Balance 2018 2vs2

I just have a question for people against USF/UKF double weapons slot. Do they want Riflemen and Tommies being weaker than Gren or Volks? Because that's what actually Riflemen and Tommies with one weapon are.

I'd say they want limit to one weapon, which then would require to be buffed as DPS increase from BREN is nowhere near DPS increase from LMG42, same goes for STGs vs 1 BAR, which would lead to quicker model snipes, which would lead to more QQ threads.

Alternative would be current DPS and price reduction to 40 muni, which in turn would mean that every singular unit would have a weapon upgrade, including vehicle crews, because the weapons would now have cost corresponding to their performance.

The one truly overpowered squad after dual equipped weapons were double vickers conscripts.

I just have a question for people against USF/UKF double weapons slot. Do they want Riflemen and Tommies being weaker than Gren or Volks? Because that's what actually Riflemen and Tommies with one weapon are.

I mean logically their would have to be adjustments to the Bren and Bar if they could only equip one. If they are left as is atm then they would be underpowered upgrades

My thoughts on 2v2 balance since the latest patch:

USF

• Jackson is over-performing, especially coupled with popcap manipulation allowing them to be spammed.
  
• Indirect fire options are very strong compared to OKW, Ost can keep up for the most part.
  
• Infantry is in a good spot.
  

Brits

• Double bren Tommies are overperforming, they should be limited to one LMG.
  
• Indirect fire options are lacking now that the mortar pit has been nerfed into the ground.
  
• Lack of vehicle snare can be really painful.
  
• Firefly feels very balanced compared to the Jackson.
  

Soviets

• All openers (Cons/T1/T2) are very strong. Sniper being OP on most maps.
  
• Katyusha is way too effective at long range. It can safely get wipes and vets up very quickly.
  
• SU76 is over-performing. Its range/pen need to go down, and the barrage needs to cost munitions.
  
• SU85 is a monster with vet, possibly over-performing.
  
• PPSH cons are too cost-effective, leaving Shocks with no place in the game.
  
• Guards are back to being the jack of all trades elite inf. The buff to PTRS damage vs infantry was completely unnecessary.
  

Ost

• Mortar is over-performing, especially vs Brits early game.
  
• Grens are incredibly fragile mid/late game; I'd love to see a 5th man either via vet like REs or via upgrade like Brits.
  
• 222 is a joke unit that really needs some love vs snipers especially.
  
• Panther is in an awkward spot. Is it a TD, or is it a brawler? Pick one and give it the same treatment that its allied counterparts get.
  

OKW

• Good aggressive early game.
  
• Vet system needs an overhaul, right now it's inconsistent and often detrimental. Make vet levels 1-3 equal in strength and attainability to other factions and levels 4 & 5 unlock abilities across the board.
  
• Popcap numbers need to be brought down on a lot of units now that they're not nearly as strong; vehicles mostly.
  
• Struggles vs both maxim and sniper openers from Soviets.
  
• Same Panther issues as Ost.
  

Right so it is as I thought.

L

2

P

I find it interesting that even top players have such a differing view about the current state of balance. (Sorry Sid for picking your most contributing argument )

Experience and premade teams will alleviate a lot of the issues mentioned in Sullys list but naturally that is a double edged sword and cheese builds can be a lot more devastating when done by skilled users.

I don't think its still easy to objectively justify for example the cost efficiency and utility of massed SU76's compared to its T4 SU85 counterpart. I think there is a difference between L2P and justified L2P. (lazy final example: L2P with grenade dodging vs L2P with pre nerf mininuke gammon bombs from camo)

tbh idk. Allies or Axis are in a weird spot depending on which you consider the weird one. OKW for example, is currently meant to use volks for early through mid then transition to obers for lategame infantry. While the idea sounds ok, Obers then arrive w/o vet against already vetted infantry and soon if not already upgraded allied infantry. Which means they become bleed machines till they hit about vet 2.

Essentially imo all factions need either strong scaling infantry from the start, like allies currently have with weapon upgrades, or they need elite infantry in lategame like OKW has. But having both leads to 1 faction being stronger than the other, because one faction needs to rebuild vet, while the other doesn't.

I don't see you complaining that vet2 Obers can shutdown any infantry squad with no problem, even double BARs vet3 riflemen. I mean, they can literally face on a no cover ground a HMG.30 in yellow cover and win the engagement with maybe 1 model dropped. (from my own experience several times)
As USF player, seeing obers on the field means build Scott or Sherman HE because there is literally nothing else that can counter them not including a heavy bleed. It is interesting that when they reach that state, you consider them as fine, but not overpowered like they simply counter with not trouble their own counter. But if this unit appear to be a riflemen or a tommy, then they are OP.

But my question still stand, what do you expect with a 1 weapon upgrade change for the USF and UKF. If we do like Katikof or GentlemenTroll say, that would be a buff to them because it means having the equivalent of dual BARs or dual Bren in one weapon for maybe 70/80 munition and a lot sooner in the game. This would definitively be broken.

So I assume people who want to reduce the weapon slot for USF and Tommy want a nerf. So my question still stand what do they expect from that nerf, RM and Tommies at Gren/Volks level (but more expensive) and even more vulnerable vs Obers or Pzgren or Sturmp or any kind of infantry superior to Axis basic ones.
What kind of balance do they want to achieve here.

I don't see you complaining that vet2 Obers can shutdown any infantry squad with no problem, even double BARs vet3 riflemen. I mean, they can literally face on a no cover ground a HMG.30 in yellow cover and win the engagement with maybe 1 model dropped. (from my own experience several times)
As USF player, seeing obers on the field means build Scott or Sherman HE because there is literally nothing else that can counter them not including a heavy bleed. It is interesting that when they reach that state, you consider them as fine, but not overpowered like they simply counter with not trouble their own counter. But if this unit appear to be a riflemen or a tommy, then they are OP.

But my question still stand, what do you expect with a 1 weapon upgrade change for the USF and UKF. If we do like Katikof or GentlemenTroll say, that would be a buff to them because it means having the equivalent of dual BARs or dual Bren in one weapon for maybe 70/80 munition and a lot sooner in the game. This would definitively be broken.

So I assume people who want to reduce the weapon slot for USF and Tommy want a nerf. So my question still stand what do they expect from that nerf, RM and Tommies at Gren/Volks level (but more expensive) and even more vulnerable vs Obers or Pzgren or Sturmp or any kind of infantry superior to Axis basic ones.
What kind of balance do they want to achieve here.

Vet 2 Obers are shutdown by any piece of armor and still vet 3 2x bren/BAR squads because obers don't receive their RA buff till vet 3. Also if you're expecting 280MP squad with a 70 muni upgrade to beat a 340MP squad with 80 muni upgrade you're doing it wrong.

People who say they want 2x equip upgrades removed tbh probably arn't thinking about it that in depth. What they really want is for base infantry to not outscale their base infantry and contest axis elites. Allies squads achieve this by 2x upgrades. Which is why they want it nerfed.

As i've stated in my previous post, the design of 1 faction haveing stock elites while the others do not creates an infinite imbalance on either side. Which side is up to the mod team.

Obers have some of the best long range AI in the game. I wouldn't consider a 30cal rifleman to be a "counter" to them. I'd consider an HE sherman a counter.

Vet 2 Obers are shutdown by any piece of armor and still vet 3 2x bren/BAR squads because obers don't receive their RA buff till vet 3. Also if you're expecting 280MP squad with a 70 muni upgrade to beat a 340MP squad with 80 muni upgrade you're doing it wrong.

Tell that to the people who want their 240mp/60mu gren beeing equal to 280mp/120mu squad.

I personally don't complain about Obers, you did. I just explain what they trully are and how I adapt to them.

I'd say they want limit to one weapon, which then would require to be buffed as DPS increase from BREN is nowhere near DPS increase from LMG42, same goes for STGs vs 1 BAR, which would lead to quicker model snipes, which would lead to more QQ threads.
.

Some might argue that double bren can afford to be weaker because brits can buff their durability by 25% on already elite RA leveled infantry so they can stick around to deal that reduced damage, some might also argue that that very same upgrade that makes them more durable comes with a 25% DPS increase allowing even unbrened tommies to be a potent force. All of course while bleeding less than grens and armed with the most effecient healing im the game bar none.

Tell that to the people who want their 240mp/60mu gren beeing equal to 280mp/120mu squad.

I personally don't complain about Obers, you did. I just explain what they trully are and how I adapt to them.

Aye and that's the problem. People are upset that allies have the ability to scale so well while axis are limited and reset to go into elite infantry.

Aye and that's the problem. People are upset that allies have the ability to scale so well while axis are limited and reset to go into elite infantry.

Then they can play Allies factions. But just to be precise, Riflemen with 1 BAR doesn't scale at all in late game. It doesn't even scale anymore the moment Gren get their LMG42 or Volks their STG pack.

Then they can play Allies factions. But just to be precise, Riflemen with 1 BAR doesn't scale at all in late game. It doesn't even scale anymore the moment Gren get their LMG42 or Volks their STG pack.

This response is just wrong in every part. By this logic pre DBP Axis teamgame players could've just said "Don't wanna deal with heavy TDs? Just play axis!" Riflemen with 1 BAR have been regarded for a long time as equal to to the volk StG pack and LMG grens vs 1 BAR rifle is entirely dependant on range.

This response is just wrong in every part. By this logic pre DBP Axis teamgame players could've just said "Don't wanna deal with heavy TDs? Just play axis!" Riflemen with 1 BAR have been regarded for a long time as equal to to the volk StG pack and LMG grens vs 1 BAR rifle is entirely dependant on range.

Except I didn't say play Allied if you don't want to deal with better scaling infantry. I say if you want to play scaling infantry instead of elite infantry, play Allied.

Riflemen 1BAR are not equal to an infantry that cost less, deal better damage and have access to free unlock grenades. And then you don't answer the question, what do they do vs elite infantry?

What if you just ditched double equipping entirely? Make it so that if a squad's got a weapon silhouette it can't upgrade to anything else and it can't pick anything up.

You might have to power up the individual rack weapons a bit to compensate but it'd work better with the UI. I'm not sure why Relic added weapon dropping in the first place when their UI can only display one silhouette.

It'd be more elegant all the little case-by-case equipping restrictions and inconsistent inventory sizes we currently have. If you've got no weapon upgrade you can pick up anything from a rack, your upgrade bar or the floor. If you've got an upgrade weapon already you can't.

In that sense, one would have to comb through all infantry squads to reduce their slots. Don't forget that Grens can pick up another MG42, Obers another MG34, Sappers another Bren if they are lucky. Simply tuning the weapon racks to have a requirement of the purchasing squad not having the weapon would be a much easier solution, both in implementation and in explanation (to defeat the scope monster)

I find it interesting that even top players have such a differing view about the current state of balance. (Sorry Sid for picking your most contributing argument )

Experience and premade teams will alleviate a lot of the issues mentioned in Sullys list but naturally that is a double edged sword and cheese builds can be a lot more devastating when done by skilled users.

I don't think its still easy to objectively justify for example the cost efficiency and utility of massed SU76's compared to its T4 SU85 counterpart. I think there is a difference between L2P and justified L2P. (lazy final example: L2P with grenade dodging vs L2P with pre nerf mininuke gammon bombs from camo)

Dunno how much Stark and Sully scrimmed for the tourney but their axis builds were really sub-optimal lategame.

Tournaments arent the best way to gauge balance because its the top players, its because theres equality in skill level.

Right now in the not 3-0 series axis are winning the most games by a lot.

Fire rate is king over range in 2v2, stug is thr best td in the game cost/pop/performamce. Anyone watching the tourney is also seeing how axis is a snowball machine right now, gets ahead first 5 mins, lvs hit earlier, t3 rush from ostheer. Also massive atm is okw and osts free access to weps atm.

Listing out each factions good and bad units doesnt also doesnt say anything about balance as a whole.

Centaur might be op but every brit tank gets shit on by stugs, same with usf and jackson. 2 stugs is dirt cheap compared to tds right now and it takes 4 shots to kill allied med tanks but 5 to kill axis ones praise command tank.


Im also questioing how often people play the game since the last 2 patches with how often i still see the gren meme

Not like allies are impossibly bad but youre much more limited in how you can win games and you're the side on thr knife edge now that axis can push the early game harder

While not necessarily a balance issue I find the new squad formations and garrison mechanics pretty frustrating from time to time with every faction and is probably the number one thing that tilts me ingame.

I'd say the biggest impact happens when you try to finish a 1% health squad but your entire 5 man squad decides to dive to the ground and starts doing the worm reducing damage output to 0.

Top 2 is the house bug when your squad decides to breakdance instead of entering the building or part of the squad lags behind for some unknown reason. That can make rushes to vital garrisons a dice roll whether your squad decides to keep in a tight formation or spreads out and takes a lot longer to enter a garrison.

3rd on the list is recrewing especially with low model squads like un-upgraded tommies or Ostheer squads. Once again I have no idea why but the time it takes to recrew support weapons takes ages sometimes. In those cases every model individually walks to the support weapon and recrewing happens when all of the models have done that. I never experienced that before December. Especially with the abundance of soviet snipers it's not that enjoyable to pray to the RNG god every single recrew that your squad doesn't decide to take a picnic before getting back to work and losing a model. RNG deciding if you need to sacrifice a squad to get a support weapon or leave it behind is a bit peculiar in my book.

4th on the improved formations is the random lagging behind. No-brainer grenade dodges last patch have become a risk when part of your squads nowadays stays behind and often makes you lose one or two models often forcing a retreat as a bonus. Lagging squad members are a risk also when soft retreating since they are the ones taking focused fire from the opponents usually and dropping fast.

As for the immersion/aesthetic value I think the new squad formations and abundance of T-pose models is questionable.

Imo these things are too high of a price to pay in return for avoiding random wipes from clumping up which still happen pretty consistently. The addition of babysitting your recrewing, garrison entering and nade dodging and overall unfavorable squad poses and formations caused by RNG that can turn the outcome of the game or punish you for no reason is not a fun gameplay addition. Sounded fun on paper but these new poses are just giving me PTSD from vcoh animations and random uncontrollable squad movement.

snip

Do you still think there is different types of L2P? You didn't address that point.

Does poor squad preservation and picking unfavorable engagements go to the same L2P category as needing to close the game as allies before a JT that pierces every world object in the game hits the field? (WFA launch days)

Should measures be taken if you need to outplay your opponent significantly to counter a certain build, unit or another gimmicky mechanic just to retain equal footing in the game?

As a disclaimer this is not a faction specific issue naturally.

While not necessarily a balance issue I find the new squad formations and garrison mechanics pretty frustrating from time to time with every faction and is probably the number one thing that tilts me ingame.

NUMBER 5 Your close quarters units refusing to fight close quarters because there is some yellow cover nearby so they snap to it like magnets while you are trying to close ground on the enemy. It is very annoying to rush Sturms into a squad just to have them turn around and move back 5 meters cause a stick is on the ground.

Do you still think there is different types of L2P? You didn't address that point.

Does poor squad preservation and picking unfavorable engagements go to the same L2P category as needing to close the game as allies before a JT that pierces every world object in the game hits the field? (WFA launch days)

Should measures be taken if you need to outplay your opponent significantly to counter a certain build, unit or another gimmicky mechanic just to retain equal footing in the game?

As a disclaimer this is not a faction specific issue naturally.

Ability to pull engagements with your own micro and positioning,
ability to strategise and plan your next action,
ability to recognize what your opponent is going to do next, anticipate it and adapt to it,
ability to recognize every single units weakness and strengths to counter it,
knowledge of maps and their vital points,
knowledge about different BOs against different factions and their BOs and strats.

All of it are different skill you need to possess to truly success and yes, all of them go into a single L2P bag.

If you want to take away double upgrade, then take away the need to upgrade weapons rack and just allow squad upgrade the weapon in the field just for muni, just like ANY other Axis infantry

Ability to pull engagements with your own micro and positioning,
ability to strategise and plan your next action,
ability to recognize what your opponent is going to do next, anticipate it and adapt to it,
ability to recognize every single units weakness and strengths to counter it,
knowledge of maps and their vital points,
knowledge about different BOs against different factions and their BOs and strats.

All of it are different skill you need to possess to truly success and yes, all of them go into a single L2P bag.

I'm going to have to call strawmanning card here. This is not the argument I have presented and argued for and your comparison is misleading and avoiding my original question:

Does poor squad preservation and picking unfavorable engagements go to the same L2P category as needing to close the game as allies before a JT that pierces every world object in the game hits the field? (WFA launch days)

Is it justified L2P when you lose squads to pre nerf mininuke gammon bombs from camo?

Here are the original arguments I have made and there is a distinct difference in those and the ones you made.

Does poor squad preservation and picking unfavorable engagements go to the same L2P category as needing to close the game as allies before a JT that pierces every world object in the game hits the field? (WFA launch days)

And again, that is micro vs strategy, literally practice vs theory.

Is it justified L2P when you lose squads to pre nerf mininuke gammon bombs from camo?

Here are the original arguments I have made and there is a distinct difference in those and the ones you made.

Camo ambush isn't really any different then stepping on a mine or walking into a demo.
Sometimes you can prevent it, sometimes not, if you have great awareness, you might dodge it, if you're average player, tough luck. I'd probably fall for it if it was used on me while I microed elsewhere.
While old gammon was quite potent, the scenario you describe can happen with literally any infiltration squad as they all have nades, especially axis bundle nades, which were turned into these mininukes recently.