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.
|
Maybe this is being a little anal, but I wouldn't call that a cap on damage, per se. More of a squad-wide DPS limiter if anything. It's a cap to *accuracy*, after all. 80 HP, that's your damage cap, since the LMG burst ends when the model dies. At least for Grens MG42 that is.
Not sure best way to say it, but doesn’t damage reduction remove a lot of RNG and just CAP the damage put out.
For arguments sake we use the vet 3 PPSH damage of 16 DPS. As the Gren has a target size of 1, it would normally receive all 16 DPS. But with the Vet3 damage reduction the PPSH would do a maximum damage of 12.8. No boost from say Mother Russia would increase that damage. However, it is possible for Gren to reduce damage taken with aura such as command tank and or air dropped medical supplies. Again, assuming I am understanding it right. |
Values for highly accurate weapons and vetted squads are fairly artificial anyway due to the aforementioned accuracy cap. E.g. the PPSh has a close range accuracy of 0.8. Combine that with the +40% accuracy modifier of Shock troops and you're technically at 1.12. This value will be capped at 1, meaning the calculated DPS gain will only be 25% instead of the promised 40%. But that's not what you will see in game. Your vet3 Shock will likely fight a vet3 Volks or something. The lower RA of the targeted squad will usually push the overall accuracy below 1 (to 1.12x0.77 = 0.86 in our example), which will not be capped and mean that the veterancy accuracy bonuses have the effect that they are intended to have.
Against a newly build Volksgrenadier, the calculated value would be true, but when comparing vetted units, they might not reflect the game properly.
A couple thoughts based off what you said, please correct me where I am wrong. (Mainly about SMG units)
Serelia data is fairly pointless even if it was 100% correct in a balance discussion as it uses a target size of 1 despite RA being the 2nd most important value. Hopefully, for COH3 we get a version that lets us test vs different target sizes.
Soviet units in general scale better with regards to RA than USF/UKF. Across the board most Soviet units get 40% or more ACC with VET compared to the 30% or less USF/UKF get. Normally the argument would be that USF and UKF start with better based stats which would take this into account.
For example Rangers start off great with their 4 Thompsons and great RA of .73 which was made apparent when I tested them against AssG and won everytime. However with VET, AssG RA outscales Ranger Acc and AssG Acc outscales Ranger RA bonus leading to a situation where they perform a lot more similarly then expected. As Axis elites usually get larger RA bonus than 25% this would mean Rangers(and Paras) perform better against mainlines unless Paras use Tactical advance.
Penal Acc bonus may not increase max damage but would make them the most consistent performer against axis Elites as Penals could brute force past Axis great RA.
This also means anything less than 10% Target size buff against most Soviet PPSH is pointless which is why most OST players skip G43 upgrade in short range maps. At VET3, the Gren would receive the same amount of damage from a VET3 Shock/PPSH Con/PPSH Partisan or Penal which makes it a fairly lack luster upgrade vs LMG.
On the flip side, the damage reduction removal was a much larger nerf to Rangers than was advertised as no matter what their is a CAP on the damage certain weapons can do per second as seen with Gren example.
|
Not necessarily since accuracy is capped at 1 and it probable that once vetted Penals get higher accuracy than 1 at close range that is "wasted".
But wouldn't that mean they both get a stationary damage of 16.863? Yet, serelia has Penals listed at 16.613 so is the extra accuracy having a negative effect? The increased moving DPS would make sense as the moving acc nerf wouldn't effect them as much as they have a higher value to start with. |
It's less about DPS retention on the move, but about the absolute DPS on mid-long range in my opinion. PPSh and SMGs in general are great on short range, but unless you can body block the enemy or cut into the retreat path, they are not good at wiping. Especially in frontal assaults, where the enemy might retreat straight to the back once you're in optimum range, there is not much they can do because the enemy will exit the most dangerous zone instantly.
Yea you and Vipper are right about that. However do to map design and most users instantly retreating once SMG users get close I have tried really hard to change my approach. Frontally assaulting anything leads to most of the complaints we have as SMG units wont really pay off. I try to attack from the side or behind so I can attempt to get into the retreat path as much as possible which probably led me to confirmation bias of PPSH being better than Thompsons. (Just remembered that I am also comparing them to AssG which only have 3 Thompsons) |
Relic Entertainment
