Its certainly a point for consideration, but none of the commanders with the 250 are insanley powerful. Certainly Mechanised can be good. To be fair spotting scopes and MHT would indeed be too OP lol
Spearhead and Mechanized are very strong commanders and among the best ones that Ostheer has across all modes, they are one of the most prevalent commanders in the loadout. German Infantry is also a good commander. Only Festung support is middlish in my opinion. There could be some issues with those commanders receiving more utility.
CoH2 should have more often focused on transitioning early game units into late game utility roles though, just like your suggestion. Balance team did some of that, but not all units got that treatment and many are still fairly useless later on.
This should have been designed like this in the first place, but will likely be problematic to slap it onto current commander design since suddenly commanders get mortar or early pressure options that they otherwise should not have.
"Their reinforcement cost is also inline with their cost of 210 (210/8=26.25)"
I am not sure to what you disagree since you just posted what I said.
Relic calculated a cost of each unit and used the formula to calculated reinforcement cost. Unit that good spawn from ambient buildings come at higher cost and that is why their reinforcement cost was lower than that of the formula so no what I have post is simply not "straight up wrong" since spawning form buildings was not just "utility" according to Relic.
I don't care what Relic says. The formula was designed for a CoH2 that has seen huge changes, many units do not follow it anymore despite them being balanced. Which means this formula cannot make a point about balance.
I thought you bring this formula up to make the point that their reinforcement cost is fine. If that was not your intention, then why did you post it in the first place? The formula does not prove anything.
Stormtroppers are an example of what I just explained they used to be 340/100(?) mu PGs with camo so the extra MP cost of spawning with 4 K98 was justified because they where paying a premium for infiltration.
I brought this up to emphasize how little the above mentioned formula means. Stormtroopers should be 340/8=42,5 MP in reinforcement cost, yet they cost only 33.
210 manpower 60 munition for AT partisan is not dirty cheap compared to 340 60 munition CP2 AT stormtoppers with no mines or snares? 130 more manpower because they start with 0.75 target size?
You made no such comparison to any other unit whatsoever, neither did you specify AT partisans. You said generally they are dirty cheap. I put this into context to avoid misunderstandings for other readers, because "dirty cheap" will often be understood as affordable and expendable, which is not the case. Soviets have other, similarly priced options, especially considering health, damage and reinforcement cost. Overall, Partisans are not a "cheap" option for Soviets, they are average to even slightly on the expensive side.
I've made my point to hopefully avoid confusion for other users, so I'll leave it at that.
Partisan start with good weapons especially on the move compared to cost.
SPG partisan can set an ambush and with mines/grenade/trap/first strike can easily force retreat or wipe most units. That is how they are meant to be used.
Compare them as scout with 290 manpower/6 pop Pathfinder.
If you have the exact weapon stats, I would be glad if you could provide them. The patch notes are quite cryptic with an alleged Kar98 that performs somewhat worse than a Guard's Mosin. The fact remains that they have less EHP, staying power on the field and damage (static for sure, moving damage depends on the exact profile. Patch notes mention reduced moving damage specifically) than both Conscripts and Penals, even correcting for their price. This again makes the point that calling them cheap is potentially misleading. They are about average cost considering their utility.
I have provided you with an article on how Relic calculated cost .
I know this article. While it is an interesting read, but hard to directly relate to CoH2 because the author abstracted his examples for clarity of his point. It also gives no information where their formula comes from and why they set it as true. But this now leads a bit far off this thread's topic.
As far as I have seen you have compared them with conscript and penals.
As for roles they have the added role of being scout with superior vision and to disrupt lines with faster cap.
Please don't twist my argumentation. The comparison to Conscripts and Penals was done to show that Partisans are not a "dirty cheap" unit for their combat potential compared to other choices that a Soviet player could invest in. The comparison to Stormtroopers and Commandos was done to show that they are also not cheap compared to other units with similar functions. I've stated my overall intention above already.
For 45 mu they get an extra entity and 4 PPsh feel free to explain why in you opinion that is expensive.
This is twisting what I have said. Their upgrade costs as much as most infantry upgrades, that's what I said. The exact bonuses and upgrade provides is tailored to the specific unit. I've explained previously already that the number of weapons that calculating the "munitions cost per weapon" usually does not make sense.
I am not sure why arguing all previous points since this the thing that matters.
One could lower the reinforcement cost of SMG partisans because generally SMG troops become les cost efficient as the game progress or could allow merge since the no reason against anymore.
Lowering the reinforcement cost of At partisan should be avoided since the last thing the game need is shreck blobs again.
Glad that you agree.
I'd probably assume that partisans generally could see a reinforcement cost buff. It's not worth bringing back Schreck blobs, especially not camouflaged ones, but just by gut feeling I don't think that 2 MP less will bring them back that heavily. It's very easy to get a Partisan squad wiped due to their low EHP and model count, an occasional wipe will likely offset the reduced bleed in MP.
Damage profile being flat has nothing to with reinforcement cost.
Unit is OP when first purchased since it really pay no premium for being able to spawn from building.
This was an illustration that the game now is very different from the game that Relic designed when they used this formula as a guideline. Now, 9 years later, half of the units don't follow this rule anymore. As a result, the formula does not say anything anymore about how balanced units are in the current game.
Spawning from buildings has been nerfed across all factions, including partisans. The benefit is not as large as it used to be. Still, Partisans cost more per model and per HP even than semi-elite Penals, so saying there was no premium for their utility (I'll count that spawn mechanic as utility) is straight up wrong.
When it come to reinforcement cost Relic's formula is a fine metric.
Why? There is no reason that it should be. If so, Stormtroopers' reinforcement cost are heavily underpriced, as well as many other units. I've given reasoning that this formula does not make inherent sense, especially in the current version of CoH2.
That is completely arbitrary measure of "cost" since a unit value does not simply depend on its EHP. It has also do with a number of other factor including damage output and utility.
ST/C are elite units. Partisan are not. Even so if you compared AT partisan with AT Stormtroppers you will find them much more cost efficient.
You seem to want to determine reinforcement cost by EHP and buy cost which really makes little sense.
Glad to see that you agree that they are a cost efficient unit to buy.
My point is that they are not "dirty cheap" as you claimed, they are at best an average to even slightly expensive choice to fill your roster.
I fully agree that EHP is not the only factor determining cost. But you will surely agree that regarding damage output, Partisans also fall behind Penals and Conscripts. We've also established that they are not as durable, not even for the price. They have good utility as by their design, but they are not cheap compared to the standard roster. It's important to get this straight and avoid confusion, especially for users that are not as versed in CoH2's stats, because they will otherwise believe that Partisans were cheap units. They're "cheap" at 210 MP, but not for what they are capable of.
If you disagree with my metrics, I'm open to a proper counter suggestion, but so far you have only stated that you think all of this is fine but not provided any reasoning besides Relic's formula that I debunked above.
Partisans and ST/Commandos fill out similar roles. If you need to compare them to something, they are a decent choice. You obviously need to correct for their different costs, but that is exactly what I did.
Conscripts pay 60 munition for 4 PPsh not 5
AT stormtroopers pay the same 60 munition for a sheck but they cost more manpower while they do not get snares or mines.
In sort these upgrade are not expensive.
This does not make any sense.
1. Your PPSh argument: Those squads work completely differently. Putting two DP28s on Guards obviously needs different pricing than a hypothetical ability of giving them to Conscripts, which would surely break them. Weapons work differently in different squads, calculating munitions per weapon only makes sense if the squads actually work the same way. In the same way I can say that the Schreck is super expensive because PGrens get 2 of them for only 100 mun. Airborne Guards even get 6 PPShs for free! All of this has nothing to do with an upgrade being cheap or expensive, since all costs are uniquely designed for each specific unit.
2. There are no AT stormtroopers. They can still have MP40s, they still have other functions and capabilities and can still fight infantry. AT Partisans are just AT due to the low DPS on their rifles. They even shoot at different targets. In pure AT capability: Yes, Partisans are surely better. Stormtroopers still provide a lot on top that justifies the higher price.
My point remains:
The unit is a cost efficient unit, it simply can not and should not be able to carry a whole commander on its own.
No one claimed Partisans should carry the whole commander. People here, including me, keep saying their reinforcement cost is too high and should be lowered.
There target size is fine for cost since they cost 210 manpower to produce.
Their reinforcement cost is also inline with their cost of 210 (210/8=26.25)...
That calculation is what Relic used back when they released the game and damage profiles where flat. It also only works if you assume that the purchase cost and unit performance is balanced in the first place to their respective model count. Today's CoH2 deviates from this rule of thumb often, and even in some cases where it is still true initially, the reinforcement cost or model count is being changed at later stages (Cons, Grens etc). It is not a good metric anymore to assess cost efficiency, especially since it has the oddity of decreasing the "optimal" unit reinforcement cost when increasing the squad size, which means double buffing a unit.
If we use more useful metrics, partisans are not "cheap" at all.
If you consider EHP per MP for purchase costs, partisans give you 1.52 EHP per MP. For comparison, Conscripts have 1.83, Penals 1.65. If you take the EHP per reinforcement cost, Partisans are average as well. Due to low bonuses to RA at vet, this gets even worse the longer the game goes on.
Partisans therefore are one of the more expensive options for early Soviet builds, especially since the cost effectiveness heavily diminishes the smaller your squads become because you need to retreat them earlier. It is safe to say that they are overall average to expensive compared to other Soviet squads. In the end, no one is also going to buy Partisans without upgrading them immediately.
Mainlines cannot avoid damage by cloaking, but these metrics are also not really cheaper than for other ambush or camouflage squads like Stormtroopers or Commandos. Here also, the bad RA means they cannot stay in the fight as long and therefore be as useful.
Overall I'd say their purchase cost is in line with what they bring to the table. Slightly lower combat value for the price that is offset by good utility. But their reinforcement cost is one of the highest in the Soviet lineup, especially when they're up against vetted squads
I sometimes play it for fun. Partisans could have used a reinforcement cost buff to maybe 23-24.
But it does help Soviets much. Almost all comanders rely on elite infantry or the T34/85. Partisans are cheap, but also micro intensive. The rest of the abilities are okay to good, but they don't offset the initial problem.
What Vipper said, just to add to #2:
Models do have a fairly slow rotation time. Only if the model faces the enemy, all the animations and shooting cycles will start. So this comes on top of several hard coded delays to simulate aiming etc.
This is just pure nitpicking if you ask me. We can as well say, why "War Machine" existed in vCoH, because it also does look kinda fictional. I will repeat myself again, lets just sum up what kind of fiction was allowed for CoH across both games:
1) Misrepresentation of units
2) Some fictional abilities on units
3) Rare or super rare used equipment representation
4) Believable abilities made to fit gameplay
5) Fictional, but belivable, ammunition on a small scale (grenades mostly)
6) Pure gameplay abilities which-in the scope of represented factions (vCoH USA "War Machine")
7) Wrong time periods
8) Wrong availability of rare equipment
Where would you put Black Prince? It wasn't finished, it wasn't used, it wasn't put into a production. Literally 6 were made and all 6 were prototypes. Besides the fact that BP looks like a ww2 tank, it doesn't fit into any category CoH previously allowed itself to mess with.
The BP does not fit any of your bullet points, but the problem with your list is that there is no reason for it to be the "be all end all". Why should there not be a 9th point added to it? The criterium is not 'what has been done before', but 'what is authentic'. And that's obviously a very subjective criterium, as we can see in this discussion. Some players basically don't care at all, some are very specific, and everything in between.
The BP is a vehicle developed for the war, based on a vehicle and components that have already been used in the war, but the BP itself has never been used in it. We can therefore make some estimates how it might have performed in battle, but using it in a CoH game is pure fiction. My point is, that there is no >huge< difference to e.g. the V1 rocket in CoH: This weapon, as portrayed in the game, has not existed and it is pure fiction. Just pretending it were a "V1 rocket" does not make its use authentic. There has never been a rocket of this type in WW2 that could even somewhat precisely strike a battlefield. It does not get any of the characteristics of the V1 correctly. It looks like a V1, and the name says V1. That's about all there is. Which leads me to the next point, which you summed up perfectly here:
And it would have been perfectly fine with-in the scope of how CoH gameplay mechanics works. Aside from balance\faction reasoning and some commons sense, kubelwagen could be made into a TD, with an ability to fire its MG into some tank weakspot or something
Stuff like this we have already seen in CoH1 and 2. Authenticity is not a binary decision, it's a spectrum. At which point something looks out of place is a subjective thing. Is the BP okay because it looks like a WW2 tank and its performance can somewhat be estimated, although it has only been prototyped? Is the V1 rocket okay, since it is a weapon that has been used, albeit nothing like portrayed in the game? Is the Sturmtiger okay, although it is a rare vehicle and actually had more the range of a Katyusha than a tank?
How closely the in-game unit has to resemble the real thing is really personal taste.
As I stated previously, I'd personally rather not have the BP in the game for various reasons. But it also won't completely break immersion for me if Relic keeps it. I can live with it, but I also don't get why Relic clings on to the BP so much.
Except, CoH fiction was with-in the scope of actually used equipment. CoH fictions were mostly presented in the abilities\capabilities of the authentic units.
Having fictional grenades or stylised fictional ability on the unit\commander is not the same as having completely fictional tank\unit.
It's splitting hairs at this point, but slapping a real name on a unit does not equal authenticity either. Of course concessions have to be made to gameplay, but authenticity (at least for me) means, that what I see in the game could have occurred that way. This doesn't mean that every unit is as realistic as possible, but at least the general "ranking" of units and their main features, strengths and weaknesses are represented, which CoH got roughly right in most cases. A Sherman will lose to a Tiger or Panther. LMGs work great on long ranges. Airplanes come in and strafe your units (concession to gameplay here are their 100m turn radius, attack pattern, accuracy etc, but calling in air support and strafing runs to take out positions is realistic), etc etc.
BUT: As in the example of the V1 rocket, it is not authentic at all. Those rockets have not been used that way, they have not interferred in ongoing battles and never had the accuracy to actually hit something smaller than a large town. The model of this weapon in CoH1 is completely fictional, just saying it were a "V1" rocket does not make it authentic, since neither its uses, nor strengths or weaknesses are conveyed in the slightest.
If the main criterium is "has this equipment been used in WW2?", you're not aiming at authenticity either. At this point, it would be fine to use a normal Churchill (hek, even a Sherman) and just slap Black Prince stats on top of it so it can defeat a Panther. I am sure most people would not be fine with that.