Profile of comm_ash

Could the problem be linked to specific building models? I wouldn't be surprised if different buildings in game had different collision parameters. Did you test in a different position the second time @le_saucisson_masque?

Hey guys! First of all, great work on the balance mod! I thought I was done with this game but you brought me back with your hard work.

After some time playtesting, I have a few issues I would like to bring up.

1) The M3 HT buff for USF was great, but it does have an issue. The CP cost is still set to 2, which means that USF is able to get the M3 out at about the same time as the Ostheer gets their 251. This should not happen, because this allows the USF player to sustain pushes deep into the Ostheer rear and generally gives USF too much of an advantage in the early/mid game IMO. I would not be against moving it to 3 CP, though I do still think that 520mp may be a bit high at that CP for AEs and an HT. perhaps look into specializing the AE on the HT? (Give them flamers or bazooka on spawn and call them demo AE?)

2) I believe that you guys should look into vehicle-mounted flamethrowers. Currently, they all have different ticker values, and as a result some flamers are simply off, while others overperform in comparison. It seems pretty odd and not very well implemented IMO. Definetly unintuitive for newer players.

3) You MAY want to look into the cost efficiency of the cromwell compared to the P4. It is still far too close in stats compared to what the price differential would lead one to expect. Perhaps give the P4 some of its stat bonuses at vet 0, to compensate for its higher cost as a medium. Perhaps make the cromwell a low armor unit that relies on speed micro and its gun for its strength, instead of having it as a better sherman.

4) Perhaps add a new upgrade for all US vehicle crews called "Crew survival package." This package should supply the crew with a bazooka and access to emergency vehicle repairs. I think this would be a good change because the current emergency vehicle repair is just something you have at vet 1, which isn't all that hard for vehicle crews to gain, resulting in it being a fairly common ability being used. Would add more to the risk/reward of vehicle crews, but its not that big of a deal.

5) Remove the minimum range on all infantry snares. They don't really add anything but annoyance, and I am fairly sure that the reason the snares bug out is because of them. More of a QoL thing than anything else.

These are just some little issues I have found, and not all of them are all that important. I wish you guys the best of luck in your work.

Also, since you guys are talking about the WC51, I would like to toss an idea in for it. I have used it in lots of 1v1s at fairly high levels, and I think its biggest issue is non-scalability and a very cheesy role. Perhaps make it into a support fire unit like the kubel?

Make it have a fairly powerful gun (it is a .50 after all) and make troops in it either unable to fire from the rear or unable to ride inside period. I believe this would be more than warranted considering the high fuel cost and low maneuverability of the vehicle. It could also be nice to see it gain some scouting utility, either as a T/70 style toggle or a passive vision boost, giving it more utility later into the match, and allowing you to set up more mobile gameplay.

You are choosing a doctrine, drastically slowing teching, and giving up an early rifle for it, so I believe it should at the very least allow for some increased mobility in firepower in the early game, as the doctrine claims to provide. Currently, it is too bad at maneuvering to be a good sniper hunter or harasser.

Just because a unit is doctrinal is not a reason for it to be more cost efficient than it should be. Doctrinal units are additional options for you to use to play the game, not better versions of stock units. T34/85 is insanely cost efficient with 800 HP and a fairly good maingun for only 130 fuel. It definitely needs an increased cost to bring it in line with other tanks price/performance wise, when compared with stock armor like the P4.

Against UKF I always go for light vehicle spam. Usually puma ->luchs -> optional puma later. The lack of snares for British infantry let's you run amok with them, and the puma will beat the aec 10/10 times of you use your range advantage and play around your own snares/ at.

I also invest in Goliath doctrine, because of the great defensive buff provided by for the fatherland, the ambush squad wipes by the goliath, and the free recon.

Just remember to use as much green cover to your advantage as you can, and destroy the rest.

I can see Grens and pgrens getting 82 hp models to reduce the likelihood of wipes, but such a change would also end up changing the amount of hits it takes to kill said models, potentially messing up balance. It would require relic to look at every infantry weapon in the game and rescale the damage values and other modifiers to keep the same kill time.

That being said, I don really think such a change is needed. Yes, ostheer infantry gets one shotted more often than the infantry of other factions, but the biggest culprit was mines. Now that mines no longer destroy squads in oneshot, the biggest culprits are mortars and other indirect fire, which can be dodged with movement.

In my honest opinion, all ostheer really needs is a 251 buff to make it even if not better than the m5 durability wise, to reflect ostheer's reliance on support weapons. Every other issue can be attributed to other units needing nerfs (ie. Us mortar overperforming).