Should all infantry upgrade use weapon slot？

I'd be in favour of making all squads have one slot so you don't need to zoom in on the models to see what they're armed with.

We don't have the resources for the major rebalance that'd entail though.

I find unnecessary to reduce the number of slot to 1 for all infatry.

On the other hand, imo normalizing and simplifying game mechanics is a much better investment of resources than over buffing and then over nerfing units/commanders/abilities which seems to be the pattern with COH2's patches.

I find unnecessary to reduce the number of slot to 1 for all infatry.

On the other hand, imo normalizing and simplifying game mechanics is a much better investment of resources than over buffing and then over nerfing units/commanders/abilities which seems to be the pattern with COH2's patches.

The pattern with nearly every online multiplayer game in existence* (my point here is that's kind of just how balance tends to work with these kinds of games, up to opinion on whether given units were overnerfed/buffed at the end though)

(Edit: just realized you said UNnecessary, so imagine the next paragraph reworded with "mechanics" instead of strictly "weapons." And also take the last two paragraphs as not necessarily directed towards you then)

Also, the two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, normalizing weapon slots would likely involve (over/under) buffing a bunch of weapons, then subsequently (over/under) nerfing them. No real point here, just a comment.

Finally, the existence of multiple weapon slots makes the game more interesting, even if it can lead to imbalance in certain situations. Axis vs allies would no longer be a 1 weapon vs 2 weapon dynamic (higher cost, lower efficiency, but more potential) and would probably be a "whose upgrade is better" dynamic. Of course you could make try to make the dynamic more interesting by further differentiating the profiles, but im not sure how far you can take that idea before you have to essentially create clone weapons. You could also adjust the number of weapons given per slot, which sounds workable, but I still don't like how it separates upgrades into singular spikes instead of the tiered ones that multiple weapon slots provide.

As with a lot of things, this is a matter where the specifics (the numbers and the actual hard implementation) would probably be more important than the concept alone.

Flame grenade is replaced by frag grenade (which is a nerf).

How exactly is the frag grenade worse than the flame grenade? Because last time I checked, alpha damage on grenades is much more useful than slow DOT damage that can be avoided within seconds.

The pattern with nearly every online multiplayer game in existence* (my point here is that's kind of just how balance tends to work with these kinds of games, up to opinion on whether given units were overnerfed/buffed at the end though)

(Edit: just realized you said UNnecessary, so imagine the next paragraph reworded with "mechanics" instead of strictly "weapons." And also take the last two paragraphs as not necessarily directed towards you then)

Also, the two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, normalizing weapon slots would likely involve (over/under) buffing a bunch of weapons, then subsequently (over/under) nerfing them. No real point here, just a comment.

Finally, the existence of multiple weapon slots makes the game more interesting, even if it can lead to imbalance in certain situations. Axis vs allies would no longer be a 1 weapon vs 2 weapon dynamic (higher cost, lower efficiency, but more potential) and would probably be a "whose upgrade is better" dynamic. Of course you could make try to make the dynamic more interesting by further differentiating the profiles, but im not sure how far you can take that idea before you have to essentially create clone weapons. You could also adjust the number of weapons given per slot, which sounds workable, but I still don't like how it separates upgrades into singular spikes instead of the tiered ones that multiple weapon slots provide.

As with a lot of things, this is a matter where the specifics (the numbers and the actual hard implementation) would probably be more important than the concept alone.

Not really. CoH2 has a long history of major buff and nerfs elevating units to broken status or condemning them to oblivion.

Take Tiger ACE, penals, Assault grenadiers, Soviet industry for instance that they completely broken and stay like that for months.

The point I was trying to make thou was about resources management.

One can use his resources and try to improve the game with changes that aim in increasing diversity and run the risk of creating nearly as many problem as he solves with unit like JLI, Pathfinder, Assault engineers.
Or
One can make solid changes like changing the Vet 1 abilities in units like Guards, Penals, Pgs and get solid results that might only need a minor tuning.

How exactly is the frag grenade worse than the flame grenade? Because last time I checked, alpha damage on grenades is much more useful than slow DOT damage that can be avoided within seconds.

It’s a nerf though, since you won’t be able to get enemy units off green cover with ease and bully them in the open.

Garrison clearance would ben a problem though. I’d love to see flame nades replaced with frags and then an actual mortar being placed in T0 to deal with garrisons.

I don't get the worry about PPSH debate... I don't see any situation where picking up a weapon with PPSH Conscripts put them over the top (except maybe the odd situations in team games where they somehow end up with a BAR). Otherwise they'll likely end up with a LMG which they were almost never end up stationary to use since you are always Oorahing and closing distance (except when they are at 0 distance where they wreck face anyway). It's just not enough of an issue to really worry about IMO

Not really. CoH2 has a long history of major buff and nerfs elevating units to broken status or condemning them to oblivion.

Take Tiger ACE, penals, Assault grenadiers, Soviet industry for instance that they completely broken and stay like that for months.

... and other games have had the exact same... usually theyre fixed quicker, but the buffing, overnerfing, and botched releases (with regards to power level) are exactly what happens in other games

The point I was trying to make thou was about resources management.

One can use his resources and try to improve the game with changes that aim in increasing diversity and run the risk of creating nearly as many problem as he solves with unit like JLI, Pathfinder, Assault engineers.
Or
One can make solid changes like changing the Vet 1 abilities in units like Guards, Penals, Pgs and get solid results that might only need a minor tuning.

But the two are not mutually exclusive, so im not sure why theres an "or" there. Why not just do whichever one is needed, as the situation demands? Thats more or less whats been happening. Also, (again, hard to prove) but id imagine most people would say jli, pathfinders, and assault engineers are in a better spot now (compared to before their changes) and that the changes to them have made the game better.

... and other games have had the exact same... usually theyre fixed quicker, but the buffing, overnerfing, and botched releases (with regards to power level) are exactly what happens in other games

Yes but COH2 continued with creating broken things thru out its life span. Even now after so many years one can see changes that are broken.

But the two are not mutually exclusive, so im not sure why theres an "or" there. Why not just do whichever one is needed, as the situation demands? Thats more or less whats been happening. Also, (again, hard to prove) but id imagine most people would say jli, pathfinders, and assault engineers are in a better spot now (compared to before their changes) and that the changes to them have made the game better.

And that is my point lack of resources is not an excuse for fixing things that can be fixed, especially when the specific changes are normalizing thing and thus have a low chance of creating problems.

And that is my point lack of resources is not an excuse for fixing things that can be fixed, especially when the specific changes are normalizing thing and thus have a low chance of creating problems.

And how are you going to "normalize" things with vastly different cost, timing and completely different directions of scaling?

Cutting wings off a plane will not make it a car.
It will however create massive problems - with timing, role, scaling, intended engagements outcome, filed presence.

Simple fixes do not really work on very complicated issues, which infantry combat and scaling is.

And how are you going to "normalize" things with vastly different cost, timing and completely different directions of scaling?

Cutting wings off a plane will not make it a car.
It will however create massive problems - with timing, role, scaling, intended engagements outcome, filed presence.

Simple fixes do not really work on very complicated issues, which infantry combat and scaling is.

Normalizing is quite easy.

Not really, they will hardly create any problems

Simple fixes fix inconstancy issues, they do not fix balance issues.

Normalizing is quite easy.

Not really, they will hardly create any problems

Simple fixes fix simple issues, they do not fix balance issues.

Like... for example.... more expensive units of equal role having proportionally better performance for the investment?
Like... we have right now?
Are you trying to fix a gear that isn't broken, but you don't like it, so you'd "fix" it yourself anyway?

Or perhaps you confused the term with mirroring performance and cost?
No, no, no, that's not it as well, after all you're strongly disagreeing with bringing cons to gren level in cost effectiveness and scaling too.

Soo...

Show Spoiler

Like... for example.... more expensive units of equal role having proportionally better performance for the investment?
Like... we have right now?
Are you trying to fix a gear that isn't broken, but you don't like it, so you'd "fix" it yourself anyway?

Or perhaps you confused the term with mirroring performance and cost?
No, no, no, that's not it as well, after all you're strongly disagreeing with bringing cons to gren level in cost effectiveness and scaling too.

Soo...

Show Spoiler

You have the right to have your opinion.

On the other hand your post:"more expensive units of equal role having proportionally better performance for the investment?..."
is off topic which is weapon slots and has nothing to do with what I have suggested.

Have a nice day.

And how are you going to "normalize" things with vastly different cost, timing and completely different directions of scaling?

Cutting wings off a plane will not make it a car.
It will however create massive problems - with timing, role, scaling, intended engagements outcome, filed presence.

Simple fixes do not really work on very complicated issues, which infantry combat and scaling is.

You can start by:

-Opening a spreadsheet and looking at the cost of all units and the xp value of each of them. Similar cost units should have similar xp values unless it's determined that they should have a lower/higher value to balance them out.
-Taking a look at the vet benefits each levels provide. We all know EFA vet1 is meme tier on most cases and there are units on the other factions which have mostly decorative levels due to time/resource constraints after they reworked them.

In the case of weapon slots: IMO if you give as much firepower/utility to an upgrade to make them worth of them to take a weapon slot, sure do so. Normalising everything for the sake of consistency without clear positive results, is just wasting time.

And that is my point lack of resources is not an excuse for fixing things that can be fixed, especially when the specific changes are normalizing thing and thus have a low chance of creating problems.

Ironically, the fact that it doesn't create problems is also the reason it may not see prioritisation. It improves the game, but it improves it by little while still requiring manpower hours to analyse, code, test and QA it.
It's a matter of game design/catching the attention of the playerbase, which transcends CoH2. Reworking things and presenting them as new toys is more appealing than slight number tweaking.

I don't have the will to dig down in code and test things to see how they play, but at this point of the game life cycle, unless you propose concrete changes with numbers behind it, there's little hope to see what you propose to be done in a broad way across the board.

You can start by:

-Opening a spreadsheet and looking at the cost of all units and the xp value of each of them. Similar cost units should have similar xp values unless it's determined that they should have a lower/higher value to balance them out.
-Taking a look at the vet benefits each levels provide. We all know EFA vet1 is meme tier on most cases and there are units on the other factions which have mostly decorative levels due to time/resource constraints after they reworked them.

In the case of weapon slots: IMO if you give as much firepower/utility to an upgrade to make them worth of them to take a weapon slot, sure do so. Normalising everything for the sake of consistency without clear positive results, is just wasting time.



Ironically, the fact that it doesn't create problems is also the reason it may not see prioritisation. It improves the game, but it improves it by little while still requiring manpower hours to analyse, code, test and QA it.
It's a matter of game design/catching the attention of the playerbase, which transcends CoH2. Reworking things and presenting them as new toys is more appealing than slight number tweaking.

I don't have the will to dig down in code and test things to see how they play, but at this point of the game life cycle, unless you propose concrete changes with numbers behind it, there's little hope to see what you propose to be done in a broad way across the board.

I agree with most of the points in post.
Although I have almost zero MODing experience some changes like the one you mention in the first part of the post does not seem to be that difficult to implement especially with vast changes in fixings bug that already has been done by the moderation team.