Profile of Jae For Jett

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.

"Let's just make them cost 87 mp per model to reinforce."

I'd assume he means the whole: reinforce cost = (squad cost / 2) / # of members

In which case he means that volks should cost 35 per model to reinforce. You know, because they overdo other squads like riflemen, which have higher DPS, better RA, and stronger vet.

Which, again, has absolutely nothing to do with volks "punching above their weight."

They're not too cost effective, which is what the term implies.

My issue, as you alluded to, is that people are making OKW issues seem like volks issues when they're not.

Now, I'd like to know your opinion: do you think that IS are well balanced? Are they worth 280 MP? I have the feeling that they cost this just because they can be bolstered. At 4 entities that can't fire without cover, I can't exactly say I'm happy using them.

Not sure who you are asking, but I guess I'll give my answer.

IS are well balanced. This doesn't necessarily mean I think that they're a well designed unit, because I don't.

The easiest way to evaluate their performance, I find, is to compare them to grens.

IS enfields are like gren kars, except with a more flat DPS curve (higher far damage, lower close damage). Since long range damage is usually more useful than close range damage, this means that IS enfields are generally preferable to gren kars, but only slightly. Of course, this is assuming the sections are in cover, but that's usually not too much of a talking point since you're probably going to lose any engagements in which you're not utilizing cover. Also, its around a 10% loss of DPS for enfields when you're out of cover, so its not the most impactful thing. I make a similar argument for moving performance - you don't want to be firing on the move anyway, so its almost entirely irrelevant.

A large difference is that IS have a target size of .8 while grens have a target size of .91. IS are noticeably more durable.

Veterancy massively favors grenadiers as they get better bonuses and they get the good bonuses earlier. 40% accuracy at vet 2 is a massive advantage.

Grens have snares and rifle grenades tied to regular ostheer teching - they have a really long range on them too.

IS can be bolstered and double equip brens. A single bren is very noticeably weaker than a single lmg42, with double brens being a fair bit stronger.

IS cost 280 with a reinforce cost of 28. Grens cost 240 with a reinforce cost of 30.

So the general comparison is: IS trade roughly evenly with grens out of cover and usually win in cover, which is probably doesn't favor IS quite enough for the 280 mp vs 240 mp comparison but does massively favor them in the 28 vs 30 reinforce costs. Soon upgrades start coming in (usually bolster for IS and the lmg42 for grens), but infantry sections will still win (heavily at close range, and slightly at max range) - bleed inflicted will mostly be the same for each side though at max range. When grens hit vet 2 they'll win long range and lose close range less hard. When infantry sections get brens theyll win long range again.

So assuming both players hit standard upgrade timings, infantry sections should usually win while also being slightly more efficient bleed wise. Grens are very dependent on vet, which really hurts if you have to replace a gren squad. I find this to be alright considering grens are (from what I can tell) balanced as a weak point for ostheer and infantry sections are balanced as a strong point for UKF. The cost and performance of these units balanced in relation to each other in isolation.

Even if the dynamic is balanced, it does mean that IS will probably be slightly overcosted at vanilla performance to make up for their overperformance when fully upgraded, as you thought.

Pioneers can sprint, this is disgustingly op. Why can't my shocktroops do that?

Breakthrough doctrine. Checkmate.

Edit: meant encirclement