I think it's a bit much to say received accuracy is a garbage stat for long range infantry. Just because they are optimised for long range, doesn't mean that every battle actually goes like this. Opponent squads close distance and received accuracy is anything but garbage then. You correctly identified the close quarters flamers as OP for long range penals, but you can't see how received accuracy benefits a likewise long range squad.

And I think it's a bit much to say received accuracy is a garbage stat for long range infantry. Just because they are optimised for long range, doesn't mean that every battle actually goes like this. Opponent squads close distance and received accuracy is anything but garbage then. You correctly identified the close quarters flamers as OP for long range penals, but you can't see how received accuracy benefits a likewise long range squad.

He probably means in relative terms - e.g. if your long-range squad could have only better accuracy or received accuracy, it should take accuracy every time to shoot down close-range enemies before they can get closer and justifiably out-DPS the long-range one. So something like "Double M1919A6 Rifles' vet 3 RA is pretty broken, but if they had an equal value of that RA in accuracy instead it'd be game-shattering!"

And I think it's a bit much to say received accuracy is a garbage stat for long range infantry.

The idea that Tommies are a long range infantry compared to other bolt action squad is misconception. As long as they have cover bonus they will easily beat grenadier at point blank...

Their main weakness is fire on the move...

The idea that Tommies are a long range infantry compared to other bolt action squad is misconception. As long as they have cover bonus they will easily beat grenadier at point blank...

Their main weakness is fire on the move...

Using his description, not mine.

Tommies' accuracy is virtually the same at all ranges. It's something like 40% accuracy out of cover, 70% accuracy in cover.

All that matters for Tommies to win is that they are in cover and the opposing squad is NOT in their unit's optimal position.

Then they get bolster squad which is perfect for lategame to survive squad wipes.

About Stugs... i was thinking to give more love to G version That's pretty sad that G version is totally useless vs any type of AT infantry, unless you get top gunner but it's still not worth it, ohh and Stun abilities should be removed from those (E and G) cuz they are too much OP, and soviet assault gun, which is SU-76 could use HE shells instead of barrage, which was useless before the nerf

the stug is a tank destroyer. the unit was useless in a generalist role and it took 2 years before the stug finally find their niche of being a tank destroyer.

tank destroyer do not engage infantry. the only tank destroyer in the game that can engage infantry is the m10 and that's because of the retarded ai and movement.

never go full retard

I can see there is a discussion about tommies. It's an important issue, especially if giving them one bren cap would allow interesting changes to m3 weapon drop.

I think the tommies have enough utility to start to think of them in a way we think about conscript - not too good but necessery utility squad. If we could get 80hp healing (by making it longer, not faster) and a buff to brit underwhelming base arty (possibly with cost increase) in exchange for 2nd bren, I would be all for it.

It's not going to nerf them too much, they are still potent early game squad and going double bren ends up with drop fest on vet3 either way.

Another idea would be to give them 3rd upgrade, that would increase their firepower, in most straightforward case the bren, but possibly something else. That way they would have to specialise, either in best firepower or healing or arty supprt. This came to my mind when I realised the first suggestion may couse brits at tier 1 to not have a squad worth building to be kept through whole game other than mg, when the needed amount of IS is already on the field thus limiting their early game build options.

Give them snare then. And possibly better/cheaper grenades so they are occasionally used. They are not that good to be nerfed even more right now.

I do not see that as an issue for the simple reason that it happen to other unit that do not have the option to buy 1 weapon like AT PG.

Being able to buy 2 weapons is a available only to some faction and having the draw back of dropping them is a good price to pay. Being picked up by the enemy is simply bad play and there is no reason not to be punished...

But when your squads are f*cking pinatas and drop weapons on daily basis once they lose 2+ members so you have run out of cover get weapon run into cover while you lose another weapon is not a good design

I wanted to say double bren tommies is not a problem at the moment because it is unusable. They should get snare with the grenade upgrade, or make the grenade upgrade much cheaper. Right now,no one upgrades for grenades

But thinking about the faction concept, the UKF doesn't need to have the absolute best mainline infantry, because it has pretty fucking good everything else. It is the only allied team with krupp stahl equivalent non-doc armour (which is also on the whole better than Ostheer armour). It is the only faction with viable emplacements. Where do these major bonuses factor into your decision to make IS the equal of Grenadiers?

You are absolutely right. On the other hand it the only faction with 3 separate infantry upgrades, 1 of which affects Tommies exclusively.

I barely ever play 1v1. However, from what I have seen:
- Nobody ever buys early infantry upgrades. AEC rush/Cromwell rush are more cost-effective
- Even if somebody does buy infantry upgrades, up-kitting double Brens is a very cost-inefficient use of your resources (though it is a nice option to have if you picked an ability-free commander)

In teamgames, Tommies are already a liability due to their lack of utility (except for medics). Thus, if you ever want to see Tommies built in teamgames they need to have something that they are good at.

You have never disclosed which gamemodes you play, nor which brackets you are in. Thus, pick whichever of the above applies to your case.

If you disagree with this assertion, feel free to post a replay where:
- You upgrade all UKF infantry upgrades
- Restrict yourself to only buying 1 Bren gun, maximum
- Diverting your resources to the upgrades actually had a net positive impact for you

And I think it's a bit much to say received accuracy is a garbage stat for long range infantry. Just because they are optimised for long range, doesn't mean that every battle actually goes like this. Opponent squads close distance and received accuracy is anything but garbage then. You correctly identified the close quarters flamers as OP for long range penals, but you can't see how received accuracy benefits a likewise long range squad.

1) When it comes to infantry fights, you need to compare the DPS curves between the two squads. Then you pick the distance that benefits you the most.

Accuracy and received accuracy bonuses do not alter the shape of the DPS curves. Thus, if you would trade cost-efficiently only between ranges 20 and 35, trading accuracy for received accuracy will not change your effective range at all.

Thus, if the enemy gets a jump on you, your received accuracy will not help you trade. The only thing you -can- do is hit retreat.

2) For a long-range unit, trading useful accuracy for useless received accuracy only prolongs the fight.

This allows your opponent to relocate and choose the range where they want to engage you (which is going to be THEIR optimal range).

For Tommies, prolonging the fight means that they will have to reload their Bren guns multiple times. Since Tommy-version Bren guns take insanely long to reload, they will experience long periods where their DPS drops abruptly.

Thus, given a mobile opponent, investing your bonuses in received accuracy does skew the DPS curves; but only ever against you.

3) Retreating

Received accuracy is useful, though, if the enemy outflanks you and you have to retreat through them. This is the only occasion where trading received accuracy for accuracy nets something positive.

However, this doesn't help if you want to bleed an advancing opponent and then retreat. Once again, if you had higher accuracy, you would inflict more losses on the enemy as they advance (when you have an advantage), to make their advance more costly.

4) Trenches/Garrisons

All of this talk about DPS curves and whatnot assumes equal cover opportunities, or the ability for a flanking squad to be able to stop somewhere, where cover becomes equalized.

When Tommies are behind sandbags, the enemy can "simply" close the distance. Due to the point-blank mechanic, if the enemy closes the distance to the sandbag, sandbag cover is negated, thus both sides are equal.

Point blank mechanic doesn't work vs garrisons, though. This means that no matter how much you close the distance, Tommies will never be negated of their cover. Thus, you need to find nearby cover somewhere to besiege the garrison.

Such cover is not always available. Tommies also have trenches, and a careful player can choose exactly where they want to dig a trench, so that Tommies will always have the advantage when fighting nearby enemy.

When holding a garrison, prolonging the fight means that you have the opportunity to bring a reinforcement squad to replace the garrison and keep it warm.

Thus, Company of Garrisons is the best reason why Tommies are viable in 1v1 (with or without weapon upgrades).

When Tommies are behind sandbags, the enemy can "simply" close the distance. Due to the point-blank mechanic, if the enemy closes the distance to the sandbag, sandbag cover is negated, thus both sides are equal.

That is actually incorrect since UKF squad retain their extra Bonus from cover even at point blank Range as far as I know.

And once more Tommies will beat grenadier to pulp in point blank fight.