ok, How do you know from these stats and nothing else that 67% these victories are not a result of bad play by the opponent, a decisive armor engagement, a key cluster bomb, some last ditch minute "assault and hold" quick decap of VP's for the win a lot of factors completely and utterly divorced from 5-man grens usefulness??
Yeah from these stats alone and nothing else.
You can't.
But VSL is the heart of this doctrine, it is almost the only reason to pick it at all. It getting picked so often is a big hint that top players see merit in the commander and therefore most likely VSL.
And since you apparently really want to go down that level:
How can YOU prove that your impression of new VSL being a shitty upgrade does not stem from bad play, a lost decisive armor engagement etc etc BUT instead can actually be attributed to the difference in power level of the old and the new VSL? How can you prove that you would not have lost these matches anyway in a similar fashion?
So what is your basis of saying the new VSL upgrade were completely useless? |
Your point what I understood was the viability of a doc option.(correct me if i'm wrong)
ok how do I rephrase this. Your right, in an Ideal world doc units don't have to be stronger than non doc ones. But viability of an unit depends on it's stats, time window, cost-efficiency and the mechanics of the game. The game has an army budget which favors more powerful over cost efficient stuff. The way the game works it pretty god damn hard to make a doc option both not stronger and viable at same time.
bout the ostruppen. Ost-truppen in the long run are not more cost efficient then grens at all. They are useble(i'm talking pre patch here) enough so wehr player can quickly out tech others(which is what they really want)
The whole KT, t34 thing it's just me trying to explain the game game is really favours super units.
To be honest I think you are wrong on the part that this game favours strong units.
Osttruppen are very cost efficient until the mid game. So are Conscripts, but they keep their efficiency all game and even get more efficient in the late game. Coincidentally, they have been meta for more than one year. Soviet players regularly rebuild Cons in the late game even though they often have access to elite infantry. Ostheer T3 spam is a very viable strat. According to your theory, this game forces Ostheer players to build T4 units because they are stronger, but in fact it does not. The KT is barely build and even a gamble in team games. In general, all heavies have fallen quite out of favor since they got nerfed. Still they are all better than all generalist mediums. So why are they so rarely build? Even the KT that is accessible in every OKW game? Then there is the M42 that is a shitty ATG. But for its time frame it is more cost efficient than a large ZiS, so it got a niche. Even the Soviet 120mm mortar, while not being a straight upgrade in all regards, is rarely bought because of how expensive it is for what it does. Players tend to go with the normal version instead.
These are cheap units that offer at least short term, but often also long term better bang for the buck. If I need a slight buff to my AI capabilities, I might not need an expensive Brummbar, an Ostwind can just do fine. |
I'm not the one making wild claims here.
But anyway, here is some perspective from ML4:
That looks like a decent pick rate, but especially in a commander terminator mode it would be helpful if you could provide pick rates and stats of the highest picked commanders for Ostheer. |
Hate to break it too you but Stug E isn't used as much as the brumbar and Assgrens are specifically used because they are stronger. Ostruppen are used not because they offer something different but it's because the the user to do something different.
M8 and cost effectiveness is worth nothing in this game. ans Agren with more hp models and vet can't do squat against shocks and neither can a t34/76 vs a KT despite being more cost efficient.
Wtf are you even talking about?
Literally all of the points you mention completely miss the point. And even these examples are not even consistent. Osttruppen were used because they trade very well (cost efficiency), especially vs Brits and cheaply tie up a lot of enemy map presence. But they are literally a shitty version of Grenadiers when it comes to almost all stats and utility. StugE not being used is a slight balance problem, but it being doctrinal does not mean that it needs better stats than the Brummbar. THAT was the point I made. And I have no idea why you start talking about stock units with the KT and the T34/76.
Now please respond to the points I actually made instead of making up something I never said. or don't respond at all, fine by me as well. |
Lumping the 5th model in with grens cost while leaving out the mp and fuel cost to unlock nades and upgrades for rifles doesnt show a complete and honest picture.
Vsl grens shoudnt be on par with fully kitted rifles or sections, ost regardless still has acces to their entire stock arsanal witch dont struggle vs allied inf mostly, its just grens that do with 4 men and vsl remedies that.
I mean we had this topic plenty of times now in other threads, so I won't go into much detail here since everyone that is interested should please look at the older discussions.
My take on that is that Allied side techs are mostly used to time the main tech. Design wise, side techs are not optional for the most part and the main infantry is designed to have it sooner or later anyway. For Axis, these functions are just tied to the main tech, therefore I don't add these costs to the units themselves. There are also plenty of other reasons why this is my opinion, but as I said this is better discussed in one of the older threads.
I agree with your second point though: VSL fixed one of the very few holes in an otherwise complete faction. There was barely any weakness in Ostheer to play around anymore. Grenadiers did get survivability while retaining a very decent DPS boost. It was in most cases superior to the MG42 upgrade. I am glad it gets toned down to mostly survivability, so now there is a (hopefully equivalent) choice of either survivability OR DPS. Which is how in my opinion commander abilities should be designed: Offer choice to allow for a different playstyle/strategy, not replace something of the stock arsenal. |
You see here I disagree. Though it's depends on circumstance but still non doc abelites don't lock you out of things. Like 5 man section don't lock Brits out of say their air assault(forgive me i forgot what it's called) where as VSL definitely does lock you out of JU87's. Or how doc Sherman/t34 is better than regular sherman/t34. Like You can't possibly say an ability that doesn't lock you out of stuff should be of equal value as an ability that does lock you out of stuff.
Yes, but this is faction design. The actual argument you should be making is "should IS have 5 men in the first place". Just as it is faction design that USF has crews for built-in repair and both Axis factions have stock elite units, something that Allied factions also need to sacrifice a slot for.
If doctrinal stuff should be better by default, we will mostly run into issues of needing to balance one OP unit after the other. This is especially crucial for complete factions like Ostheer and Soviets. Doctrinal units might just lead to one-dimensional builds and strategies.
I think we have a different understanding of "better" though: I don't mean "better" as stats (which many of the Shermans - your example - actually are), but cost efficiency wise. The StuGE does not have to be better than the Brummbar, neither do Assgrens or Osttruppen have to be better than normal Grens. They just have to offer something special.
Making a unit OP by default is a safe way to break a faction. Because if that occurs you have 2 options: 1. Buff ALL other factions/commanders to the point they can compete with the cheese or 2. nerf stock units to bring the overall power level back in line. |
Bar Rifles are 280+60 muni, VSL 270+60 muni with 2 cp. i'd say they are about the same(i wouldn't bother with the side tech cost cause the original design philosophy with these things has just been eroded away by the balance team at this point), Yes sections are indeed more expensive at 300+60 muni but their ability is non doctrinal. Imagine if lmg Para's were weaker than Obers or shocks were weaker than PG's for instance.
Same on as every one else's. I will say some of it is wrong(on my end). If your wondering what the dps looks like here it is(i wish could give you the html but i don't know how): https://imgur.com/a/a2bVIuz
Edit: I could give the very messy python script used to calculate this but I'll just save you the trouble.
Fair point, I forgot to add the 30 MP for the fifth model of Grens. Yes, then I agrree that those squads are roughly equal in costs.
In general I think though that doctrinal abilities should not be stronger by default than stock choices. It is good enough if they offer a viable option. |
Miragefla pulled these from the editor. You'd have to ask him. Or ask GabrielSerealia.
Alright, thanks! |
I did not understand your point. My point was that not only are Section stronger in terms of combat they also have weaker stuff to fight against. That's why the 5th man upgrade makes them act like terminators.
VSL should not be forcing elite Allied infantry to high tail it outta their. But they should be smashing all the single upgraded mainlines, single bar rifle, single bren sections/ 5 man sections as they cost more or same and are doctrinal.
But yeah i didn't really get your point.
Single bar Rifles/Bren IS are still more expensive than VSL grenadiers. And late game they even cost the same for reinforcement.
...
Off topic: Could you send me the formula for the DPS calculation?
|
On topic:
I think the Calliope could use a small reduction between the single rockets firing offense wise and a decrease to being two-shotted and armor reduction defense wise. |