The bofors is completely ridiculous.
Certainly. I should have been clearer but I agree with PenileBatRation when it comes to the Bofors.
280/30 is only slightly more than a M5 Halftrack for a unit that locks out an area to everything below medium tanks and, when combined with a Mortar Pit, doesn't really have a counter that requires less skill than the emplacements (before medium tanks). 1000 health is also a bit much given that the 17 Pounder has 900 and a larger hitbox.
What would you change about the Bofors? |
So unless this expansion pack is relic's scorched earth strategy in order to abandon this game forever while milking some little cash, they should make some quick adjustments or the playerbase will shrink and go extinct in no time. There are a couple of issues;
No clear disadvantageStrong support tiers and units are there to make up for their weak inf? Nah that is the SU Aye? Tommies beat the most elite AI units, sappers can rekt their much more expensive counterparts. So you wonder why they have the best HMG in game, Most durable and sniper(Vet, easy to gain) with high lategame value, and antimatter emplacement.
Ridiculously OP vehicles.Starting from the cromwell which can either push back or nitrocharge a panther and completely destroy it all for a mere 110 fuel cost. And then there are comet blobs and centaurs. The former has the speed of a light car while being capable of destroying the heaviest of heavies and the latter does not even allow units to fall back.
Emplacements - Cheap, no counter. That's about it.
Possible solutions, any one should be enough;
- Increase the cost of their emplacement. 600 MP minimum.
- Give OstInTears non-doc hard-counters or semi-hard-counters.
- Reduce the cost of leFH to 400MP. Increase their damage against buildings.
- Reduce the BOF ROF, increase the vet requirement for the pit and add a fuel cost.
As for vehicles;
- Increase the fuel cost for cromwell to 140.
- Reduce the comest's speed by %15 at the very least.
- Increase the fuel cost for cenatur to 125.
Note: This is not intended to harm anyone's feeling. Please have some tolerance and discuss the issue.
No clear disadvantage?
- IS must be used in cover and at long range.
- Commandos are powerful but are short-ranged and don't vet well.
- Royal Engineers are OP but only with upgrades and vet.
- The Vickers is one of the most expensive MGs in the game.
- The UKF currently have a lacklustre mid-game due to their lack of good light vehicle counters.
Ridiculously OP vehicles?
- The Centaur is fairly slow and can be retreated from.
- The Cromwell is underpriced but shouldn't cost more than 125-130 fuel.
- A Comet costs more than a Panther with better AI and maneuverability, worse AT and worse veterancy.
Emplacements - Cheap, no counter?
- I believe you mean "Bofors - Cheap, no good counter until mid-game"
I suggest you either play a few UKF games or check the stats of their units (preferably both) to better appreciate the weaknesses of the faction. |
I meant "suicide units" as in inexpensive scouts, meatshields, and mine clearers. Conscripts will still be all around infantry, guards are the elite infantry, shocks are close range infantry, while penals will be just that. Other than a unit without a purpose, they get a new one. Of course they'd have to give out less vet, otherwise we'd just get another churchill-ish vet pinata..
What does one get penals for nowadays? Falmethrowers? Engineers have that already. To get "better" infantry than cons? Kek. Trolling your enemies and allies? Double kek.
What you guys are suggesting are damage buffs and stuf. I mean, that's cool and all, but what I'm suggesting is a new purpose for penals, other than just upgraded infantry. Make them suicide units, y'know, for variety or whatever.
Variety is well and good but the "suicide unit" role as you've outlined it is already fulfilled by Engineers and Conscripts. Giving the Soviets another disposable but cheap unit won't add anything to the faction.
Making Penal Battalions into elite infantry would reduce Soviet reliance on doctrines and give players more reason to go T1. |
Relic's definitely been playing around with the cover bonuses. Now, all bonuses (except the sight bonuses with vet) are under squad_action_apply_ext in the unit's sbps file. The IS cover bonus is functionally unchanged but the RE bonus now applies to all weapons, not just the Sten.
The RE bonus multiplies cooldown by 0.3 and reload time by 0.5. This is on top of the functional 0.83 cooldown and 0.71 reload multipliers from not having the Infantry Section cover penalty. Not only are REs better with weapon upgrades outside of cover, they are now far better in cover as well.
Oh Relic....  |
FYI, sturm offizier aura does nothing for LeIGs despite the symbol floating above them. Placebo affect is real though.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but the Sturm Offizier aura in the modding tools seems to reduce the ISG's reload time by 9%.
Here are the full effects:
| Target | Effect | | Infantry type units but not Officers, HMGs, mortars or the Raketenwerfer | +10% accuracy | | HMG type units (MG34) | +10% accuracy | | Mortar type units (not the ISG) | -9% reload time | | AT gun type units (Raketenwerfer and ISG) | -9% reload time |
|
All you guys talk as if sappers with bren were able to replace tommys with brens as mainline inf.
Now I dont have the time to go into the attribute editor and check the stats myself but I have been very vividly checking any threads on the matter (for that I can do from work ☺).
And last I checked unless you are talking close range, IS with double bren still does quite a bit more dps than sappers with double bren. Due to the simple fact that in the IS you have 3 more members contributing to dps whilst the sappers far and mid range sten gun dps closes in on zero making the entire dmg come from the 2 brens. Also, once vet works again IS will get 20 % more acc on all 5 members whilst sappers dont. What am I missing? And if anyone cares to do the actual dps values with and possibly without vet, maybe they could add sappers with anvil upgrade.
Thanks in advance
It's not a matter of sheer DPS as it is economic efficiency. You are correct when you say that a fully vetted and upgraded IS (5-man, dual Bren) will have significantly more long-range DPS than an equivalent RE squad (5-man, dual Bren).
An Infantry Section Bren has slightly more than double the long-range DPS of a standard IS model so dual-equipping the squad effectively adds 50% to the squad's long-range DPS. The IS vet 3 rifles add roughly 10% to DPS, for a total DPS increase of 185% (100% + 50% Brens + 10% vet 3 rifles + 25% extra man) before the 20% accuracy bonus (end total: 222%). Infantry Sections also become roughly 30% more durable with veterancy.
On the other hand, Royal Engineers have effectively no initial long-range DPS for 1.5 times the close-range DPS. A squad costs 75% of an IS squad and uses 1 less population initially. The Engineer Bren does roughly twice the long-range DPS of the scoped IS rifles for a total long-ranged DPS of 120% of an IS for a dual-equipped squad. At veterancy 3 (dual Bren, 5-man) the RE squad is roughly 50% more durable (15% more than a vet 3 IS squad) and costs 46% of an IS model to reinforce.
In addition, if you decide to go with Anvil, the Heavy Engineer upgrade adds the equivalent of an IS Bren while doubling the squad's durability for a total of 170% of the long-range DPS (120% from Engineer Brens, 50% from Vickers K), 75% of the close-range DPS (even while moving because of the Sten's 100% moving accuracy), 300% of the durability, 46% of the reinforcement cost and 1-2 less pop.
Obviously there are a few caveats here. The Heavy Engineer upgrade locks you out of the Comet and makes your engineers slower in combat (more likely to be grenaded/crushed). A single fully upgraded RE squad costs 210 manpower and 190 munitions (without marginal side upgrade costs) versus the Infantry Section's 280 and 120. At the same time, we are comparing DPS in percentages of a standard IS squad's in-cover DPS and the Heavy Engineer upgrade also significantly increases your RE's repair rate in addition to the bonus they receive with veterancy. The most obvious caveat is that these are back-of-the-envelope calculations with rough percentages.
What can we conclude from this massive over-analysis? The problem with Infantry Sections and Royal Engineers is one of scaling and optimal choices. My proposed change to the IS cover bonus would only slightly address the problems this identifies (weapon upgrades better on REs, lacklustre IS offensive veterancy, ridiculous RE veterancy reinforcement cost reductions, Heavy Engineer Terminators etc.) but would help adjust faction design to something more intuitive.
A good way to think of it is that Infantry Sections are main-line infantry if you don't have or aren't buying weapon upgrades. Past that point, Royal Engineers gradually become a better choice, depending on your munitions income/costs and your manpower supplies. |
The whole suggestion looks like a big mess to me TBH. All those nerfed to the british weapon is not going to be compensated by the changes to the cover system. It's whole lot of changes for nothing. it doesn't answer the problem that your changes only really nerfed the sapper without actually buffing the Tommies. It's a half baked solution.
"Mobility buffs and/or health buffs with the weapon upgrades for the UC would give the UKF a third soft counter."
And this is why I am clearly utterly obsessed with trying to get a useful change to the UC. If you lock out with the bofors, or choose neither, you have no defence against ISGs in particular. If you don't pick the AEC you have no way of taking ground and especially garrisons. The only partial solution is an aggressively placed pit, though you have to devote so much manpower to ( unsuccessfully) defending it that you have little map presence.
The above effectively make IS useless to me, they are great on the defence but when you have to deny or take resources in the mid game and contest a second VP they just bleed you dry due to their expense, inability to deal with light armour, inability to take a garrisons and lack of upgrades which don't lead to problems dropping weapons.
Your suggestion would in fact make this far worse, nerfing the only useful non doc infantry that the UKF possess.
I fully understand that this suggestion is not what the UKF needs in the current context. It is, however, what I think the UKF needs in the long term.
Regardless, what changes would you suggest to ISs and supporting units to both offset my proposed changes and buff the current faction? 
|
do you know if the HEAT grenade has a longer range than faust/AT nade?
AT snares appear to be a complete mess on further inspection.
Let's go into why:
- The Panzerfaust, HEAT Grenade and RPG-43 all cost 25 munitions.
- The RPG-43 has 15 range, the Panzerfaust has 18 and the HEAT Grenade has 20. Note that these are ability ranges.
- The RPG-43 and Panzerfaust do 100 damage while the HEAT grenade does 50.
- The HEAT Grenade and RPG-43 have a 0.8 deflection damage modifier (giving 40 and 80 damage respectively) while the Panzerfaust has 0.45 (giving 45 damage).
- The HEAT Grenade and RPG-43 have a flat 100 penetration. The Panzerfaust has 160/150/140 (N/M/F) penetration.
- Accuracy values are odd. The RPG-43 and Panzerfaust have 15 and 11 respectively, meaning they should never miss. The HEAT grenade has 0.2/0.15/0.1 (N/M/F) which means that it shouldn't miss vehicles anyway but is an odd deviation.
- All use a homing projectile type.
In terms of practical use, damage and range are most important. The Panzerfaust is the best snare against light vehicles because of its combination of range and damage but the RPG-43 is better against heavy armour due to its deflection damage. The HEAT Grenade has the best range, which works well with Infantry Sections, but lacks the damage to be useful as a snare. |
Mainly this. Relic will have to balance the DPS of any affected weapons based on their top performance (Tommy version, according to the proposed changes). Any other infantry that picks up the weapon (Sappers, Commandos, enemy) will suffer a DPS decrease.
My changes wouldn't alter the Commando version of the Bren so unless they picked up a dropped Bren (which gives them the IS version anyway), their performance wouldn't change. Enemy squads are unlikely to lose DPS from picking up a Bren unless it locks them out of a lmg42 upgrade.
(I have never verified it. I am assuming that the Osttruppen cover bonus also affects slot weapons)
The Osttruppen bonus is badly implemented imo, and it is OP. The main reason people don't complain about it is:
- Osttruppen don't have easy access to weapon upgrades (which would allow them to scale)
- They don't suspect that Osttrupen benefit from this bonus, thus they don't give lmgs to Osttruppen
- Osttruppen have pretty bad received accuracy, and you can't use them offensively (where you would have to constantly reposition)
Thus, don't try to mirror a mechanic that's broken!
I agree. The Osttruppen comparison was mostly to give a concrete example in the game already but limiting the bonus to the UKF weapons is a better idea.
The mod I posted a link to above does that already, incidentally (bonus limited to the IS Bren, Vickers K, PIAT, Lee-Enfield variants and the Boys AT Rifle).
"It would be reasonably simple to replace all of the standard Lee-Enfields with the scoped variant at vet 3 without making them slot items."
Been like this since launch so if they were going to change it....
We can't blame Relic for this, actually. I tested the method and it only replaces the weapons on current squad models, not reinforcements. We'll see if it changes once veterancy is fixed.
"Either way, removing the whole reason for a faction to have weapon racks is a bit excessive. I'd prefer to fix the cover bonus and then discuss the poor scaling of ISs."
Currently other than attempting not to get a squad to vet3, or not allowing a single model of a vet3 squad to die, there is no way around the bug. So my reasoning is why pay a premium ( 280MP is one of the most expensive units in the game) for something which will actually give the opposition an advantage in the later game?
I'd far rather be able to buy IS for 210 - 250MP which couldn't access the weapons racks.
I take your point about the long range dps but bear in mind that the design of tommies requires them to be stationary in cover, which by mid game makes them not just donators of advanced weaponry but free xp for every ISG or mortar on the field. Yes there is counter battery now but it only seems of any use against really poor players.
Part of this is that the UKF only have the Mortar Pit and AEC to destroy indirect fire in mid-game. Mobility buffs and/or health buffs with the weapon upgrades for the UC would give the UKF a third soft counter.
"All other weapons are UNAFFECTED by cooldown and reload bonuses, so PIATs reload as fast on any other infantry."
Could be my eyes or an assumption on my part but I'm not sure piats on tommies out of cover do much...
Katitof is correct about the RE bonus but incorrect about the IS penalty. The out-of-cover penalty applies to all weapons an IS uses.
|
If anyone wanted to test my suggestion to make sure it's as balanced as I say it is, here's a mod.
Great idea, but it sounds like a nerf to Sappers without really fixing the IS.
It absolutely is. I wanted to avoid this thread being derailed by arguing over how OP/UP Infantry Sections are.
Frankly trying to use the Advanced Emplacements doctrine, and therefore building IS, has left me with an 8 game losing streak. Tier 1 for the Brits consists of.... Vickers, for me. The other two units are so crap as to be counter-productive. One tommy for healing and building trenches is all you need. Fucking fantastic for a mainline infantry unit. 280 manpower just isn't worth it.
The problem with ISs is one of scaling, not poor initial performance. They lack certain necessary abilities (snares or versatile infantry AT) while REs benefit more from the side upgrades and veterancy. Interestingly enough, wasn't IS veterancy (accuracy and received accuracy)nerfed in the December patch? Was veterancy working then?
The Universal Carrier (UC) is actually fairly useful as an early counter to Kubelwagons, flank support and occasional transport. Unfortunately, buying the upgrades is a complete gamble, it's hard-countered by Panzerfausts and it really should have the repair ability at vet 0 (with advanced repair at vet 1).
I'd actually go further I think and remove piats and brens from tommies, giving a buff to compensate ( maybe a scoped Lee Enfield with each vet level?).
With vet3 tommies being nowt but donators of advanced weaponry to the opposition what is the point of allowing them to 'upgrade' in the first place? Sappers are simply better in the field, and scale better too. Tommies seem like their spastic Welsh ginger cousin in comparison.
That would need careful design work. Equipping all five IS models with Scoped Lee-Enfields would increase the squad's long-range DPS less than a single Bren gun, making them scale even worse.
It would be reasonably simple to replace all of the standard Lee-Enfields with the scoped variant at vet 3 without making them slot items, so no increased weapon drop risk over a standard dual-equipped squad. This would change the current 8-10% long-range DPS bonus into a 16% bonus and would probably be a better way of doing it than the current solution.
Either way, removing the whole reason for a faction to have weapon racks is a bit excessive. I'd prefer to fix the cover bonus and then discuss the poor scaling of ISs. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
