Profile of Sander93

Indirect fire and especially mortars should have had a zeroing mechanic on both autofire and the barrage. The first shot would scatter wide with each consecutive shot becoming more and more accurate. Providing line of sight with other (recon) units would reduce the amount of zeroing shots, decreasing the amount of time it takes to zero in and increasing the amount of accurate shots on target.

This would make (autofire) indirect worse against mobile/moving infantry, while making it better against idle (team) weapons, while also providing a better user experience for both sides with higher reliability for the user and better counter play for the receiver. No more RNG with entire barrages completely missing their target or the first shot hitting an HMG for 50% damage.

Obviously not something that can be done for CoH2, but it would be a big improvement with indirect fire if there's ever a CoH3.

Commando assault timing buff is going to be the next OP thing about UKF, especially in team games.

Assault was nerfed, not buffed.

In automatch people get matched based on their elo rating so WR will always be close to 50%. Not sure how that says much about balance.

The matchmaker creating 50% win ratios obviously only works for the middle brackets. On either side of the skill range this doesn't work. The total average win ratio still isn't a pure representation of balance, but it does show a decent enough perspective. The difference between the average total win ratios has shrunk since 2019 (from 52.1-48 to 51-48) and the differences in win ratios between the top 10% players have also shrunk quite a bit (from 78-66/65-56 to 73-66/62-55). In fact, at almost every skill level the difference in win ratios has either been steady (around the 50% brackets as expected) or gone down.

Which would indicate an improvement in balance, at least for 1v1, in sharp contrast to the 2v2 tourney. But as I've said, tourney stats are always highly unreliable due to the nature of the matches (spawns, best of 3s, etc.) and low sample size, and should never be used as anything more than something remotely indicative. The tourney results are definitely something to look at, but they are also definitely not a proper representation of balance.

Panzergrenadiers are in a difficult position in the live game. We want to experiment with earlier deployment, before considering raw performance changes. Being able to fit Panzergrenadiers more easily into a build, and acquire veterancy sooner should result in more build diversity for Wehrmacht

is from the original preview patch notes.


Not sure which increased power level of Allied infantry you are referring to anyway. There were hardly any changes to Allied early game infantry before PGrens got changed.

Think you underestimate the importance of timing.

Right.

Pg (and Ober) used to have the role of "elite" infatry and come in most cases after one already had the main core of his army built. Pg where meant to be a supplement to they army and not its core.

And their roles have been changed because these old roles didn't work.

Even is one tried to rush T2 Pg could not really take back the ground lost while waiting for BP1 and T2 structure.

Exactly, which was such a big issue that they were hardly ever used, which was a core reason for the shift to T0.

Currently having Pg as core infatry is allot more common.

Exactly, which was the point of the changes. To allow more varied builds for Ostheer.

PG timing was fine for years, they slowly power creeped to become UP.

It's only completely natural in an ever evolving game that some units lag behind or suddenly become more powerful because of other changes, and need changes to fit them into the new meta. Power creep is not inherently bad, that's just your opinion. And you have the right to have it, but don't sell it as fact.