It would be nice if Tommies at least had to pay a munitions cost to upgrade Bolster on each squad, I get you have to pay 150 mp and 35 fuel but British Tier 1 tech is only 30 fuel so it standardizes their tech costs in line with the other factions in the game. Make it 30-40 muni to upgrade so if you want a double equipped Tommy Squad that can heal on the frontline you have to make a significant munitions investment which should at least cost more than double equipping Riflemen since they don't get the same cover bonus.
UKF is already spending a lot of muni, perhaps too much. This is mostly because of commanders, which almost all come stacked with expensive abilities and call-ins with muni ugprades. Anyway, I highly doubt UKF currently needs any more nerfs now. Tommies, Comets, AEC and UC are already getting hit in the economy department.
I think that could help tone down Tommy spam a bit since you rarely see people going 4 Riflemen but 4 Tommies is standard. Especially with Brits not needing medical supplies on every squad now since the Medics were buffed to perform AOE healing like the ambo. I would be ok with the medics being made 2 pop cap to mimic the pop cap of the Ambo.
USF makes less rifles because of officers taking up the mainline infantry spots in the composition. UKF is forced into 4 sections because there are no stock or call-in mainline alternatives except for officer, who is currently a bit of an expensive and risky pick.
Basically this. There is no reason to waste time discussing combat performance of a unit that is poorly designed in the first place. Furthermore, discussing heavy engineer balancing is pointless also because the decision between hammer and anvil depends on the tanks, not the extra stuff. And picking Comet makes always so much more sense that anvil might as well be removed as an option and nobody would really notice.
Anvil IMHO requires a fundemental rework, which I believe is out of scope of this patch. Hammer directly improves on stuff that you are already using because it's the backbone of your composition (generalist tank, mainline infantry), whereas Anvil brings extra weird stuff alongside your core compostion, for which there is neither space nor resources. Hammer is basically a big upgrade, anvil is more like a commander, but a non-competitive one.
Giving some competitive purpose to the so-called "damage sponge" tanks (Churchill, KV-1) without making them outright overpowered or completely abandoning their design would be perhaps one of the most difficult challenges for the balance team, and handling anvil is thus correspondingly problematic. Heavy sappers are just a cherry on top.
It's not. The idea of nerfing all other units because another one is outperformed is simply silly.
And why wouldn't conscript general performance be important? Last time I've checked the notes, they didn't state "Conscripts veterancy 3 bonus 10 % accuracy removed against grenadiers and volksgrenadeiers specifically". This is not Footmen Frenzy.
So what it problem? Would rather have grenadier and VG buffed?
I have no problem. LMG gren could use a buff, vet5 Volks maybe as well, but what have cons too do with that? They are not fighting just those two units. What kind of question even is this? Would you buff Stug-E by nerfing every other AI vehicle and medium in the game?
So let me get this straight:
LMG grenadiers are UP, VG are UP and Conscripts are up.
Since these units are fighting each other where does the problem lies? In riflemen and Tommies being OP?
What? Who said Cons are UP? They are simply fine. There is just no need to nerf them. Tommies are getting nerfed quite hard in their utility and map presence department. A lot around Rifles is getting nerfed too. Volks at vet5 can be somewhat underwhelming, but stuff they interact with is getting buffed like ISG, medics and timing of obers. Yes, LMG grens are UP, many people agreee on that, but why should other untis be brought down to their level instead of helping grens perform better in areas where tehy are bottlnecking?
Also you are forgetting asymmetrical design. Allies have better mainline infantry, Axis has better team weapons, tanks, grenades instead. The goal is not to make everything perform equally, but simply to properly adjust the strenghts and weaknesses. SOV needs some good infantry to compensate for bad team weapons and tanks, jsut like other allied factions.
LMG grenadier are not a good benchmark either since the are meant to excel at long cover to cover fights and the punch above their cost in that particular scenario.
Again, I personally consider LMG grens underwhelming, but in half of realistic scenarios neither side can leave cover due to taking damage from other squads or MGs, so in those static cases LMG grens are a good type of unit to compare. STG volks and 5m Grens prefer encounters at closer ranges or while mobile.
I would suspect but I might be wrong that the MOD team was concern about performance of vet 3 MR conscripts vs vet 5 ST44 VG (and VSL Vet 3 grenadiers) in cover to cover fights.
Perhaps partially. It's no secret that Volks and Grens are currently considered udnerwhelming in the late game. But 5m grens and STG volks are not very good units to "benchmark" in cover to cover scenarios, I'd use LMG grens if anything. 5m grens bully conscripts out of the game in mid game and shred them extremely fast when cought in the open. STG makes volks immune to close range pushes from cons very soon into the game, so again, the unit kinda nullifies cons combat performance at certain stages of the game. 7m cons don't do any of that, they just trade well in cover to cover firefight, but they don't roll over Axis infantry at any stage of the game.
And now that it has been introduced, and after several other buff conscripts have received over the years their superior vet bonuses where toned down.
MR was introduced with those vet bonuses in mind and was since nerfed. Before MR was introduced cons received several changes, both buffs (higher base accuracy, the 10% acc bonus) and nerfs (increased oorah cost, increased pop, reduced damage) and it wasn't enough to make them popular. But from the patch history we can see where the issue lis with the SVT upgrade. Cons got reduced damage on Mosins but received accuracy bonuses to make them more consistent. This works fine with 7m and PPSH, which have their own modifiers, but if you add SVT into the equation, it eliminates the damge nerf but keeps the accuracy bonuses. This is perhaps something that should be looked at, but global nerf is not a good way to tackle this, considering PPSH and 7m were designed independently from SVT.
Is there any relevance of what the once was with the current state?
Previously Conscripts received a +10% accuracy bonus at veterancy 3 due to their low stats and lack of upgrades. With the introduction of items such as Mobilize Reserves and SVTs, Conscripts no logner need such high bonuses to scale into the late game.
Its' relevant exactly because some seem to forget why MR was introduced in the first place.
I happen to play too and I also happen to be part of both closest Alpha beta team that worked with Relic in balancing the game.I know what I am talking also
Then you must also remember that beta qeues were about 80 % Axis all the time and SOV had to cheese with sniper clown cars, flamer/satchel penals and ram spam to stand a chance. Conscripts were basically never built. Not exactly the most exciting times.