[All][Ost] Grenadier Scaling

245678

Comments

  • #32
    1 year ago
    Mr_RuinMr_Ruin Posts: 92

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @Mr_Ruin said:
    If it is such a humongous buff why does UKF have it for IS and Engineers? Why is it ok for UKF to get a better model for 56 req (280/5) while WM gets his Gren for 60 req (240/4)?

    If you want that upgrade for Ostheer, fine by me. Just as long as Grens have their accuracy nerfed to match IS (IS have the same accuracy at close range that grens do at long) and have a larger moving acc. penalty. And the lmg42 is no longer a native upgrade, now its locked behind its own side-tech along with pgren shrecks. Personally I don't like that idea.

    @Mr_Ruin said:
    Why can you get 5 engies for 10 more req than 4 Pios?

    Give sappers a stock flamethrower and sure pios can get 5 men too.

    You can do this exercise about every unit in the game. It's very very pointless to say "if these guys have it, why don't they". Eventually that inevitably goes to "why aren't these armies all the same".

    And we can do it back again with if LMG42 isn't native upgrade at least I will be able to get two of them.
    Also we could say that LMG42 isn't native cause you pay Battle phase 1 for it.

    And why would Grens need to be nerfed to IS level, do they get increase from being in cover? Which they can build themselves?

  • #33
    1 year ago
    oRi0noRi0n Posts: 63

    I didn't say Ostwind was bad, just that having a P4 is better in 9 out of 10 situations. Cause P4 can fight other tanks but is also a monster against inf.

    All I'm saying is I don't think you'll find much support for P4 nerfs. It does cost 33% more fuel, plus more manpower and population than the Ostwind. And the Ostwind is better against the skill planes.

    More on topic, I tend to lean towards the already mentioned non-bolster ideas. Kudos to above posters for good suggestions. An earlier RA buff would be good (I definitely wouldn't nerf the the total at vet 3 to do it though). I also like the idea of tying at least a portion of the RA boost to a BP rather than veterancy so virgin squads coming around in the late game aren't quite so squishy.

    I REALLY want to support the flak jacket idea, but I don't think there's much if any historical precedent for Germans using such body armor in WW2 (maybe a few specialist situations or test-runs, but not a gren squad). I'm all for something gasp automatically unlocking with a BP to improve explosive resistance, but I think the theory/naming would need to fall more along the lines of a spread formation, better battlefield awareness, or something of that nature. Along that note, any thoughts on improving the explosive resistance of obers? They already have zero anti-vehicle cability, and I feel like they get full-squad-wiped by every firecracker in a 100 yard radius...

    Like @SkysTheLimit though, I don't want to see it get out of hand. Ost is disadvantaged I think, but they're not hopeless. There are plenty of post-patch games out there (twitch, youtube) showcasing top players winning with Ost. Much of this situation is exaggerated. 222 maybe needs to be a bit better, grens need a bit of something, and tier 4 needs to be improved (I still stand behind panther needing better accuracy and its shells needing to be slightly better against infantry). Dane has lots of interesting ideas about improving the teching overall (such as unlocking some abilities with tech or gaining access to a single special elite squad at each tier) that could be sprinkled in, but it shouldn't take an enormous wave of buffs across the board to sort things out.

  • #34
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    @Mr_Ruin You missed my point entirely. Again you are looking at balance with massively flawed logic if you're saying it's okay to give things to one faction just because it's on another.

    You said "we can do it back again"; dude that's the whole point. You can go back and forth all day, it's just a massive waste of time. Sure give grens the cover bonus. But make them 40mp more expensive. Want 2 lmg42s? Nerf their dps so they're the same as bren. Do you see why this is pointless? There are too many other things that are different about each faction to just clone things and give them to out because someone else gets them.
  • #35
    1 year ago
    Mr_RuinMr_Ruin Posts: 92
    > @SkysTheLimit said:
    > @Mr_Ruin You missed my point entirely. Again you are looking at balance with massively flawed logic if you're saying it's okay to give things to one faction just because it's on another.
    >
    > You said "we can do it back again"; dude that's the whole point. You can go back and forth all day, it's just a massive waste of time. Sure give grens the cover bonus. But make them 40mp more expensive. Want 2 lmg42s? Nerf their dps so they're the same as bren. Do you see why this is pointless? There are too many other things that are different about each faction to just clone things and give them to out because someone else gets them.

    Ok, but what can WM do? Late game Grens just cannot even roughly compare to IS even when looking at manpower and other resources used. Grens die faster and end up using more resources. Pgrens are also not up to par cause they are close range and even more expensive.

    And don't tell me that Vickers, mortars and 6pdr suck that much against mg42, PaK and GrW as do grens against IS.

    And if we look at tanks WM also doesn't have that clear cut advantage. Even if it has an advantage.

    So in your logic if I am not mistaken it is ok that WM has worse infantry, and more or less on par crewed weapons and tanks with Brits. I find that logic flawed.
  • #36
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,587
    edited January 2018

    @Mr_Ruin said:
    > @SkysTheLimit said:
    > @Mr_Ruin You missed my point entirely. Again you are looking at balance with massively flawed logic if you're saying it's okay to give things to one faction just because it's on another.
    >
    > You said "we can do it back again"; dude that's the whole point. You can go back and forth all day, it's just a massive waste of time. Sure give grens the cover bonus. But make them 40mp more expensive. Want 2 lmg42s? Nerf their dps so they're the same as bren. Do you see why this is pointless? There are too many other things that are different about each faction to just clone things and give them to out because someone else gets them.

    Ok, but what can WM do? Late game Grens just cannot even roughly compare to IS even when looking at manpower and other resources used. Grens die faster and end up using more resources. Pgrens are also not up to par cause they are close range and even more expensive.

    And don't tell me that Vickers, mortars and 6pdr suck that much against mg42, PaK and GrW as do grens against IS.

    And if we look at tanks WM also doesn't have that clear cut advantage. Even if it has an advantage.

    So in your logic if I am not mistaken it is ok that WM has worse infantry, and more or less on par crewed weapons and tanks with Brits. I find that logic flawed.

    I'm quite sure you're fully intended to rely on HMGs or sniper in late game as well.
    Plus, WM isn't supposed to have any clear cut advantage. No faction is supposed to.
    WM isn't balanced to rely on grens only, if you're looking for a faction that can carry you through the game with only basic inf, play USF or OKW.

    And yes, its fully OK for WM to have worse infantry.
    That infantry is cheapest mainline infantry in game next to cons and is supported by best weapon teams in game. Its perfectly fine for it to not go toe to toe with other mainline infantry which does not have such massive firepower on their weapon teams.

  • #37
    1 year ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721
    edited January 2018

    All faction where supposed to work a certain way having specific advantage and disadvantages.

    Most other the faction where buffed in their respective weaknesses while mainting most of their strong points (OKW do not have less fuel income, USF have very cost efficient support weapons, soviet have cost efficient stock units) and that has simply left Ostheer weak.

  • #38
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,587

    @Vipper said:
    All faction where supposed to work a certain way having specific advantage and disadvantages.

    Emphasis on past tense.
    It couldn't be any more irrelevant what things were supposed to do X years ago, all that matters is what are they supposed to do now.

    Most other the faction where buffed in their respective weaknesses while mainting most of their strong points (OKW do not have less fuel income, USF have very cost efficient support weapons, soviet have cost efficient stock units) and that has simply left Ostheer weak.

    Because ost strong point was use of combined arms, which worked for them better then any other faction thanks to availability, variety and performance of these options.

    UKF is less flexible, but potent with what they got.
    USF isn't flexible at all, they always give up something.
    Sov, while they have all the options, these options always perform considerably worse then ost equivalents, unless you use boosted doctrinal options for premium cost or mass what you've got.

  • #39
    1 year ago
    Mr_RuinMr_Ruin Posts: 92

    I'm quite sure you're fully intended to rely on HMGs or sniper in late game as well.
    Plus, WM isn't supposed to have any clear cut advantage. No faction is supposed to.
    WM isn't balanced to rely on grens only, if you're looking for a faction that can carry you through the game with only basic inf, play USF or OKW.

    And yes, its fully OK for WM to have worse infantry.
    That infantry is cheapest mainline infantry in game next to cons and is supported by best weapon teams in game. Its perfectly fine for it to not go toe to toe with other mainline infantry which does not have such massive firepower on their weapon teams.

    It isn't cheapest. It is tied with Cons. Which just recieved a massive boost. Also Soviets can but don't have to rely on Cons cause they have Penals which can practically be built from the start of the match and several 2CP elite units (Shock, Guard).
    WM has several ''main line'' infantry you can use: Grens, PGrens, Osttruppen, AGrens, Stormers. All except Grens are very situational. And Grens currently cannot be relied on to hold the line.

    Team weapons and snipers need careful consideration and placing. Much more than main line infantry. Also in most matches you have more main line infantry then support weapons. You will definitiely have 3 or 4 mainline units, but maybe 1 sniper, 1-2 hmg, 1-2 AT gun, 1-2 mortars. Those support weapons are also quite stuck in their roles. Hmg and mortars vs. inf, AT vs. tanks. Also team weapons can be stolen by oponent's infantry. If you lose some infantry it is your loss, but if you lose a team weapon it is also an opponent's gain. And it is more vulnerable to arty cause it needs to pack up. So all that hurts WM more cause it needs to rely more heavily on those units.

    Massive firepower?
    MG42 is a great defensive mg, but it is that, defensive. Maxim is much more aggressive, Vickers is better in a house and M2 is better at killing light vehicles. Ok it is plain better than MG34, I will give you that.

    Pak 40 is also a great defensive AT. But Raketen is much more aggressive, 6pdr repositions faster, Zis is a makeshift mortar and M1 can extend its range to the moon.

    Sniper is also great but Soviets have two so need to worry less about insta kill and British can call in arty and damage light vehicles.

    Only thing with a big advantage is mortar cause it has a massive dps, but even here soviet mortar has more men (=care less about counterfire) and can give itself vision (most important thing for a mortar), american one still has an uncanny ability to wipe, and British is a building (which can be both good and bad).

    What I want to say is that everyone else also has team weapons which are quite fine in their type of battle as are WM ones in defense. And to defend something you need to have something in the beginning to defend, yes? And when and with what is WM meant to get something to defend? With what can it advance? Infantry which sucks? Tanks which lost most of their advantages? Or should WM charge with it's team weapons? So only option is to bleed the oponent out and it is hard to bleed somone out who has much more mobility and can take whatever he wants before you even arrive there. And you have almost nothing with what you can push them out.

    And being agressive with MG42 is hard cause most allied units have so much DPS that they can just focus fire it late game even when it is set up. Just rush towards it within it's fire arc and wipe it with several Brens or BAR's or charge around it with oorah. No need for tactics and positioning. And mortars need vision and it is hard to give them vision if your mainline infantry melts in 2 seconds.

    In the end why even play WM over OKW? Whenever I see someone play OKW I hear ''Anything you can do I can do better'' song in my head. Why? Cause every side has its advantages. Soviets have so much men that wiping something is a chore. Americans get free units! And their mainline infantry can be tailored for every kind of engagement from short range to long range to tank hunting. Brits can dig in harder than anyone. OKW has the biggest tanks, best start unit and can build anywhere. And WM has best defensive team weapons which it cannot properly use cause it gets it's infantry's teeth kicked in when they try to get that teritory to defend.

    So no need for Grens to be the same as the IS or riflemen. Just to suck a little bit less. To retreat less cause there is a sniper somewhere around and they lost a model. To have less problems with instawipe. To be able to hold the line one second more so that MG42 can actually position itself. You are afraid they will be too strong with one more member? Ok, decrease some accuracy. Although I don't think they would be too strong if they got a fifth member for BP3. Maybe BP3 would also be played more and you killed 2 flies with one rock.

  • #40
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,778
    Grens are the most likley to be wiped of all mainlines, funny enough wher also has the most archaic teching system offer little aside from awkward clunkyness. Seems like a mutal change to me.

    Why not bump grens to 260 as well and tie in that nice boost at vet 1 (maybe something that gets rid of blasted med kits too?)

    I feel that the 240mp price point is whats helping keep them down- they are equated to conscripts, but they shouldnt. Cons were always balanced against grens but because of volks thats askew now so theres nothing anchoring grens as they are. Cons can fight volks but grens cant fight anything. The LMG made sence before every infantry unit they faced ALSO had an LMG or auto rifle. They are out matched and out gunned.....
  • #41
    1 year ago
    Grens are fine, their performance is ok.
    Problems are:
    - Brits can use multible LMGs (solution would be only one Bren and one Vickers-K per upgrade)
    - Conscripts new domination (solution would be to reduce the range of their main gun a little bit, so K98 get some benefits).
  • #42
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited January 2018
    My problem with the 5th man argument is people keep bringing up their survivability as the reason. 5th man is just as much an offensive buff as defensive, hence why I've suggested flak jackets and better RA spread through veterancy.

    You simply cannot give grens the 5th man with their current offensive stats. I think people forget how powerful individual gren models actually are because usually you lose one pretty damn quick and that's 1/4 of the dps gone. Adding a 5th man simply can introduce too many other problems where as I feel splitting RA and giving explosive resistance is a more focused and direct change.
  • #43
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,778
    @SkysTheLimit usually rhe 5th man is suggested with some sort of compensation like having an mp40 or way back when i suggested it be tied to g43s the extra model be the "interrogator" armed only with a pistol
  • #44
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    @thedarkarmadillo Yeah I can dig that kind of idea. It's the similar vein as the soviet infantry in the Eastern front mod for coh1 (i think you and discussed this before) where you have an 8 man squad with 6 rifles. Which makes the squad size more about defense than offense.

    If we had more squads like that I'd be all for it, but that feels almost officer-like in nature and a little unfitting for mainline infantry.
  • #45
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,778
    @SkysTheLimit yea i agree about feeling strange for a mainline, thats why i wouldnt want it outside of a doctrinal ability designed to change them to a more assaulty infantry, i dont support the 5th man personally outside that vein.

    I do think we have talked about that conscript design as well (personally i think soviet should be focused on being able to replace losses and increasing effeciency to do so over standard but sub par vet and slightly cheaper things but alas...)
  • #46
    1 year ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721
    edited January 2018

    5 men grenadier with LMG access would be a bad idea but there are options:

    A) 5th man become an upgrade that equips the 5 man with rifle-grenades and is mutually exclusive with the other weapon upgrades.

    B)G43 give 5 g43 about SVT/M1 level to both PG and Grenadiers and are moved to doctrines with no Super-heavies.
    (one could even remove the rifle-grenade from lmg grenadiers)

    Imo thou Ostheer remain the best designed faction and it the rest of the faction that are simply over-buffed, (by reducing the weakness of the faction without reducing their strengths) making Ostheer UP.

  • #47
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,778
    @vipper i think however allies posses too many things that can outright remove ost squads. Thats a fear no other faction has to worry about. Losing vet is a very real threat and i think it should be adjusted some how.
  • #48
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,587

    Modders made it crystal clear that if you want 5 man grens, you should just play OKW as the two factions are aleady becoming single one with different name, so I advise to drop any ideas relating to 5th man for grens as that isn't going to happen.

  • #49
    1 year ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,017

    and Relic made it clear that USF will never get a Pershing. Not that I want 5 man Grens, I'm just saying.

  • #50
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,587
    edited January 2018

    Contrary to relic, modders seem to actually know where they want to go with factions instead of doing completely random stuff no one ever asked for relic style. Achieving that goal is a different debate, but the general direction is set.

  • #51
    1 year ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    @vipper i think however allies posses too many things that can outright remove ost squads. Thats a fear no other faction has to worry about. Losing vet is a very real threat and i think it should be adjusted some how.

    That is true. Simply imo units with more entities than 4 should not have access to LMGs.

    Ostheer currently has to rely on a number of unit of unit and abilities just to stay afloat. The solution probably lies in combination of changes where Ostheer unit get better abilities and vet bonus adjusted to units roles and the rest of the faction are toned down.

  • #52
    1 year ago

    Maybe the answer isn't to make Grens into a frontline unit- maybe it's to give them a niche.
    I feel as if the pushing power of the Ostheer shouldn't be on its infantry, but rather it's armor/light vehicles (which badly need a buff, but that's another discussion entirely).
    A durability boost is also in order, but I feel as if giving their early game infantry too much pushing power will not only homogenize the faction with it's OKW counterpart, but early game balance will suffer as well.

    As for what niche, I can't figure it out. Increasing damage to suppressed units? Giving it more of a support/bunkering abilities? Allowing it to have specialty grenades? In short, Ostheer infantry doesn't need to push like the allies do, but it does need some sort of buff to make them viable.

  • #53
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,778
    @vipper i dont disagree. The lmg42 is a nasty bit of hardware and it on a 5 man is just nasty (LOOOVE picking them up with shocks) because it loads DPS, thats why im more in favour of a better vet 1 and some resistance or something from a battle phase unless as i said, the extra man be tied to something like the g43 which locks out the mg34.


    Explosives and blobs are the biggest threats to grens, but since supression reduces damage taken the mg42 (while fantastic) only helps delay the inevitable. Is it possible to get an accuracy bonus for grens rifles against supressed units to make them BETTER support for the mg42?
  • #54
    1 year ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    Is it possible to get an accuracy bonus for grens rifles against supressed units to make them BETTER support for the mg42?

    Different weapons have different penalties for firing on suppressed or pinned infantry (SMG being better) so it don't see a reason why it should no be doable.

  • #55
    1 year ago
    mrgame2mrgame2 Posts: 496
    edited January 2018
    I am against a 5 man squad too. Give grens g43 upgrades and more resilient to hand grenades. Gren is the only inf squad that constantly get full wipes by allies short fused hand grenades, meh.
  • #56
    1 year ago
    oRi0noRi0n Posts: 63

    @mrgame2 said:
    I am against a 5 man squad too. Give grens g43 upgrades and more resilient to hand grenades. Gren is the only inf squad that constantly get full wipes by allies short fused hand grenades, meh.

    No, obers get that too. Maybe even worse. Not that obers = grens... just that obers also get wiped by every firecracker in earshot.

  • #57
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268

    Post-patch, every mainline squad has RA bonus at 2 different vet levels besides Grens and Tommies, and the latter as we all know has much better starting RA. Getting like -10% at vet 1 would be huge, and then give -15% at vet 3. That would be an overall buff of just -2% but the split would be really helpful.

    I have no idea what %number would be good for explosive resistance in a flak jacket, but I do know I like dark's idea of tossing it a late tier since so many are calling for more teching incentives for Ost.

  • #58
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,587
    edited January 2018

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    Post-patch, every mainline squad has RA bonus at 2 different vet levels besides Grens and Tommies, and the latter as we all know has much better starting RA. Getting like -10% at vet 1 would be huge, and then give -15% at vet 3. That would be an overall buff of just -2% but the split would be really helpful.

    I have no idea what %number would be good for explosive resistance in a flak jacket, but I do know I like dark's idea of tossing it a late tier since so many are calling for more teching incentives for Ost.

    You need to look at all unit relations as well.
    Grens scale with DPS spike thanks to LMG, if they got 10% RA at vet1, we'd be at starting point with cons against them, where cons are once more up and how do you make up for that now without messing the relation to volks?

    Its not domino piece you want to switch, its a card on the foundation of house of cards that will have consequences in all match ups.

  • #59
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,778
    Grens SHOULD be beating cons more or less, and seeing as cons got a little buff for their vet 1 it seems balanced to grace grens with something similar as they were previously balanced to each other (and cons got more reliable AND rec ac at vet 1 now)
  • #60
    1 year ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,721
    edited January 2018

    As I have been saying all along infantry available before minute 1 should all be re-balanced one vs the other and their vet bonuses and abilities looked at. (While ostheer should be used as the benchmark)

    (For instance Penals start one of the most powerful infantry in their time frame and get some of the highest vet bonus)

  • #61
    1 year ago
    KatitofKatitof Posts: 6,587

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    Grens SHOULD be beating cons more or less

    Only at range and with weapon upgrades, never in mid close or close range without upgrade.

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.