Overperforming Garands

[kwok]

I understand the original intent for the garand changes was to make riflemen better at close and medium range but k98s to remain strong long range. unfortunately, I don't think this vision was carried through into the game. Mefisto suspected rifles will win against volks most the time at every range, including far range. So we set up multiple tries where volks and rifles will shoot each other at the max range we can practically set up. I can't remember exactly but the rifles won about 7/10 times. And 2 of the times volks won it was a close matchup coming down a 1 vs 1 (squad size). While most the time rifles won by an overwhelming lead (one case where rifles didn't lose any squad members at all). Corsix shows some numbers, I don't see how this could be the case but it is.

[Warhawks97]

hmm. Cant confirm so far. I just had a game... nothing special... there was a 57 mm HT guarded by Rifles with BAR rifle. I rushed the HT with Volks and Panzerfaust and killed it. Up to that moment my units only lost HP although being exposed in the open and "unpacking" the faust. During retreat all but one died.

I had multiple games now as US and WH and generally it feels well balanced. As long as i get by sandbags up with volks i am pretty save and can win most engagment.

And even if there is a slight advantage for the Rifles now, it doesnt matter bc they cost way more to reinforce and in upkeep. So Volks can still win attrition gameplay in the first minutes of game. Means even if you win the first 1-2 engagment and pushing WH back, he comes back very soon and has shorter distances to walk. After 1-2 engagment with losses on both sides WH is getting an edge.

I also tend to use a schwimmwagen whenever possible. In the past games it reached vet 2-3 with 29 and over 30 infantry kills in various engagment in fire support role and harrassment. As fire support for Volks its just an awesome unit and infantry killer.

[MenciusMoldbug]

My gut feelings tell me that the m1 garand and now even the m1 carbine are way better than the ranger m1 garand. I have seen the former two suppress squads out in the open(no suppressive fire just carbines/garands) and do way more damage while the Ranger garands feel really slow firing and you can even lose to a pioneer squad at point blank while approaching them if they keep missing.

Cooldown on rangers for when they fire their rifles from farthest to shortest: 2.6 / 2.399 / 1.75 / 0.9625

*Pioneers take a shot at point blank like every 1.5 seconds btw

Cooldown for rifles ranges between: 2.25 - 0.75 / 2.25 - 0.75 / 1.95 - 0.65 / 1.05 - 0.35

The accuracy differences start to shrink really fast when you get closer, like around a 15% difference. If all the shots connect for both these weapons the rifle garand is doing way more damage especially if you get nice rolls on the cooldown.

I gave up on Rangers(except inf doc special ranger teams like the infiltration ones) for ranged combat since Riflemen already do what I need them to do with the Garands. Rangers with their elite infantry target type might be harder to hit but cost efficiency wise, you don't really see much of a difference in range fights between Rangers and Riflemen. While Volks and Grenadiers have a sizable difference since Volks don't get a faster firing gun in compensation for lower accuracy.

I remember in COH 2 they had a somewhat similar problem. They released USF with garands that did the same damage as kar98ks but shot like 2-3x faster and they had to cut the damage in half because riflemen would win every fight, in the open, against light/green cover, even trenches. Sometimes you didn't even have to use cover, just A-move on the enemy and they would out-DPS them even in unfavorable environments.

[kwok]

I would also add that most combat is done at close to med range purely because good players know how to path to a target safely. So while the tweak’s intent might have been made to have volks able to win against charging rifles, that favorable circumstance is rare in PvP. I might even go to say that there are times in that particular circumstance, rifles can still win because they might lose 2 guys closing distance, but the dps advantage they get once in point blank range against volks is enough have a good chance of winning a 4 v 6.

Axis are even more reliant on support weapons more than before, volks only good for their ability to capture faster than other early game units. This might not be a bad thing gameplay wise, but I’d definitely at least consider a price adjustment on volks and grens. But I made a post about the constantly changing gren pricing and feel like there is a bigger issue of doctrine design worth investing time into before making these adjustments (excited to hear about upcoming doctrine reworks).

I also agree about the Rangers but have nothing else worth adding.

[mofetagalactica]

Mmm its not such a problem since i always equip 1 volk squad with x1 upgrade of m40 to avoid these kind of close-ups of volks and at max distances (wich is pretty weird in pvp) i really don't feel any difference or the kar being better than garands at max dist, so yeah im up for a change.

- What about buffing even more the kars at max distance for volks and greens and give fast shooting garands to rangers too?

[MarKr]

I would also add that most combat is done at close to med range purely because good players know how to path to a target safely. So while the tweak’s intent might have been made to have volks able to win against charging rifles, that favorable circumstance is rare in PvP.

Isn't that why the MP40 was enabled to upgrade right from the start and in 2 smaller packages? People said that Rifles rush them and there is no defense and asked for these MP40 to prevent that, and since it was introduced, there have been no more compaints (untill now ).

- What about buffing even more the kars at max distance for volks and greens and give fast shooting garands to rangers too?

Anyway, if it really is a problem I would rather go for some nerf on Riflemen Garands rather than buffing Volks/Grens or something else because if some unit (B) needs a buff because some other unit (A) got a buff in the first place, then very soon there will be a call for buffing another unit (C) to get a buff because now (B) is stronger than it used to be, and then you will need to buff unit (D), (E) etc. when you get to a point where (A) is weak again and needs a buff :/

So if the Riflemen Garands are too strong they could get lower accuracy on closer ranges, they could even get some damage nerf against infantry, or lower chance to one-shot a soldier with a hit. Or some combination of these.

[mofetagalactica]

So if the Riflemen Garands are too strong they could get lower accuracy on closer ranges, they could even get some damage nerf against infantry, or lower chance to one-shot a soldier with a hit. Or some combination of these.

I wasn't complaining tho since i always upgrade my volks with x1 m40 to avoid garand rushes so its like really fine for me, but i think they're just complaining about max distance fights where the kar dosn't seem to have the upperhand its more like a 50% 50%

[kwok]

I would also add that most combat is done at close to med range purely because good players know how to path to a target safely. So while the tweak’s intent might have been made to have volks able to win against charging rifles, that favorable circumstance is rare in PvP.

Isn't that why the MP40 was enabled to upgrade right from the start and in 2 smaller packages? People said that Rifles rush them and there is no defense and asked for these MP40 to prevent that, and since it was introduced, there have been no more compaints (untill now ).

yeah you're right mp40s are a solution to this, but the point of me saying this is to bring up that under particular circumstances the units are not performing as intended:

In "one squad vs one squad" combat Riflemen will lose to Grenadiers, Riflemen can beat Volks but even there the chances are more in favor of Volks. But the main thing is the distance - Kar98s are more accurate at distance and that is where you want to fight. Garands of Riflemen at distance shoot fast but have very hard time hitting anything, especially if the target is in cover. Also the Garands have lower boosts when they shoot at enemies that are in the open (no cover). So your best bet is to keep distance and fight from cover. If they destroy your cover (e.g. with rifle nade or something) move to another cover and stay there. Don't try to rush Garands - this might work in the case that you have some shot-blocking object between you and Riflemen but if the Riflemen have a clear shot at you during the whole distance-closing maneuver, your troops are likely to die, on the other hand if Riflemen try to rush you, you have the upper hand - they need to move out of cover at that point your Kar98s get substantial accuracy buffs and Riflemen (since they shoot on the move) get accuracy nerf which will result in them getting rekt easily.

in terms of no more complaints, i wouldn't say that. just quieted complaints because the meta has changed. it wasn't until someone KEPT complaining to me that i agreed to do this test game. now i'm writing on behalf of that person, plus my own thoughts because i wasn't originally a fan of the garand changes but i'm willing to adapt as long as what was intended from the changes carries through practically.

[Warhawks97]

Ok, the majority of games i played US followed closely by WH. I used all units listed here and had good moments on both sides. I had Volks sometimes with Mp40 shredding even rangers in close quarters and so on.

Rifles felt usefull if you had at least two squads. A single one was quite ineffective in my opinion. Once caught off guard and two men were dead already. When i met Volks behind their sandbags they often managed to snipe away 1-2 of my rifles. If you spam rifles early on you just dont know what you are going to face and where bc you spare in reconassaince. In worst scenario you run into volks and their sandbags and a schiwimmwagen and you can make a full retreat right away even with 3 squads. I current WH opening is two Volks and schwimm. So i have 3 inf squads that can take cover behind their sandbags and a schwimm. Followed then by AT rifles in case dingo comes. Jeeps became extremely rare and if i face one i still can just sit behind my sandbags and shoot it with rifles or wait for the AT rifles.

yeah you're right mp40s are a solution to this, but the point of me saying this is to bring up that under particular circumstances the units are not performing as intended

The cost already favours Volksgrens. They cost 10 MP more but after one min if playing and perhaps few reinforcments the bleedout effect is worse for rifles since they cost 25 MP. That 7 men squad is another story and requires more tec. I actially expected that you would take these things into acc since you belong to one of those who usually see a full picture and not going into these 1 vs 1 comparision.


So i didnt really feel much of an issue. The game yesterday i played vs Raweshau we also got pushed back by aggressive rifles close to our base. But his losses rose up and the schwimmwagen/Volks and other inf counterattack was so well that we were about to almost win the game. Sadly third in team had never played pvp before and raweshau and his team used that weak spot to crush them with jumbo sherman, greyhounds and churchill tanks.
But in terms of infantry gameplay the Volks/Puma combo clearly beat out Rifle/Greyhound combo.


The general situation is that WH has the mobility edge due to AT rifle over US AT gun, they have the tec advantage up to T2, better early mortar and better vehicles as well as lower reinforcment cost and much cheaper upkeep. Volks gets also buffed in two out of three doctrines.

My gut feelings tell me that the m1 garand and now even the m1 carbine are way better than the ranger m1 garand. I have seen the former two suppress squads out in the open(no suppressive fire just carbines/garands) and do way more damage while the Ranger garands feel really slow firing and you can even lose to a pioneer squad at point blank while approaching them if they keep missing.

Cooldown on rangers for when they fire their rifles from farthest to shortest: 2.6 / 2.399 / 1.75 / 0.9625

*Pioneers take a shot at point blank like every 1.5 seconds btw

Cooldown for rifles ranges between: 2.25 - 0.75 / 2.25 - 0.75 / 1.95 - 0.65 / 1.05 - 0.35

The accuracy differences start to shrink really fast when you get closer, like around a 15% difference. If all the shots connect for both these weapons the rifle garand is doing way more damage especially if you get nice rolls on the cooldown.

I gave up on Rangers(except inf doc special ranger teams like the infiltration ones) for ranged combat since Riflemen already do what I need them to do with the Garands. Rangers with their elite infantry target type might be harder to hit but cost efficiency wise, you don't really see much of a difference in range fights between Rangers and Riflemen. While Volks and Grenadiers have a sizable difference since Volks don't get a faster firing gun in compensation for lower accuracy.

Me too, esspecially the 7 men squad. I use rangers only in inf doc as well.
But if we got so far already, when Rifles are really a US-backbone infantry now or lets say able to do it and keeping effective throughout the game, so why not just taking that chance to make Rangers a unique versatile unit for infantry doctrine only. Perhaps even with a limit for the basic squad.
The Rifles might be some sort of powerfull basic infantry, but thats it. In return US would have to rely completely on this unit while axis have wide access to different infantry like Volks and Grens, PGrens, stormpios and heavy assault grens.

Simple faction design. Rifles would stay somewehere between Volks and grens/heavy assault grens.
Rangers could fill special purposoes for inf doc. They can boost their HP by that unlock (iirc the infiltration guys have like 90 HP then) and their target type makes them 25% harder to hit by most or all small arms. So they can fill special missions under even extrem harsh conditions what Rifles simply couldnt do.

Is anyone even considering this as an option before messing arround with stats so that rifles will become usless overnight and for the next decades like they had been for the past years before they got competetiv? Thats the last thing i would want.

I remember in COH 2 they had a somewhat similar problem. They released USF with garands that did the same damage as kar98ks but shot like 2-3x faster and they had to cut the damage in half because riflemen would win every fight, in the open, against light/green cover, even trenches. Sometimes you didn't even have to use cover, just A-move on the enemy and they would out-DPS them even in unfavorable environments.

Coh 2 vanilla is a mess, everybody knows that. The US faction is totally messed up. And when they figured it out they simply added a single doctrine that has Pershings and Rangers which everybody is playing now. Rifles are a hell of a bleedout and these officers come automatically to the battlefield at each tec up, now matter if you want and need them or not and they eat up popcap and upkeep.

[kwok]

All that you say has merit, warhawks. And it’s not like I don’t think about a full balance view point, the game as of now can be balanced sure. But the point I want to drive is not a matter of true balance (despite me posting in the balance thread), the issue is the recommended style of gameplay by the devs and their vision of how the units behave did not come into reality.

So things like upkeep balancing can be rebalanced after other necessary adjustments. Maybe even no stat change is needed at all, just a minor cost adjustment for volks, they stay unable to contest riflemen at every range (after all doesn’t volks mean “people’s” or in better context “militia”) but get something else adjusted like building price so that axis can field a proper counter response in the opening (an undebateable important phase of the game and when upkeep doesn’t matter). That’s a solution right? And devs just change their messaging on what volks are.

You talk about rifle/greyhound vs volks/puma scenario. You’re right, volks/puma is probably going to win based on my experience as well.... but I don’t feel like it’s because rifles and volks are the most impactful units there. It’s the puma’s outstanding reliability it beating the greyhound that drives that matchup. The weird part about that particular matchup though is in terms of absolute build costs, volks cost more than rifles and greyhounds cost more than pumas. Yet it’s the puma beating the greyhound that does the work.

Also yeah I think I supported rangers being doctrine specific before but I’d rather see large reworks done in stages and axis reworks are a bigger need now

[drivebyhobo]

I remember in COH 2 they had a somewhat similar problem. They released USF with garands that did the same damage as kar98ks but shot like 2-3x faster

Coh 2 vanilla is a mess, everybody knows that.

I don't blame them too much. Relic is neither the first or last developer to have wrestled with trying to force parity between the k98 and the Garand. All too often, developers take the path of least resistance and choose to beat the Garand with the nerf bat until only a superficial resemblance remains because they are both the "common" service rifle.

So if the Riflemen Garands are too strong they could get lower accuracy on closer ranges, they could even get some damage nerf against infantry, or lower chance to one-shot a soldier with a hit. Or some combination of these.

If it's necessary to disturb the status quo, what about decreasing the long range strength of the Garand in exchange for increasing the Garand's short to medium strength (perhaps a cooldown exchange)? Such a tradeoff would be much better than leveling out the differentiation between them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, Garands really do not overperform. At least if one's expectations are based on the real weapon characteristics.



Here's an example of an average rifleman shooting at an interval of 0.4 seconds. That fits within the short range [0.35,1.05] cooldown.



A different example of an experienced shooter accurately shooting a short range target at an interval of 0.25 seconds. Who wouldn't want him in their Ranger squad?

[Warhawks97]

Ok. Summing up some points.

Unbalanced cost between rifles and Volks:
I dont see it like that. Just bc they cost 10 MP more top build doesnt makes them more expensive as long as they cost half the upkeep and less reinforce cost. Before first combat you have saved that ammount of MP just by upkeep. When numbers getting larger matters will favour Volks even more. 3 Rifle squads will cost an upkeep almost that of 5 Volks approx. So no issue here.
Also i could just as well ask why Snipers and recons cost almost no upkeep for WH (like 1-2 per min) while a single US recon drains 10 MP per min in the early game. Later its still at approx 5 or so. Snipers is ok since they counter expensive german inf but the recons? Thats just a remainder what would be questioned once you go too deep into that 1 vs 1 rifle vs volkscomparision trying to get a 100% balance between them.

Damage reduction vs inf of Garand:
Just no. Its already lower than that of german rifles. The G43 (i know its an upgrade) fires fast at any range with better accuracy and has 27-36 bullet damage. Garand has 20-30. Lowering that would mess things up too much. Its like one side plays voch while the other BK mod.
Its the worst you could do bc that would totally ruin the balance between just everything, even rifles vs pios, weapon crews etc.

nerf Garand at range:
No. Its already low in terms of accuracy and i hadnt much issues beating rifles in a long range rifle fight with comparable cover. Nerfing it back and we would be at a situation we had before Garands got changed: Being only effective at sub machine gun ranges. So a no as well here. We would end up at the same situation as we have been before major Garand changes.



@Kwok: Dont mistake Volksgrenadier with Volkssturm. Volksgrenadier units were Grenadiers whos units got destroyed or recovered Grenadiers from hospitals. They werent as combat strong as the Grenaider divisions but they were not simply "Volk with Rifles".


My answer to this:

1. Drop Volksgren build cost to approx 240 MP perhaps or 250. Reinforce cost will drop to approx 20-21 per men which is almost insane cheap.
2. Either keep Rifles at 255 MP or get them up to 260. Drop the reinforce cost to approx 24 for per men in order to prevent a too harsh long term MP bleedout (55% reinforce cost instead 60%).
3. Drop Gren cost to perhaps to 390 MP or 380. Reinforce cost would then be arround 32 MP per men.
4. Remove the extra damage from all K98. From 23-33 to 20-30 damage like M1. They were quite similiar, in fact the US round was more powerfull but for the game they could have same damage.
5. Remove Rangers from Armor and AB doc. It apparently causes too much confusion about what unit is better. I dont want to nerf the rifles again just bc people dont see a reason why getting rangers (who apparently doesnt provide any significant bonuses over standard rifles currently). So dont nerf a basic unit just to make another expensive unit worthy to get again. And a single ranger unit doesnt add much of additional punch to your forces and armor or AB does not have a reason getting more than 1-2 squads per game currently.
6. Drop Greyhound cost by a bit. Lets say 310 MP basic. Depending on what is going to happen with cal 50´s in future the cost can be lowered like when Cal 50´s become upgrades instead of default armament. Thats in order to balance the stage after the initial infantry stage.
(7. This is not necessary but a thought: In vcoh Rifle squads got boosted by Supply yard upgrades. They then started to gain veterancy faster. Perhaps that could be reintroduced in case Rifles wont be able to hold their ground in late games anymore.)


Result: No uneccessary overnerfing or overbuffing of units that just became valuable. Volks could serve as a cheaper multipurpose infantry screen to valuable tanks throughout the entire game without becoming too much conscript. Meanwhile Rifles would less suited for attrition combat but instead become the Backbone of US infantry gameplay at any stage. Not to weak to lose against the cheapest axis inf units but not too strong to outclass upper tier axis infantry.
Rangers remain special without becoming the reason of why Rifles should get nerfed into oblivion again just when they became usefull combat infantry for the first time in BK history!

[MarKr]

Sorry guys, you know I love you but let me get back to you tomorrow when I am sober.

[kwok]

Response to war hawks:
I don’t disagree the facts you say. The nuanced I would add is these units are intentionally designed to be most impactful early game and turn into backbone units later. The build cost balancing is much more important in the early game than late game. Upkeep is more important late game than early game. Given you agree with those statements, it sounds like we can both agree that as of right now the costs and upkeeps of both units are not well aligned with the capabilities of the units. Do you agree? The adjustment of price or capability of the units can be debated only if we agree that there is a reason to make balanced first.

Markr,
When can we get drunk together?

[The New BK Champion]

I agree rifle garands are overperforming. I think that if the best way would be to reduce rof. If not that, it should bullet damage then.

[Erich]

allies dont have any mg squad so its fine to have a good early infantry squad.

[Warhawks97]

I agree rifle garands are overperforming. I think that if the best way would be to reduce rof. If not that, it should bullet damage then.

Compared to what? vs Volks? I think it became obvious that Volks are currently the cheapest inf so far and that WH in general benefits largely from low upkeep, reinforce cost, quick tier up and early 81 mm motar. So i dont have a huge problem when Garands perform better in most combat situations than Volks K98 rifles.

Dropping bullet damage isnt a option bc its already low. CW Enfields have 19-29, Garands 20-30, K98 23-33 and G43 has 27-36. Below that is lmg damage. So you would transfrom them into rifles with lmg bullet damage and accuracy. So how low shall it gets? 12-17? Thats the damage of the Dingo lmg (and brens in general) which has currently a better accuracy than Rifle Garands and its a machine gun. What you propose here is to make a rifle having a bullet damage of an lmg just with even worse accuracy and single fire. A single dingo would have more firepower than the entire Rifle squad. And i dont think anyone would say that Dingo is highly effective in killing Infantry.


As said, i would prefer build cost increase for rifle squad, cost drop perhaps on Volks and even Grens and remove Rangers from all but inf doc and make Rifle squads the sole US non-doctrinal infantry/backbone infantry. But just dont rofl-nerf them to a point which makes them perhaps even more useless than ever before.

Response to war hawks:
I don’t disagree the facts you say. The nuanced I would add is these units are intentionally designed to be most impactful early game and turn into backbone units later. The build cost balancing is much more important in the early game than late game. Upkeep is more important late game than early game. Given you agree with those statements, it sounds like we can both agree that as of right now the costs and upkeeps of both units are not well aligned with the capabilities of the units. Do you agree? The adjustment of price or capability of the units can be debated only if we agree that there is a reason to make balanced first.

Ok, i am not 100% sure what your goal actually is. Or what kind of suggestion you would like to make (upkeep up/downs, reinforce cost up/down, build cost up/down? Which unit you want to have cheaper or more expensive? I am open for everything in terms of cost and rebalance but just dont touch the Garands again. We had the usless and inferior from the first days of BK untill last year. Now they are usefull and even deadly and why should we nerfing them again? I am just glad that i can actually kill something with Rifles just as i am used to from K98 for years already.

[MarKr]

OK, I'm back and sort of sober...I read what was written here and if I get it right, the main point of this topic is that Riflemen Garands were changed and we said that Kar98s should have some advantage at longer ranges while the Garands should be better at closer ranges but in the end it is more like Garands win most of the time in 1v1 at any range. Did I get this right?

If it is so then the accuracy at longer ranges can be dropped a little bit to keep the range advantage on the side of Axis with their Kar98s, but the rest of the accuracy values can stay, because at closer ranges the Garands do well enough.

Dropping bullet damage isnt a option bc its already low. CW Enfields have 19-29, Garands 20-30, K98 23-33 and G43 has 27-36. Below that is lmg damage. So you would transfrom them into rifles with lmg bullet damage and accuracy. So how low shall it gets? 12-17? Thats the damage of the Dingo lmg (and brens in general) which has currently a better accuracy than Rifle Garands and its a machine gun. What you propose here is to make a rifle having a bullet damage of an lmg just with even worse accuracy and single fire

It seems to me that you compare everything to reality when you say that something has "lmg damage" or that "they had similar bullets" etc. This is a game and damage is set to place the gun on some level of efficiency, damage is not based on "real" values. It is simply not possible because there is no "damage" value on a real life bullet. Sure, some bullets can have more devastating effect than others but a pistol bullet hitting person into a chest would be more deadly than a rifle bullet scratching a person's arm. And this is why it is possible to set different damage for a weapon that realistically uses same or similar ammo as another weapon - it can be simply part of the balancing, it shoots many bullets, less accurately, so there can be higher chance that the bullet just scratches the enemy. Now you can say "but this weapon does has higher dammage and can also only scratch" etc. yes, true. But my main point here is that damage per bullet can differ based on the weapon usage in the game and the "damage" value in general is just another way of balancing the overall efficiency and does not have to be set based on real life caliber or whatever.

I am not saying that the Garands will get damage nerf, just saying that comparing everything to reality and making conclusions such as "Kar98 ammo was similar to Garand ammo and so their damage should be the same in the game" is not the best way to look at the game balance.

Markr,
When can we get drunk together?

Whenever you're in the Czech republic

[Warhawks97]

Dropping bullet damage isnt a option bc its already low. CW Enfields have 19-29, Garands 20-30, K98 23-33 and G43 has 27-36. Below that is lmg damage. So you would transfrom them into rifles with lmg bullet damage and accuracy. So how low shall it gets? 12-17? Thats the damage of the Dingo lmg (and brens in general) which has currently a better accuracy than Rifle Garands and its a machine gun. What you propose here is to make a rifle having a bullet damage of an lmg just with even worse accuracy and single fire

It seems to me that you compare everything to reality when you say that something has "lmg damage" or that "they had similar bullets" etc. This is a game and damage is set to place the gun on some level of efficiency, damage is not based on "real" values. It is simply not possible because there is no "damage" value on a real life bullet. Sure, some bullets can have more devastating effect than others but a pistol bullet hitting person into a chest would be more deadly than a rifle bullet scratching a person's arm. And this is why it is possible to set different damage for a weapon that realistically uses same or similar ammo as another weapon - it can be simply part of the balancing, it shoots many bullets, less accurately, so there can be higher chance that the bullet just scratches the enemy. Now you can say "but this weapon does has higher dammage and can also only scratch" etc. yes, true. But my main point here is that damage per bullet can differ based on the weapon usage in the game and the "damage" value in general is just another way of balancing the overall efficiency and does not have to be set based on real life caliber or whatever.

I am not saying that the Garands will get damage nerf, just saying that comparing everything to reality and making conclusions such as "Kar98 ammo was similar to Garand ammo and so their damage should be the same in the game" is not the best way to look at the game balance.

I compared a shit with reality here. I just said that we have a range of damage that rifle bullets usually deal in BK(which is approx 20-30) and a range of what lmg and HMG or burst based weapons in general have as damage BK which is arround 12-20, exception is the lmg42.
Besides that this your logic of "arm and leg hits due to high rof and low accuracy" is twisted and turned upside down anyway. The two fastest shooting weapons with average accuracy, LMG42 and G43, do have by far the highest damage in their weapon categories (lmg and rifles)

So i sort of compared the damage of weapons of similiar type and purpose in Blitzkrieg mod not simply "reality". And my conclusion was that dropping the rifle bullet to burst weapon damage bullet would be nonsnese since these weapons have bursts, rifles not. And since Garand does not have a burst and a accuracy lower than that of an bren lmg or M1919 it would be a massive over-nerf to Garands and generally nonsense.

If i would go full realism, i would either ask to have all burst weapons that use the bullet of rifles (FG42, BAR, M1919, Bren, lmg34/42 and so on) would have the exact same bullet damage as rifles or rifles using lmg bullets having lmg bullet damage. Thats nonsense and i didnt do that here.

I just said that the Garand is afterall a single shot weapon, not a burst weapon. Giving it burst weapon damage values and an accuracy of burst weapons would be a fatal error.

Also i still havent got an answer to my main question:
Volks are technically much cheaper already and i am not against build cost drop for them or cost increase of rifles. So what would be wrong then to have these two units more or less equal in ranged combat (Volks have that big advantage to put sandbags everywhere while rifles might be forced to battle in the open) and rifles superior at mid and close range. Making the Garand superior in hands of an average soldier over K98. Meanwhile Axis gets access to far better trained soldiers which outlcass the Garands of an average soldier due to superior weapon handling (better accuracy) while US does not have access to such elite forces with special rifle skills unless they pick inf doctrine.
Why is everybody strictly ignoring these possible chances and prefer a pure garand nerf just bc "omg in some instances they managed to win a battle at ranged combat against the cheapest combat infantry in the entire game". Why is everybody ignoring it? I meam honestly, how often do you guys see rangers or numbers of rangers being deployed by armor or AB doctrine?

[MarKr]

OK, I sort of messed up in explaining what I meant. It is not like there is a strict limit on what a rifle bullet needs to have as min or max damage or what LMG needs to have. Yes, usually the numbers are around the values you gave here but it does not mean that they always need to be like that. There is no reason why a rifle shot could not have same damage as MG shot as long as the weapon is overall balanced.

Also you make it sound like people here ask for nerfing the Garands to the level of being useless again. Nobody said that here. The intention with the change in the first place was to make Riflemen with Garands superior to Volks with Kar98 at shorter rangers (which is the case) but when shooting at each other at long range in same cover, then Volks were intended to have an advantage and in such 1v1 situation have a win-chance of approximately 60%. So it is not like "long range = Volks win every time".

Anyway:

Why is everybody strictly ignoring these possible chances and prefer a pure garand nerf just bc "omg in some instances they managed to win a battle at ranged combat against the cheapest combat infantry in the entire game". Why is everybody ignoring it?

I don't know why others ignore it but from my point of view, I clicked on a topic which discusses possible issue with Garands, or more precisely it says that the Garands don't work as we intented (intention was to make them slightly inferior to Kar98 at longer ranges) and logically the solution would be to somehow tweak the gun. Instead your solution to this includes cost changes to Volks, Rifles and Grenadiers, changes of reinforcement costs to Volks and Rifles, nerfing damage of Kar98, restricting Rangers to one doctrine only, and a change to cost of Greyhound. So it sounds a bit weird that a solution to the "Garands are better at longer ranges than they were intended" is tweaking lots of things but not the Garand.

[MenciusMoldbug]

My question is why Rangers have to be only as good as Rifleman with their Garands? Why do they shoot slower with more accuracy while Rifles get rapid fire Garands? It feels like the Rangers are using springfield bolt rifles or something considering they should be 'better trained' with the Garands than a rifle squad would be. I would actually use Rangers more if their Garands operated like Garands; in the current state they are like a pseudo-mirror version of kar98k_elite for axis. If I had to pay even more mp to get better soldiers who can rapidly shoot a Garand with good accuracy in Ranger Squads I would actually pay that price. Otherwise what's the point? 2 Riflemen squads are more useful than a single Ranger squad and you only have to pay like 120 more manpower to get 2 of them over a single Ranger Squad.

On limiting Rangers to only inf doc, I wouldn't mind. Armor doesn't get enough spare MP to put it into good infantry, they just go straight for Sherman HE's, M10s, etc. Mass vehicles into Pershing which is how it should be. Airborne uses Airborne infantry over Rangers because of that nice defensive buff they get on that last CP upgrade of that tree. So this only leaves Inf doc actually using Rangers, which in the current state are not much better than Rifles.

I would keep Rifles as they are, increase the price or whatever and make Rangers way better than Riflemen with their Garands at increased cost or something. Rangers don't get to reinforce on the field like Airborne or Luftwaffe infantry anyway, those 6 men like Grenadiers are all you get on the field before you have to retreat or reinforce near a halftrack/secure area. So they should have good punching power against enemy infantry in ranged combat otherwise people will just clutch to that Ranger Infiltration squad with 5 thompsons, bazooka, and crawl.

[MarKr]

My question is why Rangers have to be only as good as Rifleman with their Garands? Why do they shoot slower with more accuracy while Rifles get rapid fire Garands? It feels like the Rangers are using springfield bolt rifles or something considering they should be 'better trained' with the Garands than a rifle squad would be.

So how does "better trained" translate into the game? The Riflemen shoot a lot and miss a lot. Rangers are better trained so they actually take a proper aim before shooting, so they shoot slower but have better chance to hit something. Also Rangers with their Garands have higher chance to one-shot infantry. For example Riflemen Garand cannot kill enemy Grenadier with full HP with the first hit, Ranger Garand can.

[Warhawks97]

My question is why Rangers have to be only as good as Rifleman with their Garands? Why do they shoot slower with more accuracy while Rifles get rapid fire Garands? It feels like the Rangers are using springfield bolt rifles or something considering they should be 'better trained' with the Garands than a rifle squad would be. I would actually use Rangers more if their Garands operated like Garands; in the current state they are like a pseudo-mirror version of kar98k_elite for axis. If I had to pay even more mp to get better soldiers who can rapidly shoot a Garand with good accuracy in Ranger Squads I would actually pay that price. Otherwise what's the point? 2 Riflemen squads are more useful than a single Ranger squad and you only have to pay like 120 more manpower to get 2 of them over a single Ranger Squad.

On limiting Rangers to only inf doc, I wouldn't mind. Armor doesn't get enough spare MP to put it into good infantry, they just go straight for Sherman HE's, M10s, etc. Mass vehicles into Pershing which is how it should be. Airborne uses Airborne infantry over Rangers because of that nice defensive buff they get on that last CP upgrade of that tree. So this only leaves Inf doc actually using Rangers, which in the current state are not much better than Rifles.

I would keep Rifles as they are, increase the price or whatever and make Rangers way better than Riflemen with their Garands at increased cost or something. Rangers don't get to reinforce on the field like Airborne or Luftwaffe infantry anyway, those 6 men like Grenadiers are all you get on the field before you have to retreat or reinforce near a halftrack/secure area. So they should have good punching power against enemy infantry in ranged combat otherwise people will just clutch to that Ranger Infiltration squad with 5 thompsons, bazooka, and crawl.

Thank you!

Thats my point. Dont mess up the Rifle squad again. Keep it as it is.

[MenciusMoldbug]

My question is why Rangers have to be only as good as Rifleman with their Garands? Why do they shoot slower with more accuracy while Rifles get rapid fire Garands? It feels like the Rangers are using springfield bolt rifles or something considering they should be 'better trained' with the Garands than a rifle squad would be.

So how does "better trained" translate into the game? The Riflemen shoot a lot and miss a lot. Rangers are better trained so they actually take a proper aim before shooting, so they shoot slower but have better chance to hit something. Also Rangers with their Garands have higher chance to one-shot infantry. For example Riflemen Garand cannot kill enemy Grenadier with full HP with the first hit, Ranger Garand can.

I can understand that line of reasoning but it sounds like a sort of compensation for the fact that a Riflemen on a good RNG roll has put 3 bullets into a guy at point blank vs a Ranger Garand that only shot once at a guy in that amount of time. I would take more dices over having one good dice and that's what Ranger Garand is like. You are betting on that one good dice roll to be good to you while a Riflemens DPS rolls are evened out between the cooldown. So even if a Riflemen misses he will get another chance to get a shot in faster than a Ranger and sometimes that's much more crucial than hoping for that instant kill on a 1-man running away Grenadier that's at like 30-35 HP. That's accounting if they all just decide to miss.

I would also without doubt, take the Riflemen Garands for my airborne squads over the Ranger Garands as an upgrade. They are that good.

[MarKr]

What is wrong about having different options? Riflemen are better suited for close-range combat, Rangers are better at ranges. But when you speak about "point-blank" combat, then if all your infantry always attacks opponent at these short ranges, won't it lead to your opponent always equipping MP40/StG44 and thus wiping the floor with you every time? Riflemen Garands are good at close range but they won't beat SMGs.

Also this:

Riflemen on a good RNG roll has put 3 bullets into a guy at point blank vs a Ranger Garand that only shot once at a guy in that amount of time.

What if the RNG roll is bad? Then the Riflemen fires maybe only 2 bullets and doesn't hit jack. Or you could play it the other way - Riflemen, even with a good RNG roll, fires 3 times and with a very good RNG roll hits all 3 shots. On average it would deal 75 damage. Let's say that he fired those into a Stormtrooper who has 95HP, he's still alive. Now Ranger with a good RNG roll fires once, kills the Stormtrooper rightaway.

I mean, if you have a good RNG roll then even a shitty unit can be very efficient, but if you have a bad RNG roll a really good unit can have crap performance, so saying "if you have a good RNG roll" isn't much compelling argument.

If Rangers underperform, they can be tweaked but I would like to keep some diversity and so avoid turning them into "Riflemen 2.0" by giving them the same fire rates.