Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.5 Update

I freaking wish the core of the balance changes would be weakening OKW, USF, UKF and bring them in line with the way soviets and ostheer are built as factions which are the use of combined arms and if the unit is spammy to be weak much like conscripts or ostruppen.

This isn't supposed to be an attempt to make all factions the same, but this is exactly whats wrong with these 3 factions is how survivable and effective all their infantry are. At all points of the game.

Relic introduced the cover system to make units die like flys when out of cover, but rifle blobs, volks blobs, and infantry section blobs all seem to negate this.

(this is a 2v2 gamemode perspective)

I freaking wish the core of the balance changes would be weakening OKW, USF, UKF and bring them in line with the way soviets and ostheer are built as factions which are the use of combined arms and if the unit is spammy to be weak much like conscripts or ostruppen.

This isn't supposed to be an attempt to make all factions the same, but this is exactly whats wrong with these 3 factions is how survivable and effective all their infantry are. At all points of the game.

Relic introduced the cover system to make units die like flys when out of cover, but rifle blobs, volks blobs, and infantry section blobs all seem to negate this.

(this is a 2v2 gamemode perspective)

Amen.

Yet PGs generally have more DPS than a lot of units at their intended range considering an StG is about as potent, if not a tad more, as a BAR from the mid-short range. They can beat Rifles, a unit meant to hold a faction together, at their own mid-short range game and Tommies can only win vs PGs at range. Furthermore, they excel at stopping infantry from getting on top of support weapons while are capable of demolishing other weapon teams on a good flank.

By the point which you state, Ostheer uses theirs vehicles(or pios) to poke in and see what's going on or find other methods to shift the position. Furthermore, PGs are not so crazy in terms of their MP cost as you'd expect for their level of durability and firepower. Only 34 vs the 30 of regular grens.

Panzergrenadiers are not in a bad spot and already had QoL changes to them given the fact they can now pop medkits on themselves and have a smoother transition between Vet 1-2. The only thing they need is their doctrinal stuff (G43) to be a tad bit more unique/useful.

Panzer grenadiers are really good infantry all around. The g43 upgrade is a bit tricky though, as its kinda hard to make a balanced anti-infantry upgrade that improves upon the stgs without making parents straight overpowered.

Panzergrenadiers are defensive units, as described.

Their offensive capabilities are against tanks when they have their double schrecks. And even then, they are best used defensively.

Panzergrenadiers, by default, have to close some kind of distance or be holding off a push to be effective. This isn't an optimal state for a 4man squad, but it is true that under certain circumstances they can be powerful.

But once they lose 1 man, which is easily lost just getting into cover, they can't hold their position long, or do that much damage,

Panzergrenadiers are defensive units, as described.

Their offensive capabilities are against tanks when they have their double schrecks. And even then, they are best used defensively.

Panzergrenadiers, by default, have to close some kind of distance or be holding off a push to be effective. This isn't an optimal state for a 4man squad, but it is true that under certain circumstances they can be powerful.

But once they lose 1 man, which is easily lost just getting into cover, they can't hold their position long, or do that much damage,

The problem isn't losing 1 member, the problem is USF mortar altogether with the brit mortar and their natural ability to wipe 4men squads in two successive and quick blows.

Do this test with a friend. USF vs Ostheer and then Brit vs Ostheer.
1st game, make 1 or 2 mortar as USF
2nd game, play it as if the USF mortar weren't implemented.
3rd game Brit with a mortar pit
4th game Brit as if Brit didn't had mortar pit.

You'll see an incredible gap between having mortar and not having mortar in term of balance, it is like playing two different games. The nerf on the USF mortar is a good point of the version 1.5 cuz it was still too potent on 1.4
Note that for the USF and Brit mortar, I'm in favor of cutting their damage per shot in half. So their purpose isn't anymore to kill but to force move.

The problem isn't losing 1 member, the problem is USF mortar altogether with the brit mortar and their natural ability to wipe 4men squads in two successive and quick blows.

Do this test with a friend. USF vs Ostheer and then Brit vs Ostheer.
1st game, make 1 or 2 mortar as USF
2nd game, play it as if the USF mortar weren't implemented.
3rd game Brit with a mortar pit
4th game Brit as if Brit didn't had mortar pit.

You'll see an incredible gap between having mortar and not having mortar in term of balance, it is like playing two different games. The nerf on the USF mortar is a good point of the version 1.5 cuz it was still too potent on 1.4
Note that for the USF and Brit mortar, I'm in favor of cutting their damage per shot in half. So their purpose isn't anymore to kill but to force move.

I kind of agree. but I would go a step further. USF mortar should be gone, it was a mistake. USF do not need it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prZIK_bm0bY

If you have spare time, watch that replay, probably one of the best "flank and smoke" plays I've seen.

USF Rifles are the best mainline infantry in the game, and can be geared to fight with virtually anything,

-they have frag grenades and good damage on the move with garands and and BAR's. As well as cheap smoke for countering long rage counterparts and HMG's

-Snares and bazookas makes sure Tanks cannot punish them so easily as german infantry.

-Want to play more defensively? just get the doctinal LMG to win shooting contest with grens.

Just to make clear: I dont want to change it. By the design, USF Rifles was supposed to be more flexible and win wtih axis infantry most of the 1v1 engagements. But giving them a mortar virtually crippled Wehr only chance to hold the early USF domination. Support weapons and bunkers are hard countered by it, which allows Rifle squads to free roam the map with little to no opposition. And most of the time it means gg.


The other thing is the squad member numbers.


While I understand relic design for wehr around small, 4 man squads, and 4 man elites squads in OKW (Obers and Fallschirms)
I fail to grasp why other, even more deadly elite units such as rangers and some commando variants gets 5 squad members. And while commandos might should be left alone because they really need to get close be effective, Rangers are way to resilent, and not a single german infantry can compete with them at this point.

Compare them, for exmaple, to Stormtroopers which are 4 man, their upgrade cost a whooping 100 muni which for Wehr is an arm and leg and see what I mean.

The other thing is the squad member numbers.


While I understand relic design for wehr around small, 4 man squads, and 4 man elites squads in OKW (Obers and Fallschirms)
I fail to grasp why other, even more deadly elite units such as rangers and some commando variants gets 5 squad members. And while commandos might should be left alone because they really need to get close be effective, Rangers are way to resilent, and not a single german infantry can compete with them at this point.

Compare them, for exmaple, to Stormtroopers which are 4 man, their upgrade cost a whooping 100 muni which for Wehr is an arm and leg and see what I mean.

Cuz they aren't assault squads. Elite =/= Assault.

Cuz they aren't assault squads. Elite =/= Assault.

Rangers WERE the elite, same as the Paratroopers.

They also perform as elite unit, so semantics is your only argument here I guess?

But OK, two can play that game, since panzergrens and sturm pios are not "Elite" but "Assault" units, you surely dont mind adding a 5th model?

See how silly you sound now?

Rangers WERE the elite, same as the Paratroopers.

They also perform as elite unit, so semantics is your only argument here I guess?

But OK, two can play that game, since panzergrens and sturm pios are not "Elite" but "Assault" units, you surely dont mind adding a 5th model?

See how silly you sound now?

Pzgren, falls and Obers aren't assault units, they aren't mean to be used out of cover. Rangers and Para are assault units, they are mean to be used out of cover rushing and flanking positions thus they have extra squad members to absorb the bleed.

Is it so complicated to understand?

Elite not Elite

The problems

Penals OPPnes mutirole.

USF wiping machine aka mortar.

UKF wiping machine aka Mortar Pit.

Pop out Allied units that wipes Team crews

Stuart aka Axis vehical denier

AEC mutirole fighter

T70 wipe machine

If those would tone down Axis has no big problems

Yet PGs generally have more DPS than a lot of units at their intended range considering an StG is about as potent, if not a tad more, as a BAR from the mid-short range. They can beat Rifles, a unit meant to hold a faction together, at their own mid-short range game and Tommies can only win vs PGs at range. Furthermore, they excel at stopping infantry from getting on top of support weapons while are capable of demolishing other weapon teams on a good flank.

By the point which you state, Ostheer uses theirs vehicles(or pios) to poke in and see what's going on or find other methods to shift the position. Furthermore, PGs are not so crazy in terms of their MP cost as you'd expect for their level of durability and firepower. Only 34 vs the 30 of regular grens.

Panzergrenadiers are not in a bad spot and already had QoL changes to them given the fact they can now pop medkits on themselves and have a smoother transition between Vet 1-2. The only thing they need is their doctrinal stuff (G43) to be a tad bit more unique/useful.

Pgrens really need increased rate of fire on the move so ostheer has atleast 1 good assault unit.

Pzgren, falls and Obers aren't assault units, they aren't mean to be used out of cover. Rangers and Para are assault units, they are mean to be used out of cover rushing and flanking positions thus they have extra squad members to absorb the bleed.

Is it so complicated to understand?

And this is true... because you said so? You really got some nerve there buddy.

You already derailed my claim into pointless disscusion with you since you dont present any actual point except "my units with assault weapons needs additional survivability to do their job, yours has assault weapons but you can't assault with them effectively because I said so."

Your labeling units as "elite" or "assault" are just mental gymnastics to justify your point of view without any objective points.

Do this test with a friend. USF vs Ostheer and then Brit vs Ostheer.

THere are a lot of examples.

In 4 vs 4 in mid game I got 2USF mortar. One guy had had BLOB of RIfles vet 3 all with 1919 LMG.

I was fighting with them with my 3 squads of Volks without UPgrades within 30 sec all blob gone. SOme was wiped some survived with one man.

I did nothing for that just placed them behind my troops. DID NOTHING.

Mortars got vet 3.

I swear if u give USF mortar to Werhm and OKW there will be no problems with lgiht vehical and blobs coz there would be no infantry to cap territory or stay behind cover or in buiding or in trench

The AoE range being reduced 17% is the damage reduction. The lethal explosion radius has been reduced.



The m2 60mm mortar already exists in the game assets. It was decided that cloning the Ostheer 81mm mortar was the way to go instead.

This might be so. But as we see the cloning was a bad decision. It just didnt work. And we now constantly (and rightly) move the stats away from the 80mm version toward the 60mm mortar version. So I think it is not at all unreasonable to revive the idea of using the already existing M2 60mm - or, if it turns out being too weak (which I highly doubt) a buffed version of the M2 instead of using a nerfed 80mm version.

The problem isn't losing 1 member, the problem is USF mortar altogether with the brit mortar and their natural ability to wipe 4men squads in two successive and quick blows.

Do this test with a friend. USF vs Ostheer and then Brit vs Ostheer.
1st game, make 1 or 2 mortar as USF
2nd game, play it as if the USF mortar weren't implemented.
3rd game Brit with a mortar pit
4th game Brit as if Brit didn't had mortar pit.

You'll see an incredible gap between having mortar and not having mortar in term of balance, it is like playing two different games. The nerf on the USF mortar is a good point of the version 1.5 cuz it was still too potent on 1.4
Note that for the USF and Brit mortar, I'm in favor of cutting their damage per shot in half. So their purpose isn't anymore to kill but to force move.

Ok I know it is a problem, but you realize brits suffer from four man squads as well, and ost's mortar is better than the usf mortar in wbp preview now. I almost never use mortar pits when I play brits, but my infantry sections almost never get wiped even though I really can't do anything about the mortars all game, as all you need to do to counter a pit is make more mortars. At least as ost you can counterfire with your own mortar. Although I kinda don't understand why grenadiers cost so much to reinforce. Pgrens cost are fine IMO, but greens are definitely the most expensive to reinforce, and don't scale to late game as well as allied inf.
It makes sense for like the first 5 minutes, but not after that.

To be honest, I think Guards with Shocks aren't crazier than Obersoldaten and Stormtroopers or Rangers and Riflemen. Also, the manpower bleed speaks for itself.

Shocks are meh, and you are right-on about the bleed.

When I mentioned rethinking commanders I was mostly thinking about Guards + DSHk/Lend-Lease/Mother Russia/Rapid Conscription/Radio Decryption/Partysons.

Currently, the things I mentioned are the things you gave up for going for a Guards commander.

Please don´t buff pgrens. There is nothing worse than fighting against 3hmgs42 with pgrens as USA. Buffing them would mean death sentence for USA

The problem isn't losing 1 member, the problem is USF mortar altogether with the brit mortar and their natural ability to wipe 4men squads in two successive and quick blows.

I don't disagree at all. I was speaking in terms of their damage output.

Pgrens and grens alike don't have to lose a member or even a sliver of health to get killed by mortar shells. That's its own can of worms.

But then again, my opinions about Wehrmacht Infantry Scaling has more to do with Allied indirect fire than anything. Quite frankly I think USF mortar's 'near' radius should be 0.1. Only direct hits kill models. The mid radius could deal anywhere from 40-70 damage, making squads reliably take significant damage, rather than reliably get wiped.

But anyway, my ultimate point was that pgrens, despite the comparable performance of StGs to say, BARs, is that Pgrens have to deal so much more damage to allied squads than any allied squad has to deal to Pgrens.

A squad that is down to 2 entities is in danger of being wiped and often needs to be retreated or withdrawn in some fashion.

All accuracy and "effective" health calculations aside, the minimum amount of damage a squad can absorb before reaching a critical status:

6 man squads = 320 damage minimum.
5 man squads = 240 damage minimum.
4 man squads = 160 damage minimum.

For context on how much damage small arms typically can do: one volley from conscripts has the potential to deal 96 damage. Sure they miss a ton, but that's the rate at which pgrens have to dodge damage.

But more than anything, a pgren squad, 4 man or not, has to unleash a whole lot more damage with those StGs to pose anything close to a threat.

I wonder how feasible/possible it would be to adjust retreat modifiers based on squad size.

4 man squads = 10-30% flat damage reduction on retreat
5 man squads = 0-10% flat damage reduction on retreat
6 man squads = retreat unchanged

I love blobs.
I cant understand, people have trouble with them.

There are enough options and there is no solution for minimize blob - only warfare!

Shocks are meh, and you are right-on about the bleed.

When I mentioned rethinking commanders I was mostly thinking about Guards + DSHk/Lend-Lease/Mother Russia/Rapid Conscription/Radio Decryption/Partysons.

Currently, the things I mentioned are the things you gave up for going for a Guards commander.

I agree.

I think the question really falls on whether a T1 Guards' PTRS should also be stock. If so, it really needs to be unlocked through a fuel upgrade, even if it's relatively low. AT nades, for instance, only cost 25 fuel but that's enough to make it a conscious decision about tech pathing.

If not, Guards doctrines could just be "T1 PTRS" doctrines with call-in penals. In that case you'd probably have a whole lot easier time trying to tackle rethinking any commanders. It keeps the changes more contained.

Partysans I think are the only things that would synergize better with stock guards than anything. But IMO I think that's more to do with Partysans. But again, that effectiveness hinges on the PTRS being doctrinal or not.

DSHk, Lendlease, and any commander that imparted conscript buffs I think would work out just as well as any.