[All][Ost] Grenadier Scaling
#1
1 year ago
SkysTheLi…
Posts: 2,268
The last gren discussion has faded too far, so I'm making another.
Grens scale the worst of all mainline infantry. In general, EFA veterancy tends to be worse than WFA, however with cons having just been reworked (including a vet 1 RA modifier which is rare) I think grens needed a little more than a pop cost change.
I would give them some kind of explosive resistance at vet 2 or 3, since they are the only mainline stuck at 4 models, and I would split their vet 3 RA bonus into 2 smaller ones (same net total) for the same reason. I think increasing their offensive power in any way is a mistake, as DPS has never been the grens problem. Surviving long enough to use that dps, especially as a mostly stationary squad, is the problem.
Grens scale the worst of all mainline infantry. In general, EFA veterancy tends to be worse than WFA, however with cons having just been reworked (including a vet 1 RA modifier which is rare) I think grens needed a little more than a pop cost change.
I would give them some kind of explosive resistance at vet 2 or 3, since they are the only mainline stuck at 4 models, and I would split their vet 3 RA bonus into 2 smaller ones (same net total) for the same reason. I think increasing their offensive power in any way is a mistake, as DPS has never been the grens problem. Surviving long enough to use that dps, especially as a mostly stationary squad, is the problem.
8
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Subtle, but a really good change. I'd rather tie it to a BP then a vet level though, makes more sense so you have more wiggle room to replace lost Grens later if you really have to.
All they need is resilience. They should be the cement that holds Ostheer together, reliable, versatile infantry.
Being a 4 men squad with modest RA, models drop pretty fast and as soon as you are down to 2 you have to retreat and your field presence is lost. For the same reason they cannot put out much DPS either because they have so little time to actually do it before wiped/retreating.
They are OK at the start (save for IS which beats them so senseless that its not even funny)
Part of the reason is the 4 model design - when you have 5 or 6 rifles shooting at four models, some models will receive twice the attention and drop faster - and also bleed you to hell being the most expensive reinforcement mainline infantry.
You can either do o
1) Add a 5th model with an Assault Grenadier MP 40, this would make the unit more versatile, much more resilient and dependable infantry but would not interfere much with its core design of being good at long range DPS, since the MP 40 doesn't really add LR DPS. Increase cost to 260 and adjust reinforcement costs accordingly (26/model) to balance the costs and bleed problems. Problem largely solved since it also gives them some scenario where they can beat IS (close range) and yield some protection against Allied facehuggers, but not particularly strong either since neither Kar 98s neither the LMG 42 is good for short range DPS and the MP 40 itself is meh, OR
2) Increase base RA, probably add further RA at Vet 1 like the buffs Conscripts received and Volks have and/or
3) Make Battlephase reasearch work like Global upgrades for Axis infantry like COH1, preferantally making their more tough (Slight Global RA bonus like 3% each BF level) to help them scale.
If feel however the 2 and 3 is not such a good solution because the more rifles shooting at less models problem.
Panzergrens are also problematic IMO, they do not cut it really well for the price but its mainly pricing issue. They are simply too expensive when WFA infantry and the Bundled nerf are considered.
This is a bit out there, but I'd prefer their vet 1 bonus changed as well. I'm thinking limit being able to build to Vet 1, capped at one bunker per squad, but the upgrades are free.
Were grens ever at target size of 1? I don't think rifles being .97 is bad, grens are .91 currently, and I thought they were always there. Could be wrong.
Grens being .91 really makes it even more ridiculous that tommies cant make do with a .9 target size despite being able to bolster and majorly buff their DPS (and already out gunning grens)
@thedarkarmadillo Well I think there is a problem in needing to wait until vet 3 for any RA bonus, similar to old cons. Tommies obvi have that crazy RA of .8 and they don't even have to wait until vet 3. Cons had their net total RA bonus nerfed, but since they got some of it at vet 1 it was still essentially a buff. Grens only get -23% at vet 3, so I think splitting that in half between vet 2 and 3 is the way to go.
I would tie the flak jackets/explosive resistance into bp 3 or t4 building. Free bonus, unlocked when you complete the research/structure.
Spreading vet wont really help Grenadiers being stomped by Penals, Rifles or Tommies, now wont it? These ideas are all nice and dandy but they dont solve anything, at best they ameliorate the problems. Grenadiers, according to the balancers (and yes, I will repeat that statement until Im blue in the mouth), are the gold standart. They are the anvil which all other squads are supposed to be forged upon. So far its an anvil made of tin foil held together with old chewing gum. Their performance is disgraceful. They arent even great flanking support for MGs due to their flimsyness. Something must be done. Nerf all other infantry if you have such a phobia from changing Grenadiers.
Yes it would...... If a vet 1 grenadier squad get's a buff to Received accuracy, that is a tremendous help. Look no further than the conscript example, who not only had their RA spread out between 2 vet levels, the net total was actually reduced and the squad was still better off.
Here we don't want to reduce the total because its only -23% to begin with; but if grens got -10% at vet 1 their target size would be .82, which is just barely larger than tommies. If you don't see how that would actually be a very helpful change, especially for a squad that is "flimsy", I don't know what to tell you.
And are you kidding me? How do you not see how explosive resistance would be a big help? Grens in light cover would not be prone to instant deletion via mortar or grenade.
It wont help them win fights vs. their relative counterparts, no, because the amount of stat gains received through veterancy arent enough. It will only, as I said above, ameliorate the troubles they have versus Penals, Rifles and Tommies. These squads are all quite a bit better than Grenadiers. Far more than the cost difference would warrant. Numerical advantage, which is needed to achieve supremacy (other factors not included in this scenario), cannot be gained vs these squads, unless both sides buy them in bulk. Buy 6 Grenadiers, get one free. Thus, spreading out the vet is not going to solve anything. Its going to make the imbalance less pronounced, but thinking that by spreading the bonuses they have and slapping some explosive resistance on them that you will have done enough to lead to a satisfactory situation is alas a delusion.
"Gold standard" does not translate to "stands up to everything, especially much more expensive squads".
Sure, we can make them stand up to everyone else, but say good bye to ALL your support weapons being effective.
They are NOT supposed to work alone, ost has the best weapon teams in game for a reason.
Did you even read the rest of my argument dude? Cons literally just had amounts of their survivability vet reduced, but because it was spread out their survivability is better.
I gave you statistical comparisons to show you why getting -10% RA at vet 1 would be a big deal. Very few squads in the game get any RA before vet 2, so you are only one being delusional if you think that's no big deal. You did say it would only ameliorate the problems, however you gave zero reasons why. You just said it was the case.
You mean like the factor that Ost is supposed to rely on their support weapons and not just their mainline infantry? Yeah we can draw any conclusions we want when we toss out the design of a faction. Sure, all of those more expensive squads will beat them 1v1. None of them have the support weapons Ost does except maybe the Brits. I still prefer the 42 over the Vickers though, suppresses faster.
And which squad of those I named would be "much more expensive"? They cost 25% and 16% more relatively speaking. If that is much more, then I would like to know how much is "slightly more expensive" for you. You can buy 4 Penals before the Wehr playes has an MP advantage substantial enough to outnumber you. And 4 Penals will serve you much better than 5 Grenadiers, now wont they?
Im not arguing for them to stand up to the above mentioned squads alone in every situation. But if having the advantage, they ought to win reliably. Currently, they dont. You can march in with Rifles from max distance, drop a model and then force a retreat on the Grenadiers squad with little trouble. Tommies completely outclass them in just about every conceivable way. And Penals... well, lets just say they are probably well worth more than the 300 mp you pay for them.
A reliance on support weapons is not an advantage, but a weakness. Support wepons lack flexibility and mobility (to a degree), and when lost can be appropriated by the enemy. If having to give up support weapons in order to get decent infantry squads, then so be it. Although I really dont see why you cant have both, Brits being a pretty good example. They have a powerful MG in the Vickers and the best AT gun in the game with the 6pdr being a better version of the pak. Only in mortars they are somewhat lacking, though a well-placed pit is just as effective as a GrW 34.
Yes, you mentioned something of the like. Grens, however, are not fighting the same squads Cons are fighting. Throw the Cons against Penals, Rifles or Tommies and see how well they fare then.
And that proves what? You said they would then have about the same RA as Tommies. Thats not statistical evidence of Grenadiers suddely being on par, or close to it. You mentioning this proves very little, does it now? I can also say that Grenadiers are but 16% cheaper as Tommies. Does that change the fact Tommies mop the floor with Grenadiers? I think not. Neither will those 10% RA. I said it would ameliorate the problem because it would. It would make the situation better for Grenadiers. It would not, however, make it good. On equal vet, Grenadiers would still reliably lose to their respective counterparts, especially if said counterparts have been upgraded. And the fact that few units receive RA on vet 1 is completely irrelevant. If the buff itself is not good enough to have a decisive change, then the timing of it wont make that much difference. Do you really think that giving Grenadiers a RA buff on vet 1 will change everything? That somehow they suddenly stop struggling against the squads they have been struggling so far? That they start holding a candle to BAR Rifles or Tommies in cover? Please.
Given that we were talking about basic infantry squads and not about Vickers or mortars of what have you, yes, I disregarded those factors. Again with the more expensive squads. They are not that much more expensive. See the reply above.
BAR Rifles are that much more expensive. If you're talking about weapon upgrades then you're talking about fuel cost side-techs AND munitions upgrades, on a squad that is more expensive by default. And that's why you can't do this:
You are talking about using grens like they are riflemen, who don't have any reliably good units to play with besides themselves until LT or Cap and have to carry USF through the early game. Grens have the best mortar, an MG42, and a sniper to play with, why the hell should they be competing with upgraded riflemen on their own when they also cost less? If you "disregard those factors" you are ignoring the job of grens to play alongside those weapons....
By the way, Volks and Grens have the highest accuracy weapons in the game for mainline infantry. Tommies, new cons, AND riflemen all have lower accuracy which means an RA bonus at vet 1 for grens would be a bigger difference for them than it is for cons actually, even though you suggested the reverse.
Glad to see that many people here are pointing out a blatant weakness of the Wehrmacht.
Although Grenadier and Wer need to be looked at I tend to agree Hingie. (maybe get a grenade for vet1 instead of medic kits)
Ostheer units where and should become again the benchmark of how other units are balanced.
If that mean toning down all other units so be it.
In each patch units/ability tends to get buffed and then in next patch unit tends to get buffed based on the previous unit that got buffed leading to OP units.
For instance compared the m3 Halftrack Assault Group with the 250/251 it superior in almost every aspect while it supports superior infantry.
brit engies. can be bolstered or upgraded or both wich are big factors. but even without those if the engies get the jump on the grens and the fight starts at short range the engies should have a good chance to beat grens dispite the price difference.
Ost field precence is designed around their support weapons supporting their infantry. to cover that weakness in field presence/staying power. in wich they do a great job imo. every ost weapon teams are just plain better at their job then most of the allied weapon teams. ony the allied docrtinal teams outdo the ost weapon teams imo except lil m42.
My idea for them is that BP4 unlocks a "loose formation" toggle ability for Grenadiers. This would naturally make the squad less vulnerable to explosions, and would probably give the last guy a better chance of escaping if he's farther away from whatever just killed his squadmates.
Small changes can go a really long way, and I think that would be a good one to try out first.
OST field presence was based on smaller, superior DPS units and highly specialized support unit roster. Specialized means hard counter for certain threats but not versatile. This was balanced against the Soviet faction which relied on either cheap but highly cost efficient meatshield/glass cannon units, supported by specialist call ins that could outdo the very generic OST in certain areas.
That is until WFA hit the field and all Soviet infantry, all Allied ATGs and TDs was buffed skyhigh and left only the 'smaller and weaker' part for OST. Right now the entire OST roster, save for the mortar, MG42 and StuG is made up of very expensive units that do not perform as intended.
Its a poor design because the whole OST field presence is gone once offmaps/tanks/rocket arty hits the field, moreover as it forcing a fairly static type of play which puts OST at a massive disadvantage in maps with a lots of houses and cover as they cannot handle OR execute themselves flanking maneuvers.
The 'just rely on support weapons' mantra must stop because this type of tactic obviously not working any more.
> OST field presence was based on smaller, superior DPS units and highly specialized support unit roster. Specialized means hard counter for certain threats but not versatile. This was balanced against the Soviet faction which relied on either cheap but highly cost efficient meatshield/glass cannon units, supported by specialist call ins that could outdo the very generic OST in certain areas.
>
> That is until WFA hit the field and all Soviet infantry, all Allied ATGs and TDs was buffed skyhigh and left only the 'smaller and weaker' part for OST. Right now the entire OST roster, save for the mortar, MG42 and StuG is made up of very expensive units that do not perform as intended.
>
> Its a poor design because the whole OST field presence is gone once offmaps/tanks/rocket arty hits the field, moreover as it forcing a fairly static type of play which puts OST at a massive disadvantage in maps with a lots of houses and cover as they cannot handle OR execute themselves flanking maneuvers.
>
> The 'just rely on support weapons' mantra must stop because this type of tactic obviously not working any more.
The design of soviets needing doctrines to compete beyond the mid game was a bad design. Having little to no late game power as the sov and usf had and only doctrines giving you that is bad design.
I am not saying the ost design work perfectly fine in the current state off things. I made several suggestions limiting brit and usf double lmg dps and high durability to give grens etc a better chance. I just dont want mirrored factions.
The allied tds being buffed skyhigh is a direct result of giving axis a non doc super heavy. Plus easy acces to so many heavely armoured vehicles. While the allied at was only capable to reliably deal with a vetted p4. this problem was especialy true in team games. Thats why they did the td buff.
Ost unit do not preform as intended while being very expensive? They are not all suppossed to be better then every allied counterpart. What ost gets in t4 is in doctrines for most allies, not that t4 is viable now but its someting to think about. Also all ost vehicles infantry and even some weapon teams can benefit from doctrines. That can still make them better.
The fact that the p4 lost its shine is a direct result off the td/at buff not the tank itself. Wich in turn was a result of the problem i explained above.
Certain things from the powercreep need to be toned down. The infs amazing ra. The allied tds but the easy acces to heavys for axis needs to be adressed as wel. or the armour toned down so the can be somewhat reliably penned instead of almost never like before.
Main idea of Allied infantry, light armor, heavy arty and TD's being better while WM leads in team weapons and heavy tanks is kinda flawed.
That way WM needs to use cheap tactics like: praying to RNGesus for a mortar wipe, use doctrines with Tigers (extra points for SCAS), spam Panthers in team match.
To counteract that Allies receive ever more upgrades to their TD's which turns a lot of Allied compositions into heavy inf presence, light tank to annoy and several TD's lurking at max range. P4 is useless in that match up, Stug is outclassed, 222 is outclassed, MG42 can be overrun if there is enough DPS on the other side and WM infantry just cannot hold the line.
My sollution (more or less)?
I'm not sure about all the rest of that (would require more thought than I'm willing to spend right now), but I think this is backwards. The issue isn't the P4 being too good, but rather the Ostwind probably needs a slight dps buff (or aoe buff... you get the idea). You have to be very careful with that though... I'm not sure how many more patches we're going to get for this game at this point in its life cycle, and a unit like the Ostwind could VERY easily move from underpowered to WAY overpowered. It's a pretty fine line given the way the unit is positioned (anti-infantry role, durability, accessibility).
Ostwind got plenty of AI buffs recently, its really fine where it is. Its bad only if you try to be at max range and always on the move.
The guy you responded too didn't say "just rely on support weapons" he said Ost is suppose to mix infantry with support weapons. Furthermore this exact type of post is what I was trying to avoid when I titled the thread "grenadier scaling".
Every other balance thread on this forum right now keeps turning into a pity party for Ost, and a lot of it is exaggeration like that last sentence in the quote. What about the Pak40, which is still the best AT gun in the game? How about the new Ostwind which is finally worth a damn? Those are rhetorical questions by the way, because I would like to see the conversation move back to grenadier veterancy/scaling. Make your own thread about whatever you please if you want to discuss something else.
When it comes to grenadier performance, the "mantra" of support weapons cannot be ignored when talking about competing with riflemen and other more expensive infantry. Those infantry cost more and can do more for a reason. I'm not saying you can just mg42 and mortar spam your way to victory, just that grens were not made to carry Ost like Rifles were for the US. That doesn't mean I they're fine, it means they also don't need the humongous buffs some people are asking for (5th man for example).
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.
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)? Why can you get 5 engies for 10 more req than 4 Pios?
And don't tell me 150/35 is an expensive upgrade. I would gladly buy it if I could get a fifth Gren for it.
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.
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".