P grens need durability buff

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

Please provide timestamp for when what you claim, happens.

I do I didn't note down the specific time but its nearing the end of the game where the soviets have been pushed back into their base there is 2 snipes within a minute or so near eachother.

I understand that people want examples but to be honest I watch so many casts ect I get a feel for what is happening but I do not take notes or anything.

PanzerGrenadiers are fine,I don't really know what fantasy game you are playing,and even if you are right SU85 doesn't snipe infantry every time it shoots

I do I didn't note down the specific time but its nearing the end of the game where the soviets have been pushed back into their base there is 2 snipes within a minute or so near eachother.

I understand that people want examples but to be honest I watch so many casts ect I get a feel for what is happening but I do not take notes or anything.

If you wont specify which cast it was, and the timestamps, you're on your own.
I'm not going to start watching numerous 1hr casts in order to confirm your claim.

I strongly urge you to take a few minutes and hunt down the cast you mean, and you seemingly can remember the rough timing, so it shouldnt take long to get the timestamps.

As I said, if you don't, you are on your own and up a creek without evidence to paddle with.

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.

Do keep writing, there are always people who will read your entire post. Don't get drawn of topic or keep down figurative language and use literal language, if you want to be understood better.

Using figurative expressions, especially extended metaphors and satire doesn't get desired effect on forums. Only headache

Do keep writing, there are always people who will read your entire post. Don't get drawn of topic or keep down figurative language and use literal language, if you want to be understood better.

Using figurative expressions, especially extended metaphors and satire doesn't get desired effect on forums. Only headache

Those are great points thanks man.

If you wont specify which cast it was, and the timestamps, you're on your own.
I'm not going to start watching numerous 1hr casts in order to confirm your claim.

I strongly urge you to take a few minutes and hunt down the cast you mean, and you seemingly can remember the rough timing, so it shouldnt take long to get the timestamps.

As I said, if you don't, you are on your own and up a creek without evidence to paddle with.

OK 49:55 and 51:13 is what I am talking about. If this was the only time that I ever saw this happen the thread would not exisit but I think I showcases just how weak pgrens are against units that are not even meant to be a threat to them.

The expense of PGrens is intentional because they are one of the most powerful and versatile infantry in the game. A single squad, used well to flank, or sometimes right down the center can cause multiple squad wipes and route an entire infantry force, all at vet 0. No other infantry can do that in the game. They also hard counter SU-85s.

They have to have some weakness, and thus their bane is HE weapons and other things that blow up the squad or pick off members by ignoring their armor and speed. Even if you lose 1 man, they are still quite potent at their roles.

As for damage for cost and risk, unless I'm mistaken or it has changed, the stats on PGrens weapons are such that their assault rifles should work at medium range. People only close in for short range fights because, again, PGrens are just so deadly when they get in close. They evaporate squads if they get in close, so in comparison it may seem like their guns are weak at medium range, where instead you're just doing normal damage. If their stats are giving them only SMG style range, then I think that's actually something that should be changed.

Then there's that amazing grenade.

Here's where I really disagree with the whole premise. AT guns, tank cannons, etc are all still CANNONS. For all of warfare where we've had cannons, those cannons have been used to good effect for killing infantry. You know those tank destroyers and tank hunters? They were used throughout the war more for firing on infantry positions. All infantry should be affected by cannons of all types, 1 regular kill is fine in a short engagement and doesn't happen that often. You only think it happens all the time due to confirmation bias. It's actually an intentional design decision as well since a problem in CoH2 was super infantry running around ignoring tanks.

And you know what, the same thing happens to shock troops and guards. The P4's scatter was changed so they're a little worse at it, but that was due to P4 spam becoming a problem since it could kill both tanks and infantry with equal speed. Even now, it has 3 MGs on it, turn that P4 to face all its cannon and all MGs on any target and they will have to retreat.

However, what you need to realize, and what most dedicated German players don't realize is that for all your problems with HE shots killing your guys, almost everything Soviets have die much more quickly to direct fire.

Which brings me back to the PGrens. Your PGrens are one of the direct fire things that quickly wipes out things like conscripts.

Play as Soviets for a while and you'll see this. And it's why people think you are trolling and are not receptive. You are demonstrating a very limited view of the game, a tunnel vision in regards to PGrens alone.

It's also a topic that has been discussed already.

If you want PGrens to be more durable, you will have to lose a large chunk of that squad wiping ability. Are you willing to do that?

OK 49:55 and 51:13 is what I am talking about. If this was the only time that I ever saw this happen the thread would not exisit but I think I showcases just how weak pgrens are against units that are not even meant to be a threat to them.

Alrighty then. Your timestamps dont seem to coincide with anything, but I watched the last 20 mins.

You are right, there are a number of cases there of SU85 sniping PGren models.
More than I personally find acceptable from a primarily TD vehicle, considering how many of the few shots actually directed at PGrens, scored a model kill.

However, this is not a factor of PGren armor. Even if PGrens had 5 armor, they still would die to a SU85 direct hit.
Nor does Vet affect it at all.

Noteworthy that those PGren snipes didnt impair the PGrens with Shreks from ripping several SU85s apart.
Not even SU76s did, though they did manage more model kills.

Returning to topic, SU85 infantry accuracy may need some attention, I agree.
Too many snipes in too few shots fired.

But I dont see evidence here for buffing PGrens.

Also double checked Turtle's observation bout PGrens mid range, and it is indeed appreciable. However since it doubles when in near range, I think getting them in close, especially with their 0% movement accuracy modifier, is worth it. You "can" fire from mid range with respectable results but their near DPS is monstrous, and you deliver it consistently on the entire approach. So, the lesson to take home from this, is advance your PGrens through progressive cover. If you can avoid unnecessary model deaths on approach, and hence the high reinforce cost, they will run just about anything off the field once they reach near range.

From Sov side, flame hurts them like hell.

Protip: You can use Molotovs to place a wall of fire between yourself and assaulting PGrens. Trademrk showed me this. How cool is that, to be able to use Molotovs for a defensive purpose as well.

The expense of PGrens is intentional because they are one of the most powerful and versatile infantry in the game. A single squad, used well to flank, or sometimes right down the center can cause multiple squad wipes and route an entire infantry force, all at vet 0. No other infantry can do that in the game. They also hard counter SU-85s.

They have to have some weakness, and thus their bane is HE weapons and other things that blow up the squad or pick off members by ignoring their armor and speed. Even if you lose 1 man, they are still quite potent at their roles.

As for damage for cost and risk, unless I'm mistaken or it has changed, the stats on PGrens weapons are such that their assault rifles should work at medium range. People only close in for short range fights because, again, PGrens are just so deadly when they get in close. They evaporate squads if they get in close, so in comparison it may seem like their guns are weak at medium range, where instead you're just doing normal damage. If their stats are giving them only SMG style range, then I think that's actually something that should be changed.

Then there's that amazing grenade.

Here's where I really disagree with the whole premise. AT guns, tank cannons, etc are all still CANNONS. For all of warfare where we've had cannons, those cannons have been used to good effect for killing infantry. You know those tank destroyers and tank hunters? They were used throughout the war more for firing on infantry positions. All infantry should be affected by cannons of all types, 1 regular kill is fine in a short engagement and doesn't happen that often. You only think it happens all the time due to confirmation bias. It's actually an intentional design decision as well since a problem in CoH2 was super infantry running around ignoring tanks.

And you know what, the same thing happens to shock troops and guards. The P4's scatter was changed so they're a little worse at it, but that was due to P4 spam becoming a problem since it could kill both tanks and infantry with equal speed. Even now, it has 3 MGs on it, turn that P4 to face all its cannon and all MGs on any target and they will have to retreat.

However, what you need to realize, and what most dedicated German players don't realize is that for all your problems with HE shots killing your guys, almost everything Soviets have die much more quickly to direct fire.

Which brings me back to the PGrens. Your PGrens are one of the direct fire things that quickly wipes out things like conscripts.

Play as Soviets for a while and you'll see this. And it's why people think you are trolling and are not receptive. You are demonstrating a very limited view of the game, a tunnel vision in regards to PGrens alone.

It's also a topic that has been discussed already.

If you want PGrens to be more durable, you will have to lose a large chunk of that squad wiping ability. Are you willing to do that?

Look in real war AT guns would decimate infantry, so would a lot of things. In the coh universe AT guns were only for killing vehicles and almost never hit inf only on very lucky shots.

At guns in coh2 should be the same, barring the barrage ability from the zis gun.

They are strong against infantry I will give you that and vet 3 grens are great with the shrecks but to say they are a hard counter to su 85 is false, as they will get sniped by su85s and then the weight of fire on them from blobbed inf, at guns or any other ranged unit picks them apart really quickly causing huge mp cost and force them off the feild.

The fact they cost so much and have 4 men is enough of a offset to give them a buff. If they had 5 man squads id agree with you but at 4 man its too fragile.

In a normal encounter with cons they kill 3-4 cons and usualy take 1 casultie sometimes 2. This is 80 mp vs either 45 or 90.. do you see what I mean here, its not like the p grens completely overpower even the most basic of squads.

They can decrew weapons but it does actually take quite a lot of time, and in the case of maxims and 120mm mortar the super fast retreat speed means they actually struggle to wipe out squads.

So i can see where you are coming from but I took all that into account. I watch every single replay from many great casters so I see more from both sides of the game then the average player and this is with fog of war removed.

Im not some angry ost player with an axe to grind I am a lover of COH and I want the game to be better.

Alrighty then. Your timestamps dont seem to coincide with anything, but I watched the last 20 mins.

You are right, there are a number of cases there of SU85 sniping PGren models.
More than I personally find acceptable from a primarily TD vehicle, considering how many of the few shots actually directed at PGrens, scored a model kill.

However, this is not a factor of PGren armor. Even if PGrens had 5 armor, they still would die to a SU85 direct hit.
Nor does Vet affect it at all.

Noteworthy that those PGren snipes didnt impair the PGrens with Shreks from ripping several SU85s apart.
Not even SU76s did, though they did manage more model kills.

Returning to topic, SU85 infantry accuracy may need some attention, I agree.
Too many snipes in too few shots fired.

But I dont see evidence here for buffing PGrens.

Also double checked Turtle's observation bout PGrens mid range, and it is indeed appreciable. However since it doubles when in near range, I think getting them in close, especially with their 0% movement accuracy modifier, is worth it. You "can" fire from mid range with respectable results but their near DPS is monstrous, and you deliver it consistently on the entire approach. So, the lesson to take home from this, is advance your PGrens through progressive cover. If you can avoid unnecessary model deaths on approach, and hence the high reinforce cost, they will run just about anything off the field once they reach near range.

From Sov side, flame hurts them like hell.

Protip: You can use Molotovs to place a wall of fire between yourself and assaulting PGrens. Trademrk showed me this. How cool is that, to be able to use Molotovs for a defensive purpose as well.

Thanks man Im glad you see where I am coming from, though I think you are right about the armour thing.. saying that you know what point I am trying to make.

I still think the need a bit of a buff but actually if the zis/pak gun stopped sniping inf as well as dedicated ( and in my opinon OP su 85 tank destroyer) stopped sniping them then my case for buffing their armour would be weakened severely .

I think AT guns, and su 85 should be like the elefant in the regard that they basically never get a direct hit on infantry - failing that then just give them the sort of stats that at guns had in vcoh.

i think the solution you presented to your the problem is off. rather than changing the pgrens you can adjust the Zis3 and su85 infantry accuracy.

still not sure if you do that it fixes it. you obviously want a small chance for tanks to snipe infantry even if they aren't made for it. (part of coh at this point.) I think it is better to first look at at guns and su85 then if there is still a problem turn to pgrens. from a balance prospective while they all play a connected role zis3/su85 are far less effect on other parts of the game if they lost more of there inf snipe (not talking about barrage.)

lol I just looked up nullist said realized he said somthing similar.

i haven't analyzed enough video/game-play to see what I think about nerfing/buffing either of those but if 1 unit is to be changed i feel its those 2 first then the pgrens.

In CoH, it's a bad idea to have anything be only for one purpose and not be any threat to anything else, unless in very specific circumstances or intentional type match ups. They realized this from CoH1, which is why a bunch of good changes were made for CoH2, sadly those changes get overshadowed by the plethora of other issues.

AT Guns, are for the most part, unable to deal with infantry. However, I think it's a very positive thing that AT assets do hit infantry. The thing is, if you want to avoid getting hit by that rare stray infantry shot, you need to be smarter about how you attack with infantry.

Again, the SU-85 rarely hits infantry. They will snipe 1 man, or multiple very clustered men, only once per 2 small engagements. Or twice per single extended engagement. One volley of 2 shreks that hit (and they usually do) will drop 1/3 of a SU-85's health. They can run at it from the front and reaonably expect 2-3 men to get away with low health with having accomplished either driven back the SU-85 with high damage, or have destroyed it some some support.

You describe the ridiculous situation of blobbed infantry and an entire front of enemy units firing on your PGrens alone. And you know what? You want that to happen because those PGrens should be backed up by an equal amount of units for you. Anything firing at your PGrens will not be firing at the rest of your army which you will be microing to hit those distracted units. If you're sending your PGrens in alone against a blob or an entire front line with no support, then you are doing things wrong.

In a normal encounter with Conscripts you charge in and kill the entire squad and only have the potential to lose 1 man. Want them to survive more? Put them in cover instead of charging in and you'll still win that fight, but this time without risking any losses.

And why are you expecting to decrew every weapon you come across. As above, just accomplishing a retreat or forced back off is enough on top of the manpower damage.

What you are asking for are basically KCH, and that unit was ridiculous in every aspect. KCH are a choice in your build, you risk some survivability for a great deal more killing power. If you don't like it, then there's other builds to use.

ZiS Barrage is A-grade AI and forces Setup teams right off their position.
SU85s do indeed seem to be sniping infantry too effectively.
There is no need for that, since at T4, SU76 at their low cost provide all the AI screening you really need for SU85s.

Its almost impossible to infantry assault a SU85+SU76 position. Even with combined arms, the SU76s alone are cqpable of staving off infantry advance, and leaving the SU85 free to deal with the armor. These two units synergy is very good.

PGrens, however, are fine.
Shreks could possibly use a cost drop to 100 Munis. They are good, but PGrens themselves are so vulnerable to Sov armor AI that you are more or less guaranteed losing 2 models at least unless you manage a complete flank surprise out of LoS. Its a huge amount of muni to drop on a unit that is itself so vulnerable to the targets its supposed to soft counter.

Towards late game, Sov AI superiority starts raising its head, as compensated by Ost superior AT.

Combined with the smaller Ost unit sizes and how vehicle shells generally ignore infantry armor, especially the PGrens with their high reinforce cost, get pushed into remaining out of LoS. All armor is a massive threat to PGrens if caught in the open.

The general trend is Ost infantry becomes increasingly vulnerable the more Sov armor hits the field, because a)its infantry armor advantage is negated b) Sov armor AI is generally better. 1-2 model losses are common from T70s, to T34s to a single SU76 Barrage hit to SU85 sniping when there is no armor to target. This 1-2 model loss may not seem much to a Sov players mindset, but that is 1/4-1/2 of Ost infantry squad sizes, making them vulnerable to even basic Sov infantry sweeps.

Returning to actual topic, PGren survival is fine. Their primary window is before vehicles arrive, as a mobile reliable AI and Support counter and a flank shield against infantry. Shreks are good, but extremely expensive, and a soft counter at best, and situational to positioning. I view Shreks as a lateral option through Muni instead of investing MP in a PaK, but its very tenuous. Once Sov armor hits the field, they require careful micro. 1-2 shots may be enough to halve its models. They change at that point from being a leading infantry unit, to being a followup one and a flank securer. Also very good for deep penetration objective captures on solo missions, since Sov has to commit infantry not so much to counter them, but to recap the point.

Altogether, as another poster stated, one of the best balanced units in the game. Barring except perhaps the Shrek cost.
Personally id prefer a faster fire rate, than a cost reduction. Chafes my balls that Sov armor can yoyo in and out, thereby resetting the Shrek fire cycle.

ZiS Barrage is A-grade AI and forces Setup teams right off their position.
SU85s do indeed seem to be sniping infantry too effectively.
There is no need for that, since at T4, SU76 at their low cost provide all the AI screening you really need for SU85s.

Its almost impossible to infantry assault a SU85+SU76 position. Even with combined arms, the SU76s alone are cqpable of staving off infantry advance, and leaving the SU85 free to deal with the armor. These two units synergy is very good.

PGrens, however, are fine.
Shreks could possibly use a cost drop to 100 Munis. They are good, but PGrens themselves are so vulnerable to Sov armor AI that you are more or less guaranteed losing 2 models at least unless you manage a complete flank surprise out of LoS. Its a huge amount of muni to drop on a unit that is itself so vulnerable to the targets its supposed to soft counter.

Towards late game, Sov AI superiority starts raising its head, as compensated by Ost superior AT.

Combined with the smaller Ost unit sizes and how vehicle shells generally ignore infantry armor, especially the PGrens with their high reinforce cost, get pushed into remaining out of LoS. All armor is a massive threat to PGrens if caught in the open.

The general trend is Ost infantry becomes increasingly vulnerable the more Sov armor hits the field, because a)its infantry armor advantage is negated b) Sov armor AI is generally better. 1-2 model losses are common from T70s, to T34s to a single SU76 Barrage hit to SU85 sniping when there is no armor to target. This 1-2 model loss may not seem much to a Sov players mindset, but that is 1/4-1/2 of Ost infantry squad sizes, making them vulnerable to even basic Sov infantry sweeps.

Right on, I agree with you. With all the feedback I got from you and others its probably more a of a at weapons sniping p grens issue rather than p grens needing a buff.

The expense of PGrens is intentional because they are one of the most powerful and versatile infantry in the game. A single squad, used well to flank, or sometimes right down the center can cause multiple squad wipes and route an entire infantry force, all at vet 0. No other infantry can do that in the game. They also hard counter SU-85s.

They have to have some weakness, and thus their bane is HE weapons and other things that blow up the squad or pick off members by ignoring their armor and speed. Even if you lose 1 man, they are still quite potent at their roles.

As for damage for cost and risk, unless I'm mistaken or it has changed, the stats on PGrens weapons are such that their assault rifles should work at medium range. People only close in for short range fights because, again, PGrens are just so deadly when they get in close. They evaporate squads if they get in close, so in comparison it may seem like their guns are weak at medium range, where instead you're just doing normal damage. If their stats are giving them only SMG style range, then I think that's actually something that should be changed.

Then there's that amazing grenade.

Here's where I really disagree with the whole premise. AT guns, tank cannons, etc are all still CANNONS. For all of warfare where we've had cannons, those cannons have been used to good effect for killing infantry. You know those tank destroyers and tank hunters? They were used throughout the war more for firing on infantry positions. All infantry should be affected by cannons of all types, 1 regular kill is fine in a short engagement and doesn't happen that often. You only think it happens all the time due to confirmation bias. It's actually an intentional design decision as well since a problem in CoH2 was super infantry running around ignoring tanks.

And you know what, the same thing happens to shock troops and guards. The P4's scatter was changed so they're a little worse at it, but that was due to P4 spam becoming a problem since it could kill both tanks and infantry with equal speed. Even now, it has 3 MGs on it, turn that P4 to face all its cannon and all MGs on any target and they will have to retreat.

However, what you need to realize, and what most dedicated German players don't realize is that for all your problems with HE shots killing your guys, almost everything Soviets have die much more quickly to direct fire.

Which brings me back to the PGrens. Your PGrens are one of the direct fire things that quickly wipes out things like conscripts.

Play as Soviets for a while and you'll see this. And it's why people think you are trolling and are not receptive. You are demonstrating a very limited view of the game, a tunnel vision in regards to PGrens alone.

It's also a topic that has been discussed already.

If you want PGrens to be more durable, you will have to lose a large chunk of that squad wiping ability. Are you willing to do that?

Right... so please xplain why the pak, pak 43, elephant hit infantry once in a blue moon?

Right... so please xplain why the pak, pak 43, elephant hit infantry once in a blue moon?

he just explained that to you in two words:
"confirmation bias"

he just explained that to you in two words:
"confirmation bias"

Bullshit. Sov players have as much confirmation bias as Ost players do.

An AT gun or TD snipe is far more detrimental to smaller Ost infantry squads, than the same is for Sov larger infantry squads. Also true for the 4/6 man split in Support crews.

Hows that for fucking confirmation bias.

I think Nullist has the right idea here and I think that the issue you are speaking of with AT purpose weapons sniping infantry should be dealt with but not in the manner of buffing PGrens.

Simply put PaK/ZiS should not auto fire on infantry. This change would be positive in 2 ways. As the person using a Pak or ZiS it would make their shots when being ignored directed at potential armor targets over infantry instead of firing off a round at random infantry while a tank is behind a shot block allowing yo-yo.

Additionally it would have the added benefit of less infantry snipes since the player would be actively choosing to target infantry with it which would mean when it did kill a model or to its because the weapon system itself was given the command to engage infantry.

As far as tanks are concerned I think this is a far harder problem to fix. I myself have killed as many as 4 shocks in a shot with a P4 and in the very next game not killed one. Same with my experience on soviets I have had my SU-85 firing on stationary infantry kill none in 8-10 rounds and kill 2 while they are advancing. I dont have the program knowledge to lend a true solution but I can see your frustration.

*Edit- Perhaps AT tanks such as the Panther/Stug/Su-85 should have reasonable accuracy against static infantry but miss while they are on the move. Meaning that the chance of hitting and killing a squad on the move would essentially be non existent while the Stug/Su-85 would not hinder you from punishing their mismanagement of units the only thing that worries me about making such a change is that AT tanks should not counter AT Guns. But again I am just theorizing a potential solution to a very real problem.

I think Nullist has the right idea here and I think that the issue you are speaking of with AT purpose weapons sniping infantry should be dealt with but not in the manner of buffing PGrens.

Simply put PaK/ZiS should not auto fire on infantry. This change would be positive in 2 ways. As the person using a Pak or ZiS it would make their shots when being ignored directed at potential armor targets over infantry instead of firing off a round at random infantry while a tank is behind a shot block allowing yo-yo.

Additionally it would have the added benefit of less infantry snipes since the player would be actively choosing to target infantry with it which would mean when it did kill a model or to its because the weapon system itself was given the command to engage infantry.

As far as tanks are concerned I think this is a far harder problem to fix. I myself have killed as many as 4 shocks in a shot with a P4 and in the very next game not killed one. Same with my experience on soviets I have had my SU-85 firing on stationary infantry kill none in 8-10 rounds and kill 2 while they are advancing. I dont have the program knowledge to lend a true solution but I can see your frustration.

*Edit- Perhaps AT tanks such as the Panther/Stug/Su-85 should have reasonable accuracy against static infantry but miss while they are on the move. Meaning that the chance of hitting and killing a squad on the move would essentially be non existent while the Stug/Su-85 would not hinder you from punishing their mismanagement of units the only thing that worries me about making such a change is that AT tanks should not counter AT Guns. But again I am just theorizing a potential solution to a very real problem.

Awesome idea man +1