Login

russian armor

Infantry Sections, Cover Bonuses and Design

7 Mar 2016, 06:42 AM
#21
avatar of Krötentöten

Posts: 57

All you guys talk as if sappers with bren were able to replace tommys with brens as mainline inf.

Now I dont have the time to go into the attribute editor and check the stats myself but I have been very vividly checking any threads on the matter (for that I can do from work ☺).

And last I checked unless you are talking close range, IS with double bren still does quite a bit more dps than sappers with double bren. Due to the simple fact that in the IS you have 3 more members contributing to dps whilst the sappers far and mid range sten gun dps closes in on zero making the entire dmg come from the 2 brens. Also, once vet works again IS will get 20 % more acc on all 5 members whilst sappers dont. What am I missing? And if anyone cares to do the actual dps values with and possibly without vet, maybe they could add sappers with anvil upgrade.

Thanks in advance
7 Mar 2016, 07:09 AM
#22
avatar of varunax

Posts: 208

Heavy Engineers with brens rape obersoldatens that are upgraded with lmgs no contest. Think about that for a sec. A 210mp unit raping a 400mp T4 unit.

I wished dual equipping rear echlons with bars or .30 cal lmgs would turn them into unstoppable terminators.

But that's a whole nother issue.

IS aren't really even that bad. They are just bugged and kinda obsolete for their roles. I don't think relic ever intended infantry sections for dps. I think they were delegated for recon roles. That being said, commandos/royal eng with brens could use a nerf while buffing IS. Give them more utility (AT nades for a starter) smoke, whatever.
7 Mar 2016, 08:02 AM
#23
avatar of Krötentöten

Posts: 57

Heavy Engineers with brens rape obersoldatens that are upgraded with lmgs no contest. Think about that for a sec. A 210mp unit raping a 400mp T4 unit.

I wished dual equipping rear echlons with bars or .30 cal lmgs would turn them into unstoppable terminators.

But that's a whole nother issue.

IS aren't really even that bad. They are just bugged and kinda obsolete for their roles. I don't think relic ever intended infantry sections for dps. I think they were delegated for recon roles. That being said, commandos/royal eng with brens could use a nerf while buffing IS. Give them more utility (AT nades for a starter) smoke, whatever.


I dont mean to be rude but this seems an awfully uninformed post. Do you have the actual figures to back that up? I personaly believed based on the numbers I saw once and ingame experience that as I posted, RE and Commandos do less med and far range dps than IS with brens due to the other 3 members beeing useless. And if a triple lmg RE does beat obers than that is a on vet 0 since obers get mighty offensive and defensive vet whilst RE only get defensive and heavy engineers pay for it with the speed of a snail making them extremly vulnerable to many other sourced than inf. But as you said thats another topic. I still dont think that RE can replace IS with brens equipped, especialy not once vet works again but I would love for some1 to digg out the numbers.
7 Mar 2016, 08:31 AM
#24
avatar of Myself

Posts: 677


I dont mean to be rude but this seems an awfully uninformed post. Do you have the actual figures to back that up? I personaly believed based on the numbers I saw once and ingame experience that as I posted, RE and Commandos do less med and far range dps than IS with brens due to the other 3 members beeing useless... but I would love for some1 to digg out the numbers.


I don't mean to be rude either but I have to point out that you blame someone that they posted an "awfully uninformed" post when you seem to be doing exactly the same and asking to for someone else to dig the numbers....
Well it is rather easy to find them here:
http://www.stat.coh2.hu/index.php
7 Mar 2016, 08:33 AM
#25
avatar of Svanh

Posts: 179

All you guys talk as if sappers with bren were able to replace tommys with brens as mainline inf.

Now I dont have the time to go into the attribute editor and check the stats myself but I have been very vividly checking any threads on the matter (for that I can do from work ☺).

And last I checked unless you are talking close range, IS with double bren still does quite a bit more dps than sappers with double bren. Due to the simple fact that in the IS you have 3 more members contributing to dps whilst the sappers far and mid range sten gun dps closes in on zero making the entire dmg come from the 2 brens. Also, once vet works again IS will get 20 % more acc on all 5 members whilst sappers dont. What am I missing? And if anyone cares to do the actual dps values with and possibly without vet, maybe they could add sappers with anvil upgrade.

Thanks in advance

It's not a matter of sheer DPS as it is economic efficiency. You are correct when you say that a fully vetted and upgraded IS (5-man, dual Bren) will have significantly more long-range DPS than an equivalent RE squad (5-man, dual Bren).

An Infantry Section Bren has slightly more than double the long-range DPS of a standard IS model so dual-equipping the squad effectively adds 50% to the squad's long-range DPS. The IS vet 3 rifles add roughly 10% to DPS, for a total DPS increase of 185% (100% + 50% Brens + 10% vet 3 rifles + 25% extra man) before the 20% accuracy bonus (end total: 222%). Infantry Sections also become roughly 30% more durable with veterancy.

On the other hand, Royal Engineers have effectively no initial long-range DPS for 1.5 times the close-range DPS. A squad costs 75% of an IS squad and uses 1 less population initially. The Engineer Bren does roughly twice the long-range DPS of the scoped IS rifles for a total long-ranged DPS of 120% of an IS for a dual-equipped squad. At veterancy 3 (dual Bren, 5-man) the RE squad is roughly 50% more durable (15% more than a vet 3 IS squad) and costs 46% of an IS model to reinforce.

In addition, if you decide to go with Anvil, the Heavy Engineer upgrade adds the equivalent of an IS Bren while doubling the squad's durability for a total of 170% of the long-range DPS (120% from Engineer Brens, 50% from Vickers K), 75% of the close-range DPS (even while moving because of the Sten's 100% moving accuracy), 300% of the durability, 46% of the reinforcement cost and 1-2 less pop.

Obviously there are a few caveats here. The Heavy Engineer upgrade locks you out of the Comet and makes your engineers slower in combat (more likely to be grenaded/crushed). A single fully upgraded RE squad costs 210 manpower and 190 munitions (without marginal side upgrade costs) versus the Infantry Section's 280 and 120. At the same time, we are comparing DPS in percentages of a standard IS squad's in-cover DPS and the Heavy Engineer upgrade also significantly increases your RE's repair rate in addition to the bonus they receive with veterancy. The most obvious caveat is that these are back-of-the-envelope calculations with rough percentages.

What can we conclude from this massive over-analysis? The problem with Infantry Sections and Royal Engineers is one of scaling and optimal choices. My proposed change to the IS cover bonus would only slightly address the problems this identifies (weapon upgrades better on REs, lacklustre IS offensive veterancy, ridiculous RE veterancy reinforcement cost reductions, Heavy Engineer Terminators etc.) but would help adjust faction design to something more intuitive.

A good way to think of it is that Infantry Sections are main-line infantry if you don't have or aren't buying weapon upgrades. Past that point, Royal Engineers gradually become a better choice, depending on your munitions income/costs and your manpower supplies.
7 Mar 2016, 09:54 AM
#26
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 18

Your analysis is correct. I'll add two things, though:

1) At Vet3, Infantry sections get Scoped Enfields, which count as slot items. What does this mean? When a (dual-Bren-carrying) squad goes from 4 to 3 models, and it's a Bren-carrying model that dies, there are two possibilities:
- The squad drops the Bren
- The squad will not drop the Bren, but will be using 2 Scoped Enfields & 1 Bren

This hurts the DPS of an upgraded infantry section even more. For as long as this bug/feature exists in the game, IS will never be reliable weapon platforms.

2) Due to reasons similar to VetReinforce bug, we have not yet seen a real vetted Anvil Sapper (both the Anvil armour upgrade and Veterancy have been broken for some time -- maybe ever since Brits were released).

A neat trick to get around Heavy Sapper's innate weakness (Mobility), is to put them in a trench. If the enemy throws a grenade, you have two exits to choose from.
7 Mar 2016, 10:16 AM
#27
avatar of Krötentöten

Posts: 57

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Mar 2016, 08:33 AMSvanh

It's not a matter of sheer DPS as it is economic efficiency. You are correct when you say that a fully vetted and upgraded IS (5-man, dual Bren) will have significantly more long-range DPS than an equivalent RE squad (5-man, dual Bren).

An Infantry Section Bren has slightly more than double the long-range DPS of a standard IS model so dual-equipping the squad effectively adds 50% to the squad's long-range DPS. The IS vet 3 rifles add roughly 10% to DPS, for a total DPS increase of 185% (100% + 50% Brens + 10% vet 3 rifles + 25% extra man) before the 20% accuracy bonus (end total: 222%). Infantry Sections also become roughly 30% more durable with veterancy.

On the other hand, Royal Engineers have effectively no initial long-range DPS for 1.5 times the close-range DPS. A squad costs 75% of an IS squad and uses 1 less population initially. The Engineer Bren does roughly twice the long-range DPS of the scoped IS rifles for a total long-ranged DPS of 120% of an IS for a dual-equipped squad. At veterancy 3 (dual Bren, 5-man) the RE squad is roughly 50% more durable (15% more than a vet 3 IS squad) and costs 46% of an IS model to reinforce.

In addition, if you decide to go with Anvil, the Heavy Engineer upgrade adds the equivalent of an IS Bren while doubling the squad's durability for a total of 170% of the long-range DPS (120% from Engineer Brens, 50% from Vickers K), 75% of the close-range DPS (even while moving because of the Sten's 100% moving accuracy), 300% of the durability, 46% of the reinforcement cost and 1-2 less pop.

Obviously there are a few caveats here. The Heavy Engineer upgrade locks you out of the Comet and makes your engineers slower in combat (more likely to be grenaded/crushed). A single fully upgraded RE squad costs 210 manpower and 190 munitions (without marginal side upgrade costs) versus the Infantry Section's 280 and 120. At the same time, we are comparing DPS in percentages of a standard IS squad's in-cover DPS and the Heavy Engineer upgrade also significantly increases your RE's repair rate in addition to the bonus they receive with veterancy. The most obvious caveat is that these are back-of-the-envelope calculations with rough percentages.

What can we conclude from this massive over-analysis? The problem with Infantry Sections and Royal Engineers is one of scaling and optimal choices. My proposed change to the IS cover bonus would only slightly address the problems this identifies (weapon upgrades better on REs, lacklustre IS offensive veterancy, ridiculous RE veterancy reinforcement cost reductions, Heavy Engineer Terminators etc.) but would help adjust faction design to something more intuitive.

A good way to think of it is that Infantry Sections are main-line infantry if you don't have or aren't buying weapon upgrades. Past that point, Royal Engineers gradually become a better choice, depending on your munitions income/costs and your manpower supplies.


Thank you for your trouble! Much appreciate it. This correlates with my knowledge so far and my ingame experience. I havent tried tripple lmg RE since quite a while so was nice to see it again.

I still dont agree that they can replace IS easily.

You state that IS at vet 3 double bren have 222% of a 4 man vet 0 IS squads dps and that RE double bren have 120 % of the same. That is still a very sizeable difference. The RE are 15 % more durable as you stated due to the vet 2 rec acc modifier I assume? -23 vs -30 % if I am not mistaken as they both start with 0.8 rec acc.  So yes. They are a lot cheaper with vet 3 and they are a bit tankier. But they dish out a lot less too. The IS does 85% more so almost double for in comparison less grave loss of survivability.

A few more thoughts on this. The IS has its effectiveness as a combat squad from the get go. Improving on its combat role with every bren they aquire whilst the RE start as a cqc unit and they need the double bren to be even considered as a long/medium range dps unit, the first bren put them in an awkward position were they arent good at either. In a game you cannot afford to not have Infantry untill you have enough mun to double equip them, so what do you do? Spam snipers and vickers gradualy building RE as your munition income allows it? Build RE and use them as CQC units and suffering the consequences? Build IS and RE and slowly let the IS die of? All of these are not very satisfactory for me.

This gets even more prominent with the heavy engineers. If we ignore their flaws with the movement speed and the very grievious counter measures they are vulnerable to. They would be an acceptable side/upgrade to the IS with only marginaly less dps but a lot more surivability and again less reinforcement cost. But even more so in this case. You need 190 mun and anvil researched to reach that point. Before that they are like desrcibed above. They reach this point in a rather late part of the game by which most will already be decided.

Tldr: vet 3 hammer RE with tripple lmg is better than IS with a few exploitable weaknesses. And vet 3 double lmg RE is an ok alternative for double IS especialy as they dont drop weapons.

But both of those are a lot worse than IS on their way there which is rather important for the gameflow.
7 Mar 2016, 10:53 AM
#28
avatar of Myself

Posts: 677

XP to vet
IS RoE
480 400
960 800
1.920 1.600

If one wants to take veterancy into account, one should also consider Xp to to vet...

Also keep in mind that IS need to be in cover to have that DPS.
7 Mar 2016, 11:41 AM
#29
avatar of varunax

Posts: 208

And if a triple lmg RE does beat obers than that is a on vet 0 since obers get mighty offensive and defensive vet whilst RE only get defensive.


Oh right, I forgot that offensive vet was always working since day 1 of CoH2. But what do I know. I'm just going by numbers I saw once and my in game experiences.
7 Mar 2016, 11:46 AM
#30
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

Tommies should have half of current penalty as bonus when in cover and half of it as penalty when out of cover. That way in cover they work better than engies but out of cover worse and that is actually the intentional behaviour. That would make them better than grens with mg42 in cover but worse out of cover so that also wouldn't change them into terminators. As it is right now every squad that picks up a bren is a terminator instead...
7 Mar 2016, 14:19 PM
#31
avatar of Krötentöten

Posts: 57



Oh right, I forgot that offensive vet was always working since day 1 of CoH2. But what do I know. I'm just going by numbers I saw once and my in game experiences.


Some1's beeing salty... do you want to truly argue like that? I know that offensive vet didnt work since months and that IS and RE didnt get their devensive vet either... but that will all change on the 9th. So do you realy want to make a fuss about it now?

And the numbers thing is because I actualy did bother to look them up once, they havent changed since and I simply dont remember them by heart and cant find the time to look them up atm. Doesnt change that when I argue about a units performance its normaly built on actual knowledge and not just some random opinion and when I dont know I dont make claims but inquiries first. It is true for example that double equipped RE's are not the same strength as double equipped IS.
7 Mar 2016, 14:49 PM
#32
avatar of Spinflight

Posts: 680

"It is true for example that double equipped RE's are not the same strength as double equipped IS."


From looking at stats maybe. Same with stats showing 222% or whatever for abilities which cost you 4 minutes worth of munitions to be gifted to the nearest Ober.

Real game is different and engineers comfortably beat IS in my experience. Unless that is you are merely talking defensively, in which case you have to wonder when you are ever going to attack.
7 Mar 2016, 15:55 PM
#33
avatar of Krötentöten

Posts: 57

"It is true for example that double equipped RE's are not the same strength as double equipped IS."


From looking at stats maybe. Same with stats showing 222% or whatever for abilities which cost you 4 minutes worth of munitions to be gifted to the nearest Ober.

Real game is different and engineers comfortably beat IS in my experience. Unless that is you are merely talking defensively, in which case you have to wonder when you are ever going to attack.


Then you have a different experience from mine. How do your RE beat the IS handily? They do 85% less damage with double bren and if you strip away the brens the comparison favours the IS even more. An IS also works with only 1 bren, RE dont. I agree that stats and actual performance ingame are not the same but in this case I believe the actual difference is even bigger ingame than the stats show. I have yet to use RE effectively as mainline inf myself or have them used against me, and I was rank 1 with brits and rank 1 against brits with okw.

RE with double piat is another story...
7 Mar 2016, 16:13 PM
#34
avatar of Spinflight

Posts: 680

Because in actual usage you get a grenade to the face which chases you out of cover, or kited which means leaving cover, or closed down by a close range unit ( sturms etc) all of which means both leaving cover and suffering the Tommies wonderful moving accuracy.

REs give you a chance of wiping rather than merely driving off.

Once you drop a model, or two in the case of 5 man squads, the balance of strength becomes quite different. Granted in a defensive or purely plinking at long range scenario the IS wins out but even at my level, and I'm never going to be number 1 with the Brits, opponents don't let me do this.
9 Mar 2016, 22:08 PM
#35
avatar of Glokta

Posts: 61



You are correct about the RE Vet1 bonus.

You are incorrect, however, about the Tommy squad bonus (or did they ninja-change it last patch?). You can easily test it with PIATs in-cover and out-of-cover.


It looks like the Tommy bonus is bugged.

Guessing its a copy and paste of the RE bonus - the sten reference has been changed to the enfield.

The out of cover nerf has been put in a different branch for some reason.

If I'm reading it right the vet 1 +10 sight bonus only applies to models with an enfield and the out of cover nerf effects every weapon? Must be a bug.
9 Mar 2016, 23:05 PM
#36
avatar of Spinflight

Posts: 680

I'm not following you... How does that make it bugged? I assume you mean for the patch that went live an hour ago?
10 Mar 2016, 00:00 AM
#37
avatar of Svanh

Posts: 179

Relic's definitely been playing around with the cover bonuses. Now, all bonuses (except the sight bonuses with vet) are under squad_action_apply_ext in the unit's sbps file. The IS cover bonus is functionally unchanged but the RE bonus now applies to all weapons, not just the Sten.

The RE bonus multiplies cooldown by 0.3 and reload time by 0.5. This is on top of the functional 0.83 cooldown and 0.71 reload multipliers from not having the Infantry Section cover penalty. Not only are REs better with weapon upgrades outside of cover, they are now far better in cover as well.

Oh Relic.... -_-
Only Relic postRelic 10 Mar 2016, 01:28 AM
#38
avatar of Cuddletronic
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 559 | Subs: 18

Adding an Issue, thanks
10 Mar 2016, 14:08 PM
#39
avatar of Spinflight

Posts: 680

I always assumed the sten only part of the Engineer bonus was a bug / mistake.... Increased firepower in cover is only really useful on the defensive.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

Board Info

251 users are online: 2 members and 249 guests
comm_ash, MMX
38 posts in the last 24h
414 posts in the last week
1404 posts in the last month
Registered members: 27088
Welcome our newest member, kredyt86661
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM