I hope i made the math right. I'm not opposed to try a -5% RA at vet 4/5 and/or swap the healing bonus from vet5 to vet4. But i don't think you can just put infantry to fight 1v1 and call it imbalanced or not when the circumstances at which they arrive at that point are different.
I still think it's more an issue with the Unit's design when compared to the role they're supposed to fill, rather than simply a numbers thing.
Why not go ahead and remove the Churchill Croc from all 3 of it's current doctrines for the British as well.
Or the T-34/85 for the Soviets as well.
Just because the Pershing, E8 and other tanks are in singular doctrines doesn't make them good, "unique" or more desirable.
It makes them less of a good choice because they're stuck in shitty doctrines.
Not to mention that as far as I'm aware these updates should add more content and options to the game for people to enjoy, not remove already present and well known ones.
Because not everybody wants to feel like a special snowflake with his commander that he picked just because of 1 tank.
Part of the issue is the sheer number of doctrines (Especially for SOV and OST) relative to the number of doctrinal units to sprinkle between them. It's too late now, but honestly the number of Commanders ought to have been pared down, or the number of unique units ought to have been increased so that no two doctrines share anything.
You pretty much can't tell it even comes from the OKW.
I mean, to be fair, you could switch literally any vehicle between OKW and OST and it wouldn't seem out of place, they are literally the same faction after all.
You could probably even do the same for any of the Infantry, too.
I really don't understand why anyone's reaction to this would be "lol just buy more commanders", as though Microtransaction are a good thing, particularly when they're incentivised by free options being made more limited, or that a further reaction might be "Just grind supply", given quite how little supply you actually get per game, relative to the cost of commanders (Multiplied by the sheer number of commanders the game possesses)
I am not going to analyze the whole list, that would take too long, so i will cut corners: the B-4 is essentially ruined, and LIKELY useless, since all it was useful for was the one-hit potential it could bring, why was this changed? who knows
The B4 was changed because it was AIDS. It was an inconsistent RNG cannon that either did nothing at all, or instantly killed a medium tank with lucky scatter.
I'm not saying that the "new" B4 is a good unit, it seems as though it needs further changes, but I am glad that the Balance Team seem to want to rework it into less of a memegun and into something that's actually usable/not AIDS to play against.
I'd personally suggest the AOE be increased on shells significantly, the damage somewhat lowered (So it doesn't obliterate squads), the number of shells increased, and perhaps having landed shells cause suppression/force buttoning/stun vehicles temporarily. I expect numbers would want to be tweaked a lot, but I think this would give it an identity apart from other howitzers. "Massive single nuke" certainly fit the B4 thematically, but I don't think it was something that could really stay as it was.
All howitzers are pretty AIDS to begin with, though.
While I agree that interesting teamplay shouldn't necessarily be discouraged, I think things like Med Bunker/Ambulance sharing isnt quite the same as being able to drop slot weapons for teammates. Units are generally carefully balanced around what weapons they can equip, there's a reason that you can't buy weapons from an allied player's weapon racks, after all.
I'd go further and say that I think the "Weapon drop" mechanic upon model death is a bad mechanic in itself. It punishes allied players more frequently than Axis players (Due to Allied squads generally having multiple droppable weapons, meaning that depleted (but not fully destroyed) squads often lose their firearms, whereas Axis squads often only have a single slot weapon (Or none at all, in cases like VG)). It isnt deterministic like decrewing a Team Weapon is, which is itself a MUCH better implementation of a mechanic similar to weapon drops.
To my knowlidge cons are the only unit to wich it only effects them, making it easier to do the math.
UKF Mills Bombs upgrade only affects Sections, to my knowledge, there's another example.
Though for both my understanding is that these techs shouldn't be considered "Part of the unit cost" even if it only affects a single unit, they're apparently to be considered part of the general "teching cost" of the faction.
I suppose there are arguments for and against this, but I think the latter opinion holds more water, personally.
"Intended role of a unit as designed and balanced around by people responsible for it is irrelevant"
Ok.
We're still at the stage where you're not actually answering my argument, is the thing. Why does the UC need to be able to defeat the more expensive, doctrinal 221, that arrives on the field significantly later?
Please stop hiding behind "Well it's designed that way" and let me know why you believe that the UC currently needs to be able to fight and win against doctrinal Axis lights, that arrive far later (And for much more fuel) than the UC?
Elaborate. The 221 requires that you build your first techtruck, and then build your scout car. You are investing the same fuel to get your 221 as UKF would to reach tier 1.
Yes. Its very much supposed to fight against anything below 222.
It has stats to do just that and upgrade that makes it even better.
Contrary to ost, UKF does not have long range "fausts" and contrary to OKW, USF does not have T0 ATG.
Ostheer isnt relevant, we're talking specifically about OKW and the 221. OKW snares come at the same timing as Brit snares, and by the time the 221 is able to hit the field, UKF are able to build their ATG. You spend, at minimum, 30 fuel to be able to field a 221.
Also, again, a tier 0 ATG is not a meaningful thing to point at given that the 221 is not a tier 0 unit. What sort of lunatic builds a Raketen immediately to counter an UC, anyway? That isnt an efficient use of your time nor resources, especially with how badly your infantry will get bullied by the UKF player when you're an AI squad down.
It also does not provide any utility, its not needed as a transport and not a single soul ever uses it as such and it loses that ability when upgraded.
Other than improved Stealth Detection, Transportation (Which is an Utility, even if you'd like to badly insist it isnt for your argument to be valid) and suppression (When upgraded), I guess?
Yes.
UCs primary role is fighting infantry.
Its secondary is to keep axis ultra lights away from tommies, because otherwise its free, uncounterable attrition damage.
The ultra-light 221 that doesn't come at tier 0, you mean?
The argument works against the Kubel. Which other Axis ultralights are you concerned about, that come before UKF have access to their ATG, Snares, and AEC?
At what point in the game does the 221 have a window of usefulness against UKF?
Stop preaching this garbage in every thread about OKW inf perfomance. If its not 3v3 or 4v4 nubfest, OKW at best will have 2 maybe 3 obersoldaten squads, 9 pop-cap each. So 18 pop-cap for 2 squads, 27 for 3 squads.
What does your army look like that you can fit THREE Ober squads into it? (Or even Two, along with the "mandatory" Four Volk start?).
I usually struggle to have a single Obersoldaten squad wandering around, if i want to have enough of everything else I'd need.
I have a proposal,
Let's make a special variant of the ppsh called, penal ppsh but instead of working like an smg it works more like assault rifles in the vein as STG44.
If you wanted to give Penals an "Assault rifle" then I'd suggest that you instead give them ATVs, which were a select-fire variant of the SVT. They look practically identical visually, but the ATV can fire in a fully-automatic mode.
They weren't a hugely common rifle, but they'd be a better thematic fit than "Assault rifle" PPSH.
People say cons are cheap because the have low reinforce costs, but forget they dropp a lot more models making it balanced.
Early game, certainly. Later on conscripts have a really quite fantastic RA, especially considering their squad size. The Mobilise upgrade makes them even more efficient, to the point where it can be very hard to bleed a Soviet player in the later stages of the game.
SMG armed Assault Squad please, or Frontoviki Squad armed with SVT Rifles.
Frontoviki would be interesting (But I feel as though making them appealing when compared to Shocks might be hard), though they'd hardly be "Elite Infantry", and I'm not sure if they'd fit the required hole in the Soviet roster.
Wouldnt a Frontoviki squad armed with SVTs basically just be Penals?
It is the case, because if you want to kill a vehicle, there already is a unit in T0 for that.
This would be meaningful if the 221 were a t0 unit, but it isnt; it comes at tier 1, just like the British 6 pounder, Sniper, and AEC. The brit has access to similar AT options to OKW at the 221 timing, the fact the Rak comes at tier 0 has absolutely no bearing on the 221/3 vs the UC.
It is the case, because combat is NOT units primary role.
Combat is the primary role of the 221, and honestly even the 223. The 221 gains armour with the 223 upgrade, if it's "Primary role" was to just be a cache, why would its combat performance improve with the upgrade, and why are the first three levels of veterancy for the unit focused around making it more combat-capable?
Lockdown is what the 221/3 transitions into after the Light Vehicle phase ends, it isnt it's "primary purpose", as building a 221, immediately turning it into a 223, and then immediately locking down a sector is not an efficient use of the unit.
I don't know what you struggle with here so much.
Its base armor was increased, because it didn't do good enough job against its intended target-infantry and that's it.
I don't know how to tell you its not supposed to fight vehicles in a way that you would understand if you don't get it directly.
I do hope you realise that just because you say something is true, this doesn't actually make it the case? The UC's intended targets are similarly infantry, It's an AI vehicle primarily, which is rather supported by the fact it can upgrade into a flamethrower. It has two AI upgrade paths.
Yeah, search yourself discussions and modders insight from the time it was implemented for the first time.
Literally all of "documentation" you are looking for is here on .org in previous threads.
Was this before or after the multiple changes to Brits to improve their performance vs light/any vehicles? (AT nade on REs, Not having to choose betweeen the AEC and Bofors, etc)
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
