I cannot put this in simpler terms. Please try to understand.
Right now (at the present time, today)
Grens > Riflemen at long range
LMG Grens > Riflemen at long range
LMG Grens > BAR Riflemen at long range
LMG Grens STILL > Double BAR Riflemen at long range
...
Pls test your last claim in the range map and come back with the results you might be surprised.
|
My apologies if English is not your first language, but you are completely ignoring the vast majority of post, which already answers basically every response you have made here. I have underlined these passages to help clarify things.
.....
Your apologies is accepted. Yet you have not answered any of my point. As I simply pointed out to you the fact that if an infatry is a heavier investment in MP (and MU) does not automatically mean it will win vs another at all rangers. (for more see my Pg example and I can provide more for you) The infatry are generally designed to excel at certain ranges.
And again the nerf to mortars affected Ostheer who relied more to support weapons. A direct result is that game is now more about brute force than about support weapons.
I am very prone to frustration when it comes to repeating my own points, and would like not to have to do so again.
Try to avoid frustration. |
I'm not so sure, but really what do you expect of a 280mp unit?...
Then I should expect from a 340 T2 unit like PGs vs a 280 T0 unit like riflemen to beat them even at max range. Well they do not. The have to close to mid.
Ostheer mortar is statistically better than the USF one in every way, and generally considered better than the Soviet one, but because it isn't laser guided anymore it sucks now. Alright. We will pass over this idea.
Read my post again Ostheer mortar went from exceptional to average (ok it marginally better) that means that USF mortar actually relatively buffed. The mortar changes where a nerf to Ostheer. This is a simple fact.
But you seem to have a fantastical idea of how infantry combat works in this game as well.....
I can not take credit for the idea behind weapon profiles and relative positioning. The idea belong to Relic.
|
....
If you want to implement something new, do something which hasn't been tried before and failed.
The conclusion that Penal design was failed is rather arbitrary especially since the game in nowhere near to what it was.
The current Penal design is simply bad and need to change.
And we have made several different suggestions on how it can change and we can make even more at the a hint that Penal are going to be touched.
Now does this have anything to do with Obers? |
...There is nothing bad with being able to fight from range after you invest 120 MU into a 280 MP unit.
No there is nothing "bad with being able to fight from range after you invest 120 MU into a 280 MP unit", there is something bad, however when can fight at all ranges from sort to long especially when you opponent can not do the same.
Again the suggestion is a redesign not a nerf. |
Well luckily for you, double BARs come out at about 4dps each at maximum range, and the LMG42 at 9dps.
3 M1 Garands will put out 5.1* DPS total.
3 K98s will put out 6.6 DPS total.
8+5.1 = 13.1*
9+6.6 = 15.6
Seems to me like you already have your wish, and there is no reason to nerf BARs.
That is counting only DPS and not effective HP...Riflemen will probably win.
I want to know, however, how you would expect long range static units like the LMG42 Grens to be countered if Riflemen and their BARs were to be nerfed to make them less competitive against them, considering the multiple nerfs to USF indirect and the durability buff Grens just received.
*correction edit
USF are stronger in indirect....Actually Ostheer got hit the harder whit the mortar changes when their exceptional mortar become average.
And the answer is simply they would have to move mid range to win and not long range. The suggestion is not to nerf the BAR but to redesign it, to make more fitting for the aggressive USF play style instead of a static one.
|
...
Since the front armor is being nerfed how about increasing the rear armor to a bit lower than ISU-152 levels? |
With respect, this is pathetic reasoning. A single BAR is not going to overtake the DPS of a LMG gren squad in its proper range, and once you see double BARs it damned well better should overpower a 60mun 240MP investment. We've already nerfed USF IDF units and granted Grens a unique damage reduction bonus at vet 3, the rank by which you should be seeing double BARs anyway, if at all. This unit simply does not require any more babying.
You seem to underestimate relative positioning. If lmg Grenadiers lose easily at all ranges to BAR riflemen including max range they would be little reason to reposing ones units which leads to static play.
Riflemen should win at mid range and break even at max. That is why BARs should be cheaper and more mid focused oriented.
This change is in road Garand change took place making the unit better in close to mid range. |
I agree with this. I'm kinda surprised at how poor pgrens perform ingame in comparison to BAR'd rifles (based on this graph). Maybe its the DPS drop off of 4 models vs 5 or because the BARs are retained until 2 models. Regardless I'd say this graph doesn't tell the whole story.
The DPS drop off is a big factor. Powerful weapons seem to become OP in 5+ squads (see VGs) while in 4 men squads is seem the drop off is allot.
On the other hand the comparison is rather misleading since the 2 weapons have completely different profiles. |
And why exactly are you comparing then to ostroppen? The absolute only thing they have in common is squad size. That's literally it.
Can you compare shocks and ostroppen next? Or maybe Obers and partisans?
Oh oh oh what about rangers and 5 man pios?
Another user started the comparison. Now does this has any relevance to Obers and their timing? |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
