Two approaches for faction design

So you want Stormtroopers to be a utility disruption squad, which is what I suggested too but the balance team said they decided against such a change. Like I mentioned. So Commandos approach was the only option left.

Again like Sherlock said, it's not the Brummbär's AOE profile that makes it considered OP (it's less wipey than ever) but its combination with high armor and free barrage ability.

But this is going offtopic.

Yes we are going off topic, so I started another thread.


Imo there two distinct approach (there more I am just mentioning 2):

Faction are similar. In this approach one can "clone" units/abilities from one faction to another with little problems.

Factions are differently designed each with its own strengths and weakness. In this approach taking the best a faction has to offer and clone it to another faction will probably causes that unit to over perform. One has to take into the specific of the faction when "transferring" the unit.

The storm troopes and dozer fall under this categories.

Commandos work for UKF since they base infantry is extremely bad at fight on the move, that is less of an issues for Ostheer who already have option including the doctrinal g43. ST where introduced for encirclement commander and they should be design to work for that commander else that commander simply need a revamp.

Turning Dozer into a Brumbar is questionable since USF have allot of AI and the dozer does not have Brumabar's high tech cost, becomes available earlier and so on...

These are used as examples to explain the two approaches and clinking to details is nor productive.

If faction remain different changes to units should start from faction design and not from what other factions have available to them.

"almost" is not identical, is it? No one will dispute that the ost mortar is the strongest.

Check Patch notes there are very few units that "more" identical, difference here is distance near 0.75-1 and distance far 1.5-2 which is there because of the difference in entities you already have mentioned.

MORTAR CHANGES

A number of general changes have been applied to a number of light indirect-fire options to reduce their squad wipe potential, improve anti-garrison counterplay, and reduce their range in the late game.
• Damage to garrisoned squads increased from 0.25 to 0.5
• AOE near damage multiplier decreased from 1 to 0.85
• Veterancy barrage range bonuses replaced by barrage scatter reduction for the majority of light indirect fire options.

Show Spoiler

Your original post made it out to be the fact that rifles are stronger was the reason why the mortar in usf hands was too strong, when it is clearly the mortar that is too strong period when going up against smaller squads, that was the thing I was pointing out.

Can we avoid palying the "you said" game.

As I have clearly explained if the USF mortar was at same power level as the Ostheer mortar was at the time taking into account 4 men squad, USF would be in better position since they have the option to go for mobile game while Ostheer are better suited for static play (unless they go G43s). It has also to with faction design.

The hot-fixed USF mortar serves as example why cloning across faction can cause problems.

I quoted your original statement in my response. Your exact words were: "Soviet where given "rifle company riflemen" style penals with flamers, it was proven a disaster since Soviet has better tech tree and plethora of call in units. (see Penal->DSK->M4C spam)"

Can we avoid playing the "you said" game.
Penal with flamer that where modeled after riflemen with flamers (which where OP) where proven to be completely broken.

This serves as another example of how cloning/modeling across faction can cause problems.

Using a established and known unit to describe how a unit will perform doesn't mean they are the same, it simply means they use it to describe it with something that is known. They also highlight the difference to the brumbar in the very part you highlight, it is less potent (the gun), all other differences (health, armour) are still the same.

Patch not are perfectly clear, according to the moderation team their goal for the Dozer is a less potent brumbar because it has the advantage of turret. They do not take into account the difference in faction designs or the tech cost.

It served as an example of how modeling/cloning across faction is becoming trend.

I was responding to you, when looking as to the origin look at the origin

And since you continue doing so I took the liberty of moving you response that is irrelevant to the topic of USF tech in this thread.

Again this are all detail that are rather pointless. As I have explain "modeling/cloning" units across faction can be problematic is factions are not similar. A far better approach would be for units to follow faction design.

The Sherman Bulldozer is and always has been a turreted Brummbar. The patch simply made it good at its job.

Stormtroopers were redesigned to be Commandolike because short-range ambush infantry's the only thing Ostheer doesn't have. Everything else but stealth is redundant with a non-doctrinal unit, and stealth for all Ostheer infantry is available doctrinally.

The Sherman Bulldozer is and always has been a turreted Brummbar. The patch simply made it good at its job.

Stormtroopers were redesigned to be Commandolike because short-range ambush infantry's the only thing Ostheer doesn't have. Everything else but stealth is redundant with a non-doctrinal unit, and stealth for all Ostheer infantry is available doctrinally.

We can talk detail all day, the bottom line is that a faction units should fit its design and not be modeled according to what another faction has, unless you make all faction similar first.

So when it comes to the argument of Riflemen, you're first to say they don't need smoke back if we remove the mortar because other mainline infantry don't have it, but when it comes to the brummbar we easily turn your argumentation the opposite way.

Uniqueness and faction design seems to be an argument only when it serves your logic argumentation.

So when it comes to the argument of Riflemen, you're first to say they don't need smoke back if we remove the mortar because other mainline infantry don't have it, but when it comes to the brummbar we easily turn your argumentation the opposite way.

Uniqueness and faction design seems to be an argument only when it serves your logic argumentation.

I have to repeat myself once more. Either faction become similar and they get to play with the same toys and that might includes smoke for all mainlines infantry and brumbars for all factions or faction remain with different designs and different toys.

Do USF need smoke on riflemen with the current live implementation? No
Do USF need smoke on riflemen with proposed changes to USF tech? No

Will the USF need smoke on riflemen with proposed changes if the mortar is moved from T0?

Probably not (but requires testing) because the grenades/smoke grenades have become more accessible with lower price of officer, lower price of the grenade unlock and generally an improved tech tree.

Now please stop using the mentality of specific users that engage in flame wars and focus only on proving that their "opponents" are wrong. Making personal comments in balance threads it is simply counter productive. It would be far more productive if you focused on how to make the game better.

I think your changes would make the game worse: it'd make HMGs in garrisons insanely powerful.

The T0 mortar and Incendiary Grenades were added specifically because the EFA factions could dominate the WFA factions like that.

Garrison Hells like old Angoville, Arnhem Checkpoint and Semoisky are very unpopular maps.

I think your changes would make the game worse: it'd make HMGs in garrisons insanely powerful.

The T0 mortar and Incendiary Grenades were added specifically because the EFA factions could dominate the WFA factions like that.

Garrison Hells like old Angoville, Arnhem Checkpoint and Semoisky are very unpopular maps.

It might, it needs testing.

On the other hand it would make USF actually have reason to invest in unlocking more side tech.

With the little testing I did I found little reason to invest in anything else than lt, cp, ambulance, major. One gets the basic tools mortar, HMG ,healing ,atg and access to powerful tools like the M8A1.

(And that without the doctrinal options of LMG, flamers, powerful call-in infantry, MHT and so on.)

Even is things go wrong one can easily adapt and unlock what he needs easily.

I know stormtroopers have been a little controversial but I still think the revamp stormtroopers have much better viability in the faction since they aren’t doctrinal muni hungry pgrens

I know stormtroopers have been a little controversial but I still think the revamp stormtroopers have much better viability in the faction since they aren’t doctrinal muni hungry pgrens

true but I would prefer other option to create Ostheer commandos. Storm trooper imo should be focusing in the synergism with encirclement commander.

From another thread:
StormTroopers (CP 2)
cost 340 8Pop
The unit simply does not fit the commander's theme. It should actually be available only in encirclement and designed only for that commander.
No cost MP-40 have little reason to exist, it compares pale to JLI at CP 1 and 250 cost , and to AT partisans that come with a shreck ready can have snare and mines.
The shreck upgrade is bad combined with the mp40 since the unit has little AI, little AT and no snare.
Booby traps should be available to be used by unit that operate behind enemy lines

Suggestions:
All infiltration units can now be built at HQ a normal cost at CP 0 (without weapons) or be deploy from ambient building at their CP paying a premium.
and
lower the cost of the unit and add a cost to MP40 upgrade
and/or
either remove Shreck or make mutually explosive but give a snare to unit (satchel charge type?) and allow it to plant shue mines.
Remove requirement of connection for use of all booby traps, including soviet ones.
Alternatively
Replace ST with assault grenadiers that are moved to CP1 or CP2 and buffed accordingly so that they relevant in late game.
and/or
If you want Commando clones for Wer:
remove g43 upgrade from PG from "Jaeger Light Infantry upgrade" and replace with 5 MP44+1 entity, replace camo for PGs with Commando and the commando clones are ready in " Jaeger Infantry Doctrine"
or
Replace with infantry officer a new officer designed for Infantry doctrine.