A higher fire rate can easily overcome guaranteed hits via over 100% accuracy that is why weapon are compared in DPS and not accuracy.
DPS is a function of accuracy. Again, you know this, but deliberately misrepresent important details in your posts to further whatever your current argument is supposed to be.
Different critical does not change the fact that there 2 scoped rifler with a higher ROF.
It does, and this has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people. Your refusal to listen does not change that. If you are going to complain about 'ad hominems', you should start respecting fellow posters by actually reading and engaging with what they have written.
Nope it is simply a critical kill shot.
That activates at 32 HP. Which is 16*2. Again, you are deliberately engaging in toxic behavior by misrepresentation and selective ignorance.
As for vet bonuses Pathfinder have a clear advantage since the vet up much faster the JLI.
The vet bonuses JLI recieve are still greater, and base survivability as well as more consistent damage via greater accuracy makes up for the steeper vet requirements.
When firing on damaged squads able to deliver more than double critical shots (even if these shot need a lower HP threshold) can be more effective.
This is your opinion.
What I have said is that BARs on JLI clone is OP if you agree I advice to move on if you disagree feel free to argue your case.
You said the problem with Pathfinders (who currently can equip two BARs) was related to their sight profile and interaction with Scotts. You then say JLI would be specifically OP with BARs. While you are free to change whatever your public stance is, I think it's pretty clear you understand the difference in combat ability between the two units, however you choose to backtrack. This does, however, make a constructive balance discussion with you very, very difficult.
You are the one questioning weather accuracy is capped at 100% in check not me so the burden of proof lies to you. And here what people with more knowledge of game mechanics have to say:
accuracy(incremental, range, target_size, moving, cover)*damage(cover)*penetration(range, armor)*burst bullets(range, moving)*(1+reload frequency)
1 if single fire, otherwise Burst duration(range, moving)*rate of fire(range)
(wind up+fire aim(range)+burst duration(range, moving)+wind down+cooldown(range, moving))*(1+reload frequency)
- cooldown(range, moving) - fire aim(range) + ready aim(range) + reload duration(range)
DPS: total damage/time required
Accuracy, penetration chance are capped at 1. Burst duration for non burst weapons is 0.125 (this game generally operates on 8 ticks a second, any amount of time is rounded to the closest 0.125). You will have to adjust rate of fire, burst duration, accuracy, cooldown and reload duration all with range. The one -cooldown is because there won't be a cooldown after the last burst before a reload."
Your own post illustrates accuracy in DPS calculation as a final figure assembled after calculation against all the various modifiers that weapon accuracy interacts with. For DPS calculation's sake, this must eventually cap at %100, but even in this specific case, that final accuracy statistic is arrived at after weapon accuracy's multiplication against target_size. While this is not damning evidence, given it is only a formula for generation of damage statistics, it supports what I have said (and what is the common belief, rather than your specific claim of an weapon accuracy cap within the engine, which requires evidence to support it.)
If you took the time to read other people's posts and respect what they have said, you would not have run into this issue. Understand I am not trying to be mean here by repeating myself - it is just that I am tired of this issue occurring whenever I have to respond to you.
Of coarse I do not agree that CP 0 Pathfinder clones would be "worthless" for OKW or for any other faction for that matter.
I doubt that you will find many people that would describe Pathfinder clones as "worthless" for OKW
So your theory is because I posted something this forum suddenly Relic decided to implemented, ok this theory is simply ridiculous.
This is how the balance forum works. The team looked to this forum for feedback, support, and discussion, and you happened to be a very active part of that. I am curious why you would claim not to have this influence - why else would any of us post here?
If there is someone derailing this thread that is you with you add hominem "arguments" and not me.
Actually you describing what you are doing.
And what exactly is the point you are trying to make?
That JLI are more OP than Pathfinders?
To personally attack me?
I wanted to better contextualize JLI, as a unit itself and within this commander, specifically with regard to Pathfinders, since there have been comparisons between these two units since the first page of this thread, and you have tried to make JLI out to be less problematic of a unit in its current state than it actually is, including by claiming (baselessly) that weapon profile accuracy cannot exceed 1.
I do not intend to attack you personally. I only do what I have to in order to further the truth, which is neccesary to discuss balance in a meaningful way.
We are talking about "pathfinder_m1garand_scope_mp", so it very relevant.
The weapon simply has a better rate of fire than the scoped G43.
(Now pls stop being aggressive by barking orders.)
Which is not a carbine - why call it one?
A higher rate of fire doesn't overcome guaranteed hits via over 100% accuracy, nor does it change the difference in crit point. Hell, rumartinez89 already went over this with you back when you posted the different DPS stats without this context.
I will politely request you acknowledge these things because you otherwise attempt to scurry around the point or ignore the content of posts entirely. It is a sad state of affairs, but also entirely your own doing after so many years.
Who gets a critical first is not the only that matters who wins the fight matter more.
Actually, it kind of is.
Two weapons firing with a higher ROF able to do critical, can have a solid advantage in many cases so things are simply not as black and white as you try to present them.
If a HE weapon like a Scott (or mortar) is firing on soft target, the Pathfinder get many more chances to get a critical simply because the fire more bullets.
The Pathfinder critical is basically a double damage shot - excepting a situation of heavy cover (which the JLI G43 mostly ignores anyway) it's one less hit the Pathfinder rifle would have to make. And the Pathfinder M1C is less accurate in these situations and also receives less veterancy bonuses towards accuracy (20% to 40% for JLI).
Given a situation where damage has been done via either AOE or non-focus-fire weapons like the BAR, having a crit point at 60 rather than 32 is going to be more significant, particularly if those AOE weapons have been leaving yellow cover all over the place.
As for weapon that spread damage Pathfinder have access to BARs that do spread damage and JLI simply do not.
120 munitions worth of BARs will certainly help a unit out, and should definitely beat Kar98s. The range bonus Paths (and JLI) get also makes any kind of slot item weapon rather impressive, focus fire or not, but you literally think double BARs are OP on Riflemen, so it's kind of meaningless when you talk about them on Paths. A unit which you previously said is a problem largely for its sight range, not its potential weapon loadouts - a distinction you do not make for hypothetical BARs on JLI, which you acknowledge as a superior combat unit.
Feel free to contact such tests yourself and provide the results because in game I have seen shot that mathematically should not be able to miss to actually do.
Why not post your own evidence, then? The burden is on you, given many weapon profiles and target type bonuses are designed around utilizing more than 100% accuracy. This is not the same thing as weapon scatter.
I am not even sure what you want to argue here since you seem to agree that a double BAR JLI would be OP.
And you agree that they would be worthless as Pathfinders for OKW. I know - there isn't really any reason to be arguing, is there? The superior performance of the JLI squad as compared to Pathfinders has never been in question - you basically admit it here - yet you go on.
Pls elaborate on why in your opinion I am to blame for the current state of the game.
Your massive post history is enough for that. Years of regurgitated and biased attempts to 'rework' various units on this forum have had an undeniable effect on the direction of balance updates. And I specifically remember defenses of both JLI in their older, far more broken state, and - relevant to this tidbit, demands to rework USF indirect fire options. This is however not relevant to the Overwatch commander, so I won't delve into details, as it would simply allow you to derail the thread.
The only thing "insulting" here is that instead of talking about the overwatch commander you see more eager to use add hominem "arguments" making your forum warrior mentality quite clear.
The only thing insulting is your stubborn refusal to discuss balance in a productive, unbiased way, or show other posters the respect they deserve by actually reading their posts in their entirety, or stay on topic in the threads you post in. This has been such a recurring theme over your 13,000+ post history on this forum that I must immediately preface anything I say to you with certain demands. Believe me, I wish I did not have to.
DPS stat I provided prove that Carbine fire faster than G43.
We're not talking about the paratrooper carbine, we were talking about the scoped rifles. Don't bring up irrelevancies like this again.
You comparison say very little for the performance of this weapons in game also. Comparing each weapon on it own mean very little since a there are many factor that you do not take into account like:
Number of shot that can critical (1 weapons vs 2 with better ROF)
Fights with more than 1 squad
Weapon that spread damage like BARs
and so on
One weapon versus two matters little when the effective crit damage is basically halved. It just means the squad with one weapon capable of doing the crit earlier will pick off a model sooner, and will perform better as its own squad decreases in size due to damage concentration.
Spread damage (or already damaged squads) or multiple squad firefights still push the advantage in JLI's favor since - again - the G43 crit point is much higher than that of the M1C, and it is more likely to hit in all situations.
You understand this - don't bother arguing about it.
One can give as high accuracy as one want to a weapon in the editor that does not mean that during the roll check it will not be caped.
Not what I meant. 200% accuracy versus a target size of 0.5 will result in a 100% hit chance. In this sense, 115% accuracy makes for guaranteed hits on targets with a lower target size than 1 (like most combat infantry in the game). This can be tested via modding with the attribute editor - it just doesn't show up in DPS calculations since these presumably use a target size of 1 - where 115% would make no difference compared to 100%.
You should know this already.
Again this comparison means very little and it flawed since you are comparing different commander in different faction.
Would JLI as USF be OP? Sure because once it had double bar equipped it would be unstoppable by any infatry in any range.
Actually, no. It would be the very low target size of the Pathfinder squad using JLI stats. Though double bars on top of the much stronger G43 sniper rifle wouldn't hurt at all.
In any case it not the Pathfinder on their own that create so much issue but the combination of Pathfinder providing excellent vision and of Scott of massacring any soft target.
It is indeed unfortunate that USF had so many indirect fire reworks to put them in this position. You share a great deal of the blame for the situation becoming as it is now, though, so I'm not sure you can talk much about it. This also has nothing to do with the comparison of JLI and Pathfinders.
But you are wrong about CP 0 Pathfinder as an OKW unit and you are also wrong about that impact of CP 1 on USF.
Pathfinder used to be CP 1 and they where far less of an issue because one could only fit 1 (maybe 2) to their built.
A change back to CP1 would make Paths harder to fit into the USF infantry build, yes. But if they were a clone of JLI, people would build them anyway, since JLI are actually good in and of themselves, as a combat unit or a utility unit.
You do not have to publicly acknowledge this point, since everyone knows it's true.
On the other hand, I do think it is a bit insulting that you do not accept that JLI as a CP0 Pathfinder clone for OKW would be worse. It almost looked like you would, since you were talking about how strong 120 munitions of BARs make Pathfinders. This behavior is not unexpected, however - it is unusual for you to admit such things given your incredible and unfortunate tendency to succumb to your biases when posting on this forum.
I struggle to find a valid reason to answer the title.Guard Motor always seems to be in the discussion of being OP/broken yet never Overwatch, despite being the most used OKW doctrine by far.
Overwatch is viable 1v1 to 4v4 and is beneficial throughout the match.Apparently the post UKF-launch salt of Axis players was strong enough to birth this commander into existence, at least that's my assumption considering I started playing in 2017.
That assumption seems to have a lot of ground to stand on though, considering how thoroughly this doctrine counters UKF.I'd say that it's justified to just outright /l a match if you see JLI whilst playing UKF, it's probably part of the reason why my playtime with UKF has dropped so much in the past couple of months, every OKW player given the chance instalocks Overwatch when they see the UKF faction icon.
JLI will make your life living hell if you play UKF(not that they aren't strong against other allied factions too).JLI also mesh well with KT+JP4 "strategies", not as strong as just having Spearhead+Panzer commander sight but it still means a lot to be able to cloak your inf in light cover and use them as free extended vision.
Sector Assault is utterly broken, no two ways about it.A single player should NOT be able to call in 4
AT planes that oftentimes can simply overwhelm a allied defense despite AA being present due to the sheer number of planes.This is now an even bigger issue after the M5 Quad has been nerfed in it's AA ability.
I agree that the commander is very strong. It's also kind of weird thematically. I think the loiter, despite being probably the best in the game (the Fallschirmjaeger one is also quite good) fits with that, at least - as does the LefH, but JLI and the Goliath are weird picks.
I'm beyond trying to come up with ways to balance this dead game, but I do think just tuning JLI down would help in that regard.
On that topic:
keep in mind accuracy is capped at 1 (not sure at what point of check)
G43 has lower accuracy penalty vs cover not a bonus.
It has really bad moving accuracy at 0.1.
Both 'sniper' rifles do 16 dmg per shot. Infantry have 80 hp.
JLI sniper crits at 75%. Another way of saying it is that it can do 60 damage. The crit can activate after 2 shots by either the G43 or any of OKW's standard rifles, be they 16 or 10 damage.
Pathfinder sniper crits at 40%. The crit therefore can do 32 damage. It requires 3 hits by the Pathfinder sniper to activate, or 5 hits by 10 dmg Pathfinder carbines, or 6 hits by 8 dmg Riflemen or Rear Echelon weapons.
This disparity, besides the G43's ability to mostly ignore cover, makes a standard DPS comparison meaningless, as the crit capability is not factored in. It also makes the much greater base accuracy of the JLI G43 more significant - and accuracy over 1.00 is still useful, particularly against lower received accuracy targets. This stat alone puts into question the significance of the DPS profile you give. You can also prove that accuracy does not cap at 1.0 via the attribute editor.
Anyway, if Pathfinders were made effectively clones of JLI, with only one rifle (with current G43 stats), it would be an overall buff, even if gated behind a 60 munitions upgrade. The only downside would be the 1CP start limiting the flanking potential versus Ostheer. Likewise, if JLI were made a complete stat clone of Pathfinders, it would be a straight nerf for JLI. Particularly as the JLI would then lose their incredibly competitive RA and RA vet.
Personally, I'd like to see these 'marksman rifles' changed to be something maybe geared specifically to killing team weapon crews via target table, or something like that. I forget if that's even possible - if there's a target type for crews, particularly those of recrewed weapons - but I like the idea of specializing like that rather than contributing to the oversaturation of effective long range infantry DPS that this game has. I also think base model sight range should be reduced (for all of these types of units), and the extra sight put into the marksman rifle upgrades.
I don't want anything in my Company of Heroes games that was not in the official table of equipment and organization of a combat unit at the year and region of battle depicted.
Game would be so much better, and more authentic. And it would be easy to balance if the people in charge had something concrete to stick to instead of just making shit up as they go.
Gott strafe braindead heavy tank users, also. Single-handedly ruin WW2 RTS games everywhere with their dumbassery.
I actually agree with the wehraboo. All the excuses for why the Black Prince should be added are retarded. There isn't any balance reason to add an out-of-frame unit. There rarely ever is - it's an admission that you don't know how to balance a game.
And we shouldn't pretend that's the real reason for it either. It wasn't even to try and appeal to tank nerds who might recognize it. It's just part of the piss-poor research and care for historical authenticity that Company of Heroes gets worse at every single iteration.
M24 Chaffee light tanks and M18 Hellcat tank destroyers in 1943 Italy are also an abomination, so is the Captain being issued a LMG that wouldn't have seen use by most of the US Army in Italy (the 1919A6s are a mainstay of armored/mech formations and not infantry, as COH2 makes them out to be, and were rare even then at this point in time). The Germans also get their fantasy StG44s (in 1943 Italy... don't give me the MkB42 crap) and a Wirbelwind.
It's all a bad joke and it's high time to stop giving them money for it. They're just going to abandon the game without any sort of modding support after a few years of cash grab DLCs and poor design decisions anyway, and then it'll be managed by a small few 'community' developers with a laser focus on their own specific idea of what the 1v1 'competitive' meta should be and not a care in the world for anything else balance-wise.
It seem you have little to no idea what a "benchmark" (not "baseline").
Claiming that "benchmark" has an advantage is like saying that a stick of 1 meter is now op because one switched to imperial and it now 39.37 inches...
Hey look, it's the guy I was talking about. Still derailing threads with petty, pointless arguments and semantics when you don't have any substance to offer, I see. This time over two almost synonymous terms.
Of course, I can humor you this once, for old time's sake. The real comparison would be you saying that a stick of 1 metric meter should in fact be longer
than 40 imperial inches, because FDR and the New York bankers with the funny little hats ruined Greece - or whatever it was you used to rant about in the shout.
That would be closer to the concept of the Ostheer 'benchmark' argument over the past few years than any idea of it being used to keep other factions in measurement. Indeed - as I detailed in my post, which you likely ignored as you always do - the result of this thinking has only been the removal of Ostheer weaknesses - areas where the meaningful deviation between factions was not in Ostheer's favor. I will not repeat myself in detail as my post is right above yours and you are perfectly capable of reading it, and I will likely not respond to you again unless you decide to contribute meaningfully to the thread topic instead of behaving like this again.
I asked why the Ost MG42 is so OP, while they also have the best mortar, and an amazing AT gun. The response was "Because they have weak infantry, so they need better support weapons". This is a flat out lie. Last time I played as USF, LMG Grens were cutting my riflemen to pieces before they could force the God tier MG42 to retreat. They also have the best snare, best none doctrine LMG, and the best magic grenade that wipes retreating squads. The faction as a whole is overperforming.
Somewhere along the people who demanded Ostheer be considered the 'baseline' faction which all other factions are compared and contrasted with decided it needed to also lose all the factional weaknesses that developed from this arrangement, like squishy mainline infantry and vulnerability to premium indirect fire weapons due to the faction's static gameplay. Now, with the Pack Howitzer and ZiS-3 barrages nerfed and Grens essentially 5-man squads in the lategame, people wonder how we got here. Frankly I'm surprised the StuG hasn't been given 60 range main gun attacks by now.
Wow, a unit that was considered totally useless outside 4v4 only a few patches ago is now OP. Thanks COH2 Balance Forum.
So? Make the OKW AAH go down with 3. Problem solved for everybody.
There is no problem. OKW AAHT is a good unit (and has never been a bad unit, just a unit that was in a bad place because of OKW teching.) If an ATG threatens the vehicle, smoke and get out. If a light tank threatens the vehicle, you should survive enough of the 80hp damage hits until you can get it to the safety of your raketenwerfer or mines. The only real non-armored threat to the OKW 251 AAHT is the USF M15 AAHT, and it can't fire its cannon on the move either.
No idea why Axis players feel like they need to have the best units stats-wise for every scenario. If the flak halftrack didn't have setup time people would still be making these stupid posts calling it underpowered and asking for unique durability buffs.