Will they address Panzergrens in the new patch?
26 Nov 2020, 02:52 AM
#1
Posts: 888
The unit arrives way too early, pretty much negates the idea that Allies have better "mainline" infantry. It should go back to the building with the AT gun.
26 Nov 2020, 05:28 AM
#2
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Fully agreed. I’ve been saying Pgrens should be moved back to T2 for months.
 | Playercard of T.R. Stormjäger | |||||||||||||||
|
26 Nov 2020, 08:47 AM
#3
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
PG are hardly mainline infatry.
And at T2 they will simply become useless again because when they arrive they will be facing superior infatry.
And that is why allied infatry need to be toned.
And at T2 they will simply become useless again because when they arrive they will be facing superior infatry.
And that is why allied infatry need to be toned.
26 Nov 2020, 08:51 AM
#4
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
PG are hardly mainline infatry.
And at T2 they will simply become useless again because when they arrive they will be facing superior infatry.
And that is why allied infatry need to be toned.
This is factually wrong. Min 4 elite infantry at 0 muni cost will not become “useless” from OP just from a 30 sec delay.
| Playercard of T.R. Stormjäger | |||||||||||||||
|
26 Nov 2020, 10:05 AM
#5
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
This is factually wrong. Min 4 elite infantry at 0 muni cost will not become “useless” from OP just from a 30 sec delay.
Penal are a min 0 elite.
Pg where at T2 for very long time and did not see that much action.
Patch notes:
"Panzergrenadiers
Panzergrenadiers are having their timing changed to allow them to gain veterancy sooner and increase diversity in Wehrmacht unit compositions before further changes are made to their performance. Adjustments to veterancy should also allow the unit smoother scaling as the unit levels up throughout the course of the game."
Number of PG used in WC2019:
37 in 24 games out of 40. PG where used in 60% of the games.
So no it not factually wrong.
26 Nov 2020, 10:17 AM
#6
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Penals’ comparison is Panzerfusiliers, not Panzergrenadiers. This is your Renegade comparison with no basis on reality.
60% in the tourney is perfectly fine. A lot of people just quickly ended the game with Osttruppen and 42s into vehicles.
Just because you SAY you’re not wrong doesn’t mean anything when your points are garbage.
60% in the tourney is perfectly fine. A lot of people just quickly ended the game with Osttruppen and 42s into vehicles.
Just because you SAY you’re not wrong doesn’t mean anything when your points are garbage.
| Playercard of T.R. Stormjäger | |||||||||||||||
|
26 Nov 2020, 10:18 AM
#7
Posts: 4928
Penal are a min 0 elite.
Penals are not "Elite" - they're competent, but Riflemen are slightly better, and nobody considers Riflemen elite infantry.
all you filthy hotchkiss lovers need to l2p #TeamPanzerIII
> Kriegsbeute Doctrine|Partisan Rework|British Infantry Rework|Soviet Assault Squad <
26 Nov 2020, 10:23 AM
#8
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Penals are not "Elite" - they're competent, but Riflemen are slightly better, and nobody considers Riflemen elite infantry.
If one consider Pg as "elite" one has to consider Penal as such also. I would call them "Semi elite". If you want to argue what "elite" is argue it with "T.R. Stormjäger". For me weather PG and Penal are classified as "elite" is non consequential.
Pgrens need BP1 so they’re not minute 0.
Read more carefully I wrote Penal not PG
60% in the tourney is perfectly fine. A lot of people just quickly ended the game with Osttruppen and 42s into vehicles.
Again read more carefully I wrote 2019 WC not 2020 when Pg where T2.
Just because you SAY you’re not wrong doesn’t mean anything when your points are garbage.
At least I have points unlike you who does not even bother to read "my points".
Pg where T2 since release and they gradually become less effective by power creep and that is why they where moved in T0 in the first place. That is a simply and not because "I say so".
26 Nov 2020, 10:25 AM
#9
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
At least I have points unlike you who does not even bother to read "my points".
Your points are a penals comparison with no basis on reality and a raw stat from the tournament that has 0 context or reasoning.
Pgrens were MEGABUFFED before being put in T0 in that May 2019 patch. It was an overbuff, which led to the absolutely broken state the unit is in right now. The move to T0 needs to be reverted ASAP.
| Playercard of T.R. Stormjäger | |||||||||||||||
|
26 Nov 2020, 10:35 AM
#10
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Your points are a penals comparison with no basis on reality and a raw stat from the tournament that has 0 context or reasoning.
It completely relevant. PGs even with what you describe MEGABUFF so limited use in the WC 2019.
Pgrens were MEGABUFFED before being put in T0 in that May 2019 patch.
Pg where put in T0 in JUNE 14TH 2019 patch not May. I suggest you check your facts.
Before that they had minor adjustments over many patches like Shreck cost, G43 performance, reinforcement cost and time.
It was an overbuff, which led to the absolutely broken state the unit is in right now. The move to T0 needs to be reverted ASAP.
And you still missing my point. Moving PGs to T0 (similar to ober changes) was the necessary evil due to power creep of allied infatry. If one want PG and Ober to remain relevant one has to revert the power creep.
26 Nov 2020, 10:39 AM
#11
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
Moving PGs to T0 (similar to ober changes) was the necessary evil due to power creep of allied infatry.
That is the most delusional point I’ve read on this forum in months and reeks of wehrabooism and bias. You better have a long paragraph of excellent stats, points and proof to justify it.
| Playercard of T.R. Stormjäger | |||||||||||||||
|
26 Nov 2020, 10:43 AM
#12
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
That is the most delusional point I’ve read on this forum in months and reeks of wehrabooism and bias. You better have a long paragraph of excellent stats, points and proof to justify it.
If you disagree you have to argue with balance team who moved them in T0 in the first place, but I guess they reeks of wehrabooism and bias also :
"Panzergrenadiers
Panzergrenadiers are having their timing changed to allow them to gain veterancy sooner and increase diversity in Wehrmacht unit compositions before further changes are made to their performance. Adjustments to veterancy should also allow the unit smoother scaling as the unit levels up throughout the course of the game."
You better have a long paragraph of excellent stats, points and proof to justify it.
I suggest you follow your own advice and try to have stat point and proof next time you post.
26 Nov 2020, 10:44 AM
#13
Posts: 306
100 mp delay will not kill Pgs 
i dont know where this idea came from. Pgs were a bad choice when t2 was 200mp becouse you coudnt afford them.
Besides Pgs the combined arms PGs get might need to be looked into (it becomes pretty nasty with the standart vet1 recc acc buff)
Otherwise im not sure if PGs need to be in t2 back, but they certainly need either t1 or t2 being build in order to stop them from arriving at 3 min.
The problem with them is that at 3 min, they slaughter allied infantry at every range, there isnt a good rang to fight them becouse allies are more close range oriented (exept brits) Vs penals you can at least sit in green cover.
Comparisons to penals are misleading, since
a) penal sacrfices early map presence and easy acces to At gun
b)penal Ptrs becomes obsolete when mediums hit the field, while Pgs can somewhat still function with schrecks and thus enable t2 skips
c) bundle nade > satchel
i dont know where this idea came from. Pgs were a bad choice when t2 was 200mp becouse you coudnt afford them.Besides Pgs the combined arms PGs get might need to be looked into (it becomes pretty nasty with the standart vet1 recc acc buff)
Otherwise im not sure if PGs need to be in t2 back, but they certainly need either t1 or t2 being build in order to stop them from arriving at 3 min.
The problem with them is that at 3 min, they slaughter allied infantry at every range, there isnt a good rang to fight them becouse allies are more close range oriented (exept brits) Vs penals you can at least sit in green cover.
Comparisons to penals are misleading, since
a) penal sacrfices early map presence and easy acces to At gun
b)penal Ptrs becomes obsolete when mediums hit the field, while Pgs can somewhat still function with schrecks and thus enable t2 skips
c) bundle nade > satchel
FIRE AND TERROR PLAYERCARD https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198321057937
26 Nov 2020, 10:51 AM
#15
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
100 mp delay will not kill Pgs
Besides Pgs the combined arms PGs get might need to be looked into (it becomes pretty nasty with the standart vet1 recc acc buff)
Otherwise im not sure if PGs need to be in t2 back, but they certainly need either t1 or t2 being build in order to stop them from arriving at 3 min
Comparisons to penals are misleading, since a) penal sacrfices early map presence and easy acces to At gun
b)penal Ptrs becomes obsolete when mediums hit the field, while Pgs can somewhat still function with schrecks and thus enable t2 skips
Let me put this back in perspective and lets follow the facts.
Both Pg and Obers where power creeped to obscurity. The Mod team decided to buff them make them available earlier so they can see more use. Reverting the changes without any other changes will create the same issues.
And this is why pointed out that the power creep should stop and be reverted.
As for Penals they are simply badly designed and they are part of the problem.
26 Nov 2020, 10:51 AM
#16
Posts: 366
Penals have a obvious drawback with not having access to tier 2 that hold very variable units (well, mainly the zis)while pgrens are accessible regardless of teching which is a huge plus.
Penals also bleed significantly lategame.
Penals also bleed significantly lategame.
26 Nov 2020, 10:55 AM
#17
Posts: 195
100 mp delay will not kill Pgs
Besides Pgs the combined arms PGs get might need to be looked into (it becomes pretty nasty with the standart vet1 recc acc buff)
With regard to longer games and team games, a performance nerf would be much worse than a cost/timing nerf. In the mid to late game durable and performing infantry are essential to stay in the fight.
If they really have to be adjusted, I would hate to see that change being against their late game performance. Their recently added veterancy 1 ability is very welcome in this context on top of promoting best practice gameplay of combined arms. It would be terrible to see that changed in favor of early game "run'n'gun".
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
21 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
18 | ||
 |
|
|
13 | ||
|
|
|
|
10 | ||
|
|
|
|
5 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.939410.696+5
- 4.35459.857-1
- 5.599234.719+7
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
11
Download
1265
Board Info
1061 users are online:
1 member and 1060 guests
xewiy33830
xewiy33830
0 post in the last 24h
11 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
11 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49992
Welcome our newest member, xewiy33830
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, xewiy33830
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM