Relic Winter Balance Preview v1.5 Update

I agree that authenticity should be part of the game. I start to think that Penals should be doctrinal and Guards or Shock troopers might fill the role of T1 infantry (preferably Guards since they have a PTRS).

For the same reason I also think the Panther needs a serious overhaul. It´s pretty much not WW2 if it gets easily defeated by Allied mediums while Brits run around with armor superiority with a tank that saw usage for only some minor engagments during the last 4 months of the war.

If the panther needed an overhaul in the name of realism, then the first thing to happen would be it constantly breaking. Then we would have to increase the cost to make it around the same level as making 7-8 shermans. Then the panther can be made to easily defeat allied mediums. Realism has its place, but so does balance and gameplay.

The scope is not flexible because it is set by Relic and partly by our responses to their balance questionnaire. The scope is artificially limited to prevent large issues from developing during the deployment of the patch, as we have seen before.

You are choosing to be ignorant because this has been discussed literally 10's of times in each patch, and the units that could be targeted were listed during the first patch notes.

PM sent.

I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. There's no reason why the same logic applied to snipers can't be applied to other things.

Please don't be accusing me in public for being willfully ignorant on this issue. As long as we provide an argument that rationally applies to the limits of the Scope there's a whole lot more freedom in what could feasibly done. Case in point: snipers.

I don't see why you're trying to dismiss the notion that people create good arguments for how ideas might feasibly fit into the parameters of Relic's scope.

Completly wrong. Almost in every paragraph. After 30 games on ladder with only using cons + molos I discovered The New Way with molos. But let's start


125 MP and 15 fuel isn't that high. Especially for this kind of weapon. It's worth to tech 9 by 10 times. I'll explain you why.



Range is really cool when your cons hit 2nd vet + bulletin. Just look at it. http://i.imgur.com/8Pw7MBH.jpg
I'd never say it's shitty range but you propably didn't know that one because you don't even ever bought this upgrade. What about throwing time? Well, for 15 munition I'd prefer molos over overpriced volks nade which sinks your ammunition situation sooo fast.



Still it's decent when you stay behind sandbags builded by cons because if you throw molos ahead - opponent won't use against you. Especially good versus close combat infantry like sturm pios etc. Rest of your thoughts is only a theory - in most cases you won't change your sqauds direction in time and get some damage from flames + you are forced to move when my cons are still standing and firing.



It's not about wiping garrisoned units but flush 'em out. Imagine if only volks had 15 muni molos instead of their granades - OKW wouldn't be so ducked against maps with strong, stone houses at cut offs.



Well it's not nade for every case you have in this game but still - even incendiary granade is pretty easy to dodge beacuse even when it hits you - still doesn't make huge damage. But 30 ammunition which could be invested in one more mine is gone.

To sum up - this is little different type of nade with small issues but it's still useful and U would change OKW incendiary granade for molos every time I play this game.

Cool, lets take bulletins to make shitty grenade slightly useful. All in all, it is better to tech up faster then making this upgrade and you didnt explain why it is better to make it (in economical aspect). Your explanations and thoughts are theory too. Because, the world is not consist of cons sandbags, if you pay enough attantion, you will get zero damage from molotov, maybe you will get some, but it doesnt critical if you run on cons from mid range and therefor they make less damage to your squad. About okw, they dont bleed ammo so hard like wermacht, so they can spam them (In my case enemy okw always have ammo to throw a grenade, same thing when iam playing for okw). Molotov on okw is meh, because they havent got Ura and they they will get suppresed by maxims, 50 cal and other stuff. And the main thing, okw grenade can kill your squad, but molotov has a really poor chanse to wipe enemy.
And son, i know how works molotov and i understand that after nerf become shit. So, dont blame people in such things without enough knowledge.

The game being asymmetric is one thing. Denying factions access to basic tools is another. Right now OKW doesn't have access to smoke on infantry right off the bat, and using smoke is one of the key elements of gameplay as it is a LoS blocker.

Ok but neither do brits. They don't even get a snare or mobile indirect fire either. Usf doesn't get nondoc mines or assault troops. And you still have the blendkorpfer, and as to not being able to go through it, it still blocks LoS and you could always try maybe going around it (I know, my strategic prowess is too much to comprehend). Also, why does okw need smoke? You can just flank with volks or sturms or kubels, and later on you can block los with blendkorpfers if you really want. But really, I do want to know why you want smoke (I know this last bit sounds kind of confrontational, but please, I don't intend it to be, I just want more information to improve on the discussion and see your point of view).

M8- that's like calling brummbar nondoc mobile arty. It's really not.

Churchills- piece of shit. Do I really need to explain why? It's not comparable to a kt or tiger in any world. It can't even fight any other tanks.

Comet- so that means panther is a heavy tank too? Because they are comparable, but comet can kill inf and panther has better armor/at abilities.

The m8 is literally a howitzer on wheels. it's functionally a mortar half track in what it does. It is lightly armored, has low health and does indirect fire.

The brummbar is a bunker buster/howitzer on wheels It is heavily armored, has a fixed turret and engages targets directly other than the bunker busting barrage. Their only similarity is their tier 4 unlock.

The churchill is a piece of shit against tanks because the brits have access to an excellent tank destroyer in the firefly which can stun enemy tanks. It would be better if the churchill could soak up AT damage better and actually act like the infantry tank it was.

The comet and panther have heavy armor and largely act as heavy tanks in the sense that they can 1v1 dominate a single tank from their opposing factions.

And yes, in my opinion the british do need a snare of some kind to deal with okw light vehicles that is not the AEC.

USF mortar

The USF mortar is still very lethal, given the early-game strength of the faction it is in, as well as the characteristics of the opposing factions. To keep things fair and unique, we are further reducing the raw damage (and range) in exchange for mobility. Thus, the USF mortar, like all mortars in the game, will have a particular area it excels in, and it will better fit the theme of the faction.

Cost reduced from 260MP to 240MP
Near AoE distance further reduced from 0.9 to 0.75
Pack-up time improved from 1.9 to 1.1

-------------------------------------------

Just wondering, you surely missed to mention the damage and range reduction, right? Because all what is mentioned as game data are BUFFS.


I would agree that an US mortar with less range and damage but better moblity should be our aim. It was planned as such in the beginning after all.

Depending on how far we go this road we should also consider renaming this little thing to its historical counterpart, the M2 Mortar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_mortar

The m8 is literally a howitzer on wheels. it's functionally a mortar half track in what it does. It is lightly armored, has low health and does indirect fire.

The brummbar is a bunker buster/howitzer on wheels It is heavily armored, has a fixed turret and engages targets directly other than the bunker busting barrage. Their only similarity is their tier 4 unlock.

The churchill is a piece of shit against tanks because the brits have access to an excellent tank destroyer in the firefly which can stun enemy tanks. It would be better if the churchill could soak up AT damage better and actually act like the infantry tank it was.

The comet and panther have heavy armor and largely act as heavy tanks in the sense that they can 1v1 dominate a single tank from their opposing factions.

And yes, in my opinion the british do need a snare of some kind to deal with okw light vehicles that is not the AEC.

Sounds like we mostly agree on all but the m8. Its actual functionality is kind of somewhere between mortars and brummbars. It doesn't have the range of mortars with its auto attack, but it is squishy. However, its auto attack has some serious punch, especially to blobs, and the barrage is basically a mortar. But, its not any replacement for something like the katyusha.
Edit: My issue with brits lack of snares is actually more that things like panthers or pzIVs can use the brain dead technique of shoving themselves as deep as they please into enemy lines, then disengaging when they hit about half health. This is something that would get punished by any other faction, but many times I find myself desperately watching my at guns spin around and my piats constantly fall short as the almost dead pzIV or panther retreats after taking out my AEC, tank, or infantry squad.

Just wondering, you surely missed to mention the damage and range reduction, right? Because all what is mentioned as game data are BUFFS.

Such changes are already in, the sum of the changes listed here indicate it.

Wermacht never had problems with Sov Mortar ? Why dont give it to USF.

Just wondering, you surely missed to mention the damage and range reduction, right? Because all what is mentioned as game data are BUFFS.

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

I would agree that an US mortar with less range and damage but better moblity should be our aim. It was planned as such in the beginning after all.

Depending on how far we go this road we should also consider renaming this little thing to its historical counterpart, the M2 Mortar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_mortar

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.

Wermacht never had problems with Sov Mortar ? Why dont give it to USF.

The answer to that is bolded:

To keep things fair and unique, we are further reducing the raw damage (and range) in exchange for mobility.

Doesn't pack howitzer already have phosphorus rounds? And AA HT is pretty good at garrison clearance. You can also get nades.

Not that I'm against your idea, just pointing out that usf already has many building clearance options on all tech paths.

Yeah, but apparently the mortar was added because people wanted it as a garrison clearing option. I presented that idea in the theme of that. I'm not even emotionally attached to it, I just thought, "hey there's an idea, I'll post it."
Edit: side note: what was the reasoning behind putting 2 suppression platforms (.50 and aaht) in the same tier? Just seems strange to me.

I want to see an upgrade for Rifle squads to get 1 "Marksman" converting one of their Garands to a Pathfinder scoped Springfield for crits. I feel like this would be much more interesting than the 1919's. I'd also like to see the Lt. removed and instead when you tech tier 2 you get to assign a Lt. model to a single Riflemen squad beefing it up a bit kinda like DOWII

My thoughts:



Company of Penals: a respectful plea to our balance mod team.

Summary: please don't overextend and try to rebalance the entirety of Soviet teching through usage of the penal battalion, as it heavily compromises the theme of the design.

I'm on potato-internet for another 10 days at least, thus I can't watch multimedia/youtube videos (else my internet bill will go through the roof). Thus I can only comment on your summary.

If your concern is that T1 turns from Soviet/aggression T1 into Company of Penals, then I think your concerns are well-founded. Note that we have already been planning a minimal-changes Penal battalion which people will finally be able to trial in v1.6.

Otherwise, could somebody provide a brief transcript?

I'm on potato-internet for another 10 days at least, thus I can't watch multimedia/youtube videos (else my internet bill will go through the roof). Thus I can only comment on your summary.

If your concern is that T1 turns from Soviet/aggression T1 into Company of Penals, then I think your concerns are well-founded. Note that we have already been planning a minimal-changes Penal battalion which people will finally be able to trial in v1.6.

Otherwise, could somebody provide a brief transcript?

My overall arguments were that whilst I respect all of your noble intentions, in bringing T1 into better use whilst simultaneously providing an alternative to guards by using penals...

It is unfortunately at complete odds with the inherent design and theme of penal battalions. They were suicide squad of alleged cowards and criminals condemned to die in combat, not elite multi weapon specialists, and it just doesn't work from a design perspective. Whilst I usually think competition rts > realism, this is a bit too much.

Two solutions I think would be good:

1) Revert to old pre buff penals, just make them a lot cheaper, and make T1 cheaper (so it gets used for flavour in the early game).

2) Experiment with penals as a 'not one step back' suicide squad, that can't retreat but can 'hit the dirt' instead. Just my idea as a role for them that would suit design. They would be great at keeping points from being captured or allowing you an anchor point to fight around.

I think with the nerf to guards and a buff in cost to T1/ penals you could break the meta whilst not being too elaborate and breaking the design.

My overall arguments were that whilst I respect all of your noble intentions, in bringing T1 into better use whilst simultaneously providing an alternative to guards by using penals...

It is unfortunately at complete odds with the inherent design and theme of penal battalions. They were suicide squad of alleged cowards and criminals condemned to die in combat, not elite multi weapon specialists, and it just doesn't work from a design perspective. Whilst I usually think competition rts > realism, this is a bit too much.

Two solutions I think would be good:

1) Revert to old pre buff penals, just make them a lot cheaper, and make T1 cheaper (a bit).

2) Experiment with penals as a 'not one step back' suicide squad, that can't retreat but can 'hit the dirt' until death. Just my idea as a role for them that would suit design. They would be great at keeping points from being captured or allowing you an anchor point to fight around.

I think with the nerf to guards and a buff in cost to T1/ penals you could break the meta whilst not being too elaborate and breaking the design.

I don't think any of these will work, the first solution is bad becouse it still means that T1 has no AT and no late game perspective at the same time. At least one of these is needed for T1 to be used without making penals so OP they can close game in early game.

As for the second one it is against squad preservation... They would at least need some Allied Industry like ability not to degrate your army with every push. Still it would be just a gimmick that is used only by really hard non-meta belivers.

I don't think any of these will work, the first solution is bad becouse it still means that T1 has no AT and no late game perspective at the same time. At least one of these is needed for T1 to be used without making penals so OP they can close game in early game.

As for the second one it is against squad preservation... They would at least need some Allied Industry like ability not to degrate your army with every push. Still it would be just a gimmick that is used only by really hard non-meta belivers.

If T1 is a lot cheaper it might still see use for the early M3, and the sniper utility. Penals would be a nice flavour to go along with it.

My overall arguments were that whilst I respect all of your noble intentions, in bringing T1 into better use whilst simultaneously providing an alternative to guards by using penals...

It is unfortunately at complete odds with the inherent design and theme of penal battalions. They were suicide squad of alleged cowards and criminals condemned to die in combat, not elite multi weapon specialists, and it just doesn't work from a design perspective. Whilst I usually think competition rts > realism, this is a bit too much.

Two solutions I think would be good:

1) Revert to old pre buff penals, just make them a lot cheaper, and make T1 cheaper (a bit).

2) Experiment with penals as a 'not one step back' suicide squad, that can't retreat but can 'hit the dirt' instead. Just my idea as a role for them that would suit design. They would be great at keeping points from being captured or allowing you an anchor point to fight around.

I think with the nerf to guards and a buff in cost to T1/ penals you could break the meta whilst not being too elaborate and breaking the design.

If we have to make Penals look like guards, then perhaps the better idea would be swapping Guards with Penals, as I've seen people recommend. However, to even trial this option we need the entire Soviet faction to be in scope, as that would change so much for both Guards doctrines and any other doctrines (imagine Guards with Shocks). At the point of this writing though, Conscripts are out of scope, thus it's too late.

The design we're converging to is that, in fact, there's not that many changes needed for Penals to break them out of their one-dimensional role (kick infantry's arse, everywhere, but get pushed over by vehicles).

Hit the dirt would be a nice idea, regardless, though.

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.

Hey Penals & Guards are in the Scope, this is only affecting Penals & Guards!

Stock Guards just can't be directly their doctrinal versions. They just need their upgrades tied to a few things, or better yet, implemented as upgrades in T1. (PTRS upgrade option unlocked as a fuel upgrade in T1. DP-28s could be a global upgrade from T1, as well as Guards' grenades.) Stuff like that would work for Guards coming off doctrine.

Show Spoiler

They are when you are keeping them in cover and at mid range. Bundle helps a lot. Just l2use issue imo, most of people doesn't know how to use them propely

mid to late game is always spam of explosives either from mortars or tank shells, and pgrens recieved accuracy doesnt help a bit against that.. you will bleed manpower out of your ass. Also pgrens need only lose 1 model and they are down 25% of their dps, thus losing to pretty much any allied unit at that stage. This is a l2think issues for you probably.

mid to late game is always spam of explosives either from mortars or tank shells, and pgrens recieved accuracy doesnt help a bit against that.. you will bleed manpower out of your ass. Also pgrens need only lose 1 model and they are down 25% of their dps, thus losing to pretty much any allied unit at that stage. This is a l2think issues for you probably.

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.