...
God, you can get PTSD just from reading this stuff we removed, power-creep my ass.
I guess climate change does not exist either.
And of corse there is not reason why units/abilities that where OP/fine for years had to be buff before becoming extinct like:
PG to T0
Ober 60 fuel cheaper
G43s
PPsh
...
Just because, somethings were broken at some point in time, it does not mean that there is no power creep.
Each unit had different HP i know that. And that was good cus that didn't mean having 4 men squads was a disadvantage but a tradeoff. But in coh2 having 4 men squad is all disadvantage with no benefit at all.
Yeah I know it's a nightmare to implement coh1 system. If you do even a little bit coding you would know.
The balance between 6 men conscripts and 4 Men grenadier was fine so the 4 men squad is not the problem.
The problem started with the WFA and the power creep that they brought and especially with introduction of ST44VG/Penal when power creep increased. So it is actually the combination of high lethality and squad that can not afford to take causalities that is the issue.
Can all the people debating about semantics and throwing in mostly random Con/Penal comparisons now please COMPLETELY cut it and go back to the actual thread topic.
And since this thread has not had too much substance so far: please at least try tp back up your claims with some data or at least a well thought out argumenz instead of 'nO TheY guD' and 'No ThEy bAd'
PF take up a commander slot and contrary to the majority of other doctrinal units they block the production pipe.
PF cost 270 Manpower to built and when built are less cost efficient than the majority of other mainline infatry of their time frame like conscripts/Riflemen/Grenadier/VG.
Once one has invested at least 270/40 one can upgrade PF with 2 shreck for 100 mu. The unit is not has proven to be rather weak and not more cost efficient than bazooka RE or Piat Ro.E.
They can also upgrade for with 3 g43 while they need to reinforce bringing their total cost to 295/80.
Now if one compares their combat stat to that of Penal (the closest equivalent) one would see that they are not that mach better than penal although they become available later and cost 80 munition more. (They can actually lose long range in cover vs Penal)
According to their design they are supposed to start weaker and become better in mid game.
On the other hand if one compares them in vet 0 and vet 3 with Penal one will see that Penal actually get better combat stats.
So the only thing left is their "utility" which compared to VGs the both get snares both get grenades and PF have vet 1 flares while VG get sandbags.
Now I do not see how that justifies the 80 cost on their G43s or why they have to build-able and not call in.
For me that translates to following:
Either Penal or PF are badly designed
Either Penal need to also start weaker and have weapon upgrade or Pf need to start stronger
Either Penal are OP or PF are UP since G43 PF take up a commander slot, come later, cost more and do not scale better
Shreck PF are not cost efficient
In sort:
PF need no nerfs, especially losing a g43 as suggested. They could actually get some buff to their K98 and some nerf to their G43 and lowering the price of the upgrade.(or a redesign becoming cheaper as supplement to support VG while bringing utility)
Let me try to explain this once more and then move on because we are drifting off topic.
Each infatry unit in COH 1 had a different number of HP and a different type of armor. The result was mess.
Standardizing HP in COH 2 and having a similar "type of armor" for the majority of infantries is a huge advantage that has improved games mechanics for both the players and for developers.
Creating weapon profiles again was a great improvement helping both the player to get the most out of their units and developers to easier fine tune units.
Actually Relic has claimed that "target tables" that where used in COH 1 where a nightmare to implement/balance and they actually went to extremes to avoid them in COH 2.
I really do not see any advantage in COH 1 infatry system it was unnecessary complicated for both player and developers and that is why COH 2 moved on.
Now can we go back to G43 upgrades?
Once more one has to keep in mind that the upgrade is even named "G43 upgrade" so options for bonuses it can provide is huge.
Right coh1 players are all gods who know all the games stats top to bottom without fail. Like even I can tell you what p4's hp was as well as brenguns dps vs KCH at rage 14.
No actually there was a very good site that explained all different armor type and their interaction with different weapons. With out it one would be at complete loss, and experience would be of litttle help to him...
I feel impressed (and probably a bit flattered that you actually are aware of my suggestions), I am more used of people trying to repeat my suggestions and come up with something completely different (many times intentional I guess).
Yes, game experience is not a thing at all. How could I have forgotten about the fact people don't learn anything from playing. That mechanics and matchups don't become second nature at what point at all.
...
Simply read the patch notes about weapons profiles and relative positioning.
The idea simple and allows player to know how to best use their units without having to test and memorize every single engagement. And keep in my that possible combination of much up at different ranges and cover bonuses (that effect results) are ridiculous high.
Yet Special modifiers are what made coh1's balance (atleast wehr vs ami) work.
There is nothing to support that claim.
On the other hand it made the game a complete mess where certain units devastated certain units and where useless vs other forcing the player to learn a whole lot of match ups.
The COH2 system is far superior due to simplicity. (It would be even better if there where less deviation from "weapons profiles" and "relative positioning" and if units where balanced for all vet levels).
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
