Login

russian armor

Will they address Panzergrens in the new patch?

PAGES (16)down
30 Dec 2020, 20:01 PM
#141
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



You know damn well that these situations are not analagous

Yes they are if one is blaming a single unit for a tech choice. Why is this a Penal problem and not Sniper problem or M3 problem? the exact same issues exist is some regardless if one builds Penal snipers or M3.


You know damn well that nobody would ever build t1 under those circumstances

And that why it badly designed.
30 Dec 2020, 20:03 PM
#142
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


When you are saying "T1" do you exclusively mean the building that has been build into existance on the entity of the map in the game of Company of Heroes 2 by the Soviet faction that is on the map?

T1=Special Rifle Com.


Do you think we can extrapolate all these drawbacks to all the units in this T1 builidng?


You can simply blame the bad design of T1 instead trying to sift the blame to the units it provides.

I think I have explained my point of view very clearly and I see little point in continuing down this path.
30 Dec 2020, 20:13 PM
#143
avatar of Elaindil

Posts: 97

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Dec 2020, 20:03 PMVipper


You can simply blame the bad design of T1 instead trying to sift the blame to the units it provides.


I will rephrase since it seems I might have expressed myself not clear.


- no access to MG
- no access to AT-gun
- no access to indirect fire
- no access to effective AT


Do you think all of these drawbacks don't go hand in hand with the units produced in this building?

Would you agree or disagree with a following statement (just yes or no, please):

Penals inherantly have all the drawbacks such as:
- no access to MG
- no access to AT-gun
- no access to indirect fire
- no access to effective AT
30 Dec 2020, 20:14 PM
#144
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Dec 2020, 20:01 PMVipper

Yes they are if one is blaming a single unit for a tech choice. Why is this a Penal problem and not Sniper problem or M3 problem? the exact same issues exist is some regardless if one builds Penal snipers or M3.

Because in order to make t1 worth it you need to build more than 1 fucking penal squad. If you're giving up AT guns, MGs and mortars, then you're gonna need to justify that. Otherwise you would just get cons and get t2 when it suits you

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Dec 2020, 20:01 PMVipper

And that why it badly designed.

Sure. But it's not at all similar to the situation pgrens are in
30 Dec 2020, 20:17 PM
#145
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1



I will rephrase since it seems I might have expressed myself not clear.




Do you think all of these drawbacks don't go hand in hand with the units produced in this building?

Would you agree or disagree with a following statement (just yes or no, please):

Penals inherantly have all the drawbacks such as:
- no access to MG
- no access to AT-gun
- no access to indirect fire
- no access to effective AT

Yes I agree (if it makes you happy)

Do you agree:

Soviet sniper inherently have all the drawbacks such as:
- no access to MG
- no access to AT-gun
- no access to indirect fire
- no access to effective AT


Do you agree:

Soviet M3 inherently have all the drawbacks such as:
- no access to MG
- no access to AT-gun
- no access to indirect fire
- no access to effective AT
30 Dec 2020, 20:23 PM
#146
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


Because in order to make t1 worth it you need to build more than 1 fucking penal squad. If you're giving up AT guns, MGs and mortars, then you're gonna need to justify that. Otherwise you would just get cons and get t2 when it suits you


Sure. But it's not at all similar to the situation pgrens are in

As I said I have clearly explain my point of view and have little to add.

Blaming a single unit out of the 3 available to the building make little sense.

In the end of the day I am not sure what you are suggesting.

Allow me to remind you that for 6 month Penal had flamers and where worth building and giving up AT/MG/Mortar for them.

The result was ugly and utterly broken.

Are you actually suggesting that they should get their flamer back so that they worth building and having a weapons upgrade?

Or do you want them to get a schrek and be even worse the VGs blobs?
30 Dec 2020, 21:52 PM
#147
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Dec 2020, 20:23 PMVipper

Blaming a single unit out of the 3 available to the building make little sense.

It makes plenty of sense, I just explained why it's different from the other 2 units...
jump backJump back to quoted post30 Dec 2020, 20:23 PMVipper

In the end of the day I am not sure what you are suggesting.

I said very clearly in my first post that quoted you that pgrens being this early was a mistake. It was the only thing in the post you didn't respond to

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Dec 2020, 20:23 PMVipper

Allow me to remind you that for 6 month Penal had flamers and where worth building and giving up AT/MG/Mortar for them.

The result was ugly and utterly broken.

Are you actually suggesting that they should get their flamer back so that they worth building and having a weapons upgrade?

Or do you want them to get a schrek and be even worse the VGs blobs?

What on earth are you talking about? Where in my post do you see anything remotely close to wanting the flamer back?

I didn't even say they're not worth building now. I said you need to build more than 1 in order to make the t1 choice worth it. That has nothing to do with flamers or old penals. For Christ's sake

Citing penals as a reason pgrens shouldn't be moved makes no sense
30 Dec 2020, 22:11 PM
#148
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


It makes plenty of sense, I just explained why it's different from the other 2 units...

I said very clearly in my first post that quoted you that pgrens being this early was a mistake. It was the only thing in the post you didn't respond to


What on earth are you talking about? Where in my post do you see anything remotely close to wanting the flamer back?

I didn't even say they're not worth building now.
I said you need to build more than 1 in order to make the t1 choice worth it. That has nothing to do with flamers or old penals. For Christ's sake

Citing penals as a reason pgrens shouldn't be moved makes no sense

So you agree with me that Penal are cost efficient unit. Good.

PG where T2 unit for years and they power creeped to oblivion so what are you suggesting that they go back to T2 and become irrelevant again?
30 Dec 2020, 23:54 PM
#149
avatar of Antemurale
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 951

Back to Panzergrenadiers, thank you.
31 Dec 2020, 01:07 AM
#150
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Dec 2020, 22:11 PMVipper

So you agree with me that Penal are cost efficient unit. Good.

That's not what I said, but feel free to be a troll

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Dec 2020, 20:23 PMVipper

PG where T2 unit for years and they power creeped to oblivion so what are you suggesting that they go back to T2 and become irrelevant again?

Pgrens should go back to t2, and no they won't become irrelevant. Are you under the impression they got no other buffs when they were moved...?
31 Dec 2020, 04:13 AM
#151
avatar of porkloin

Posts: 356



Pgrens should go back to t2, and no they won't become irrelevant. Are you under the impression they got no other buffs when they were moved...?


Why did the balance team move pgrens to t0 if the buffs were sufficient to keep them in t2?
31 Dec 2020, 04:35 AM
#152
avatar of Serrith

Posts: 783



Why did the balance team move pgrens to t0 if the buffs were sufficient to keep them in t2?


Pretty much this. Plus none of the buffs they recieced directly helps them at their new timing.

The reason nobody bought them was because they arrived at a time when you couldn't afford to skimp on early game infantry squads like grens so you ended up having 4 grens and not really room to buy pgrens. The added mp cost of having to buy tier 2 first meant that you could either pick up a pgren or get a light vehicle and light vehicles have greater shock value.

Imo moving them back to tier 2 would just cause the same issues as before.
31 Dec 2020, 05:10 AM
#153
avatar of gbem

Posts: 1979

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Dec 2020, 04:35 AMSerrith


Pretty much this. Plus none of the buffs they recieced directly helps them at their new timing.

The reason nobody bought them was because they arrived at a time when you couldn't afford to skimp on early game infantry squads like grens so you ended up having 4 grens and not really room to buy pgrens. The added mp cost of having to buy tier 2 first meant that you could either pick up a pgren or get a light vehicle and light vehicles have greater shock value.

Imo moving them back to tier 2 would just cause the same issues as before.


T2 used to be more expensive back then... the argument doesnt necessarily hold since T2 is cheaper now...

in any case pgrens need taken a look at because they are OP in their current state...
31 Dec 2020, 06:11 AM
#154
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


Pgrens should go back to t2, and no they won't become irrelevant. Are you under the impression they got no other buffs when they were moved...?

The buff they got are:
"Population from 9 to 8
Infantry Doctrine Combined Arms now a veterancy 1 passive. Med-kits veterancy ability removed
Combined Arms ability now triggers when near allied vehicles.
Veterancy 2 now adds +16.7% weapon accuracy.
Veterancy 3 accuracy bonus from +40% to +20%; total accuracy value increase at veterancy 3 remains as the same as in live.
Reinforce time from 8.5 to 7.
Build time from 34 to 28."

Now if you think that this is enough to make PGs as 5 unit build significantly more viable I doubt it.
31 Dec 2020, 06:18 AM
#155
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Dec 2020, 06:11 AMVipper

Now if you think that this is enough to make PGs as 5 unit build significantly more viable I doubt it.

Good for you, is your doubt supposed to mean something?

The entire point is that they didn't need to become "significantly more viable". I have been saying the entire time that they were OVERbuffed, not they didn't need any buffs


Why did the balance team move pgrens to t0 if the buffs were sufficient to keep them in t2?

Ask them?
31 Dec 2020, 06:29 AM
#156
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Dec 2020, 04:35 AMSerrith
Plus none of the buffs they recieced directly helps them at their new timing.

I don't think that really matters. They are strong from the time they hit the field to the end of the match. Whether or not the buffs effected their new timing doesn't mean much
31 Dec 2020, 07:00 AM
#157
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


Good for you, is your doubt supposed to mean something?

The entire point is that they didn't need to become "significantly more viable". I have been saying the entire time that they were OVERbuffed, not they didn't need any buffs

PG where not being build even as 5 unit in standard grenade opening, although they have received buff before. That was not going to change with 6 sec less build time, 1.5 sec less reinforcement time, a vet 2 adjustment and different vet 1 ability that requires a vehicle.

The massive 340 manpower investment in unit with no snare at the time where light vehicle stage start simply does not pay off.
31 Dec 2020, 07:40 AM
#158
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Dec 2020, 07:00 AMVipper

PG where not being build even as 5 unit in standard grenade opening, although they have received buff before. That was not going to change with 6 sec less build time, 1.5 sec less reinforcement time, a vet 2 adjustment and different vet 1 ability that requires a vehicle.

The massive 340 manpower investment in unit with no snare at the time where light vehicle stage start simply does not pay off.

None of that is relevant to my main point. Moving them earlier was a mistake

Saying they were "not built" is not true at all. Nobody built pgrens? Ever? In all 4 game modes? That's crap and now you see them too much and too early. There is a middle ground somewhere...
31 Dec 2020, 07:51 AM
#159
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


None of that is relevant to my main point. Moving them earlier was a mistake

Moving them earlier was a mistake and same mistake as buffing Penal to 300 manpower power level unit. If there is room for 300 manpower power level unit at minute 0, there is room for a 340 manpower unit at minute 4.

This unit should not available that early or they should follow PF designed and arrive early at lower power level and have to upgrade to full potential.


Saying they were "not built" is not true at all. Nobody built pgrens? Ever? In all 4 game modes?

They where used but at later stage at 1vs1 they hardly saw any action when using grenadier openings even as 5 unit.



That's crap and now you see them too much and too early. There is a middle ground somewhere...

The current time frames are very small and Power level of early units are too high to be able to fit these unit in properly.

31 Dec 2020, 07:54 AM
#160
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Dec 2020, 07:51 AMVipper

If a 300 manpower power level unit is allowed at minute 0 a 340 manpower unit at minute 4 is not an issue either.

How are you still repeating this? It's already been pointed out multiple times by different people why that comparison is completely flawed
PAGES (16)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

774 users are online: 774 guests
1 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48789
Welcome our newest member, gamefun88uytin
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM