The limit is 30 armor against weapons with penetration of 1 (if I am not mistaken above 3%).
The chances are so abysmally low with armour above ca. 15, that it doesn't really happen. Combine that with the relatively high health of vehicles compared to infantry damage, and you see why it quickly becomes entirely irrelevant, unless infantry is capable of penetrating every single or every second shot. Missing is also almost entirely negated, due to the combination target sizes and infantry accuracy.
So the Puma basically doesn't have to worry about this, and (as written above) the 251/17 and the M15A1 fulfil different roles anyway. Not that the 251/17 couldn't use some sort of adjustment, but this shouldn't come in the form of armour buffs.
The 222 on the other hand would actually work better in its intended role if it had higher armour (and less health to even it out against other vehicles). It could then more reliably fight infantry, while staying effective at finishing off light vehicles. It would of course lose the ability to outright play "hunter/killer" if used in pairs, but that strategy was stupid from a balance perspective in the first place. |
At least when I play this game as Ostheer my grenadiers get one hit squad wiped by grenades and mortar hits. That would be avoided by changing the squad formation, and then I would have some more grenadier squads with veterancy alive in the late game.
That doesn't change the fact that especially with veterancy, which is still harder to reach with Grens due to significantly higher requirements than on Riflemen, and even with adjustments to Rifleman veterancy (unless you want to completely nerf it into the ground, which I don't want), double upgrades allow Riflemen to overcome their defining weakness against especially Grens: Long range performance. The difference is there, don't get me wrong, but compared to how much damage double BAR Riflemen dish out at close range, the difference at long range is almost negligible when they have two BARs.
Meanwhile, their performance with only one BAR drops of properly at long range, and still massively outdamages most line infantry at close range. That means they would still be truly effective at close range, and enough so to neglect the penalties from firing on the move, while at long range they would more easily be sent running. Together with light adjustments to their veterancy, this would make them work like they were intended to be used.
I'm sorry if this sounds a little bit one-sided (as if I would be adamant on nerfing only Allied infantry), but this is one of most glaring issues that currently exist in the game, together with the mortar problem (both actually go hand in hand). We could of course also talk for hours about bullshit mechanics on Axis units (the sniper is still totally bonkers, for example), but these changes would in my opinion not have a similarly big impact on the overall balance of the game. |
Time to update game.
251/17, M15A1, Puma.
Except for the 251/17 (which, again, is an entirely different class of vehicle in terms of gameplay), all of these have enough armour to basically become immune to small-arms fire, especially the Puma with 25 frontal armour. Short of HMG AP-ammo abilities and handheld AT weapons, no infantry weaponry will get through them. |
A single schreck is good enough vs tanks (that's the equivalent of 2 bazookas). Double schrecks on 4-men squads is an overkill; and that's for a purpose.
Forced double-schrecks on PGrens is actually a nerf that is necessary to keep their power in check. Their STGs are comparable to riflemen BARs (though, obviously, worse).
If you had blob made out of squads with 3 STGs and a schreck each, you would trivially a-move your way to victory, every single game.
I recently told you that your comparison of Schreck vs. Bazooka balance is way off (and I gave you the numbers as to why). Again, the comparison is 1,5 bazookas for every Panzerschreck.
You also forget to mention that PzGrens have a high entry and reinforcement cost, preventing a player from outright spamming them (more than three squads at any given time is impossible to uphold simply due to the cost and bleed they inflict on the player when used against infantry).
This of course doesn't mean that their StGs couldn't be adjusted, but regardless of that we won't see a new Volksgren situation with them simply due to their high manpower cost. If that weren't the case, we would see that happen with OKW and their Sturmgrenadiere, who are even more effective at working that way. That we don't see that happen should be proof enough.
P.S.: Orthography, Y U NO LIKE ME?  |
There are of course many possible options to deal with this: 1) Changing squad formation for the Axis infantry 2) Doing something to Riflemen veterancy 3) Doing something to Riflemen weapon slots. I think that doing these things, does at least make the Axis infantry lite better against the USF in the late game.
The first option doesn't have anything to do with the problem at hand (it would of course be still welcome, due to the higher vulnerability of smaller squads to explosives).
And weapon slots are not what I am going against here, I would prefer a solution where picking up more weaponry from the field should still be possible as some kind of reward (although my position with this probably goes against what many here want, as it is basically the same mechanic as with abandoned vehicles).
Riflemen veterancy needs a rework, that much is clear in general. But even with that rework, the problem of double upgrades in general remains. This applies to all of them, PzGrens with their double Schreck, Tommies with the double Brens, but most jarringly of course to Riflemen with double BARs (most jarringly because the second BAR basically removes all weaknesses Riflemen had compared to other infantry). If all of these double upgrades were to go, the game would be much better off. |
1. The Riflemen
- Remove/reduce the vet 3 bonus to match other line infantry units. Cover should not become irrelevant for infantry just because the game has gone on for a long time.
- Limit the 1919A6 to one per squad. There is no reason that squads should be able to equip two of such a powerful weapon.
2. The Mortar
- I think most of us agree that it should be replaced with the one we tested and approved. Little else to say there.
- In case that does not happen, remove the vet 1 accuracy and replace it with WP barrage. It infringes on the Pack Howie, yes, but at least it won't wipe whole squads in one go anymore.
All double weapon upgrades should go. On Riflemen the reason is pretty simple: They are borderline OP without them, and completely bonkers with them. On the other hand, same goes for all weapons upgrades (except for those that are meant to change the way certain squads work, e.g. Volksgren upgrade, Conscripts with their PPSh), including PzGrens and their double Schreck.
The mortar in and of itself poses a problem: Not to mention that it is another source of smoke for USF, further negating any combined arms play that Ostheer has to rely on (even in the case the mortar is nerfed to adequate levels), it directly exchanges the fuel and ammo investment in grenades into a manpower investment. This is where most of the current problems come from: The Stuart arrives way too early thanks to that, and large amounts of double-BAR equipped Riflemen are only possible, because the mandatory ammo drain through grenades can be shut off. This problem exists regardless of the mortar's capability, and should be addressed by either locking the mortar behind side tech (ugly solution IMO) or by removing it and adjusting grenades properly (less powerful, but significantly cheaper, allowing a more constant usage for example, although other ways come to mind as well).
Grenadiers for Ostheer are never going to hold the line themselves, that's just how they are when you factor in they lack durability and their weapons don't deal consistent DPS, relying on those more RNG slow-firing rifle shots unlike MGs and ARs. They are utility and long-range DPS troops by mid-late game with other units supporting.
The real infantry damage dealers are PGs who only need part of their vet 2 survivability at vet 1 and a need veterancy 1 ability in general. Once that changes, they'll probably stomp Riflemen except at the long-range engagements since their RA would be 0.568 vs the 0.635 of Rifles after the nerf and StGs are on-par or better than the BAR at shorter ranges (Also fix their reinforce on weapon teams plz).
The problem in your assumption is, that combined arms play of Ostheer works. Well, the game shows us that it doesn't. Mobile units are heavily favoured, despite some initial bleed (which is completely negated in the Ostheer/USF-matchup, due to the huge differences in reinforcement costs), while stationary units always come in behind. The stationary player also can't properly counterplay without a significantly bigger manpower and micro investment, which in turn is always easily countered in some way by USF, mostly through their easy access to smoke.
The second problem here is that PzGrens are too expensive to form a significant part of a diversified Ostheer army, both in terms of initial cost and reinforcement cost (a follow-up of Relic making them cost as much as elite infantry without them performing like elite infantry). Not to mention that they plough into the same groove as HMGs did before: They are the second necessary unit to fight a single hostile one, and they don't even properly succeed when fighting the way you claim they should fight. They come in when most Riflemen units should sit at a comfy advantage of at least vet1 (meaning they will get to their meaty bonuses soon if they haven't already).
And what about a player that actually decides to forgo the Panzerschreck upgrade on them? Right, he will rarely reach those necessary veterancy bonuses, because their experience levels are completely off the rails. Vet3 on PzGrens takes over twice the experience to reach than on Riflemen (2720 points vs. 1120) - for comparison, when I looked over the experience levels of all infantry, I couldn't find another squad that had a similarly steep experience-level curve (and no Allied infantry unit that even came close in veterancy requirements, except Soviet Shock Troops). That needs to be addressed as well, or all your efforts in making the above match-up work through veterancy bonuses will simply not work.
What i am saying is that there are many creative ways to address a problem that doesn't mean taking away one of the main features separating USF from other factions. I don't think I would ever touch an lmg again as USF if I could only equip one because then I would be facing lmgGrens and obers head to head and I would always come off worse.
While your idea is quite a good one, I can't agree with that last paragraph. If you're going with one BAR against LMG 42-equipped Grens, you are still significantly better off at all times, except at maximum range. It won't however be a situation, in which you can basically negate the range advantage Grens have, thus allowing Grens to, rather less than more, work in some way. Currently, with two BARs there isn't a single drastic difference in performance at any range (the numbers I recently posted in the weapon-racks discussion are not the basis here, elchino7 postet a spreadsheet with what he claimed to be accurate DPS numbers). Riflemen with only one BAR still massively outdamage Grens at close range (range 0: 48,24 DPS w/ 2 BARs, 41,02 DPS w/ 1 BAR vs. Grens's 23,61 DPS w/ LMG 42), while becoming more vulnerable at long range (range 35: 13,77 DPS w/ 2 BARs, 11,06 DPS w/ 1 BAR, vs. Grens 15,99 DPS).
This effect could of course also be achieved by making the BAR (and the M1919, which is also an offender here, although it is limited through its doctrinal appearance) less potent, but then the usual question would arise why these weapons cost as much as their German counterparts without being more effective.
Why cant we have some kind of teching for the second LMG-slot for the riflemen? Then the USF-player can't instantly equip the rifleman with 2 LMGs.
Because that wouldn't in any way solve the underlying problem: Axis infantry stops working during the late game against especially USF, because USF infantry simply rolls over them in any scenario. |
I've said it multiple times before, I'll say it again.
The Mortar pit needs to be replaced with a mobile mortar squad and made into just a garrisonable emplacement which gives bonuses at vet 1 to both the vickers and the mortar(s), simple as that.
That actually would be easy to implement: The trench that comes with the Brits is the same one that Ostheer has in some doctrines. And before the Brits arrived, it was possible to station mortars in those trenches. And now you might guess why Relic removed that? Yes, of course: Because they were incapable of fixing a bug with Ostheer's vet1 artillery ability "Counter Barrage" that appeared in combination with the trench. Instead of simply disabling the ability while inside a trench. Classic Relic move... |
Sometime it is good to ready the entire topic to understand what people are saying. Someone is complaining that RM>Gren, so I say it you want to make Gren=RM, do it also for the price.
At no moment I say that I want RM=Gren.
That accusation is pretty funny, when it appears you didn't read anything I wrote. I don't want to equalise those two units, I want each of them to perform well in different situations, mostly by differentiating their performance at different ranges. I want to preserve some form of asymmetric balance, whereas your are solely concerned about having a unit that is no longer ridiculously OP in any scenario.
Not to mention that your way of addressing that issue is entirely bonkers: By assuming that BARs are significantly worse than LMGs (even if we go by elchino7's numbers that is totally wrong) you go for the idea of making double BAR-equipped Riflemen even easier to achieve (despite exactly that being the problem that sparked this discussion). Riflemen with a single BAR are totally okay (in relative terms, because vet3 on Riflemen is a completely different matter), there is no need for any kind of nerf or change here. So the question arises why you would want to then go ahead and reduce the cost (on the false pretence that the BAR is somehow worse than other LMGs)?
The point is, that the numbers you show up and what i do differ. You say that they have "more" DPS at long range, when they do only have it at 25 (when entering mid range). As you say, as a general overview it's fine. The problem is when you try to represent it as exact values and "hard" evidence in a nice graph but the raw numbers are flawed.
PD: there's also the focus fire tag which is impossible to account for the damage it secondarily generates (this is present on most SMG/AR/HMGs).
Thanks for the formulas, I will run the numbers again then. It doesn't change the underlying problem that is visible in the game though: All double upgrades are bollocks and should simply be removed. Picking up more weaponry that was dropped is fine (so there wouldn't need to be a reduction of weapon slots), because that is a rather limited occurrence meant to reward the collecting player. But anything else, BARs, M1919s, Brens, PzGrens's Schreck, all of that needs to go.
P.S.: Here we go. I included the numbers for only 1 BAR on Riflemen, to show that preventing them from getting a second one would solve a lot of problems.
| DPS (vet 0, raw damage w/o rec. accuracy factors) | Rifleman Squad | Grenadier Squad |
| range 0 | 33.85 | 23.08 |
| range 0 w/ LMG | 48.24 | 23.61 |
| range 0 w/ 1 BAR | 41.02 | |
| range 35 | 8.35 | 9.04 |
| range 35 w/ LMG | 13.77 | 15.99 |
| range 35 w/ 1 BAR | 11.06 | |
| DPS (vet 0, raw damage w/ rec. accuracy factors) | Rifleman Squad | Grenadier Squad |
| range 0 | 30.80 | 22.39 |
| range 0 w/ LMG | 43.90 | 22.90 |
| range 0 w/ 1 BAR | 37.33 | |
| range 35 | 7.59 | 8.77 |
| range 35 w/ LMG | 12.53 | 15.51 |
| range 35 w/ 1 BAR | 10.06 | |
Even with the right numbers, my general point still remains. The performance difference at long range doesn't justify the massive difference at close range. Yes, unlike I previously wrote, Grens will win long range engagements, but the double BAR upgrade still means that Riflemen basically lose their defining weakness. Combine that with powerful veterancy bonuses that especially Ostheer infantry lacks (all Ostheer infantry has higher veterancy requirements than their counterparts on top of that, because they are balanced against Soviet infantry and their even bigger than USF squadsizes), and you will see even that little difference that exists vanish into thin air.
The new numbers also still support the idea of limiting especially the BAR to one per squad. I'll do the M1919 numbers as well ASAP, but the M1919 comes with certain trade-offs that make me believe a simple DPS adjustment should be enough. In the most positive case though, all double upgrades should go (as I wrote above), as the double Panzerschreck on PzGrens is equally retarded. |
Maybe because while being able to fire on the move, RM/1BAR lose vs Gren/LMG at max distance and trying to close the gap.
They only lose when either trying to stay at max range, or when closing in without the use of cover. This is the way it is meant to be, because otherwise Grens would have no chance, regardless of their tactical situation - which would of course be bullshit, because then there would be no more reason to build Grens against USF, and thus there would be no more reason to even play Ostheer vs. USF matchups.
Your idea of making BARs even cheaper would counter the whole idea of fixing the double BAR spam that we currently see. Or better said: It wouldn't just counter it, it would also make it worse. We don't need a cheaper, stronger Rifleman-upgrade combo, that one already is too powerful. |
When I asked Miragefla for some advice for my mod, he made me realise that the XP-feeding values of certain low-member elite squads (4 or less people), e.g., Panzergrenaders are awarding XP which is way higher than their reinforcement cost.
1. One option is to tweak how much vet Riflemen feed.
Thus, I had a wild idea:
- What if we kept USF Rifleman veterancy bonuses as is, but instead spread them out to 5 veterancy levels (thus slowing down the process)
- In addition to this, we could make that the riflemen higher-vet-levels (vet4 and vet5) make them award way more XP than currently (sort of how much XP PGrens CURRENTLY award, and a bit more XP than Obers SHOULD award).
- (nerf USF mortar, obviously)
The idea is that Riflemen can retain their broken vet. At the same time, if the player misuses them, they can feed the entire enemy faction so much vet they can wipe USF off the map. This will act more like a balancing mechanism that will allow elite squads to buy into the game, when Rifles have already reached terminator-levels of vet.
That actually sounds reasonable, however it would need quite a bit of fine-tuning to get right. That is of course okay if you want to invest the necessary work into it, but it isn't something feasible for the one and a half person Relic has still working on COH2.
The problem with this approach is that I am too lazy to figure out how to equate BARs to LMGs (2 BARs = LMG, obviously. However, what about 1 BAR?). Also how many/which abilities become available if the squad carries only 1 LMG or only 1 BAR.
A subtler problem with this approach is that the current UI options only show one of the slot weapons that is equipped. This makes it difficult for the player to tell from the UI which squads are double-equiped (thus, e.g., lack snares), and which aren't.
Regarding the BAR, see my post above. The BAR was so heavily buffed a while ago, that it isn't straight up worse than other LMGs, it simply works a little bit differently while being in some regards significantly better than most LMGs out there. The old "2 BARs = 1 LMG" rule is not appropriate.
Since all units that have to upgrade their LMG (instead of picking it up) can freely use their abilities and thus only get one MG by deault, this should of course also apply here. Thus no change is needed on a squad that simply picks up one LMG.
The second problem could be fixed with colour, but I don't think that is possible to do through a mod. If a squad carries only a single LMG, the upgrade symbol below the unit flag could have a different colour than on a unit with two LMGs.
IMO, there should also be a difference between picking up a dropped weapon from the battlefield and picking a weapon up from weapon racks, but I don't think the game makes that option possible. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
