[Wehr] Rework for their Mainline Infantry.

2456

Comments

  • #32
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    @Katitof said:
    Tommies are strong, but pathetically weak at close range, ...

    Tommies will are not "pathetically weak" at close range they will easily beat Grens...

  • #33
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855
    1. the MG is fine, Jacksons are fine, but Mortars need to be fixed, so again, not a rifleman issue, it's a mortar issue.
    2. They don't melt against small arms fire, if you're charging into close combat with a long range squad that's on you.
    3. Tommies cost 40mp more, don't have a snare, and pay seperately for grenades and their LMG's, wherea's grens get them for free and get a snare.
    4. P-grens are fine, but need better spacing. Though, they are probably a bit overpriced at the moment, maybe a small cost decrease of RA buff, but overall the work well as either high DPS close infantry they shred rifles or as very strong AT infantry.
    5. Brits don't float muni, at least if you're playing them even normally competently, they have grenades, piats, brens, hugely expensive UC upgrades, quite a bit, that's before getting into the huge expesnse of fortification ugprades doctrinally.
    6. Your insistence at them getting "eaten alive" is nonsense, they scale ok, but I've mostly been talking about the base unit, if you think they need a vet 3 change I'd be less concerned about that.
    7. Grens with LMG can beat rifles or guards longrange, but lose at shortrange, which is what makes sense.
  • #34
    3 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,650
    edited November 2016

    @Vipper said:

    @Katitof said:
    Tommies are strong, but pathetically weak at close range, ...

    Tommies will are not "pathetically weak" at close range they will easily beat Grens...

    Hardly "easily", without cover and jumped from around the corner or hedge its extremely close fight.
    If tommies shoot on approach, sure, but grens aren't exactly meant to engage anything that way, unless you use G43s.

  • #35
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited November 2016

    @Katitof said:
    Hardly "easily", without cover and jumped from around the corner or hedge its extremely close fight.
    If tommies shoot on approach, sure, but grens aren't exactly meant to engage anything that way, unless you use G43s.

    You said close not without cover bonus, when close and with cover bonus tommies will win vs grens regularly

    You described Tommies as "pathetically weak", well they are better than grens and that would make grens "super pathetically weaker".

    Tommies are using bolt action rifles that are not designed to be good close range but they are better than their opponent close (when they have cover bonus).

  • #37
    3 years ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,314 mod
    edited November 2016

    [Moderator Input] If a user perceive a unit being weak, there is nothing wrong with the choice of words they use to describe it. Please do not start arguing with each other about user's terminology; e.g. units being easier, pathetically weaker or more pathetically weaker. This has happened a few times before, and it merely derails the thread. Argue about the topic itself, not user's preferred choice of words. Thanks :)

  • #38
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723

    @le12ro said:
    [Moderator Input] If a user perceive a unit being weak, there is nothing wrong with the choice of words they use to describe it. Please do not start arguing with each other about user's terminology;

    It is not simple terminology Tommies are one of the strongest bolt action infantries at close range as long as they have the cover bonuses.

  • #39
    3 years ago
    Was thinking. Grens are supposed to rely on the mg42 to bump them up into the same bracket as literally every infantry save for cons, what about changing their vet 1 to an ability that lets them deal more damage against supressed/ pinned units?
  • #40
    3 years ago
    captainjordycaptainjo… Posts: 498
    edited November 2016

    Maybe also an increase of squad size buyable for Grenadier and Panzergrenadier for like 20 MP (ofc having to reinforce the squad after purchase) available after Battle Phase 3 which would help BP3 viability (of course it locks out Panzerschreck related buyables and visa versa).

  • #41
    3 years ago

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    Was thinking. Grens are supposed to rely on the mg42 to bump them up into the same bracket as literally every infantry save for cons, what about changing their vet 1 to an ability that lets them deal more damage against supressed/ pinned units?

    I was thinking replace Ost's vet 1 Medkit on all units with a stick grenade like the one Pfusiliers have.

  • #42
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855
    1. Jacksons are literally the only thing that stop axis heavies from overunning everything like the previous KT=Win button meta. No way, they're fine.
    2. So you're saying that 240mp ought to do just fine against 600mp of units? I'm sorry but at some point the cost differential of nearly 3:1 has to mean something man.
    3. Grens don't have to pay for a seperate upgrade to get their LMG, they get the ability to upgrade for free, and they get to upgrade in the field
    4. Don't use the phrase "cancer commander" it's sincerely disrespectful to people legtimately suffering, seriously dude, it's just an effed up thing to do.
    5. So, a 330mp doctrinal unit with an mg will beat a 240mp unit? Say it ain't so! Seriously, that's non-complaint.
    6. A squad size increase is a terrible, terrible idea as it would wreck the idea of the squad for a defensive squad. No, if anything they could use a RA boost while in cover.
    7. I'm getting really sick of the fact that every thinks it's fine to whine about grens but talk about how cons are even worse and grens routinely beat them, suddenly that's unfair. That's happened on literally every infantry thread I've seen, I've been getting a bit annoyed about that, cause it seems kind of unfair that cons suck so incredibly badly.
    8. Also, no one is pricing in the incredibly utiltiy grens get versus other infantry and that they get it for free. If any ost infantry needs to be fixed it's p-grens which as I said, are too expensive, but someone else mentioend an RA boost, that could work to be able to close with their 44's.
  • #43
    3 years ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,723
    edited November 2016

    @MCMartel said:
    3. Grens don't have to pay for a seperate upgrade to get their LMG, they get the ability to upgrade for free, and they get to upgrade in the field

    This free theory is actually wrong. Faust is not free it requires T1 to present, LMG is not free it requires T2 to be researched, grenades are not free they require T2 to be researched.

    Unless everything that comes with teching is free like:
    USF: LT a free (300 MP) unit with bar and Thompson, Captain a free (320 MP) with a "free" bazooka upgrade and a Thompson, Captain a free (160 MP) unit with dirty cheap call in arty, retreat point and recon flight.

    UKF: free artillery piece with T1 and T2, free vehicle trucking, free gammon bomb, free emergency war speed or free Lmg/armor for engineers, free deadly accurate arty, free vision (when it will be fixed).

    Having the choice of researching weapon for infantry or teching up to vehicles is actually a bonus that allows players to take advantage of the tactical situation and it is not a drawback. So pls stop using the "free" argument or use it to all faction that benefit from it...

  • #44
    3 years ago
    Compared to their match-up army, yes the wehr get their stuff for free. The western front allies got alot of special treatment that throws much of established rules out the window.
    Things like "what is cover" vetted riflemen or "lets make them 25% better for the hell of it" bolster or "like a p4 but better..and also cheaper" wfa tanks
  • #45
    3 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647
    edited November 2016

    @MCMartel said:

    1. Jacksons are literally the only thing that stop axis heavies from overunning everything like the previous KT=Win button meta. No way, they're fine.

    I disagree, why should they self spot with sixty range? Their penetration and damage is fine, but the Jackson in the hands of a good player is nearly impossible to catch, it just kites out of anything trying to get near it, only an elephant/jagtiger can really counter fire. At least the SU-85 makes sacrifices to its vision, allowing players to retailiate with a dive against it.
    It should require a spotter for its 60 range like the firefly and its the axis counterparts, or have aa reduced range and vision to 50 so at least stugs, panther etc can have a chance to fire back.

    We should move away from this topic, its not relevant to Wehr inf, it was just an example of a unit I believe to be slightly unbalanced, espcially when supporting rifles.

    1. So you're saying that 240mp ought to do just fine against 600mp of units? I'm sorry but at some point the cost differential of nearly 3:1 has to mean something man.

    Your missing my point entirely.... just a couple squads focusing a grenadier unit for a second burst them down, its an example of how fragile they are. I'm not saying the grens should turn and shred two squads.

    1. Grens don't have to pay for a seperate upgrade to get their LMG, they get the ability to upgrade for free, and they get to upgrade in the field

    You ahve to tech to t2 to get lmg42... that's hundred manpower and 40 fuel. It's hardly free.

    1. Don't use the phrase "cancer commander" it's sincerely disrespectful to people legtimately suffering, seriously dude, it's just an effed up thing to do.

    Jeez don't be a snowflake. It's an expression of disgust that many people repeat all over the forums for what is possibly the most awful style of gameplay in coh 2. Hell on coh2.org its the nickname for it.

    1. So, a 330mp doctrinal unit with an mg will beat a 240mp unit? Say it ain't so! Seriously, that's non-complaint.

    "Grens with LMG can beat rifles or guards longrange, but lose at shortrange, which is what makes sense." You said that yourself jsut a short while ago, I said you are wrong. I don't disagree that grens shouldn't beat what is considered an elite infantry unit, but don't make a statement that you know isnt true, and then turn it back on me.

    1. A squad size increase is a terrible, terrible idea as it would wreck the idea of the squad for a defensive squad. No, if anything they could use a RA boost while in cover.

    I don't want a squad increase size.... I would like to see something closer to a RA buff or a small amount of armor to compensate from missing an ENTIRE man so they can hold their own at mid/long range. Once units get within 10 spaces of each other, RA is removed and units take full damage which is why automatic weapons such as stg44 or ppsh do so much damage point blank, P-grens have 4 squad members with 80 health each, most allied squads have 5 with 80. That's why its far better to keep p-grens at middrange, so they can still inflict substantial damage without being exposed to too much damage.

    P-grens aren't defensive infantry anyway... Ostheer can't have two mainline infantry that are only able to defend. Its hard enough taking territory as them anyway without getting driven off, reworking them so they are only good at defending would leave them in the same poor state of assualting positions as they are now.

    1. I'm getting really sick of the fact that every thinks it's fine to whine about grens but talk about how cons are even worse and grens routinely beat them, suddenly that's unfair. That's happened on literally every infantry thread I've seen, I've been getting a bit annoyed about that, cause it seems kind of unfair that cons suck so incredibly badly.

    Cons aren't terrible per se, they have their uses during the entire game. They are resilient at vet 3 with a large squad size that is cheap to reinforce, making them great at rushing a strategic point in the middle of a fight, they also have a sprint that can combo with at grenades to snare tanks and a re cheap enough to pinch enemy weapon teams without putting a dent in your manpower.

    That's far more than grens can after more than ten mins in a game.

    But I do agree they need reworking, I would love cons to have a non-doc weapon upgrade like a trio of svts and a change to their vet1 ability. Something like being able to draw a units fire and force them to engage the cons I think would work really well. Alongside of course rolling their grenades into a single package, speeding up the molotov throw, maybe an upgrade to make them even cheaper to reinforce.

    1. Also, no one is pricing in the incredibly utiltiy grens get versus other infantry and that they get it for free. If any ost infantry needs to be fixed it's p-grens which as I said, are too expensive, but someone else mentioend an RA boost, that could work to be able to close with their 44's.

    Grens are nothing more than an early way to ward of clown cars/UCs, after that they fail in nearly all their roles. That's mainly down to power creep from the Western front allies, but then penals were finally fixed, now they are nothing but a manpower sink.

    All the Wehr infantry are too expensive, thats left over from when it was just SOV vs OSt, which boiled down to quality vs quantity. Now they are some of the worst troops in game, and still remain the most expensive.

  • #46
    3 years ago
    MisterBastardMisterBas… Posts: 285
    edited November 2016

    @Katitof said:

    Then again, you're forgetting that grens are not supposed to be stand alone unit.
    They can't be spammed and used without support weapons/sniper, because they were never meant to.

    NO UNIT SHOULD BE STAND ALONE i still dont understand what was Relic thinking, it breaks and removes one of the core skills in COH, combined arms approach. It also creates huge balance issues, where one side spams a unit, while the other desperately tries to hold them with a combo of units, all with distinct issues...to make the things worse the spammable unit has all the counters to the opposing ones (non doctrinal smoke, AT nade, best hand grenade, crazy vet yellow cover , dual BARs, or bazookas, or MGs)...

    That being said, now after USF got Stuars, crazy GPS guided mortars, Jackons, DPS machingun 57 mil guns ...Rifles are not stand alone.

    @Katitof said:
    Making them stronger will only lead to grenspam meta.

    No, no it wont, its the case of balance, and we face Riflespam for ages, and somehow ppl claim its ok, with the usual BS excuses...

    @Katitof said:
    Rifles are stand-alone, because that is their design, you need to rely on them for everything.
    Tommies are strong, but pathetically weak at close range, out of cover and still have cost that prohibits them from being used in numbers.

    It was the initial (bad) design, but it got thrown out... the last nail in the coffin for that claim was the introduction of USF mortar...

    @Katitof said:
    Grens do not have any of these advantages, but they also lack any disadvantages, the biggest one they had-being OHKd by mines, was fixed long ago.

    Something tells me you dont play Wehr much...Stuarts, T70s, anything focus firing Grens melt them in mere seconds, even while retreating...the mines were only "icing on the cake".

    @Katitof said:
    Grens will never be strong enough to work independently of support T1/T0 units, just like cons aren't without heavy doctrinal support.

    Define "work independently" because at the moment they are the weakest, close to completely unusable units, no matter how you use them in combiantion with other units. They cant attack, they cant defend, they dont have staying power(HP/model/ vet cover bonus) id rather take osttruppen, at least i know what their use is...

    @Katitof said:
    Vet1 ability is gloval ost+sov problem.

    Combined with crazy VET bonuses allied infantry gets...

    @Katitof said:
    AGs could use some love, but they will NEVER not be a doctrinal unit, nor should they get MP44.
    Their vet1 should be the place where they receive a buff, either through some passive skill or interesting active ability.

    Because you could face a german ost unit you cant just melt away ?

  • #47
    3 years ago
    MisterBastardMisterBas… Posts: 285
    edited November 2016

    @MCMartel said:

    1. So you're saying that 240mp ought to do just fine against 600mp of units? I'm sorry but at some point the cost differential of nearly 3:1 has to mean something man.

    OK lets make it super simple so you can understand what he wanted to say, lets make it reverse...Rifle squad versus 3 Gren squads, can you honestly say "the melting" would be tha same ? ahahahahaha

    @MCMartel said:
    3. Grens don't have to pay for a seperate upgrade to get their LMG, they get the ability to upgrade for free, and they get to upgrade in the field

    "Free" inside the same sentence with "ost faction" is laghable.
    Do you even play OST...

    [removed]

    @MCMartel said:
    5. So, a 330mp doctrinal unit with an mg will beat a 240mp unit? Say it ain't so! Seriously, that's non-complaint.

    Again, you are missing the point...or just acting dumb because you have no arguments.

    @MCMartel said:
    6. A squad size increase is a terrible, terrible idea as it would wreck the idea of the squad for a defensive squad. No, if anything they could use a RA boost while in cover.

    5 man squad is the way to go, 4 man squads are horribly fragile and a failure of design. Squad number is just squad number, relic decided to make faction untis different in the most lazy way possible. 4 man core squads in Coh 2 are just like cars with 3 wheels, while everyone has normal ones with 4. The Meme "fact you are different, doesnt mean you are useful" comes to mind.

    Number 7 cons are useful much more than Grens.

  • #48
    3 years ago
    ImperialDaneImperialD… Posts: 3,171 mod

    Don't make multiple posts. Post it in one go or don't post at all.

  • #49
    3 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    5 man squads are a stupid idea. it's the laziest balance idea that ruins faction difference and doesn't fit the unit design. We've talked about this before already.

    I play ost more than I play any other faction, maybe tied with soviets (about 45% ost, 40% soviets, 15% others) So yeah, I do all the time, maybe you ought to play more to figure out how to play before you insist I don't play ost.

    Yes, 3 MG'42'd grens, esp with rirfle grens would turn a rifle squad to swiss cheese in seconds.

    So how about you cut out the darned ALL CAPS, the rudeness, the accusations, and stop whining, and make some reasoned arguments. A 5 man squad doesn't fit the unit design of a defensive utility/dps oriented squad, a 5th man gives them a huge buff in staying power that would let them charge out into the open, and is an incredibly uncreative and ham-fisted solution. If they need any buff, it'd be a RA bonus in cover, like the UKF has.

  • #50
    3 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    Despite many of us not wanting to destroy a core part of the Wehr identity, the current meta and strength of indirect fire does make four man squads nearly reduntant when used as mainline infantry. They are just too fragile when under fire, and what doesn't help is how much access the allied nations have to so much artillery, mortars and rockets.

    Reworking their spacing would only do so much, but I honestly think that unless the everything from the us mortar to the comet has their explosion radious nerfed, then it may be impossible to succesfully balance the wehr infantry if kept at four man squads. As far as i am aware, their is no way to make infantry resistant to explosive damage or to increase their health to the same level as five man squads.

  • #51
    3 years ago
    VutherVuther Posts: 2,129

    @Farra13 said:
    Reworking their spacing would only do so much, but I honestly think that unless the everything from the us mortar to the comet has their explosion radious nerfed, then it may be impossible to succesfully balance the wehr infantry if kept at four man squads. As far as i am aware, their is no way to make infantry resistant to explosive damage or to increase their health to the same level as five man squads.

    Well, a lot of them could really use it. Not like people complain about ZiS-3s' or SU-76s' barrage, after all. The problematic Allied explosions affect Sturmpioneers, Obers, Falls and the like too, right?

  • #52
    3 years ago
    Straight up i think a blanket AOE nerf would be a good thing, accompanied with an mg buff of course (all mgs from hull to pintle) like the t34 got. Exceptions to the aoe nerf (but not the ng buff) would be the big guns like the 105 Sherman, is-2, isu 152, brummbar, scott, and the tigers (kt and jt as well as tiger 1) also probably the pershing.

    Rationale being every fucking tank besides the t34 and aec fall into the ole "all or fucking nothing" RNG trap. Grens fall to this alot because they are the ost snare, needing to approach a hole ridden war zone to faust, and quite often that means they all huddle in the same hole and potentially BAM all dead too.

    Things like the brumm and scott and even the isu seem super UP because unless they hit the enemy is unscathed. You can (and i have) park ontop of an AT gun and sit there while rng decides if this unsupported weapon is going to get hit by the cannon or not.

    More consistant dps (from mgs) instead of hella burst damage (from cannons) would make grens small size more manageable.

    You might say "but blobs!"
    Well there is a mechanic in place for automatics that lets them "reroll" misses on a nearby target (as in i missed you, but the fucker behind you was not so lucky) with a more consistant mg dealing damage to targets and an exponential buff to the near miss mechanic (more enemies the more rerolls?) or some shit like that could help, or maybe even just more viable combined arms...


    Anyways thats my slightly off topic run for the day

    TLDR more consitant mgs on tanks and less rng aoe could be beneficial to grens as well as help differentiate big boomers
  • #53
    3 years ago
    MisterBastardMisterBas… Posts: 285
    edited November 2016

    @MCMartel said:
    5 man squads are a stupid idea. it's the laziest balance idea that ruins faction difference and doesn't fit the unit design. We've talked about this before already.

    5 man is the minimal practical squad size in the current game state, especially for Axis considering the crazy stuff western Allies get. We have Volks with 5 men, we have 6 men Osttruppen with Wehr also...didnt break anything, your claim is nonsense.

    @MCMartel said:
    I play ost more than I play any other faction, maybe tied with soviets (about 45% ost, 40% soviets, 15% others) So yeah, I do all the time, maybe you ought to play more to figure out how to play before you insist I don't play ost.

    And then you come here and claim Wehr gets free mg 42 upgrade... somewhow i dont care if you played 10000 games as OST...with such claim you kill all of your credibility...also : "Riflemen are very expensive and require multiple fuel-intensive upgrades"....(chuckles)

    @MCMartel said:
    Yes, 3 MG'42'd grens, esp with rirfle grens would turn a rifle squad to swiss cheese in seconds.

    Sorry, but because Rifles are 5 men, have better vet+smoke grenade, they can fight/stall and deal more damage to the attacking grens before forced to retreat/destroyed, than the other way around. 3 grens vs 1 rifle, and 3 rifles vs 1 gren is not comparable, and unless the Wehr guy is floating muni (never) the grens are going to suffer serious casualties attacking... 3x rifles will just insta vaporize 1x grens (with or without any kind of upgrades)...

    @MCMartel said:
    So how about you cut out the darned ALL CAPS, the rudeness, the accusations, and stop whining, and make some reasoned arguments. A 5 man squad doesn't fit the unit design of a defensive utility/dps oriented squad, a 5th man gives them a huge buff in staying power that would let them charge out into the open, and is an incredibly uncreative and ham-fisted solution. If they need any buff, it'd be a RA bonus in cover, like the UKF has.

    Please cut the bullcrap, squad sizes have nothing to do with the faction being defensive or offensive...atm Grens cant hold versus anything but cons, that is not "defensive unit/faction design" its bad/obsolete design. Defensive faction is one that actually benefits from defensive bonuses, stats, or abilities, like Britain...while Wehr barely holds in defense when the fight gets fluid...

    The final nail in the coffin of your nonsense claim...even the UK gets squad size increase, lmao.

  • #54
    3 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647
    edited November 2016

    @Vuther said:
    Well, a lot of them could really use it. Not like people complain about ZiS-3s' or SU-76s' barrage, after all. The problematic Allied explosions affect Sturmpioneers, Obers, Falls and the like too, right?

    I have to admit the zis and Su-76 barrage aren't really a problem, the shells have a large scatter at range and only if fired point blank become incredibly dangerous, and even then they fire slowly, giving you a good chance to pull back.

    The difference for Sturmpioneers, Obers and Falls though are that they aren't usually at the front of the the line, a good player protects them with volks, each of those small squads are specialists, no sensible person uses them for capping or mainline fighting, they sit at the back protected whilst being the damage dealers, whereas sturms are mainly resigned to engineers after the first five to ten mins of game time, as they are too squishy to carry on as shock troops.

    Wehr are forced to use either grens or p-grens up front, for capping or as static defenders on the flanks of their support team. You only need to see how they perform at their role in comparison to Ostruppen, their staying power as a 6 man squad is imcomparable when put alongside the other 2 units, and even when they take losses they are basically half the cost to reinforce again.

    The only problem with nerfing aoe across the board is that it will stop players punishing blobs hard, but then again if mg's both support teams and tanks were more effective then maybe that would compensate.

  • #55
    2 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    Right, so this thread is clearly just another "Make grens a squad size 5 and anyone who disagrees with me is an axis hater" thread, so thanks for nothing guys, I'm out, this clearly isn't going to turn into a productive discussion. Just more obnoxious whining from people who don't understand how OST works.

  • #56
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @MCMartel said:
    Right, so this thread is clearly just another "Make grens a squad size 5 and anyone who disagrees with me is an axis hater" thread.

    No it isn't, we were just discussing alternate ways to make four man squads more survivable, thus allowing the Wehr to keep its mainline infantry at that size. You have to admit falls and obers suffer the same problem, as indirect fire is so powerfull in this game currently,

    In your opinion how do you compensate for a squad with 20% less health than all others?

  • #57
    2 years ago
    Spacing changes are a MUST but what about replacing their vet 1 with an incremental accuracy buff (maybe only applied in cover?) basicly the more targets there are the better they aim. I dont think even if allowed outside of cover this would be blob fuel simply because they are too damn squishy and it would come early enough to start grinding a blobber of MP before it hits critical mass.
  • #58
    2 years ago
    MisterBastardMisterBas… Posts: 285
    edited November 2016

    Bad spacing is like bad pathfinding, it shouldnt be considered a buff.

    @MCMartel said:
    Right, so this thread is clearly just another "Make grens a squad size 5 and anyone who disagrees with me is an axis hater" thread, so thanks for nothing guys, I'm out, this clearly isn't going to turn into a productive discussion. Just more obnoxious whining from people who don't understand how OST works.

    And WHY is that a such "No No" for you, even defensive Brits get squad increase...please bring some real arguments other than the mantra "they will be op and spamable".

    A person claming Grens get the 42 upgrade for free has no right to arrogantly proclaim "Just more obnoxious whining from people who don't understand how OST works"

    Grens come out of barracks you need to set up, thats effective extra 80 manpower and 10 fuel for any first unit you build from it. Those buildings dont fire, or secure resources like OKWs mobile ones, or USF officer squads with free zook or Bar...and later non doctrinal recon and a retreat point, lol.

    In order to activate all standard Gren upgrades and abilities you need 80 MP + 10 FU for Barracks + escalate to battle phase 1 for 100 MP and 40 FU. Even if you DONT use Grens you pay anyway...if you dont use (L)MG 42s you pay anyway to tech up (cant even fire on the move like the BAR, which can be double equipped)...see the big difference...

    So lets say a player skips barracks, and goes with "escalate no1", he ends with what ...an option to set up another lousy useless building to sit in his base if he has the resources... and many ppl go for that.

    Yes, please, continue to claim all is fine and balanced...

  • #59
    2 years ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,650
    edited November 2016

    @MisterBastard said:

    @Katitof said:

    Then again, you're forgetting that grens are not supposed to be stand alone unit.
    They can't be spammed and used without support weapons/sniper, because they were never meant to.

    NO UNIT SHOULD BE STAND ALONE i still dont understand what was Relic thinking, it breaks and removes one of the core skills in COH, combined arms approach. It also creates huge balance issues, where one side spams a unit, while the other desperately tries to hold them with a combo of units, all with distinct issues...to make the things worse the spammable unit has all the counters to the opposing ones (non doctrinal smoke, AT nade, best hand grenade, crazy vet yellow cover , dual BARs, or bazookas, or MGs)...

    Only USF rifles break out of combined arms, they are still more effective with combined arms and their flexibility is supposed t come from weapon mixing, changing the role of the unit. At least that was how they envisioned it.

    That being said, now after USF got Stuars, crazy GPS guided mortars, Jackons, DPS machingun 57 mil guns ...Rifles are not stand alone.

    Stuart is an option, not something you will always see in 100% of the games.
    Plus, you're acting like it was possible to win any game with just rifles. It never was, that's kind of obvious.
    When mentioning combined arms, everyone means early to mid game, because if you don't do it late game, you're on your way to rapid loss.

    @Katitof said:
    Making them stronger will only lead to grenspam meta.

    No, no it wont, its the case of balance, and we face Riflespam for ages, and somehow ppl claim its ok, with the usual BS excuses...

    You do realize that USF couldn't do anything else but rifles for ages? Hell, they still can't, mortar is force mutiplier, not alternative. Its alternative to grenade upgrade, which was mandatory expense before.
    For a brief period RETs were viable, but they got nerfbatted, because rifles or gtfo.

    @Katitof said:
    Rifles are stand-alone, because that is their design, you need to rely on them for everything.
    Tommies are strong, but pathetically weak at close range, out of cover and still have cost that prohibits them from being used in numbers.

    It was the initial (bad) design, but it got thrown out... the last nail in the coffin for that claim was the introduction of USF mortar...

    Again, mortar is force mutiplier, not alternative. Its alternative to grenade upgrade, which was mandatory expense before.

    @Katitof said:
    Grens do not have any of these advantages, but they also lack any disadvantages, the biggest one they had-being OHKd by mines, was fixed long ago.

    Something tells me you dont play Wehr much...Stuarts, T70s, anything focus firing Grens melt them in mere seconds, even while retreating...the mines were only "icing on the cake".

    Why don't you have a pair of 222s, which will soft/hardcounter the light you fight against for cost?
    Grens aren't exactly meant to facetank tanks, even the light ones.

    @Katitof said:
    Grens will never be strong enough to work independently of support T1/T0 units, just like cons aren't without heavy doctrinal support.

    Define "work independently" because at the moment they are the weakest, close to completely unusable units, no matter how you use them in combiantion with other units. They cant attack, they cant defend, they dont have staying power(HP/model/ vet cover bonus) id rather take osttruppen, at least i know what their use is...

    Any period we had before when any support weapon was completely neglected, because grens could take on anything.
    When they could attack, they could defend and while they didn't had staying power, they made up for that with doomblob and spam.

    @Katitof said:
    Vet1 ability is gloval ost+sov problem.

    Combined with crazy VET bonuses allied infantry gets...

    That crazy vet is a direct result of non side-upgradable, potent weapons and model gimp potential on axis side through weapons like LMG34/42, sniper, JLI G43 sniping as well as faction specific restrictions, like complete lack of alternatives for USF or considerably increased prices over axis equivalents and so on, it didn't came out of nowhere because Duffy said so.

    @Katitof said:
    AGs could use some love, but they will NEVER not be a doctrinal unit, nor should they get MP44.
    Their vet1 should be the place where they receive a buff, either through some passive skill or interesting active ability.

    Because you could face a german ost unit you cant just melt away ?

    Because doctrinal units are doctrinal for a reason-they aren't meant to be combined with specific other doctrinal abilities or call-ins. Why do you think we don't have stock KV-1 despite it being shit tank? Its very simple, let it sink.

  • #60
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647
    edited November 2016

    @Katitof said:

    Only USF rifles break out of combined arms, they are still more effective with combined arms and their flexibility is supposed t come from weapon mixing, changing the role of the unit. At least that was how they envisioned it.

    The key part of that paragraph is 'how they envisioned it'. The current state is a long way from the original concept. Rifles have kept the flexibility that allows them to operate alone and still be a capable threat. But alongside a recent string of buffs to a number of units, only some of which were really necessary, means that they can still perform well enough stand-alone, but now when backed up are able to steamroll anything when in the hands of a good player.

    Now we are left with the fact that the USF doesn't really suffer any weakness in their faction design, even if one counts the lack of rocket arty, as its counteracted by the fact nearly all players go tactical support, with only a handful now using heavy cav.

    When they designed the faction with rifles at their core, they didn't envision them supported with a mortar, especially one that currently acts like an indirect sniper, the 60mm they used in the beta was fine as it was more for dislodging garrisons and providing smoke cover. They need nerfs to their vet and a limit to a single lmg, though I am unsure whether Bars should, as I rarely see them anymore and can't really grasp how effective they are currently.

    That kind of nerf mirrored on the infantry sections and a slight reduction in the penals vet 2 and 3 bonuses would probably give the axis and minly the Wehr more space to breathe in the early infantry game.

    Hell that combined with vet reworks and spacing for grens and p-grens might be enough to balance the poor state of wehr infantry at least until the late game. Though I believe that boils down to the fact that they don't have any elite/mainline infantry with any staying power.

  • #61
    2 years ago

    @Farra13 said:
    Hell that combined with vet reworks and spacing for grens and p-grens might be enough to balance the poor state of wehr infantry at least until the late game. Though I believe that boils down to the fact that they don't have any elite/mainline infantry with any staying power.

    +1

    And neither do Wehr tanks have any staying power. The StuG thats supposed to counter enemy tanks has paper armor, and with all the buffs to Allied TDs the others basically spend most of their time being repaired by ultra slow repairing yet rather expensive Pioneers... as in plural, since a single Pioneer will never do.

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.