Profile of elchino7

It all started with Penal, after they got patches they where utterly broken, instead of correcting what broke them (they crazy DPS boost) they decided to keep them and replace the flamer with PTRS, by then the PTRS Penals overlapped with both guards and PTRS Conscripts so instead of removing PTRS from Penals they buffed both Guards and PTRS conscripts so that there would be a reason to build them...

I see that you like to keep this false story.

Guards were nerfed because Penals with flamers into transition into Guards were OP. Then they rollback the nerfs although the total sum of the changes was still a nerf because it was grouped up with removal across the board of cheese/QoL features.

There was never a reason to build PTRS conscripts EVER (unless you count when they used to destroy support weapons).

...

I don't think it's an issue at all. Conscripts design had always been around a "modular" approach. With commanders you give them different extra roles.

Whether it be repairs, assault (PPSH) or soft AT. The problem was that the upgrade was simply bad.

Yes, the unit get's plenty of changes, but i don't think those are changes which drastically change how you approach similar units or what you would expect from them.

We have other units with similar combinations of abilities or other upgrades which provide multiple bonus (although not as heavy as the PTRS/M40). For example Veteran squad leader (+1 man, G43, RA, cd, free medkit), Support package for PG or Pio "demolition package" (whatever is called)

Have you read what I posted? I dont want the steps but the exploit itself which was F I X E D.

Please enlighten me, if I tell you that there was some exploit which caused gren to have a shreck what would you do to replicate it? You have 0 idea right?

You narrow the variables you have to take into account.
You think about any other prior related bug.
You just start to google it.

In your hypothetical case i would start by messing around with Grenadiers, PG and Stormtroopers. Selecting all units and upgrading at the same time. Putting them inside HT or garrisons. Messing around with default or grid hotkeys. Trying around commanders which add G43/5th man to Grenadiers. Messing around with macro for high speed input. Thinking about packet delaying. Etc.

It has nothing to do with assault or moving, it has everything to do with cover making them the only infantry that doesn't exist until they touch a bush. I think it could be toned down.

They can still cap, build and act as a snare unit. There is no reason for them to be on the assault or outside cover.


There are plenty of units in the game which if they are not using cover, they lose most of it's power. Snipers get's focused easily. Ambush units leave too much to be desired if they couldn't cammo.


NOT ALL UNITS are meant to be SUITED FOR ALL PLAYERS, specially doctrinal ones. This seems to be the case of a unit which doesn't click for you and you hope to change it in detriment of most of the players who actually use them.

It can be set up by type of units. This is the case for Halftrack and officers.

5% mortars/indirect fire
10% HMGs
50% infantry
0% anything else

If i had to follow the same diagram for EFA engineers only (SP doesn't struggle vetting and USF/UKF can equip weapons, specially AT ones)

5% vehicles
10% mortars/indirect fire
50% HMGs
0% anything else including infantry

or alternative

5% vehicles
10% support weapons (not including AT guns)
0% anything else

You don't want to provide shared vet with infantry, cause then you offset the balance during the early game.
Engineers and support weapons go hand in hand. I don't think HMG provide enough vet on their own (due to how suppression mechanic works) and neither are indirect fire units able to provide enough vet early on to suddenly make vet 3 engineers.
The vehicle is purposely low due to them dealing high dmg against high value units.

2020 and we still have this conversations.

You balance with 1v1 in mind, because you can simplify the amount of elements you have to take into account.

BUT, you take into consideration what the implications might be for teamgames.

For example: if it were only for 1v1, then you would had to buff the ISU/Ele/JT cause they are barely used at all.

The best approach we have atm is having the non doctrinal roster of units mostly balanced so they can tackle down most problems on their own without requiring doctrinal options and then see whether certain commanders are breaking any specific mode.

All factions have enough commanders that you can have a variety of them working for each mode.

Finally skillwise, you NEVER BALANCE taking into account the lowest common denominator. When you dumb the game down, you just kill the game. Be it RTS or FPS.

That doesn't mean that you won't hear what those low rank guys have to say, but your solutions to their issues should come mostly in the form of QOL solutions that ease micro.

I'll give you an example from another game. Age of Empires 2.

You know what it was tedious in the original first versions before the first Conquerors expansion (IIRC or it was only on AoE1)? To have to rebuild each farm after it expired. Later on you could just put in queue several farms to get built automatically once they expired.

Or recently they put an auto scout command. It's more efficient to do it manually so you can look for your resources or your opponents base location. But after certain point in the game, you might not have the micro to do so. They just introduce a command which makes the unit explore the whole map in a predictable way.