Shika wrote:I don't think true balance is achieved by copypasting units across the board
Who suggested or implied that?
Many units can be balanced by price changes alone and those who cannot (mostly infantry) can get changes in their stats without being a clone of anything.
Asymmetric balance should not be having a red (blue) unit be better than their blue (red) "counterpart" for the same price (or just as effective while being cheaper).
but I also think your guys' idea of balance is just as terrible for gameplay
Which idea is that?
I'm looking at units with a higher price tag but higher range and accuracy. I'm looking at units with worse range/ammo but higher RoF. on and on and on
Go ahead and show me how OP Finland is as a nation, and not how garbage old forgotten nations are, and don't worry about Israel/Yugo they're just fine. Nitpicking 5 point differences with those 2 nations in the game. It's really just a greedy grab, you're trying to take things that simply don't matter out while we're talking about units that are an issue.
If there's a unit that is literally copy pasted and cheaper, sure in theory adjust it, but what you're failing to do is look at the bigger picture, not every nation is a jack of all trades and not every nation should be just as efficient as the other in every aspect. As I said earlier, I don't think every example you guys say is bad, there are definitely units that have issues even the cheaper ones just do not make sense, however you're overreaching and posting units you're saying are OP when if you look at it from a balanced perspective, you see differences and advantages/disadvantages on both side. Which one comes out ahead, it's still a very minor comeout and can vary in the situation in most cases you are posting.
What the end goal of your ideas here is
Change unit prices to maintain 100% per-unit basis in terms of cost/efficiency. What this does is make it so no nation has any edge over another in terms of efficiency, it balances the game from a small scale perspective and not a total picture perspective. Obviously this should be done with most units, but what happens here is you now have an argument over many smaller, cheaper units and even more expensive ones as to what is truly more efficient. We're not talking units with a 1:1 copy, you're complaining about units that have tradeoffs on both sides and now someone has to argue what is more 'meta' and should be more expensive than others..
The alternative is copy pasting, and since you say you don't want that I won't say you do. The problem with you saying that is okay, you don't want copypasted units, but you're complaining about so many units simply because they aren't copypasted or have minor differences for the same pricetag. I have no problem with your model of balance for the blatantly out-of-line units such as the MiG-29 and the Mi-8KT, it also applies to other units currently in the game that are not on Finland. However, my problem is when you start naming units that are non-issues