Overperforming Garands

[MenciusMoldbug]

It's a good point that against high HP pool infantry, Ranger Garands start to shine. I would definitely favor the Ranger Garand in all situations if there were some sort of knight cross type infantry with 100-200 hp per model on them. I think the main problem is that against low-tier cheap infantry with small HP pools, Rangers underperform with their Garands because the one-hit kill mechanic doesn't matter here as much as killing them fast enough.

I had some similar games where I put Pioneers behind sandbags and held position, then watched Rangers from max range not killing my pioneers fast enough. I could stall a Ranger Squad for a good 1-2 minutes from max range or he can come closer to me and attack me from a shorter distance with the Garands but then I have an OK chance of beating him with pioneers at CQC. As I have sometimes seen Rangers just straight up lose to pioneers when getting right next to them while with Rifles its a rarer situation.

If axis equipped all their infantry with MP40s/MP44's that's a lot of munition sink down the drain that gives leeway to the US player. The US player can also just give his Rangers thompsons if it was only about CQC but at range fights I don't see a difference in performance of a Ranger Squad vs a Rifle Squad. They both seem to perform at almost the same combat power to me vs units like Volks, Pioneers, Panzergrenadiers, etc.

Perhaps the broader point I would make is that US feels like an attacker-type gameplay in first 20 minutes because of how upkeep works for them. So you need to get good map control before the axis can hunker down. Having Rangers be a distance-fighter is ok if you are on the defensive but most of the time in the early-mid game you are constantly attacking. The minutes spent on fighting enemy infantry in that stage translates to whether an axis player is stuck getting hetzers and stugs to shore up his line; or having enough to get panthers, tigers, and king tiger.

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.

I like the weapons being diverse, I wouldn't really want Rangers to just be upgraded riflemen either. But in all cases, exception being perhaps long range(not distant), the Riflemen Garand seems to perform better than the Ranger one. I like to compare Rangers to Gebirsjagers in this regard because they get scoped-G43s. When compared to a normal G43, they fire at the same speed at all distances except the scoped one has way better accuracy at longer distances and worse accuracy at closer ranges. I'm fine with Rangers being not as good or performing at the same level as Riflemen in closer ranges with their Garands; but their longer range performance doesn't make up for it, so some tweaks could be made here for them.

[Warhawks97]

Don't transform garand rifles into sub machine guns. I can't read that "shall be good at close range" nonsense anymore. Bc then they get shred by "real" rifles in close combat and on short range by cheap sub machine guns and default stgs like assault pios. That's what a grand was. A rifle with the ability to fire fast at closer distances.
If it beats Volks due do rng rolls, well, ok. But they won't beat anything better than Volks in ranged combat.

That's simply what a semi-automatic rifle combines. They won't beat sub machine guns at close range while being better than bolt actions at close range. But ultimately they keep rifles.
If the garand is the best default rifle or overall best multirole default weapon in early game, fine why not?
There is nothing that forbids rifle squad to cost more than Volks or so. Menicus already pointed out that US early is some sort of forced aggressive gameplay (it was the same in vcoh as well) which means you need the right tools to achieve that. If Garand stands no chance at range vs k98 volks but also not vs sub machine guns at close range US is going to face trouble as Axis has the free choice to beat them either in ranged or close combat.

But just pls, if you turn garand rifles into single fire sub machine guns they would become useless bc you can beat them at range with Volks or decide to beat them in close range with storm pios or Volks with mp40. Volks would be able to beat them in long range and short range. At the end rifle squads would become even more useless than they used to be in 4.xx.

As for rangers I agree with meniscus. And having them really as inf doc special wouldn't hurt the faction balance.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I agree that M1 Garand is super good now, but I have no problems with it. I'd prefer to keep it as it is but tweak the price for Riflemen squads to become more expensive.. and they shouldn't be too cheap after price reduction...

[MarKr]

I had some similar games where I put Pioneers behind sandbags and held position, then watched Rangers from max range not killing my pioneers fast enough. I could stall a Ranger Squad for a good 1-2 minutes from max range

Have you tried it the other way? Put US Engineers behind sandbags and have Grenadiers shoot at them from max range? Grens have at max range about 5% more accuracy than Ranger Garands, deal +3 damage per hit but the delay between shots is also a bit longer than for Garands but they don't have the extra one-shot chance. So it seems they would perform quite similarly. I know you said that for US you need to finish enemy fast to grab map and so on, but for Axis it surely isn't very beneficial to waste 2 minutes on killing Engineers...I mean, if you delay this long to kill Engineers, it means the US player has somewhere else 2 minutes to cap points.

Don't transform garand rifles into sub machine guns.

Where was that said?

I can't read that "shall be good at close range" nonsense anymore.

They already are good at close range, why would they be even better?

If Garand stands no chance at range vs k98 volks but also not vs sub machine guns at close range US is going to face trouble as Axis has the free choice to beat them either in ranged or close combat.

Again, nobody anywhere said that Riflemen Garands would always, in 100% cases, lose against Kar98 at longer ranges. I said that in 1v1 scenario Riflemen vs Volks, with no weapon upgrades at max range the chance to win should be about 60% for Volks. If you move closer with the Garands, then the win-chance would swing heavily in favor of Riflemen (like 80%-90% or whatever, depending on range). If WM player buys MP40 for Volks, then he payed ammo to upgrade close-range efficiency of the squad and will have advantage there, now you have two options:
1) Buy Grease guns to gain more close-range firepower. Volks have with one upgrade 2xMP40 and 4xKar98, Riflemen with Grease gun upgrade have 2xGrease + 4x Garand, so the close-range advantage is again on the side of Riflemen, MP40 might be better than Grease gun, but the Garands are better at that range than Kar98.

2) Don't buy any upgrades, fight at range. Volks now have the 2xMP40 and 4xKar98 so while the close range efficiency is higher, their long-range efficiency suffers. Basically you are now fighting 4xKar98 vs 6x Garand and Riflemen have advantage again. If Volks try to get close to use the advantage, it means they need to leave cover, when they are out of cover Garands have easier time hitting them.

(awaiting the "LOL, that never happens because (resons X Y Z) )

[Warhawks97]

Don't transform garand rifles into sub machine guns.

Where was that said?

I can't read that "shall be good at close range" nonsense anymore.

They already are good at close range, why would they be even better?

What i can gather here is that you want beat Garands here so that any ranged engagment becomes more or less usless and result in a pure defeat. Thats the situation we already had prior the Garand fix. I am glad currently that Garands can win in ranged engagments vs the cheapest K98 units with 50:50 ratio sometimes (just that Volks have the big advantage of having sandbags which in many maps can be a huge advantage to defend key areas) while being better than bold rifles at close and mid range. Its exactly this versatility and equipment US needs in order to have a chance of slight map dominance in early stage which US is almost forced to achieve to some degree to keep up with upkeep (as menicus mentioned), higher reinforce cost and higher tec cost in lower tiers. (and the lack of mobility compared to WH due to the fact that US is somewhat bound on AT gun while WH is not).


So thats why this:

I agree that M1 Garand is super good now, but I have no problems with it. I'd prefer to keep it as it is but tweak the price for Riflemen squads to become more expensive.. and they shouldn't be too cheap after price reduction...

Build cost can possibly go up a bit but keep the reinforce cost at 24-25 (but not higher).
The price reduction should be removed all together from inf doc (6 CP for slightly cheaper cost wont make sense) and replace it with a buff on regular inf like less received damage, faster vet gain rate, less suppression or whatever mix of such stuff.

Rangers would become ultimately inf doc only where they have the greatest value. Armor doesnt spend 390 MP and lots of ammo for one ranger squad whos job is more or less the same as rifles do. AB has its airborne infantry for offensive operations. So Rangers would be simply versatile, durable and powerfull infantry assault forces within the infantry doctrine.

[MarKr]

What i can gather here is that you want beat Garands here so that any ranged engagment becomes more or less usless and result in a pure defeat. Thats the situation we already had prior the Garand fix.

I wonder how you gathered that...

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".

I said that in 1v1 scenario Riflemen vs Volks, with no weapon upgrades at max range the chance to win should be about 60% for Volks.

I am glad currently that Garands can win in ranged engagments vs the cheapest K98 units with 50:50 ratio sometimes

Yes, and the point of this topic is that the ratio is 50:50 really only SOMETIMES and the other times it is more like 70:30 in favor of Riflemen. At least that is how I understood it from the original post by kwok:

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).

Since he says that they did the test in "test conditions" (so not a serious game) then the test results should be more accurate than "feelings" from real games. Test conditions eliminate factors that cannot be taken into consideration while balancing stats such as skill difference of players, one player having better position or (if enough tests are made) even the RNG is eliminated because you can see some average results. So if the test situations show intended results, then the "feelings" from the real games are affected by the factors mentioned above (skill, RNG, map etc.).

[Warhawks97]

Since he says that they did the test in "test conditions" (so not a serious game) then the test results should be more accurate than "feelings" from real games. Test conditions eliminate factors that cannot be taken into consideration while balancing stats such as skill difference of players, one player having better position or (if enough tests are made) even the RNG is eliminated because you can see some average results. So if the test situations show intended results, then the "feelings" from the real games are affected by the factors mentioned above (skill, RNG, map etc.).

Ok, from the feeling i cant confrim that. If both sides met each other unexpectedly like it happend in a game two days ago, yes, Volks might get suddenly overruned. I tried to quickly get up sandbags but was too late. However in rather well prepared combat situations and esspecially when Volks do expect rifles and got their sandbags up and making the first volley Volks will win. Esspecially the highly accurate first volley against Rifles that perhaps just want to jump into cover can be deadly and drain down a nice ammount of Rifle squads total health pool.

And as you perhaps saw in countless replays, WH is preparing the initial offensive attempt and stay behind sandbags and then starting the counter attack and rely on its overwhelming T2 power.

And since entire WH faction is extrmely well in this kind of fighting with sandbags up near key locations before either side had a chance to actually reach there i just dont see an issue in the current situation (1 vs 1 unit balance). Also you can currently bring up more rifles to the field. You face pios behind sandbags that do much better at range than engineers, you have that AT rifle squad that can engage into rifle combat, Volks and all of them can build sandbags. US wont get any rifle to the field when they decide to get an AT weapon. Sure, both sides could just spam rifles and volks to have the exact same ammount of rifles facing each other.

I had a game not long ago vs kwok and shadow etc. They did build so many sandbags and whenever we tried to come closer they shot at us and ran back behind the next sandbags which got prepared already by whatever squad from which they started shooting. Like a soft tactical retreat. And since all units could be used doing that they quickly had like 10 small sandbag lines or kind of cluster of sandbags with inf and mgs behind. The reason they lost later was bc they didnt went for a counter attack at t2 with mortar, pumas and keep staying behind the sandbags for too long untill they got "callioped".

So keep such aspects in mind as well like the flexibility of the new AT rifle squad that can be useful support in close quarters with MP40 and help volks to repel Rifles. Keep the fact in mind that axis can build lots of sandbags just everywhere, that they have low reinforce cost, low upkeep and a very good t2 unit composition that is superior to anything US can get there. Also the fact that a first accurate volley of k98 from prepared position can be absolutley decisive in early stage.

So if you say "it shall be 70% win chance for Volks at ranged combat" i do say that the current total balance is very fair and justified due to the other factors i mentioned (Ammount rifles, cost, flexibility, sandbags, upkeep, tec).

[MenciusMoldbug]

I had some similar games where I put Pioneers behind sandbags and held position, then watched Rangers from max range not killing my pioneers fast enough. I could stall a Ranger Squad for a good 1-2 minutes from max range

Have you tried it the other way? Put US Engineers behind sandbags and have Grenadiers shoot at them from max range? Grens have at max range about 5% more accuracy than Ranger Garands, deal +3 damage per hit but the delay between shots is also a bit longer than for Garands but they don't have the extra one-shot chance. So it seems they would perform quite similarly. I know you said that for US you need to finish enemy fast to grab map and so on, but for Axis it surely isn't very beneficial to waste 2 minutes on killing Engineers...I mean, if you delay this long to kill Engineers, it means the US player has somewhere else 2 minutes to cap points.

For axis it's less of a problem because of how their teching works. PE is rewarded for scout caring US or juking them into thinking they are going scout cars and getting assault pioneers instead. Wehrmacht can comfortably sit and wait for their mortar team to be built which doesn't require the kriegs barrack and if you sit around behind sandbags exchanging shots with Wehr infantry you are gonna get mortar'd to death. The answer here could be to get your own good early mortar from inf doc but that's doc specific. Rangers can be a doc specific unit too if the reason for keeping them in the current state is because they are in all docs.

There's also the slight addition that Axis has nice grenade ranges for a bit more muni cost, but honestly it's worth it if you can grenade a squad hiding behind sandbags from medium range.

Also the reason I brought up Gebirsjagers is the inconsistency here. They have G43 weapons with the only addition being a scope. Having also the same cooldown as a normal G43 at max range(2.25-1.875) with the nice bullet damage of a G43(36-27). With their only downside being they are less accurate than normal G43's at close range(which you don't really get to with their LMG34 unless you ambush them). But with 45%-55% accuracy at distant-long(vs a normal G43s 25%-25%).

So you have a squad that is literally using upgraded G43s with super accuracy and same cooldown as a normal G43. While Rangers get better accuracy but with increased cooldown on their rifles. In comparison the Rangers are way worse in cooldown, accuracy, damage, and the only benefits being this one-shot kill chance and better accuracy at short range. Which explains to me why I see Rangers so often lose to Gebirsjagers who are only in yellow cover(which turns into green cover with their defensive aura buff). While Rangers hiding behind good green cover get shredded by these very same Gebirsjagers(with any Gebir losses simply replaced on the field thanks to paradropping). If the Ranger Garand is meant to be way weaker at range compared to these other elite inf no matter what happens. Then the best idea is to forget Rangers even have Garands and give them 5-6 thompsons and/or bazooka. In which case, I would have taken the old cheaper costing Rangers since there's no real 'benefit' over having better Garands than them. I would have liked to see scoped M1 Garands as an upgrade for Rangers because it sounds kind of cool. Gives them a nice option to have in ranged combat. But the upgrade slots are full so I can understand if that will never happen.

I am completely fine if Rangers operate at the same(or worse) damage potential as a Riflemen Squad in medium-short ranges, that's what their thompsons are for. But their longer range performance is piss poor in comparison to all the better cost-efficient tools you get. I see it reflected in games by people skipping Rangers and their munition sink costs to get HE Shermans, Riflemen, or the cheaper Snipers who are way more reliable in dealing good attrition damage against axis inf. With the only extensively used squad being the Ranger Infiltration Teams but they aren't even using Garands from the start.

[MarKr]

While Rangers hiding behind good green cover get shredded by these very same Gebirsjagers

Comparing Gebirgs to Rangers is like comparing chances of a Sherman 76 vs a Tiger. I can see that "link" with comparing same weapons working differently but these two are in different leagues. I think that in pure 1v1 Gebirgs in cover would have serious advantage over any infantry squad in the game, including Axis infantry such as Stormtroopers. That is also why there are so many restrictions on them (require CP, limit of 2 at a time, high cost, high reinforcement cost, limited to one doctrine).

If the Ranger Garand is meant to be way weaker at range compared to these other elite inf no matter what happens. Then the best idea is to forget Rangers even have Garands and give them 5-6 thompsons and/or bazooka.

I think the problem is that you focused so much on comparing the Rangers to Gebirgs. What other "elite" infantry Axis have? The "lower" elites would be Grenadiers and Assault PGrens for PE, and the "higher" Elites would remain Stormtroopers. And here the Rangers are not so much behind.
If you compare their HP: Rangers 75 / Grenadiers 80 / Assault Grens 75 / Storms 95 - Rangers are not doing that bad. In terms of basic weaponry all the Axis squads listed use the same Kar98 which at shorter ranges is worse than the Garand (they have same accuracy but Garand shoots faster), and at longer ranges the Kar98 still shoots slower but has about 5% more accuracy at max range, and 3% more accuracy at the "long" range. So Garand shoots a bit faster with a bit less accuracy, while having the benefit of the one-shot chance which the Kar98 does not have. This one-shot does not care about HP, if it rolls, soldier is dead.
So if the Rangers are not compared in 1v1 to the strongest available infantry, they don't seem that bad. Of course there is the fact that Rangers (unless in Infantry doc) get no further buffs, while Grenadiers in Def doc can unlock the defensive bonuses, in Terror they get the Zeal, Storms get the "Stormtrooper training" (which reduces damage taken by 25%) and the Assault grenadiers can benefit from a few infantry upgrades too (7th man, Veteran Sergeant (faster XP, slower suppression)...). The Rangers only get some extra stuff in Infantry doctrine where they get the "Ranger training" unlock which gives them +10HP (at this point only Storms surpass them in HP pool) and increase XP gain by 50%.

I would have liked to see scoped M1 Garands as an upgrade for Rangers because it sounds kind of cool. Gives them a nice option to have in ranged combat. But the upgrade slots are full so I can understand if that will never happen.

It would not be a problem of "full upgrade UI" as that can be solved but rather the problem of people who would start bitching that only a small number of scoped Garands actually got to the frontlines in WWII and having it as an upgrade for every Ranger squad would thus be "not historical" or whatever. Also I don't think there is a model for the scoped Garand and if there is one, we don't have it on the mod.

[kwok]

just to be perfectly clear, and i hope if anyone were to reread anything i said in this thread they can see that everything i say is consistent:

I am not proposing any change. i'm pointing out inconsistencies in messaging and real performance of garand rifles. it's definitely implied that i think there should be changes, but not specifically in anything (not garand stat nerf, not riflemen price adjustment, i don't even talk about balance, nothing), i leave that to everyone who wants to propose changes.

In case people don't want to download the replay to see how the test scenario was done and question the statements i made about the realistic state of the game, this is what mefisto and i have done:

volks start standing in open cover. riflemen walk towards volks until volks engage the riflemen. riflemen are immediately stopped and both players do nothing while the riflemen and volks shoot each other until there is a clear winner between riflemen/volks. this was repeated as closely identical as many times as we had patience for.

quick reminder of the results:

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).s.

when i say "garands are overperforming" it's because i personal benchmark the results against an explicitly stated statement from the devs because i think it's important benchmark EVERYTHING on intent because that's always the first step in making good decisions and changes. also it's important for the sake of players (both experienced and newbie) that what devs say is how something is designed, it is true in reality. how many times have new players read the caption for units, expect a result, find it's not true, then complained only to have an experienced player say the truth of the unit. it's frustrating and not helpful to keeping games alive.


sorry but i feel like i need to go into some other personal things because i don't want people to misunderstand what i say. and i especially don't want people to misrepresent what i say to others.

i like to build my arguments on a pretty specific structure, 3 states with each depending on the previous: state of fact, state of value, state of policy.
my first post is a state of fact, i don't even say if the fact that garands are overperforming is good/bad let alone what should be changed about it. it's definitely IMPLIED i think it's bad and even admitted i think it's worth considering certain changes, but i'm really hesitant in saying anything opinion oriented because clearly this is somethign everyone has opinions on and i want to start SOMEWHERE as a basis of argument. even the only thing that i say that shows my opinion is a flakey one that isn't solid at all:

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.

i'll post more on my thoughts on what i think SHOULD be changed as long as it can at least be agreed that what i say is true, garands are over performing, and that this is a bad thing (which warhawks is trying to say it isn't).

don't let me stop you from writing your opinions but please don't twist my words anything more than what i've actually said.






and honestly, if you've taken everything i've said and are unable to deny anything i say is untrue and concluded that i am suggesting a balance change.... maybe that IS what is needed...

[Warhawks97]

I am not proposing any change. i'm pointing out inconsistencies in messaging and real performance of garand rifles. it's definitely implied that i think there should be changes, but not specifically in anything (not garand stat nerf, not riflemen price adjustment, i don't even talk about balance, nothing), i leave that to everyone who wants to propose changes.

when i say "garands are overperforming" it's because i personal benchmark the results against an explicitly stated statement from the devs because i think it's important benchmark EVERYTHING on intent because that's always the first step in making good decisions and changes. also it's important for the sake of players (both experienced and newbie) that what devs say is how something is designed, it is true in reality. how many times have new players read the caption for units, expect a result, find it's not true, then complained only to have an experienced player say the truth of the unit. it's frustrating and not helpful to keeping games alive.

Perhaps it wasnt intended to work this way but in terms of balance, esspecially towards mid game, we are better than ever before. Garands got perhaps better as supposed, in return axis got a mobile AT that can add additinal firepower in infantry combats what US cant with their AT gun.

And due to the design of tec ups, upkeep etc, it is ok for me to have a Rifle squad that cost the same (or more) than Volks can go toe on toe with them at any range or even better. Volks have the advantage of being better in long term attrition warfare, the ability to build sandbags which enables them to fight at any location without losing cover while rifles are bound to fight at places the map dictates.
Furthermore WH starts with 20 fuel, US with 15 which means that WH tecs up earlier and thus getting a heavy mortar pretty fast. They dont even need to retreat any unit to get them which again means even their pios can stick longer behind sandbags and adding a small punch while holding off enemies a for one minute longer. Means you can put like two volks, pios and AT squad behind sandbags and getting a heavy mortar soon after.

And as menicus pointed out the necessary aggressive gameplay for the US to successfully get into the mid stage, it is for me mandatory to have the Rifle squad as good as they are and able to perform decently at any range.
And they are only able to beat Volks at range but not grens at T2 or heavy assault grens that can be also build from the start for PE.

So if you want to stick into this "M1 Garand from rifles is only allowed to win at close range vs Volks" crap, then i could also argue that upkeep system, mortar and the greyhound/Puma balance has to be reworked bc US wont be able to play the aggressive style they have to in the early stages anymore. US has the upper hand in the very early stage infantry combat (till not unbeatable) while WH has a powerfull and quick t2 which is in their favour.

So a perhaps not intended Garand rework has turned out to be a good one.
And this is my point. And instead for going back to what it was perhaps intended i prefer to keep the current unit balances and performances and instead either changing "description" (like "M1 garand is supposed to be only goot at close range" into "M1 Garand is a well balanced rifle that can be used for ranged as well as mid and close range combat. At mid and close ranges it helds an advantge over bold actions rifles which makes Rifle squads with m1 Garand we suited for any engagment and as Backbone infantry unit for the US."
Prices of units can then be balanced and adjusted.

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

Cool.

i'll post more on my thoughts on what i think SHOULD be changed as long as it can at least be agreed that what i say is true, garands are over performing, and that this is a bad thing (which warhawks is trying to say it isn't).

"Overperfoming" perhaps when based on the orignal intend. But not overperforming for what they are supposed to do and how much pressure stucks on their shoulders that they create a situation in which US can get into t2 and survive it. There is far less pressure on Volks since you know you can get back to game in the second attempt with the quick mortar and Puma and Volks attrition gameplay.
Also not "overperforming" considering the drawbkacs of actually higher cost in terms of upkeep, reinforcment and the lack of building sandbags which is a cruical factor as well.

And as it seems most here but also people i talked in steam with would keep the rifles as their are and instead making price adjustments.

[The New BK Champion]

And as it seems most here but also people i talked in steam with would keep the rifles as their are and instead making price adjustments.

Funny cuz everyone I talk to supports the statement that garands are too good right now. Who is lying?

[Warhawks97]

And as it seems most here but also people i talked in steam with would keep the rifles as their are and instead making price adjustments.

Funny cuz everyone I talk to supports the statement that garands are too good right now. Who is lying?

In relation to what?
Kwok based it on the actual intention of the Garand. But nobody really complained about the total balance.

Again, what is wrong when a unit that cost vastly more than Volks should not have a slight advantage?

The tec design, T2, upkeep, reinforce cost, the ability to put up sandbags everywhere..... it all already favours Volks and WH at t2.

This so called "distant range" of weapons makes up for 50% of the entire gun range. In 4.xxx K98 dominated that distant range easily over garands which were only good at close range at which sub-machine guns are deadly. And since MP40 is available right away what would be the point of Garands if they are again "only good at close range". Given the current unit composition and faction design it feels necessary to me that Rifles keep as they are even though it wasnt 100% intentionally by devs.

I dont see a point of Garands that cant compet at distances with any other rifle but cant beat sub machine guns at close range either. So there would be again only a small window of usefullness.

And who actually wants the Garand nerfed?
Either they want price adjustments (Tiger and perhaps me), make no suggestion at all (kwok), suggesting cooldown exchange (drive, but there isnt much to decrease further in terms of cooldown in close range).

and i cant see any balance issue to be honest due to the fact that WH has a better earlier and better tec up to t2, very good early mortar and best available vehicle with Puma which more or less automatically puts US a bit into defense or at least denying any further advance.


I just dont want the Garand messed up again and being as horrible as it was. That would have been a very short time at which Garands were actually usefull while K98 is showing very stable results right from the first days of BK till nowadays.


The only effective change if any has to be done would be the max range cooldown multiplier to be set from 1.5 to 1.75. That way cooldown between shots would be 0.875-2,625 sec instead of 0.75-2.25 sec.

The modifier at the two middle distances in return could be slightly lowered as drive suggested.


The accuracy is already set very low and changes on damage would mess up everything at every distance.

[Erich]

And as it seems most here but also people i talked in steam with would keep the rifles as their are and instead making price adjustments.

Funny cuz everyone I talk to supports the statement that garands are too good right now. Who is lying?

You

[MEFISTO]

Long range Rifle man vs Volks need to be fixed now Volks have no chance vs RM in early game

[Warhawks97]

Long range Rifle man vs Volks need to be fixed now Volks have no chance vs RM in early game

If you are so fixed in balancing this particluar 1 vs 1 scenario (btw last night games it was a gamble. Volks won vs rifles, PE Grens once lost vs rifles at max range. Its simply gamble and luck how the game rolls the hits) and since you apparently compare only 1 vs 1 scenarios i just gonna do the same now:

1. Easy eight costs more than Tank IV J, i still lose with e8. Fix it.
2. Puma beats greyhound most of the time although Greyhound costs more and needs to pay ammo for more armor. Puma can even bounce the 37 mm. Fix it.
3. Jumbos get frequently killed by Marders and Hetzers from ambush. In fact pretty much every second shot pens (feels so). Fix it
4. Riflemen cost much more than Volks. If they should get nerfed i want riflemens to be cheaper and less costly in upkeep. Fix it
5. Commandos losing close combat engagment with Volks whith MP40. Fix it pls.
6. WH starts with 5 fuel more than US. Fix it.
7. US recon costs a shit ammount of upkeep. Fix it.
8. The HMG42 gets 25% accuracy boost vs suppressed infantry. Fix it.
9. US does not have a 80 mm infantry mortar in every doc. Fix it pls.
10. US is literally defeated once a scout car flanked their AT gun. WH cant get flanked anymore. Fix it.
11. ....... and so on.



I could continue the shit like that. But do you get my point? Fuck these 1 vs 1 comparisions bc that leads to nothing and doesnt tell everything about balance.

For the fact that Riflmen outclass Volks at so far every aspect its also true that:
1. Volks are much cheaper and Riflemen in terms of upkeep and reinforcments.
2. Volks can get sandbags up which is a huge advantage.
3. WH starts with 5 fuel more thus reaching t2 faster. (Thats probably something 90% of all players have failed to realize)
4. WH has a very good Vehicle with its Puma.
5. WH gets heavy mortar in all docs within the first few mins of a game
6. Its schwimmwagen and motorbike deals a lot more damage vs inf than a Jeep does. That means you can much better harrass. Like one burst when Rifles are out of cover for a second and one or two men might get killed already. So you can force Rifles to stick at one point while volks and AT-Rifles can walk relatively free from jeep harrassments.
7. WH has that mobile AT rifle squad which makes usage of Jeep much harder and more risky than using schwimms vs US.
8. WH pays by far more upkeep for recons and snipers. That means that reconassaince is cheaper for WH, esspecially early game. That combined with the ability to prepare yourself with sandbags and heavy mortar is a huge advantage as well.


But nooo, we better keep debating about this particualr, perhaps not intended but not unbalanced phenomenon: Volks can lose a fight at range vs a similiar expensive or rather more expensive infantry unit that uses actually a more sophisticated weapon.
I am ok with a cost drop on Volks. But if Garands just get nerfed i keep requesting to rebalance Puma vs Greyhound as well.

[The New BK Champion]

Hawks, you cant be more subjective, and u can't even pretend you aren't any longer. I wonder if anyone still pays attention to this WH is op, US underpowered rant. This whole topic gradually become garbage tbh. It's the same shit you repeat every time like a broken record. Although everyone agrees with you of course.... Sometime it's high time to stop you know? Before you become your own caricature. You won't convince people only because you repeat the same things for years and years.

4. Riflemen cost much more than Volks. If they should get nerfed i want riflemens to be cheaper and less costly in upkeep. Fix it

Riflemen - 255, Volks - 265 (and if you mean also the reinforce cost: the difference is 3mp... what an insane disbalance)
Seriously do we even play the same game? I have a feeling that you can only see what you want to see every time you post about anything. And almost everytime I am trying to convince you to play vs me, so we could recreate your scenarios and things you are so sure about, either you don't want to play, or those scenarios simply don't happen.

You won't convince me that now Volks are better than Rifles, that new garands are not op, because I have more games played with updated garands than you have played in whole czech era of BK mod, darling. I know what I am saying.

You may seem to be an objective scientist who analyses the game and try to make it more balanced. But the mod has changed. On the other hand your way of thinking hasn't since old Xalibur times, when things really were unbalanced. Can't you understand that yet? Your rants don't fit into reality anymore. I understand you want to make the mod more balanced and fun, but if you don't change your views at least a little bit, you are doing more harm than help.

How many times have I read your stories about how the mod looked in the past, about your old clan, about the old players who you knew and had "the best micro you have ever seen". Stop living the past, the mod and players have changed, that's what I want to tell you.

[Warhawks97]

4. Riflemen cost much more than Volks. If they should get nerfed i want riflemens to be cheaper and less costly in upkeep. Fix it

Riflemen - 255, Volks - 265
Seriously do we even play the same game? I have a feeling you can see only what you want to see every time you post about anything. And almost everytime I am trying to convince you to play vs me, so we could recreate your scenarios and things you are so sure about, either you don't want to play, or those scenarios simply don't happen.

And how often did i say that upkeep and reinforce cost do also play a role. Field both units and after one minute on the field Volks have saved more MP bc they cost like 6 or 7 MP less upkeep. Both losing lets say 5 men and Volks saved another 15 MP. That repeated and in 5 mins you saved like 100 MP if not more. Additionally you spare 125 MP when tecing into t2.

recons and snipers cost 8 Mp less for WH as well.


I wonder if you have ever understand what "cost" actually mean. When tank Iv costs for example just 2 fuel per min compared to 5 of a sherman, the tank IV is still cheaper even though it cost perhaps 5 more fuel to build.
In the long run Upkeep matters most and here WH has the very upper hand within the first 20 mins untill supply yard got upgraded which again has to make itself cost effective first.

You won't convince me that now Volks are better than Rifles, because I have more games played with updated garands than you have played in whole czech era of BK mod, darling. I know what I am saying.

Ive been playing more games with updated garands as in the past 2 years combined perhaps when i left bc of huge mess. My current win/loss ratio for WH and US is the same i would say and playing both sides feels equally hard unlike in older versions. So when i think current balance is fine and playing both sides is a challange, why do i want it to be changed again? I dont want to finish of games in 20 min Blitzkrieg rushes again just bc Rifles cant do shit. For the first time ever i do consider Rifle squads as a thread facing them. And that just feels great.

You may seem to be an objective scientist who analyses the game and try to make it more balanced. But the mod has changed. On the other hand your way of thinking hasn't since old Xalibur times.

Not sure what thinking you mean, anyway, Just as its a fact that Garand became a usefull weapon after years of uslesness is just a nice feeling. I just dont like weapons and units that have no point of being build (and we still have some of them). And that WH pays far less upkeep, reinforce cost, starts with more fuel, gets heavy mortar faster and that Puma is a powerfull unit is simply objective. You can see it in game and also corsix.


Thing also is that BK still uses old or even vcoh range brackets. What does it mean? A Rifle has 60 range. But if you tweak so called "max range" or in corsix labeld as "distant" range, you do tweak everything above 25 range. Why? bc current range classification of most rifles and also guns are like that:
0-15 (short), 15-25 ( medium range. Axis grenade range to get a feeling), 25-35 (long), 35-48 (diastant), 48-60 (not classified thus counted distant range as well).

Now markr changed it for testing purposes. For Garand its now 0-15, 15-30, 30-45, 45-60. That means we now could lower Garands efficiency at 45-60 range like increasing cooldown slightly as i suggested and which seems to be the main reason of current Garand performance. But from 45-0 range it would be afterall a vaulable weapon (and not becoming deadly when axis can already throw a grenade at you).
Thing is is shall get revert back so that everything from 35 to 60 range is simply distant range. Thus changing distant range values would already affect ranges that are for players still considered mid range combat.

Dont get me wrong now, its not just garand related but also all other weapons are effected. We currently dont have any effective means to balance mid to long range combat bc in corsix short and medium ranges ending already very early. So all we can do is to use the sledgehammer and changing distant range values and thus pretty much changing mid range combat as well.
And since most keep saying that US "shall only be good at mid range" Its either not possible bc then they would also be good at range or we accept that they are only good at ranges at which axis can throw grenades already or shooting panzerfaust.

Thats the actual dilemma. And thats the problem when people say (nerf max range only) they would nerf a weapon at ranges considered still mid range. If the Current Garand range bracket keeps (15/30/45/60) then yes, we could tweak it down a bit from 45-60 range onwards, the "max range". Using old brackets we would just turn it more or less into a "semi automatic machine pistol" as it used to be prior to the changes.

[The New BK Champion]

I didn't ask you to tell me why u think things in the mod are wrong or how to change them. I told you you should stop talking for a moment and reconsider. Have a second to think about if the things you think are bad and broken actually are bad and broken. I am not gonna waste my breath anymore.

[Walderschmidt]

Why not just give the volks better accuracy at long range/riflemen slightly less accuracy at range until volks win at range in cover 60% of the time?

Kwok and I could test this out happily. Or him and that other player?

No need to make sweeping changes.

Wald

[MEFISTO]

Why not just give the volks better accuracy at long range/riflemen slightly less accuracy at range until volks win at range in cover 60% of the time?

Kwok and I could test this out happily. Or him and that other player?

No need to make sweeping changes.

Wald

100% agree with you my friend, that's the point.

[Warhawks97]

Why not just give the volks better accuracy at long range/riflemen slightly less accuracy at range until volks win at range in cover 60% of the time?

Kwok and I could test this out happily. Or him and that other player?

No need to make sweeping changes.

Wald

And here is the problem. What long range are you talking about? That what you feel in game? The range corsix says?

Making Volks better at "long" range in terms corsix uses means that Volks are better from 25-60 range. Because 25-35 range is "long" range and 35-60 is distant range. If Volks will be superior from 25 range and higher, then we are at the exact same situation we had in 4.xx

Does nobody understand that issues? We are talking about different things bc i am using corsix range classification while you guys use the "preceived" long range.

Or would you say that everything that is beyond axis grenade range is long range?



We wont get anywere if we keep talking about two different things. We both use terms like mid, long and max range but we talk about completely different things because the preceived and estimated ranges are not the range classification corsix is using.

In any case, if these proposed changes would go through then Volks would beat Rifles either at distances beyond axis grenade range (25 range) or slightly above that (35 range) which then would be a marginal improvment over what we had in 4.xx

[Walderschmidt]

And here is the problem. What long range are you talking about? That what you feel in game? The range corsix says?

Making Volks better at "long" range in terms corsix uses means that Volks are better from 25-60 range. Because 25-35 range is "long" range and 35-60 is distant range. If Volks will be superior from 25 range and higher, then we are at the exact same situation we had in 4.xx

35-60 range. Maybe change distant range to 40-60 and make 25-39 the long range.

Wald

[Warhawks97]

And here is the problem. What long range are you talking about? That what you feel in game? The range corsix says?

Making Volks better at "long" range in terms corsix uses means that Volks are better from 25-60 range. Because 25-35 range is "long" range and 35-60 is distant range. If Volks will be superior from 25 range and higher, then we are at the exact same situation we had in 4.xx

35-60 range. Maybe change distant range to 40-60 and make 25-39 the long range.

Wald

Sounds fair. I would divide every 15 range for most weapons. But it doesnt have to. At least this seems a lot more fair.


Up to 30 range i would make Garands holding an advantage. From 30-40 or 45 both would have good chances to win and the Garand still dangerous. Perhaps Garand a bit better to compensate for higher reinforce costs and getting closer is naturally connected with higher risks of losing men during advance as well as retreat (60-40 win rate for Garand). From 40 or 45 to 60 range the K98 could hold the advantage when both sides met under equal conditions. Most likely that can be done by lowering Garands accuracy a bit further at this max range or increased cooldown multiplier at that distant (60-40 win rate for K98 or 65-35).

Does that sounds more fair to everyone and does that fit into the understanding of mid ranges, max ranges and the the issue that Garands beat K98 at max range which was the reason for the topic and the main complain from Mefisto?

[MarKr]

Does nobody understand that issues?

I would say so, or maybe it is more like that only you see that thing as a problem and only because you saw some numbers in corsix. I already told you - the ranges have been like this for years, everyone is used to this setup and it does not matter if they perceive the "long distance" differently than how it is defined in corsix. What is in corsix named as "long" might as well be called "range_3" or whatever. I just don't see any problem that the "biggest range" makes the most of the overall range, nobody had a problem with it until now.

Garand range brackets will return where they were, what they have now is a mistake which remained there from my initial testing and I suspect it is the main reason why the Riflemen perform better than intended. If everyone gets these changes it will turn the balance upside down, I don't think it is needed.