USF Teching Costs

I've had an idea ticking over for a while for a way to tune up USF's teching that's both effective and simple enough to be considered for a balance patch.

The philosophy of the balance patches tends to be rebalance rather than redesign, so I settled on swapping the tech costs around.

• Lieutenant: 200 MP 50 FU -> 260 MP 35 FU
  
• Captain: 200 MP 60 FU -> 260 MP 45 FU
  
• Major: 240 MP 120 FU -> 180 MP 135 FU
  
  
• Grenade Unlock: 150 MP 25 FU -> 150 MP, 15 FU
  
• M20 Utility Car, AAHT, Stuart -> requires Grenades, Racks, or two Officers to build

This is essentially what was done with Ostheer in DBP: shift the teching costs around to make the tech fork less painful. The total fuel cost to unlock any vehicle is completely unchanged: it'll cost at least 170 fuel to unlock Major, 50 FU to unlock the Lieutenant vehicles and 60 FU to unlock the Stuart.

However, this opens up a lot of options for USF builds.


You don't have to build 3x Riflemen, opening up lots of other build options.
With Lieutenant costing 35 FU rather than 50, you're no longer forced into a three Riflemen build. Lieutenant costs more manpower, but it can be your third unit rather than your fourth. You get a powerful Thompson/BAR infantry squad that can help repel OKW rushes sooner.

With the Officer out as your third unit, you've suddenly got another tier to play with buildwise.

• You still have the option to build another Rifleman squad, but you could also build a .50 cal.
  
• After your first officer you've probably unlocked 1CP, so you could go Pathfinders or the new Cavalry Rifles instead. If you haven't unlocked 1CP by then, you can afford to wait: you've got lots of other useful things to build in the meantime now.
  
• You could hold out for elite infantry like Rangers and Paratroopers.
  
• Or you could just stick with a 3x mainline infantry build like most Ostheer builds, focusing on support weapons instead.
  

Double Teching is a more viable option.
Firstly, it's cheaper: it'll cost you 80 fuel rather than 110: a 30 FU discount. That may sound like a lot compared to Soviet double teching, but remember USF's manpower cost for teching is offset by the squad they get for it.

Secondly, it doesn't lumber you with a 5x mainline infantry build: remember with the faster Lieutenant you don't need to build 3x Riflemen. The Captain could easily be your fourth infantry squad.

I've had an idea ticking over for a while for a way to tune up USF's teching that's both effective and simple enough to be considered for a balance patch.
...

The original design of the USF faction was about having some of the best infantry, good support weapons and light vehicles but limited access to them since the faction was designed to unlock 2 officers.

If ones start messing with the more it would be far better to do a complete overhaul and redesign the faction.

But imo the problem lies elsewhere, OKW and Soviet infantry are simply too strong for their time frame and it would be allot better if these unit where toned down and then check for any other issues that might exist.

Actually I might not a big fun of "free" USF officers and if I was to change anything in USF I would remove the "free" officer. The option to "promote" infantry to officers and/or to "train" them into superior units (paras, ranger ,assault engineers, cavalry riflemen) sound to me more interesting.

The concept here is simple resource cost shifts that could conceiveably make it into a patch, based on a similar change made in DBP.

Redesigning the faction isn't likely to make it into a patch, and discussion of that would probably be more at home in the Radical USF Design Changes thread.

I agree with Lago, a total faction redesign seems very unlikely with the current dev resources while some small changes to tech prices as the ones suggested would definitely be worth testing as a solution that is 'as good as it's gonna get'. Half a solution is still better than no solution and it might make USF just good enough to compete again in the current meta/balance.

The concept here is simple resource cost shifts that could conceiveably make it into a patch, based on a similar change made in DBP.

....

The patch should focus on commanders not general balance issues unless they are pressing. It should not include changes to the USF faction since it will be impossible to test adequately.

The patch already is more ambitious than it should be as it already involved more than 20 units, increasing the number of changes not only decreases the changes of getting all changes right but it all makes all harder to identify what the problem.

This game is plugged by patches that overnerf or overbuff units or changes too many things at same time, while not fixing simple issues that need fixing for years, like a veterancy overhaul.

The original design of the USF faction was about having some of the best infantry, good support weapons and light vehicles but limited access to them since the faction was designed to unlock 2 officers.

If ones start messing with the more it would be far better to do a complete overhaul and redesign the faction.

But imo the problem lies elsewhere, OKW and Soviet infantry are simply too strong for their time frame and it would be allot better if these unit where toned down and then check for any other issues that might exist.

Actually I might not a big fun of "free" USF officers and if I was to change anything in USF I would remove the "free" officer. The option to "promote" infantry to officers and/or to "train" them into superior units (paras, ranger ,assault engineers, cavalry riflemen) sound to me more interesting.

Well, in another thread, it’s been established that usf isn’t really gonna get a complete overhaul. While I’d love to see that, it just seems more or less off the table. To that end, I’d like to see Lago’s suggestions get implemented since anything more is probably not possible.

IMO original design is a moot point now. Things have changed a lot since usf released and the original design doesn’t really make a lot of sense anymore.
Case in point: volks have stgs now which means they trade a lot better than they used to with rifles despite having a generally much more accessible roster and more nondoctrinal basic tools than usf (rocket arty, flames, they even have nondoc elite infantry and heavy tanks, although those aren’t really basic tools). “Original design” argument really can’t stand on its own anymore anyways. Okw doesn’t have a resource penalty anymore, ost t4 is actually sort of buildable (rather, t3 is skippable resource wise, not sure how wise it is in 1v1s but that’s not the point), penals have at rifles, brits are getting snares next patch. Original design has changed to varying degrees over time for most factions and shouldn’t be an argument for balance one way or another.

I sort of like the promotion idea though. Maybe have it work like the grenadier 5 man upgrade where you could give the officer model with a Thompson to a rifle squad and give it the proper abilities. If a six man squad is too much one of the models could just get replaced instead. Major should probably stay an entirely separate squad though, as I’m not sure having a 5-6 man squad calling in arty and recon with double BARs and would be good balance XD IMO any sort of solution in that direction should come with a heavy cost decrease to nade and rack tech (mainly manpower decrease) since the free extra squad is what justifies the high cost (300 manpower 40 fuel) of nades and racks. IMO promoting riflemen to elite infantry is a cool idea but probably kind of OP. I’d much rather have 3 paras than 3 rifles (it’d be double 1919s on every usf squad again lol) and it’d be too much of a no-brainer while at the same time being inconsistent with different doctrines. Say you go rifle company and you don’t have access to any elite infantry to upgrade to, meaning the power of that kind of ability is directly dependent on what doctrine you choose, making some doctrines even less viable.

You'll need to reduce LV's price as well since you are increasing Tier cost by 60mp and fuel by 5. Being able to build Lieutenant faster doesn't mean you'll not need another squad after, even if it is not a rifle squad.

You'll need to reduce LV's price as well since you are increasing Tier cost by 60mp and fuel by 5. Being able to build Lieutenant faster doesn't mean you'll not need another squad after, even if it is not a rifle squad.

The tier cost goes down by 15 FU, and the light vehicles need a 15 FU upgrade to unlock. The fuel timing should be the same. Manpower timing is very dependent on upkeep and reinforcement. I reckon it's still doable to get the AAHT out on its fuel timing without a crippling sacrifice of field presence given you get the Lieutenant's power spike out that much earlier.

The purpose of shifting manpower from Major to the earlier tiers is to reduce the manpower spike you get from deploying an Officer. That's to offset that spike happening earlier and the increased viability of doing it twice (LT + CPT). If 60 MP is too much it could be 40 MP. It could even remain at 200 MP per officer, but that'd make for a hefty net buff to USF.

A buff like that might be a good thing, but I'm deliberately keeping the scope of this proposal as tight as possible. The idea here is to increase USF's options. Buffing the faction is a separate issue.

The tier cost goes down by 15 FU, and the light vehicles need a 15 FU upgrade to unlock. The fuel timing should be the same. Manpower timing is very dependent on upkeep and reinforcement. I reckon it's still doable to get the AAHT out on its fuel timing without a crippling sacrifice of field presence given you get the Lieutenant's power spike out that much earlier.

The purpose of shifting manpower from Major to the earlier tiers is to reduce the manpower spike you get from deploying an Officer. That's to offset that spike happening earlier and the increased viability of doing it twice (LT + CPT). If 60 MP is too much it could be 40 MP. It could even remain at 200 MP per officer, but that'd make for a hefty net buff to USF.

A buff like that might be a good thing, but I'm deliberately keeping the scope of this proposal as tight as possible. The idea here is to increase USF's options. Buffing the faction is a separate issue.

Hum... yes true enough.

Well, in another thread, it’s been established that usf isn’t really gonna get a complete overhaul. While I’d love to see that, it just seems more or less off the table. To that end, I’d like to see Lago’s suggestions get implemented since anything more is probably not possible.
...

As I explained the 20+ units already in the patch are hardly balanced, so adding more things to the patch will make things worse. That should have become apparent with DBP where allot of units where changed (shocks, FHQ, KV-8, M-4C, m10, WC51, M21, M3, Assault engineers, ST, Croc,...)yet they need further balancing in this patch.

...
Case in point: volks have stgs now which means they trade a lot better than they used to with rifles ...

And here lies most of the issues. Starting units like SP/VG/Penal are simply too strong for their time frame and that makes USF and UKF fall behind. One could argue that buffing USF and UKF is easier than nerfing the rest but that problem is high lethality reduces the affects of tactic play.

It time that the game return to "relative positioning" where units placement can have a noticeable effect on the outcome of fight.

This thread has nothing to do with the present Commander Revamp Patch or SOV/OST/OKW infantry.

This thread has nothing to do with the present Commander Revamp Patch or SOV/OST/OKW infantry.

I am simply pointing out that Commander Revamp Patch is already overburden with changes and changing USF tech cost should no be included imo.

Imo Commander Revamp Patches should focus on getting the Commander at hand right and not fixing general balance issues.

He just literally said these proposals aren't supposed to be for the upcoming CRP.

He just literally said these proposals aren't supposed to be for the upcoming CRP.

For the next balance patch (not Commander revamp) I would rather see Soviets and OKW nerfed (and certain Ostheer units and doctrinal abilities) before starting to mess with the USF.

One has to clearly decide the power level of a single "benchmark" faction before adjusting the rest.

More importantly I would rather see a veterancy system overhaul (XP values, vet abilities, vet bonuses) before anything else. It very very long overdue and it effect balance allot.

I like the idea, however, the manpower cost of getting out an m20 (or any other vehicle) is significantly increased, over 210 more (nades 150, 60 lieutenant tech). I doubt that it would therefore upen up much since it also makes any unit out of the two tiers harder to get because of the manpower increase. Maybe reducing the manpower cost of nades and racks to 100 (or something more appropriate) would counteract some of the effect by only increasing the cost of getting out a vehicle by 160 manpower.

If I have some time on hand I'll try to create a small mod with the changes you proposed, maybe if we do some work and testing Relic will be more agreeable to take a look.

I like the idea, however, the manpower cost of getting out an m20 (or any other vehicle) is significantly increased, over 210 more (nades 150, 60 lieutenant tech). I doubt that it would therefore upen up much since it also makes any unit out of the two tiers harder to get because of the manpower increase. Maybe reducing the manpower cost of nades and racks to 100 (or something more appropriate) would counteract some of the effect by only increasing the cost of getting out a vehicle by 160 manpower.

If I have some time on hand I'll try to create a small mod with the changes you proposed, maybe if we do some work and testing Relic will be more agreeable to take a look.

It shifts the order rather than the overall cost: you need to tech Racks or Grenades first, but you don't need to build another squad first. You effectively change Squad -> Vehicle -> Sidetech to Racks -> Vehicle -> Sidetech.

Another way to look at it is you're no longer penalised if you get Racks or Grenades early.

As I explained the 20+ units already in the patch are hardly balanced, so adding more things to the patch will make things worse. That should have become apparent with DBP where allot of units where changed (shocks, FHQ, KV-8, M-4C, m10, WC51, M21, M3, Assault engineers, ST, Croc,...)yet they need further balancing in this patch.


And here lies most of the issues. Starting units like SP/VG/Penal are simply too strong for their time frame and that makes USF and UKF fall behind. One could argue that buffing USF and UKF is easier than nerfing the rest but that problem is high lethality reduces the affects of tactic play.

It time that the game return to "relative positioning" where units placement can have a noticeable effect on the outcome of fight.

Doesn’t necessarily need to be this patch. I was operating under the assumption that this would be a future patch actually as this one was mainly meant to be a commander thing.

IMO current lethality in general isn’t a huge problem. Adjust it as a blanket concept (as in increasing/decreasing general time to kills and dps and the like across the board to change the “degree” of lethality in general in the game) significantly and you have a bunch of issues that come up with wiping, movement, balance of different dps types/models (i.e. moderately/significantly decrease dps as a whole and cqb infantry like rangers, shocks, and stormtroopers become stronger since they still move at the same speed and take the same time to close with the enemy but suffer less damage in the process and are much more likely to win more engagements, even ones that they shouldn’t, as a result). I just think it’d create more problems than it’d fix.

Relative positioning is a completely separate issue. There’s just no easily defined best range for a some weapons now, most notably BARs and volk stgs, which are also both very good on the move. This is especially problematic for the usf vs okw matchup, as a lot of infantry fights are just “who has more guns” at that point. It can be fixed without having to change conceptual “lethality” in general though. For example, BARs/volks vs LMGs or smgs are at least more interesting matchups because for both of those situations there’s some range where the LMGs/smgs will win and the BARs/volks have to play reactively around that. Much more engaging to play with/against but also not entirely related to “lethality”.

At the risk of derailing my own thread, Volks STGs were designed such that they do have an ideal combat range versus enemy infantry: the opposite of the enemy's ideal range. If I remember what Mr. Smith said correctly, they're meant to be able to fight Guards and Infantry Sections close up and to fight Riflemen and Conscripts at range. That's why their overall curve is so odd.

It shifts the order rather than the overall cost: you need to tech Racks or Grenades first, but you don't need to build another squad first. You effectively change Squad -> Vehicle -> Sidetech to Racks -> Vehicle -> Sidetech.

Another way to look at it is you're no longer penalised if you get Racks or Grenades early.

The problem I see is that no one gets racks or nades if they are trying to rush an m20. The m20 is expensive in terms of manpower as it is and in a normal game you'll have to wait for the manpower, not the fuel, an additional 210 manpower delays any light vehicle quite significantly.

I still love the idea and the approach but I think it needs some tweaking.



Built the mod: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1553135357

The only change I made to your suggestions is that major also unlocks light vehicles.

Let me know if anyone wants to have some testing games or if you find any bugs


I did a couple of quick skirmishes to get a feel for the changes. A couple of observations:

- lieu as 3rd unit isn't possible, even with perfect capping and fuel rush you'll float way more manpower than is acceptable early game until you have the fuel. So you'll go a third rifle regardless or a second RE. If you actually stall for lieu you'll suffer in engagements.
- The change in teching delays the m20 (true for any light vehicle) significantly not only due to the increased manpower cost to unlock it but also due to the additional teching time.

only change I made to your suggestions is that major also unlocks light vehicles.

That's included.

"M20 Utility Car, AAHT, Stuart -> requires Grenades, Racks, or two Officers to build"

Lieutenant and Major, Captain and Major or Lieutenant and Captain should all do it.

- lieu as 3rd unit isn't possible, even with perfect capping and fuel rush you'll float way more manpower than is acceptable early game until you have the fuel. So you'll go a third rifle regardless or a second RE. If you actually stall for lieu you'll suffer in engagements.

Then the fuel cost needs to come down further. Allowing LT as the third unit's the whole point.

The problem there is that using the weapon racks as a prerequisite doesn't work if the fuel cost is slashed below 15. It'd need a third Motor Pool sidetech.

That'd look something like this:

• Lieutenant: 200 MP 50 FU -> 280 MP 20 FU
  
• Captain: 200 MP 60 FU -> 280 MP 30 FU
  
• Major: 240 MP 120 FU -> 160 MP 120 FU
  
  
• Third sidetech in HQ: Motor Pool. Costs 30 FU.
  
• M20 Utility Car, AAHT, Stuart, Major: Requires the Motor Pool unlock to build.