Profile of elchino7

Leave politics out of the forum.

I'm a math man so nitpicking on numbers is my thing. Also, i wan't smoke retreat for the cool ninja factor and nothing else, it's the moderator who want's to swap vet bonuses.

I think you missed the point. The commandos get "cool ninja vet" because compared to ALL other infantry units, they get lower straight vet numbers.
If you want to buff Stormtroopers by giving them this ability which is specifically unique to Commandos, i don't think it's out of the mind to give them EXACTLY the same vet bonuses.

(IB4 someone appears. They are fine, but numerically they are on the lower end)

Flamers do more damage against green cover (heavy/garrison) but if you are at 10 range there is no point to stay in cover as point blank mechanic kicks in.

PD: on a 1v1 scenario.

Mandos have lower vet bonuses cus they have 1 more model. Each Model has RA 0.72. If you really wanna go as far to say make em equal then you have to make storms 5 man with 0.72 RA first then talk about choosing their vet bonuses.
PS. Do your math right.
it would be a dps loss of 7%
and RA loss of 21%

I'm talking about the difference between vet bonuses.

And accuracy translate as direct damage increase unless the accuracy value goes over 100% after taking into account the RA of the enemy unit. Therefore if you have -10% accuracy through vet, your DPS increment is reduced by that same value.

They can still be useful at vet 0 and toned down in that stage. They could start more akin to a heavier comet and scale into proper scary units, if nurtured. They would, sort of like Obers, start good, but need attention to shine. They'll still bully other units in a 1v1 but most importantly they would scale phenomenally.

The problem in comparing Vehicles with infantry is that they work in completely different categories. There is no bleed with vehicles. They also operate in more binary ways than infantry which have a more fair/predictable results in RNG outcome.
Imagine if all infantry units were like 1 model snipers and they either die or they dodge bullets.

Before derailing too much, both infantry and support weapons are less of an investment, even if we count the top tier dogs and their munition upgrades.
Compare 1-2 minutes of mp/muni income vs the mp/fuel required to get a heavy (around 10 mins for fuel).

Reminder that we have units like MGs which are supposed to scale perfectly with vet and how horrible it feels to use them post 25 mins into the game as vet0.

That was because they where tech free.


They will be needed...


I have been pointing out TDs performance for years now but I doubt that the only problem is vet penetration


I see little reason for that especially since Tiger is facing range 60 TDs and IS-2 is facing range 50 TDs.

1- Partially true. I mean in the sense that, outside Spec Ops, you didn't just stall into heavies most of the time as other factions outside of OKW tend to use more mediums into the mix which means some degree of teching.

2- It will be needed because the way they tweaked their AI performance mostly comes from how it affects wipes against full HP squads but been more reliable means more wipe against normal game conditions. This means slightly damaged squads.
But i'll rather see the effect of less rushed heavies and then tweak down from that position.

3- Vet penetration is ONE issue that could been solved easily and they are 2 units only. Which are also fine performance wise at vet0.
Changing all TDs, medium vehicles and heavies ecosystem is a far major project which i can agree on concept but not in execution.

4- Because it's easier to push a change if it's implemented fairly across the board. We don't see Tiger bullying IS2 due to 5 range disparity. I don't see the range reduction of heavies been applied if the Tiger somehow keeps it at vet 2 and not the IS2. It will also mean more heavies into the meta if every time an IS2 commander is picked, the default answer is picking a Tiger commander.