[UKF] infantry section

#1
1 year ago

Problem: after recent changes, the axis side received an increase in elite infantry at the beginning of the game, and the British infantry section received fines that make them uncompetitive and expensive for their effectiveness. I also remind you that Tommy does not have a strong grenade and anti-tank grenades.
Solution1: Reduce the cost of the squad to 260, reduce the recharge cost to 32 and reduce the recharge time by 15-20%
Solution2: Increase veteran bonuses for accuracy and accuracy of firing on the squad.

Comments

  • #2
    1 year ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 883
    edited September 2019

    I repeat: Section is good, they're good. They should not be buffed, asking for the price drop to 260 is greedy

    Just throw in elite infantry like Commandos into their Tier2 Company post : ))

  • #3
    1 year ago
    MorisMoris Posts: 68

    Grenadiers consist of 4 people, have the same damage to rifles, in the presence of a strong grenade and panzerfaust. Accuracy bonus of 40% and 20% rate of fire. All this for 240 personnel. I don’t see the point of comparing the Volksgrenadier squad.
    What is greed here. After the fifth person’s upgrade, the unit cost will be the same in 280. Price - quality.

    Commandos squad should remain only a doctrine unit, otherwise this makes the game broken.

  • #4
    1 year ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006
    Grenadiers also dont get passive buffs when in cover. Sectoids are good as they are. Want them cheaoer? Get rid of the passives.
  • #5
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,681

    @Hingie said:
    Grenadiers also dont get passive buffs when in cover. Sectoids are good as they are. Want them cheaoer? Get rid of the passives.

    Neither do sections.
    They get penalties out of cover.

  • #6
    1 year ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006
    Pointless semantics. Whether they get better in or worse out of cover depends which state you define as the default one.
  • #7
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,681

    @Hingie said:
    Pointless semantics. Whether they get better in or worse out of cover depends which state you define as the default one.

    Its semantics only to ignorant people who are too stubborn to learn things.

    In your brain:
    -out of cover accuracy : 1
    -in cover accuracy : 1.2

    In reality you deny:
    -out of cover accuracy : 0.8
    -in cover accuracy : 1

    Not accurate values or stats, just idiot proof example for you to understand that its not "semantics", but your pure ignorance about this mechanic.

  • #8
    1 year ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006
    edited September 2019
    The only one here who is ignorant is you. In the end, the resulting numbers are the same, whether you multiply the respective performance by 0.8 or 1. The only thing that changes is the spin you put on the argument. Getting debuffed out of cover is a viewpoint much more alinged with a pro-section bias.
  • #9
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,681
    edited September 2019

    1) No, they are not the same, because in your flawed reasoning they are getting bonus on top of their DPS values, while in reality they get their DPS values accurate ONLY when in cover, out of cover they are lower. Stop being ignorant, its not a hard concept to grasp.

    There is no spin on anything, just one axis biased to extreme player who doesn't understand how stats and units work.

    (removed)

  • #10
    1 year ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006
    edited September 2019
    Uh. Are you serious? Your entire first paragraph is nothing but spin. Q.E.D.

    (removed)
  • #11
    1 year ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 883
    edited September 2019

    (removed)

    I dont know between 1 & 0.8 and 1.2 & 1, which one is right for Tommy. But
    . Tommy accuracy 1 when in cover & 0.8 when out cover on Volk recieved acc 1
    is different from
    . Tommy accuracy 1.2 when in cover & 1 when out cover on Volk recieved acc 1
    Because 1 is standard number.

    Tommy is abit to powerful after they have 5men 2Bren for 280mp. Perhaps after 5th man upgrade, they still have 4men, and requires another 35mp to recruit and get full 5men squad. Bring this case to Cons 7th man & Pzfusilier 6th man, they still have to pay more mp to get full squad after paying 60ammo per squad.

  • #12
    9 months ago

    @Katitof said:

    @Hingie said:
    Pointless semantics. Whether they get better in or worse out of cover depends which state you define as the default one.

    Its semantics only to ignorant people who are too stubborn to learn things.

    In your brain:
    -out of cover accuracy : 1
    -in cover accuracy : 1.2

    In reality you deny:
    -out of cover accuracy : 0.8
    -in cover accuracy : 1

    Not accurate values or stats, just idiot proof example for you to understand that its not "semantics", but your pure ignorance about this mechanic.

    In your "idiot proof example" you should have:

    In your brain:
    -out of cover accuracy : 1
    -in cover accuracy : 1.25

    Thank you

  • #13
    9 months ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006

    @C3Tooth Your example is a bit pointless, because it doesnt change the end result. We have two states for Sections. In Cover and Out of Cover. In cover they have performance X, out of cover they have performance Y. All this was about is whether X or Y is the default and how to multiply the respective factor in the equation to get the end result. This in no way changes how Sections perform.

  • #14
    9 months ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,681
    edited February 6

    I have made idiot proof example.

    I have greatly underestimated certain people ability to do mental gymnastics so he bypassed it.

  • #15
    9 months ago
    mrdjjag81mrdjjag81 Posts: 299

    Tommies gets very strong with 5 men upgrade for the price, only ting that could be adjusted a bit is the reinforce cost with 1-2 mp less.

  • #16
    9 months ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 883

    @Hingie it wasnt an example. I just tell 0.8 / 1 **& **1 / 1.2 are different.

  • #17
    9 months ago
    HingieHingie Posts: 2,006
    edited February 7

    @C3Tooth said:
    @Hingie it wasnt an example. I just tell 0.8 / 1 **& **1 / 1.2 are different.

    But they are equal. Lets say Sections have 10 DPS in cover and 8 out of cover. Either the 10 or the 8 are your point of reference. If you take 10 as reference, you have to multiply the damage down. If 8 is your reference, you have to multiply the damage up. I does not change the damage. It only defines the default state as one or the other. For me, the default is out of cover. For some other, less than savoury people, in cover is the default.

    Its the same as the old OK-W fuel-to-time ratio conversion. You have two interdependent sets of values whose relative multiplication does not change the end result.

  • #18
    9 months ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,681

    Mechanical function behind these values is how I've presented it tho and anything else is just misleading on mechanics.

    If you go to ANY stat page about them, you'll see the DPS value IN COVER, because that's value 1 for them. Out of cover that DPS on stats is lower.

    Anything else is simply lies or incapability to understand that extremely simply system, which some people here prominently show.

  • #19
    9 months ago

    This thread has become redundant, in my opinion, since, if the changes in the Winter Balance Preview were made live, Infantry Sections will be better off. The reason I say this is because, at the end of the day, if we compare Infantry Section stats in the Winter Balance Preview to the stats they had before they were tampered with, they actually have been buffed by my calculations. They were apparently tampered with due to this reason:

    With the introduction of anti-tank grenades on Royal Engineers, Infantry Sections have been identified to be slightly overperforming.

    http://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/67/coh-2-changelog/p6

    but they also gave some extra reasoning, if you read the notes. However, that particular change note is funny, in retrospect, if you now read this one on page 5:

    Given the lack of infantry snares, the PIAT is having its range increased to allow it to deter light vehicles.

    The net main differences for Infantry Sections will be, "Lee Enfield moving accuracy from 0.35 to 0.5", and an increase in their target size out of cover from 0.8 to 0.85. If we compare these as ratios we see:

    0.5/0.35 = 1.43 > 0.85/0.8 = 1.06

    So, 43% better when moving and shooting in cover, 1.43/1.06 = 1.35 -> 35% better when moving and shooting out of cover and 0.8/0.85 = 0.94 -> 6% worse in the open when stationary or moving but not firing. In addition to this we see the following changes that further make Infantry Sections better:

    •Cost from 280 to 270
    •Vet 3 accuracy bonus increased from 20% to 25%

    Other relevant changes are:

    Infantry Section Lee Enfield damage is being adjusted to maintain its current DPS, while reducing their chance to burst down models in a single volley.

    and:

    In order to counteract the slightly reduced performance of Infantry Sections and improve UKF build diversity, the Vickers HMG suppression has been increased.

    What I wanted to discuss here is that, the problem we are facing is perhaps not Infantry Sections: Intuitively people may be picking up on an imbalance somewhere, when it comes to Axis versus British Forces battles, but I want to argue that the problem (maybe) isn't Infantry Sections, but instead Grenadiers. Yesterday I was comparing the various mainline infantry on:
    http://coh2db.com/stats
    and I put Grenadiers up against Riflemen and was happy to see them doing a good deal more damage at range while not being too far behind at close range. I just think it's a neat feature that Grenadiers don't just do well at range, but also at close range, considering they have bolt-action rifles; and I wanted to view that comparison again. I then studied the DPS advantage of Grenadiers versus Riflemen at 25 range to see if their extra DPS compensated for them having 1 less man. But then I looked at their durability, via the target size value, and the results are very interesting:

    4 man Grenadiers versus 5 man Riflemen – Total DPS at 25 Range:
    (4*3.001)/(5*2.378) = 1.01 -> 1% DPS advantage to Grenadiers

    4 man Grenadiers versus 5 man Riflemen – Equivalent HP Based on Individual Squad Member Target Size Versus Reference Target Size of 1.00:
    (4*1.00/0.91*80)/(5*1.00/0.97*80) = (352 HP)/(412 HP) = 0.85 -> 15% HP disadvantage for Grenadiers

    These aren't all of the factors but I think these are the main factors. Riflemen do significantly better while moving, if you compare the ratio of their moving DPS to their stationary DPS with that of Grenadiers. Riflemen DPS also appears to overpower Grenadiers at close range, but only at extreme close ranges. Given all of this, I think the problem stems from the following changes, which can be tracked in the changelog I linked above:

    Grenadiers are receiving a decrease to their population to better match their performance in comparison to other mainline infantry.
    •Population from 7 to 6

    and:

    Population has been adjusted across a number of units to encourage more diverse unit compositions.
    ...
    Grenadiers: 6 to 7

    This analysis ignores the fact that Grenadiers get free Panzerfausts, and with Wehrmacht's fuel teching advantage (which I outlined in "[OST] [All] Winter Preview OST Teching adjustment" - http://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/comment/287400#Comment_287400), they are also getting Rifle Grenades essentially for free (currently).

    My thoughts on what should happen: I like Grenadiers where they are, I don't think they should be changed, i.e. buffed to a point where they can match Riflemen or another 7 pop squad, rather, I think they should have their population adjusted to match their performance; population from 7 to 6. Either this or make their MG42 upgrades more easily available by reducing its cost by 10 munitions or so. Both are attractive options. If this change was to be considered, Panzergrenadiers should definitely be put back up to 9 pop from 8 pop, and perhaps consider reverting this change that was made to Grenadiers:

    •Veterancy 3 -23% Received Accuracy replaced by -20% damage reduction

    As far as Soviet conscripts are concerned, I don't use them enough to know where they should be relative to other faction's mainline infantry. In the end, we should always take the balance of a faction as a whole: There may be a reasoning behind Grenadiers having a higher pop, than they perhaps should, when considering the Wehrmacht faction as a whole. If you like my ideas please feel free to create a thread which asks for this issue to be addressed, if it is indeed an issue, but please reference my comment and give credit where due. Some people may argue that I have it wrong, or that I have made a mistake. If this is the case, please be constructive and outline some reasoning behind your objection or point out where the mistake is. Thank you.

  • #20
    9 months ago
    MorisMoris Posts: 68
    edited February 21

    You look at numbers a lot. Just look at those games that are played at high ranks, there is no Britain, it is not attractive to the player. She has a modest and predictable debut. There is no medicine and artillery. For Britain there are many holes that they try to solve from patch to patch, but so far this fraction is not suitable for the 1x1 mode.

  • #21
    9 months ago

    Hi @Moris. I have no problem with your reply, however, the original post you made was with respect to the changes made to Infantry Sections to diminish their performance out of cover (if I am not mistaken). I thought you were happy with Infantry Sections before they were messed with, and I was simply pointing out that they will be better than they were before this change. This is, in my opinion, given the stronger moving accuracy, reduced cost and increased veterancy 3, at a small cost to out of cover target size. I was not aware that you thought they were weak even before the out of cover changes were made to them. I am fully aware of the "holes" you mentioned, but I don't want to discuss British Forces balance. What is "medetsin"? I didn't understand.

    There are some people that are of the opinion that Infantry Sections are too strong and the main point of my post was to ask them to consider looking at Grenadiers as perhaps being the source of this perceived problem

    Thank you.

  • #22
    9 months ago
    MorisMoris Posts: 68

    After creating this theme in the next update, these things were partially implemented. This topic may be closed.
    Then it was important that the section had economic feasibility. Economics is another of Britain's problems. At certain points in the battle, either there is no resource in order to create a countermeasure on the actions of the opponent or there simply is not this countermeasure in view of the lack of the necessary units.

  • #23
    7 months ago
    PersonanonGrataPersonano… Posts: 25

    Bring back the British officer unit from CoH 1 it might help the UKF be more competitive with buffs because in all games they're very weak whether it's 1v1 or 4v4. They can still be rekt by most infantry units in the game. They lack anti-tank capability well all allied faction really have a hard time against Axis armor but UKF really has it the worst. PIATS to inaccurate and has a very short range to go against armor. Just buff the UKF.

  • #24
    7 months ago
    C3ToothC3Tooth Posts: 883

    UKF got constantly buff in the past half a year.



    There are some nerf, but not a quarter as buff

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

DeutschEnglishEspañolFrançaisItalianoРусский