Profile of elchino7

Want to test the old 280 Penal with flamers and Ourah vs the current ones?

Because after the number of nerfs they have received I doubt they are more cost efficient (in AI at least).

As you say the problem was the tier 1 (and with fact that maxims where OP) and imo not Penal themselves.

Old 270Penal with flamer and Oorah were still bad because you end up with a tier with no AT and NO SNARE, you lose map control for a unit which does not provide much more than a combat engineer with flamer. Once upon a time, the only redeeming quality of them was that their flamer would not explode randomly and power level of random crit on flamers. That's no longer the case. So no, 270 Penals were crap, specially on a tier with so much focus on cheese (AI).

I'm surprised you consider them weaker AI wise, when they have vet 1 and improved SVT BASE. Scaling was reduced, they are more expensive and take longer to build/reinforce but that doesn't reduce their AI.
Old vanilla Penals would have no place against current vanilla Volks.

The changes was done simultaneously in the 21 June patch, there was not time with 280 Penal and VG ST44. The patch basically redesign both Soviet and OKW while also buffing USF with the moratrs among other thing . (Let me not forget the buff in brumbar).

1- Again, how a unit which was not used in a serious way previously would magically see use after OKW rework.
2- Keep mentioning the USF mortar, but that was a huge mess up by Relic by releasing a non tested SINGLE PLAYER/Campaign mortar instead of the one tested in the preview patches. On top of "fixing/screwing" ALL mortars by modifying the AA with vet (which used to only apply to barrages).

Maybe Soviet would have such a hard time if the VG did not not actually gotten their St44 in the first place and ended up losing their veterancy as result.

Or even the USF would be so weak at start that they would need a tech redesing, (soon to be followed be UKF redesign probably).

USF decline came slowly progressively. It was not an issue with the OKW rework, but small incremental nerf towards the shock early game units.

The is no ill intent, I have not blamed anyone. The fact is Guards clearly perform better compared to prerior to June 21 patch and have clearly moved away from prepatch role of "jack of all trades master of none". The main reason for it was the fixing of dancing around since Guards never showed their true potential before that fix.

Now when Penal become an 300 elite infantry with PTRS, Guards (also with PTRS) took the role an even more elite infantry, thus Guards where raised to their current level because of Penals, which in return made Shock look even worse by comparison to Guards (or even to the buffed PPsh conscripts).

Dancing didn't impede them to be good at all. Since i played mostly T1 clowncar strats, Guards were the defacto main line infantry once you had enough CPs.

I'll quote you again.
"Let me explain how this has worked so far. People complained that Soviet always went for maxims, so they decided to buff Penals, but then they had to buff Guards, but now they have to buff Shock and now you want to buff conscripts. Then will have to buff the maxim again because nobody is using it...and so on."

THEY NERFED GUARDS. Follow the footsteps. Increased accuracy PTRS was prior to Penal first rework. MARCH update was when they gave them Penals PTRS, which also nerfed Guards.
So they didn't RAISE anything. At most they lower it, cause in general, several things were tone down in level.

I have not claimed Shock are fine I simply pointed out that increasing their DPS is not a step in the right direction since their main issues is bleed and not lack of DPS. In addition turning PPSh into Thompson is also a step in the wrong direction when there are alternatives.

Another issue shock troops have is the high lethality of infantry as we have debated in the other thread which affects most QCQ infantry.

That's not what you comment before.

I have not written a single bad word against anyone who is involved in patching the game, on the contrary I have defended them and prized them in every occasion, even when I completely disagree with a change. I sure that people involved in the patches are trying to improve the game according to their own vision that might be different than mine.

Any and all comment I make about patch changes, are my personal feedback/opinion on how to improve the game. Nothing more.

Problem comes from what you are implying. Whether you do it on purpose or not.

Couldn't agree more. Probably an unpopular opinion here but I feel like infantry combat was best.... When vet wasn't working. Maybe vet as a whole needs to be toned down so we have less bulletproof terminators and sticking to cover is important all game long or bleed like a stuck pig...

HMmm but squads were terminators because defensive bonuses were applying and the offensive ones were the one's lost due to the bug. This is why conscript felt "fine" cause they were not bleeding as much. People didn't notice it because the jump on the DPS was done through weapon upgrades or Elites and most of the bleed late game came through AoE or tanks.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/84014/usf-tech-changes-mod-changelog

Time to test and provide feedback.

In addition it a separate face of the game that can be balanced separately than other phases of the game.



I already have mentioned some:
1) Weapon categories.
As I explained weapon categories allow users to have feel on how to use units without having to memorizes stats

2) Relative positioning
Squads designed to excel at certain ranges allow players to make tactical decision to influence the out come of fight.

3) Lower lethality
Fight that do not end in second so that player actually have time to give their input.

But it can't? I mean, infantry doesn't fight isolated from other units. Rifles don't fight Volks alone. They fight Volks, a SP and possible a Kubel. Depending on how fast tech is, there can be an MG on the mix. Same with any of the other factions.

1-If you told me this 3.5 years ago, sure. All the new factions added more exceptions which end up been the norm later. And it's not like this is the case for the rest of the weapons nowadays.

2/3- That also applies to generalist as well. Look at Falls. They fight at range against CQC. They excel at mid. They can fight at CQC against LMg.
You could argue that a long range unit only wants to fight at long range and a CQC unit wants to only close the gap.
Lower lethality also means cover position doesn't matter, favouring CQC units. If i don't get punished by moving out of cover, i might as well as rush you with a blob. We had low lethality when the game release. Nowadays it's impossible to go back, unless you want to nerf 80% of the unit roster.

Not really the majority of mainline infantry remained the same for years.
Grenadiers, Riflemen and Conscripts have only saw minor changes even up to now.

That is a strong indication that thing where about right as far as early infantry play was concern.

The balance of the game as hole is rather irrelevant to early game infantry play.

I am not suggesting to return to the past, I suggesting to make use what was learned in the past as guideline for improving the game.

Power level of main line infantry changes according to the different units revolving around them. It's not just about engages on the early game, it's also about how the investment on those unit will have a repercussion through out the game.

-Grenadiers are the ones which saw the least of changes (pop and rifle grenade adjustment), even if the biggest change was more generally applied (squad formation).
-Conscripts were reworked. Oorah, flare, molotov, vet, pop and their weapon profile.
-Riflemen saw changes to scaling. Most popular commander got nerfed (Elite and flamer) as well as bulletin stacking (triple +10% vet gaining). Bar/1919 saw changes. Smoke grenades were removed.

If you only care about early game infantry play, then it's just shortsighted. If you only care about infantry play, it's just shortsighted. MG, indirect and light vehicles all play a role in the early game.

Even if you care about only early game infantry engagements without taking into account any other unit (vacuum is bad if we talk about balance), the only balanced match was Conscript vs Grenadiers. If grenadiers vs Riflemen was balanced, OH wouldn't had received a T0 MG42, a buffed pio and an increased starting mp. In contrast, USF wouldn't had received a mortar, smoke wouldn't had been removed from them, offensive scaling wouldn't had been tone down nor their light shock units or officers nerfed down.

I am not suggesting to return to the past, I suggesting to make use what was learned in the past as guideline for improving the game.

And what should that be? Cause all that fancy word about weapon profiles didn't reflect INGAME nor the early game infantry play was balanced.