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.
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.