BETA [5.2.8] v3 General Feedback

[Walderschmidt]

So far, so good. Stormtrooper changes are very welcome.

But the airborne are too cheap.

Either pick the reinforcement cost decrease or the unit cost decrease. But not both.

Wald

[MenciusMoldbug]

The weapon teams still cost an insane amount to reinforce right? That should be lowered to an appropriate amount so reinforcing an AT gun or HMG team doesn't cost a fortune and a whole squad.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

AB and Reg.5 might be too good in conjunction with the new vet.changes. Haven’t tested the new version yet, will definitely give my feedback after several matches.

[Consti255]

What should be tweaked:

101st little bit more reinforce but keep the 320MP.

82. price goes to 425MP but the reinforce stays as it is by 40MP

[mofetagalactica]

What should be tweaked:

101st little bit more reinforce but keep the 320MP.

82. price goes to 425MP but the reinforce stays as it is by 40MP

meh, 101 are just airbone rifles, they're cannon fodder the current price is fine, same for 82.

[Consti255]

385MP for a Vet-C sqaud is insanely cheap. Also they got access to the supply yard, keep that in mind.

Well they are AB rifles which drop with a RL and also is abel to reinforce via air, are a Vet-B sqaud (now way better than rifles), can upgrade Thompsons which are clearly better than Grease Guns, get more HP from special training and the CP-upgrade. They become hella strong when the game progresses. Also they are the Sqaud which can just be 6 zookas and become a dedicatet AT sqaud.
If you call them rifles, they are the most versitile rifles/unit in the whole game.

If you put the initial price a bit lower its fine, but ifyou want to reinforce you have to pay more since its an air drop.

[Warhawks97]

Keep the investment in mind that you have to do before they become actually strong. Weapons, weapons unlocks, lots of CP (82nd cost more cp than fallis or sas and thus should be cheaper to make up for it), all the supply yard upgrades... and they dont have any heavy gun support. That all has to be compensated somehow.

So, there is a large pre-investment necessary in order to get good use out of them. MP, ammo (and fuel) as well as a lot of CPs.

The supply yard is also no "wonder tec". Its only usefull when you have units actually on the field. The more, the greater the benefit out of it. But once you got beaten down to a few units, it doesnt really gives you a magic MP boost that helps to recover. It helps to maintain stuff, thats all. So when the cost go up by a larger ammount it also means you can field less units which also diminishes the effectivness of supply yard. The majority of players who play AB dont really field much in numbers. Usually only the handfull of AB inf units that get supported by tanks from mates and friendly artillery. So the actual benefit of the supply yard is rather small. Even fully upgraded the upkeep difference of volks compared to a 101 squad is rather small since WH is a low upkeep for its inf (unlike PE). And as a volks squad with lmg 34 and officer nearby is basically as deadly (or deadlier) than a 101st squad, i dont see any issues with the current cost of AB units.


The 6 men AT squad with 6 AT weapons works only under actually super ideal conditions in which you dont lose a single man prior to the volley.



And the vet system? It didnt need a change at all. These category thing is just stupid. The cost change would have been enough. There was no need to change the vet system that punishes good basic unit preservation.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

I do agree with Hawks that with decreased reinforcement prices the elites are fine now. These direct nerfs to basic infantry aren't necessary at all. Moreover, it makes LuftWaffe and Commando insanely strong in the late game.

[Consti255]

yeah, ive played a recent game and Luft and SAS feels crazy powerful.

[MarKr]

There were several tweaks over the years that made the life of infantry harder. You have doctrines that are infantry based and have their playstyle revolving around squads that are bound to that specific doctrine. Because of the tweaks to HMGs, tank MGs, HE ammo, infantry weapons etc. people have been complaining that the special infantry (Storms, Rangers, Commandos, AB, Luft infantry...) get killed too easily by basic infantry (that is vetted up because it was on the map earlier) or by other things in the field and as result there have been requests for various changes to the infantry (such as to make their stats stronger by default) and additional units (usually tanks or TDs a.k.a "Jackson/Jumbo to AB doc") that can help them with dealing with enemy armored units.

So now the doctrines that are based around infantry have actually a chance to build their playstyle around the infantry and it is wrong again because it "punishes good basic unit preservation"? Really? Is this another one of those "it dEsErVeS to be good" things as we had with Garands? I think it was Hawks who argued that Garands "deserved" to be better and what did that lead to? A circle of buffs to infantry weapons that recently led to a post by Hawks that "Garands feel weak again". I am not falling for that argument again.
The basic infantry is there to allow you to start the game, to give you something you can play with before you choose a doc and then transfer to better units or in some docs you get options to make those basics better through unlocks and upgrades to keep them more relevant longer. The basic infantry still has some utility - e.g. Rifles are still a good capping unit, VGrens with LMG can still defend places quite well...But do you really need a Riflemen squads that take out elite units when you play Armor doc? What for? To kill infantry? M4 that has free HE upgrade with unlocks is not enough and all the other .50cal vehicles are not enough? Do you need Riflemen with AB? Why? You cannot make do with the 101st and other AB infantry? Do you need VGrens with any WM doc? BK has Storms, Prop plays spam with VSturms and thanks to passive unlocks VGrens still work in Def doc. Same goes for other docs.

The "vet system punishes good basic unit preservation" is really weird argument as everything else in the game grows up in strength with higher tiers. It's like saying that 2 high-vet Stuarts should be able to frontally destroy a kingtiger because otherwise you get no reward for preserving the Stuart to late game.

[Warhawks97]

Lets put it that way. I dont like any kind of extreme rambo unit. Let it be with old elite inf rambo gameplay, old Panthers or Stupas. That all sucks because it completely destroys the logic of playing strategy games. There should be units that are more expensive with superior stats but not by so much that you can literally ignore unit positioning, tactics and strategy.

The elite inf has gotten cheaper in relation to basic inf. E.g rifles once cost 240 MP and 175 after mass production vs 550 for luft inf and 450 for storms and grens. Now its 255 vs 400. That has solved the issue between elite and basic inf balance.


The tank vs inf balance is a whole lot different. Tanks were cheaper than most inf bc they couldnt defend against them properly. MGs didnt work, HE didnt work etc.
The solution here was not to just buff elite inf while making basic inf weaker. Armored units will still beat elite inf in many occassions. Alone by the fact that elite inf is going to pay a good junk of CP before benefiting from the vet system and buffs. Tanks meanwhile will role out and be effective without any CP unlock or vet.
I think i stated it a couple of times already that tank warefare is damn cheap in terms of fuel. Esspecially the inf shredding tanks cost literally no fuel, esspecially in docs that can make them even cheaper. And you dont fix this issue by just buffing the vets from elites.

And the stuart vs KT comparission is a bit extreme. Elite inf costs not as much CP and requires less tec and costs not three times as much as an basic inf squad. The KT costs more than 3 times the MP and more than 5 times the fuel of an stuart. And on an operational and tactical level these stuarts can beat the guy with the KT by simply cutting the KT off from support units and territories.

An basic inf squad with the same equipment as an elite would not win an engagment with an elite squad usually in a head on fight. And also armor and inf is a whole different matter. Inf can use cover, houses or retreat when necessary. So even when you run into basic inf and lose with your elite due to a bad decision or order you can retreat and come back later. A tank cant just retreat or use cover. So the situation elite vs basic inf is a bit different than armor. Aside from the fact armor and human flesh is not really comparable.

[MarKr]

Lets put it that way. I dont like any kind of extreme rambo unit. Let it be with old elite inf rambo gameplay, old Panthers or Stupas.

You can still snipe them, mortar them, arty them, HE shot them (Allied tanks got shorter cooldown on HE/AP switch, Axis HE vehicles now have HE perma-loaded + howitzer tanks got their direct shooting back), suppress them (those that don't have anti-suppression abilities) or kill them (in accuracy mode) with HMGs...it is not like there is a lack of units that can counter them. And they are nowhere near the old StuPa that could one-shot tanks and infantry with long range or KCH who could get hit with the US bomb directly on their heads and survive.

And the stuart vs KT comparission is a bit extreme. Elite inf costs not as much CP and requires less tec and costs not three times as much as an basic inf squad. The KT costs more than 3 times the MP and more than 5 times the fuel of an stuart.

I'm talking tier difference. You still didn't answer my question why you need the basic infantry to outperform doctrine-specific elites. Do you lack any means to deal with the infantry? So far I heard just "I don't like it" which is not a gameplay reason.

Also infantry still starts with the same stats as before vet0 Riflemen vs vet0 Stormtroopers the chances are the same as before. If you get Vet3 Rifles vs vet0 Storms, the Rifles still get bonuses while Storms have their base stats.

Furthermore, nobody said that the squad costs must stay as they are, if they overperform for their price, prices can go up. If they start getting OP from a certain vet level, we can increase the XP needed for those vet levels so it takes more kills to get there or we can tweak the specific vet levels to handle the powerspikes. The vet system offers more ways to balance things compared to just balancing everything through costs.

Anyway, I'm not gonna into another 7-pages long topic based on theories and "what if" scenarios. The changes are now in the live version, play some games, upload replays and then we can talk.

[Warhawks97]

You can still snipe them, mortar them, arty them, HE shot them (Allied tanks got shorter cooldown on HE/AP switch, Axis HE vehicles now have HE perma-loaded + howitzer tanks got their direct shooting back), suppress them (those that don't have anti-suppression abilities) or kill them (in accuracy mode) with HMGs...it is not like there is a lack of units that can counter them. And they are nowhere near the old StuPa that could one-shot tanks and infantry with long range or KCH who could get hit with the US bomb directly on their heads and survive.

Indeed. And they stay potent regardless of vet changes of infantry. That change wasnt necessary since this in particular is easier balanched through cost rather than giving them different vet bonuses which just creates an every increasing gap between the infantry with every vet level they go up, making it even harder to balance.

I'm talking tier difference. You still didn't answer my question why you need the basic infantry to outperform doctrine-specific elites. Do you lack any means to deal with the infantry? So far I heard just "I don't like it" which is not a gameplay reason.

Also infantry still starts with the same stats as before vet0 Riflemen vs vet0 Stormtroopers the chances are the same as before. If you get Vet3 Rifles vs vet0 Storms, the Rifles still get bonuses while Storms have their base stats.

Furthermore, nobody said that the squad costs must stay as they are, if they overperform for their price, prices can go up. If they start getting OP from a certain vet level, we can increase the XP needed for those vet levels so it takes more kills to get there or we can tweak the specific vet levels to handle the powerspikes. The vet system offers more ways to balance things compared to just balancing everything through costs.

Anyway, I'm not gonna into another 7-pages long topic based on theories and "what if" scenarios. The changes are now in the live version, play some games, upload replays and then we can talk.

Outperforming? They never outperformed elites in an even fight against each other. 101st vs volks being an exception here. The issue mainly was not whether elites are better than basics, but if they were worth the cost. Thats why i think a simple cost change should have been the first option while everything else can be adjusted later.

The question is basically the same as it is with TD´s vs elite tanks. Should a properly placed TD be able to destroy a better tank that costs more than the td. And the same goes for the inf. My opinion in both cases is yes.


The question has always been whether its worth it, in terms of CP and MP, to go for elite inf. In pure infantry fights i would have said yes. Esspecially with vet elite inf could shred pretty much all basic inf very easily even before the new vet system was introduced, and with doctrinal unlocks that was true even more. The issue was that other stuff was dirty cheap to acquire like dedicated anti inf tanks.

So it was a tank to elite inf cost effectivness issue rather than an basic inf to elite inf cost effectivness issue. Anyways, no need to fill another 7 pages about it. My point stands that the new cost changes would have been enough for elite inf to become cost effective. Only tanks had to go up by +5 or 10 fuel in build cost.