[Wher]Are Pgren bundled grenades OP?

#1
2 years ago
JonnydodgerJonnydodg… Posts: 22
edited January 2017 in Balance Feedback

From the steam forums:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/231430/discussions/0/144513248280832132/
Is this a common opinion? Because most people on the forums disagree.
This wasn't my post.

Comments

  • #2
    2 years ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 950
    edited January 2017

    More UP than OP = it's OK.

    To be fair it should deal damage against vehicles like the British gammo-bomb + freez.

  • #3
    2 years ago

    @Widerstreit said:
    More UP than OP = it's OK.

    To be fair it should deal damage against vehicles like the British gammo-bomb + freez.

    Thought as much. Which moves me on to my next point: is it possible for Gammon bombs to be slightly cheaper? like 50/60 muni instead of 70-75 muni? Because it just seems like they have too much for a pricetag for such a unrealible ability. Granted, paired with a Firefly's rockets, they're somewhat effective, but that's nearly 200 munitions to take out 1 tank.

  • #4
    2 years ago
    WiderstreitWiderstre… Posts: 950
    edited January 2017

    Of course, the Gammon-bomb is kind of expensive, but it's not there to destroy vehicles, it is for freeze them for other AT-weapon platforms. 60 mun would be OK.

    Same for Soviet AT-grenade, which is in my eyes better than the Faust for late game. Because it has much higher deflection damage. Plus the fact that Allii vehicles ( not the Churchill ) are real racers with engine damage. I would remove the engine critical effect until vehicle is under 25% of health ( not 75% which is still not true = bug ), but give them much more damage and a chance for crew freez.  

  • #5
    2 years ago

    No. There was a time not too long ago where they were no better than USF nade at the current price (45mun?).

  • #6
    2 years ago
    JonnydodgerJonnydodg… Posts: 22
    edited January 2017

    @Widerstreit said:
    Of course, the Gammon-bomb is kind of expensive, but it's not there to destroy vehicles, it is for freeze them for other AT-weapon platforms. 60 mun would be OK.

    Same for Soviet AT-grenade, which is in my eyes better than the Faust for late game. Because it has much higher deflection damage. Plus the fact that Allii vehicles ( not the Churchill ) are real racers with engine damage. I would remove the engine critical effect until vehicle is under 25% of health ( not 75% which is still not true = bug ), but give them much more damage and a chance for crew freez.  

    But the problem with that is that it's hard to be in a situation where you will be able to use them to freeze vehicles effectively, because of the long fuse, so by the time it explodes, it's target may have moved. Which is an unfortunate waste of 75 munitions. Being cheaper would make this loss less hard-hitting, but it's still unreliable.
    Though it's unlikely to be changed.

  • #7
    2 years ago

    i always feel the fuse is a bit to short for its damage and ammo cost. but otherwise its fine.

  • #8
    2 years ago
    KurfürstKurfürst Posts: 289

    It does the same to Allied 5/6 men squads as US frag granade does to OST 4 men infantry and weapon teams - wipes them, at a greater price and available only on a more expensive unit.

    I do not see the issue, its fine, and counterable. Try to counter a US frag grenade with a MG 42 team...

  • #9
    2 years ago
    I never see a us player throw grenades probably for a reason. ill need to test this.
  • #10
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,806
    @TheLeveler83 you dont see grenades because the current mortar can do everything the grenade package can for no fuel cost (faster stuart) and no munitions cost (more bars/ 30 cals) and inflicts bleed by just sitting there ready to finish off whatever the rifles prime.
  • #11
    2 years ago
    Like i said a reason :) that one whas on my mind when i wrote it.
  • #12
    2 years ago

    Steam forums are filled with bad rank 2000+ 4v4 Allied players who can't win with any faction, I don't think anything posted there is relevant.

  • #13
    2 years ago
    Axis player are represented just as much over there maybe even more.
  • #14
    2 years ago
    MCMartelMCMartel Posts: 1,855

    I'd say they're overall ok now, they were UP before.

  • #15
    2 years ago
    Lnk003Lnk003 Posts: 417
    edited January 2017

    I think they are:
    http://plays.tv/video/587ca1d7268867d804/pgrens-bnade-forum?from=user

    I think it would be best for the game to have both bnade and Gammon bomb dmg to be nerfed.

  • #16
    2 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    My only issue with it (and as LnK003 has pointed out, the Gammon bomb) is that both are crazy efficient at nuking the wooden buildings that show up on Eastern Front maps and tend to one shot them too easily. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe reducing the damage to 80 and increasing the near/mid AOE profile should fix this.

  • #17
    2 years ago
    ImperialDaneImperialD… Posts: 3,050 mod

    They are a 45 munitions grenade on a 340 manpower 4 man squad. Meant to work on generally larger squads. I'd say they are fine. if Panzergrenadier squads were bigger. There'd be problems.

  • #18
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,806
    Yea i agree with dane here, all the squad that have bundled nades are expensive 4 man squads, theyve kinda earned it
  • #19
    2 years ago
    It just should not be able to (almost) one shot 6 men teams with the short timer imo and allow the pgrens to finish of the rest with ease. Garanteeing wipes this way.

    Maybe the spacing fix in wbp will fix that we will see.
  • #20
    2 years ago

    I would not complain too much, unless you want the commando's grenade to be nerfed along with the bundle grenade. However, If they nerf demos or commando grenades, then this will also have to be looked at.

  • #21
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018

    It's not particularly subtle. PGrens don't have camo that sticks, and their non-stick camo is doctrinal only. On top of that, PGrens are not particularly subtle. You'll see them coming in to their very short throw range, on top of the 1.5 timer to move out of danger.

  • #22
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,806
    @Lazarus pgrens no, but falls have em and storm troopers iirc as well both of whom can camo.
    However light gammon >>> bundled nade any day.
  • #23
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,018

    That is true - the infil units have them but that's just a whole... infiltration unit thing, and not specific to the bundle nade.

  • #24
    2 years ago
    pablonanopablonano YesterdayPosts: 2,549
    Falls cant camo until vet 2, its not like camo its something that they got as a base skill.
  • #25
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    @pablonano said:
    Falls cant camo until vet 2, its not like camo its something that they got as a base skill.

    Its more the fact the can appear from any building a lob a bundled grenade immediately, those poor yanks huddling around their major don't stand much of a chance.

  • #26
    2 years ago
    Lnk003Lnk003 Posts: 417

    Or just the fact that bnade take out 90% hp of a full hp squad when it's dmg is reduced by half because of green cover (and wipe squad in trench for wtf reason), takes out half hp of full hp house with couple models at the same time and entirely wipe wooden ones, making them obviously ridicoulous just as bundle.

    Nerf them and reduce their cost if needed but i don't see what's balance about those things (last post, don't need to argue with me as i won't change my mind blablabla).

  • #27
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,806
    With the ability to teleport out of and back into buildings instantly really being hit by a bundled nade in one is your own fault... Mg excepted of course but even then....
  • #28
    2 years ago
    Lnk003Lnk003 Posts: 417
    edited January 2017

    Like what are we supposed to do, blob all our units at the same place to be sure we can dodge those kind of grenades in time because otherwise if you just try to multitask at multiple areas they will overpunish you while at half dmg?

  • #29
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,806
    If the enemy gets behind your line (or to your line) without you noticing or not reacting to the threat/assesing the threat accordingly then yes, you should. Allied squads have incredible staying power especially in buildings, the 45mu on a resourse starved faction is a way to counter that aside from waiting for mortars to hopefully wear the enemy down enough to force them off. If the bundled nade was readily available it would be one thing, but its only on elite squads that all cost far more than most allied squads do.
  • #30
    2 years ago
    pablonanopablonano YesterdayPosts: 2,549
    If you cant manage more than what you are seeing you clearly need to play more, or not try to bite more field than you can handle. And its not like you cant just lie a mine to force them to automatically retreat.
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.