A lot of people have said this, but I struggle to see how. Volks are 250, rifles are 280, IS are 280, cons are 240, penals are 300.
Vanilla volks vs vanilla rifles are about equal at max range, and strongly favor rifles at close range. The margin to which rifles are favored probably justifies the extra 30 squad cost and 3 reinforce cost. 1 bar rifles beats stg volks (280/60 vs 250/60). Rifles also have stronger vet.
Vanilla IS vs vanilla volks favors volks at mid and close with or without cover, slightly favors volks max without cover, and favors IS max with cover. 5-man IS beat stg volks everywhere except close, which only gets better for IS when they get brens. Again, the extra cost for IS makes sense to me considering how much better their scaling is.
Cons are utility and super durable with vet. They're also clearly the worst mainline infantry when it comes to combat. Volks are better than them in combat, which doesn't say much considering every other squad is too. If they have ppshs though, they're probably better than volks in general.
Penals are more or less 6 man volks when it comes to combat power. Their insane vet means they don't have to spend munitions and still scale well.
I just don't see in which comparison volks punch above their weight (besides non-ppsh-doc cons, which again doesn't say much).
You are a top 20 player who plays all factions and makes arguments based on statistical realities.
Obviously you have no credibility whatsoever in these forums. I'm only going to listen to players who are ranked 2000+ or have been inactive from the game for at least 2 years. At the very least you should only be playing one faction.
In any case, just because Riflemen have significantly better veterancy bonuses in terms of ingame statistics, doesn't mean they actually do. There is so much you haven't considered, like the fact that Volks are OP.
Please leave the balance debates to the real professionals.
Meanwhile, Talisman and other top players, along with most of the top 100 players use the IS2. Should we take the word of a rank 5000+ player who insists on the delusion that the IS2 is bad?
Imagine Guard Motor or Guard Rifle trading the t34-85 or KV1 for an IS2 call-in. We'd see Soviets lock that doctrine in after 2 seconds, and probably a 75% Soviet win rate with every game being Guards into T70 into IS2.
Seriously, the only reason the IS2 isn't a top-pick is because Guards are bread-and-butter for Sovs, and Spec Ops is pretty meta/OP. Armoured Assault would be the top commander choice if we nerfed Guards significantly.
Note that the BAR has a very short mid range, making it only really effective at closer ranges.
The double stg44 is clearly better at medium and close range, while having a better effective range than the BAR. The stg44 upgrade is the more cost effective upgrade than the BAR but USF has the option to double equip.
Edit: forgot to mention rifles not included.
It's weird that people don't realise that weapon upgrades are weapon upgrades.
The STGs remove 2 rifles, so the incremental dps of the squad is accounted for by +2 stgs -2 KAR98s. The BAR only replaces 1 Garand, so a BAR vs STG comparison is flawed - it has to be a squad vs squad comparison. Statistically a Rifle squad with a BAR is superior to a Volks squad with STGs, just as an unupgraded Rifle squad has greater dps at mid and close range than a vanilla Volks squad.
It sucks worse as USF. The .50 is a terrible MG, its so hilarious to hear people try to justify its tech and cost (and it's usually people with some kind of WWII German themed avatar or screen name).
Yes, high damage, good suppression, lightning fast setup and tear-down time indeed make the 50 cal a terrible hmg. That's why I always rush LT when I play USF - so that I can build the m20 and not the 50 cal.
Havent played around with axis admittedly!! so i wasnt sure about the prices but somehow I remember ostheer one being that?? but well 120 while t-34/85 is 130 just makes it worse with the veterancy to be honest...and all the other buffs. Im mainly wondering why they get all of these goodies while also not struggling early game? ??
Distro seems like a toxic poster but ill just say it is a BAD DESIGN!!. Blitzkrieg is blitzkrieg! what kind of blitzkrieg goes backwards?? And its a speed boost! it turns them to rally cars and let you get out of trouble super easily while as allied t-34 u would have to carefully think how to play that same scenarion because u cant just push the panic speed boost and revert back! and also SURELY U KNOW snares dont cause engine damage unless at certain HP %? AND UKF GETS NO SNARES except Tommie HEAT... soviet snares a sidetech. (engine damage ones, not button) unless u go penals but again SUPER LONG TIMER so u have time to just blitz out !!! U make no sense, do u even play as allied yourself? https://youtu.be/kYCNh3S251E?t=1398 Look at this video. High tier gamepaly and it highlights the issue SO WELL...0 micro for pz iv and then just blitz out while getting vet..and this is a good design x3 also vets vet 2 in the process
You do realise T34-85 is vastly superior to the Ost P4, right? Especially when it's a head-to-head matchup, the chance of a p4 winning is in single digit percentage chance since the P4 has less health and far lower penetration values at all ranges.
Nice argument that really unbenched what I said, good job.
And please, I'm 100% sure we both know what kind of moderator rules over steam forums..
And stop acting like GCS and 1v1 is the benchmark for all balance, acting stupid.
>Not used in gcs bad unit waaahhh
Did ISU,KV-2 or IS-2 get used a single time ? I don't think so but havent checked. Highly doubt it. Guess theyre utter garbage, buffs when?
Bet they didnt use a lot of units
IS2 did get used, lol. The Armoured Assault doctrine was chosen a good number of times. The IS2 is a very good unit that doesn't get chosen only because the doctrine doesn't have Guards. If Guards got nerfed then Armoured Assault would become much more attractive.
The KT on the other hand, is always available, but is always bad. GCS2 may not be the perfect benchmark for balance, but people who think the KT is good clearly have no business discussing balance in this game. Horrible scatter, atrocious speed, ridiculously bad acceleration, basically costs as much as 2 Panzer IVs, nonsensical exp values given, gigantic target size, and far and away the worst turret rotation in the game.
The IS2 basically only has bad scatter values on its main gun as a key weakness. The KT has almost every weakness in the game rolled into one unit. The last time I saw a KT being impactful as a unit was when I was rank 600+ and didn't know what tank destroyers were.
I mean, I can understand people complaining about Command Panther....But the KT? If you're losing, saving for the KT will get you overrun and it will have limited impact when it comes out. If you're even, saving for the KT will get you overrun and it will have limited impact when it comes out. If you're winning, getting a KT can throw away the advantage and swing the game in your enemy's favour.
I think he means bounce instead of miss. It's only about 33% chance to pen, so getting that, while unlucky, is still conceivable.
Bad luck is common in this game, since the game is long and contains so many engagements, and many of us have played the game hundreds or thousands of times. I've had my Tiger deflect a T34-76 with rear armour twice in a row to escape death. Conversely, I've also had my Panther bounce front of KV1 twice in a row while getting penned by the KV1 3 out of 4 shots from the front.
Sucks to experience bad rng, but honestly the P4 is a truly terrible choice for fighting the IS2 anyway.