Login

russian armor

Re-distributing the power of USF

19 Oct 2016, 01:00 AM
#1
avatar of Ulaire Minya

Posts: 372

I think it's a moot point by now that certain aspects of the USF are extremely overpowered. The rifles have what amounts to a constant light cover bonus at vet 3, the mortar snipes units like mad, and the Stuart hard-counters almost all Axis light vehicle play. In the meantime, the other units of USF see very little play.

I propose we even out the power curve somewhat by nerfing the most egregious offenders and buffing the unwanted/under performing USF units for a more balanced experience for both sides overall.

1. The Riflemen
- Remove/reduce the vet 3 bonus to match other line infantry units. Cover should not become irrelevant for infantry just because the game has gone on for a long time.
- Limit the 1919A6 to one per squad. There is no reason that squads should be able to equip two of such a powerful weapon.

2. The Mortar
- I think most of us agree that it should be replaced with the one we tested and approved. Little else to say there.
- In case that does not happen, remove the vet 1 accuracy and replace it with WP barrage. It infringes on the Pack Howie, yes, but at least it won't wipe whole squads in one go anymore.

3. The Stuart
- The Stun shot ability needs to be locked behind vet 1 at the least and only function on a penetrating hit. Being able to blind mediums and higher tonnage vehicles is absolute bonkers utility for a light vehicle.
- Possible price increase since nobody goes for nades anymore because of the mortar, causing it to hit the field extremely early.

Now the things that should be buffed to compensate in no particular order:

1. .50 Cal needs to have the same received accuracy as every other HMG team. It's suicidal to use it outside of buildings as it is now.

2. Replace the Paratrooper demo-thing with a copy-paste of the Penal satchel charge.

3. Let the P-47 loiter use its .50's on infantry. As it is right now, its mediocre performance against armor is not worth 240 munitions. The addition of the .50's would let it deal mediocre damage to infantry as well, thus helping the Airborne commander's late game.

4. Give the Greyhound the Stuart's main gun.

5. Let Assault Engineers get a 5th man at vet 2/3 to buff lategame survivability.

6. Give the 105mm Sherman the same accuracy as the Brummbar.

7. I'm fine with Riflemen taking forever to lay down mines, but the Engineers should be faster. It's part of their job.

-----------------------------------------------

That's all I can think of at the moment. Let me know your thoughts.

19 Oct 2016, 01:20 AM
#2
avatar of Antilles950
Donator 22

Posts: 168

I still don't even get why USF needs a mortar when there's a pak howitzer. It's not like USF was super weak before it got a mortar. It solved a problem that didn't exist.

I agree with most of the changes except the .50 cal. It performs pretty well rn. Its in a relatively good place as like an actual support weapon, especially in the midgame with the AP rounds.
19 Oct 2016, 01:58 AM
#3
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

1. .50 Cal needs to have the same received accuracy as every other HMG team. It's suicidal to use it outside of buildings as it is now.

Pretty sure it already does.
19 Oct 2016, 02:06 AM
#4
avatar of Ulaire Minya

Posts: 372

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Oct 2016, 01:58 AMVuther

Pretty sure it already does.

Hm I guess you're right. I was always under the impression it was more vulnerable than other weapon teams. Disregard then.:thumbsup:
19 Oct 2016, 02:32 AM
#5
avatar of Outsider_Sidaroth

Posts: 1323 | Subs: 1

Remove Mortar, buff grenades by reducing cost of using them or unlocking them, that's all I feel needs to happen.
19 Oct 2016, 02:56 AM
#6
avatar of Crumbum

Posts: 213

Mostly great suggestions however I would also buff the underused commanders more, particularly the call in inf such as ass engis, paras, and ir pathfinders/normal pathfinders. As of right now there is little incentive to use these units as riflemen already do their jobs well enough and scale better too, so a reduction in their terminator vet (maybe something small like 5/10%) would be nice. Giving rangers more utility(abilities) like from Ardennes assault and reducing their received accuracy will make them more like elite inf rather than the currently boring terminator squad that runs up and kills things.

Adjusting the many shite/overpriced abilities in usf doctrines is good also such as the forward observers, 180 muni time on target arty (when major arty is 60 lol),125 muni strafing run which is hit and miss, expensive paratrooper drop etc.



19 Oct 2016, 03:14 AM
#7
avatar of Ulaire Minya

Posts: 372

jump backJump back to quoted post19 Oct 2016, 02:56 AMCrumbum
Mostly great suggestions however I would also buff the underused commanders more, particularly the call in inf such as ass engis, paras, and ir pathfinders/normal pathfinders. As of right now there is little incentive to use these units as riflemen already do their jobs well enough and scale better too, so a reduction in their terminator vet (maybe something small like 5/10%) would be nice. Giving rangers more utility(abilities) like from Ardennes assault and reducing their received accuracy will make them more like elite inf rather than the currently boring terminator squad that runs up and kills things.

Adjusting the many shite/overpriced abilities in usf doctrines is good also such as the forward observers, 180 muni time on target arty (when major arty is 60 lol),125 muni strafing run which is hit and miss, expensive paratrooper drop etc.




If memory serves Mr. Smith's mod did a lot to buff underused/underwhelming commanders.
19 Oct 2016, 03:29 AM
#8
avatar of miragefla
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13

1. Simply reduce the power of veterancy 3 by 5%. Rifles need to be strong once we remove the double LMGs because it's the only USF core combat infantry outside of doctrines unless you're attempting some sort of RE strat. Furthermore they need to get into a mid-short to be most effective.

Grenadiers for Ostheer are never going to hold the line themselves, that's just how they are when you factor in they lack durability and their weapons don't deal consistent DPS, relying on those more RNG slow-firing rifle shots unlike MGs and ARs. They are utility and long-range DPS troops by mid-late game with other units supporting.

The real infantry damage dealers are PGs who only need part of their vet 2 survivability at vet 1 and a need veterancy 1 ability in general. Once that changes, they'll probably stomp Riflemen except at the long-range engagements since their RA would be 0.568 vs the 0.635 of Rifles after the nerf and StGs are on-par or better than the BAR at shorter ranges (Also fix their reinforce on weapon teams plz).

Volksgrenadier need some veterancy tuning as they have some very wonky things like very very low RA bonuses making their survivability miserable low where they can't utilize those DPS bonuses. Obersoldaten come too late, though if Obers do get veterancy they eat even vetted Rifles.

2. Use the CE mortar and adjust if that's too powerful.

The unit should have been unique by making it faster to set-up/tear down and having probably the best rate of fire out of all mortars, but suffer from poor damage and range meaning it needs time to uproot and its not something used to knock down buildings unlike the pack howitzer.

Adjust its veterancy to match other mortars and give WP or something for Vet 1.

USF could use the mortar as grenades are honestly a terrible way to clear garrisons aside from knocking it down and that only works in EF maps because wooden buildings are terrible. Only flame grenades are good at actually stopping people from jumping back in. One could use smoke, to lock off a garrison, but the units will still be there.

3. Tone down its AI potential and maybe adjust stun to only lock the gun and sight with a slight movement penalty. Reinforce its role rather than being a generalist that can also shutdown armour.

It's a light vehicle hunter with utility to support against tank assaults. There's no reason it should be a decent AI platform that can one-hit 1-2 models. The nerf to AI would also make Captain less appealing and LT tech is not that bad vs other lights, only suffering due to how stupidly cheap 222s are.

----

For all other changes and my opinions, see my CE patch notes on my thoughts.


If memory serves Mr. Smith's mod did a lot to buff underused/underwhelming commanders.


I believe that was me :P
19 Oct 2016, 06:55 AM
#9
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3504 | Subs: 1

1- What Miragefla said

2- Replace mortar with doctrinal flamethrower from Rifle company, put it behind CP1 if you want.

3- What Miragefla said
19 Oct 2016, 08:23 AM
#10
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4474

Nerf:
1 good but if we remove 2 lmg what Ming said is fine

2 mortar should be a 60 mm 60 range 240 mp copy of the su mortar with flare at vet 1

3 Stuart need to cost more mp (thoghether with all LT) and remove blind

Buff
1 buff the penetrating round damage to 300% not 100%

2 good

3 airborne has a lot of ai just make p-47 fire 4 rockets and in a tighter area so it hit the target

4 just give the ai ap round

5-6-7 good

I would suggest
8 reduce pack howy mp to 340 and pop cap to 9 to so people will not cry for the lack of indirect fire

9 buff Scot range by 10/20 and give it heat barrage at vet 2

19 Oct 2016, 08:28 AM
#11
avatar of Finndeed
Strategist Badge

Posts: 612 | Subs: 1

Who would put one lmg on a rifle squad when the rest of its members are only good at medium or close? I think we should keep the ability to double equip USF squads, but maybe reduce the effectiveness of the squad in another way.

Reducing the received accuracy is already one way, but how about we slow the squad down if they equip a second lmg? (like the RE's with an lmg) This would make them more vulnerable to indirect fire, tanks and simply being outflanked. They would be forced into a defensive role. You could also argue that it makes sense because all that equipment and ammo would be heavy...

OR reduce accuracy of the squad if they equip more than one lmg (or maybe more than one weapon at all)? That probably should apply to zooks...

or simply make the lmg less powerful. (By doing this you would make it mandatory to equip two to make the squad effective so you would force the USF player into floating up to 140 muni for one squad worth of upgrades, another indirect nerf).

What i am saying is that there are many creative ways to address a problem that doesn't mean taking away one of the main features separating USF from other factions. I don't think I would ever touch an lmg again as USF if I could only equip one because then I would be facing lmgGrens and obers head to head and I would always come off worse.
19 Oct 2016, 08:51 AM
#12
avatar of robertmikael
Donator 11

Posts: 311

Why cant we have some kind of teching for the second LMG-slot for the riflemen? Then the USF-player can't instantly equip the rifleman with 2 LMGs.
19 Oct 2016, 09:29 AM
#13
avatar of insaneHoshi

Posts: 911

Who would put one lmg on a rifle squad when the rest of its members are only good at medium or close?


Erm RM are good at long range too. They are equal to Grens (who have 1 less man) and are only outclassed by Obers and fals.
19 Oct 2016, 12:54 PM
#14
avatar of Finndeed
Strategist Badge

Posts: 612 | Subs: 1



Erm RM are good at long range too. They are equal to Grens (who have 1 less man) and are only outclassed by Obers and fals.


Is this actually true? Given accuracy, received accuracy, rate of fire and damage are they actually equal? Then given vet do they remain equal? At long to max range?

If so why do Grens do so much better when the rifles sit at range vs them?
19 Oct 2016, 13:19 PM
#15
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561



Is this actually true? Given accuracy, received accuracy, rate of fire and damage are they actually equal? Then given vet do they remain equal? At long to max range?

If so why do Grens do so much better when the rifles sit at range vs them?

Well for starters, the mg42 will give them the long range advantage over a rifle with a bar.

There's also smaller things like the smaller unit size better fitting Into cover and their grenades being able to be used without leaving cover which will usually force rifles to need to do more then engage long range from cover.
19 Oct 2016, 13:22 PM
#16
avatar of Mirdarion

Posts: 283


1. The Riflemen
- Remove/reduce the vet 3 bonus to match other line infantry units. Cover should not become irrelevant for infantry just because the game has gone on for a long time.
- Limit the 1919A6 to one per squad. There is no reason that squads should be able to equip two of such a powerful weapon.

2. The Mortar
- I think most of us agree that it should be replaced with the one we tested and approved. Little else to say there.
- In case that does not happen, remove the vet 1 accuracy and replace it with WP barrage. It infringes on the Pack Howie, yes, but at least it won't wipe whole squads in one go anymore.


All double weapon upgrades should go. On Riflemen the reason is pretty simple: They are borderline OP without them, and completely bonkers with them. On the other hand, same goes for all weapons upgrades (except for those that are meant to change the way certain squads work, e.g. Volksgren upgrade, Conscripts with their PPSh), including PzGrens and their double Schreck.

The mortar in and of itself poses a problem: Not to mention that it is another source of smoke for USF, further negating any combined arms play that Ostheer has to rely on (even in the case the mortar is nerfed to adequate levels), it directly exchanges the fuel and ammo investment in grenades into a manpower investment. This is where most of the current problems come from: The Stuart arrives way too early thanks to that, and large amounts of double-BAR equipped Riflemen are only possible, because the mandatory ammo drain through grenades can be shut off. This problem exists regardless of the mortar's capability, and should be addressed by either locking the mortar behind side tech (ugly solution IMO) or by removing it and adjusting grenades properly (less powerful, but significantly cheaper, allowing a more constant usage for example, although other ways come to mind as well).


Grenadiers for Ostheer are never going to hold the line themselves, that's just how they are when you factor in they lack durability and their weapons don't deal consistent DPS, relying on those more RNG slow-firing rifle shots unlike MGs and ARs. They are utility and long-range DPS troops by mid-late game with other units supporting.

The real infantry damage dealers are PGs who only need part of their vet 2 survivability at vet 1 and a need veterancy 1 ability in general. Once that changes, they'll probably stomp Riflemen except at the long-range engagements since their RA would be 0.568 vs the 0.635 of Rifles after the nerf and StGs are on-par or better than the BAR at shorter ranges (Also fix their reinforce on weapon teams plz).




The problem in your assumption is, that combined arms play of Ostheer works. Well, the game shows us that it doesn't. Mobile units are heavily favoured, despite some initial bleed (which is completely negated in the Ostheer/USF-matchup, due to the huge differences in reinforcement costs), while stationary units always come in behind. The stationary player also can't properly counterplay without a significantly bigger manpower and micro investment, which in turn is always easily countered in some way by USF, mostly through their easy access to smoke.

The second problem here is that PzGrens are too expensive to form a significant part of a diversified Ostheer army, both in terms of initial cost and reinforcement cost (a follow-up of Relic making them cost as much as elite infantry without them performing like elite infantry). Not to mention that they plough into the same groove as HMGs did before: They are the second necessary unit to fight a single hostile one, and they don't even properly succeed when fighting the way you claim they should fight. They come in when most Riflemen units should sit at a comfy advantage of at least vet1 (meaning they will get to their meaty bonuses soon if they haven't already).
And what about a player that actually decides to forgo the Panzerschreck upgrade on them? Right, he will rarely reach those necessary veterancy bonuses, because their experience levels are completely off the rails. Vet3 on PzGrens takes over twice the experience to reach than on Riflemen (2720 points vs. 1120) - for comparison, when I looked over the experience levels of all infantry, I couldn't find another squad that had a similarly steep experience-level curve (and no Allied infantry unit that even came close in veterancy requirements, except Soviet Shock Troops). That needs to be addressed as well, or all your efforts in making the above match-up work through veterancy bonuses will simply not work.



What i am saying is that there are many creative ways to address a problem that doesn't mean taking away one of the main features separating USF from other factions. I don't think I would ever touch an lmg again as USF if I could only equip one because then I would be facing lmgGrens and obers head to head and I would always come off worse.


While your idea is quite a good one, I can't agree with that last paragraph. If you're going with one BAR against LMG 42-equipped Grens, you are still significantly better off at all times, except at maximum range. It won't however be a situation, in which you can basically negate the range advantage Grens have, thus allowing Grens to, rather less than more, work in some way. Currently, with two BARs there isn't a single drastic difference in performance at any range (the numbers I recently posted in the weapon-racks discussion are not the basis here, elchino7 postet a spreadsheet with what he claimed to be accurate DPS numbers). Riflemen with only one BAR still massively outdamage Grens at close range (range 0: 48,24 DPS w/ 2 BARs, 41,02 DPS w/ 1 BAR vs. Grens's 23,61 DPS w/ LMG 42), while becoming more vulnerable at long range (range 35: 13,77 DPS w/ 2 BARs, 11,06 DPS w/ 1 BAR, vs. Grens 15,99 DPS).
This effect could of course also be achieved by making the BAR (and the M1919, which is also an offender here, although it is limited through its doctrinal appearance) less potent, but then the usual question would arise why these weapons cost as much as their German counterparts without being more effective.

Why cant we have some kind of teching for the second LMG-slot for the riflemen? Then the USF-player can't instantly equip the rifleman with 2 LMGs.


Because that wouldn't in any way solve the underlying problem: Axis infantry stops working during the late game against especially USF, because USF infantry simply rolls over them in any scenario.
19 Oct 2016, 13:33 PM
#17
19 Oct 2016, 13:41 PM
#18
avatar of robertmikael
Donator 11

Posts: 311

Because that wouldn't in any way solve the underlying problem: Axis infantry stops working during the late game against especially USF, because USF infantry simply rolls over them in any scenario.

There are of course many possible options to deal with this: 1) Changing squad formation for the Axis infantry 2) Doing something to the riflemen veterancy 3) Doing something to the riflemen weapon slots. I think that doing these things, does at least make the Axis infantry lite better against the USF in the late game.
19 Oct 2016, 13:48 PM
#19
avatar of Mirdarion

Posts: 283


There are of course many possible options to deal with this: 1) Changing squad formation for the Axis infantry 2) Doing something to Riflemen veterancy 3) Doing something to Riflemen weapon slots. I think that doing these things, does at least make the Axis infantry lite better against the USF in the late game.


The first option doesn't have anything to do with the problem at hand (it would of course be still welcome, due to the higher vulnerability of smaller squads to explosives).
And weapon slots are not what I am going against here, I would prefer a solution where picking up more weaponry from the field should still be possible as some kind of reward (although my position with this probably goes against what many here want, as it is basically the same mechanic as with abandoned vehicles).

Riflemen veterancy needs a rework, that much is clear in general. But even with that rework, the problem of double upgrades in general remains. This applies to all of them, PzGrens with their double Schreck, Tommies with the double Brens, but most jarringly of course to Riflemen with double BARs (most jarringly because the second BAR basically removes all weaknesses Riflemen had compared to other infantry). If all of these double upgrades were to go, the game would be much better off.
19 Oct 2016, 13:53 PM
#20
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17



Riflemen veterancy needs a rework, that much is clear in general. But even with that rework, the problem of double upgrades in general remains. This applies to all of them, PzGrens with their double Schreck, Tommies with the double Brens, but most jarringly of course to Riflemen with double BARs (most jarringly because the second BAR basically removes all weaknesses Riflemen had compared to other infantry). If all of these double upgrades were to go, the game would be much better off.


A single schreck is good enough vs tanks (that's the equivalent of 2 bazookas). Double schrecks on 4-men squads is an overkill; and that's for a purpose.

Forced double-schrecks on PGrens is actually a nerf that is necessary to keep their power in check. Their STGs are comparable to riflemen BARs (though, obviously, worse).

If you had blob made out of squads with 3 STGs and a schreck each, you would trivially a-move your way to victory, every single game.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

Canada 3
unknown 1

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag shadics ARG.
  • U.S. Forces flag TüMe
  • Ostheer flag The101stAirBorne
  • Ostheer flag Clororaa
uploaded by TüMe

Board Info

236 users are online: 1 member and 235 guests
Crecer13
8 posts in the last 24h
162 posts in the last week
759 posts in the last month
Registered members: 37473
Welcome our newest member, AquaGlam
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM