Login

russian armor

Riflemen need a buff or Volks need a nerf?

PAGES (13)down
10 Aug 2019, 20:52 PM
#121
avatar of Jilet

Posts: 400






that a crap argument where only the soviet have 6 man at gun and only 1 of them is viable and cost 320mp vs the low cost of a raketen that can just camo and scout and since allies armor isnt great i dont see the problem with the fact it miss a little more after all usf need to pay ammo to make there at work at peak performance


No it is not. Survivability is a key factor in every single unit. I didn't meant it is underpowered/overpowered etc. Just saying it.

So keep your "crap" mouth to yourself.
10 Aug 2019, 20:56 PM
#122
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 1096 | Subs: 1



No?

At maximum range (35), the Rifle's Garand has ~1.7dps, the M1919 has 8.76dps
4 x 1.7 + 8.76 = 15.56dps at 35 range

At maximum range (35), the Gren's K98k has ~2.26dps, the LGM42 has 8.93dps
3 x 2.26 + 8.93 = 15.71dps at 35 range

Riflemen have 5x 80hp, or a 400hp effective pool
Grens have 4x 80hp, or a 320hp effective pool

400hp/15.71dps = 25.4sec
320/15.56dps = 20.6sec

Rifles at max range w/ M1919 are 19% stronger than Grens w/ LMG42.

This doesn't take into account that for each model lost, grens lose 33% of their K98k damage, vs. 25% for Rifle's Garand. Also note that this becomes more in favor of Rifles the closer you get: The LMG42 stays around 0.2-0.3dps ahead at all ranges, but the 4x Garands fill in that DPS difference at range 25. On top of that, Rifle's have far, far better vet bonuses.

Honest question:
Are these corrected for RA? I thought that vet0 Grens had a bit less than 1.
Not that it completely changes the outcome, but that's an easy correction to do.
10 Aug 2019, 20:59 PM
#123
avatar of Jilet

Posts: 400


Honest question:
Are these corrected for RA? I thought that vet0 Grens had a bit less than 1.
Not that it completely changes the outcome, but that's an easy correction to do.


Just tested it with cheat commands mod. He's right.
10 Aug 2019, 21:01 PM
#124
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4340


First, this thread is about the Riflemen/Volk balance. This topic will touch other mainlines, but it has been fully derailed into a Grenadier discussion with MG42 and 50 cal comparisons, while you now try to go for IS for some reason. Far off the mark. If you want to discuss Grenadier balance, open another thread.

So I will just adress these points very briefly.
As OST you can't skip T1 unless you play call in infantry which are assault grenadiere (they get a nade) or Osttruppen (they get a faust after T1 or T2 is build). Previous discussion was about USF, not UKF. Comparing to UKF as a faction with balance issues is a good way to create more balance issues. Still my argument holds true. There's also issues with your argumentation, just a few: Side tech delays your medium, regardless of when it would usually come out. If your opponent rushed a medium, there is no reason for you to get T2. UKF is designed that they need to side tech their infantry and they need it to stay competitive infantry wise mid/late game. Cromwell is by far worse than the OST P4 for 10 fu less and can be controlled more easily due to the availability of OST snares.

50 cal:
The 50 cal has decent stats (not sure about accuracy though, I will assume it's similar) and I never doubted that. Also the DhsK has the best MG stats in the game, even before the buff. Still it was not build due to bad arch. The most important thing is that the MG42 will usually suppress in one single burst. More suppression than that is initially not needed for area controll. But what is needed is a bigger arch to also suppress the squad that tries to flank. I'm not saying that the 50 cal has no merits, but the majority of players (including me) would gladly give up any MG for an MG42. Also the 50 cal needs some minor AT options because otherwise USF has next to no vehicle control beside AT rifle grenades on vetted Riflemen, one single bazooka on the officer and shitty 10 mun light mines. Literally that's it. Unless you side tech and delay your medium (see above).

Putting words in anyones mouth is shady and horrible discussion style. It's still no excuse for insults. Call him out on that bullshit and I'm all in for some reasonable mockery and fun on the forums, but there's a fine line between mockery and insult and in my opinion you and some others crossed it or are too close to crossing it here. Keep things civil.
it was not me that brought up the green here u can see who it was (guess who :snfPeter: )

the Cromwell loses 20 armor for 10 more fuel, and is much faster, don't know why u would say it's much worse, its perfectly fine for it's price as p4 is

again ost skip both tier 1 and 2 ukf skips side techs and they will reach tier 3 at the same time

more suppression matter when cover is added to the mix, yellow cover too as it makes miss shoots, and again set-up time is near instant u can A move it or re set up if u are getting flanked


i asked if he smoked or was drunk, cause he was writing thing that were not here in the thread, is it an insult now ?
10 Aug 2019, 21:03 PM
#125
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4340


Honest question:
Are these corrected for RA? I thought that vet0 Grens had a bit less than 1.
Not that it completely changes the outcome, but that's an easy correction to do.
they have 0.91 but rifle have 0.97 pretty much even if we hard trslate it in 6% less dps for rifle it would still be rifle advantage
10 Aug 2019, 21:08 PM
#126
avatar of 13greed47

Posts: 54

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Aug 2019, 20:52 PMJilet


No it is not. Survivability is a key factor in every single unit. I didn't meant it is underpowered/overpowered etc. Just saying it.

So keep your "crap" mouth to yourself.




like i said apart from 2 at gun all the others are 4man aswell and dont have retreat or cloak baseline so sorry but rak as way better surviability than the other at gun imo
10 Aug 2019, 21:08 PM
#127
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 1096 | Subs: 1


i asked if he smoked or was drunk, cause he was writing thing that were not here in the thread, is it an insult now ?

Yes, in this context it absolutely is and you know that.


I'm not gonna reply to the other stuff to not further derail the topic away from Rifles and Volks. We can discuss in PM or find another suitable thread/open up a new one because there seems to be broader interest.
10 Aug 2019, 21:09 PM
#128
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4340






that a crap argument where only the soviet have 6 man at gun and only 1 of them is viable and cost 320mp vs the low cost of a raketen that can just camo and scout and since allies armor isnt great i dont see the problem with the fact it miss a little more after all usf need to pay ammo to make there at work at peak performance

it lacks the at gun shield that sometimes bounce the shot on it, worse accuracy , projectile will hit world objects,-10 range, it's much less safe vs tanks than inf thanks to all this factors

what do u mean worse armor ?
10 Aug 2019, 21:12 PM
#129
avatar of Jilet

Posts: 400





like i said apart from 2 at gun all the others are 4man aswell and dont have retreat or cloak baseline so sorry but rak as way better surviability than the other at gun imo


It doesn't have the "reverse" either tho thus it needs to take a full turn for soft retreats or repositioning. For soviets 6 man , for usf 5 man, for ukf 5 man which all help survive a grenade and prevent your precious at gun to be stolen yet you are right about this is a small issue (no jokes).
10 Aug 2019, 21:14 PM
#130
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4340

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Aug 2019, 21:12 PMJilet


It doesn't have the "reverse" either tho thus it needs to take a full turn for soft retreats or repositioning. For soviets 6 man , for usf 5 man, for ukf 5 man which all help survive a grenade and prevent your precious at gun to be stolen yet you are right about this is a small issue (no jokes).
no dude do actually play the game ?
10 Aug 2019, 21:21 PM
#131
avatar of Jilet

Posts: 400

no dude do actually play the game ?


I was probably too high at that moment to actually think both as the pack howi. Jeez my bad.

13greed47 Sorry pal looks like i really made some absurd agruments without thinking.
10 Aug 2019, 21:24 PM
#132
avatar of Riley

Posts: 208



No?

At maximum range (35), the Rifle's Garand has ~1.7dps, the M1919 has 8.76dps
4 x 1.7 + 8.76 = 15.56dps at 35 range

At maximum range (35), the Gren's K98k has ~2.26dps, the LGM42 has 8.93dps
3 x 2.26 + 8.93 = 15.71dps at 35 range

Riflemen have 5x 80hp, or a 400hp effective pool
Grens have 4x 80hp, or a 320hp effective pool

400hp/15.71dps = 25.4sec
320/15.56dps = 20.6sec

Rifles at max range w/ M1919 are 19% stronger than Grens w/ LMG42.

This doesn't take into account that for each model lost, grens lose 33% of their K98k damage, vs. 25% for Rifle's Garand. Also note that this becomes more in favor of Rifles the closer you get: The LMG42 stays around 0.2-0.3dps ahead at all ranges, but the 4x Garands fill in that DPS difference at range 25. On top of that, Rifle's have far, far better vet bonuses.


Send me a video where the grenadiers against rifleman with lmg. Without a vet and with a vet. Also consider veteran requirements. Who gets the vet faster?

Even if the arrows win, leaving behind one living model. This will be considered at least a fair, or acceptable result. Because m1919 is more expensive, and it is in the doctrine. In any case, it should be better.

But it turns out, weapons are more expensive - but worse.
10 Aug 2019, 21:39 PM
#133
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4340

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Aug 2019, 21:24 PMRiley


Send me a video where the grenadiers against rifleman with lmg. Without a vet and with a vet. Also consider veteran requirements. Who gets the vet faster?

Even if the arrows win, leaving behind one living model. This will be considered at least a fair, or acceptable result. Because m1919 is more expensive, and it is in the doctrine. In any case, it should be better.

But it turns out, weapons are more expensive - but worse.
u can do ur test, he already proved it with math, the burden of proof is on u now, try doing 100 test for a more reliable way too, nobody here is ur slave

guess the ability to equip it to more than just rifle and be able to add bar or zook to it value nothing to ya right ? so u wouldn't mind removing that feature to have it cost 60 munition and have same performance ?
10 Aug 2019, 21:53 PM
#137
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 899


Honest question:
Are these corrected for RA? I thought that vet0 Grens had a bit less than 1.
Not that it completely changes the outcome, but that's an easy correction to do.


they have 0.91 but rifle have 0.97 pretty much even if we hard trslate it in 6% less dps for rifle it would still be rifle advantage


No, I actually missed that. Thanks for pointing it out. Factoring in Gren's 0.91ra and Rifle's 0.97ra:

(400hp / 0.97ra)/15.71dps = 412.37hp/15.71dps = 26.25sec
(320hp / 0.91ra)/15.56dps = 351.65hp/15.56dps = 22.60sec

Rifles still win, but by about 5% less.

It also assumes for exactly even damage spread across all models, so it's not a perfect calculation, either. I could factor in model loss, but it would probably be more effort than actually just testing it in-game. It might be worth while making a formula, though, for quick iteration.

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Aug 2019, 21:24 PMRiley
Send me a video where the grenadiers against rifleman with lmg. Without a vet and with a vet. Also consider veteran requirements. Who gets the vet faster?

Even if the arrows win, leaving behind one living model. This will be considered at least a fair, or acceptable result. Because m1919 is more expensive, and it is in the doctrine. In any case, it should be better.

But it turns out, weapons are more expensive - but worse.


You can easily test this yourself. LMG42 grens vs. M1919 Rifles, vet 0, neutral cover, at near-maximum range results in rifles winning by a fair bit (3-4 models).

With vet, it should fall slightly further into Rifle's favor. Vet 3 vs. Vet 3, Rifles gain -38% ra vs. Grens - 23%, +30% accuracy vs. Grens +40%, and -20% weapon cooldown (which grens don't get at all). I have no idea on the actual vet numbers though; I can't seem to find those.
10 Aug 2019, 21:58 PM
#138
avatar of Stug life

Posts: 4340

10 Aug 2019, 22:03 PM
#139
avatar of Serrith

Posts: 448


50 cal:
The 50 cal has decent stats (not sure about accuracy though, I will assume it's similar) and I never doubted that. Also the DhsK has the best MG stats in the game, even before the buff. Still it was not build due to bad arch. The most important thing is that the MG42 will usually suppress in one single burst. More suppression than that is initially not needed for area controll. But what is needed is a bigger arch to also suppress the squad that tries to flank.


Prior to the latest nerf, the DSHK was built a ton. It was the main reason land lease was picked so much even after the 76mm shermans were locked behind tech.
Part of that was the fact the maxim was/is underperforming and part of it was how ridiculous the DSHK was despite it's even worse arc.


The extra arc on the mg42 is useful no doubt if you plan to just stick it in a corner and leave it there, but the faster setup time and at least on par suppression of the 50 cal means it is a far more flexible weapon both on offense and on defense. The two drawbacks to it are the tech requirements and the deathloop.

If there was an mg42 and a 50cal next to each other on the ground, which would I pick... I'd sac my squad and take both.
-on a serious note it's more situation dependent mg42 is only better if its camping a spot covering as many points of entry as possible. Since my multitasking and unit management are crap that can be useful to me but less so in the hands of someone more capable.
10 Aug 2019, 22:23 PM
#140
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 1096 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Aug 2019, 22:03 PMSerrith


Prior to the latest nerf, the DSHK was built a ton. It was the main reason land lease was picked so much even after the 76mm shermans were locked behind tech.
Part of that was the fact the maxim was/is underperforming and part of it was how ridiculous the DSHK was despite it's even worse arc.

[...]

-on a serious note it's more situation dependent mg42 is only better if its camping a spot covering as many points of entry as possible. Since my multitasking and unit management are crap that can be useful to me but less so in the hands of someone more capable.

I just wanted to make the point that looking at suppression stats alone is no good choice. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I was just picking CoH2 up again when lend lease was a thing: In my memory lend lease died after tying the sherman to tech, since the main reason to get it was that you could skip T4.

The MG42 is one of the main reasons why Axis dominate open fields from early to mid game: Good vision, hard to be flanked and one unit can cover a big chunk of the map. As I said, the 50 cal has it's merits, but it cannot provide the stability that a MG42 gives you
PAGES (13)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

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

Replay highlight

VS
  • Ostheer flag Reto.GarGamel
  • The British Forces flag °NOOBMarkov.-
uploaded by Augustine

Board Info

122 users are online: 2 members and 120 guests
Sir Edgelord, GachiGasm
146 posts in the last 24h
939 posts in the last week
4262 posts in the last month
Registered members: 24800
Welcome our newest member, isbenldep
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM