Changes i feel grens need

Its a little bit much to say that grens should survive a sherman HE round when you are talking about their survivability They shouldn't cost so much to reinforce and t4 should give them a bolster ability like brits to upgrade to 5 men, that would be beneficial over what you get now.

Some tuning may be needed though as adding a 5th man might cause some unwanted power spikes happen/ing

Its a little bit much to say that grens should survive a sherman HE round when you are talking about their survivability They shouldn't cost so much to reinforce and t4 should give them a bolster ability like brits to upgrade to 5 men, that would be beneficial over what you get now.

Some tuning may be needed though as adding a 5th man might cause some unwanted power spikes happen/ing

Non-doctrinal 5 man is just standardizing a game based on asymmetrical balance.

People wouldn't care nearly as much if the balance team actually fixed the economies between 1v1 and team games though. Since team games have more points, and drastically cheaper caches any attempts at balancing around economy are thrown out the window. A prohibitively expensive unit in 1v1 is OP in 4v4, while a cheap unit is OP in 1v1, worthless in 4v4.

You can tell who plays team games and who plays 1v1 with one simple question: is panther good? 1v1 players will say no it's worthless, and team game players will say it's end of the world OP.

Non-doctrinal 5 man is just standardizing a game based on asymmetrical balance.

People wouldn't care nearly as much if the balance team actually fixed the economies between 1v1 and team games though. Since team games have more points, and drastically cheaper caches any attempts at balancing around economy are thrown out the window. A prohibitively expensive unit in 1v1 is OP in 4v4, while a cheap unit is OP in 1v1, worthless in 4v4.

You can tell who plays team games and who plays 1v1 with one simple question: is panther good? 1v1 players will say no it's worthless, and team game players will say it's end of the world OP.

The problem is not amount of points. It's that map control doesn't change as much and cut off might be as well an obsolete concept.

It's also about popcap. Each new player adds up to 100 popcap worth of units to a team but the amount of VP and strat points you have to control remains the same.

The problem is not amount of points. It's that map control doesn't change as much and cut off might be as well an obsolete concept.

It's also about popcap. Each new player adds up to 100 popcap worth of units to a team but the amount of VP and strat points you have to control remains the same.

IIRC there's 14 standard territories on General mud.

There's 10 standard territories on most 1v1s except crossroads and nexus in the 1v1 map pool.

This comes out to a 20% increase in fuel income though my numbers might be a bit off since it's been like a month since I looked into it. Factor in resource caches and you've got a massive difference in fuel incomes.

While the unit density does play a large role in balancing team games, standardizing the resources would make things an order of magnitude easier for balance, and it's really not that hard to do.

IIRC there's 14 standard territories on General mud.

There's 10 standard territories on most 1v1s except crossroads and nexus in the 1v1 map pool.

This comes out to a 20% increase in fuel income though my numbers might be a bit off since it's been like a month since I looked into it. Factor in resource caches and you've got a massive difference in fuel incomes.

While the unit density does play a large role in balancing team games, standardizing the resources would make things an order of magnitude easier for balance, and it's really not that hard to do.

That depends on a map by map basis. While the stats are quite old, the game dynamics hasn't change that much so it would still be relevant.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/61229/resource-income-per-game-mode

Teamgames do end up getting more resources but the breaking point seems around pass the 12 min mark.

As i said before, the main problem with teamgames resources is that the income is steady and safe. The other problems such as caches, are kinda secondary. It would improve IMO if caches only rewarded the one who build them and anyone could "attach" themselves to an already existing cache by paying the same amount.

That depends on a map by map basis. While the stats are quite old, the game dynamics hasn't change that much so it would still be relevant.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/61229/resource-income-per-game-mode

Teamgames do end up getting more resources but the breaking point seems around pass the 12 min mark.

As i said before, the main problem with teamgames resources is that the income is steady and safe. The other problems such as caches, are kinda secondary. It would improve IMO if caches only rewarded the one who build them and anyone could "attach" themselves to an already existing cache by paying the same amount.

From the post:

That said, the difference between 1v1 and 4v4 is smaller than I expected (around 200 fuel after 60 minutes). Also, it is noteworthy that before about 14 minutes the fuel incomes is slightly lower in the larger game modes.

200 fuel is pretty significant considering it takes about 60 minutes to reach around 1,200 fuel. This is magnified by the marginal effect of teching i.e. the aproximate 250 fuel each player invests into tech.

By the first graphs with no AFK or skill adjustments: at 60 minutes a 1v1 player has earned around 1300 fuel, and spent around 250 of that on tech for a total vehicle budget of roughly 1050 fuel.

The 4v4 player has around 1500 fuel for a vehicle budget of 1250 fuel.

The 4v4 player has around 20% more fuel to spend on vehicles. There's also the issue of reduced focus on manpower that I didn't mention earlier. Seems to be about 10% less manpower available to a 4v4 player.

Now 20% more fuel, and 10% less manpower might seem insignificant at first, but we have to also remember that games are won off of marginal differences in skill. You don't win by being 100% better than your opponent. You win by being 1-5% better than your opponent for the duration of the game, or more importantly: by having vehicles that are 1-5% better economy wise.

IMHO grens need lmg upgrade. But lmg upgrade is worthless against units in cover.
Besides lmg seems to bug out with reloading/targetting delays.
The rifle nades are weak. Worst to pull off when suppress!
And you cannot chase down squads with the lmg.

Cons and IS can build cover. Rifles possibly. So there you have it!

Nope, if you delay it by 30secs it doesn't need a buff, it can still do more than well enough.

If anything the 222 is way too good for coming out so early. Couple that with everyone skipping Grens start for 0CP call ins and you get those 4min 222s that are oppressive af.

That is the problem that was created by removing 221. One need a vehicle that can be used against sniper and cars. If one delays 222 that creates trouble countering the m3 and snipers.

On the other hand if one bring back the 221 and makes average vs infatry but good vs "microlights" and snipers then one can delay 222 make it more expensive and better vs light tanks solving many problems at the same time.

Grens are supposed to be strong at long range and drop models as they aproach. That aspect should be buffed. Just as cons ability to take a lot of fire was with 7th man.

I would increase only their long range acc. This can be connected to the lmg 42 wich can buff the other 3 grens kar98's. Or a global buff at bf3.
The vet squad leader ofcourse should cancel these ofcourse. That is already very strong.

If this is even possible to change the power of the mg42 needs a tone down and the p-grens timing needs to be reverted ofcourse.

Well that is the biggest issue. Ostheer's power level in teamgames is excellent and Grens are fine when it's easy to back them up with 1-2 HMG 42s and Pioneers on a smaller piece of map where fights are more concentrated, or when you have a 251 or an OKW Battlegroup on the front lines for forward reinforcing. Ostheer teamgames performance is the reason why they haven't been getting any straight up buffs because it'd risk breaking the faction in those modes.

Any change has to be checked against all modes and that's where straight up Gren (or Ostheer) buffs run into a wall.

If there are going to be any changes they'd have to be smart changes that don't straight up increase the power level but rather influence things like momentum, so that they wouldn't influence the other modes as much. So for example I would think about something like adding a 150mp/15fu medics upgrade to the HQ (but keeping the medic bunker so players can choose what to invest) so that Ostheer no longer needs munitions for medics, so Grens can get their LMG 42s faster, as the upgrade really helps their early-mid game but isn't overly available right now because Ostheer needs to spend a lot of munitions on healing and tellers.

Ok this is a fair reasoning, i can't say that i agree (because anything above 2v2 shouldn't have a focus on balancing because that is a bordering on impossible task)

Regardless, to propose other solutions then, what about something like decreasing the lmg42 munitions cost or reducing manpower cost of t1 in general to allow a bit more field presence and less bleed? I don't think having more mp to field early game would break ostheer that badly in teamgames.

Grens are fine lategame. Shift some of their veterancy bonus to vet 1 just like was changed for conscripts. Currently it's get fucked until a big powerspike at vet2.

(because anything above 2v2 shouldn't have a focus on balancing because that is a bordering on impossible task)

Even though it's true that balancing for these modes is harder, 3v3 and 4v4 as a whole is also roughly 70% of the automatch playerbase so these modes deserve and need to be as balanced as possible too. The time of balancing just for 1v1 at the cost of all the other modes is long gone.

The fact you can put a couple mg42s on a corridor map and a 251 does not make Grenadiers broken. I never heard an argument by the balance team that they wouldn’t buff riflemen because you can get an ambulance early and have it forward to heal and reinforce, or that they wouldn’t buff Cons because the M5 reinforcing would be OP. Not to mention mg42s in 4v4 can be countered by the plethora of indirect fire available to the allies. Where was this fear of teamgames breaking when Tommies got buffed?

All in all a Grenadier buff doesn’t break anything the same way Tommy and Riflemen buffs didn’t break teamgames.

Baseline ability to chose between g43 and mg32.

So you can be aggressive and defensive playstyle

Then doctrines with g43, can get a super powered g43.

It's too late for a rework but what ost needs is fine tuning via the battle phase system. Grens, while a 4 man squad are arguably the easiest to balance because they have up to 6 other tech levels that would allow for ensuring they are never left behind.
The dage reduction via Vet SHOULD have been implemented via this system. One could grant things like increased rof via battle phase, better RA, cheaper abilities, cheaper reinforcement (already done last patch). Things that keep them viable but still unique AND utilize the woefully underused teching system.
Grens don't need 5 men or g43s, ost needs an update that puts tech into consideration and at the heart of scaling just like usf, ukf and okw do. Which techs you utilize or skip should matter more than what units you can field, especially when you have 4 buildings and 3 sub techs. That's 7 potential places to alter and tweak and keep interesting.

The fact you can put a couple mg42s on a corridor map and a 251 does not make Grenadiers broken. I never heard an argument by the balance team that they wouldn’t buff riflemen because you can get an ambulance early and have it forward to heal and reinforce, or that they wouldn’t buff Cons because the M5 reinforcing would be OP. Not to mention mg42s in 4v4 can be countered by the plethora of indirect fire available to the allies. Where was this fear of teamgames breaking when Tommies got buffed?

All in all a Grenadier buff doesn’t break anything the same way Tommy and Riflemen buffs didn’t break teamgames.

Well, M5 isn't exactly early game unit and ambulance doesn't allow you to reinforce in combat, its also not exactly mobile or durable.

And those buff where followed by buffs to riflemen and IS, so do you see the vicious circle here?
Continues buff lead to power creep...

It high time buffs stop and nerfs start.

That doesn't make any sense. Nerfs would be followed by other nerfs as well.
The vicious circle is caused by five factions, asymmetrical balance and unreasonable fanboys.

That doesn't make any sense. Nerfs would be followed by other nerfs as well.
The vicious circle is caused by five factions, asymmetrical balance and unreasonable fanboys.

If it was up to the fanboys REEEE, we'd have unstoppable axis factions and immortal, 70 range tigers as, since both sides have fanboys, the ones worshiping Meinstein are much louder.
The first two are accurate tho.





People also compare factions incorrectly, they compare unit X to unit Y of another faction, completely ignoring all the other units, upgrades, unit differences and accessibility, economy and timings within the two factions.

Grens will never stand up to any other infantry then conscripts and tanks will always kill them, high time starting to accept that.

Ost also isn't a holy grail of balance, it was for a brief time about 6 years ago, but it is a past long forgotten.

Even though it's true that balancing for these modes is harder, 3v3 and 4v4 as a whole is also roughly 70% of the automatch playerbase so these modes deserve and need to be as balanced as possible too. The time of balancing just for 1v1 at the cost of all the other modes is long gone.

+1