P grens need durability buff

I can only assume this is a troll topic by the OP.

No, Guard are the second most durable unit, after Shocks.

@OP: As Trademrk points out, they really shine at clearing Support weapons. Grens will force a reposition but PGrens will flat out force a retreat as well as Nading. Also good in a defensive posture to cover your own Support weapons from infantry flanks.

Be very careful with them around T70s and T34s. These units have much better AI than one might think, and bleed PGrens hard, as well as T34 crush. The Su85 comment is just wrong. SU85s may get an occassional luckynsnipe, but its rare, and PGren Shreks are remarkabky effective vs SU85s (though not so much vs T70s/T34s which have the maneuverability to deny the Shreks relativeky long fire time).

I think for the kind of use you are trying to ge out of PGrens, I recommend trying some G43 Grens instead.
Good for advancing frontally by moving from cover to cover and keeping a good DPS rate up, but you dont suffer as hard MP losses and dont need to get quite as close to be effective.

Ontopic, Id like somekind of Sprint on PGrens. Perhaps when/if Vet abilities get more optimised? It is possible through Tactical Assault ability Commanders for quite cheap, which I think is underplayed for how cheap and good it is with heavy infantry play. One of the possible leeked Commanders also features a Low CP Sprint.

Hey in Danes last cast, I saw a su 85 snipe p grens on approach multiple times, 2 times within 1.5 minutes. Its not a rare occurrence, btw there were vet 3 grens and non vetted su85.

This happens a lot and it shouldn't.

Its funny how some people react to this thread, acting as if Im trolling or that my idea is bad and based of false statements.

Ill explain it in more detail, 360 mp and 45 recrew you are getting one of the most expensive inf units, and the most expensive when you factor in 45 mp recrew.

They also happen to have 4 units and with the death of a single man they become exponentially more vulnerable on the field.

What I never said is that they do bad damage, or that their at ability is weak. I am saying for that cost it makes no sense as nearly every other unit it more survivable either per man ( guards, shocks, grens) or due to to the number of models per team ( weapon crews, cons, penals) and when you factor both of those in and mix in the fact that not only do p grens have 4 units ( and they cost the most out of any info to recrew), but they actually have some of the most vulnerable units of any infantry, and the fact that they have to move in close and not sit in cover for the most part puts them into precarious position in the game.

When I regularly see these "super soldiers" get killed by weapon crews, at guns or anti tank vehicles it makes no sense, as I said even 1 regular kill is too much. If this really was rare and random id have no issue but its not, you will nearly always lose a pgren when moving up to a su 85 or zis gun ( at range), cons nemarly always get a molatov off which can kill 1-2 guys easily, and weapon crews occasionally ( but often enough) get to kill one of the guys.

This never happens to shock troops or guards, tell me the last time you saw a p4 make shocks fear for being wiped out, let alone something like the pak gun or mortar weapon crew... yep exactly - and shocks cost less to reinforce and have more men, and have so much more armour.

Im not saying to buff the gren damange, Im saying either make it more survivable or reduce the recrew cost.

This is neither unreasonable nor a bad idea, people get worked up over nothing in these forums and its funny that a lot of people call Nullist a troll yet hes one of the few that is giving thought out and reasonable responses while other guys that are more renowned in the community are giving snarky and useless replys.

Shocks fear every vehicle in the game because of their utter lack of AT abilities.

Also, Shocks are meaningless in this discussion because they are doctrinal, whilst Pgrens most certainly aren't. It'd be more accurate to compare the relative benefits of Penal units to Pgrens.

lol, no

+1

Panzergrenadiers are an extremely powerful unit as is. They do not need another buff.

Your most recent post has some misconceptions about relative survivability. Grens and cons are identically survivable to Panzergrenadiers. They cost less because they don't have the MP-44s.

Conscripts should not nearly always get a molotov off on your pgrens if you're microing as well as your opponent. It's absolutely no surprise you're going to be finding them hard to use if you're losing the grenade tennis. I fairly regularly see P-IVs force off shocks, actually. The real trick with Shocks is hilarious crushing.

as soon as i see buff and durability or survivability in one sentence, i immediately think that you dont know how to use your troops effectively.

So no, gtfoh.

as soon as i see buff and durability or survivability in one sentence, i immediately think that you dont know how to use your troops effectively.

So no, gtfoh.

As spon as I see someone get aggressive on a forum I assume they are a douchebag.. so you can gtfo..

Oh crap, I follow the same procedure HS King and you've just forced me to label you as a douchebag as well!

Its funny how some people react to this thread, acting as if Im trolling or that my idea is bad and based of false statements.

As spon as I see someone get aggressive on a forum I assume they are a douchebag.. so you can gtfo..

It sounds to me like your the one upset not the other way around MVGame. I and others don't agree with you so what? (Did I mention we are on the internet. ) Lets break this down first, bare with me here... (que Flashback sound effect) Imagine we are back in grade school and your asked to write one of those stupid persuasive argument essays. You choose to write it about pgrens needing a buff. Your job is to persuade us the reader why we should believe that the panzer grenadiers need a buff. Well let us take a look at your opening post and see why you got the response you did.

1. As per the title - they need to be as survivable at least as the guards infantry or their recrew needs to go down to 30 per man. 2. Currently they die as fast as engineers, 3. its absolute bullshit to have a squad that expensive be the weakest infantry in game. 4. The near unkillable shock troops re crew is no where near the 45 mp asking price.

1. Lets see first sentence you have what/how you think should be changed(check).
2. second point you make a claim one that needs proof for anyone in there right mind to believe.

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” ― Carl Sagan

3. Then you spout profanities and make another claim. (calling Carl Sagan need help at isle three!!!)
4. After all that you state an opinion about another unit, then make a claim that again requires evidence to support.

A theme that seems to be forming is that you don't haven't brought any evidence to the table. you are proposing changing the game for thousands of coh2 players just saying because i said so isn't enough.

This is why I and maybe others didn't bother to give you a serious response to your post. The world is not required to share the same opinion as you. (sorry doesn't work like that.)

not to mention Saying stuff like this doesn't make you any friends or get you anywhere, its petty, immature (imo) and not relevant to the argument.
Show Spoiler

why didn't you start of with something like this. (note: that i cut out a few parts. )Show Spoiler

next up is you don't seem to understand newtons third law which is every important to balance in video games.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction -Issac Newton

So if I added more armor and/or lowered the reinforcement cost, would that just effect pgrens? (in case you were wondering the answer is) no, it would also effect all the units around it on both sides so its not that simple you can't just slap on more armor and say done deal. Then It gets even more complicated because then that change, changes other units which in turn change all the units agian and so on and so on.

I hope this helps you understand why this thread has progressed the way it has.

It sounds to me like your the one upset not the other way around MVGame. I and others don't agree with you so what? (Did I mention we are on the internet. ) Lets break this down first, bare with me here... (que Flashback sound effect) Imagine we are back in grade school and your asked to write one of those stupid persuasive argument essays. You choose to write it about pgrens needing a buff. Your job is to persuade us the reader why we should believe that the panzer grenadiers need a buff. Well let us take a look at your opening post and see why you got the response you did.

1. Lets see first sentence you have what/how you think should be changed(check).
2. second point you make a claim one that needs proof for anyone in there right mind to believe.

3. Then you spout profanities and make another claim. (calling Carl Sagan need help at isle three!!!)
4. After all that you state an opinion about another unit, then make a claim that again requires evidence to support.

A theme that seems to be forming is that you don't haven't brought any evidence to the table. you are proposing changing the game for thousands of coh2 players just saying because i said so isn't enough.

This is why I and maybe others didn't bother to give you a serious response to your post. The world is not required to share the same opinion as you. (sorry doesn't work like that.)

not to mention Saying stuff like this doesn't make you any friends or get you anywhere, its petty, immature (imo) and not relevant to the argument.
Show Spoiler

why didn't you start of with something like this. (note: that i cut out a few parts. )Show Spoiler

next up is you don't seem to understand newtons third law which is every important to balance in video games.

So if I added more armor and/or lowered the reinforcement cost, would that just effect pgrens? (in case you were wondering the answer is) no, it would also effect all the units around it on both sides so its not that simple you can't just slap on more armor and say done deal. Then It gets even more complicated because then that change, changes other units which in turn change all the units agian and so on and so on.

I hope this helps you understand why this thread has progressed the way it has.

I am not upset about people disagreeing with me. If someone comes in a pay no regard to my points and just to spam a throwaway comment or make fun of my points or my lack of skill ect ect then I won't go out of my way to give them constructive responses and I may very well give them the same treatment.

I put out completely reasonable changes, and give my rationale behind it and its all good if you don agree with it or whatever, but if you are just going to come in with some throwaway comment and disrespect me that I might do the same back to you if I feel like it at the time.

Im not saying you have done so, your comment is great.

As for swearing, it was not directed at anyone but if someone tells me to " get the fuck out" and tries be little me like that then yeh I might call them out and hurt their feelings.

Imagine we are back in grade school and your asked to write one of those stupid persuasive argument essays... Your job is to persuade us the reader why we should believe that the panzer grenadiers need a buff

.

This is completely wrong.

Nobody should be using some juvenile highschool "my purpose is to persuade others" format in balance discussion. Someone operating from that basis will deliberately leave out elements that are detrimental to his set point, and dishonestly destroy objective discussion. I see it very often here thoughhere from idiots who think that is the proper form to argue. People think that its better to present things onesidedly, cos that is more "persuasive" and that somehow its the "opposing sides" responsibility to present those deliberate omissions. No, you need to include those yourself. Pathetic really, and completely contrary to having as objective, reasonable, constructive balance discussion.

Presenting cons to your own arguments, does not weaken your arfuments, or the bakance change you are proposing, it strenthens it bymshowing you are aware of them and are working towards the shared goal of better balance.

This isnt some fking "us" vs "them" situation or a goddam schoolyard popularity contest.

There is no "balance" in the format you propose, because you only present one side of the argument specifically because you want to "persuade", rather than unilaterally debate. The purpose is to come to concensus conclusions about good balance, not to bullshit people with a one sided position as forecfully as possible.

The reason the biased "persuasion" format is taught in school, is so that you can RECOGNISE when someone else is doing that bullshit, so that you arent a goddam sheeple and just blindly follow the more biased perspective, and learn to recognise how dishonest and untruthful it is.

Nor does it matter how popular your arguments are. History is filled with unpopular opinions being RIGHT, time and time again, no matter how many shitheads laugh at it and troll its expressor.

Anyways, sorry rant. I know younwhere just trying to help, but its a pet peeve of mine.

None of us should be trying to persuade anyone. Present your arguments, back them up with explanations and evidence, and show that you have considered the other "side". Then its everyone elses turn to see which arguments they disagree with, present their counter-arguments, support them with explanations and evidence and show that they have considered the original position. And so on.

I not to mention Saying stuff like this doesn't make you any friends or get you anywhere, its petty, immature (imo) and not relevant to the argument.

He was reasonable, until some people started being unreasonable in response. Tbh If I was mod Id remove about half of the replies and tell those posters that if they want to participate in balance discussion, they have to actually present their arguments as related to topic, with explanations and evidence, and not with lol and trolling responses and ad hominem.

"Lol u retard L2P" iornother ad hominem trolling is not a fucking valid response, especially not in balance discussions.

If you disagree with someones points, then indicate which ones you disagree with, and present a coherent rebuttal.
If someone is not prepared to take the time and courtesy to do so, they can kindly fuck off to 4chan or reddit, and they wont be missed by any of the people who want actual balance discussion, most of which whom are lurkers and come here to see good and unilateral balance discussion about key issues, not some shitheads posting "L2P tard lol".

.

This is completely wrong.

Nobody should be using some juvenile highschool "my purpose is to persuade others" format in balance discussion. Someone operating from that basis will deliberately leave out elements that are detrimental to his set point, and dishonestly destroy objective discussion. I see it very often here thoughhere from idiots who think that is the proper form to argue. People think that its better to present things onesidedly, cos that is more "persuasive" and that somehow its the "opposing sides" responsibility to present those deliberate omissions. No, you need to include those yourself. Pathetic really, and completely contrary to having as objective, reasonable, constructive balance discussion.

Presenting cons to your own arguments, does not weaken your arfuments, or the bakance change you are proposing, it strenthens it bymshowing you are aware of them and are working towards the shared goal of better balance.

This isnt some fking "us" vs "them" situation or a goddam schoolyard popularity contest.

There is no "balance" in the format you propose, because you only present one side of the argument specifically because you want to "persuade", rather than unilaterally debate. The purpose is to come to concensus conclusions about good balance, not to bullshit people with a one sided position as forecfully as possible.

The reason the biased "persuasion" format is taught in school, is so that you can RECOGNISE when someone else is doing that bullshit, so that you arent a goddam sheeple and just blindly follow the more biased perspective, and learn to recognise how dishonest and untruthful it is.

Nor does it matter how popular your arguments are. History is filled with unpopular opinions being RIGHT, time and time again, no matter how many shitheads laugh at it and troll its expressor.

Anyways, sorry rant. I know younwhere just trying to help, but its a pet peeve of mine.

None of us should be trying to persuade anyone. Present your arguments, back them up with explanations and evidence, and show that you have considered the other "side". Then its everyone elses turn to see which arguments they disagree with, present their counter-arguments, support them with explanations and evidence and show that they have considered the original position. And so on.



He was reasonable, until some people started being unreasonable in response. Tbh If I was mod Id remove about half of the replies and tell those posters that if they want to participate in balance discussion, they have to actually present their arguments as related to topic, with explanations and evidence, and not with lol and trolling responses and ad hominem.

"Lol u retard L2P" iornother ad hominem trolling is not a fucking valid response, especially not in balance discussions.

If you disagree with someones points, then indicate which ones you disagree with, and present a coherent rebuttal.

Wow dude that was really well written. I think for the most part you are one of the biggest assets this forum has got. There may be players that know more, or have better skill but no one puts in as much work as you do in coming up with ideas, and just using your energy to try to improve coh2 as a game. Cheers

Ill watch Danes cast that you provided timestamps for, in abit.
That is exactly what these kinds of discussions need.

SU85 scatter was adjusted to stop it sniping the PaK weapon itself.
Its entirely possible that as a result of that its now sniping infantry.

Thanks for your compliments. I want a balanced and good game for everyone, and I dont care how many fanbois I have to steamroll to get it.
Try to keep a cool head and ignore the trolls if you can.
I promise you, that the majority of readers enjoy a wall of of text that addresses a possible balance issue, and evem though it may be "wrong", they appreciate it and also appreciate OP and others to keep the thread rational.
You dont have to be right to present a hypothesis, even wrong ones are informative and interesting.

.

This is completely wrong.

Nobody should be using some juvenile highschool "my purpose is to persuade others" format in balance discussion. Someone operating from that basis will deliberately leave out elements that are detrimental to his set point, and dishonestly destroy objective discussion. I see it very often here thoughhere from idiots who think that is the proper form to argue. People think that its better to present things onesidedly, cos that is more "persuasive" and that somehow its the "opposing sides" responsibility to present those deliberate omissions. No, you need to include those yourself. Pathetic really, and completely contrary to having as objective, reasonable, constructive balance discussion.

Presenting cons to your own arguments, does not weaken your arfuments, or the bakance change you are proposing, it strenthens it bymshowing you are aware of them and are working towards the shared goal of better balance.

This isnt some fking "us" vs "them" situation or a goddam schoolyard popularity contest.

There is no "balance" in the format you propose, because you only present one side of the argument specifically because you want to "persuade", rather than unilaterally debate. The purpose is to come to concensus conclusions about good balance, not to bullshit people with a one sided position as forecfully as possible.

The reason the biased "persuasion" format is taught in school, is so that you can RECOGNISE when someone else is doing that bullshit, so that you arent a goddam sheeple and just blindly follow the more biased perspective, and learn to recognise how dishonest and untruthful it is.

Nor does it matter how popular your arguments are. History is filled with unpopular opinions being RIGHT, time and time again, no matter how many shitheads laugh at it and troll its expressor.

Anyways, sorry rant. I know younwhere just trying to help, but its a pet peeve of mine.

None of us should be trying to persuade anyone. Present your arguments, back them up with explanations and evidence, and show that you have considered the other "side". Then its everyone elses turn to see which arguments they disagree with, present their counter-arguments, support them with explanations and evidence and show that they have considered the original position. And so on.



He was reasonable, until some people started being unreasonable in response. Tbh If I was mod Id remove about half of the replies and tell those posters that if they want to participate in balance discussion, they have to actually present their arguments as related to topic, with explanations and evidence, and not with lol and trolling responses and ad hominem.

"Lol u retard L2P" iornother ad hominem trolling is not a fucking valid response, especially not in balance discussions.

If you disagree with someones points, then indicate which ones you disagree with, and present a coherent rebuttal.
If someone is not prepared to take the time and courtesy to do so, they can kindly fuck off to 4chan or reddit, and they wont be missed by any of the people who want actual balance discussion, most of which whom are lurkers and come here to see good and unilateral balance discussion about key issues, not some shitheads posting "L2P tard lol".

You only read 1st sentence WiFIDi wrote didn't you?

He also wrote this 'A theme that seems to be forming is that you don't haven't brought any evidence to the table. you are proposing changing the game for thousands of coh2 players just saying because i said so isn't enough.'

Which is largely what your entire point is, and WiFiDi's as well.

Tho it needs a bit deciphering to get the point of it

Ill watch Danes cast that you provided timestamps for, in abit.
That is exactly what these kinds of discussions need.

SU85 scatter was adjusted to stop it sniping the PaK weapon itself.
Its entirely possible that as a result of that its now sniping infantry.

Yeh to be honest at 45 mp getting sniped by at units makes no game sense. With its high rate of fire the su85 can take a fair few shots at oncoming inf, and when there's more than 1 which there usually is it compounds it further.

Just as a reference point if you had 2 squads of p grens and you lose 4 guys you have a reinforce cost of 225 mp.. one would need to lose 11 cons to match that and to be honest that basically never happens but losing 4 p grens is almost inevitable in any mid to large engagement if you have 2+ squads on the field.

People can say use better micro or flank ect but when units like this die to random shots in a bigger battle no micro or flanking will help prevent this sort of stuff and the cost further pushes an ost army into mp sink.

@Babaroga: He has provided evidence. I havent watched it yet to see how strong it is, but he has provided it.

My point to Wifidi was that the "persuasion" format in balance discussion, destroys balance discussion.
Its designed to "win" by being biased, not designed to reach a truthful concensus by being balanced in your arguments, as obviously is extremely important in balance discussion.

Many posters deliberately only present "one side", cos they want to "win". But in a good unilateral balance, everyone wins. Do you see my point?

He did, tho I completely disagree with PGrens being that soft.

I think thats why many people took it as a troll post.

@ HSKing, one advice. Most of the guys on this site don't/can't read long text and understand underlaying context/point.

Learned the hard way myself

@ Nullist
Yeah, WiFiDi used wrong example. I understand and agree with what you are saying, I think he meant the same thing.

He did, tho I completely disagree with PGrens being that soft.

I think thats why many people took it as a troll post.

@ HSKing, one advice. Most of the guys on this site don't/can't read long text and understand underlaying context/point.

Learned the hard way myself

Yeh I am also learning that . The problem is I want to have my say but i dont have huge amounts of time to write up incredible and insightful posts while keeping the word count down, I have a life and work, girls ect not to be disrespectful but other things come in before commenting on a forum.

Thanks for the feedback though.. I am tossing up the idea of creating a really detailed post with examples from both vcoh and coh2 highlighting areas in which coh2 needs to improve and I would need a better approach for it to be worth my time.

@HSKing: Do you mean the Alastor vsCruzz cast from ImperialDane?

Please provide timestamp for when what you claim, happens.