Fusiliers have mediocre long range dmg. Compared to lmg squads their long range dmg is even dogshit. You always want to close distance vs everything except rangers or shocks.
The only real advantage they have compared to volks is the flare. They are worse than volks combatwise early on and not nearly as good as obers later on. Since all allied early vehicles got nerfed even the snare isnt that useful anymore. Jli and falls are just way more useful and supplement volks better.
Edit: Some numbers.
vet3 sections unupgraded / vet 5 upgraded füssies / vet 5 unupgraded Obers
Max range dmg: 18,43 / 17,24 / 20,67
Conclusio: Upgraded Füssies lose vs unupgraded Section long range (even out of cover)
You're not taking into account the fact that Fusies have six men, either squad's EHP, nor the fact that a significant portion of the Fusie's damage is loaded onto their G43s, meaning they lose significantly less DPS for each model loss (Especially before they lose their fourth model).
Raw DPS isnt a meaningful statistic by itself as far as unit performance is concerned. Test these fights in-game and see how they actually do.
Also: Are the numbers you're giving for Sections for if they're in, or out of cover? They have a different DPS profile dependent on which you're looking at, y'know.
If I start with 4 mainlines I usually opt for a Fusilier as the fourth. The 6 men, G43s, and snares are just too good to pass. Not to mention they can actually fight long range against Bren sections.
Four volks into fusies? That feels like rather too much investment into non-elite infantry to me. Fusies are a Volk "replacement", not so much a "supplemental" unit. I'd normally go one/three volks into one/three fusies, dependent on the matchup/mode. A fifth infantry squad would be better off being an Ober rather than a fusie, if damage dealing is what you want.
Also: Upgraded Fusies still get molested by Bren sections, I'm afraid. |
Bro... Soviet mediums are why Ostheer has good snares against mediums. Ostheer heavy tanks are why Soviets have a snare good against heavy tanks. USF and UKF still follow this pattern because they fight Axis heavy tanks.
They don't impact their own snares because they don't snare their own vehicles. At this point you must be refusing to understand.
That really doesn't make any goddamn sense. The snares are approximately equal when fighting medium tanks, taking two to damage engines in any realistic scenario, the extra 40 damage being meaningless in almost any case as far as breakpoints are concerned. It's only when you reach premium mediums that there starts to be a difference.
Gren Faust vs KV1 ![:( :(](/images/Smileys/sad.gif) 140/160 pen) 26%/34% chance to snare in two. 38%/49% (I think?) chance to snare in three, 36%/17% in four.
Generic AT grenade vs Panther ![:( :(](/images/Smileys/sad.gif) 100 pen) 13% chance to snare in two. 87% in three.
In such a case Ostheer has a BETTER chance of snaring the vehicle in two shots, but then a smaller chance of it taking three, and a smaller still chance of it taking four. This is just wildly inconsistent, rather than strictly being worse in all cases.
They don't snare their own vehicles, but they do snare Ostheer ones, and Ostheer snare theirs, despite their tanks being much closer in performance to one another than the Soviets' are. Brits have stock heavies/premium mediums, for example, and both factions' stock tanks are more expensive/heavily armoured than stock soviet ones.
You still haven't explained why the snares need to be inconsistent. That's the main thing I'm attempting to argue. Even if you'd like to accept that Ostheer snares should be "better" against mediums, and Soviet/other allied snares should be "better" against heavies, why does there need to be a penetration calculation, and why is none of this explained at all in the game? |
Isn't going Battlegroup + upgrade into Scwherer now 5 fuel more expensive?
Edit: I see that 5 fuel has been transferred from the medic upgrade to the Battlegroup upgrade so the cost remains the same in all practicality.
I don't think there's really a scenario in which this is a negative... perhaps if you were planning on going Battlegroup -> Schwere while /skipping/ medics, but that seems like a strange idea anyway. |
Every decent Brit player will completely dumpster Füsi openings before the upgrade.
In 3v3+ it might be viable with more res income and your teammates doing their job so you have more time for the upgrade to pay off (dont quote me, i dont play those modes)
In 1v1 and 2v2 i would never go füsis against brits, basically an auto lose on equal skill level
I personally always go for a JLI commander vs brits rather than one with Fusiliers, they're far more effective in my experience. Less so if the enemy goes non-bren commandoes or simply blobs their tommies, i guess. This is just in 2v2s. |
What a load of BS.
What, that upgraded 6man Fusiliers beat 5man Sections? This is assuming they don't have Brens, as the OP suggests. Test it yourself, if you like. I should probably have specified that this is indeed with the Fusiliers having their G43s and sixth man in all cases, not unupgraded. Unupgraded Fusiliers get demolished, of course.
I rarely play PFs unless I go against a Brit player. And when I do, the PFs get absolutely rekt. Models drop like flies. I have since started only making one set of PFs.
I have heard people say PFs are trash until vetted. Most likely the case for me here as it is the early engagements where they are useless in many instances.
Really? I find that I have a lot of success with Panzerfusiliers. They're total garbage early on, being worse combatants than Volksgrenadiers close up. According to seralia, at least, they've actually got better DPS than Volksgrenadiers at 15 range and up... but oftentimes engagements early on will be closer than that, and they can't build their own cover. This is compounded by the fact they're more expensive than Volks. Dependent on how you take engagements, they can make your life pretty hard early on, but it can be worth it later in the game.
When they get vetted, and get their G43s though, they start to be quite good. Their rifles at vet are actually worse relative to Volks rifles than they were at vet0, but they have three of those, and three G43s, giving a better damage output than Volks' three (slightly superior) K98s, and two STGs.
(Against logic, Fusie G43s are individually significantly better than STGs close up, but slightly worse at further ranges... though there are three of them, of course) |
So essentially that makes the soviet snares even better against OKW than against Ostheer... why is that a problem?
And yet, again, OKW snares are balanced like Allied snares. Or, I should say, Ostheer snares are uniquely "balanced" differently to every other faction. Soviet snares also still have a FAR higher cooldown than OST or OKW ones. Why is this latter attribute the case?
What does their own tanks have to do with their snares? Snares are for hitting enemy tanks....
You stated that the fact that SOV has "massed mediums" versus OST "Heavy tanky tanks" is the reason their snares are the way they are. USF and UKF do not fit this dichotomy. UKF have stock heavies, unlike Soviet. USF have no heavy tanks. The closest they come is the Pershing, which is closer in equivalence to the Panther than a heavy tank. Their Medium tanks are also armoured/priced closer to OST tanks than to SOV tanks. Despite this they have Soviet style snares, not OST styled ones. This balance you're trying to suggest doesn't fit.
Also: Soviet do not have highly armoured tanks for Ostheer's snares "weakness" to affect, except through doctrines. In a stock game, or one where Soviet don't pick a doctrine with a heavy tank, OST's snare is simply better.
If you want to nerf OKW snares say you want to nerf OKW snares instead of trying to mess with every other faction in the game.
I would like all factions to have access to equally effective snares. Your hyperbole is really a bit odd, Ost is the outlier. |
From the basic faction design of Ostheer vs Soviets when the game released. Heavy tanky Ostheer tanks vs numerous Soviet medium tank hordes. It's better for both factions this way.
If you standardize them both to faust penetration and AT-nade deflection values, it's essentially a huge nerf to Soviets. Soviets would be doing a potential 25% more damage to axis mediums (where the damage doesn't even matter enough to change snare rates except against the brumbar and vet2 jagpanzer where their high armor is likely to bounce them anyways and not make a difference) while the Ostheer snare would be doing a guaranteed 100% more damage to allied heavy tanks.
There are three other factions now, and this alleged design philosophy isnt even applying to them consistently.
OKW have a greater number of "heavy", tanky vehicles than Ostheer, and even their medium tank rolls out with more armour than the OST equivalent (Until vet2), and yet Volksgrenadier Fausts have high penetration, equivalent deflection damage to allied snares, and even a lower cooldown than allied snares. Their faust doesn't fit your suggested "design philosophy" at all. (They also have the Panzerfusilier, which has what is literally an "allied design" AT grenade, low penetration and high deflection)
USF and especially UKF don't have "hordes" of medium tanks rolling around like Soviet do, with UKF even having two stock heavy tanks... But their snares have low penetration and high deflection.
Ostheer and Soviet's "benefits" over one another don't translate properly against the other three factions.
How does the Faust/AT grenade difference in targeting around sight/shot blockers fit into this design philosophy, anyway?
|
With 160 total damage 2 AT grenades will always cause engine damage to medium tank.
On the other hand 2 faust with 140 far penetration have a 0.24% probability to bounce and not cause engine damage.
Allied snare are different not weaker.
Allied snares are indeed weaker. Medium tanks are not the only tanks on the field. Both the Brummbar and Jagdpanzer can take between two and three snares before they receive engine damage, dependent on the luck of the draw.
Allied snares have the dubiously intentional benefit of apparently retaining lockon around sight blockers. This isnt communicated in the game at all, has absolutely no logical basis, and is more likely a bug or oversight than an actually intentional trait.
Even if we're just talking about mediums, allied snares take, on average, around one more application to have killed a 640HP axis tank, than a Gren faust takes to kill an allied tank. Why?
Also: 140 far penetration on the Grenadier Faust is at 30 range. The faust's actual maximum cast range is 18 (or 19.26~, with the range bulletin). |
Right now the AT-grenades are better against high armor targets, and the fausts are better against medium targets. It has literally never been an issue in 8 years but is being brought up with this snare bug where they don't kill 0 health units. I don't see a significant enough reason to standardize these snares.
Of course, this assumes the 0 health tanks is fixed and the deflection damage not killing tanks is also fixed.
The Gren faust is "worse" against high armour targets than AT grenade snares. The Volk faust has 80 deflection damage, and is therefore the same as allied snares... just while retaining almost all of the Gren Faust's higher penetration.
Lower deflection damage is not an "axis" trait, it's literally just a Gren/Ostruppen trait, and with no discernable justification.
I'm not seeing any reason not to just standardise them, it makes things more consistent, and the current situation doesn't add any gameplay or tactical depth at all.
Can you articulate why Grenadiers being "better" against medium tanks than other squads, and "worse" against Heavy Tanks is an important part of design? |
I was talking about damage and pen primarily. Soft factors like usability and availability are a slightly different topic, but here only Soviet Conscript builds have similar to even easier "use" of snares.
First this is only true for the Grenadier Faust as I already noted, and second Fausts pens (almost) every non-doc vehicle that Allies can field. At this point they basically do a guaranteed 100 damage.
From what I can work out, there's around a 9~% chance a gren faust will bounce off of the front armour of an M4A3 Sherman, Cromwell, Centaur, or Firefly from absolute max range. It's not hugely significant, and certainly a much better chance than allied snares, but I think its worth mentioning.
Either way, I really do think they should just dispense with the whole penetration system for snares, I don't think there's any reason for it here.
(I'm working this out with the assumption that penetration is calculated from when the Faust is targeted, rather than being calculated when it actually hits. I'm approximating pen at 18 range as around 147, which is probably a bit low, actually. "Far" range for the faust is 30, but it only has 18 range. Chances are more like 13% if it's calculated when the projectile actually strikes.)
EDIT:
And soviets do a guaranteed 80 damage. They take the same number of hits to snare a vehicle either way, unless it's a heavy tank where the gren faust is only going to be doing 40 damage. The only axis vehicle that has 800 health so it requires 2 100 damage snares is the Brumbar, which has high frontal armor so it would probably bounce atleast one faust-tier snare anyway.
Then why not just give allied snares 80 damage, and Fausts 100, rather than bothering with the penetration/deflection system here, if this is the desired interaction?
(Also, the Jagdpanzer has 800HP at vet2) |