about small arm and relative positioning.

I don't want to get into this because it's not the point of the thread, but you bring it up anyway in a lot of threads, regardless of its relevance.

You always say these units are bad design-wise because they diminish the impact of relative positioning, which is a mechanic that you seem to be placing on some kind of pedestal. Stuff like (not actually quoting) "grens with LMGs are good because of relative positioning," "smgs are good because of relative positioning," "volks are bad because they're okay at every range and diminish the importance of relative positioning, turning fights into a dps race." A weapon profile that is okay at every range is no worse for relative positioning than any other weapon profile is. I have yet to see you argue why this is actually the case for, say volks and penals, and not for grens or any other unit in the game.

Put grens against guards. Where is the relative positioning there? They're both best at long range and are bad at short, so it's just a DPS race. Same thing for grens against LMG rifles, or against LMG tommies.

Rangers against assault grenadiers? Rangers against panzer grenadiers? Any close ranged unit vs any other close ranged unit? No relative positioning, its just a DPS race.

Long ranged weapons are not affected by relative positioning any significant amount more than weapons that are okay at all ranges.

When volks face a long range unit, they want to be in close range. When they face a close range unit, they want to be at long range. when they face a unit thats good at all ranges, they stay at whatever range they're at and it becomes a DPS race.

Just like how when lmg grens face a close range or mid range unit, they want to be at long range. And when they face a long range unit, they stay at whatever range they're at and it becomes a DPS race.

As long as two weapons are good at similar ranges and bad at similar ranges (or universally okay at the same ranges), relative positioning will not be a factor. Given how many weapons there are, you just can't have every weapon be unique enough so as to preserve relative positionings importance for every engagement.

On a different note, you refer to high lethality units, but as far as combat infantry is concerned (no engineers, vehicles, scouts, etc.), the only low lethality unit would probably be conscripts. I don't know why you refer to volks, penals, and guards as if they were some exception as high lethality units when every other unit is too. Fair enough if you dislike high lethality and want to bring most combat infantry down a bit using conscripts as a baseline, but I just don't understand why you single out volks, penals, and guards as if every other unit wasn't similarly high lethality too.

Took the liberty of moving to this thread since I have gone out of Topic.

Things worth mentioning. Weapon curves and relative positioning is not my idea but Relic's.

"Infantry Combat Tuning
The intent of these changes is to better define the strengths and weaknesses of each core unit relative to one another. We wanted to better define how each core unit should engage their perspective targets. For example, in a Grenadier vs. Riflemen match up, the Grenadiers want to maintain range. This is now a valid tactic, where in the past it was not. An integral element to this iteration is the introduction of received accuracy in place of raw damage. This was used in instances where additional fire power was not necessary in maintaining the established unit relationships. For example, Grenadier long range fire power is high enough to establish the unit’s relative relationship with other units, allowing us to increase their durability instead. As a by-product of this shift, short and mid range units should have an easier time closing in on their target. "


Weapons uses to have linear DPS and the main factor of of their DPS was price. Then Relic realized the potential of specializing weapon for specific ranges and create "relative positioning" for mainline infantry.

Unfortunately imo this was not expanded to rest of the units and to make thing even has started to be toned down gradually.


Having weapon squad with linear DPS curve reduce the effect of relative positioning since the DPS ration is affected mostly from oen weapon profile.

As for mentioning specific unit "as high lethality" that has probably to do with the fact that they are the ones that have changed the most (although my comment applies to other units also).

Penal got a very big buff in DPS, Vg got ST44 and Guards got also buffed (mostly when stopped dancing around and their real DPS become available).

Having weapon squad with linear DPS curve reduce the effect of relative positioning since the DPS ration is affected mostly from oen weapon profile.

As for mentioning specific unit "as high lethality" that has probably to do with the fact that they are the ones that have changed the most (although my comment applies to other units also).

Penal got a very big buff in DPS, Vg got ST44 and Guards got also buffed (mostly when stopped dancing around and their real DPS become available).

But what's the alternative to a linear dps curve then? If you're moving all "linear" weapons to an lmg or smg profile, then you're creating more cases where its a DPS race and there is absolutely no relative positioning at all.

Assume a 33/33/33 distribution for smgs/supposed linear weapons/lmgs. The smg will be in a simple DPS race (it faces another smg) 33% of the time, so relative positioning is important 66% of the time. The linear weapon will be in a DPS race 33% of the time (faces another linear weapon), so again, relative positioning is important 66% of the time. The lmg, will again, have a DPS race 33% of the time. In this model with more varied profiles, relative positioning is important 66% of the time.

Now with a 50/50 distribution for smgs/lmgs (since, if I understand correctly, you don't want linear weapons). The smg is now in a DPS race 50% of the time, as is the lmg. Relative positioning is only really important 50% of the time now.

Obviously its more nuanced than that, but the point is that even if you have a weapon that performs similarly at all ranges, it still creates more situations where relative positioning is important than if you were to change this linear weapon into any previously occupied category.

Also, I feel like you're thinking about this too conceptually. Think about it in terms of how this actually translates into game through player decision making.

If I am using an smg unit, then I want to be using it in close range (because of relative positioning, of course). This means that any other range is suboptimal for me, and the closer I get the better. Against a long range unit, I want to get close, and against a short range unit, I want to get close (or else we can shoot each other for 20 minutes at max range...in that case I wouldn't even be using the unit). That means that I don't care what unit the enemy has, I always just want to be running up to them. There's no decision making there because I always want to play it a single way no matter what.

If I am using an lmg unit, then I want to be using it in long range (again, relative positioning). Any other range is suboptimal, because the further I am the better. Against a close range unit, I want to stay at long range, and against a long range unit, I want to stay at long range. So I don't care what unit the enemy has, because I always just want to a-move up to them and sit there firing. There's no decision making there because I always want to play it a single way no matter what, so I don't even have to do any thinking. See the issue?

If I'm using a unit with a weapon with a linear profile, then I want to be using it at... a different range depending on what my opponent has?! The range that is optimal changes based on what unit im facing. Against a close range unit, I want to stay at long range, and against a long range unit, I want to get to close range. So I have to think about what unit the enemy has, because I need to play it differently based on this. There is decision making because I need to actually care about and think about what unit the enemy has because, as there is no single range I want to always be at and the thinking and decision making isn't done for me.

Onto high lethality. Mentioning volks, penals, and guards because they got buffed doesn't make sense on its own. If those buffs put them over the top and theyre now the worst offenders of being a high lethality unit, then sure, it makes sense that you pick them out specifically. But you never established that. In fact, I don't think you can.

I already did the rifle vs volks comparison, so that's taken care of. This is just my interpretation, but that comparison led me to believe that volks aren't more "high lethality" than riflemen are, quite the opposite. Penals to rifles may be slightly different, but you would notice that penals lose their DPS WAY quicker than volks or rifles do. They're higher lethality than rifles when they have 6 models (and only at long range), but once models start dropping, they're not really higher lethality than other squads. So sure, in a completely ideal comparison they're higher lethality...but otherwise, theyre no anomaly. Guards being high lethality. Compare them to grens. Guards don't seem especially high lethality.

Weapons uses to have linear DPS and the main factor of of their DPS was price. Then Relic realized the potential of specializing weapon for specific ranges and create "relative positioning" for mainline infantry.

Making another post so that its more organized.

So if I'm understanding this correctly:
All/most weapons used to have the same/similar profile. Due to there being very little diversity in weapon curves, there was little decision making, which was bad. Relic introduced a LOT more variety to weapon profiles, which made decision making more important and it no longer boiled down to a dps race since weapons differed in what ranges they were good at.

In order to further increase the decision making, youre suggesting we decrease the diversity in weapon curves, making more weapons have the same/similar profile...

Making another post so that its more organized.

So if I'm understanding this correctly:
All/most weapons used to have the same/similar profile. Due to there being very little diversity in weapon curves, there was little decision making, which was bad. Relic introduced a LOT more variety to weapon profiles, which made decision making more important and it no longer boiled down to a dps race since weapons differed in what ranges they were good at.

Not that is incorrect. The idea behind it was that weapon would separate into categories with similar characteristics:
Lmg high fire rate low damage negative DPS curve good long range bad at close
Bolt action slow firing high damage weapon suited for long range fights
Carbine (semi automatic actually) less damage higher fire rate suited for to far to mid
Assault rifles (although not official designation) lower damage high fire rate suited for mid
Smgs high fire rate low damage good at firing on the move


The reason behind it was that range made little difference in the out come of fight between to squad. The new DPS curve allow for player to make use of "relative positioning" in order to improve their unit performance (not necessarily win a fight).

In theory if 2 unit of the same "cost" fought a unit at the optimum range of higher unit the top unit would win.
lmg>bolt far
Bolt> semi auto far
semi auto> assault far
assault>sgm far to mid
and the other way round

In order to further increase the decision making, youre suggesting we decrease the diversity in weapon curves, making more weapons have the same/similar profile...

No that is incorrect. I am simply suggesting that "relative positioning" become more important, so that a player can use specific squad as counters.

Part of that change would be to reduce the number of weapon that are good at all ranges and keeping weapon profiles inline the categories so that player can easily recognize the performance of weapon instead of having to memorize DPS curves of weapon that behave inconstant (ST44 for volks ST44 for other unit). Basically stop buffing the DPS of unit to make them more attractive, there should a "paper, rock, scissors" logic in the way squads interact.


Again from the patch notes Relic:

"Small Arms Weapon Profiles
The goal is to improve tactics by better defining unit roles; thereby, increasing the importance of unit positioning relative to cover. A weapon profile defines the distribution of damage over distance. Previously, the profiles were generally flat and did not fully characterize the strengths and weaknesses of a squad. Now, a Pioneer squad with a MP40 submachine gun has a very high damage output at close range but a substantially lower damage output at max range. 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.

Keep in mind the weapon profiles represent the damage output of only a handful of units in live. Each profile will see an increase or decrease in damage output depending on the squad’s value. For example, a 100 manpower pioneer squad might do less close range damage than a 300 manpower Grenadier squad despite the pioneer MP40 submachine gun being a close range weapon. Hence, the value of a unit scales the weapon profile accordingly."


------
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
...
Volksgrenadiers

Performs moderately well at long range combat
Extremely vulnerable at short range, moderately vulnerable at mid-range

Versus Riflemen
Disadvantaged at long ranges
Extremely disadvantaged at short-mid ranges

Versus Conscripts
Advantaged at long ranges
Disadvantaged at mid ranges
Disadvantaged at short ranges
...
Sturmpioneers

Excels at short-mid ranges
Vulnerable at long ranges

Versus Riflemen
Disadvantaged at long ranges
Advantaged at mid ranges
Advantaged at short ranges

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

Performs modestly at mid to short range, does not excel at any range
Ability load out geared towards short-mid
Vulnerable to long range units

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

Versus Sturmpioneers
Advantaged at long ranges
Disadvantaged at mid ranges
Disadvantaged at short ranges
....
Riflemen

Performs moderately at all ranges; excels against other rifled units at short-mid
Vulnerable at long ranges

Versus Grenadiers
Slightly advantaged at long ranges
Advantaged at mid ranges
Advantaged at short ranges

Versus Sturmpioneers
Advantaged at long ranges
Disadvantaged at mid ranges
Disadvantaged at short ranges"

I don't see how making relative positioning is fufilling any objective as no matter what the tactical decisions will be one side will be best staying still and the other will be best at moving forward.

I don't mean to be rude, but you more or less said a whole lot of nothing.

Your first block was stuff that's overly technical and besides the point. There are classes of weapons. I simplified it to 2 classes, you described 5 classes. I understand these weapons classes (more than were listed) exist. I understand how they function and interact. But what about them? Like you said, the new DPS curve allows for relative positioning (between classes of weapons). Since that's the case, thats good and there should be no issue? (Also, as I've outlined in my previous post, relative positioning isn't necessarily that interesting of a gameplay dynamic).

Your second block asks that relative positioning become more important. Alright, great. Why is relative positioning underutilized currently (you never actually explain how this is the case, you just say it is the case). Why is having a weapon that is good at all ranges worse for relative positioning than it is for any of the other weapon types listed. You never concretely outline why things that you claim to be issues are actually problematic.

Also, that Relic quotation is besides the point. Cool, units should be advantaged at different ranges, and the advantage in a specific matchup should switch based on this range for most similarly costed units. I agree with this. You never provided any explanation for how this is currently not the case, why weapons that are good at all ranges don't fit into this model, and how your suggestions work towards this dynamic. You're throwing out statements with no other backing than "I said this, so it's true." You throw out many lines of a Relic statement about how infantry engagements should function, but never talk about how current COH2 infantry dynamics don't match up with this vision (beyond "I say it doesn't match up, so it doesn't").

Also something I just noticed now, you ask that weapons be made to follow the categories more closely (in order to increase the importance of relative positioning), but that has nothing to do with relative positioning at all. You just throw it out there and expect us to think that it will make relative positioning more important...because you said so? You imply that buffing a weapon's DPS gets rid of the rock paper scissors dynamic, but that's just not true. The weapon still performs relatively better at the same ranges it did before now matter how much you scale up the numbers.

Not that is incorrect. The idea behind it was that weapon would separate into categories with similar characteristics:
Lmg high fire rate low damage negative DPS curve good long range bad at close
Bolt action slow firing high damage weapon suited for long range fights
Carbine (semi automatic actually) less damage higher fire rate suited for to far to mid
Assault rifles (although not official designation) lower damage high fire rate suited for mid
Smgs high fire rate low damage good at firing on the move

My issue with this specifically is that weapons that are good at all ranges could be considered their own category. You decided that this category of weapons was less valid then all of the other categories without actually explaining why it's less valid. I argued that the more categories there were, the more situations there would be where relative positioning would be important. I used two vs three categories. If you want, I can extend the example to the 5 categories you mentioned, but theres no reason to. The relationship I described is true no matter how many categories you start with - a decrease in the categories/variety of weapons is a decrease in the importance of relative positioning since you thereby increase the number of situations in which the two squads facing each other have the same/similar weapon profile (which, again, leads to a DPS race).


On another note, you said that you are not trying to "suggest we decrease the diversity in weapon curves, making more weapons have the same/similar profile" with a "that isn't correct." Then go on to suggest that we push these weapons into these categories, thereby decreasing the diversity, which is what I said.

I don't mean to be rude, but you more or less said a whole lot of nothing.

You are not being rude when you ask for more clarification.

Your first block was stuff that's overly technical and besides the point. There are classes of weapons. I simplified it to 2 classes, you described 5 classes. I understand these weapons classes (more than were listed) exist. I understand how they function and interact. But what about them? Like you said, the new DPS curve allows for relative positioning (between classes of weapons). Since that's the case, thats good and there shoudl be no issue? (Also, as I've outlined in my previous post, relative positioning isn't necessarily that interesting of a gameplay dynamic).

...

Also something I just noticed now, you ask that weapons be made to follow the categories more closely (in order to increase the importance of relative positioning), but that has nothing to do with relative positioning at all. You just throw it out there and expect us to think that it will make relative positioning more important...because you said so? You imply that buffing a weapon's DPS gets rid of the rock paper scissors dynamic, but that's just not true. The weapon still performs relatively better at the same ranges it did before now matter how much you scale up the numbers.

The purpose that classes serve is to simply the system for the user. If a unit uses a weapon from specific class the user should have some idea how to best use the unit against what he is facing without having to memorize stats.

High DPS make fights last less giving less reaction time thus allowing less player input making the game more arcade than tactical.

Your second block asks that relative positioning become more important. Alright, great. Why is relative positioning underutilized currently (you never actually explain how this is the case, you just say it is the case). Why is having a weapon that is good at all ranges worse for relative positioning than it is for any of the other weapon types listed. You never concretely outline why things that you claim to be issues are actually problematic.

Also, that Relic quotation is besides the point. Cool, units should be advantaged at different ranges, and the advantage in a specific matchup should switch based on this range for most similarly costed units. I agree with this. You never provided any explanation for how this is currently not the case, why weapons that are good at all ranges don't fit into this model, and how your suggestions work towards this dynamic. You're throwing out statements with no other backing than "I said this, so it's true."

When weapons with "curved" profiles face each other the impact of range is greater. Best example LMG with negative close DPS vs SMG, an SMG squad managing to get to close range will suffer less from an lmg.

Weapon with linear curves behave good at all ranges and thus reduces the affect of range. The player using such a unit can choose his range at will and suffer less for being caught out of position.

This is not something I said this is something Relic has come to the conclusion after testing the game:
"The goal is to improve tactics by better defining unit roles; thereby, increasing the importance of unit positioning relative to cover. A weapon profile defines the distribution of damage over distance. Previously, the profiles were generally flat ("Flat" in other words linear) and did not fully characterize the strengths and weaknesses of a squad"

(also pls check PMs)

High DPS make fights last less giving less reaction time thus allowing less player input making the game more arcade than tactical.

*Earlier* Basically stop buffing the DPS of unit to make them more attractive, there should a "paper, rock, scissors" logic in the way squads interact.

You just switched up your argument. First you implied high dps is mutually exclusive with a paper rock scissors dynamic, which it isn't. Then you pivot to an entirely different point which is that high DPS doesn't give you enough time to switch between rock, paper, or scissors (get to the proper range).

Beyond that, lowering DPS favors whichever squad has to close in since they then take less damage on approach (the long range squad will probably retreat before they have to take losses of their own at this unfavorable range), so it's nothing near a simple change.

This is not something I said this is something Relic has come to the conclusion after testing the game:
"The goal is to improve tactics by better defining unit roles; thereby, increasing the importance of unit positioning relative to cover. A weapon profile defines the distribution of damage over distance. Previously, the profiles were generally flat ("Flat" in other words linear) and did not fully characterize the strengths and weaknesses of a squad"

Thats not what that quotation means at all. It claims that units should have "better defined roles" (weapon curves that are unique to each other). They don't claim that flat profiles are bad at all. They only imply that flat curves were bad because ALL weapon curves were flat.

If I recall correctly, when the assault rifle package was added to Volksgrenadiers it was designed specifically to make relative positioning work: the idea was they could hold their ground against 1 BAR Riflemen, take PPSh Conscripts at range and beat Guards and Infantry Sections up close.

When weapons with "curved" profiles face each other the impact of range is greater. Best example LMG with negative close DPS vs SMG, an SMG squad managing to get to close range will suffer less from an lmg.

Weapon with linear curves behave good at all ranges and thus reduces the affect of range. The player using such a unit can choose his range at will and suffer less for being caught out of position.

I see what you mean now that I've fully worked through it, but you imply that this dynamic is necessarily better. You have the two classes at the opposite ends, but their gameplay is not interesting at all. You always A-move lmgs because relative positioning means theyre relatively at their best at long range, and you always just run straight up (barring sight blockers) with smgs. Theres no decision making. If you want to avoid there only being two classes (lmgs and smgs, in which case 50% of the time relative positioning doesn't matter) and also avoid putting every weapon into an "I ALWAYS want to be at this range" weapon class, then you need a class that is slightly worse than an lmg at long, but slightly better than an lmg at close. Then to avoid being in any of the previous 3 classes class you need a new class thats slightly worse at long, then slightly better at close than the previous class. Then, when you fill out enough classes, you get one with a curve thats "flat." The closer you are to the class that's average at all ranges, the more decision making there is to be had (50% of the time you want to close, 50% of the time you want to stay back, ignoring when you face the same weapon type). For a weapon class that wants to stay back 90% of the time, theres no thinking or tactics, you just stay back because it's almost always the best thing to do.

Finally, I'm not sure just how punishing you want this game to be. You don't want high DPS because its too punishing, but you want relative positioning to be very punishing instead of mildly punishing for some weapons.

If I recall correctly, when the assault rifle package was added to Volksgrenadiers it was designed specifically to make relative positioning work: the idea was they could hold their ground against 1 BAR Riflemen, take PPSh Conscripts at range and beat Guards and Infantry Sections up close.

Well, I wanted to focus on one mode of argument at the time, but I also don't think stg volks weapon curves (as a squad) are that anomalous.

Since this stuff mainly pops up due to Volksgrenadier StG 44s and Penal SVTs that I had worked on and designed, I'm just going to leave this here on why I said these things were to be done:

Penal SVTs: The whole point of making them having a relative linear curve is to give Soviets an effective anti-infantry squad that can pick their fights, while still being effective at the range role thanks to veterancy and their good DPS. Unlike other squads who have weapon upgrades, however, Penal Troops need to rely on a good base weapon and veterancy to suceed.

The other reason for having good rifles at the start is because they are not only deployed from a specialized building which takes away map control, but also their high cost. Yes, you will still beat Grenadiers and Volksgrenadiers at range, but given the lose in capturing power and the fact you are outnumbered, you need to be able to win engagements quickly which means closing some distance. And the more time your Penals are spent in a shoot-out, the more time they're not recovering the map control you lost via tech choice.

Short Answer: Opportunity Costs, Soviets lacking a combat-focused non-doctrinal squad, no weapon upgrades.

Volksgrenadier StG 44: This, as Jae has said, is to allow Volksgrenadiers to pick their fights. OKW did not need more long-range squads packing LMGs. Yet, the StGs were never meant to be supreme weapons. They were meant to allow Volks to hold their ground depending where they fight vs certain threats. StG 44s also fit OKW's more offensive orientated nature over Ostheer. A decent enough weapon for all situations.

Could StG 44s possibly be done better? Possibly. But that is another issue. Making them OKW Conscripts would mean a change or shift in how OKW teching works or you would just overrun them with upgraded infantry which puts an even heavier emphasize on relying on doctrines to have competent infantry, i.e: Old Soviets.

Short Version: Less LMGs, a unit that can pick its fights to keep them relevant.

Last thing I will say, opportunity cost also plays a factor as to what weapons squads will get. Its why Obers can club Riflemen, who carry semi-automatics, with just their bolt-actions rifles at all ranges. Rifles, sure will do much better at short, but you're still going to lose the majority of the time unless you get the BAR which is another weapon that does decently at all ranges, require tech, etc.

Since this stuff mainly pops up due to Volksgrenadier StG 44s and Penal SVTs that I had worked on and designed, I'm just going to leave this here on why I said these things were to be done:
...

I feel the need here to clarify that my I am not attacking anyone who has worked in improving the game even if I disagree with the changes they come up. They obviously had their own vision of how thing could improve and they goal was to improve the game. On the contrary I am grateful to them and I offer them my congratulation of their effort to improve a game which I love.

I also do not believe that any one from the moderation team is responsible for the changes in the patches. Relic and Relic alone has that responsibility since they set the "scope" and utlimatly decide what goes in the game or not.

Having that said the case of Penal went thru many changes and the original concept was to have them with flamers and 2 ppsh as far as I remember.

I would like to go any deeper about ST44 and Penal since will probably end up in derailing the topic which is more about design issues than specifics.

Having that said the case of Penal went thru many changes and the original concept was to have them with flamers and 2 ppsh as far as I remember.

And it was abandoned, because it made conscripts even more irrelevant then ever, even with ppsh.

Look how many changes cons got to vet and weapon and still no one wants to use them due to how trash they are without a doctrine.

That iteration of penals was cons on crack without doctrine and able to counter garrisons without having to wait 20 seconds for molotov death loop to finally go off.

You just switched up your argument. First you implied high dps is mutually exclusive with a paper rock scissors dynamic, which it isn't. Then you pivot to an entirely different point which is that high DPS doesn't give you enough time to switch between rock, paper, or scissors (get to the proper range).

Beyond that, lowering DPS favors whichever squad has to close in since they then take less damage on approach (the long range squad will probably retreat before they have to take losses of their own at this unfavorable range), so it's nothing near a simple change.

We seem to be opening more issues than we are closing so I will try to clarify them one by one.
Since we have established the benefits of established weapon categories I will move on to the problem of high DPS.

High DPS does not directly mess with "relative positioning".

If I increase the far DPS of the grenadier LMG about 7 times ranges will still beat them at close range so relative positioning will still be there. On the other hand if range are repositioning and come in contact with grenadiers at range 35 they will lose model in the first sec leave very little reaction time to the user.

In the edge of the spectrum when commandos had around 70 DPS close they would make enemy squad disappear again before the opposing player could react.

"Relative positioning" is based on the principal that the user can have input that will improve his position, greatly reducing reaction time also reduces the chance of the playing being able to give that input or of that input having any meaningful result.

So yes it is not a simple change that is true and in my opinion things where close into finding that balance for mainline infantry at least in the September 9th patch so "changing" that balance by introducing high lethality units like ST and Penal before minute 1 in the game was a step in the wrong direction.

So yes it is not a simple change that is true and in my opinion things where close into finding that balance for mainline infantry at least in the September 9th patch so "changing" that balance by introducing high lethality units like ST and Penal before minute 1 in the game was a step in the wrong direction.

That's looking at the past with rose tinted glass or at least expecting what the patchnote says to hold true when the game is later played.
There's intention and there's execution.

If there was "balance" across mainline infantry:

SU: wouldn't had to keep relying on cheese. T1 was either sniper spam or clowncar. T2 was maxim spam. Penals saw no use, Guards replaced any unit lost during the mid/late game and Shocks saw use due to P2 tech meme placement and KV8.

OH: wouldn't had to later receive a hefty initial manpower increase and getting an MG42 at T0 nor having their Pios buffed. There's also the issue of how USF > OH in most games. IIRC this is prior to also sniper buff, 222 buffs. Can't remember how Osstruppen played at that time but i'm mostly sure that Stug-e stall into Tiger was common. And probably CAS grenadier LMG spam.

USF: aka end the game before it drags for too long. Spam Elite Rifles, M20 into HE sherman. Not sure at which point RET transformed in main line infantry. Could be patches later.

OKW: Volk shreck blob, Kubeljesus, SwS truck push. Most if not all call in infantry which replaced Volks. Not even worth mentioning anything else cause the faction later required a complete overhaul.

The difference in balance between each faction, 1v1 vs teamgames and pro/top vs decent/low was on one of the worst states of the whole game.

Thats not what that quotation means at all. It claims that units should have "better defined roles" (weapon curves that are unique to each other). They don't claim that flat profiles are bad at all. They only imply that flat curves were bad because ALL weapon curves were flat.

Moving on.

Actually by "flat" they did mean linear, there 2 graphs in those patch notes demonstrating how older weapon profiles where almost linear.

Linear weapon profiles tend to make the unit behave good at all ranges and makes "specialized" weapons less attractive. Why one would bother to build a long range unit or CQC unit when his "all around" units get the job done?

Curved weapon profiles make a unit excel at a certain range while being weaker at other, creating more opportunities for relative positioning.

Unit that are good at all ranges are bad for diversity, they leave less room for specialized units (which are then over-buffed to become relevant), while they can reduce the effect of "relative positioning".

...
That's looking at the past with rose tinted glass or at least expecting what the patchnote says to hold true when the game is later played.
There's intention and there's execution.
...

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.