Two-Step PGren Upgrade

Aaw thanks for the explanation. I never knew ostheer has the fastest medium rush.

In fact, CODGUY is right. T-70 come at 9 minute of game, while 1-st p4 at 14 minute (you could get ostwind at 13 minute or stug at 12,5). Default fuel income in 1vs1 23 fuel per minute (when map equally divided between players). Soviets T4+T34 costs 90+90=180 fuel, t70 cost is 70 fuel. If you build t-70 you need wait 8 minutes, until you could get 1-st t-34. Without T-70, you could get t-34 right in time when 1-st p4 will arrive or little bit later (if you have at-nades and molotovs grades).
It's just question about standart builds. Current soviet meta - T-70. Without T-70 you could meet early t-34.

Poor OST doesn't have a light vehicle. It just means they rush a medium faster than everyone else and have more AT abilites than any other faction. Not really seeing the problem here?

Ostheer doesn't need a light tank.

What it could do with is a reasonably cheap way to fight a light tank, and its current options are all big investments.

All I'm suggesting is making their handheld AT more granular.

In fact, CODGUY is right. T-70 come at 9 minute of game, while 1-st p4 at 14 minute (you could get ostwind at 13 minute or stug at 12,5). Default fuel income in 1vs1 23 fuel per minute (when map equally divided between players). Soviets T4+T34 costs 90+90=180 fuel, t70 cost is 70 fuel. If you build t-70 you need wait 8 minutes, until you could get 1-st t-34. Without T-70, you could get t-34 right in time when 1-st p4 will arrive or little bit later (if you have at-nades and molotovs grades).
It's just question about standart builds. Current soviet meta - T-70. Without T-70 you could meet early t-34.

Actually CODGUY is as much as half right. SU had a better early game offensive roster, T70 can make a lot of space and force OH to adapt instead of hoard fuel. I find sad that t34 comes so late because it should be the first medium landing the battlefield when rushed.

If a faction can and must impose pressure to win, not doing so can be considered a mistake.

In fact, CODGUY is right. T-70 come at 9 minute of game, while 1-st p4 at 14 minute (you could get ostwind at 13 minute or stug at 12,5). Default fuel income in 1vs1 23 fuel per minute (when map equally divided between players). Soviets T4+T34 costs 90+90=180 fuel, t70 cost is 70 fuel. If you build t-70 you need wait 8 minutes, until you could get 1-st t-34. Without T-70, you could get t-34 right in time when 1-st p4 will arrive or little bit later (if you have at-nades and molotovs grades).
It's just question about standart builds. Current soviet meta - T-70. Without T-70 you could meet early t-34.

I have troubles believing 23 fuel income is still there after t70 hits the field while OH is teching up to p4. But everyday you learn something new.

I don't think that giving Pgrens the option for AT rifles is a great idea, and i would rather see it being an (doctrinal?)option for Pioneers.

The main reason(imo) is that AT infantry in general tends to suffer casualties more frequently than other infantry(due to the possible danger they pose to a vehicle obviously), and the current reinforcement cost for Pgrens(36mp per model?) doesn't give a proper trade-off for scaring away light vehicles and scratching the paint on anything larger than a valentine.

This is why most AT weaponry is held by infantry that is cheaper to reinforce(Penals, Rear Echelon and Royal Engineers)with the notable exception on Sturmpioneers(though this is somewhat acceptable because of the power of the panzershreck).

This would mean that either Pgrens get a reinforcement cost reduction(an unnecessary buff)or giving them another ability alongside the Panzerbüchsupgrade(anyone's guess) if one were to make them cost- efficiënt AT- infantry until they can get Pshrecks.

Meanwhile, Pioneers are cheaper to reinforce(or outright replace) and have to sacrifice both their Flamethrower and a minesweeper for 2 AT guns.

However, it remains a question on wether this would be a death sentence for allied LV play when you throw in Panzerfausts, Pak40's or a 222 to the mix.

AT rifle do not suit German units (maybe ostruppen) but one could have an axis units armed with faust that do not cause engine damage. The weapon could have a performance similar to bazooka.

He’s rank 2100 Ostheer, don’t mess with him. He’s the Ost guru.

I think CODGUY is pretty ignorant too but don’t bully him

Poor OST doesn't have a light vehicle. It just means they rush a medium faster than everyone else and have more AT abilites than any other faction. Not really seeing the problem here?

Ost does have the fastest medium tank under this meta, 'tis true. But that doesn't really suffice if you get bounced in the early game, which due to the reliance on the MG42 against allied infantry sans cons, is completely possible.

Further, while I am not the greatest player, as mentioned before Ost is heavily muni constrained due to the reliance on fausts against early vehicles, requisite bunker upgrade, and then infantry upgrades. Giving some sort of quick light AT option as suggested in the OP would probably be helpful to help stem the tide until the p4 can be brought out.

AT rifle do not suit German units (maybe ostruppen) but one could have an axis units armed with faust that do not cause engine damage. The weapon could have a performance similar to bazooka.

I think a lot of folks (or Volks? Lol) give the Germans too much credit for having only the best equipment. AT rifles were used during the later part of the war by the Germans for the same reasons they used other older equipment alongside their other, newer and better, equipment: because they didn’t have enough of the good stuff.

It is totally reasonable to see AT rifles in the hands of German infantry units from 1939 all the way to 1945 because they never produced enough replacement equipment to meet the needs of their operational forces in the field. Even the US fielded M1903 Springfield bolt action rifles in some numbers in units fighting in Italy in 1945 (and not as sniper rifles, I mean as regular infantry rifles), and it is without a doubt that the US was in the best position in terms of production of war material when compared to anyone else at the time.

TL, DR: AT rifles are fine historically for the Germans to use and I do like this proposal to give a little bit of flexibility to the Ostheer, who do struggle vs light vehicles.

I think a lot of folks (or Volks? Lol) give the Germans too much credit for having only the best equipment. AT rifles were used during the later part of the war by the Germans for the same reasons they used other older equipment alongside their other, newer and better, equipment: because they didn’t have enough of the good stuff.

It is totally reasonable to see AT rifles in the hands of German infantry units from 1939 all the way to 1945 because they never produced enough replacement equipment to meet the needs of their operational forces in the field. Even the US fielded M1903 Springfield bolt action rifles in some numbers in units fighting in Italy in 1945 (and not as sniper rifles, I mean as regular infantry rifles), and it is without a doubt that the US was in the best position in terms of production of war material when compared to anyone else at the time.

TL, DR: AT rifles are fine historically for the Germans to use and I do like this proposal to give a little bit of flexibility to the Ostheer, who do struggle vs light vehicles.

AT rifles were probably still being used, yes. But specifically NOT the Pzb39, which were almost entirely converted into dedicated grenade launchers.

It should also be noted this rifle had far worse anti-armor and anti-material capability than the PTRS it is being compared to, which severely limits the realistic capability of this package to be used against the T-70s, SU-76Ms, M5 Stuarts, and AECs that would seem to necessitate it (all other light vehicles the 222 is perfectly capable of countering)

On a further historical note, the Springfield was still seeing mass deployment mostly because it was the most reliable and effective platform for the firing of rifle grenades; the M7 system for the M1 Garand was never fully deployed before the Normandy landings and the Springfield (M1 grenade launcher device) and even M1 carbine (M8 grenade launcher device) were considered more reliable platforms for firing rifle grenades. For a good part of the war the grenadier in the US Army rifle squad was equipped with a Springfield bolt-action rifle.

(The Pzb39 was also a single shot weapon, but lelic seems to have forgotten about this)

Its adding an intermediate AT, not taking away anything. Im not quite sure why people are complaining about this idea. If you are not able to deal w a t-70 w AT rifles, you get the double shrecks. Properly balanced and tested, this is a harmless upgrade. Also, who the hell is bringing up historical accuracy. This game constantly forgoes historical accuracy in favor of balance, this is not exactly unique

Pios and one shreck or two panzerbushe sounds best imo. Ostheer shouldn't lose potent ai squads just to help fight tanks. No other army needs to do that.

Pios and one shreck or two panzerbushe sounds best imo. Ostheer shouldn't lose potent ai squads just to help fight tanks. No other army needs to do that.

Every army without weapon racks needs to do that. OKW and SOV put relatively weak AT on 300 MP units.

Every army without weapon racks needs to do that. OKW and SOV put relatively weak AT on 300 MP units.

True. But - those armies have
decent stock light vehicles.

300 manpower is still cheaper than 340. 6 men squad (poenals) is less likely to get wiped. They also have a satchel. Okw sturmpio shreck is not a proper at squad. Pios coul fulfill the role that ostheer lacks. A relatively weak but more easily replaceable squad to support against vehicles. I fell ost needs it as they are really weaker 1v1 looking at tournament results.