Profile of Doomlord52

I'm not sure why no one else has said the most obvious solution: make the soviet sniper a 1 man squad like the rest of the snipers.

Exactly this. People have been suggesting this since alpha.

People would complain more about a 1 man 82HP SU sniper that is similar to OH one. Imagine having better RoF (even if it's worst than OH one), having proper cammo and been able to survive a direct shell to the face.

Why would you change so many other things? Go from 2 models to 1, and increase the HP to 82 to compensate. That's it. No other changes. ROF stays the same (still fighting 4-5 model squads, so why change it) and camo would stay the same. Yes it would survive a direct mortar shell, but right now the mortar is an effective counter BECAUSE it's 2 models, and wiping both is required to remove the sniper.

At 1 model counter-sniping would actually make sense, rather than having the 360mp vs. 90mp risk we have right now. The 222 could stay the same and actually be effective vs. both brit and sov snipers.

The current meta in big games is pretty bad, with penal/guard blobs covering 2 sov sniper squads, which pretty much force an instant retreat to OST 4-man squads. You can't even 222-dive because of the penal PTRS squads covering the snipers. Mortars become to default counter when you need to get rid of multiple models via indirect fire.

Drop it to 1 model and suddenly ost can counter-snipe effectively, fixing that entire problem.

Had a 4v4 game the other day where it looked like both British players were firing "Artillery Commander Concentration Barrage" into FoW. Watching the replay shows them dropping the red flair fairly deep into the FoW, which seems a bit strange, since the patch notes state that it "Can no longer fire through the FOW".

It's possible the replay playback is bugged (some units show in fog anyway?), but it seemed pretty strange in-game, too. That, or I've completely misunderstood the patch changes.

Key changes that have been necessary since alpha, let alone beta, launch, or in 2017.

Honestly, not really. I played the alpha, and the main issues the game is now facing are from WFA's release and later, with the new factions increasing infantry power. Before WFA, the Grens/Cons balance was actually pretty good; grens won at long range, cons at close, and the price difference made sense due to Gren's late-game scaling with better vet and the LMG. Penals were interesting since they offered utility and a bit stronger combat power, but at a higher cost.

Then WFA came along and we had STG/Shrek volk blobs destroying everything and double BAR/1919 blobs with smoke basically walking over Ost. They were sort of balanced against eachother (not really), but they had powercreeped so far beyond vanilla that the original factions were insanely hard to play.

Then UKF came out, and it needed to be competitive. No one would buy a faction that only compared to vanilla (and was crushed by WFA), so it was balanced (sort of) around that expansion. To do that, we had the cover bonuses, continued use of double upgrades and so on.


The only change I can think of that would have been nice at any point since alpha would be some sort of global 'anti-blob' mechanic, similar to COH-PioSpam 'Negative Zeal' debuff, that made the units (just Pios...) worse when in blobs.

Yea, it's really bad right now.

I can stand the tank costs, arty issues, etc, but the mainline infantry imbalance is insane right now.

I think a link to a testing video would be very useful for this kind of thread. Not trying to disparage your claims but it would serve to back them up.

I'll give it a try, but I don't have anything to edit video with. Either way, each test was run 3 times, with additional tests if the results were inconsistent (i.e. sometimes win with 4 models, other times lose by 1).

It's a situational upgrade. Let's keep in mind: CQB units attacking over open ground without cover is pretty stupid, especially against units that are perfect against this kind of play (Penals). PPsh Cons not only are the main core of the infantry, they are also the elite. Meanwhile your elite consists of Sturmpios and Obersoldaten which are vastly superiour to cons.

Another thing: pitting units against each other in a vacuum is generally not a good method to prove a point.


Keep in mind the upgrade also comes with smoke grenades and flamers for Sturmpios.

That's sort of my point. Cons closing at long range against volks (which are supposed to be great at range) will easily win, but volks doing the same against penals will not. The difference between how the two perform is incredibly massive.

PPSH cons are also not elite. Not by game logic standards (they're not flagged as elite) nor by gameplay standards (shocks are elite CQB units). The tooltip for cons states that they are "basic troops with little combat training or experience" and are "cheap troops".

As for Obers, I decided to test those as well (3-5 tests each):

Vet 0 Cons w/ PPSHs closing from out of range to close range against vet 0 obers will result a tie (usually 1 model left with almost no HP).

Vet 0 Cons w/ PPSHs closing from out of range to close range against vet 0 LMG obers will result in obers winning with 2-4 models.

Vet 3 Cons w/ PPSHs closing from out of range to close range against vet 5 obers will result in cons winning with 2-3 models.

Vet 3 Cons w/ PPSHs closing from out of range to close range against vet 5 LMG obers will result in cons winning with 2-3 models.

As you can see, there isn't any consistency to the behavior of the units: cons will win closing on elite units (with vet, with upgrades, etc.) while MP40 volks will lose. However, both units are very similar: main-line infantry costing 240-250mp with doc-locked SMG upgrades costing 40-45muni.