not get beaten by the thing it counters in a favorable situation HEAD ON
An HMG caught out of cover by an elite long range anti-infantry squad, with nothing spotting for it so it can't use its range advantage, is not a favourable situation.
So is brute strength relative to DPS or how range dependent on a unit because stand next to a commando and I think its DPS is kind of good,
Brute strength refers to the unit's only or main utility being raw killing power. This is true for Obers, and for units such as Rangers, but not so much for Commandos. Commandos' main utility is their camouflage, which gives them an ambush role. Their raw DPS at range 0-10 is actually not that special at 14.133 per weapon. For comparison, Thompsons have 18.412 and Assault Engineer M3 Grease Guns have 13.441.
State of the soviets
The UKF solution
How to make Airbourne Guards better
More bugsplats since the last patch
So where you get the "Less balance discussions" from? Because for as long as I have been here its never slowed down or stopped (and I have been here a fair while).
Only a handful of active threads in the last week(s). One of those you listed isn't even a balance thread at all. Barely 50-80 comments per thread. I would call that a relatively low amount of balance discussions, compared to how the balance forums have generally seen a lot more activity in the past.
Oh erm aswell, I wont mention that with "being on the balance team" and all that you said obers have no combat bonuses after vet 3 
They get a suppressing fire ability at vet 4 that literally can not target HMGs, and they get a passive sprint when out of combat at vet 5. Those are not combat bonuses (the definition of combat bonuses being modifiers that affect stock combat performance, like accuracy, anyway) in the context of helping them fight an HMG in any way.
But I guess you wouldn't know if you don't even play OKW. |
What about the armies? Luchs has STG volks, Spios and Obers/Falls/JLI. T70 has to carry 7man conscripts.
I'm only mentioning that I think the Luchs damage profile is a better design than the T-70's. It's just a remark on design, it didn't have anything to do with the current balance. I'd wish Relic would've given the T-70 a damage profile more like the Luchs years ago and balanced the rest of the Soviets around that, so now we wouldn't be left with the near impossible task of balancing a crutch unit. Too late now. |
I don't really understand the Luchs comparison
Regardless if teching or even unit costs, I was only comparing weapon damage profiles. The Luchs has (imo) a much healthier profile of steady but lower DPM. It takes quite a lot of time to kill healthy squads, and its damage output is more forgiving and predictable. Which is much better than the RNG cannon profile that the T-70 has that can sometimes wipe entire squads in seconds or miss ten shots in a row, but generally kills models very fast. Design wise, I think ideally light vehicles should reliably force off enemy infantry and only wipe on very late retreats (like the Luchs), rather than potentially wiping everything that's even just left the base (like the T-70). I'm not a fan of the Soviet design of early (M3 flamer) and mid game (T-70) "wipe" spikes to swing games in their favour.
Purely looking at the damage profile, I think the Luchs' is a much better design than the T-70's. |
End of, you wont change my mind because I'm right, I wont change your mind because you're wrong.
That's remarkably self confident for someone who is rank 200s (in UKF's skeleton leaderboards) with a win rate barely over 50%. One might even say borderline delusional. But who am I to judge.
I "Fail to understand" because obers are infantry you just said their role is anti infantry, well what the hell is an MG's role if it isn't to suppress infantry and be the best at it when said infantry is walking into it head on from max range.
The role of an HMG is to help your army win engagements, and stop most infantry assaults. They are literally called support weapons. They are not meant to solo every single engagement.
Commandos are also "brute strength anti-infantry", they can't do what happened in the video they get suppressed and pinned as they should, Obers to far too much damage with 1 burst of their LMG causing HMG death loops and incredible damage.
Commandos are not brute strength infantry at all, they are close range ambush units. They can be equipped with double elite Brens to resemble something of a brute strength AI unit, but their DPS is still nowhere near that of other elite long range infantry such as LMG Obers or M1919 Paratroopers. Commandos can use their camouflage to sneak up on, or throw smoke grenades with vet 1, to respectively avoid or charge right through an HMG's field of fire, but I guess we'll just ignore that.
Again we are not talking about being positioned correctly, we are talking about how Obers or any unit, shouldn't solo an HMG from the front, if anything was positioned correctly it would counter an MG even an AT gun FFS.
The game is about positioning in its very core. It's what the cover system was designed for. Why you're so eager to completely ignore this is beyond me. If you put your HMG in cover, Obers lose 50% or 75% of their DPS, and they will have a much harder time (if not impossible) to snipe the gunner model before they get pinned.
By the way, I wouldn't use the fact that you have helped relic with the current balance patch to boast, in a thread about how a faction has been broken due to the recent content patch 
The faction went from blatantly overpowered at release to slightly underperforming now. Which was exactly what we'd expect after (necessarily) nerfing some overperforming clutch units (and buffing other things, such as adding snares) over the last year or so. Balancing isn't done in a single day, especially not on a complex faction ecosystem level, it's done in baby steps. There's no way to fully predict the outcome of certain big changes, and sometimes it's necessary to just see where things land (for example the recent Infantry Section changes) before making other adjustments in compensation (next patch).
I will add that I think the majority of the community will agree that the current balance is in the best state it's ever been since the release of WFA, backed up by high and steady player numbers (for how old the game is), very positive recent Steam reviews, a relatively low amount of balance discussions and a good amount of praise for most changes in the latest patches. You are of course absolutely free to disagree.
Here's a tip for you: ask or look for advice, watch replays and casts to try to form a neutral view on the game and get yourself an inquisitive mindset, instead of immediately blaming balance and fight whoever proves you wrong, and you'll have a much better game experience with better results. |
I'd say the T70 is easily in the lead here
I understand your points, but as I've said, I think the T-70's late game utility scaling should be (should've been) the base line for all light vehicles. It rewards a player for keeping their light vehicle alive and it creates very interesting scenarios in which killing a vet 3 T-70 could be more beneficial than killing a big tank. Other light vehicles should've gotten similar powerful late game utility scalability. Although the 222 isn't bad for sight and AA, and the Puma and AEC can help turn tank engagements with turret lock and mobility stun. And the Stuart... well it can at least swap a vet 3 vehicle crew into a new tank.
If anything, the T-70s bloated anti-infantry power is its main problem (I think the Luchs is a much better design in regards of TTK, as it's powerful enough to force off squads and even wipe very late retreats, but isn't powerful enough to solo entire squads within seconds, and the T-70 should've had a more similar power level). But the Soviets kinda need the T-70 as a crutch unit, as their mid game drops off quite steeply without it. Even though I personally dislike how wipey it is. |
Firefly designed to kill hedges I see.
The Firefly is designed to help your army kill tanks, not solo them. The fact that it has 8 seconds reload and can be killed even by a Panzer IV at close range, let alone a Tiger, should tell you enough about the design. It's meant to pick away at tanks from long range, while these enemy tanks are deterred from closing in by supporting units (threats of snares, mines, ATGs). It's not meant to pick a 1v1 fight with any enemy tank under any circumstances and win.
So, as its all about costs, 2 volks should be able to frontally assault a vickers and win right? With all squads being out in the open of course because I have run that test countless times and guess what happens. Vickers wins 100% of the time.
Units have roles. The Tiger is a brute strength tank. That's its main role. Obersoldaten are brute strength elite anti-infantry. That's their only role. The Tiger wins against all cheaper tanks, even if they are dedicated tank destroyers. Obersoldaten win against all cheaper infantry, even dedicated anti-infantry units. These expensive and elite units are meant to be countered by either combined arms (the core of the game), overwhelming force, or other counters (snipers, vehicles, mines or rocket artillery in the case of Obersoldaten), and not by a single, cheaper unit. Even though most can trade effectively when used right, as I've shown you in the above example.
This is not comparable to mainline infantry, even though yes, two Volksgrenadiers could win against an HMG if positioned correctly. Disproportionally expensive units that have one dedicated role win against lower tier units, even if these units normally counter a certain (also lower tier) unit type. I'm not sure why you fail to (or don't want to) understand these core game design concepts.
Look me up, feel free, it of course will or wont validate everything I say! Its the same as my name here.
No it doesn't, it just puts what you've said into perspective.
To put what I've said into perspective: I'm top 10 with most factions (UKF rank 5 with 82% wr) and I help Relic design the current balance and content patches. |
You are basically saying the same thing as a Firefly should not be able to kill a tiger because it is simply cheaper despite the FF being a tank destroyer (You know like an MG being a counter to infantry but because obers are elite and snowflake, Mg's shouldn't counter them when they run into the front of them, in no cover with no other squads attacking 
Yes, I am saying that a Firefly (Vickers) should not win a 1v1 against a Tiger that is disproportionally more expensive (Obers) and is designed to kill vehicles (Obers: infantry). Spoiler alert: the Firefly loses in this match-up. The fact that the Firefly is a dedicated tank destroyer (the Vickers a dedicated suppression platform) does not mean it should win every single 1v1 fight against all enemy vehicles (infantry), in particular when positioned improperly (not in cover) and against a much more expensive unit. If you want a guarantee your Vickers wins versus Obers, use it in cover or use line infantry to spot for it so it can fire at max range. If you want your Firefly to win versus a Tiger, use other units (snares, mines and ATGs) to prevent the Tiger from closing in so the Firefly can pick it off from long range. This is how the game works, for all units, for all factions.
If you can't understand simple game mechanics and economics, I am not surprised you struggle in matches.
I'm never one to ask for playercards but I'm getting really curious to see yours.
|
T70
[…]
Additionally, if needed, remove the "recon mode" vet bonus; this gives the unit tons of late game utility that other comparable LVs don't provide (LOS, Capping)
Odd statement, to be frank. Scaling because of utility is exactly how all light vehicles should have been designed, so they are still useful in the late game when they can't fight effectively anymore. The utility scaling of the T70 is great, and other light vehicles should've been designed like it (Puma and AEC are to some extend, with handy disable abilities to help fight enemy tanks). Not the other way around. Players should be rewarded for keeping their light vehicles alive, instead of being encouraged to send them off to die because they just take up popcap. |
But what must the Mg do now after facing that 1 squad? You got it, Retreat! That area is no longer covered by an MG After an engagement with 1 squad head on and a vet 3 MG might I add,
So in that scenario a 340 manpower and 80 munitions squad got forced off and has to reinforce for 120 manpower, by a 260 manpower squad that now has to retreat and reinforce for 66 manpower. Congratulations, you've had a great engagement where you've successfully traded very cost effectively. Next time use sandbags or other cover for your HMG and you can trade even better.
the obers still have 2 vet levels to go
Which is completely irrelevant, since their vet 4 and 5 do not give any combat bonuses. |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WF51xws_BKc&feature=youtu.be
Were MG's designed to be countered by obers? Because, as I have shown, they can be, from the front, very easily.
The first video literally shows the HMG winning against the Obers lol. Perhaps try to position your HMG behind cover if you don't want it getting killed frontally. Don't blame bad play on game balance. I'm done replying here since you clearly don't want to be helped and you seem to be here just to whine. |