Profile of Jae For Jett

Firstly, thank you for such a detailed and well thought out answer. If they had snipe, It could be locked behind vet and make it only slightly longer range than their current max range, yet shorter than sniper range so that it couldn't be abused, act as a soft-counter, and would only punish snipers that are out of position, or, give it a long cooldown (~30-45 sec).

My concern with putting the snipe behind vet is that it sounds like a fairly impactful ability, which I actually think can be kind of dangerous. This ability would likely take up a sizeable part of jaeger's "power budget." What this means is that jaegers without the ability (without vet) could end up feeling underwhelming. The idea is that it shouldn't feel like you don't get to actually use your unit until a certain vet level. Basically, my concern is that either the ability could only be watered down to the point of being near pointless, or strong enough that it feels impactful and satisfying, but makes jaegers that don't have access to it feel useless.

Also, they are a doctrinal unit, so its not like their snipe ability would be ubiquitous.

I'd argue that a snipe ability that actually has impact would necessarily end up being ubiquitous.

Did you also read the part where I said that bars are over performing?

The thought required with BARs is that you actually have to do something to get them. Do you tech them now and delay your officer? Or get the officer first and delay y mout light vehicle? Do you try and skip it entirely to get that sherman out a bit sooner? Do you retreat a unit now to upgrade or wait until they are beat up? Do you try and single arm a couple squads or double arm them? Do I slap them on the units with more vet or do I need them on the front right now?

Which has nothing to do with the fact that BARs, just like stgs, are an upgrade at all ranges. You made it seem like stgs are some terrible evil because they're a no brainer upgrade, implying that this was somehow exclusive to stgs. Honestly, I don't even believe no brainer upgrades are bad. You always upgrade lmg42s, lmg34s, stgs, thompsons, so this is hardly exclusive to volks (or axis, if someone wants to make that argument).

If volks are a/the problem, tell me why. The numbers I posted surely don't support that notion.

If stgs are the problem, tell me why. If "they can upgrade in enemy territory" is the best argument there, then I probably don't even need to say anything for that argument to lose momentum. If "they're a no brainer upgrade" is the argument, then why is this a problem for stgs and not every other no brainer upgrade in the game (on a side note, the game would be pretty boring without no brainer upgrades, as you would just see smgs/lmgs vs smgs/lmgs and it's always a-moving or running straight up to the other). If their performance is a problem, show me how thats the case with actual numbers (something akin to the numbers that I posted; the ones that suggest the contrary).

The thought required with BARs is that you actually have to do something to get them. Do you tech them now and delay your officer? Or get the officer first and delay y mout light vehicle? Do you try and skip it entirely to get that sherman out a bit sooner? Do you retreat a unit now to upgrade or wait until they are beat up? Do you try and single arm a couple squads or double arm them? Do I slap them on the units with more vet or do I need them on the front right now?

Except that theres very little thinking there since I could tell you the right answer to those questions. Never tech them before your officer. Always get racks before your first medium. Don't retreat units just to upgrade them. I can't imagine that any top player will tell you otherwise. Deciding whether to upgrade a vetted unit or an unvetted one is a decision for literally all upgrades that arent purchased as soon as a unit hits the field, this isn't something exclusive to BARs that make them better or more interesting for the game. The only real decision is whether you get them before or after any possible light vehicle. Word it however you like, people who play the game know that upgrading racks isn't some engaging tech decision that requires a bunch of thinking.

Hell if the STG needed one of the truck side grades it would be better because SOME sort of though would go into it...

If STGs are a balance issue as you're implying, this would probably be the worst thing you could do. STG performance is kept modest because it doesn't require tech. Assigning a side tech cost to it would require that you buff them. If you buff stgs, then volks really do start to overperform for their cost and OKW rolls over USF in the mid and late game too. If you don't buff stgs, then no one will upgrade them, and you mess up what is otherwise a fairly balanced matchup (sov vs okw).

If you want to argue that their availability is an issue that deserves to be fixed even in spite of that, I'd ask why? If your argument is that "free" upgrades make in game decision making boring, then my argument is that free upgrades make the game fun to play for every faction. Get rid of techless stgs, and OKW becomes another faction that side techs for weapons (weapons which are now presumably of a comparable power level to the BARs and brens that similarly require side tech). The fact that one faction gets a "techless", but less powerful weapon upgrade creates an asymmetry that actually translates to unique faction identities.

I think the idea is that actually giving the katy something at vet 1 is an unnecessary buff. It performs well at its current power level, so any change that makes it stronger may need to be balanced by a decrease in power somewhere else. Beyond that, the fact that it's a unit that functions well and is at a good power level means that any improvements to the unit (QOL or design, I mean) would probably be low priority.

So your solution to volks is to ignore your SLIGHTLY cheaper troops because they are going to get shit canned (despite being nearly the same price) and use the 50mp more troops exclusively, or spam the more expensive MG (the one with the deathloop that suffers greatly from enemy flame nades that can be thrown well before Supression) for the soviet
As ukf you need to be completely defensive with your 30mp more troops and make sure you don't get caught out of position

As usf you need to blob your 30mp more expensive TROOPS AND keep them in cover so you can "at least push volks back to have some breathing room"

Sure sounds like volks are operating according to cost. Completely dummy things around their cost and force defensive play out of units that should be outclassing them.

I'm ko mathematician here but shouldn't the outmanouvering and sticking to cover to get the upper hand not be on the CHEAPER unit, not the more expensive one?

From my post in another thread:

"I did this comparison for cons, but now I think it would help to do it for riflemen too. Raw numbers in the top section, relative ratios at the bottom, sorry for the formatting:

Rifle squad effective durability: 5.15 effective models

Volks: 5 effective models

Rifle squad DPS at max range: 8.49 DPS

Volks: 9.035 DPS

Rifle squad DPS at 3 range: 33.945

Volks squad DPS at 0 range: 23.71

Rifle squad vet 0, 1 bar, 34* range DPS: 10.835 DPS

Volks vet0, 2 stgs, 34* range: 9.488 DPS

(*volks stgs spike up in DPS from 1.446 at 35 to 1.96 DPS at 34, given this detail, its probably more useful and informative to take the DPS at 34 and not 35)

Rifles, vet 0, 1 bar, close (3 range): 40.36 DPS

Volks, vet 0, 2 stgs, close (0 range): 29.266 DPS

Rifles, vet 3 effective durability: 7.81

Volks vet 3 durability: 6.49

Rifles, vet 3, 2 bars, 34 range: 18.062

Volks, vet 5, 2 stgs, 34 range: 13.326

Rifles, vet 3, 2 bars, 3 range: 64.439

Volks, vet 3, 2 stgs, 0 range: 39.779




Rifles/volks vet 0 effective durability: 103%

Rifles/volks vet 0 DPS max range: 94%

Rifles/volks vet 0 DPS close: 143%

1 bar squad/2 stg squad, vet 0, 34 range: 114%

1 bar squad/2 stg squad, vet 0, close range: 138%

Rifles/volks vet 3 effective durability: 120%

2 bar squad/2 stg squad, vet 3, 34 range: 136%

2 bar squad/2 stg squad, vet 3, close range: 162%


Didn't double check my calculations. Even counting the difference in utility (flame nades, and sandbags) and rack costs, to me, these numbers justify rifles costing 12% more. If you make rifles 260/26 as some have suggested, then ask yourself whether or not the utility that volks bring is actually equivalent to these combat advantages rifles have."

So yes, I DO think volks are operating according to cost. I could do the same comparison against tommies or penals, but there's no point. The results are already pretty obvious. I already did the work for this comparison though, so it's at least fairly easy to copy paste this every time someone decides to make a post that either makes up random numbers, rewrites facts, or ignores how the game ACTUALLY works.

Anyway, none of your statements about how allies are forced to use their infantry in the OKW matchup actually necessarily have to do with volks' cost efficiency, or even performance.

It is about time this myth died

(Fairly off topic)

It's about time a lot of myths died. People will spam "raketen LUL" when a rak misses a shot any other AT gun would have too. People will spam "IS2 LUL" when an IS2 completely whiffs a shot from its main gun (and then completely overlook when it fires again and destroys 3 models). These confirmation bias threads and comments get old really quickly.