I am not allowed to talk back at my own projects forums, but GOD I would give up my months worth of salary to punch to the face an idiot why screams how "easy and fast" stuff is to make and flames when stuff is not fixed enough.
But some of the stuff really IS easy to fix; modders have done it. Or its just ignored for an indefinite amount of time. Look at something easy to fix: the Automatch map list. What is this thing sorted by? It's not by size, it's not alphabetical, it's not by anything. Pretty much anyone with even a basic level of programming experience could write a very basic do-while loop to sort first by map size (i.e. all 2's, then 2-4's, then 4's, etc.), then by alphabetical order (i.e. 2's in alphabetical order, followed by 2-4's in alphabetical order). It would only need to be done once, since it would just read the map list on startup (or on Relic's end during patch deploy). Is it very important? No. Would it be a nice QoL change that would take very, very little time to implement? Yes.
Same can be said for the recent patch; the vast majority of the problems could have easily been spotted via a public beta (CoH2 -> Properties -> Betas -> "Beta patch".... if only). To be honest, the recent patch really confuses me, since the problems were so evident. Getting RE's to Vet 3 isn't that hard, nor is reinforcing any squad that has weapon upgrades (that dupe bug) - yet somehow these went live. I can understand the super obscure bugs, like vehicle vet stacking back in the day, or even that Brit MG range-stack, since both required very strange player behavior, but the bugs in the most recent patch were encountered by pretty much everyone who played.
I'm pretty sure it would make no difference. It would just be another employee following whatever system they have in place and whatever goal the higher up are setting. I'm confident they have great people at Relic already, but I feel from the outside that their whole process is not ideal, and their priorities aren't either.
Unfortunately; this. The process right now really isn't ideal, so bringing on fans/pros to balance the game wouldn't fix it in the current development structure. IF relic brought them on and said "Ok, you've got 2 months, do whatever", and they were given complete control over unit stats/balance and patch deployment, then they could do a lot of good. However, that just isn't going to happen.
Regardless, as for OP, no single person could do the job. When one person balances the game, it'll be inherently biased around their style of play. You'd need a mix of people who play 'core' play styles, as well as people who do creative and gimmicky stuff. Then you'd also need someone who focused on exploits, to make sure the fixes for the former 2 people don't result in unintended behavior.
Right now, Relic is essentially acting as a mystery box; it's like this:
1. The community asks for stuff
2. Wait a month or two
3. Fix 1/10 things the community asked for
4. 9/10 random stuff
It just feels like there's very little connection between Relic and the community; biggest example being the last two major patches.
First, the community states that Brits are weak (they were), and the AEC was a notable candidate for improvement. Relic then over-buffs the unit, pushes the patch live, and leaves it in "unit eraser" more for about a month.
Now we have the current patch, where the fixes seemed like a good step forward, but didn't address everything. Regardless, the patch came out, broke a ton of stuff, was then partially reverted (before a weekend, no less), and then left (now we're waiting). And all of that could have been avoided with a 'beta test' patch. Release the patches on Thursday in BETA (i.e. that optional DL thing on steam), let people test them, and then review that feedback. If everything is good, release the patch on Monday/Tuesday, leaving 3-4 days to fix anything that slipped through the beta. If things are broken, well then it's just a beta patch. The live version is fine.
Then there's the question of actual game design and changes. Even with relic's weekly stream, it's REALLY hard to figure out what their actual "end-game" goal is. What is OKW supposed to be; a Volks-shrek blobbing faction with powerful late-game tanks? Or is this just a symptom of the current meta overriding the faction's design? Same goes for pretty much every faction (SOV Maxim Spam? USF Dual-upgrade blobs? Etc.). In the ideal world, where perfect balance is a thing, how are these factions SUPPOSED to play?
Then there's the whole "overbuff/overnerf" thing that's going on. What is the intent behind some of the massive stat changes in some patches? I understand that the AEC was overperforming, but were changes to the main gun, cost coax, burst and RoF really needed? That's five changes to fix one problem - that's a lot. On the other hand, the 222 change was done (IMO) correctly; it was weak, so they buffed ONE stat. If its still weak, they can buff a (single) different stat. If its now too strong, they know EXACTLY why it's too strong (HP change too great); only 1 stat needs to be adjusted to get the unit to the right place.
Once we have a good idea of what relic actually wants to do, and what their thinking is behind certain things, we can move forward much more efficiently.
It wouldn't have helped. This was caused because they were attempting to fix the vet bug that was found only a couple of days before the patch. Also mods don't change the technical bug stuff, so those patch mods are only good for testing balance
Then they really need to use the "beta branch" feature on steam. This patch is just so incredibly broken, and it would have been very easy to prevent. Release a beta build 48-72hrs before release, let anyone/everyone test it (and make all commanders available, to test those). If it's all good, release the beta build as official. If its broken (infinite RE squads, duping upgrades, etc.) just delay moving the patch to the official branch.
Yeah, except its Ost who have sniper behind them, not USF.
You're suppose to screen for sniper/HMG and let them do the magic. Grens aren't meant to be on pair with rifles. Gren models are also more durable on model to model basis then rifles.
If you're not dropping rifle models faster or just as fast, you're doing something wrong.
The only reason why USF doesn't auto loses against that is because of squads on tech.
And last but not least, there is 251 which can keep your squads on field.
And after very early-game, the USF can have an M3/Quad/Etc. behind them. That's why I suggested the "bolster" ability should be locked behind T3 (as a separate upgrade). Early/mid game would be exactly the same, and late would simply give a slight boost to Grens.
And while Ost has a 251, USF has the Medic truck, which can heal on top of reinforcing... with a Major setting an FRP at it.
Math says grens reinforce for slightly LESS then other squads in comparison to conscripts for example.
Grens lose 1 model (3/4):
Total HP pool -25%
Total DPS -25%
Total models -25%
DPS vs. remaining 3 models +8% (since each takes 33% now)
Rifles lose 1 model (4/5):
Total HP pool -20%
Total DPS -20%
Total models -20%
DPS vs. remaining 4 models +5% (each takes 25% now)
Continued below
Every time a gren squad takes a loss, its effectiveness drops FAR more than any other mainline squad in the game. This snowballs as losses increase at a quicker rate than any other squad, meaning they need to retreat sooner, reducing field time/presence. In addition, the cost per loss is greater, even though the chance for a loss is also greater, resulting in a much higher combat-upkeep than other squads.
Exactly the same thing that justified volks reinforcing cheaper then grens despite being more expensive.
Model count in squad.
So by having less models in the squad, thus having less time in combat (due to % loss), and being more susceptible to being 1-shot by AoE, they deserve a higher reinforce cost.
Luckily, you don't have to rely of grenspam to deal with lmg rifles. The lack of grenades with these units and the very low on the move dps make the LMG rifles very vulnerable to the HMG+sniper combo.
Also why do you completely neglect G43 upgrades but put PTRS up as an upgrade for conscripts?
As for your solution: 5 gren double LMGs would be insane. They would vastly outperform double lmg rifles despite being cheaper to buy, cheaper to upgrade, and require no doctrine to get. USF also has no snipers or any elite infantry to counter them. They would also walk over Soviets, who not only have no stock elite infantry, they also do not get stock weapon upgrades. Their sniper is also not that good compared to the Ostheer one.
But seriously though: Wehr has the counters to 2x LMG rifles. Giving them the firepower to just straight up kill the most expensive infantry squads in the game with their own basic infantry will just wreck balance and cause even more power-creep.
What? I think you're missing some stuff; Rifles have nades, BARS are amazing on-the-move (that's the point of them), and the whole "smoke and flank" thing is basically a meme on how to counter HMGs.
Honestly, I don't see 5-man 2-LMG squads being that "insane". The increase in size would increase the base cost (by 56, to ~296, call it 300mp), would increase the reinforce cost by 30 when going from 1 model (90 to 120), and would cost the exact same to upgrade; the BAR is 60m, and the M1918 is 70m, the Gren LMG is 60m.
I'm not asking for the firepower for grens > rifles all day every day. I'm asking for grens to be equal in certain situations, which they should be, due to reinforce cost. Right now the only hope of grens winning vs. 2xbar is by using green cover and hoping that the rifles stay in yellow or worse and stay at range. Vs. 2x M1918 it's even worse, since their range advantage quickly disappears. They still couldn't fire on the move, they'd still be horrible at close range, and their reinforce would still be the highest in the game, and after upgrading, would be the highest costing T0/1 mainline inf in the game.
You'd be right if Ost didn't had access to best HMG in game and sniper.
But they do, no one in his right mind spams grens vs rifles, because thats about the worst thing you can do. Rifles hardcounter grens, not the other way around.
Ost have way more tools at any time then other any allied faction, USF have rifles exclusively at early game. Obviously rifles will beat grens at all stages, that is their intended role and balance.
You can't have wide selection of supporting units AND mainline infantry as strong as opponent, when opponent have ONLY that infantry to pay with.
Then what justifies Gren's 30mp reinforce cost and higher per-model base cost?
While I agree with the general idea of what OP is saying (insane vet is insane), it's really only terrible when playing as Ost. Grens get brutally outscaled, to the point where they become incredibly hard to use.
Just look at the stats:
Grens: 4 man squad, 240/30mp, 1 purchasable upgrade slot (Long AI)
Rifles: 5 man squad, 280/28mp, 2 purchasable slots (AT, Close AI, Long AI)
Infantry Section: 4-5 man squad, 280/28mp, iirc 2 purchasable slots (AT, Long AI)
Conscripts: 6 man squad, 240/20mp, 2-3 purchasable slots (3x PPSH, 2x PTRS)
Early game, yea, their survivability isn't an issue do to very high long-range DPS (except vs. tommies), but by late game, they're insanely weak. Losing ONE model cuts DPS by 25% (vs. 20 to 17% for everyone else), they can only buy one upgrade (and pick up a second one) vs. everyone else being able to buy 2-3 and their upgrade is ONLY good vs. Infantry at LONG range (vs. AT, Close, medium and long AI).
Add to that the AI's tendency to group up making the 4 models much more likely to take heavy losses to AoE (in terms of squad %), resulting in a quicker retreat (less models to lose), and a higher reinforce (why!?), they end up getting pushed around a LOT by late game.
Seriously; try it. Get a vet 3 1x LMG gren squad in yellow vs. a Vet 3 2x BAR or M1918 rifle squad in yellow and see what happens. MP cost they are 7.7% more expensive per model in initial cost AND reinforce per model; but they'll lose every single time (the base cost on rifles gets you an extra model and thus more HP).
However, IMO, the solution isn't to nerf vet (although some of it needs to be looked at). Instead, gives Grens a "bolster squad" upgrade that simply gives them +1 model, and +1 purchasable upgrade slot (so I can buy a 2nd LMG).
CPU and GPU temps? Very high on either could cause pretty massive FPS drops.
Also, unlikely, but HDD usage? Just open up resource monitor and check disk usage while in-game. Its very unlikely, but the one time I was doing disk-intensive stuff while in-game it caused pretty massive lag spikes.
Doomlord52
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
