Profile of ShadowLinkX37

aw shit I necro'd

I wonder if its because OKW already had 2 reworks, teching and veterancy.

Now we're at 2 reworks? Veterancy "rework" was just straight nerfs across the board because that's how OKW vet 5 was designed. Calling that a "rework" to fit your vision of allies rofl stomping axis in all gamemodes is a stretch.

People complain in multiple threads about volks over compensating in the faction, yet when a rework idea comes along you all immediatly laugh and dismiss it. If a faction has already had a rework, yet still remains incredibly stale and doesn't function at the capacity of other factions then there is clearly a problem.

The people dismissing it are also the people who don't play the game and/or only play allies. Weird...

I know Troyd plays it a bunch, although he gets pretty into it with all the customization stuff.

Except its not based just on squad size, total cost of the squad matters as well you know.
And guess what, it is balanced in all infantry combat engagements. You'll found out why soon.

It's balanced around RA ONLY

Incorrect, its 50/50 only around mid range.
Long range, grens will always win, short range, cons -should- win. Then come weapon upgrades and we have grens stomp cons unless cons embrace doctrine to even stand a chance. Upgrades, in this particular example, throw your argument out of the window, because now its cons who are losing significant DPS with each model lost, while grens not really due to most DPS being concentrated around one model.

This is just wrong entirely. Cons do not lose 100% of all engagements at long range vs grens at vet 0. There would literally be zero reason people would go cons against OST, WHERE THEY'RE PREFERED currently.

Squad spacing changes invalidate argument about ballistic explosions, unless you really like to stick to very small yellow cover spots.

?? I don't even know what to say about this. This assumes squad spacing is 100% perfect, and that you'd never seek cover vs an armor piece, even if it means taking damage from 3x MGs off a p4 for example.
Somehow I highly doubt either of these are actually 100% accurate.

Since we have to talk in context of each faction and its options as well, grens have fastest access to on field, mobile reinforcement, making recrewing non factor, unless for whatever reason you try to do it under heavy fire, in which case "steal" attempt will not work regardless of how many initial models squad performing it has.

So when you have 4 men squads, you're supposed to spend additional resources to get a mobile HT just so you can recrew things at the same capacity as what 6 men can do for free? SeemsBalanced. "Heavy fire" Yes a sniper squad camping downed teamweapons because ostheer can't recrew once a sniper takes a single shot.

Conclusion:
4<6 exclusively when trying to steal HMGs under concentrated fire and further faction options make up for smaller squads in context of wehr, UKF doesn't have that kind of options, but they can bolster themselves to 5 men at hefty cost.

Bolster >> Reinforcement HT

You think 6 man squads aren't getting wiped by explosives?
For real?

You're more than welcome to quote where I said this.

Reinforcements are different because squad costs are different, squad counts are different AND individual models have different strengths. Reinforcing from 1 model squads of equal costs should ALWAYS cost the same, regardless of how many models squad has.

Again, this formula is garbage. Where's my 100 man squad that will NEVER be wiped via explosives and ballistics. Veterancy is a very large aspect of this game, the squads that can keep it better have an advantage over ones that cannot.

You didn't actually disprove anything I said. You just reworded your own words that still say "squad reinforcement is determined by price and squad size".

If 2 squads have equal cost of getting a squad, then yes, the one with more models will have lower reinforcement. More expensive squad with more models will also have lower cost.
No, its not garbage excuse, its mathematical fact that people who aren't friends with numbers are unable to beat into their own thick skulls.

No matter how you try to spin and twist it, reinforcement costs are fair and round to ~40% of squads total cost to fully reinforce from 1 model.

The only mathematical fact of squad size is that 6 men squads are better. When reinforcement cost is determined based on squad size there is ZERO possibility the cost is balanced.

Why you ask?

Because our best example, Grenadiers at vet 0 vs conscripts at vet 0 is a 50/50 engagement determined by cover and RNG. Either side costs 240 MP, and has an equal chance of winning. Then you factor in the other positives and negatives such as DPS dropoff per model, squad recrewing, literally any explosive or ballistic weapon that can wipe multiple units and the conclusion is: 6 > 4.

The problem with "I have more models therefore I should have a cheaper reinforce" excuse is this: "I want a 100 man squad but the reinforce cost should be 1.2" Same cost as grenadiers, we can nerf model stats to be equal to grenadiers, but the difference is that squad will NEVER be wiped with any ballistic or explosive unit, it will also be great for recrewing things (although if model stats were that bad they'd disintigrate under any means of fire, but this is obviously an exaggeration).