Profile of Jae For Jett

If I recall correctly, when the assault rifle package was added to Volksgrenadiers it was designed specifically to make relative positioning work: the idea was they could hold their ground against 1 BAR Riflemen, take PPSh Conscripts at range and beat Guards and Infantry Sections up close.

Well, I wanted to focus on one mode of argument at the time, but I also don't think stg volks weapon curves (as a squad) are that anomalous.

This is not something I said this is something Relic has come to the conclusion after testing the game:
"The goal is to improve tactics by better defining unit roles; thereby, increasing the importance of unit positioning relative to cover. A weapon profile defines the distribution of damage over distance. Previously, the profiles were generally flat ("Flat" in other words linear) and did not fully characterize the strengths and weaknesses of a squad"

Thats not what that quotation means at all. It claims that units should have "better defined roles" (weapon curves that are unique to each other). They don't claim that flat profiles are bad at all. They only imply that flat curves were bad because ALL weapon curves were flat.

Not that is incorrect. The idea behind it was that weapon would separate into categories with similar characteristics:
Lmg high fire rate low damage negative DPS curve good long range bad at close
Bolt action slow firing high damage weapon suited for long range fights
Carbine (semi automatic actually) less damage higher fire rate suited for to far to mid
Assault rifles (although not official designation) lower damage high fire rate suited for mid
Smgs high fire rate low damage good at firing on the move

My issue with this specifically is that weapons that are good at all ranges could be considered their own category. You decided that this category of weapons was less valid then all of the other categories without actually explaining why it's less valid. I argued that the more categories there were, the more situations there would be where relative positioning would be important. I used two vs three categories. If you want, I can extend the example to the 5 categories you mentioned, but theres no reason to. The relationship I described is true no matter how many categories you start with - a decrease in the categories/variety of weapons is a decrease in the importance of relative positioning since you thereby increase the number of situations in which the two squads facing each other have the same/similar weapon profile (which, again, leads to a DPS race).


On another note, you said that you are not trying to "suggest we decrease the diversity in weapon curves, making more weapons have the same/similar profile" with a "that isn't correct." Then go on to suggest that we push these weapons into these categories, thereby decreasing the diversity, which is what I said.

Don't forget to add SP and 100mp advantage making 4xvolks start basic vs USF. As I stated before Volks are just the tree that hides the forest of balance issues on this matchup.
Then sandbag completely mitigate the difference in dps at long range and flamnde the difference in dps at close range.
Honestly both abilities make early volks way too good vs vanilla riflemen.
Now i also know that removing those abilities would put OKW in jeopardy vs Soviet...

Right. I'm trying to keep it focused around what other people are arguing though. They argue volks are too cost effective, I try to show that that's not the case. I didn't add the sturmpioneer and 100mp advantage because that's not relevant to whether or not volks are too cost effective.

And that's basically the issue, I think: people ARE factoring this stuff in when they say volks are too cost effective. The thing is, that's a sturmpioneer issue then. That's a starting manpower issue then. That's not a volks cost efficiency issue. If volks cost efficiency isn't the problem, then why mess with it? If sturmpioneers and starting manpower are the issue, then thats what you need to be changing.

As for the flamenade/sandbag point you brought up, I'd argue that can lead you to solutions that create more problems. If sandbags are too good, then make them slower to build or get rid of them. If flame nades are too good, then change them somehow. But if we make rifles 260/26 because "sandbags and flamenades mitigate the dps difference" meaning that the two squads should be similar in cost, then you have rifle squads that are hyper efficient in combat capability to cost ratio. Volks will get murdered in combat any time they dont spend munitions or have a defensive position already set up, against a similarly costed unit with similar upkeep. Beyond that, when certain teching is reached, or with certain doctrine choices, volks dont even have that utility advantage.

Having weapon squad with linear DPS curve reduce the effect of relative positioning since the DPS ration is affected mostly from oen weapon profile.

As for mentioning specific unit "as high lethality" that has probably to do with the fact that they are the ones that have changed the most (although my comment applies to other units also).

Penal got a very big buff in DPS, Vg got ST44 and Guards got also buffed (mostly when stopped dancing around and their real DPS become available).

But what's the alternative to a linear dps curve then? If you're moving all "linear" weapons to an lmg or smg profile, then you're creating more cases where its a DPS race and there is absolutely no relative positioning at all.

Assume a 33/33/33 distribution for smgs/supposed linear weapons/lmgs. The smg will be in a simple DPS race (it faces another smg) 33% of the time, so relative positioning is important 66% of the time. The linear weapon will be in a DPS race 33% of the time (faces another linear weapon), so again, relative positioning is important 66% of the time. The lmg, will again, have a DPS race 33% of the time. In this model with more varied profiles, relative positioning is important 66% of the time.

Now with a 50/50 distribution for smgs/lmgs (since, if I understand correctly, you don't want linear weapons). The smg is now in a DPS race 50% of the time, as is the lmg. Relative positioning is only really important 50% of the time now.

Obviously its more nuanced than that, but the point is that even if you have a weapon that performs similarly at all ranges, it still creates more situations where relative positioning is important than if you were to change this linear weapon into any previously occupied category.

Also, I feel like you're thinking about this too conceptually. Think about it in terms of how this actually translates into game through player decision making.

If I am using an smg unit, then I want to be using it in close range (because of relative positioning, of course). This means that any other range is suboptimal for me, and the closer I get the better. Against a long range unit, I want to get close, and against a short range unit, I want to get close (or else we can shoot each other for 20 minutes at max range...in that case I wouldn't even be using the unit). That means that I don't care what unit the enemy has, I always just want to be running up to them. There's no decision making there because I always want to play it a single way no matter what.

If I am using an lmg unit, then I want to be using it in long range (again, relative positioning). Any other range is suboptimal, because the further I am the better. Against a close range unit, I want to stay at long range, and against a long range unit, I want to stay at long range. So I don't care what unit the enemy has, because I always just want to a-move up to them and sit there firing. There's no decision making there because I always want to play it a single way no matter what, so I don't even have to do any thinking. See the issue?

If I'm using a unit with a weapon with a linear profile, then I want to be using it at... a different range depending on what my opponent has?! The range that is optimal changes based on what unit im facing. Against a close range unit, I want to stay at long range, and against a long range unit, I want to get to close range. So I have to think about what unit the enemy has, because I need to play it differently based on this. There is decision making because I need to actually care about and think about what unit the enemy has because, as there is no single range I want to always be at and the thinking and decision making isn't done for me.

Onto high lethality. Mentioning volks, penals, and guards because they got buffed doesn't make sense on its own. If those buffs put them over the top and theyre now the worst offenders of being a high lethality unit, then sure, it makes sense that you pick them out specifically. But you never established that. In fact, I don't think you can.

I already did the rifle vs volks comparison, so that's taken care of. This is just my interpretation, but that comparison led me to believe that volks aren't more "high lethality" than riflemen are, quite the opposite. Penals to rifles may be slightly different, but you would notice that penals lose their DPS WAY quicker than volks or rifles do. They're higher lethality than rifles when they have 6 models (and only at long range), but once models start dropping, they're not really higher lethality than other squads. So sure, in a completely ideal comparison they're higher lethality...but otherwise, theyre no anomaly. Guards being high lethality. Compare them to grens. Guards don't seem especially high lethality.