Weapon upgrades for standard infatry squads

Buffing a units to make it more attractive is simply the wrong way to about it, there is power level that is good and units should not exceed that power level. Units should have different roles so people choose them for what they bring to the table and not because they are OP.

Adding PPsh to conscripts is simply not "the only realistic" solution. It is actually a bad solution.

Agree with this part.

Let me explain how this has worked so far. People complained that Soviet always went for maxims, so they decided to buff Penals, but then they had to buff Guards, but now they have to buff Shock and now you want to buff conscripts. Then will have to buff the maxim again because nobody is using it...and so on.

But this is just false.

Con spam against original OH which later transitioned to only PPSH based strats. Maxim spam. Clowncar and double sniper strat. Penals saw a buff, because just like SU76, they were utter trash units for 3 years since release. They had to buff Penals because the whole tier was meme tier after nerfs to sniper and OKW rework. Why bother with a high risk low reward tier.

If you consider the only valid strat at that time to be maxim spam, it might be because OKW post rework basically shut down most strats for soviets saved from maxim spam after they got a snare and STGs. Top tier OH also trashed T1 soviet play.

I never liked the decision for PTRS penals, but it's ill intention of you to say that Guards were buffed because Penals were buffed. In fact, the main issue Penal flamers were an issue is due to the strength at the time of Guards. I failed to see how this was a buff.

Show Spoiler

Shocktroops were already niche units after WFA, seeing only momentary light whenever KV8 was OP. Shocks were finally killed when their grenades shared cooldown and OKW rework. Saying Shocktroops are fine, is like saying OH 221 was fine when it was at 240 HP and require a munition based upgrade to unlock 222.

How are cons not used when the pro games show the polar opposite?

OKW have the most AT options in game... They have a Rak in t0, a Shrek for sturms, a puma in mech truck, a jp4 and a panther. You have AT for whatever flavor you want and whatever fuel budget you have. Use your camo raks against TDs that they are guaranteed to pen, not the heaviest armour the allies have...

Schreck on Sturms is there but it isn't a reliable option at all considering they have only 1, have bad veterancy and have lots of other tasks already. If there is one thing missing for OKW it's good infantry AT, which can be real troubling late game against TD walls.

But this is just false.

Con spam against original OH which later transitioned to only PPSH based strats. Maxim spam. Clowncar and double sniper strat. Penals saw a buff, because just like SU76, they were utter trash units for 3 years since release. They had to buff Penals because the whole tier was meme tier after nerfs to sniper and OKW rework. Why bother with a high risk low reward tier.

Want to test the old 280 Penal with flamers and Ourah vs the current ones?

Because after the number of nerfs they have received I doubt they are more cost efficient (in AI at least).

As you say the problem was the tier 1 (and with fact that maxims where OP) and imo not Penal themselves.

In my opinion the June 21 patch got too ambitious and thus the end result was bellow the standard. Unfortunately it was followed by other also ambitious patches like the "fall" patch which eventually was abandoned.

If you consider the only valid strat at that time to be maxim spam, it might be because OKW post rework basically shut down most strats for soviets saved from maxim spam after they got a snare and STGs. Top tier OH also trashed T1 soviet play.

The changes was done simultaneously in the 21 June patch, there was not time with 280 Penal and VG ST44. The patch basically redesign both Soviet and OKW while also buffing USF with the moratrs among other thing . (Let me not forget the buff in brumbar).

Maybe Soviet would have such a hard time if the VG did not not actually gotten their St44 in the first place and ended up losing their veterancy as result.

Or even the USF would be so weak at start that they would need a tech redesing, (soon to be followed be UKF redesign probably).

I never liked the decision for PTRS penals, but it's ill intention of you to say that Guards were buffed because Penals were buffed. In fact, the main issue Penal flamers were an issue is due to the strength at the time of Guards. I failed to see how this was a buff.

The is no ill intent, I have not blamed anyone. The fact is Guards clearly perform better compared to prerior to June 21 patch and have clearly moved away from prepatch role of "jack of all trades master of none". The main reason for it was the fixing of dancing around since Guards never showed their true potential before that fix.

Now when Penal become an 300 elite infantry with PTRS, Guards (also with PTRS) took the role an even more elite infantry, thus Guards where raised to their current level because of Penals, which in return made Shock look even worse by comparison to Guards (or even to the buffed PPsh conscripts).

Once more there is no ill intended against any one, I am simply following the footsteps of changes.

Shocktroops were already niche units after WFA, seeing only momentary light whenever KV8 was OP. Shocks were finally killed when their grenades shared cooldown and OKW rework. Saying Shocktroops are fine, is like saying OH 221 was fine when it was at 240 HP and require a munition based upgrade to unlock 222.

I have not claimed Shock are fine I simply pointed out that increasing their DPS is not a step in the right direction since their main issues is bleed and not lack of DPS. In addition turning PPSh into Thompson is also a step in the wrong direction when there are alternatives.

Another issue shock troops have is the high lethality of infantry as we have debated in the other thread which affects most QCQ infantry.

I have not written a single bad word against anyone who is involved in patching the game, on the contrary I have defended them and prized them in every occasion, even when I completely disagree with a change. I sure that people involved in the patches are trying to improve the game according to their own vision that might be different than mine.

Any and all comment I make about patch changes, are my personal feedback/opinion on how to improve the game. Nothing more.

I agree with OP. Cons need a rework or either a buff (through tech or fuel cost to balance) in order to make them efficent in late game; i mean, being able to deal DPS by themself not being just a sponge and having to rely on other units to get the job done.

I'd rather remove penals from t1, and replace all doc with ppsh with penals. Make penals like ostruppen for ost or a soft at based squad.

Then make cons as a core line infantry that gets upgrades (ppsh, dp28 dunno) through tech (ai focused only with snare like grens). That's the way it makes sense to me.

OKW have the most AT options in game... They have a Rak in t0, a Shrek for sturms, a puma in mech truck, a jp4 and a panther. You have AT for whatever flavor you want and whatever fuel budget you have. Use your camo raks against TDs that they are guaranteed to pen, not the heaviest armour the allies have...

Most AT options doesn't translate to best AT options though. Sturm Shrecks are god-awful, and it's extremely rare to see good players use them.

Raks are honestly useable only because of the cloaking gimmick, but have pathetic range, a hyper-exposed crew, and simply atrocious stats for an anti-tank gun. I hate facing cloaked AT guns as much as the next dude, but when playing OKW I really wish I could just have a PAK40. Raks get outranged by Allied TDs, and die so often because they're 10 range closer than every other AT gun. It's a weird, cheesy, unit that performs poorly in its intended role and overperforms in situations where you can abuse its awkward mechanics. Also, you're emphasising "T0" rak like it's an actual benefit. T0 rak is to make the game actually playable. You've conveniently forgotten that no Allied faction needs to face UC/Clown Car - if they did, they would be wiped off the map in 5 mins unless they got T0 AT as well.

Puma and JP4 are both great vs mediums, but both suffer from having very low pen. Design-wise, Allies generally don't have much heavy armour, so the Axis repertoire naturally didn't include many units with high penetration. This actually makes it very difficult for OKW to deal with heavy armour - and it's why Spec Ops is so insanely good. It gives a legit Pershing/IS2 counter to match those heavy call-ins. If you don't go Spec Ops, T4 + Panther costs will require too much fuel, and the IS2 call-in with 375 armour will steamroll your low pen AT options. Having the most AT options doesn't mean much when none of them have even 200 pen. To get a stock Panther out vs the IS2 requires the OKW player to have approximately a 100 fuel lead, and even then a Panther can't brute-force its way to a win vs the IS2, since it gets badly demolished in a straight-up brawl with the IS2.

The three Allied factions all have a 60 range AT gun and a 60 range 220++ penetration tank destroyer each, which they need because Axis vehicles have more armour. The OKW AT department is very comfortable vs medium armour but generally struggles vs heavy armour, and the Panther's shorter range makes it easily zoned out by AT gun walls.

One of the few situations where I'd say ulu is making a valid point, and I agree with him on this issue. The reason most players don't notice this issue is because Spec Ops covers for this OKW weakness perfectly, and the CP5 has OP sight range so it feels as if OKW doesn't have any anti-tank issues. If we nerfed CP5, the faction would easily be overwhelmed by Pershing and IS2 call-ins.

Want to test the old 280 Penal with flamers and Ourah vs the current ones?

Because after the number of nerfs they have received I doubt they are more cost efficient (in AI at least).

As you say the problem was the tier 1 (and with fact that maxims where OP) and imo not Penal themselves.

Old 270Penal with flamer and Oorah were still bad because you end up with a tier with no AT and NO SNARE, you lose map control for a unit which does not provide much more than a combat engineer with flamer. Once upon a time, the only redeeming quality of them was that their flamer would not explode randomly and power level of random crit on flamers. That's no longer the case. So no, 270 Penals were crap, specially on a tier with so much focus on cheese (AI).

I'm surprised you consider them weaker AI wise, when they have vet 1 and improved SVT BASE. Scaling was reduced, they are more expensive and take longer to build/reinforce but that doesn't reduce their AI.
Old vanilla Penals would have no place against current vanilla Volks.

The changes was done simultaneously in the 21 June patch, there was not time with 280 Penal and VG ST44. The patch basically redesign both Soviet and OKW while also buffing USF with the moratrs among other thing . (Let me not forget the buff in brumbar).

1- Again, how a unit which was not used in a serious way previously would magically see use after OKW rework.
2- Keep mentioning the USF mortar, but that was a huge mess up by Relic by releasing a non tested SINGLE PLAYER/Campaign mortar instead of the one tested in the preview patches. On top of "fixing/screwing" ALL mortars by modifying the AA with vet (which used to only apply to barrages).

Maybe Soviet would have such a hard time if the VG did not not actually gotten their St44 in the first place and ended up losing their veterancy as result.

Or even the USF would be so weak at start that they would need a tech redesing, (soon to be followed be UKF redesign probably).

USF decline came slowly progressively. It was not an issue with the OKW rework, but small incremental nerf towards the shock early game units.

The is no ill intent, I have not blamed anyone. The fact is Guards clearly perform better compared to prerior to June 21 patch and have clearly moved away from prepatch role of "jack of all trades master of none". The main reason for it was the fixing of dancing around since Guards never showed their true potential before that fix.

Now when Penal become an 300 elite infantry with PTRS, Guards (also with PTRS) took the role an even more elite infantry, thus Guards where raised to their current level because of Penals, which in return made Shock look even worse by comparison to Guards (or even to the buffed PPsh conscripts).

Dancing didn't impede them to be good at all. Since i played mostly T1 clowncar strats, Guards were the defacto main line infantry once you had enough CPs.

I'll quote you again.
"Let me explain how this has worked so far. People complained that Soviet always went for maxims, so they decided to buff Penals, but then they had to buff Guards, but now they have to buff Shock and now you want to buff conscripts. Then will have to buff the maxim again because nobody is using it...and so on."

THEY NERFED GUARDS. Follow the footsteps. Increased accuracy PTRS was prior to Penal first rework. MARCH update was when they gave them Penals PTRS, which also nerfed Guards.
So they didn't RAISE anything. At most they lower it, cause in general, several things were tone down in level.

I have not claimed Shock are fine I simply pointed out that increasing their DPS is not a step in the right direction since their main issues is bleed and not lack of DPS. In addition turning PPSh into Thompson is also a step in the wrong direction when there are alternatives.

Another issue shock troops have is the high lethality of infantry as we have debated in the other thread which affects most QCQ infantry.

That's not what you comment before.

I have not written a single bad word against anyone who is involved in patching the game, on the contrary I have defended them and prized them in every occasion, even when I completely disagree with a change. I sure that people involved in the patches are trying to improve the game according to their own vision that might be different than mine.

Any and all comment I make about patch changes, are my personal feedback/opinion on how to improve the game. Nothing more.

Problem comes from what you are implying. Whether you do it on purpose or not.

Most AT options doesn't translate to best AT options though. Sturm Shrecks are god-awful, and it's extremely rare to see good players use them.

Raks are honestly useable only because of the cloaking gimmick, but have pathetic range, a hyper-exposed crew, and simply atrocious stats for an anti-tank gun. I hate facing cloaked AT guns as much as the next dude, but when playing OKW I really wish I could just have a PAK40. Raks get outranged by Allied TDs, and die so often because they're 10 range closer than every other AT gun. It's a weird, cheesy, unit that performs poorly in its intended role and overperforms in situations where you can abuse its awkward mechanics. Also, you're emphasising "T0" rak like it's an actual benefit. T0 rak is to make the game actually playable. You've conveniently forgotten that no Allied faction needs to face UC/Clown Car - if they did, they would be wiped off the map in 5 mins unless they got T0 AT as well.

Puma and JP4 are both great vs mediums, but both suffer from having very low pen. Design-wise, Allies generally don't have much heavy armour, so the Axis repertoire naturally didn't include many units with high penetration. This actually makes it very difficult for OKW to deal with heavy armour - and it's why Spec Ops is so insanely good. It gives a legit Pershing/IS2 counter to match those heavy call-ins. If you don't go Spec Ops, T4 + Panther costs will require too much fuel, and the IS2 call-in with 375 armour will steamroll your low pen AT options. Having the most AT options doesn't mean much when none of them have even 200 pen. To get a stock Panther out vs the IS2 requires the OKW player to have approximately a 100 fuel lead, and even then a Panther can't brute-force its way to a win vs the IS2, since it gets badly demolished in a straight-up brawl with the IS2.

The three Allied factions all have a 60 range AT gun and a 60 range 220++ penetration tank destroyer each, which they need because Axis vehicles have more armour. The OKW AT department is very comfortable vs medium armour but generally struggles vs heavy armour, and the Panther's shorter range makes it easily zoned out by AT gun walls.

One of the few situations where I'd say ulu is making a valid point, and I agree with him on this issue. The reason most players don't notice this issue is because Spec Ops covers for this OKW weakness perfectly, and the CP5 has OP sight range so it feels as if OKW doesn't have any anti-tank issues. If we nerfed CP5, the faction would easily be overwhelmed by Pershing and IS2 call-ins.

OKW is designed with their income penalty in mind. They are designed to be able to counter enemy armour no matter their fuel income. Of course they can't face down the hardest allied target with ease, that's literally the point of that tank. Allies have higher pen TDs because Axis have a NUMBER of high armour targets in their core roster. Across all the allies only the brits hammer and anvil tiers have stock units over 200 armour. That's 2 units that are mutually exclusive across 3 factions.... Okw has 4 by themselves. 1 faction has double the high armored units than the 3 opposing factions combined.. Of course the other side has higher pen TDs.

Shrek on sturms was never designed to be. It was only put there because a Rak, a puma, a 60 range TD and a panther were simply not enough AT for the masses. I don't like the Shrek on sturms and I don't use the Shrek on sturms, but that doesn't mean it's not an option if need be. Against the Is-2 one shouldn't be expecting a single unit to be countering it like one shouldn't expect a single unit to counter the KT (this is a reason I think the KT is UP, and have in the past requested its armour bump to at least 400)

Rear armour on all heavy armour was dropped also, so flanking is always an option (another reason the slow ass KT should have its armour upped)

OKW isn't helpless but everyone wants the best way to do things to be frontal assault. Heavy tanks are supposed to dissuade that. Allied TDs have been overbuffed to bypass that but that's a symptom of a shitty pen system that means even a final tier TD could likley do nothing at all against a number of units it was designed to counter. Add deflection damage to all high end TDs and drop their pen so armour can be a thing again.

How are cons not used when the pro games show the polar opposite?

Literally one non meta pro uses them.

What if cons could reinforce for free? Surely this would make them more attractive.

Also, when cons can repair, they do so much work.

Perhaps that doctrinal ability should be non-doctrinal.

OKW is designed with their income penalty in mind. They are designed to be able to counter enemy armour no matter their fuel income. Of course they can't face down the hardest allied target with ease, that's literally the point of that tank. Allies have higher pen TDs because Axis have a NUMBER of high armour targets in their core roster. Across all the allies only the brits hammer and anvil tiers have stock units over 200 armour. That's 2 units that are mutually exclusive across 3 factions.... Okw has 4 by themselves. 1 faction has double the high armored units than the 3 opposing factions combined.. Of course the other side has higher pen TDs.

Shrek on sturms was never designed to be. It was only put there because a Rak, a puma, a 60 range TD and a panther were simply not enough AT for the masses. I don't like the Shrek on sturms and I don't use the Shrek on sturms, but that doesn't mean it's not an option if need be. Against the Is-2 one shouldn't be expecting a single unit to be countering it like one shouldn't expect a single unit to counter the KT (this is a reason I think the KT is UP, and have in the past requested its armour bump to at least 400)

Rear armour on all heavy armour was dropped also, so flanking is always an option (another reason the slow ass KT should have its armour upped)

OKW isn't helpless but everyone wants the best way to do things to be frontal assault. Heavy tanks are supposed to dissuade that. Allied TDs have been overbuffed to bypass that but that's a symptom of a shitty pen system that means even a final tier TD could likley do nothing at all against a number of units it was designed to counter. Add deflection damage to all high end TDs and drop their pen so armour can be a thing again.

I agree to that.
When I play OKW i never feel helpless vs allied tanks. Literally, never. Early game I have raks, they can take care of almost anything, except heavies. True, they are weaker than other ATs, but they cost 50MP less, can retreat and have useful stealth. They are not bad, they have their uses. Puma is good against LVs and even T34/76 and Cromwells, cuz it has better range and decent penetration. And in the late game OKW has 3 different ways to fight tanks - JP4 (useful, and gets monstrous when vets up), panthers and KT. KT I guess is less useful in that way, but panthers and JP4 are fine.

I agree to that.
When I play OKW i never feel helpless vs allied tanks. Literally, never. Early game I have raks, they can take care of almost anything, except heavies. True, they are weaker than other ATs, but they cost 50MP less, can retreat and have useful stealth. They are not bad, they have their uses. Puma is good against LVs and even T34/76 and Cromwells, cuz it has better range and decent penetration. And in the late game OKW has 3 different ways to fight tanks - JP4 (useful, and gets monstrous when vets up), panthers and KT. KT I guess is less useful in that way, but panthers and JP4 are fine.

I only feel helpless against british tanks, Raketens are ineffective during the late game, I never have more than one sturm and I always have sweeper on him.

Also, raketens are at the mercy of flame vehicles, which terrify me(also british).

And the king tiger, every time i've saved for it, it dies immediately, it seems WAY worse than 2 pzIV or 2 Panther, I never build a JPIV, because they're just worse SU-85 (which are glorious) in my opinion and the fuel is better saved for a real tank, with 2-3 raketens acting as a stop-gap.

OKW is designed with their income penalty in mind. They are designed to be able to counter enemy armour no matter their fuel income. Of course they can't face down the hardest allied target with ease, that's literally the point of that tank. Allies have higher pen TDs because Axis have a NUMBER of high armour targets in their core roster. Across all the allies only the brits hammer and anvil tiers have stock units over 200 armour. That's 2 units that are mutually exclusive across 3 factions.... Okw has 4 by themselves. 1 faction has double the high armored units than the 3 opposing factions combined.. Of course the other side has higher pen TDs.

Shrek on sturms was never designed to be. It was only put there because a Rak, a puma, a 60 range TD and a panther were simply not enough AT for the masses. I don't like the Shrek on sturms and I don't use the Shrek on sturms, but that doesn't mean it's not an option if need be. Against the Is-2 one shouldn't be expecting a single unit to be countering it like one shouldn't expect a single unit to counter the KT (this is a reason I think the KT is UP, and have in the past requested its armour bump to at least 400)

Rear armour on all heavy armour was dropped also, so flanking is always an option (another reason the slow ass KT should have its armour upped)

OKW isn't helpless but everyone wants the best way to do things to be frontal assault. Heavy tanks are supposed to dissuade that. Allied TDs have been overbuffed to bypass that but that's a symptom of a shitty pen system that means even a final tier TD could likley do nothing at all against a number of units it was designed to counter. Add deflection damage to all high end TDs and drop their pen so armour can be a thing again.

Quite true, the pen system is likely the root cause. And I understand that the Allied TDs need the pen vs Axis targets, was just pointing out that in 1v1, the timing of heavy call-ins can still be quite problematic since they often come at around the tech + 1 medium stage. OKW, despite its multiple AT options, generally relies too much on Command Panther and raketen stealth cheese. I think the Command Panther is way too good, but without it I don't expect to ever be able to survive against Pershing/IS2 or Churchill spam.

OKW is nearly helpless vs churchhill spam. (except u go for JGTiger)

Churchs are cheap but have the surviveabilty from a KT. They are not the high dmg dealers...but can pene often a panther or other high armor. i killed with a church 3 days ago an elefant...from the FRONT while he was moving backwards...and there was only this single church...brought the ele down alone from 45% life.

thats was so hilourous to see...this church shouldnt be able to deal so good vs heaviest armor.

Quite true, the pen system is likely the root cause. And I understand that the Allied TDs need the pen vs Axis targets, was just pointing out that in 1v1, the timing of heavy call-ins can still be quite problematic since they often come at around the tech + 1 medium stage. OKW, despite its multiple AT options, generally relies too much on Command Panther and raketen stealth cheese. I think the Command Panther is way too good, but without it I don't expect to ever be able to survive against Pershing/IS2 or Churchill spam.

I think that's a problem of its own. I see no reason for heavies to NOT be tied to the highest levels of tech for each faction. I think that and deflection damage for: Firefly, Jackson, su85 and JP4 and maybe all heavy tanks (just so slug outs aren't complete RNG) would fix a hell of alot for armour combat as well as fix the problem of possibly overperforming medium TDs being massed as they can have properly high ROF but not overwhelm heavy tanks with volume of fire.

Then from there it's figuring out the weapon upgrade madness of infantry combat and we would be fucking golden...

Old 270Penal with flamer and Oorah were still bad because you end up with a tier with no AT and NO SNARE, you lose map control for a unit which does not provide much more than a combat engineer with flamer. Once upon a time, the only redeeming quality of them was that their flamer would not explode randomly and power level of random crit on flamers. That's no longer the case. So no, 270 Penals were crap, specially on a tier with so much focus on cheese (AI).

I'm surprised you consider them weaker AI wise, when they have vet 1 and improved SVT BASE. Scaling was reduced, they are more expensive and take longer to build/reinforce but that doesn't reduce their AI.
Old vanilla Penals would have no place against current vanilla Volks.

1- Again, how a unit which was not used in a serious way previously would magically see use after OKW rework.

(Penal where 270 and not 280 I stand corrected)
I doubt that Penal with flamer where "crap" the unit was balanced for its cost and allot better than simply "engineers with flamers".

Weather T1 was viable is another story. It is difficult to answer since guards where not as good at the time due to jump around behavior, and they where actually refer as "weapon pinatas" by some.

Lets agree to disagree for now.

1) The unit could see action because of maxim nerf. The maxim where used because they where meta and no one bothered to try anything else at the time. DSHK at same time was OP and still not used.

Just because something is not used does not mean that it has to buffed to OP status.
If the change Penal to 300/flamer/ourah was aiming to increase diversity it failed. The T2 strategy was replaced by T1 strategy and a solution in diversity issue created many balanced issues while not even solving the diversity problem.

2- Keep mentioning the USF mortar, but that was a huge mess up by Relic by releasing a non tested SINGLE PLAYER/Campaign mortar instead of the one tested in the preview patches. On top of "fixing/screwing" ALL mortars by modifying the AA with vet (which used to only apply to barrages).

Unfortunately I have to repeat myself once more. Yes the mortar was bugged at release. All bugs where solved within the month yet the mortar was proven to OP, the fact it was bugged at release is irrelevant.

Then the 65 range mortar was tested. End result? All mortar have been nerfed, smoke grenades moved to RE/officers.

USF decline came slowly progressively. It was not an issue with the OKW rework, but small incremental nerf towards the shock early game units.

I disagree. USF and in a degree UKF simply did not follow the buff Soviet and OKW received. Now instead of buffing USF/UKF one could simply lower the Power level of Soviet and OKW.

Dancing didn't impede them to be good at all. Since i played mostly T1 clowncar strats, Guards were the defacto main line infantry once you had enough CPs.

In a squad where 4 of its 6 weapon will not fire on the move, jumping around creates a large gap between theoretical and in game DPS.

I'll quote you again.
"Let me explain how this has worked so far. People complained that Soviet always went for maxims, so they decided to buff Penals, but then they had to buff Guards, but now they have to buff Shock and now you want to buff conscripts. Then will have to buff the maxim again because nobody is using it...and so on."

THEY NERFED GUARDS. Follow the footsteps. Increased accuracy PTRS was prior to Penal first rework. MARCH update was when they gave them Penals PTRS, which also nerfed Guards.
So they didn't RAISE anything. At most they lower it, cause in general, several things were tone down in level.

That's not what you comment before.

It seem we are going down the very unproductive road of the "you said" game. To avoid it considered everything in that sentence as wrong and let me rephrase to be more clear.

With the June patch the 300/flamer/ourah penal become the strongest infantry in their time frame, they where actually broken.

Once the where changed for the 300/PTRS penal, Guards who up to then where a "jack of all trade, master to none" infantry could no longer be balanced as a 330/75 power unit due to overlap.

They had their power level adjusted to 360/75, becoming more powerful than PGs and coming closer to the 340/80 Obers. In other words from "jack of all trades" to "top notch elite"

That increase in the status of Guards is imo a direct result of Penal being buffed.

A side affect is that Shock troops seem pale by comparison since they bring to little at the table at a similar price. (Not that Shock are in good spot at the time but this is separate issue).

Problem comes from what you are implying. Whether you do it on purpose or not.

I am sorry but I really have a hard time understanding what I am implying. I will have to clarify, with a PM if you prefer.

At this point I will repeat that I have the upmost respect for the people involved in the patch and the effort they make, and imo we should all praise them.

If keep bringing up potential problem with the patch changes it is because I would like every patch to have the maximum positive impact.

It also probably because many times I find it hard to understand the vision behind a change. It would be allot easier, I think if Relic explained what they where trying to achieve and how the preview changes go toward that goal.

1) The unit could see action because of maxim nerf. The maxim where used because they where meta and no one bothered to try anything else at the time. DSHK at same time was OP and still not used.

Just because something is not used does not mean that it has to buffed to OP status.
If the change Penal to 300/flamer/ourah was aiming to increase diversity it failed. The T2 strategy was replaced by T1 strategy and a solution in diversity issue created many balanced issues while not even solving the diversity problem.

And just because something it's nerf, it doesn't mean other units magically get stronger. There's meta/tier 1 strats and there's niche/T2 strats. Then you have meme units. Old Penals were meme units. Just like Stromtroopers or constructional flak defenses.

Unfortunately I have to repeat myself once more. Yes the mortar was bugged at release. All bugs where solved within the month yet the mortar was proven to OP, the fact it was bugged at release is irrelevant.

Sigh. Didn't the preview patch had a 60mm mortar that due to technical issues had to be replaced with the 81mm mortar. Even when they said they would retain the same stats, the mortar they finally end up using had the single player version stats instead of the 60mm ones?

I disagree. USF and in a degree UKF simply did not follow the buff Soviet and OKW received. Now instead of buffing USF/UKF one could simply lower the Power level of Soviet and OKW.

M20, AA HT, Cpt with Zooks, defensive stance 1919s (no need to tech), Stuart, fast HE sherman. Even cheese Greyhound/Dodge or opieop assault engineers. There's a reason USF was trash for 3v3+ due to the nature of the game going forward towards lategame. Post P47 nerfs, they didn't bring too much till they released CalliOP.

Also, why is it that both factions were trashed by OH as well ?

In a squad where 4 of its 6 weapon will not fire on the move, jumping around creates a large gap between theoretical and in game DPS.

Which again, doesn't remove the fact that they were still meta (more so in 2v2) at top level of play (whenever you didn't go maxim spam or when you play double soviets).

It seem we are going down the very unproductive road of the "you said" game. To avoid it considered everything in that sentence as wrong and let me rephrase to be more clear.

With the June patch the 300/flamer/ourah penal become the strongest infantry in their time frame, they where actually broken.

Once the where changed for the 300/PTRS penal, Guards who up to then where a "jack of all trade, master to none" infantry could no longer be balanced as a 330/75 power unit due to overlap.

They had their power level adjusted to 360/75, becoming more powerful than PGs and coming closer to the 340/80 Obers. In other words from "jack of all trades" to "top notch elite"

That increase in the status of Guards is imo a direct result of Penal being buffed.

Penals were OP but 1 dimensional. Same as old Obers. Problem came when you could cover that weakness with Guards/AT partisans so you wouldn't care about light vehicle play.
I will still call bs on your story. How is it that nerfing a unit, makes them go from jack of all trades to Elite. Guards were already stronger to PG after they purchased DPs on either A move assault or as a defensive unit. Again, check the changelog and explain me how nerfing a unit made them elite.

A side affect is that Shock troops seem pale by comparison since they bring to little at the table at a similar price. (Not that Shock are in good spot at the time but this is separate issue).

They were already pale 3.5 years ago when they released WFA. They were a 1 off when KV8 was meta and nothing else. They are not pale by comparison, they are pale.

I am sorry but I really have a hard time understanding what I am implying. I will have to clarify, with a PM if you prefer.

At this point I will repeat that I have the upmost respect for the people involved in the patch and the effort they make, and imo we should all praise them.

If keep bringing up potential problem with the patch changes it is because I would like every patch to have the maximum positive impact.

It also probably because many times I find it hard to understand the vision behind a change. It would be allot easier, I think if Relic explained what they where trying to achieve and how the preview changes go toward that goal.

NP.

Sigh. Didn't the preview patch had a 60mm mortar that due to technical issues had to be replaced with the 81mm mortar. Even when they said they would retain the same stats, the mortar they finally end up using had the single player version stats instead of the 60mm ones?

Let me again rephrase that because again we are play a "you said game". The June 21st USF mortar was broken. The July 28th Hotfix (a patch that fixed all USF mortar bugs) USF mortar was OP and that is why it was nerfed in March.

MARCH 28th UPDATE
Show Spoiler

Also, why is it that both factions were trashed by OH as well ?

In the case of USF probably mostly because of buffs to FHT, to 222, to tech cost, to PzIV and Brumbar and OP commanders...

In the case of UKF probably to well deserved nerfs to OP units that where hiding underlying faction design issues. From tommies all the way to Comets.

Penals were OP but 1 dimensional. Same as old Obers. Problem came when you could cover that weakness with Guards/AT partisans so you wouldn't care about light vehicle play.
I will still call bs on your story. How is it that nerfing a unit, makes them go from jack of all trades to Elite. Guards were already stronger to PG after they purchased DPs on either A move assault or as a defensive unit. Again, check the changelog and explain me how nerfing a unit made them elite.

Can we agree that for many years role Guards was a "jack of all trades" unit?

Can we agree that now it is one of the top "Elite" units?

Show Spoiler

I too remember the mortar mess up. There was a 60mm that was in the preview that was play tested, when the patch was released tit was not the play tested 6cm it was an Ost clone with a better vet 1 and a whole lot of bugs. I remember it clearly.

snip

Still, you are missing the point by a MILE. 60mm mortar which was tested on preview had specific set of stats. When they moved up to 81mm model and release, the stats where completely different. BUGFIXING didn't account for these.
You are really dense. PREVIEW mortar =/= Release mortar. Is that hard to grasp? Bugfixing was just bugfixing.

Guards: reminder that we were talking as if current Guards were STRONGER than pre rework PTRS Penal Guards.
Can't you simple accept that you are wrong, for once ? I can open a poll showing up the stats of Guards pre rework and the current status and i don't think ANYONE will agree that the end result makes Guards stronger or that they were buffed. If you mix changes and the end result is a nerf, the unit is simple nerfed.

Old Guard vs Current Guards

330mp vs 360mp
Triple vet gaining through PTRS vs AT units in general receiving less vet.
Deflection dmg 13 vs dmg 10
PTRS damage vs infantry remained the same. -7 dmg nerf and later +7dmg buff.

Vet0 RA 1.0 vs 0.97
Vet 2 accuracy bonus reduced from 1.3 to 1.14
Vet 2 received accuracy bonus decreased from 0.83 to 0.88
Vet 3 now grants a further 1.14 accuracy (1.3 total)
Vet 3 now received accuracy bonus increased from 0.77 to 0.75, total received accuracy at vet 3 has been reduced from 0.6391 to 0.66. (with the latest change it went to 0.6402)

This means that it takes longer to get stronger Guards instead of just hitting vet 2, which again is further delayed by the AT xp gaining changes.

RGD-33 Fragmentation Grenade (Affects Partisans, but not Shocks)
* AOE far damage reduced from 0.5 to 0.25 (Same as MK2)
* Ready aim time increased from 0.125 to 0.625 (to match MK2 overall delay). Later this change was reverted.
* Munitions cost reduced from 45 to 35. Later to 30
Up to debate, but if say we nerf the damage from bundles nades and we make them cheaper. Is that a nerf or a buff.
Question: doesn't this mean that grenades deal way less dmg to garrison unit (one of the main purposes of nades).


Pop 8 vs 9

They did not get tripwire flares ON TOP of getting HTD Guard version. While it's 1000% more sane to have a different ability, tripwire were OP at the time we are talking about Guards.

Tripwire flare: 80dmg, multihitting entities, wiping squad getting outside buildings.


So, let's make a TL;DR version for people who don't want to look at numbers.
They are more expensive, they have a higher popcap, they deal less deflection dmg on PTRS, they gain 1/3 of the XP they used to gain with their PTRS, they have a weaker grenade but it's cheaper (one of the main attractives of Guards is that they had "semi nuke nades"), they start with 0.97 RA but they receive WAY less RA and accuracy buffs at vet 2. At vet 3 the overall RA is despreciable lower.
They replaced an overpowered recon + nuking model or squad ability with a proper (tematic or at least better flavour wise) skill which has counterplay.

The weapon cd DPS calculation is a mess because you'll have to calculate it towards PTRS/DP/Mosin but i'll take for granted that it's for DPs Guards (cause bolt action benefit way less from cd if memory serves right).


I could care less about what type of tag you want to put to a unit. Are new Guard stronger than old Guards ?

If you really think so, i guess i'm not gonna waste more time in this discussion.