Yea, that is what I was noticing as I was messing around it just seemed to further reinforce what I would experience in game when ever I tried to use Rangers/Para Thompsons. That is part of the reason I was surprised to AssG being able to beat Shocks/Rangers with vet but I guess that shows the strength of mix-model squads with single LMG squads being the most extreme example.
Part of the reason I specifically used Grens was the issue numbers can't really explain. As all LMG have focus fire it really hurts scaling of short range units, especially late ones like Rangers. Having good RA is nice but since the damage gets focused on a model, bleed can easily set in as usually Grens are gonna outnumber Rangers. For everyone reading, I am not asking for buffs or nerfs just testing and trying to explain to myself what I am experiencing in game.
Your -29 for 40/-23 for 30 is great as I think it helps others(and I) quickly get a feel for matchups. I think this is probably the biggest reason why VG feel so lack luster. They not only get a really weak acc bonus at 30% they also get a fairly bad RA bonus of -23%. So even if they were to pick up a better weapon(MG42) instead of their STG they would still lose in terms of scaling to Cons/Penals/Rifleman/AIS as they are already designed to be matched up against LMGs.(Did not include regular IS as their VET is worse but getting bolster plus weapon racks makes the comparison really hard to make.)
This also shows why most mainlines seem to scale so bad compared to Cons. Despite having the worst starting RA they end up with a final RA of .71 and a great 40% acc bonus from vet. So against Volks, they perform better offensively and defensively as the game goes on while costing less upfront and overtime due to reinforce. Throw in a weapon upgrade such as SVTs for earlier power spike and it gets pretty ugly pretty quickly. All this seems to apply to Grens also but Grens at least get to keep good offensive performance while losing defensively. |
I am going to be honest with you dude; I have never made 2 LVs in 4v4 before. What are the situations in which this *would* be a good call in your opinion? I'm guessing paths spam is one of them? Serious question, I'd like to know for myself.
I was mainly responding to question 5. I am in general not a fan of multiple LV as the micro is intense.
If the map has safe fuel for both sides it is a hard no.
If the map can be contested or you have control of both fuel it is a case by case choice. However, if I remember correctly you were doing great with the schu mines so getting another LV might negatively impact that.
GG |
This was referring to PPSh unit vs Grenadiers
1. base close range accuracy of PPSh Shock troop variant: 0,816
2. Shock troops accuracy veterancy: +40% (0,816 * 1,4 = 1,1424)
3. Grenadier target size: 0,91 (1,1424 * 0,91 = 1,039584)
4. For G43 Grenadiers, the additional 0,9 RA does push the overall accuracy down to 0,9356.... So it has an effect, albeit not the intended 10% in this very specific setup of vet3 PPSh troops vs G43 Grenadiers.
Since Grens do not get further RA buffs with vet, but "only" damage reduction, they are an extreme example for accuracy calculations here. Volksgrenadiers get 0,77 RA which pushes the overall accuracy below 1. Again, all this assumes that capping the accuracy at 1 happens after step3 and not step2, which I think should be the case but I am not 100% sure anymore if I tested exactly that.
I think this is where my "confusion" is coming from. I thought Grens had a target size of 1, but their starting target size is .91 so the G43 upgrade makes more sense. The whole reason I was using Grens was for their "unique" for axis infantry target size along with their over all unique Damage reduction. That is why I was asking if they could in effect CAP the damage coming in as Acc would be 1.04 So anything above that is not used and the damage reduction would cause a drop by 20% from the PPSH.
I was probably thinking about Airborne Guards that get PPSh, not Assault Guards with their Thompsons. In that case it would make sense for Rangers to lose.
Looking at the numbers, I find it hard to believe that Assault Guards are supposed to be THAT strong. It actually looks like they don't have that much going for them. RA both at vet0 and vet3 is pretty mediocre. The weapon loadout also doesn't look super special to me. The vet is nothing super special either besides getting +40% accuracy instead of the more usual +30%. That's a nice buff, but not sure if worth it.
If I have time, I'll test them myself.
Rangers won more often than not it was just surprising that AssG could win at all as when they were both Vet0 I tested several times and Rangers would always win with 2-3 models.
But I think its more than just looking at the Acc differences between them.
For Rangers they get 25% Acc, 20% cooldown and 29% RA
For AssG they get 40% Acc, 25% cooldown and 29% RA
Comparing VET0 to Vet3 performance in a head to head comparison AssG will do more damage as their Acc outscales the Rangers RA while also reducing the incoming damage as AssG RA bonus outscales the Ranger Acc bonus.
Again the test is useless overall as they wouldn't fight each other unless playing a custom game. But the issue illustrates the issue people have with Rangers. AssG Vet is fairly common to Soviets, OKW elites and OST which means they scale negatively offensively and defensively against Obers/JLI/PG/Storms/Falls(more apparent when cloaked) while getting hit with a 3rd weakness of having to move in on LMG Obers/JLI and Falls. They scale negatively defensively against JCS/Fussi as their Acc bonus outscales Ranger RA and JCS/Fussi RA bonus is close enough to Ranger Acc bonus that it is a wash.
Edit: Also if I crunched the numbers correctly Rangers gain no DPS against Grenadiers when both are vetted while receiving more DPS from the Grens which are not only significantly cheaper but also have a more favorable long distance profile and in most in game scenarios having a VET advantage.
Example- Lets say Ranger thompson does 16 DPS, against Vet0 Grens that would be 14.56
At Vet 3 the Thompson would do 20 DPS, against .91 target size 18.2 and factoring in damage reduction 14.56
|
|
Started with Penal this time for some fighting power. Early Double cars didn't do much but they did a good job of keeping each other alive when snared. As I didn't go flamers it took a bit of time to get AssG rolling. However got two Fussie wipes at once might have been able to get 3 but ally LV messes with my pathing. I was actually setting up OKW for another large retreat by capping bottom left side of map and then keeping low health Penal around. He started to chase me setting up for long retreat path however on my way there I saw his RAK and decided to kill it instead. Lost both cars but as I now have AT gun I decide to go KV8 rush.
It does OK, I lost it kind of quickly due to Rak spam and flame drop not landing good on axis. My next flame call in makes up for it as I wait for ally to force axis retreat to forward healing and I call in flames as he gets there. Wipe 2 more squads. Axis finally get going as they get their bigger tanks. And push my side hard. I lose some ground but I do trade a T34 for P4J but bad SU85 control kills ally comet. Axis start to push middle and left side of map hard but as they are really behind they have to over commit allowing us to punish them with arty and mortars. We eventually grind them down to 0.
As they were an arranged team I had to be extra careful with my cars, not best map for it but early on I had around 2/1 KD so they did pay off.
Lost a few squads to great nades from axis, tried to be aggressive but it back fired.
USF did great job applying pressure, Pershing did work
Obers are killing machines |
Our fact checkers have deemed this statement "Mostly False". While Shocks do recieve the worst target size with vet, it's important to note that they recieve this target size in addition to the armor they start with, which makes most small arms fire bounce off of them 1/3rd if the time if it does end up landing.
Close quarters units tend to bleed when they are caught at mid to long range, but there is no reason to expect that shocks do it more than other units.
half kidding half serious
The whole statement is specific to JLI matchup. JLI sniper crit ignores the armor as I was explaining in the test.
Aside from that specific match up they are the best.
EDIT: please reread the whole post as it has nothing to do with the rest of the thread. It was about a test I did for shocks vs JLI and my personal experience playing against JLI with different SMG squads |
Regarding G43 Grenadiers, the 10% target size buff is worth it even against close range PPSh troops. Grenadiers have a base value of 0.91, meaning highly vetted Soviet PPSh troops have a "natural" close range accuracy of 1.04. The additional 10% RA pushes it down to 0.94, so you'll get 6% instead of 10%. It also helps against literally other small arms like MGs, hull MGs, rifles etc.
Why is it 1.04? Isn’t the base value .8 so the vet would be 1.12. 1.04 would be exclusive to Vet3 Airborne and Vet2 Penals right?
Sorry for weird formatting on my phone.
With respect to what you said about Rangers, it doesn’t make any sense to me.
My example with regards to VET was specific to AssG. They both use Thompsons and Rangers have 1 more Thompson so technically the ranger is the more short range focused squad. This is apparent in their Vet0 performance but Vet3 evens this out quite a bit which as we both agree is due to Rangers inferior vet. Paras winning made sense as on top of the 4 Thompsons they get 2 elite carbines that also perform great at close range.
Also Thompsons are the best allied SMG by quite a bit they were given better mid range compared to the rest because it was a massive nerf when the gun was first released.
Back from Sept 2015, will update if I find more recent comments
M1 Thompsons
Increase their mid and far range profile so the weapon itself is not an immediate downgrade in overall dps. |
|
Had another issue that has been bugging me for a while. JLI vs Shocks, does the armor help vs the crit shot.
Test was JLI squad wiped to last model so only G43 shoots and set to invulnerable.
Shocks at max range, so JLI don’t miss as they have better acc at range, health set to 70%.
Each shot hit and sniper crit kill. Did it twice so 12 models, can do it more if needed but I would have expected armor to help at least once.
I have gotten into arguments in game about this as the average thought process makes sense. JLI are weak short range, Shocks are best short range squad. However in my personal play they just seemed to drop so fast. As the crit seems to be tied to hitting or not, Target size is most important followed by squad load out.
My personal experience fighting JLI for Soviets my SMG suggestions
PPSH cons - can literally sprint closer to get into mid range where the G43 acc goes down, has 2 model buffer so high damage can still be done
Partisans - can move in cloak so they can get in position and minimize losses
Airborne - can cloak but not move so it’s is more defensive will lose effectiveness in a charge
AssG - mix model so has a 3 model buffer so will retain most of its performance in a charge
Shocks - high reinforce and worst target size with vet(partisans) mean you will bleed hard
I have also found smoke to be a bad idea as JLI can simply relocate and recloak
USF
Paras - have a two model buffer so they will do fine closing in, due to bad target size even with Vet JLI will perform will on approach
Rangers - only one model buffer but great starting RA allows possible approach without taking crit shot. When both JLI and Rangers are vetted, JLI will still hit at max range but fall of shortly so a hard push really allows rangers to shine
Commandos are probably best SMG squad as they can get in to optimal range without taking any damage
|
Honestly, I don't see any problem with that. 0.8 RA means that the shots that passed the accuracy roll have a 20% chance to miss. Just multiply the DPS by RA and you get your DPS. However, a resource that compares different units with different setups would be great.
Yea your right, was over thinking it for a second. If we had something similar but had modifiers to change target size and another to change cover it would go a long way to explaining to the community how certain weapons work.
For example, IR Obers/JLI vs Vetted cons. Changing the covers could show how strong the unit is and help understand what your seeing in game. |
PPSh is anything but a "highly accurate weapon" with far accuracy of 0.12
The intended use is close range with a vetted acc of 1.14, which SMG vetted or not is more accurate at its intended range? Why are you bringing up far accuracy in a question about short range unit?
Accuracy, damage reduction, armor all have similar effects in the long run because in most small amrs fights the weapon do not fire with 100% accuracy.
But every single example you gave involves RNG, damage reduction for Grens with a target size of 1 completely removes that at short range for Vetted PPSH, VET Para combines, VET SVT as they all have 100% acc or better.
Explosive weapons work different than small arms, since the accuracy of most of these weapon is too low to have a significant impact.
But yes damage reduction would work to protect infatry from these and that is why Grenadiers get it.
On the other hand neither the 120mm mortar nor the Pak howitzer do 80 so they can not kill entities with one shot.
I was talking about the actual howitzer/B4
The Game is RNG based so there is little wrong with RNG in general.
I agree, but the game promotes saving VET, units losing a vetted squad to clumping which has nothing to do with skill is infuriating. Something as minor as 5% damage reduction could stop a full health squad from dying upon exiting a building or turning a corner
1) depends on range
2) depends on enemy being in cover or not.
Damage reduction comes at vet 3 and the problems exist way before that.
They sure do, its just seems to be the one area where the damage reduction probably doesn't help as much as having a better target size.
|
I think we're not really on the same page as far as what the meaning of "capping" is, although I think we pretty much agree eith everything else.
I was just saying that I don't think that "cap" is the right word because while it's accurate for burst damage (grenades and other explosions that have a set amount of damage when they hit a squad & will be reduced by the damage reduction), for sustained damage like squad v. squad it's more of a "dampener" to damage than a "cap".
Your right, for most cases it would just work as a dampener. However I am hyper focusing on highly accurate weapons(Vetted PPSH, Para Carbine, Penal SVT...). Every weapon should have a maximum damage they can do once you hit an accuracy of 1 if the target has a size of 1 which Grens do. AT that point the damage modifier becomes a CAP, again using the PPSh example as it is most relevant, each gun would get capped at 12.8 DPS and there is no way to increase that damage.
If the above is correct, making damage reduction at various levels a VET bonus would have been a better way to balance all units. This would remove a lot of RNG from tank shots/120mm mortar/howi killing an entire squad in one hit giving a chance for counter play(SMASHING RETREAT)
Once say Penals/Shocks get vetted isn't most if not all of the bonus from Mother Russia pointless aside from the rec acc?(Same for other highly accurate weapons for other factions)
Also similar but not completely related, this could also be why OST has such issues with Pathfinders. As the scoped carbine is fairly accurate and Grens have a target size of 1, the shots have a great chance of landing and since they have sniper crit once the threshold is passed it partially negates the purpose of the Gren damage reduction.
|
Relic Entertainment
