Osttruppen

Select your unit in game, press q key, click on an area. Your unit will moove there and it will automatically stop to shoot if there is an ennemy.

That's the only thing you got to rememeber with grenadier.

See how much good that will do you against upgraded Tommies and Conscripts behind cover. How about you play the game more instead of talking to me like I am an idiot. LMG Grens don't auto-win every engagement they attack move in. Can't debate people without them taking it personal and throwing insults over a dogshit RNG game.

How about you play the game more instead of talking to me like I am an idiot.
Can't debate people without them taking it personal and throwing insults over a dogshit RNG game.

See ? that's the issue you are talking about. you tell me to play more the game when clearly i have better knowledge than you about it.

RNG is one thing, being good is another.

See ? that's the issue you are talking about. you tell me to play more the game when clearly i have better knowledge than you about it.

RNG is one thing, being good is another.

How can you have great game knowledge when literally have 1/3 of the games played that I have and all ranks are hidden? I'm not saying LMG Grens need a buff but I am saying they are definitely weaker than 7-man/SVT Cons, Riflemen with Bars, and Tommies with 5-man. I don't want power creep so it would be preferred to tone down overperforming things instead even if it's more work in the long run. But we aren't getting another balance patch so its kind of pointless debating balance anyway.

How can you have great game knowledge when literally have 1/3 of the games played that I have

we both know it means nothing, quality over quantity.

i got an issue with my playercard but not long ago i was top 30 in 1vs1 for soviet and OST so i know just as you what i am talking about. You can't just compare a unit vs another like nothing else matters : ease of use is important, cost, unlock and upgrade rate, combination with other units.

Riflemen might be a bit better than grenadiers but overall riflemen take longer to upgrade, their rifle are more efficient at midle/close range when grenadiers from the very begining are already better at long range, grenadiers are easier to use (press Q and click), and they always have mg42 and mortar to support them.

Riflemen on the other hand are slightly better at middle range but often lack support weapon like machinegun and mortar, take more damage when closing the distance and its upgrade are more expensive.

we both know it means nothing, quality over quantity.

i got an issue with my playercard but not long ago i was top 30 in 1vs1 for soviet and OST so i know just as you what i am talking about. You can't just compare a unit vs another like nothing else matters : ease of use is important, cost, unlock and upgrade rate, combination with other units.

Riflemen might be a bit better than grenadiers but overall riflemen take longer to upgrade, their rifle are more efficient at midle/close range when grenadiers from the very begining are already better at long range, grenadiers are easier to use (press Q and click), and they always have mg42 and mortar to support them.

Riflemen on the other hand are slightly better at middle range but often lack support weapon like machinegun and mortar, take more damage when closing the distance and its upgrade are more expensive.

There's usually a plethora of cover that can be used to bound towards Axis units, and most maps have a decent number of sight blockers to allow infantry to close in. USF also have plentiful access to smokes, and "real" grenades on their mainlines that help them in assaults.

I'd argue that Riflemen are far "Better" infantry than Grenadiers, it's the support infrastructure that helps Grenadiers compete. USF do have access to a tier 0 Mortar for a reason, however. Their upgrade costs more than the MG42 because its far more flexible, and in most cases double-bar rifles are simply superior to Grens.

Grens certainly aren't "Bad", but saying they're on-par with Rifles is not really my opinion.

There's usually a plethora of cover that can be used to bound towards Axis units, and most maps have a decent number of sight blockers to allow infantry to close in. USF also have plentiful access to smokes, and "real" grenades on their mainlines that help them in assaults.

I'd argue that Riflemen are far "Better" infantry than Grenadiers, it's the support infrastructure that helps Grenadiers compete. USF do have access to a tier 0 Mortar for a reason, however. Their upgrade costs more than the MG42 because its far more flexible, and in most cases double-bar rifles are simply superior to Grens.

Grens certainly aren't "Bad", but saying they're on-par with Rifles is not really my opinion.

They also cost much more. I'd say man-to-man they're fairly par, despite Riflemen having semi-automatic rifles and Grenadiers having bolt-action rifles. The semi-automatics give them an edge up close, but most of their advantage comes from having a larger squad size.

There's usually a plethora of cover that can be used to bound towards Axis units, and most maps have a decent number of sight blockers to allow infantry to close in. USF also have plentiful access to smokes, and "real" grenades on their mainlines that help them in assaults.

I'd argue that Riflemen are far "Better" infantry than Grenadiers, it's the support infrastructure that helps Grenadiers compete. USF do have access to a tier 0 Mortar for a reason, however. Their upgrade costs more than the MG42 because its far more flexible, and in most cases double-bar rifles are simply superior to Grens.

Grens certainly aren't "Bad", but saying they're on-par with Rifles is not really my opinion.

And axis have bundled nades for those smoke pushes and also have the mortar for covering any sort of smoke push (or mg42). Grens are better than rifles on long range, rifles are better on close range. MG grens are still better than 2x bar rifles on long range. Rifles cost more and as such should perform better than grens (280 vs 240). Grens should only be used as supporting long range unit. PGrens are the main assault units with great short/medium range firepower. Ostruppen are for cheap holding the line. Also, the argument about USF having plenty of cover later on to push, same can be said for grens. Grens have plenty of cover to hold.

Grens should only be used as supporting long range unit.

And here comes the main question, what are exact benifits of having them for Ostheer not counting faust? Why whould you need inf which is inferior vs both tommies\rifles early and requare MG support or 2vs1 ratio and later on they become a liability requaring constant babysitting and only giving you constant MP bleed when they are outside of cover.

And outside of early LMG advantage, later on they wont have any advantage over Tommies\Rifles.

Not to mention, that having them forcing Ost into investing more into direct AI, so it is actually what is more cost effective 1 280 squad or 1 240 squad which requares another 240+mp unit supporting it.

This is exact reason why ppl avoiding grenadiers outside of VSL. Investing into grenadiers in a long run just puts you into a disadvantage, always.

And here comes the main question, what are exact benifits of having them for Ostheer not counting faust? Why whould you need inf which is inferior vs both tommies\rifles early and requare MG support or 2vs1 ratio and later on they become a liability requaring constant babysitting and only giving you constant MP bleed when they are outside of cover.

And outside of early LMG advantage, later on they wont have any advantage over Tommies\Rifles.

Not to mention, that having them forcing Ost into investing more into direct AI, so it is actually what is more cost effective 1 280 squad or 1 240 squad which requares another 240+mp unit supporting it.

This is exact reason why ppl avoiding grenadiers outside of VSL. Investing into grenadiers in a long run just puts you into a disadvantage, always.

Well, speaking from 3v3 experience in rank level 16-19 I usually see ostruppen being used as flank covers and first infantry before the tank push. Give them an LMG and they can hold in cover quite well. If you go ostruppen, not only are you getting a good faust on a cheap, easy to reinforce unit, but you are also saving up space for the late game tanks to win the game. I've never ever seen good players play ostruppen against me by taking them late game and blobbing them against me. To be honest, not only is it cancerous to play against them on most of the maps where there is good early cover around crucial points, but they also pay themselves later on as a complete support unit that lives in the crates made by the stukas or werfers of lefhs.

Is it true that the stats on them are poor? Yes
Are they cheap (+ reinforce)? Also yes.
If you play ostruppen, late game you're not counting on them to do the heavy lifting but pgrens and tanks. I've seldom seen good players under-utilize Osttruppen. They are a complete niche unit that good players will know how to maximize the effect from early to late.

They are not meant to have an advantage over tommies. Why would they? Are you saying that every unit needs to stand up to every other? Ostt are dirt cheap. They should never ever be able to counter upgraded mainline from USF or UKF.
If you can't accept that then no matter what I say will change your mind so I'll leave it at that.

EDIT: To reply to the gren disadvantage sentence. Grens cost 240 and their purpose is to hold the line, not charge in. You charge in with them once you know there are no close range dangers. Vet3 grens with LMGs mow down all infantry when they are behind yellow or green cover. Long range, gren42s are brutal. Again, you're not at any disadvantage. You're using a unit wrong if you think that any unit in this game has an inherent disadvantage.
There is not a single useless unit on either side. The only thing people seem to forget or just do not care and scream "BALANCE PROBLEMS", is that the ally mainlines are more expensive and more versatile (weapon racks). Eg:
Rifles are the only fighting unit on USF (excluding officers since you only usually have one of them, lieutenant or captain) and Tommies on UKF. They both have weapon racks to allow you to specialize them.
On the other hand, OST has grens and pgrens. Grens are defensive and pgrens are offensive. Grens are only good long range (hence LMG and cover dependability), pgrens are sturdy vs small arms fire and great on short/medium range with the bundle nade (as you can see, it's used for dislodging cover infantry) that can be thrown quite far for the punch it packs.
One advantage USF has is that they can outfit their echelons with zooks but OST depends more on stugs, paks before the big bad panther comes out.
OKW has sturms which are great early on and fall off since they have lots of jobs to do.
Mainline they have volks which beat rifles long range and struggle against tommies on any range (before the upg). That's why with OKW you also get a great starting unit that can compliment volks in those early moments. Also you have kubel which can bleed like crazy outside of cover (and induces 0 MP bleed since you can repair it). For all intents and purposes, obers arrive as the elite infantry, which, until vet2 is good but once they reach vet2 they become killing machines.

See, that's what it's all about. At least in my book. Different units fitting different faction flavors needing different utilization

...
Are they cheap (+ reinforce)? Also yes.
...

Grenadiers are cheap to reinforce? compared to what?

Grenadiers are cheap to reinforce? compared to what?

He is clearly talking about Osttruppen

EDIT: To reply to the gren disadvantage sentence.Grens cost 240 and their purpose is to hold the line

Please eleborate how you can hold the line against tommies\rifles, without HMG support (260MP) or having ratio 2to1(240MP+), early on. In case you ask, point is being you are froced to have x2 MP more of units in a one place in order to hold back x2MP less worth of units. Rifles\tommies cost you 280\270mp but you need 480mp worth of grens to force them back.

Vet3 grens with LMGs mow down all infantry when they are behind yellow or green cover.

And? Upped vet3 Rifles\Tommies also mow down inf, LMG vet 3 rifles mow down even faster.

On the other hand, OST has grens and pgrens. Grens are defensive and pgrens are offensive.

In which way PGs are offensive? Shocktroops or Mech.rifles are offensive, PGs are versatile, thats why they are good in first place.
Because they can adapt, they can either outdamage you in cover on mid range and then charge, or charge strate of the bat depending on the possitioning. They have all the tools to fight pretty much any kind of inf, be it long\mid\close range ones and they have enouth fire power to stay victorious if played right.

Grens on the other hand, even if played completly right and how they are intend to be played, still will most likely lose.

Mainline they have volks which beat rifles long range and struggle against tommies on any range (before the upg).

Yes, thats the point, more expensive rifles can lose to cheaper volks if played wrong or charged badly. More expensive Volks can lose to cheaper Cons, if they allow them to get close without beating. On the other hand Grens cant provide enouth of a DPS to realistically force away pushing rifles, even if its a piss poor push, the same way grens cant realistically get to the mid range to beat tommies.

Pretty much the only way grenadiers can somehow win engagement is if your enemy makes a very stupid mistakes.

And Vanilla volks can beat vannila Tommies at close range, point is being that you cant realistically get to the close range, if its not from sight blocking ambush.

That's why with OKW ...

And thats why soviets are generaly showing better results vs OKW, rather then ost showing against WFA (without utilizing the cheese like osttroopens, ass.grens, VSL) because match up vs OKW while being harder (in terms of inf vs inf play), it plays almost the same as vs Ost early on and doesnt contradicts with soviet faction design.

Ost on a at least semi competitive level forced to avoid intentional desing and either rely on fast tech into T2 with double MG42 (in teamgames mostly) or chose commanders which pretty much compete faction early game changers.

He is clearly talking about Osttruppen

true he was responding in post about grens though and I was confused or something got edited.

*Wrong thread*

Please eleborate how you can hold the line against tommies\rifles, without HMG support (260MP) or having ratio 2to1(240MP+), early on. In case you ask, point is being you are froced to have x2 MP more of units in a one place in order to hold back x2MP less worth of units. Rifles\tommies cost you 280\270mp but you need 480mp worth of grens to force them back.

Yes, thats the point, more expensive rifles can lose to cheaper volks if played wrong or charged badly. More expensive Volks can lose to cheaper Cons, if they allow them to get close without beating. On the other hand Grens cant provide enouth of a DPS to realistically force away pushing rifles, even if its a piss poor push, the same way grens cant realistically get to the mid range to beat tommies.

Pretty much the only way grenadiers can somehow win engagement is if your enemy makes a very stupid mistakes.

And Vanilla volks can beat vannila Tommies at close range, point is being that you cant realistically get to the close range, if its not from sight blocking ambush.


And thats why soviets are generaly showing better results vs OKW, rather then ost showing against WFA (without utilizing the cheese like osttroopens, ass.grens, VSL) because match up vs OKW while being harder (in terms of inf vs inf play), it plays almost the same as vs Ost early on and doesnt contradicts with soviet faction design.

Ost on a at least semi competitive level forced to avoid intentional desing and either rely on fast tech into T2 with double MG42 (in teamgames mostly) or chose commanders which pretty much compete faction early game changers.

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be honest.

Why do you ask how Ostheer is supposed to hold the line against USF and UKF without MG42 when Ostheer is designed to be played around the MG42? It's like asking how USF is supposed to hold the line without Riflemen.

Grenadiers are 240 MP and rightfully lose most 1v1s to Riflemen and Infantry Sections because if they didn't Ostheer would just instant win every game. Grenadiers aren't even really that much better than 4 man Infantry Sections and can also beat Riflemen on long-range so it's well balanced as it is.

Volks do not beat Riflemen at any range unless max-range green cover fights. Same as Grenadiers. You would be surprised if you tested charging Riflemen against Volks. Riflemen can close in from a considerable distance and still win.

Why do you ask how Ostheer is supposed to hold the line against USF and UKF without MG42 when Ostheer is designed to be played around the MG42?

Then ppl shouldn't expect ostheer to play with grenadiers. Thats the whole point. There is no reason, because investing into double MG42+double pio into T2 or call-ins+MG42 is just x100 more viable then bothething youself with T1. Considering that T1 is also delaying your teching. Sniper is the single reason to go T1. I'm not saying that grens shouldnt be supported by MG42, I'm saying that other options are just hands down better, even without support, and raw perfomance of unsupported grens is just laughably bad.

Grenadiers are 240 MP and rightfully lose most 1v1s to Riflemen and Infantry Sections because if they din't Ostheer would just instant win every game.

With MG42 as it is right now, yes. If power and impact of MG42 and grens would have been fairly spead out, then not.

Grenadiers aren't even really that much better than 4 man Infantry Sections and can also beat Riflemen on long-range so it's well balanced as it is.

Except Inf sections aside from STs and Ass.grens arent facing any close\mid range squads early on, and both volks and grens if they try to rush inf sections behind cover will be destoyed in seconds.

Volks do not beat Riflemen at any range unless max-range green cover fights. Same as Grenadiers. You would be surprised if you tested charging Riflemen against Volks. Riflemen can close in from a considerable distance and still win.

Volks can put enouth damage to force rifles to retreat after engagement, even if volks themself would have to retreat. As for grens it is uncomparably easier to over-run them, then volks.

Then ppl shouldn't expect ostheer to play with grenadiers. Thats the whole point. There is no reason, because investing into double MG42+double pio into T2 or call-ins+MG42 is just x100 more viable then bothething youself with T1. Considering that T1 is also delaying your teching. Sniper is the single reason to go T1. I'm not saying that grens shouldnt be supported by MG42, I'm saying that other options are just hands down better, even without support, and raw perfomance of unsupported grens is just laughably bad.


With MG42 as it is right now, yes. If power and impact of MG42 and grens would have been fairly spead out, then not.


Except Inf sections aside from STs and Ass.grens arent facing any close\mid range squads early on, and both volks and grens if they try to rush inf sections behind cover will be destoyed in seconds.


Volks can put enouth damage to force rifles to retreat after engagement, even if volks themself would have to retreat. As for grens it is uncomparably easier to over-run them, then volks.

It seems you want to play grens the same way you play rifles or IS and now you're complaining that you can't. There is a reason pios have a lot of sight. There is a reason MG42 is in T0. One MG42 alongside pios and you can easily use grens any way you want. Couple that with the fact that there is always a strong MG building or a generally strong MG position, and you have yourself a won area. MG42 has the widest arc and the best suppression to counteract the fact that grens are weaker compared to ISs and Rifles (also cheaper to build). It's also why grens are expensive to reinforce at start. They are purely a long range unit, even more so with LMG. Stop complaining. So far you haven't given a strong argument why things should be different. You're just complaining that life ain't fair for the grens and neglecting other units.

Stop complaining.

Yes. Then stop complaining about VSL, Osttroppens, fast PGs and other stuff. If you cant understand basic reason why Ost is the way it is right now and why its cheese bullshittery exists in a first place, then this is pointless discussing it with you.

So far you haven't given a strong argument why things should be different.

I did, you should look outside the box of "long range inf" and "MG42" aurgument.

You and many others who say that grens are fine, failed to provide a single aurgument why would anyone would want to pick grendiers over all other options available.

Yes. Then stop complaining about VSL, Osttroppens, fast PGs and other stuff. If you cant understand basic reason why Ost is the way it is right now and why its cheese bullshittery exists in a first place, then this is pointless discussing it with you.


I did, you should look outside the box of "long range inf" and "MG42" aurgument.

You and many others who say that grens are fine, failed to provide a single aurgument why would anyone would want to pick grendiers over all other options available.

I have never ever complained. I'm ok with both fast PGs and osttrops and VSL. In my opinion, the game is in an excellent balance state. Neither unit stands out as OP or UP.

Considering the "looking outside of the box". There is no box. You are trying to sound smart and knowledgeable by inventing new parameters to argue about grens. Nothing more. You're inventing new philosophy when none is needed.

Arguments to pick grens? Good scaling with veterancy. Good mainline infantry support for MG42 flanks. I myself would play grens and MG42 into pgrens. Seen it work plenty of times, especially in 3v3 since PGrens can easily outshoot rifles until they get 2x bar and are great flanking units. Pak is a given ofc.
Want more reasons to pick grens? Rifle nade for dislodging MGs over hedges on long range.

Now, if you want your grens to do more than that, then ask for a price increase to 270 and reinforce reduction to 28.
Last reason to get them is late game potency with faster capture etc...
I have spoken.

You're inventing new philosophy when none is needed.

Actually, i'm not inventing new philosophy, I'm staying close to the original philosophy, where MG42 was a support unit for grens, not grens were support for the MG42. There is key diffrence here.

New philosophy led to the fact that MG42 became T70 of ostheer and other "ajustements" led to pretty much all ostheer cheese that exists right now. With skips, rushes and call-in meta.

IF grens were a backbone, or at least a decent half of a backbone, for Ostheer, then pretty much all cheese could have been easily adjusted and less frustrating.

Honestly I just want to see at this point how well deserved nerf of VSL\Fast PGs\Osttroopens and other bandage fixes, will open ppls eyes on how "gold standart of a faction desing" was cheesing its way to the top for quite a while now.


BTW in 3v3 2 well microwed MG42 into fast G43 PGs works much better then all grenadiers supporters combined.