Volks are disgustingly good, need toning down.

So much wrong in this post its not even funny...

1) Flame nade is much faster, if you think 2 seconds are equal to 4-6 seconds, you really need some grip on reality.

2) Volks cost 10 more and utterly stomp cons, they do not have "similar" dps, they have superior DPS, the same DPS as grens, they had similar DPS before they got buffed, worse vet is irrelevant, cons scale better to make up for lack of stock weapon upgrade all other stock mainline inf has and they still fall short.

3) Volks do get all their abilities and weapon upgrades for absolutely free, with a whooping total of zero fuel investment that doesn't contribute to tech, volks abilities and weapon are locked behind time gate, cons abilities are locked behind hefty investment.

flame nade and Molotov have same total time to deal damage
they have more dps x weapon cause they are 5 vs 6 and so the dps evens out a bit they don't fall short and have more hp
they are not free cause they are forced cost they have to get the trucks to tier up, its like battle phases, they are simply non optional upgrades, would u prefer that truck are free and u got optional upgrades to make ? for like a 2 min stg ?

In fact, cons are slightly worse. A larger squad size doesn't help in inf contact. It helps when under art fire. Larger squad size means higher RA for each model, and easier to lose models and fire power. Unless in green cover, Cons are more likely to lose models first and lose the fight in first contact.

is that a joke?

btw. no one goes for cons when u can have Penal or Guard blobbs.

lul.

Didnt u seen thant the axis had a massive combine armed army..whis was neglate by a IS blobb easily? (even without losing some models!)


and this IS hadnt even LMGs equipped!! imagine they would...

What combined army?

What do you think retreating gren, half dead gren, retreating pio, 2 PaKs, 222 and FHT are going to do to 4 doctrine buffed 5 man tommies and AEC, especially if these PaKs and 222 aren't even in position?

Yes, it was combined arms.
To stop VEHICLES, not infantry, so he is right, massive force disparity presented there, it takes more then 2 functional grey cells to know it.

The models are less effective, therefore they cost less to reinforce. A model that performs (just an example) at rifleman level should cost 28 for its reinforce cost whether its part of a 5 man squad or a 100 man squad. Why should a model cost more simply because its part of a larger squad, its performance is the same.

Yes, larger squad are better than smaller squads (all other factors being the same). But that big squad > small squad dynamic should be (and is) balanced through mechanics other than reinforce cost.

Looking over your comment again, I think youre missing the point (maybe this isnt katitofs point though). The models of a large squad arent cheaper simply because theyre in a larger squad, theyre cheaper because they individually perform worse than the individual models of the smaller squad, and the size advantage is made up for in other ways.

I understand that. On an individual model basis of 1 to 1 grenadiers are actually really strong, but other factors like mentioned with having 4 men squads still apply.

The only mathematical fact of squad size is that 6 men squads are better. When reinforcement cost is determined based on squad size there is ZERO possibility the cost is balanced.

Except its not based just on squad size, total cost of the squad matters as well you know.
And guess what, it is balanced in all infantry combat engagements. You'll found out why soon.

Why you ask?

Because our best example, Grenadiers at vet 0 vs conscripts at vet 0 is a 50/50 engagement determined by cover and RNG. Either side costs 240 MP, and has an equal chance of winning. Then you factor in the other positives and negatives such as DPS dropoff per model, squad recrewing, literally any explosive or ballistic weapon that can wipe multiple units and the conclusion is: 6 > 4.

Incorrect, its 50/50 only around mid range.
Long range, grens will always win, short range, cons -should- win. Then come weapon upgrades and we have grens stomp cons unless cons embrace doctrine to even stand a chance. Upgrades, in this particular example, throw your argument out of the window, because now its cons who are losing significant DPS with each model lost, while grens not really due to most DPS being concentrated around one model.

Squad spacing changes invalidate argument about ballistic explosions, unless you really like to stick to very small yellow cover spots.

Since we have to talk in context of each faction and its options as well, grens have fastest access to on field, mobile reinforcement, making recrewing non factor, unless for whatever reason you try to do it under heavy fire, in which case "steal" attempt will not work regardless of how many initial models squad performing it has.

Conclusion:
4<6 exclusively when trying to steal HMGs under concentrated fire and further faction options make up for smaller squads in context of wehr, UKF doesn't have that kind of options, but they can bolster themselves to 5 men at hefty cost.

The problem with "I have more models therefore I should have a cheaper reinforce" excuse is this: "I want a 100 man squad but the reinforce cost should be 1.2" Same cost as grenadiers, we can nerf model stats to be equal to grenadiers, but the difference is that squad will NEVER be wiped with any ballistic or explosive unit, it will also be great for recrewing things (although if model stats were that bad they'd disintigrate under any means of fire, but this is obviously an exaggeration).

You think 6 man squads aren't getting wiped by explosives?
For real?

And you're talking about Osttruppen.
You want higher squad count units to suffer from attrition much more due to lower model survivability AND pay the same as other sides individual models.

You are not asking for balance, because you do not understand balance, you are asking for 4 man squads uncontested superiority and ability to inflict insufferable attrition losses.

Reinforcements are different because squad costs are different, squad counts are different AND individual models have different strengths. Reinforcing from 1 model squads of equal costs should ALWAYS cost the same, regardless of how many models squad has.

Except its not based just on squad size, total cost of the squad matters as well you know.
And guess what, it is balanced in all infantry combat engagements. You'll found out why soon.

It's balanced around RA ONLY

Incorrect, its 50/50 only around mid range.
Long range, grens will always win, short range, cons -should- win. Then come weapon upgrades and we have grens stomp cons unless cons embrace doctrine to even stand a chance. Upgrades, in this particular example, throw your argument out of the window, because now its cons who are losing significant DPS with each model lost, while grens not really due to most DPS being concentrated around one model.

This is just wrong entirely. Cons do not lose 100% of all engagements at long range vs grens at vet 0. There would literally be zero reason people would go cons against OST, WHERE THEY'RE PREFERED currently.

Squad spacing changes invalidate argument about ballistic explosions, unless you really like to stick to very small yellow cover spots.

?? I don't even know what to say about this. This assumes squad spacing is 100% perfect, and that you'd never seek cover vs an armor piece, even if it means taking damage from 3x MGs off a p4 for example.
Somehow I highly doubt either of these are actually 100% accurate.

Since we have to talk in context of each faction and its options as well, grens have fastest access to on field, mobile reinforcement, making recrewing non factor, unless for whatever reason you try to do it under heavy fire, in which case "steal" attempt will not work regardless of how many initial models squad performing it has.

So when you have 4 men squads, you're supposed to spend additional resources to get a mobile HT just so you can recrew things at the same capacity as what 6 men can do for free? SeemsBalanced. "Heavy fire" Yes a sniper squad camping downed teamweapons because ostheer can't recrew once a sniper takes a single shot.

Conclusion:
4<6 exclusively when trying to steal HMGs under concentrated fire and further faction options make up for smaller squads in context of wehr, UKF doesn't have that kind of options, but they can bolster themselves to 5 men at hefty cost.

Bolster >> Reinforcement HT

You think 6 man squads aren't getting wiped by explosives?
For real?

You're more than welcome to quote where I said this.

Reinforcements are different because squad costs are different, squad counts are different AND individual models have different strengths. Reinforcing from 1 model squads of equal costs should ALWAYS cost the same, regardless of how many models squad has.

Again, this formula is garbage. Where's my 100 man squad that will NEVER be wiped via explosives and ballistics. Veterancy is a very large aspect of this game, the squads that can keep it better have an advantage over ones that cannot.

You didn't actually disprove anything I said. You just reworded your own words that still say "squad reinforcement is determined by price and squad size".

Again, this formula is garbage. Where's my 100 man squad that will NEVER be wiped via explosives and ballistics. Veterancy is a very large aspect of this game, the squads that can keep it better have an advantage over ones that cannot.

You didn't actually disprove anything I said. You just reworded your own words that still say "squad reinforcement is determined by price and squad size".

oh i see u are refering to post balance mortar patch rear echelon squads

In fact, cons are slightly worse. A larger squad size doesn't help in inf contact. It helps when under art fire. Larger squad size means higher RA for each model, and easier to lose models and fire power. Unless in green cover, Cons are more likely to lose models first and lose the fight in first contact.

That's not entirely true. More models=more guns = slower drop in DPS. And then there's more models targeting so in a 6v4 match up you have 2 of the 6 not being targeted at all times and 2 of the 4 getting targeted by multiple shooters. (I know that's not EXACTLY how targeting works in game but the image should be clear enough) so more models IS better, so long as those models sent trash with no opportunity to actually scale outside a massive vet 3 power spike *cough* cons *cough*

is that a joke?

btw. no one goes for cons when u can have Penal or Guard blobbs.

Penals require T1 and a long build time. u still lose map control as u do not have enough units. And as Volks armed with stgs, penals are no longer superior to volks that far but much cheaper.
Guards require CP2, 360mp to call in, and u would have stgs.
Okw can not lose the early inf combat if u invest the same amount mp in inf units.

That's not entirely true. More models=more guns = slower drop in DPS. And then there's more models targeting so in a 6v4 match up you have 2 of the 6 not being targeted at all times and 2 of the 4 getting targeted by multiple shooters.

By experience, I think the targerting works like this, focusing fire on the model that do not in cover, then the closest. And some specific weapons like fg42 would never focus fire. So, I think in a 6v4 match up in same cover and same range, there would be no focus fire.

By experience, I think the targerting works like this, focusing fire on the model that do not in cover, then the closest. And some specific weapons like fg42 would never focus fire. So, I think in a 6v4 match up in same cover and same range, there would be no focus fire.

There is no focus fire, targeting is done by each model individually. It's pretty much a crapshoot based on too many factors to quantify. Machine guns like the fg42 have a chance to hit other models if they miss but they still aim like every other squad.

In a 6v4 the 4 man squad has a higher chance of more models targeting it at the same time, the 4 grens have 50% more targets to randomly aim at.

And as Volks armed with stgs, penals are no longer superior to volks that far but much cheaper.

Penals have slightly more dps than stg volks at all ranges, and more health. How much more do you expect a 300 mp squad to stomp a 250 mp + 60 muni squad.

There is no focus fire, targeting is done by each model individually. It's pretty much a crapshoot based on too many factors to quantify. Machine guns like the fg42 have a chance to hit other models if they miss but they still aim like every other squad.

In a 6v4 the 4 man squad has a higher chance of more models targeting it at the same time, the 4 grens have 50% more targets to randomly aim at.


Penals have slightly more dps than stg volks at all ranges, and more health. How much more do you expect a 300 mp squad to stomp a 260 mp + 60 muni squad.

250mp. You would think volks are more, but they are only 10mp more than cons.

250mp. You would think volks are more, but they are only 10mp more than cons.

typo

Penals require T1 and a long build time. u still lose map control as u do not have enough units. And as Volks armed with stgs, penals are no longer superior to volks that far but much cheaper.
Guards require CP2, 360mp to call in, and u would have stgs.
Okw can not lose the early inf combat if u invest the same amount mp in inf units.

yes the first one because Sturms wins against every starting unit. .... but than after the FIRST engagement u faceing stronger units.

And the magic capping power u are talking of is nonsense. You dident cap the hole map in the first few min.


So when do you think happens most of game changing things? in the early game .. first 5 min or later?
These earlygame advantage the okw has is nearly unimportant. Or do you loose a game in the first mins?

yes the first one because Sturms wins against every starting unit. .... but than after the FIRST engagement u faceing stronger units.

U could build green covers on enemy key points and upgrade stgs in isolate territory right outside enemy base when against SOV and USF.
If going against UKF, go guerrilla strategy because UKF have less units and AEC is poor against inf now.

editKW also have more starting MP than other faction, so they could bring troops faster than the enemy. This aggressive maneuver would get little drawbacks. Keeping pressure and also cap territories.

U could build green covers on enemy key points and upgrade stgs in isolate territory right outside enemy base when against SOV and USF.
If going against UKF, go guerrilla strategy because UKF have less units and AEC is poor against inf now.

editKW also have more starting MP than other faction, so they could bring troops faster than the enemy. This aggressive maneuver would get little drawbacks. Keeping pressure and also cap territories.

Are you honestly getting base pinned in 4v4 in the first few minutes of the game?

Are you honestly getting base pinned in 4v4 in the first few minutes of the game?

Actuall few in 4v4. But usally get no fuel in some maps that fuel points located in the mid line of map, especially Essen Steelworks. I think it's not a big difference between cut-off fuel and real base pin.
However, I have been used to play with no fuel points for the first fuel minutes. I konw I can still have chance to win. But it's annoying when u can do nothing but wait when facing a Volks spam and the foe need no skills but still keep u pinned and get little punish by bad plays and coming back with more volks overwhelming the line.
Real base pinned is what I do in 1v1 when playing Okw in some particular map.