Profile of 5trategos

On another note this is a great article about how valve implemented some key features which made cs:go an esports success and the same formula was applied to dota 2 aswell.

How CS:GO turned itself around

CS:GO's success makes me sad. It's basically a shitty game filled with asperger-bait fluff to suck people in and keep them playing, creating and spending.

Personally, I'd prefer it if all AOE weapons had their radius increased significantly and their damage reduced drastically.

And as a rule, I would aim to reduce the damage of AOE weapons so they never wipe a full health infantry model (except some of the call-in arty).

This buzz word from Relic ''asymmetrical balance'' is used a lot on these forums. What justifies the disparity in handheld AT between the factions? What advantage in terms of dealing with tanks do the Allies have in comparison? What disadvantages do the Axis have?

USF can equip more AT but at a higher cost (more zooks are needed to get similar AT capability) and you will be giving up anti-infantry capability for this either in munitions that could be used for BARs or just giving up a rifle for a bazooka. Either way as USF you will have to spend more munitions to get comparable AT.

In regards to the Soviets, I agree to an extent. Yes mines are very useful against Axis armour but what about when you are pushing forward? Once that Axis heavy sets up in an area it will be very hard to shift it, think about as Soviet AT gun is your best option against something like the Jagdtiger. If the Jagdtiger is unsupported then yes you can flank with tanks but if there are a few schrecks around let alone a pak no dice.

Basically I would just like to know what the AT advantages of the Allies are to give Axis such a huge bonus in terms of the panzerschrecks AT capability.

I agree with you. Currently the allied factions don't have much if any advantage in AT over the axis factions. I feel like I need better micro, have better prediction and a lot of mines to break the Axis steel tide.

So what justifies the handheld AT disparity in this build? Nothing. On paper, Allies were supposed to have superior numbers and somehow that never materialized in the actual game.

What could justify it is if Allied dedicated AT was actually good. That's why I brought up allied AT guns in my previous post.

Why would this work? The short answer is, vCoh did it that way, it was satisfying and it worked.

The long answer:
For USF:
Riflemen are already strong AI units. Allowing them to upgrade with reliable AT weaponry would just create another Volks generalist monster. Generalist units in strategy games, suck. They require nothing more than a right-click-to-win mentality.

If they're introduced in a game, they need to be weak otherwise they end up spammed, like Volks.

Currently, rifles are very strong AI units and a potential soft AT deterrent. That means they need support to tackle armor (combined arms). That's a good design principle if you ask me.

If the USF AT-gun could be made to reliably penetrate super heavies (ie. better AP rounds) then:
-The AT gun would actually become useful throughout all stages of the game.
-Generalist Axis heavies (Tigers, KT and Panthers to a lesser extent) will have a reliable counter and require some combined arms of their own.

For Soviets:
As far as guards are concerned, the answer is similar to that of the riflemen. If they were better, they would be spammed because you would need less of other units. The PTRS does ok. It could see its DPS increased, but very little.

I would rather increase the Zis penetration values so they can counter heavies more reliably.

I would also increase the SU-85 turn rate.

So to conclude, I don't think handheld AT should be improved for the Allied factions because it would create strong generalist units. Improving support AT would be more beneficial to overall gameplay and balance because it promotes combined arms.

Volks with shreks are a problem that should be addressed by adjusting the DPS of Volks with shreks.

This has more to do with unit formations than the actual nade dmg.

USF nades are actually stronger but rarely score as many kills because OST and OKW unit formations are more scattered.

source

Name	Damage	DPS	Damage near	Damage far	AoE radius	AoE near	AoE far	Penetration	Range max
MK II stielgranate_grenade	80.0	64.0	1.0	0.15	3.5	0.875	2.625	25.0/25.0/25.0	20.0
Kar 98k Rifle Grenade	80.0	24.615	1.0	0.15	3.5	0.875	2.625	25.0/25.0/25.0	30.0
Mk II Frag Grenade	80.0	71.492	1.0	0.15	4.0	1.0	3.0	25.0/25.0/25.0	20.0

I agree completely with the original post's statement of the problems at hand. But I disagree with the proposed solution. Most tanks in the game feel well balanced to me with a few obvious exceptions. I think improving the supporting AT weapons against super heavies is the best way to go.

+1

It's always better to add to or improve existing counters rather than limiting options on existing units.