Some concerns with Panzerfuseliers.

Penetration formula = penetration/armor = % to pen; values less than 3% are reduced to 0%

Its nitpicking (forgive me), but it should just be "chance to pen", and not "PERCENT [chance] to pen." I know what you meant, and you know what you meant, but i just had to, sorry.

Its nitpicking (forgive me), but it should just be "chance to pen", and not "PERCENT [chance] to pen." I know what you meant, and you know what you meant, but i just had to, sorry.

Nothing wrong if no harm done

....
that time to kill though doesnt factor in the fact that the IS-2 has significantly more anemic DPS at 13.88 vs 21.55... which matters quite alot considering both are top tier heavies that cost relatively similar

IS-2 is not a top tier heavy, its a call-in Super heavy tank. KT actually has tech cost and is a top tier Super heavy.

The IS-2 has enough DPS to a kill a Panther 1vs1, while it is faster then KT.

If you want a DPS calculator you can download COh2 tools, it can factor in armor and target size.

DPS vs 26 TS 375 armor
is2_d25t_122mm_mp----16.04 15.40 14.39 11.47 8.76
tiger_kwk36_88mm_mp--19.50 18.78 18.06 15.03 12.00
panther_75mm_mp-------14.79 14.34 13.88 13.43 12.14 9.76
tiger_kwk43_88mm_mp--24.58 23.55 21.96 17.47 13.31




But none of this has anything to do with P.F. so lets try to get back on the subject of this thread.

K, this is getting stupid.

I don't ussually bump threads, but i haven't found an answer to how P.F. should be put in line.

Though i am certainly not a veteran of this game, i do think that just increasing their CP and reinforcement cost will tone down their current performance. It makes them more expensive to maintain, thus we will see less A+ move blobs in most matches.

I don't ussually bump threads, but i haven't found an answer to how P.F. should be put in line.

Though i am certainly not a veteran of this game, i do think that just increasing their CP and reinforcement cost will tone down their current performance. It makes them more expensive to maintain, thus we will see less A+ move blobs in most matches.

Basically. It's kind of hard to not blob them in their current state seeing as how cheap they are and how muh punishment they can take and give comparatively (for cost).

ugly to see german squads larger than allies. Make game even worse okw outnumbers usf like they are soviets.

One has to first balance the mainline infantry and then the doctrinal infantry.

I don't ussually bump threads, but i haven't found an answer to how P.F. should be put in line.

Though i am certainly not a veteran of this game, i do think that just increasing their CP and reinforcement cost will tone down their current performance. It makes them more expensive to maintain, thus we will see less A+ move blobs in most matches.

I'd say a pop increase with any mixture and quantity of vet nerfs, reinforce cost increases, and nerfs to g43 moving dps (cooldown or accuracy). Not sure what number or combination (pop increase being a no brainer though), but I think those are the areas of issue with panzerfusiliers.

IMO, panzerfusiliers come out late enough as it is considering that their role overlaps (honestly, its basically the exact same) with that of volksgrenadiers, so a cp increase would just make them more awkward to work into a build.

Also on that point, I don't think that the issue with panzerfusiliers is that they come out too early (the kind of issue that a cp increase would remedy). It's that theyre extremely blobbable. This is because theyre low upkeep so you can spam them (6 popcap, which means youre only taxed 9 manpower a minute for a full squad of panzerfusiliers; and cost 24(?)25(?) per model to reinforce), because they have great moving dps (this allows them to chase down and wipe extremely well), because they have the ability to avoid HMGs due to the fact that they see HMGs before theyre in range of them (50 sight range i believe, 15 more than standard sight range, and 5 more than the range of an HMG), and because they have excellent vet. Another minor thing is that they can get the 3 g43s and still pick up another weapon off the ground (...3 g43s and an ober lmg34 with +20% and + 40% acc is scary, even if unlikely).

One has to first balance the mainline infantry and then the doctrinal infantry.

I respectfully disagree. Mainline infantry should support doctrinal infantry, not the other way around. If doctrinal infantry replaces mainline infantry, as is with the case of Panzerfusseliers, the doctrinal infantry needs to be toned down.

I'd say a pop increase with any mixture and quantity of vet nerfs, reinforce cost increases, and nerfs to g43 moving dps (cooldown or accuracy). Not sure what number or combination (pop increase being a no brainer though), but I think those are the areas of issue with panzerfusiliers.

IMO, panzerfusiliers come out late enough as it is considering that their role overlaps (honestly, its basically the exact same) with that of volksgrenadiers, so a cp increase would just make them more awkward to work into a build.

Also on that point, I don't think that the issue with panzerfusiliers is that they come out too early (the kind of issue that a cp increase would remedy). It's that theyre extremely blobbable. This is because theyre low upkeep so you can spam them (6 popcap, which means youre only taxed 9 manpower a minute for a full squad of panzerfusiliers; and cost 24(?)25(?) per model to reinforce), because they have great moving dps (this allows them to chase down and wipe extremely well), because they have the ability to avoid HMGs due to the fact that they see HMGs before theyre in range of them (50 sight range i believe, 15 more than standard sight range, and 5 more than the range of an HMG), and because they have excellent vet. Another minor thing is that they can get the 3 g43s and still pick up another weapon off the ground (...3 g43s and an ober lmg34 with +20% and + 40% acc is scary, even if unlikely).

You have some very valid points, but i do disagree with 2 things.

First of all, Panzerfussies don't come too late, they come to early. 2CP is a rather low requirement for the firepower that they(the PF) can provide.

Second of all, They certainly do not overlap the role of volksgrenadiers but rather replace their role as a damage disher and receiver. What they should be (IMO) is much like Obersoldaten: staying in the back, taking safe shots at allied infantry while the volksgrenadiers take the punishment and focus since they are cheaper to reinforce. This is why me(and alot of other people in this thread) have called out for a higher popcap and reinforcement cost.

Other than that, i can agree with the rest of the post.

Basically. It's kind of hard to not blob them in their current state seeing as how cheap they are and how muh punishment they can take and give comparatively (for cost).

Pretty much this. I'll put this in my Original post since it is the best nutshell so far.

I respectfully disagree. Mainline infantry should support doctrinal infantry, not the other way around. If doctrinal infantry replaces mainline infantry, as is with the case of Panzerfusseliers, the doctrinal infantry needs to be toned down.

Trying to balance things on a doctrinal manner makes thing more complicated. One has to start from base.

For instance a doctrine can have a singe unit that is OP and the rest of the abilities to UP so in general the commander can be fine, although the specific unit can be OP.

In addition since one has to produce units before he reached the CP needed to call in units fixing these unit first is more important. As an example USF have great call-in infantry like paratroopers that see little action since riflemen are a very solid unit.

On the other hand one has to keep in mind that, far DPS wise, PF are about the same with Penal squad that hit the field allot earlier and do not need a 90 mu upgrade. They even vet faster and get powerful bonuses earlier.

So one has to first fix the unit that are available before minute one, decide in what level these units should perform and then start adjusting units that come after them.

For instance a doctrine can have a singe unit that is OP and the rest of the abilities to UP so in general the commander can be fine, although the specific unit can be OP.

For that to be the case, that specific unit/ability has to be unique. If not, you have same issues as CAS or old mark vehicle (big issue with EFA commander design). Still, having a single OP ability and crap filler is not good as well. Take a look at Urban defense or Party Cover commanders.

About PF: they used to fulfil a role that OKW lacked in their base army which was snares. With that concept thrown out, there's smaller space for identity besides been Volks on steroids.
Regarding changes, Popwise is a no brainer. After that there's plenty ways of adjusting. Ex: extended vision only applies while immobile and/or in cover. On the move scouting should be done using the flare.

...
For that to be the case, that specific unit/ability has to be unique. If not, you have same issues as CAS or old mark vehicle (big issue with EFA commander design). Still, having a single OP ability and crap filler is not good as well. Take a look at Urban defense or Party Cover commanders.
...

I am simply trying to explain why one has to first fix stock units available before minute 1 and then move to the doctrinal units. In response to this comment:

I respectfully disagree. Mainline infantry should support doctrinal infantry, not the other way around. If doctrinal infantry replaces mainline infantry, as is with the case of Panzerfusseliers, the doctrinal infantry needs to be toned down.

Once one has establishes the level of the base unit (grenadiers in this case) one can start balancing the rest of the units. Currently PF are Op compared to Grenadiers (especially with no lmg) but so are Tommies,Penal, Riflemen and VGs. Fixing the stock units should be a priority over the PF.

Once one has establishes the level of the base unit (grenadiers in this case) one can start balancing the rest of the units. Currently PF are Op compared to Grenadiers (especially with no lmg) but so are Tommies,Penal, Riflemen and VGs. Fixing the stock units should be a priority over the PF.

Except when the level of complexity on the fix is simple. Tommies, Penals, Rifles (?) and VGs all require further changes to other units before you can even start touching them.

Except when the level of complexity on the fix is simple. Tommies, Penals, Rifles (?) and VGs all require further changes to other units before you can even start touching them.

Simply things like pop, minimum range for AT grenades and sight changes can be made.

Things like DPS or FHP need to be comparable to base unit (mainline infantry grenadiers). So one has to set that level first and then bother with the PF, that is minor issue imo.

Actually the balance has to start from infantry units that are available before minute 1, one vs the other, (which includes grenadiers, Tommies, Penals, riflemen, Vgs and conscripts) and then fix all other units accordingly.

Simply things like pop, minimum range for AT grenades and sight changes can be made.

Things like DPS or FHP need to be comparable to base unit (mainline infantry grenadiers). So one has to set that level first and then bother with the PF, that is minor issue imo.

Actually the balance has to start from infantry units that are available before minute 1, one vs the other, (which includes grenadiers, Tommies, Penals, riflemen, Vgs and conscripts) and then fix all other units accordingly.

But grenadiers are currently balance with Tommies/Riflemen/Cons

Simply things like pop, minimum range for AT grenades and sight changes can be made.

Things like DPS or FHP need to be comparable to base unit (mainline infantry grenadiers). So one has to set that level first and then bother with the PF, that is minor issue imo.

Actually the balance has to start from infantry units that are available before minute 1, one vs the other, (which includes grenadiers, Tommies, Penals, riflemen, Vgs and conscripts) and then fix all other units accordingly.

You are still only taking into account a single aspect of the min0-min5 engagements which is "main line infantry" (add Prostruppen to that) fighting against each other.
Drawback of builing (map presence)/weaker prior to flamer vs utility for Pio/CE.
Access to support weapon/unit play (MG42/Sniper/mortar; clowncar/sniper/mortar -not sure how to classify maxim still-; Kubel ; mortar; Vickers) vs stronger early units (Rifle/SP/IS).

You can't have comparable main line infantry performance, when they have disparity on support weapon performance, scaling, utility, AT tools, mid/late game capabilities, etc.

When factions are 1 dimensional, you need to remove from 1 side but add at the same time on another.
When factions have multiple facets, you hammer down the cheese/overperforming and you then have to raise/lower the overall bar.

And here comes the problem of scope and vaacum as well.

TL;DR: fixing non doc main line infantry is not going to fix most of the problems, when factions powerbudgets are distributed asymmetrically and not all of them "require" main line infantry in numbers to work.

PD: as you say, PF are a minor issue in the grand scheme but it's main issues can be fixed easily.

...

You can't have comparable main line infantry performance, when they have disparity on support weapon performance, scaling, utility, AT tools, mid/late game capabilities, etc.
...

Actually one can if one keeps in mind the other aspect as well.

Mainline infantry should be comparable not equal.

For instance Riflemen where designed as infantry that is OP because their support weapons where UP. Since the latest patches tented to improve the cost efficiency of USF support weapons Riflemen need to become a bit less OP.

For instance by moving smoke to officers or elite infantry and/or removing the lasting disabling affect on vehicle weapons.