Move Conscripts 7th man from t4 to t3?

It makes perfect sense.

There is optimum power level. Balancing units in non optimum power level might have become easier (after of countless buff to some unit) but it is not "practical".

I think I finally get what you mean here.



Say we've got five squads, one of which is worse than the others.

Squad A: Cost 50, Combat Value 100
Squad B: Cost 50, Combat Value 100
Squad C: Cost 50, Combat Value 80
Squad D: Cost 50, Combat Value 100
Squad E: Cost 50, Combat Value 100

Cost is how much you pay for it, Combat Value is how good it is.

To most people, the solution here is obvious: raise Squad C's combat value to 100. Why would you quadruple the work by lowering A, B, D and E to 80 instead? It makes no difference when you look at it this way.

However, what I think you're looking at is this:

Squad A: Cost 50, Damage 8, HP 12
Squad B: Cost 50, Damage 8, HP 12
Squad C: Cost 50, Damage 4, HP 12
Squad D: Cost 50, Damage 8, HP 12
Squad E: Cost 50, Damage 8, HP 12

Here the two balancing routes are raise C to Damage 8, or lower A, B, D and E to Damage 4. However, when expressed this way, there's a difference: the 'buff one' route results in a higher ratio of damage to durability than the 'nerf four' route.

In summary, when you say you want to nerf Volks, Penals, Rifles and Sections instead of buffing Cons, you're talking about their damage, not their durability. What you want is an overall decrease to lethality in infantry combat. If you buffed Conscripts's damage and buffed everyone's durability, you'd get the same result.

Am I correct?

In summary, when you say you want to nerf Volks, Penals, Rifles and Sections instead of buffing Cons, you're talking about their damage, not their durability.

If that was done then the meta would simply become call in infantry...There is a sheer endless list of infantry in COH2 you can't possibly nerf all of it just to suit your taste of "low lethality" infantry combat. Just imagine if Volks were nerfed, Shocks and Guards would just steamroll OKW. Same for Rangers, Paratroopers, etc

I think I finally get what you mean here.
...
Am I correct?

I don't think riflemen need a nerf ( although one could change BAR to 45 munition and make it good at mid range solidifying riflemen as best mid range mainline infatry ) nor Grenadier/conscript.

Imo Penal and ST 44 VG are simply badly design since they weapons that are good at all ranges reducing the need for better positioning.

As for fire fight generally imo their duration have been lowered too much especially in the early stages of the game. That has number of side affects like less use of support weapons (accept for the power 0.50) and more snowball effects.

In way you are correct imo the current lethality levels in the early stage of the game are simply too high.

If that was done then the meta would simply become call in infantry...There is a sheer endless list of infantry in COH2 you can't possibly nerf all of it just to suit your taste of "low lethality" infantry combat. Just imagine if Volks were nerfed, Shocks and Guards would just steamroll OKW. Same for Rangers, Paratroopers, etc

Now you simply missing the time element. Mainline infatry give the pace of powerful weapon should be around.

When Relic reduced the CP of Penal Guards to 1 they completely dominated the field.

But imo Shocks Guards Ranger and other units should also be toned a bit.

If Doctrinal units are available early they should come out weaker and buy their upgrade similar to mainline infantry.

But, how does that even work in a game where units are supposedly specifically designed with different power and cost efficiency in mind?

But, how does that even work in a game where units are supposedly specifically designed with different power and cost efficiency in mind?

They where not.

Units where balanced according to baseline and design to excel at a certain range.


"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."

ST 44 VG are simply badly design since they weapons that are good at all ranges reducing the need for better positioning.

The fact that the upgrade increases their DPS on all ranges does not automatically mean they are good at all ranges nor that positioning becomes irrelevant. STG44 Volks still get shredded at long range by double Bren Tommies while if they manage to close the gap by using LOS blockers they might stand a chance. Close to mid range is still the STG44 Volks' favorable engagement range even if the upgrade also adds a bit of long range DPS.


Also, we know by now you prefer long time to kill and want to nerf 30 units towards a Grenadier base level. It's a valid point of view and it's fine to want that. But it is what you want and not the perfect ideal you make it out to be. Long TTK is also not what other people want. The fact that some guy at Relic (who, with all due respect, did make a mess of balance) said some stuff 5 years ago doesn't necessarily make it true. In fact, comparing the balance from years ago to the current balance, I'd even say evidence suggests they were wrong. At this point in development it's also completely unrealistic to expect us to undertake such a massive overhaul of nearly every infantry unit in the game.

You're not helping the discussion by repeating this over and over again.

Also, we know by now you prefer long time to kill and want to nerf 30 units towards a Grenadier base level. It's a valid point of view and it's fine to want that. But it is what you want and not the perfect ideal you make it out to be. Long TTK is also not what other people want. The fact that some guy at Relic (who, with all due respect, did make a mess of balance) said some stuff 5 years ago doesn't necessarily make it true. In fact, comparing the balance from years ago to the current balance, I'd even say evidence suggests they were wrong. At this point in development it's also completely unrealistic to expect us to undertake such a massive overhaul of nearly every infantry unit in the game.

You're not helping the discussion by repeating this over and over again.

+1

If that was done then the meta would simply become call in infantry...There is a sheer endless list of infantry in COH2 you can't possibly nerf all of it just to suit your taste of "low lethality" infantry combat. Just imagine if Volks were nerfed, Shocks and Guards would just steamroll OKW. Same for Rangers, Paratroopers, etc

I think the lethality levels in the game are generally fine. They strike a decent balance between 'blink and you lose a the squad' and 'let's stand here for ten minutes missing each other at point blank'.

They where not.

Units where balanced according to baseline and design to excel at a certain range.

But how does that work with design principles like "rifleman are supposed to be stronger becasue they are the core of USF" or "Ost gets better team weapons because of weaker infantry play"
Existence of MG42 kind of shits on that rule as well.

...
In fact, comparing the balance from years ago to the current balance, I'd even say evidence suggests they were wrong.
..

Not really, there is no evidence to suggest that they wrong, especially in finding optimum power level for infatry fights.

The fact is that game is in better state has probably allot to do with the number of RNG, Cheesy and Bugs that have been fixed and less with actual balance decisions.

When it comes to balance homogenizing faction made balanced allot easier.

Finally even if one accept that "balance" wise things are better that does not prove that everything at that time including optimum power level was wrong.

I can give you plenty of examples that went horribly wrong in the in the last patches and that does not mean much when it comes overall balance.

Bottom line is that last patches have increased the power level of units for no apparent reason leading in vicious circle.

For example :
Ostheer T4 become early accessible then M36 had to buffed and now 3 Tiger come allot faster than rest of Super heavies.

As long as Patches keep buffing staff and making available earlier I will continue to point out that imo instead of buffing units one should consider nerfing.

Else the game will change from RTS to arcade with vehicles that have 100% chance to hit and penetrate other units at all ranges.

You're not helping the discussion by repeating this over and over again.

I was asked and I explained.

Not really, there is no evidence to suggest that they wrong, especially in finding optimum power level for infatry fights.

I'm not sure this can be proven either way. It' a preference thing.

There's intention and there is execution.

"No plan survives first contact with the enemy".

Finally if one accept that "balance" wise thing are better that does not prove that everything at that was wrong.

The opposite also applies. Just because something is written in the changelog doesn't mean it did apply correctly and with the intention they had in mind.

At some point, you just need to let it go. It's a game design vision from someone who doesn't work anymore with Relic, we are at a stage on which another faction was introduced, 2 factions got complete revamps and 2 others saw different changes to their teching and their units.

You can't just cut quote something which sounds nice while ignoring that in their grand vision design, factions were either supposed to steamroll and snowball the game to finish early or be condemned to lose because they didn't manage to reduce the opponents VP to a low amount that no wonder unit would save them (USF vs OKW).

... Penals would also have to be nerfed (as they should imo) or they would completely dominate VG at all ranges.

Now not saying a disagree but...

They should since the are more expensive,

A 160mp tech required and then 5x the price difference that cons and volks have....
If there is ANY "they should be clubbing at any range because they are more expensive" this is it.

Not saying penals don't need tuning but.... Come on...

i do think vipper is right, penal, stg and even bar are badly balanced weapons, i would remove stg for the mp40 upgrade (and maybe put stg on the doc that has it), make penal either a excel at mid range or long range, and make then bar excel at mid close combat but not as much as PPSH

Now not saying a disagree but...



A 160mp tech required and then 5x the price difference that cons and volks have....
If there is ANY "they should be clubbing at any range because they are more expensive" this is it.

Not saying penals don't need tuning but.... Come on...

Penal are simply badly designed, units of such power level should simply not be available that early in the game.

They could become similar to PF come out weaker and have weapon upgrade available to them.

Compared to Penal, G43 PF are more expensive and yet their performance does not justified their cost.

Not really, there is no evidence to suggest that they wrong, especially in finding optimum power level for infatry fights.

There is.
You'll find existence of this thread being full of evidence over last 5 years.

The fact is that game is in better state has probably allot to do with the number of RNG, Cheesy and Bugs that have been fixed and less with actual balance decisions.

RNG has very little to do with infantry combat, unless we're talking about the brilliant, non working cons that were design supported by your personal guru of balance who doesn't work for relic for over half a decade.

When it comes to balance homogenizing faction made balanced allot easier.

By homogenizing you mean taking away cheeze based tools and replacing them with reliable ones, like USF smoke and mortar or replacing kubeljesus with actual HMG?

Finally even if one accept that "balance" wise things are better that does not prove that everything at that time including optimum power level was wrong.

The "optimum power level" doesn't take into account what's standing behind the unit and units place within the faction. Current approach does.
To me, that's pretty concrete proof that "optimum power level" approach is flawed at its core philosophy - it was created with 1v1 vacuum scenarios, which we all know serve little purpose in balance discussions.

I can give you plenty of examples that went horribly wrong in the in the last patches and that does not mean much when it comes overall balance.

Subjective opinion on the direction of changes does not equal a factual evidence of "something going horrible wrong". Design-wise, things improved overall, the numbers behind these design decisions not working perfectly as intended in the first iteration on live are completely different subject.

Bottom line is that last patches have increased the power level of units for no apparent reason leading in vicious circle.

Which units?
The out of meta units were buffed to the point, where they are appealing alternatives, like RETs or M5 quad.
Out of infantries, there were only toning DOWN of units, like con weapon slot limit or bren nerf.
The patch notes of last couple of patches do not seem to support your claim here.

For example :
Ostheer T4 become early accessible then M36 had to buffed and now 3 Tiger come allot faster than rest of Super heavies.

Correlation doesn't equal causation, if absolutely nothing happened to ost T4, jackson would still had to be buffed, because OKW still existed at that time. USF always struggled with heavies and panthers and zooks or their AT gun clearly are not up for the task.