about small arm and relative positioning.

Not really the majority of mainline infantry remained the same for years.
Grenadiers, Riflemen and Conscripts have only saw minor changes even up to now.

That is a strong indication that thing where about right as far as early infantry play was concern.

The balance of the game as hole is rather irrelevant to early game infantry play.

I am not suggesting to return to the past, I suggesting to make use what was learned in the past as guideline for improving the game.

Power level of main line infantry changes according to the different units revolving around them. It's not just about engages on the early game, it's also about how the investment on those unit will have a repercussion through out the game.

-Grenadiers are the ones which saw the least of changes (pop and rifle grenade adjustment), even if the biggest change was more generally applied (squad formation).
-Conscripts were reworked. Oorah, flare, molotov, vet, pop and their weapon profile.
-Riflemen saw changes to scaling. Most popular commander got nerfed (Elite and flamer) as well as bulletin stacking (triple +10% vet gaining). Bar/1919 saw changes. Smoke grenades were removed.

If you only care about early game infantry play, then it's just shortsighted. If you only care about infantry play, it's just shortsighted. MG, indirect and light vehicles all play a role in the early game.

Even if you care about only early game infantry engagements without taking into account any other unit (vacuum is bad if we talk about balance), the only balanced match was Conscript vs Grenadiers. If grenadiers vs Riflemen was balanced, OH wouldn't had received a T0 MG42, a buffed pio and an increased starting mp. In contrast, USF wouldn't had received a mortar, smoke wouldn't had been removed from them, offensive scaling wouldn't had been tone down nor their light shock units or officers nerfed down.

I am not suggesting to return to the past, I suggesting to make use what was learned in the past as guideline for improving the game.

And what should that be? Cause all that fancy word about weapon profiles didn't reflect INGAME nor the early game infantry play was balanced.

...
If you only care about early game infantry play, then it's just shortsighted. If you only care about infantry play, it's just shortsighted. MG, indirect and light vehicles all play a role in the early game.
...

The more variables you bring the harder is to make any good balance decision. Early game is the easiest to achieve balance due to smaller number of variables. Balance does not necessarily mean that all faction should be equal an "early" faction should have a slight advantage over a "late" faction.

It is not that simply care about infantry fighting but it is one best designed parts of the game and it should remain so. In addition it a separate face of the game that can be balanced separately than other phases of the game.

And what should that be? Cause all that fancy word about weapon profiles didn't reflect INGAME nor the early game infantry play was balanced.

I already have mentioned some:
1) Weapon categories.
As I explained weapon categories allow users to have feel on how to use units without having to memorizes stats

2) Relative positioning
Squads designed to excel at certain ranges allow players to make tactical decision to influence the out come of fight.

3) Lower lethality
Fight that do not end in second so that player actually have time to give their input.

In addition it a separate face of the game that can be balanced separately than other phases of the game.



I already have mentioned some:
1) Weapon categories.
As I explained weapon categories allow users to have feel on how to use units without having to memorizes stats

2) Relative positioning
Squads designed to excel at certain ranges allow players to make tactical decision to influence the out come of fight.

3) Lower lethality
Fight that do not end in second so that player actually have time to give their input.

But it can't? I mean, infantry doesn't fight isolated from other units. Rifles don't fight Volks alone. They fight Volks, a SP and possible a Kubel. Depending on how fast tech is, there can be an MG on the mix. Same with any of the other factions.

1-If you told me this 3.5 years ago, sure. All the new factions added more exceptions which end up been the norm later. And it's not like this is the case for the rest of the weapons nowadays.

2/3- That also applies to generalist as well. Look at Falls. They fight at range against CQC. They excel at mid. They can fight at CQC against LMg.
You could argue that a long range unit only wants to fight at long range and a CQC unit wants to only close the gap.
Lower lethality also means cover position doesn't matter, favouring CQC units. If i don't get punished by moving out of cover, i might as well as rush you with a blob. We had low lethality when the game release. Nowadays it's impossible to go back, unless you want to nerf 80% of the unit roster.

But it can't? I mean, infantry doesn't fight isolated from other units. Rifles don't fight Volks alone. They fight Volks, a SP and possible a Kubel. Depending on how fast tech is, there can be an MG on the mix. Same with any of the other factions.

Yes it can and that is how it was done. Each mainline infantry was balanced fighting each other. Once that balance was achieved any new factor like the kubel you mentioned has to be balanced according to the balanced already achieved.

Patch notes are crystal clear on this example:

"Grenadiers

Intended to excel at long range
Highest long range damage output for its tier
Abilities load out geared towards long range combat
Vulnerable at short range to all other unit types

Versus Conscripts
Advantaged at long ranges
Even at mid ranges
Disadvantaged at short ranges

Versus Riflemen
Slightly disadvantaged at long ranges
Disadvantaged at mid ranges
Disadvantaged at short ranges"

1-If you told me this 3.5 years ago, sure. All the new factions added more exceptions which end up been the norm later. And it's not like this is the case for the rest of the weapons nowadays.

That is simply due to "lazy" solutions and not to adding new factions, one could come up with solution with in the categories of weapons.
Example:
There no reason for VG's ST44 to be completely different from the SP ST44. One could simply replace VG's ST44 with a g43 or call it ST44 semi auto mod.

2/3- That also applies to generalist as well. Look at Falls. They fight at range against CQC. They excel at mid. They can fight at CQC against LMg.
You could argue that a long range unit only wants to fight at long range and a CQC unit wants to only close the gap.
Lower lethality also means cover position doesn't matter, favouring CQC units. If i don't get punished by moving out of cover, i might as well as rush you with a blob. We had low lethality when the game release. Nowadays it's impossible to go back, unless you want to nerf 80% of the unit roster.

Fall have a number of limitation (doctrinal) and are not available before minute 1. There also a number of solution for them.

And it current situation Shock are having their buffed because CQC units are not favored.

I really do want to into details over specific units because it derails the thread.

The questions I have for you are:
Are weapon categories a good thing making the game easier to understand and one should only go outside of those as last resort?

Is unit placement (range of fight) something that should have an noticeable effect on the outcome of fire fight?

Yes it can and that is how it was done. Each mainline infantry was balanced fighting each other.

No it wasn't. I think we will have to agree to disagree here.
I think there's a bit of semantics problems here. Riflemen were designed to stomp grenadiers (changelog), this doesn't mean the infantry fights were "balanced" at all.

You keep bringing changelog, i'm giving you examples INGAME of that time.

I could also bring you this example of how intention =/= execution.

"Adjusted unit and ability performance to better align it with our design intent. Our goal is always to open the number of viable strategies available to players while maintaining the fun factor on both sides of the battle field."

"We wanted to increase the lethality and reliability of the Katyusha.
AOE radius from 4 to 6
AOE distance from 1/2/3 to 1.5/3/4.5
Damage from 80 to 160
Scatter angle from 5 to 10
Scatter offset from 0.25 to 0.1"

Are weapon categories a good thing making the game easier to understand and one should only go outside of those as last resort?

Is unit placement (range of fight) something that should have an noticeable effect on the outcome of fire fight?

1-Weapon categories is just a context from where you can start to work through. Going outside of it is just a matter of whether you can improve the current situation or not at the moment with the tools you have at your disposal.

2-Not sure why you ask me these. Cover/distance matter as long as the lethality is at the right spot. I've said in the past that WFA had upped the lethality too much, specially on LMG department. Bar/1919 had been nerfed but apart from that you can't really adjust too much more without adjusting all weapons in the game.
Low lethality means much more input, less reliance on cover.
High lethality means less input, more more reliance on cover.

"The distribution of damage is no longer blended between ranges; this combined with the increased weapon lethality should reduce the tendency to rush infantry at one another
Small arm lethality: Reinforce the value of cover and unit positioning"

No it wasn't. I think we will have to agree to disagree here.
I think there's a bit of semantics problems here. Riflemen were designed to stomp grenadiers (changelog), this doesn't mean the infantry fights were "balanced" at all.

You keep bringing changelog, i'm giving you examples INGAME of that time.

I could also bring you this example of how intention =/= execution.
...

In game examples simply murk the scenery.

Of course their is difference between intent but when we are talking about guidelines we are talking about a way to make intent into execution. If this where executed right there would be little need for further balance patches.

1-Weapon categories is just a context from where you can start to work through. Going outside of it is just a matter of whether you can improve the current situation or not at the moment with the tools you have at your disposal.

It is actually a "guideline" that make the game allot more player friendly, greatly reducing the information one has to memorize. Imo many patch have gone outside this "context" without really trying to stay within the boundaries. Seemingly following a logic that faction A has something good lets clone it and give it to faction B, without using a single faction a benchmark with witch thing should be compared.

2-Not sure why you ask me these. Cover/distance matter as long as the lethality is at the right spot. I've said in the past that WFA had upped the lethality too much, specially on LMG department. Bar/1919 had been nerfed but apart from that you can't really adjust too much more without adjusting all weapons in the game.
Low lethality means much more input, less reliance on cover.
High lethality means less input, more more reliance on cover.

"The distribution of damage is no longer blended between ranges; this combined with the increased weapon lethality should reduce the tendency to rush infantry at one another
Small arm lethality: Reinforce the value of cover and unit positioning"

Maybe it is time to adjust all. According to WFA armies had upped lethality too much but what we see now is that more units use WFA as the benchmark instead of Ostheer (while NOT taking into account the faction designing specifics) and have their lethality increased.
Penal used riflemen as a benchmark, Guard Obers, Storm-troppers Commandos, Shock troops Thompson,...or even reversed USF mortar the Ostheer mortar that was design to be OP by faction design.

To make things worse the buff units receive focus more on increasing their DPS compared to baselines infantry to make them more attractive while those base infantry already have higher DPS, instead of focusing on utility.

Riflemen where on the upper end lethality because of faction design->Penals where modeled after Riflemen->Guards had to buff to become attractive->Shock have to be buffed to be more attractive.

End result power level of infantry increased for no real good reason.

I'm going with elchino7 here.

As it was mentioned, infantry can't be balanced in context of fighting singular particular squad on the other side, because that never happens.

Also no, it never was balanced this way, they made an attempt with mainline infantries and we all know how that ended(with a massive fail for that one still in denial).

Vipper is simply clinging with nails and teeth to a concept that doesn't exist and when it did existed, it never worked for a single iteration of balance, desperately trying to justify otherwise(tell me, if it worked so well back then, why was it abandoned so quickly?).

You can't blindly pretend there is only one type of unit at every side, that goes for every faction, bit less for USF who do not really have any kind of choice on the matter.

And yes, decrease in lethality is a direct meta buff for CQC units as they now do not need to consider cover at all when advancing to where they excel, because now long range units can't inflict sufficient damage that would break the reckless push.

Sorry, but you can't just group weapons and throw them into different kind of bags, each squad weapon needs to be considered separately with the intention of squads role, cost, arrival time and possible supporting units.

You can't just have same profile for same weapon type on different units, because that is the easiest way to completely break any balance.

And stop the "utility" talk bullshit, some units are designed to offer utility, some are designed to murder shit and some can do both at very high cost or being just average at both/one of it.

Moreover units with certain cost are expected to perform at certain level.

Penals had to become as they are now, as you call it, modeled after rifles, because purely long range role was already taken by guards, pure low range role was taken by cons and shocks and the only role left that would make them attractive in any way at that cost was soviet rifles, it was a natural, logical choice.

End result is power level of infantry actually matches their cost instead of having a bunch of underpowered, extremely expensive POS units that suffer bleed without being able to inflict any(all the soviet infantry previously on maxim meta).

I'm going with elchino7 here.

As it was mentioned, infantry can't be balanced in context of fighting singular particular squad on the other side, because that never happens.

Also no, it never was balanced this way, they made an attempt with mainline infantries and we all know how that ended(with a massive fail for that one still in denial).

Either "it was never balanced this way" or "they made an attempt", you can not have both thing happen at same.

Mainline infantries balance was not a massive fail, actually most of the mainlines infantries remained the same for years with little problems one vs other (other than existence of shreck on VG). What was actually a massive fail was the JUNE 21st Penals coming with flamer and ourah.

Vipper is simply clinging with nails and teeth to a concept that doesn't exist and when it did existed, it never worked for a single iteration of balance, desperately trying to justify otherwise(tell me, if it worked so well back then, why was it abandoned so quickly?).

You can't blindly pretend there is only one type of unit at every side, that goes for every faction, bit less for USF who do not really have any kind of choice on the matter.

I have to remind you this over and over again but I am not the topic of this thread, PLS stop obsessing with what I do or do not do.

The claim that the system was abandoned quickly is simply untrue.
The balance system of mainline infantries fighting each other worked fine from October of 2014-June 2016. Keep in mind that during that time the lead designers also changed. The system was not even abandoned, patch started moving away from these guidlines mostly from June 21, when other people took the lead.

...
Sorry, but you can't just group weapons and throw them into different kind of bags, each squad weapon needs to be considered separately with the intention of squads role, cost, arrival time and possible supporting units.

You can't just have same profile for same weapon type on different units, because that is the easiest way to completely break any balance.

Not only you can group weapon but it was actually done by Relic.

And stop the "utility" talk bullshit, some units are designed to offer utility, some are designed to murder shit and some can do both at very high cost or being just average at both/one of it.

Pls do not tell me what to do if you want something ask nicely.

Moreover units with certain cost are expected to perform at certain level.

Penals had to become as they are now, as you call it, modeled after rifles, because purely long range role was already taken by guards, pure low range role was taken by cons and shocks and the only role left that would make them attractive in any way at that cost was soviet rifles, it was a natural, logical choice.
...

No they did not and they where proven to be monstrosities on the 27 June patch and they had to be nerfed in nearly every patch since then. I wonder if one the pre 27 June patch Penals would not prove to be more cost efficient AI than the current ones.

..
You keep bringing changelog, i'm giving you examples INGAME of that time.
...

This why I avoided in game examples because then I have to respond to flame posts.

Either "it was never balanced this way" or "they made an attempt", you can not have both thing happen at same.

An attempt was made.
It was not balanced.

Which part is so tremendously hard and painful to understand for you?
I can prepare diagram in Paint to help you if words are not enough.

Mainline infantries balance was not a massive fail, actually most of the mainlines infantries remained the same for years with little problems one vs other (other than existence of shreck on VG). What was actually a massive fail was the JUNE 21st Penals coming with flamer and ourah.

You can't predict meta.
You can't predict how units will be used.
You can make assumptions and set goals for balance but if players do not use it in intended way and it under/over performs, you're back to drawing board and its getting further changes.
Unit didn't worked as cons on crack, because it invalidated existence of cons and their upgrades.
Again, not a hard concept.

I have to remind you this over and over again but I am not the topic of this thread, PLS stop obsessing with what I do or do not do.

The claim that the system was abandoned quickly is simply untrue.
The balance system of mainline infantries fighting each other worked fine from October of 2014-June 2016. Keep in mind that during that time the lead designers also changed. The system was not even abandoned, patch started moving away from these guidlines mostly from June 21, when other people took the lead.

Reasons are irrelevant.
It did not worked and had to be changed, period. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not only you can group weapon but it was actually done by Relic.

Yeah, grat example of that would be con rifles, gren rifles, tommies rifles and osttruppen rifles, all working in completely different way with completely different profiles and dps curves.
Yeah... no.

Pls do not tell me what to do if you want something ask nicely.

Feel free to go for the argument instead of the way its presented.
I'm not complaining that half of each post you make are unnecessary words with a goal to divert attention of discussed issue and focus on something you personally think is bad.

No they did not and they where proven to be monstrosities on the 27 June patch and they had to be nerfed in nearly every patch since then. I wonder if one the pre 27 June patch Penals would not prove to be more cost efficient AI than the current ones.

You are confusing(yet another time) units design with units balance.
Was units design changed since that iteration?
No, its still "soviet rifles" with long range and good offensive scaling. CQC version would never survived in design due to con and shock overlap always making at least one in that trio obsolets, so penals had to take on unique role in soviet army.
Everything that happened to the unit between that patch and now is just a balance, design, again, was completely unchanged and penals perform the exact same role as back then, with long range soviet non doctrinal infantry with dps scaling instead of durability one.

...
You can't predict meta.
You can't predict how units will be used.
You can make assumptions...
...

You are simply off topic this thread is not about me.

You are simply off topic this thread is not about me.

Here, personalized for you, so even you will understand it this time:

Show Spoiler

Here, personalized for you, so even you will understand it this time:

Show Spoiler

It seem that not only you have trouble understanding what others write but also what you yourself write. Highlighted for you are the comment that are directly direct to me since you have trouble following your on posts.

Show Spoiler

...
Everything that happened to the unit between that patch and now is just a balance, design, again, was completely unchanged and penals perform the exact same role as back then, with long range soviet non doctrinal infantry with dps scaling instead of durability one.

So according to you the 300 manpower Penals (equipped with flamers able to "ourah" and high DPS) that where introduced in 27 June patch are are designed "exactly the same and serve the same role" with the PTRS Penals.
Ok you are entitled to your opinion.