Profile of MilkaCow

Am I the only one who is a little disappointed with the inclusion of this unit?

I think it's really dependent on gamesize and player preference. If you take a look at for example ImperialDane, he dislikes the Puma and hates the Jagdpanzer/Jagdtiger. I on the other hand agree with you, that Puma (vs Soviets) or Jagdpanzer (vs USF) are sufficient. I don't need to spent an additional 35 fuel (and similar MP) to get a Panther who then performs worse against Jacksons than the Jagdpanzer. I rarely tech to T4 and if I do, then usually for the Sturmtiger and the Obersoldaten, not the Panther.

I said it several times now already.

Fallschirmjäger cost 440 MP to deploy. The squad costs only 380 MP itself, 60 MP is for the opportunity cost (deploy from buildings). The upkeep (popcap) is the one for a 380 MP squad. The reinforcement is the one for a 380 MP squad. Besides that one initial 60 MP they are a 380 MP squad.
Same for Paratroopers. Those are 6 entities with each 56 MP cost, (Riflemen are 5 entities with each 56 MP cost). 6 * 56 = 336 manpower. That's the actual value of the squad. 44MP are for the opportunity cost of them dropping out of the sky.

Why I say they overperform with upgrades? Cause already without upgrades they deal similar damage to PGrens. With the upgrades they are flat out better, even though they are cheaper.
Comparing them to Grenadiers:
As usual from 0 to 35 range in 5 range steps the DPS for the whole squads
25.49 23.19 21.48 20.14 19.03 18.08 16.84 15.79 Grenadiers + LMG42
46.24 43.69 33.80 28.80 25.72 24.67 24.70 24.67 Paras + 2 * M1919A6

Grens are 7 popcap and Paras are 9 popcap. Grens have 30 reinforcement cost and 240 value, Paras have 28 reinforcement cost and 336 value. If you divide it by value that means:
0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 DPS@range/MP LMGGren
0.14 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 DPS@range/MP M1919A6Paras

Looking at the values you see that the Paras do more damage than Grens per point manpower. Why is that problematic? Because the squad is also bigger. Usually a bigger squad should have a comparably lower damage (See gren vs Conscripts balance. Cons have less than half as much dmg as Grens, yet both squads are pretty even until LMGs).
So yes, they have a higher up front cost (~44 MP) and yes their upgrade is 120 munition. Yet those costs are really really small comparable to how great their performance is. The initial cost is usually only important in the beginning, while performance per cost is important mid/lategame, as a better performance per manpower will allow you to not only field but also sustain a stronger army (less MP upkeep, less popcap). Besides that value / worth of a squad is important for the speed at which they gain veterancy, but also for the speed others gain experience when fighting them. A better performance per MP means that the squad vets faster and gives the opponent less experience.


And just as a hint (since I guess this interests a few people) let's do the DPS per cost comparison again, but also with Obersoldaten:
0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 DPS@range/MP LMGGren
0.14 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 DPS@range/MP M1919A6Paras
0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 DPS@range/MP Obersoldaten

As you can see, Obers are the worst out of them. 10 popcap, 400 MP value. This is only DPS, they still can take a lot more damage than Grens, why they perform better than those usually, but still worse per cost than Paras.


I really hope that explanation helps to show you why I think paras are overperforming. It's off topic, but after putting so much time into writing it I felt it would be a bit of a waste to just sent it via private message. Please continue with the original DESIGN discussion after this post. If you want, open a balance thread on paratroopers to continue this discussion. Thank you.


Edit:
@Burts - It's a major difference between bringing a unit in line for performance with other infantry and nerfing it to make it useless. Right now they are hands down superior and allow for a strong lategame infantry presence. M1919A6 paras are not earlygame, but mid/lategame.

Now you want to change it to exactly the ability it is.

Vehicle crew has the same HP and the same armor and the same modifiers as Sturmpioneers.

The ability feels weak because the unit does not profit much from veterancy and since it's a 4 men squad, not 5 or 6 like many others. If you make vehicle crews gain normal bonuses from vetting, then people would get a M20, use for a while till the crew is Vet3, pur Rear Echelon inside and upgrade the squad with Thompsons. That would give them an extremely strong squad for low cost.
The upgrade itself is massive. The Thompson is better than the weapon of the Assault Engineers, but the vehicle crew is far less expensive to maintain

| | | apply_modifiers_action: {
| | | | $REF: "action\apply_modifiers_action.lua";
| | | | 0x3251A3EE: 349634;
| | | | duration: 0f;
| | | | modifiers: [
| | | | | received_accuracy_modifier: {
| | | | | | $REF: "modifiers\received_accuracy_modifier.lua";
| | | | | | application_type: "apply_to_entity";
| | | | | | exclusive: false;
| | | | | | modifier_id: "";
| | | | | | negative_tooltip: 11001782;
| | | | | | positive_tooltip: 11001783;
| | | | | | target_type_name: "";
| | | | | | usage_type: "multiplication";
| | | | | | value: 0.75f;
| | | | | };
| | | | ];
| | | | permanent: false;
| | | };

They actually have 25. Guess the changelog is wrong.

Kyle - Why do you want to nerf that ability? I thought it was underused / useless already