Katitof's point, if I've understood it, is that Hit The Dirt is an ability that synergises with long range weapons. It buffs your durability but prevents you from moving. Good for winning a long range cover fight, bad for dodging a bundle nade dropped on your head.
SVTs are mid to short range weapons which do not synergise with optimal positioning for Hit The Dirt.
Just to clairfy.
That is inaccurate.
Guard's and Conscript's hit the dirt are completely different abilities one increase damage output the other durability:
Gua 0.75 weapon cooldown, +2.5 range, and squad can't move
Con -10% received damage, -20% accuracy, squad can't be supressed, and can't move
SVT do not follow "carbine profile" and are not mid to short range weapon. They are superior to Guard's mosin at all ranges.
Oddly what Guard's mosin is good at, is DPS on the move.
No, not strong. As you here do not claim that the Guard OP, they are not in the game, they are not used. People use Penals and Shock Troops. In the current state, they are at least somehow viable, if left with the current "worst in the game" of the DP-27 and PTRS without any kind of strong ability - this is death for the Guard.
Guards AI is currently close to that of Obers the fact that they might or might not be used does not mean that they "somehow viable".
-Opening a spreadsheet and looking at the cost of all units and the xp value of each of them. Similar cost units should have similar xp values unless it's determined that they should have a lower/higher value to balance them out.
-Taking a look at the vet benefits each levels provide. We all know EFA vet1 is meme tier on most cases and there are units on the other factions which have mostly decorative levels due to time/resource constraints after they reworked them.
In the case of weapon slots: IMO if you give as much firepower/utility to an upgrade to make them worth of them to take a weapon slot, sure do so. Normalising everything for the sake of consistency without clear positive results, is just wasting time.
Ironically, the fact that it doesn't create problems is also the reason it may not see prioritisation. It improves the game, but it improves it by little while still requiring manpower hours to analyse, code, test and QA it.
It's a matter of game design/catching the attention of the playerbase, which transcends CoH2. Reworking things and presenting them as new toys is more appealing than slight number tweaking.
I don't have the will to dig down in code and test things to see how they play, but at this point of the game life cycle, unless you propose concrete changes with numbers behind it, there's little hope to see what you propose to be done in a broad way across the board.
I agree with most of the points in post.
Although I have almost zero MODing experience some changes like the one you mention in the first part of the post does not seem to be that difficult to implement especially with vast changes in fixings bug that already has been done by the moderation team.
....
-Dead models moving around was not a bug. It was a feature which was used for G43 interrogation ability. Bug referring to an intended behaviour due to unintended combinations of mechanics. Changing a value doesn't sound to me as a bug.
...
Call it what it you like but it is not balance issue and imo it is not a nerf since it fixing something that was not working as intended.
...
You keep saying we need to start nerfing things out. Besides Volks/Penals, what else? You say that WFA/UKF needs to be brought up to EFA levels. I think it has mostly been done already (with both reworks) and nerfs throughout the years. Besides late game stage AI scaling, on which i both agree that it can be slightly touch in case of Bar Rifles and 5 man IS with brens, what else is out of line in your opinion?
...
I you want me to give you my opinion about balance changes I can do so, but in another thread or a PM.
Have a nice day.
Like... for example.... more expensive units of equal role having proportionally better performance for the investment?
Like... we have right now?
Are you trying to fix a gear that isn't broken, but you don't like it, so you'd "fix" it yourself anyway?
Or perhaps you confused the term with mirroring performance and cost?
No, no, no, that's not it as well, after all you're strongly disagreeing with bringing cons to gren level in cost effectiveness and scaling too.
Soo...
You have the right to have your opinion.
On the other hand your post:"more expensive units of equal role having proportionally better performance for the investment?..."
is off topic which is weapon slots and has nothing to do with what I have suggested.
And how are you going to "normalize" things with vastly different cost, timing and completely different directions of scaling?
Cutting wings off a plane will not make it a car.
It will however create massive problems - with timing, role, scaling, intended engagements outcome, filed presence.
Simple fixes do not really work on very complicated issues, which infantry combat and scaling is.
Normalizing is quite easy.
Not really, they will hardly create any problems
Simple fixes fix inconstancy issues, they do not fix balance issues.
Anyone who read your quote, even with context will tell you that you are claiming something false. If you say something hasn't happen, any value above 0 to your claim proves what you say untrue.
Using conscripts pass the 20/30 mins mark, without PPSH and/or vet, is fighting with stick n stones.
Conscripts have become weaker since release, and that's either due to the meta or the removal of cheese, which the 2nd means a nerf. It's the same as if we remove the clowncar capabilities of the M3 and gave it a 25% DPS boost and a vet improvement. At the end of the day, that won't cut it.
My original wording might not have been perfect but I have made my point clear:
The claim:
Since release the nerfs are much more then the buffs. If this trend continues, the units will be fighting with sticks and stones
is misleading and the conclusion false. Unless you agree with this claim there is little point in continuing.
I see even see less reason to continue if you are going to use arguments like fixing a bug (8- Dead models were the best scouting tools) or general change effecting all units
(1- Overpowered bulletins (health and damage)) calling them nerfs to conscripts.
Which has already been done. You need BOTH NERFs and BUFFs. The nerf wave has already been done, just compare any of the units or factions right now with how they played on release.
Right now, it's easier to brought in line what units remained to lag behind, than trying to rework core units at sensible timings with heavy weight changes.
For ex: i think that Penals/Volks can be touched, but in an indirect way. OKW needs adjustements to initial mp (while you boost it with SwS and they still need a T4 rework) and Penals could see their AT package locked down behind the AT nade on HQ, reducing their effectiveness early on to adapt into AT, while making cons a viable supporting units cause you already bundle the upgrade of both units in the same place.
That claim is simply wrong:
JLI
Pathfinder
I&R
Assault Engineer
Dozer
250
are all unit that now stronger than when released.
I have to point out again that comparing unit with how they where when released does not really mean anything since many of them where broken when they where released.
... and other games have had the exact same... usually theyre fixed quicker, but the buffing, overnerfing, and botched releases (with regards to power level) are exactly what happens in other games
Yes but COH2 continued with creating broken things thru out its life span. Even now after so many years one can see changes that are broken.
But the two are not mutually exclusive, so im not sure why theres an "or" there. Why not just do whichever one is needed, as the situation demands? Thats more or less whats been happening. Also, (again, hard to prove) but id imagine most people would say jli, pathfinders, and assault engineers are in a better spot now (compared to before their changes) and that the changes to them have made the game better.
And that is my point lack of resources is not an excuse for fixing things that can be fixed, especially when the specific changes are normalizing thing and thus have a low chance of creating problems.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
