I really don't get what would be wrong with 'the whole doctrine being carried by one ability.' At the end of the day, commanders are selected based on what they bring to the table. Looking at faction win rates, basically every game mode and faction is balanced (except crazy 4v4s), which means that the most powerful Soviet commanders are not out of the overall strength curve.
There is little wrong in one ability carrying a commander when that ability is a late game ability like an IS-2/ISU-152 or Anti tank barrage.
It is quite another when that ability is a CP 1 call in infatry. Ostruppen have illustrated this issue.
In other words, there is no reason to nerf good Soviet doctrines to make weak ones better. Its a stupid argument. Thus, the fix to partisan doctrine would require the doctrine to go to the level of other commanders it competes with, or atleast to be strong enough at a niche to compensate for what it lacks. You can either do this by shoring up the doctrine's weakness (giving it a better lategame), or by making the unique aspects of the doctrine stand out more.
Yes there. If 3 commander are far better than other 19 several issues are created.
1) One has to "fix" 19 commander instead of 3
2) stock issues of the faction remain hidden since the commander can carry the faction
3) Power creep
For instance the decision to remove heavy bombing abilities from "ISU/Ele" (as I had suggested) was a solid one that improved the game since those commander simply brought too much to the table.
Same goes for "mark target" that is quite a potent ability.
In my opinion, the Partisan doctrine hinges on the idea of superior intelligence and planning. As such, I think all the abilities fit the doctrine very well (except maybe the ATG ambush).I believe mark target + spy network are more than enough of a lategame edge. Stacking more has a risk of making the doctrine OP.
Thus, the obvious fix appears to be with the partisans themselves. They need to bring something to the equation to make up for the lack of elite infantry in the doctrine. Currently, after the initial call in, partisans fall off hard, as they have terrible received accuracy and reinforce cost (thus bleeding hard when fighting German squads that have high DPS). I think an interesting change would be to allow a way for partisans to reinfiltrate. Maybe add a 'tunnel' that partisans can build in friendly territory, which allows them to move around the map faster. It should be fairly easy to find and destroy for the opponent to make it fair. As an easier and less insane fix, I think partisan reinforce cost could be changed to be based on a full 5 man squad, rather than the starting 4 man squad (210/(2*5) = 21)
The commander provides:
No elite infatry
No premium medium
No artillery
No Super heavy
No powerful off map
thus is unsuitable for most modes and requires lost of micro to get the most out of it.
Even with the changes you propose I doubt it would enough to make the commander attractive.
Partisan would have to be buffed to stupid levels to carry the commander and at that point it would simply frustrating to play against camo units as it is against commandos/Pathfinder.
|
This is irrelevant, ostheer also got tech and core army buffs. Over-all picture of sov\ost relation pretty much remained the same.
Most soviet fillers were weak in comparison in 2013 and they are still weak in 2022, compared not only to Ostheer but all the other factions. Their saving was the fact that most of the call-ins were OP AF. Who cares about anything when you had 1CP shocktroops and 60 range one-shotting ISU
Even mentioned Partisans commander was overpowered, because of how easily you was able to pop them on retreat path and wipe. Sure it wasnt ok and should have been toned down, but balance team or who ever was behind changes, clearly never had any intentions of actually trying to fix this system where whole commanders are being carried by either combination of few abilities or few call-ins.
What soviet power level of commanders comes from to begin with? Ok we, so basically say if commander doesn't have 120mm mortar\elite inf and some sort of armor call-in, its basically a useless commander for soviets, because abilities besides that are simply cant compensate for soviet design.
It is relevant since the original for weak stock unit no longer applies. Problem is that no actual "new" designed was implemented and Soviet commander still have access to a plethora of doctrinal units (some of the reall good as you say).
That left certain commander being overpowered and that messed up faction balance since if someone buffed stock units the faction would balanced but certain commanders would be OP.
Baseline here is that problem has little to do with "filler abilities" (that are actually needed) and more to do with difference in power level of soviet commanders. Soviet still have some of the most cost efficient doctrinal units like:
Guards
Shock
T-34/85
|
I know about that design, that knowledge is the reason why I am complaining. The most commander dependent faction, has by far the weakest filler abilities, which on paper are supposed to either improvement for your army or strong addition but in reality they are just a dead weight.
And opposite to this Ostheer with a strong core army and less commander dependence, benefiting almost twise as much.
1) Soviet tech has received buffs
2) Stock Soviet units have received buffs
3) Soviet Commander got access to more doctrinal units
As I have posted earlier the problem has little to do with number of or the strength of "filler abilities" it has more to do with difference in power level of commanders.
Some of the most popular Soviet commanders across most modes are:
Guard Motor Coordination Tactics
Soviet Combined Arms Army
Shock Rifle Frontline Tactics
and that has little to do with the "filler abilities".
|
Well idk, playing all factions, besides my hate towards soviets, I only find ostheer relief inf to be the ability you hardly even use.
This is possible solution, but the problem still remains that such filler abilities for soviets are honestly miles behind other faction fillers.
Out of all, the only good thing was the creation of advanced fortification. Others are slight improvements at best. I mean its no where near merges like reigel+mobile obs vehicle or flak with advanced fortifications.
For instance, if balance team thinks that repair kit should also benefit penals, why don't they think about giving something to penals with PPSH kit, making it more attractive for non cons builds.
Again, its pointless to discuss balance at this point, but yet, I am constantly having feeling that very little thought were put in soviets commanders and their abilities. It feels like, balance team just decided to give them around 5-6 meaningful commanders and left others for memes.
Ostheer despite having same crap load of commanders, doesn't suffer from it. Sure it has meta commanders, which are just almost always a better option (just like soviets), but almost all of them can be picked and played without the feeling that you are intentionally handicapping yourself.
You seem to be missing the design.
Ostheer where designed to really mostly on stock unit and less on doctrinal units.
Soviet where designed to have average stock unit and lots of good doctrinal units.
That designed faded over time (especially with community patches).
The error was that the commander overhaul did not focus on bringing all commanders to about the same power. Currently there are few Soviet commander that are much more powerful than the rest and some commanders that do not really bring much to the table like Partisan commander. |
This was an illustration that the game now is very different from the game that Relic designed when they used this formula as a guideline. Now, 9 years later, half of the units don't follow this rule anymore. As a result, the formula does not say anything anymore about how balanced units are in the current game.
Spawning from buildings has been nerfed across all factions, including partisans. The benefit is not as large as it used to be. Still, Partisans cost more per model and per HP even than semi-elite Penals, so saying there was no premium for their utility (I'll count that spawn mechanic as utility) is straight up wrong.
This is what I have posted and it is correct:
"Their reinforcement cost is also inline with their cost of 210 (210/8=26.25)"
I am not sure to what you disagree since you just posted what I said.
Relic calculated a cost of each unit and used the formula to calculated reinforcement cost. Unit that good spawn from ambient buildings come at higher cost and that is why their reinforcement cost was lower than that of the formula so no what I have post is simply not "straight up wrong" since spawning form buildings was not just "utility" according to Relic.
Why? There is no reason that it should be. If so, Stormtroopers' reinforcement cost are heavily underpriced, as well as many other units. I've given reasoning that this formula does not make inherent sense, especially in the current version of CoH2.
Stormtroppers are an example of what I just explained they used to be 340/100(?) mu PGs with camo so the extra MP cost of spawning with 4 K98 was justified because they where paying a premium for infiltration.
My point is that they are not "dirty cheap" as you claimed, they are at best an average to even slightly expensive choice to fill your roster.
210 manpower 60 munition for AT partisan is not dirty cheap compared to 340 60 munition CP2 AT stormtoppers with no mines or snares? 130 more manpower because they start with 0.75 target size?
I fully agree that EHP is not the only factor determining cost. But you will surely agree that regarding damage output, Partisans also fall behind Penals and Conscripts. We've also established that they are not as durable, not even for the price. They have good utility as by their design, but they are not cheap compared to the standard roster. It's important to get this straight and avoid confusion, especially for users that are not as versed in CoH2's stats, because they will otherwise believe that Partisans were cheap units. They're "cheap" at 210 MP, but not for what they are capable of.
Partisan start with good weapons especially on the move compared to cost.
SPG partisan can set an ambush and with mines/grenade/trap/first strike can easily force retreat or wipe most units. That is how they are meant to be used.
Compare them as scout with 290 manpower/6 pop Pathfinder.
If you disagree with my metrics, I'm open to a proper counter suggestion, but so far you have only stated that you think all of this is fine but not provided any reasoning besides Relic's formula that I debunked above.
I have provided you with an article on how Relic calculated cost .
Partisans and ST/Commandos fill out similar roles. If you need to compare them to something, they are a decent choice. You obviously need to correct for their different costs, but that is exactly what I did.
As far as I have seen you have compared them with conscript and penals.
As for roles they have the added role of being scout with superior vision and to disrupt lines with faster cap.
This does not make any sense.
1. Your PPSh argument: Those squads work completely differently. Putting two DP28s on Guards obviously needs different pricing than a hypothetical ability of giving them to Conscripts, which would surely break them. Weapons work differently in different squads, calculating munitions per weapon only makes sense if the squads actually work the same way. In the same way I can say that the Schreck is super expensive because PGrens get 2 of them for only 100 mun. Airborne Guards even get 6 PPShs for free! All of this has nothing to do with an upgrade being cheap or expensive, since all costs are uniquely designed for each specific unit.
For 45 mu they get an extra entity and 4 PPsh feel free to explain why in you opinion that is expensive.
2. There are no AT stormtroopers.
Don't this sentence even deserves a response.
They can still have MP40s, they still have other functions and capabilities and can still fight infantry. AT Partisans are just AT due to the low DPS on their rifles. They even shoot at different targets. In pure AT capability: Yes, Partisans are surely better. Stormtroopers still provide a lot on top that justifies the higher price.
Equipping AT stormtroopers with Mp-40 is a bad idea.
Partisan do not have low DPS on their rifles.
No one claimed Partisans should carry the whole commander.
This is what OP is implying "i have not seen this doctrine around at all in the last ~60 days why is basically nobody using it? did the partisan rework really kill it" which mean that according to him the commander was carried by Partisan and once Partisan where "nerfed" the commander is useless.
People here, including me, keep saying their reinforcement cost is too high and should be lowered.
I am not sure why arguing all previous points since this the thing that matters.
One could lower the reinforcement cost of SMG partisans because generally SMG troops become les cost efficient as the game progress or could allow merge since the no reason against anymore.
Lowering the reinforcement cost of At partisan should be avoided since the last thing the game need is shreck blobs again. |
Thing is, even without marked target meta commanders would have been still picked almost always. Problem with soviets in particular is that they have way too many slots wasted on the abilities which couldnt be justify its own slot imo.
That is a misconception not all abilities should be of equal power...
Like Armored Vehicle detection, sure, cool ability, but it doesn't give that much to take whole slot.
Cons repair kit also is cool, but shouldn't take its own slot just for that.
Vehicle crew repair also takes up slot and gives you just that.
PPSH package aren't particularly good to begin with and usable only with cons builds.
AT ambush also ok-ish, but whole slot just for a single unit ability.
And those abilities should be used to fill commander with powerful abilities like the ISU-152 for instance so that the sum of all abilities of commanders should be of around the same level.
Even if you draw clear comparison with similar abilities other factions have, you will almost always end up with something which is either better, available earlier, paired with something or more units benefit from it.
I'm not saying that soviets are UP or something, but this is honestly was a total hypocrisy with the commander update. When all the other factions got at least some sort of an ability merges into a single comm slot, soviets got nothing in this regard.
No wonder people just pick commanders with the most amount of actually usable and justifiable per slot abilities.
The is not very accurate:
Hit the dirt was merged with ppsh
Conscript repair kit was expanded to include penals
Assault guards got both AI and AT upgrade.
PMD mine and tank traps where merge into one ability and bunker where added
AI and AT partisan where merged into one ability |
its easily the worst ability i can think up of
You hide your ATG, thats IT. Tank hunter camo hides your atg AND all tanks. wehrmacht camo gives all of your infantry & MG-42, giving them a FIRST STRIKE bonus too
and its not like there's an anti tank gun with non doc camo and with a boost if it fires while camouflaged once it reaches vet 2 or 3
Nope you are simply wrong. Zis firing from camo get first strike bonuses:
Name: "Anti-Tank Gun Ambush"
Duration: Toggle Ability
Cost: Free
-80% speed when active.
First strike bonus:
+25% reload speed.
+20% accuracy.
+20% penetration.
|
The AT gun being able to camouflage is probably the most useless feature that holds up a commander slot in the entire game
putting literally anything in it's place would be a buff to the doctrine, ANYTHING
You probably are using the weapon to its potential.
Zis with first strike bonus is one of the most cost efficient AT guns in game. |
Imagine me being in balance team:
1) Replace AT ambush with Urban defence HQ
2) Replace radio intercept with either scorched earth or Team Weapon drop
????
4) Kinda usable commander
But hey soviets are only allowed to have like 5 actually usable commanders out of all 
One could start by removing mark target from Mechanized Support Tactics and Guard Motor Coordination Tactics (and moving the ability to two other weaker commanders) while adding a powerful late game off map to Partisan.
During redesign I had also suggested giving them access to doctrinal PAk 40.
That would probably be enough. |
That calculation is what Relic used back when they released the game and damage profiles where flat. It also only works if you assume that the purchase cost and unit performance is balanced in the first place to their respective model count. Today's CoH2 deviates from this rule of thumb often, and even in some cases where it is still true initially, the reinforcement cost or model count is being changed at later stages (Cons, Grens etc). It is not a good metric anymore to assess cost efficiency, especially since it has the oddity of decreasing the "optimal" unit reinforcement cost when increasing the squad size, which means double buffing a unit.
Damage profile being flat has nothing to with reinforcement cost.
Unit is OP when first purchased since it really pay no premium for being able to spawn from building.
When it come to reinforcement cost Relic's formula is a fine metric.
If we use more useful metrics, partisans are not "cheap" at all.
If you consider EHP per MP for purchase costs, partisans give you 1.52 EHP per MP. For comparison, Conscripts have 1.83, Penals 1.65. If you take the EHP per reinforcement cost, Partisans are average as well. Due to low bonuses to RA at vet, this gets even worse the longer the game goes on.
Partisans therefore are one of the more expensive options for early Soviet builds, especially since the cost effectiveness heavily diminishes the smaller your squads become because you need to retreat them earlier. It is safe to say that they are overall average to expensive compared to other Soviet squads. In the end, no one is also going to buy Partisans without upgrading them immediately.
That is completely arbitrary measure of "cost" since a unit value does not simply depend on its EHP. It has also do with a number of other factor including damage output and utility.
https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/balancing-multiplayer-games---intuition-iteration-and-numbers
Mainlines cannot avoid damage by cloaking, but these metrics are also not really cheaper than for other ambush or camouflage squads like Stormtroopers or Commandos. Here also, the bad RA means they cannot stay in the fight as long and therefore be as useful.
ST/C are elite units. Partisan are not. Even so if you compared AT partisan with AT Stormtroppers you will find them much more cost efficient.
Overall I'd say their purchase cost is in line with what they bring to the table. Slightly lower combat value for the price that is offset by good utility. But their reinforcement cost is one of the highest in the Soviet lineup, especially when they're up against vetted squads
You seem to want to determine reinforcement cost by EHP and buy cost which really makes little sense.
Glad to see that you agree that they are a cost efficient unit to buy.
As before, upgrade costs are roughly the same as for other squads, it's not like they'd get a discount.
Conscripts pay 60 munition for 4 PPsh not 5
AT stormtroopers pay the same 60 munition for a sheck but they cost more manpower while they do not get snares or mines.
In sort these upgrade are not expensive.
My point remains:
The unit is a cost efficient unit, it simply can not and should not be able to carry a whole commander on its own. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
