Profile of Mr.Smith

Regarding rangers, I notice that they tend to "dance" a whole lot more compared to other infantry. Is upgrading thompsons and forcing them to move constantly (to avoid dancing) the best way to use them? Would it ever make sense to use them without thompsons?

I've picked apart the wiki site a long time ago when I also started learning CoH1. It's an amazing starting point.

However, the wiki site seems to be too verbose verbose for my tastes. Also the descriptions seem to be too vague, I don't think I get a lot of concrete information out of reading it. I don't need so much an intro manual anymore; I need more like a reference manual I can read up on stuff I could use.

For instance, I've never seen CoH1 smoke (sherman smoke shell, mortar, creeping barrage, tetrarch, rifle nade) do anything to protect tanks or the like; though it is useful when advancing vs MGs.

Or, I understand that sherman upgun upgrade will make shermans worse vs infantry and better vs tanks. However, I need something more concrete than "better" to be able to make a decision.

Here you go.

FBP mod source code: https://github.com/xxpatch/sbpmod
Revamp mod source code: https://github.com/xxpatch/consmod

The reason I also linked Revamp mod source code is because this is that it contains all bugfixes we know so far (some were out of scope; e.g., USF popcap abuse fixes). Also Revamp the only mod we will continue updating from now on.

If you feel like waiting for another week, we'll be pushing another update to the Revamp mod.

On other hand, if you're only interested in locating and porting bugfixes for your mod, it will be easier to do this from the FBP mod, since it has fewer changes overall.

Commandos get the following bonuses at Vet3:
- Smoke bomb, which acts like normal smoke
- Passive regeneration out of combat (equal to Volksgrenadier healing; aka 50% faster than Tommy heal)
- -75% received accuracy on retreat

It's quite a decent bonus. Too bad Commandos scale so bad.

the scope was definitely unfortunate, but it's important to have realistic short terms goals as well as long term goals.

even without the scope in place it's important to pace changes to the game so each patch is a "stable" point. Was it really that important to change anything and everything in scope? It feels like a lot of the change implemented were waiting for a future enlargement of scope that never become truly fulfilled.

or recognize that a change might not fit the "vision", but it fit the reality and need. If a change to a in scope unit require a complimentary changes to an out of scope unit, the safer option would have been to shelve it or implement something different.

For neither WBP nor GCS were we able to set the scope ourselves. We were just given a list of things to change. It's only FBP patch that we were able to set the scope ourselves; we gave Relic a list of 11 high-priority items, and we were allowed to fix the top 5 of them, kind of.

For WBP, the scope was a bit more abstract (aka Light Vehicles and Infantry scaling). Despite repeated pleadings throughout the entire process we never managed to convince Relic to include call-in changes and OKW infantry; therefore the patch was already rigged to fail from the get-go. Nevertheless, at the end of WBP, Soviets had Maxim cheese and UKF had Cromwell/Comet cheese, so it's not like Vet5 would make a dent to either faction.

Then, GCS came and we were given a very restrictive list of units we were supposed to fix. Everybody had already seen Cromwell/Comet nerfs a mile away and we were waiting for it. However, by the time we had finished WBP, we were considering it would be completely absurd to ask the team to touch maxims without doing anything at all about Conscripts or Volksgrenadiers (let alone the entire OKW infantry line-up). So, yet again, the patch was rigged to fail.

A lot of mistakes were made in the process. e.g.,:
- The unfortunate handheld AT bug
- Being unable to convince more people to try out Penals (top player kept assuring us they never saw the point of going Penals anymore... when they could go for Maxims instead)
- Failing to adjust Luchs moving scatter and accuracy vs vehicles in time (though this one was overshadowed by posts crying out that PTRS Penals would make Luchs irrelevant; lol)
- Setting PIAT range too low (though that was before Cromwell nerfs, and amidst pagefuls of terrible off-the-mark feedback about enabling PIAT blobs)
- Failing to realise we could have reverted some Guards nerfs to keep them relevant after GCS patch (WBP guards were balanced according to OP maxims)
- Not pressing hard enough to completely lock M4C Sherman and Command Panther behind tech (the only two call-in vehicles in GCS patch scope..)
- Failing to realise, in time, that the only people that bothered to test GCS Maxims were doing so with bulletins stacked (which may be bugged).

However, given the restrictions of the scope, and bar those mistakes that are now easy to spot in hindsight, I don't think it was possible to do something more decent than this; we could have done a different kind of bad, however.

Then leave the ISG as it is . There is nothing wrong with it anyway. Simplicity is key the main issue should be adressing the broken mechanics and overperforming units.

Live-version ISG is useless when you have one of them.

The moment you get 2 of them and more, it becomes retardedly OP, due to its insane auto-attack range, pinpoint accuracy, good rate of fire, and low shell travel time. If you combine this with other faction features, such as MedHQ retreat points and FlakHQ lockdown, you have the OKW sim city.

All of these make the ISG a mega-camping tool one what is supposed to be an aggressive faction.

The mortar pit also has these issues, which is why its autoattack range is lowered by a lot. However, there is no way, this is ever going to float if you don't also lower ISG's range at the same time; the mortar pit is stationary, ISG is not.