Profile of MilkaCow

1.) Didn't you say you wanted to leave this forum and I said you just made such a post to get attention? Dang brah. Nobody that ever makes a post about leaving actually wants to leave. They are just unhappy and think someone will be like 'nah stop, we need you' as the movies have it. This is not a fairytale, you are no princess. If you really stopped caring, you'd just leave.

2.) If you think this forum represents the balancing process, you have no idea at all. Like seriously. Wtf?!? It's hilarious that from the people you mentioned at steering towards "Pro Axis" and "Against Axis" only ones from the pro Axis group are in the balance Alpha D:

3.) Regarding the topic and your posts, do you even know what "LMG nerfs" means? They said LMG not LMG42. So I'd assume they really mean "LMG" as the abstract weapon class. That would mean nerfs to Guard DP-28, the American M1919A6, the German MG42 and MG34. Not sure how that is going to favor any side. It's just making those blobs of Grens / Obers / Paras+M1919 / Rifles+M1919 ... a bit less useful and less spammy.

You insult anyone who is not your opinion of having an agenda, which means 90% of all people? Maybe, but just maybe it's you who is biased and not the world?

(I was asked to insert more srs&troll)

I forsaw the Katyusha spam being abused before it was finally nerfed to a reasonable level again.

Yea. Pretty much everyone did. A mystery why it got in.

penals rape Grens

NEW META! PENALSPAM \o/

Cruzzi:

As for me having any sort of influence, don't worry, there's someone with some actual influence in the player testing team who hates my guts so nothing I say will ever be considered.

Eheheheheeheheheehehehe, yup, you are done Cruzzi. Best commit CoHcide now. Nah, honestly. I think your opinions are sometimes over the top, but also often spot on. You can trust me that they are being read and those ideas / similar ones are being discussed. Cause well, others can observe the game as well

Optimization is crap and I am quite annoyed of the bugs.

Gameplay wise I prefer CoH2. I find the factions here actually better than the vCoH ones :/
Similarly, I find a lot of the features in CoH2 are far superior to the vCoH ones. I hated the vehicle pushing in vCoH and I'd prefer if it was completely gone in CoH2, but I can live with the fact that besides M3A1SC and sWS vehicles aren't really used to push.

My personal top 3 of the biggest improvements:
- True sight
- UI / added features (Not saying the UI is super or the best ever, but I really love the additional information. Having all unit icons in the top right is super useful for example. Reverse, reinforcing groups...)
- Comebacks (Meaning the fact that in CoH2 the whole game is important. The resource and sector system is all allowing a player to claw back into a game even after the loss of a unit. To me that makes the games more interesting, as you need to constantly outplay your opponent and not just wait for him to make one mistake and then just capitalize on this.)

vCoH had me playing for about a year and like a month after each expansion.
CoH2 had me playing since the beginning. So I guess I just like CoH2 more.

Fix performance + bugs = - A balance problem can be accounted for. Overperforming unit? Go for the hardcounter. A bug ruining your games repeatedly, but only randomly appearing? Total annoyance and you can't do shit about it.

Yea, reported that to Relic already. It's super annoying and seems to have sprung up sometime during WFA development. They do not want the enemy to be in their field of fire, but they want them to be in the best possible field of fire it seems. That's why even when they could shoot they switch windows.

Falls and HMGs are probably the units where it's most noticeable, but AFAIK it's true for every unit. It's just that these have long and noticeable reload time (~2+ seconds) so you really see them switching and taking their time before shooting.

Upgrades are incredibly hard to balance, so I'd advise against that. I've explained it countless times, but upgrades basically mean that units get more cost-efficient and eclipse stronger, but less cost efficient units. For example LMG Grens and PGrens.

The comparison between Cons and Grens is to a degree lacking. You seem to have listed only the parts where Grenadiers are better than Conscripts, but forget other points. The size of the squad for example is a major difference when trying to disable tanks, same for the Oorah ability. Their merge ability is also rather strong since infantry armor was removed. Merging with Guards or Penals has no downside, but saves a lot of cost and popcap. Besides that, Conscripts are already less popcap than Grenadiers, so the high AI strength of the latter comes at a higher popcap.

I personally do not see a big problem with Conscripts balance wise. They fulfill the roles they were designed for, to be aggressive harassing units early and a tank screen / meat shield lategame.

A lategame upgrade like Arclyte suggested, to make them cheaper popcap wise sounds interesting, but I am not sure if it is possible. If you just reduced the cost/popcap per entity then I do not think it would cause people to use more Conscripts lategame, but would just be a buff to the merge ability. You can already have a Guards squad for the popcap of a Conscript if you merge instead of reinforcing, a further cost decrease would make that even better. AFAIK the only way to do it would be some squad modifier, reducing the popcap of the squad or such, that would probably work.

Personally I feel they are fine, but if they would need a lategame improvement I would try to increase their utility rather than their combat strength with an upgrade. Faction diversity and balance are my reasons for that. If I want good AI scaling I get Grens, if I want great AT scaling I get Volks, if I want great AI / mediocre AT scaling I get Rifles - but if I want good utility scaling I get Cons.

"Dudes with stuff?" sounds like a fun weekend