Another poll about some changes regarding WFA doctrines

Maybe i'm missing something,

Sturmpioneers for starters. And that OKW starts with much more manpower. Also that there wouldn't be any teching costs / time required for more expensive and better infantry so no delays on capping and staying power (unlike Penals).

If a T0 alternate mainline was made strong enough to stand up to Allied infantry, OKW would just roll over them because they have the Sturmpioneer starter unit. Volksgrenadiers are worse than Allied infantry stock to compensate for that. New Pfussies are designed to stay within that spirit, but offer an interesting choice because they'd counter early light vehicles and offer better scaling later. At the expense of being slightly worse than Volksgrenadiers in AI at near and mid range until they get their G43s.

Sturmpioneers for starters. And that OKW starts with much more manpower. Also that there wouldn't be any teching costs / time required for more expensive and better infantry so no delays on capping and staying power (unlike Penals).

If a T0 alternate mainline was made strong enough to stand up to Allied infantry, OKW would just roll over them because they have the Sturmpioneer starter unit. Volksgrenadiers are worse than Allied infantry stock to compensate for that. New Pfussies are designed to stay within that spirit, but offer an interesting choice because they'd counter early light vehicles and offer better scaling later. At the expense of being slightly worse than Volksgrenadiers until they get their G43s.

"Sturmpioneers for starters."

Which has alone its upkeep and bleed, hampers starting mp.

"And that OKW starts with much more manpower. Also that there wouldn't be any teching costs / time required for more expensive and better infantry so no delays on capping and staying power (unlike Penals)."

Not like this has always been a doctrinal infantry non-issue that starting cooldowns on call in could easily solve.

Remember osttruppen flooding the early game and the cooldown ?

Are you trying to find excuses to go against me ?

"If a T0 alternate mainline was made strong enough to stand up to Allied infantry, OKW would just roll over them because they have the Sturmpioneer starter unit."

None of those its free mp wise.

Is like saying that USF becomes OP because it gets the chance to call assault engies and riflemen early game at the same time with some doctrines.

You realize that, yes ?

"Sturmpioneers for starters."

Which has alone its upkeep and bleed, hampers starting mp.

It does not hamper starting MP. OKW has the highest starting MP Sturmpioneers included (350+300).


But since you are impossible to argue with, on top of claiming false things like Panzerfusilier vet supposedly "being way better than Volks'", I'm gonna end this discussion here.

It does not hamper starting MP. OKW has the highest starting MP Sturmpioneers included (350+300).

Changed from being similar to other factions in total because too low otherwise. Same treatment given to Brits.
Nothing of that has anything to do with the fact that Okw Starrting mp, is way less than other factions.

Half truths and strawman ?

Wow

But since you are impossible to argue with, on top of claiming false things like Panzerfusilier vet supposedly being way better than Volks', I'm gonna end this discussion here.

All of this edit just to avoid this

"Is like saying that USF becomes OP because it gets the chance to call assault engies and riflemen early game at the same time with some doctrines.

You realize that, yes ?"

Cheap bail out

emmmmm.I want 250/7 mortar HT，if balance team put STUG to T4 too,Stug will like hetzer and ostwind，be defeated by Pz4J，and it will be forgot......

And I want this commander abality...
panzerfusiliers

Stuka Smoke Drop

OKW Offensive Package---add VG bulid bunker,or combine Infrared MP44(little buff Special operations doctrine too)I think weapon upgrade only work on one unit is little weak，especially Not basis infantry....

250/7 mortar HT

Tiger or Tiger ACE(I prefer Tiger ace)

Each single model performs worse precisely because it's a 6-man squad. Stock Pfusies at long range outgun rifles, volks, and match penals. Sure, the fall-off a bit (a lot actually) at close range because their DPS curve is rather "flat" (very similar to Infantry Section) but they can fix that with a G43s that have SMG-like close range performance, slightly buff mid-range and have no penalty to long range DPS and they take no slots. Oh and they come with grenades, snares, good vision and flares.

Secondly, thay are hardly considered "elite", they are more like "premium mainline", and thats how they are balanced,

The biggest advantage long range superiority is that enemy troops can choose easly to rush in or to move a little bit back out of range, no big damage unless you stay on prupose on the worst range for your mainline inf.
Being said that Midrange superiority > CQC superiority > Long range superiority

Unless pfusies are on green cover (wich already tells you not to assault a well placed squad) they are pretty ""fragile"" until vet. That weakness is to be exploited, if not why would anyone let them vet in the first place.

I liked the "premium mainline" though being so cheap and not so reliable (not as volks) its hard to classify them as such. Pfuss should be premium because they bring a snare to the earliest moments of a match? mmm....

The biggest advantage long range superiority is that enemy troops can choose easly to rush in or to move a little bit back out of range, no big damage unless you stay on prupose on the worst range for your mainline inf.
Being said that Midrange superiority > CQC superiority > Long range superiority

Unless pfusies are on green cover (wich already tells you not to assault a well placed squad) they are pretty ""fragile"" until vet. That weakness is to be exploited, if not why would anyone let them vet in the first place.

I liked the "premium mainline" though being so cheap and not so reliable (not as volks) its hard to classify them as such. Pfuss should be premium because they bring a snare to the earliest moments of a match? mmm....

I'd say that you are mixed up. Mid>long>close because long range keeps you out of harm while being able to dish it out. Plus it inflicts micro on the enemy who has to close. Most of the best infantry in the game have a long range specialization and all of the close range specialists have had to be adjusted to more mid range because they were in effecient as close range infantry only(shocks, commandos, ass engies, ass grens). Forcing the enemy to have to close while you can enjoy the luxury of cover is by and far their greatest advantage. Forcing the enemy to simply not engage in their area by backing out so they don't take damage is a win for long range, not a disadvantage.

I'd say that you are mixed up. Mid>long>close because long range keeps you out of harm while being able to dish it out. Plus it inflicts micro on the enemy who has to close. Most of the best infantry in the game have a long range specialization and all of the close range specialists have had to be adjusted to more mid range because they were in effecient as close range infantry only(shocks, commandos, ass engies, ass grens). Forcing the enemy to have to close while you can enjoy the luxury of cover is by and far their greatest advantage. Forcing the enemy to simply not engage in their area by backing out so they don't take damage is a win for long range, not a disadvantage.

Id say the opposite (mid>close>far) because of the current meta, almost all faction get a CQC squad and they destroy early game.

Also smoke easly counters the easly countered far distance. I repeat it can be punishing if the other player is either idle or stupid, but as soon as any squad charges in its damage drastically drops off.

0cp
Maybe i'm missing something, but i can't see how it is any more oppressive.
You are basically pumping out 280mp/28mp 5 men grens with marginally less durability than grens models, with no flame nade.

The idea is reversing grens/osttruppen, or an even better comparison, turn in into a cons vs penals kind of choice.

Are they more cost efficient or less cost efficient? If they're more cost efficient, again that would make OKW more oppressive. If they're less cost efficient, that's basically the design in the mod. If they're a similar cost efficiency...why would anyone get them? Unless there's some seriously different role or utility they bring, why would a unit thats a similar cost efficiency be used?

You say its reversing the osttruppen vs gren dynamic, but what does that entail? Osttruppen are a stronger early game build that has a lot of field presence early. Grens are a weaker early game build that does better than osttruppen do later on. Is that not the dynamic that pfusis vs volks presents in the mod (with pfusis at 280 manpower)? Volks are a stronger early game build, just like osttruppen are. Pfusis are a weaker early game build, just like grens. There's some nuance lost there, of course, but for what I assume you're proposing, isn't that how the argument would play out?

As for a con vs penal dynamic, cons bring utility while penals bring raw killing power (people would also say the con vs penal dynamic isn't well balanced right now but...). I don't see how one brings utility that the other doesn't in your example.

"That leaves making them weaker early than volks, but stronger later."

Why can't we act thought cost and early bleed ?

Don't understand what you mean here.

"For tactical movement"

Like i said, i don't feel like it's a tactical movement.

The bonuses apply only on the move and account for buffs of only 8-9% on g43 in terms of accuracy. They are very marginal.

The true meaning of that is yellow cover where there is no cover and zero cover on red penalty.

I was literally referring to tactical movement, the current ability when I said that. I was saying tactical movement probably wouldn't be problematic like you're saying because OKW already has valiant assault (a better version of tactical movement) in other doctrines and that isn't currently a large balance issue. Other close range infantry squads have sprint and that hasn't proven to be an issue either. Then, when I say "your suggested ability," I shift the conversation over to just that, the new ability you suggested, push.

Anyway, I think you're getting caught up in the math. The modifier would go from .8 to .88 (a raw increase of 8% stationary DPS, a 10% increase on moving DPS), but that's kind of besides the point. It's a minor increase, but why should there be a buff to moving DPS to begin with. The raw numbers are relatively harmless, but the point is that its probably a move in the wrong direction. Also, the cover would probably just enable you to frontally wipe HMGs, again, a move in the wrong direction. I can't see that kind of ability design as anything other than "make your panzerfusiliers even wipier, and ignore suppression so that you can frontally wipe HMGs."

All of this edit just to avoid this

"Is like saying that USF becomes OP because it gets the chance to call assault engies and riflemen early game at the same time with some doctrines.

You realize that, yes ?"

Cheap bail out

USF struggles against OKWs early game. It was given stronger early game callin infantry (that are weaker later).

OKW is really strong against allies early game. We're giving it weaker early game callin infantry (that are stronger later).

(For USF vs ost, mg42s dont care if they shooting at strong early game squads or weak early game squads, and thats where the matchup is played anyway.)

Id say the opposite (mid>close>far) because of the current meta, almost all faction get a CQC squad and they destroy early game.

Also smoke easly counters the easly countered far distance. I repeat it can be punishing if the other player is either idle or stupid, but as soon as any squad charges in its damage drastically drops off.

And repositioning backwards negates the effects of the smoke. It's a micro dance for sure but in the end the cqb still has to come to you. It's only effective early game because omits able to exploit a not fully deployed line up.

I maintain, most of the best units in game are long range infantry. Guards or shocks? Guards 9 times out of 10. Ass grens or literally any other squad including ostroppen? Same. JLI or even the good at all ranges and snare armed falls? Same thing. Commandos or more Tommies? 9/10.ass engies are the lone exception because they cost the same as rifles and still offer much needed utility after their front line time is up making it a safe choice as a shock unit. Even if they fail they can still make work for themselves.

There's even voice files for it so I'm all for the StuG III E.

Are they more cost efficient or less cost efficient? If they're more cost efficient, again that would make OKW more oppressive. If they're less cost efficient, that's basically the design in the mod. If they're a similar cost efficiency...why would anyone get them? Unless there's some seriously different role or utility they bring, why would a unit thats a similar cost efficiency be used?

You say its reversing the osttruppen vs gren dynamic, but what does that entail? Osttruppen are a stronger early game build that has a lot of field presence early. Grens are a weaker early game build that does better than osttruppen do later on. Is that not the dynamic that pfusis vs volks presents in the mod (with pfusis at 280 manpower)? Volks are a stronger early game build, just like osttruppen are. Pfusis are a weaker early game build, just like grens. There's some nuance lost there, of course, but for what I assume you're proposing, isn't that how the argument would play out?

As for a con vs penal dynamic, cons bring utility while penals bring raw killing power (people would also say the con vs penal dynamic isn't well balanced right now but...). I don't see how one brings utility that the other doesn't in your example.



Don't understand what you mean here.


I was literally referring to tactical movement, the current ability when I said that. I was saying tactical movement probably wouldn't be problematic like you're saying because OKW already has valiant assault (a better version of tactical movement) in other doctrines and that isn't currently a large balance issue. Other close range infantry squads have sprint and that hasn't proven to be an issue either. Then, when I say "your suggested ability," I shift the conversation over to just that, the new ability you suggested, push.

Anyway, I think you're getting caught up in the math. The modifier would go from .8 to .88 (a raw increase of 8% stationary DPS, a 10% increase on moving DPS), but that's kind of besides the point. It's a minor increase, but why should there be a buff to moving DPS to begin with. The raw numbers are relatively harmless, but the point is that its probably a move in the wrong direction. Also, the cover would probably just enable you to frontally wipe HMGs, again, a move in the wrong direction. I can't see that kind of ability design as anything other than "make your panzerfusiliers even wipier, and ignore suppression so that you can frontally wipe HMGs."

"Are they more cost efficient or less cost efficient?"

Shouldn't that be known only by playstesting ? Or you are asking me what cost efficiency i'd like to achieve for them ?

"Osttruppen are a stronger early game build that has a lot of field presence early. Grens are a weaker early game build that does better than osttruppen do later on."

Like i said, a better comparison is cons vs penals

"cons bring utility while penals bring raw killing power (people would also say the con vs penal dynamic isn't well balanced right now but...). I don't see how one brings utility that the other doesn't in your example."

Volks brings flame nade

"Don't understand what you mean here."

I'm saying that giving a stronger mainline higher cost can balance it

"I was literally referring to tactical movement"

Yeah read it bad and thought "tac advance" than typoed the name

"I was saying tactical movement probably wouldn't be problematic like you're saying because OKW already has valiant assault"

Shrecks tho.

", a move in the wrong direction. I can't see that kind of ability design as anything other than "make your panzerfusiliers even wipier, and ignore suppression"

Would they, with a light cover bonus ? I would honestly count more on tact movement and spread out squads to get behind the mg than to slow my squads down.

USF struggles against OKWs early game. It was given stronger early game callin infantry (that are weaker later).

OKW is really strong against allies early game. We're giving it weaker early game callin infantry (that are stronger later).

(For USF vs ost, mg42s dont care if they shooting at strong early game squads or weak early game squads, and thats where the matchup is played anyway.)

"USF struggles against OKWs early game. It was given stronger early game callin infantry (that are weaker later)."


Ok

"OKW is really strong against allies early game. We're giving it weaker early game callin infantry (that are stronger later)."

Define "strenght"

... If they're a similar cost efficiency...why would anyone get them? Unless there's some seriously different role or utility they bring, why would a unit thats a similar cost efficiency be used?

...

And this is what the aim should be not to be a choice of one or the other but to create enough room for both options.

I actually believe that having P.F. as build-able and not a call-in is a step in the right direction that should expand to other CP 0 units (or generally add the option to built these units and add a premium when called in).

I also think it will be interesting to see if the AT grenade and incendiary grenade/sandbags is enough to create room for both units. (which makes MP-40 even less desirable)

The PF upgrade might need fine tuning but from a design point of view imo P.F. are better implemented.

Imo it worth trying replacing the PF shreck with panzer F. that can be put away. The P.F. can be a unit that average in both AI and AT and can justify their utility.

The biggest advantage long range superiority is that enemy troops can choose easly to rush in or to move a little bit back out of range, no big damage unless you stay on prupose on the worst range for your mainline inf.
Being said that Midrange superiority > CQC superiority > Long range superiority

I won't go into "what range is best range" discussion. All you have to remember is that Pfusies have an upgrade which gives them PPSH-Con like CQB performance (DPS drops off at range 6 rather than 10, G43 are better on the move though)
Anyway, stock Pfusies have DPS curve nearly identical to 4-man IS behind cover, without having to be in cover, hardly to be considered "weak" IMO.

Unless pfusies are on green cover (wich already tells you not to assault a well placed squad) they are pretty ""fragile"" until vet. That weakness is to be exploited, if not why would anyone let them vet in the first place.

"6-man squad" and "fragile" don't go together, or at least thats what I heard from every discussion about sov 6-man squads.

I liked the "premium mainline" though being so cheap and not so reliable (not as volks) its hard to classify them as such. Pfuss should be premium because they bring a snare to the earliest moments of a match? mmm....

6-man
good at long range
good at close range (G43s)
effective on the move (G43)
grenade
snare
vision (passive from G43, flares from vet)
faster capping (vet 4)
passive sprint (vet 5)
upgrade doesn't lock out any weapon slots

I'd say that's quite premium for a mainline
Also, let me be clear here: I'm talking about current version of Pfusies (280mp/6-man/2cp) not the modded 250/5.

Nothing of that has anything to do with the fact that Okw Starrting mp, is way less than other factions.

???

OKW 350 + 300 = 650
OST 450 + 200 - 80 = 570
USF 400 + 200 = 600
UKF 350 + 280 = 630
SOV 390 + 170 - 160 = 400

???

OKW 350 + 300 = 650
OST 450 + 200 - 80 = 570
USF 400 + 200 = 600
UKF 350 + 280 = 630
SOV 390 + 170 - 160 = 400

At-least you are saying half truths cuz hes saying no truths