[Winter Balance Update] OST Feedback

Will there be an Ostheer revamp for Commanders too?

There are so many useless units and Commanders... hull-down is useless, fire-bombing-run is useless (hole commander is usless)

In my opinion all def. commanders are more worse than good etc.

Next patch will focus on commanders as confirmed by the balance team.

it entirely depends on the metrics. t34 ram is the least cost efficient snare unless you have something to follow it up with in which place its batshit OP.
the satchel is the least cost effective grenade since enemies can just walk away, but as bunker buster its vastly superior to the bundled nade for the same price.

Correct and the point is that Grenadier arrive later than all other mainline infatry while tying down the pioneer. That is why Ostheer have one of slowest start in the game. That is why when people play ostheer they avoid vanilla grenadiers like the plague.

In sort "grenadier is cheapest mainline infatry" means nothing, it simply smoke mirror to create an illusion than ostheer have some sort of early game advantage which they simply do not.

In early game grenadier cost 80+240+240+240 to buy and in late game both conscripts and grenadier cost 240 to buy.

And that simply make grenadier the "least cost efficient infantry", so from now we should repeat in every thread that grenadier is "least cost efficient infantry".

By themselves in a vacuum? Yes, maybe. What Grens are bad at at the beginning is stopping squads from just running up to them.
In their faction? No, that's why they get the MG42 as support.

Aren't USF and UKF the "only" (2/3) allied factions that have it? While I do not think that any of the mainline/elite infantry is in any way OP or UP (from conscripts to obers or 5men grens), the molly/AT nade in conscripts seems out of place, especially since you absolutely positively need the engineers with flamethrowers early on to counter possible strong buildings placements. Right now, the current version of the patch, where both upgrades are in one seems like a good option. Can be a bit infuriating that you need to bring your combat engies to the frontlines just to displace MG42s, whereas grens can do that from a safe distance with the natural rifle nade (or considering the fact that maxim is in a tier building, and poor at suppression, don't even need to)

Grens are completely fine, general V is delusional at best, thinking that grens are in any way, shape or form UP, so I'd completely ignore those boring repeats. They fit nicely overall in OST. Would be nice to see them have extra damage vs suppressed units or some sort of "defensively-offensive" buff if you catch my drift. To further the notion of a defensive mainline unit. Especially with the defensive vet buff it gets to be viable in late game teamgames.

I am not sure what your point is.
My point was that simply adding any tech cost to a squad is naive at the very best. I could arbitrarily split 20 fuel of the cost of BP1 to the riflenade or 20 from any of the OKW tech to Panzerfaust unlock, because that is my perceived value of it. I mean, I get it as a benefit together with access to other units. If I rush any unit, let's say a medium tank, do I add up all the tech and build costs and then use it for performance comparison vs other tanks? Why does my T34/76 not wreck that frickin' Tiger (at least before heavies were bound to tech)?
That's how I assume people must think that add tech cost to units. At least it would explain some of the forum posts and suddenly other weird stuff looks surprisingly "normal".
The alternative obviously that we just don't. Because it does not make any sense.

I am not sure what your point is.
My point was that simply adding any tech cost to a squad is naive at the very best. I could arbitrarily split 20 fuel of the cost of BP1 to the riflenade or 20 from any of the OKW tech to Panzerfaust unlock, because that is my perceived value of it. I mean, I get it as a benefit together with access to other units. If I rush any unit, let's say a medium tank, do I add up all the tech and build costs and then use it for performance comparison vs other tanks? Why does my T34/76 not wreck that frickin' Tiger (at least before heavies were bound to tech)?
That's how I assume people must think that add tech cost to units. At least it would explain some of the forum posts and suddenly other weird stuff looks surprisingly "normal".
The alternative obviously that we just don't. Because it does not make any sense.

Agreed. If you build 4 conscripts, let's say a 200mp 20 fuel unlock means that each conscript "costs" 50 MP more and 5 fuel more. That would be a mathematical function translating from one group (tech cost) to another (conscript cost). The more conscripts you buy, the "cheaper" the unlock is. Of course, some factions do not have such stuff, but other factions also do not have the versatility in infantry as USF and UKF do.

All in all, agreed. One should not look at unlocks as something that inflates the price of conscripts, or any infantry for that matter. And placing nade and molly in one tech seems to be the right choice, considering that soviets do not have any sort of infantry versatility.

Top players appear to be pretty in consensus from what I've seen that regular Grens aren't good enough on their own, rather than the replacement options being overpowered. So likely we're going to see a lot of Ass Grens if the current state of the patch was live.

Grens from my understanding have 3 weaknesses at the top level of play (In order of importance) that are answered incredibly well by the trio of units that replace them (Ostruppen, Ass grens, VSL 5 Man Grens)

These are speed of creation. This is fixed by Ostruppen and Ass Grens which put more map presence on the field faster since you're not tied to building Tier 1 but you're also using call in units which don't need to take time to create.

Aggression and control. This is fixed by Ass Grens and VSL since Ass Grens will get in there and force soft and hard retreats due to their high damage up close bleeding manpower and preventing resource gain, while VSL become incredibly powerful mainline infantry able to maintain significant damage on the move allowing them to approach and take ground rather than being forced into static play.

Finally, Survivability and Defense. This is fixed by Ostruppen and VSL Grens. The extra models (and damage of VSL) allow these units to sit in cover and hold positions as needed without being forced away or wiped as easily. This admittedly is the worst argument here because this added "survivability" results in more bleed and thus more manpower expenditure while also being the least significant aspect of Grens being Underpowered. But it's still a factor even if small.

So unless someone up high on the 1's leaderboard with more accurate experience wants to contest my points which given Wehrmacht is my least played faction I'm perfectly happy to concede to them, but There appears to be some fundamental problem with Grens across the board where they aren't necessarily weak as a unit, but they lack important aspects that make them properly function as a mainline that these other replacements bring to the table.

So perhaps some sort of small reworks are due to allow Grens a little better performance in important areas of play while tuning down some less valuable or important usage of the unit. Maybe a build time decrease to provide faster map presence for Grens is required? Maybe some minor changes to moving+ vs static- accuracy is needed to allow Grens to fight from a less stationary position at times?(This could be an awful idea) I'm not sure what would need to be done personally but Grens should probably have some small consideration put into them from a practical perspective rather than a raw numbers perspective given the consistency with which people want to replace them at all costs.

By themselves in a vacuum? Yes, maybe. What Grens are bad at at the beginning is stopping squads from just running up to them.
In their faction? No, that's why they get the MG42 as support.
...

I am simply demonstrating the flaw in the "grenadier is cheapest mainline infatry" myth, if one accept that they are one also has to accept that they are also the least cost efficient.

I simply hope that will not have to read the same myth in every other post.

In WC 2019 and (probably in WC2020 also but the stat are not there to be sure) there was not a single game with 4 grenadier build order. Not even one with 3 grenadier start. All starts involved an some other unit.

Point remains that Ostheer have one of weakest start when the go grenadiers.

Top players appear to be pretty in consensus from what I've seen that regular Grens aren't good enough on their own, rather than the replacement options being overpowered. So likely we're going to see a lot of Ass Grens if the current state of the patch was live.

Grens from my understanding have 3 weaknesses at the top level of play (In order of importance) that are answered incredibly well by the trio of units that replace them (Ostruppen, Ass grens, VSL 5 Man Grens)

These are speed of creation. This is fixed by Ostruppen and Ass Grens which put more map presence on the field faster since you're not tied to building Tier 1 but you're also using call in units which don't need to take time to create.

Aggression and control. This is fixed by Ass Grens and VSL since Ass Grens will get in there and force soft and hard retreats due to their high damage up close bleeding manpower and preventing resource gain, while VSL become incredibly powerful mainline infantry able to maintain significant damage on the move allowing them to approach and take ground rather than being forced into static play.

Finally, Survivability and Defense. This is fixed by Ostruppen and VSL Grens. The extra models (and damage of VSL) allow these units to sit in cover and hold positions as needed without being forced away or wiped as easily. This admittedly is the worst argument here because this added "survivability" results in more bleed and thus more manpower expenditure while also being the least significant aspect of Grens being Underpowered. But it's still a factor even if small.

So unless someone up high on the 1's leaderboard with more accurate experience wants to contest my points which given Wehrmacht is my least played faction I'm perfectly happy to concede to them, but There appears to be some fundamental problem with Grens across the board where they aren't necessarily weak as a unit, but they lack important aspects that make them properly function as a mainline that these other replacements bring to the table.

So perhaps some sort of small reworks are due to allow Grens a little better performance in important areas of play while tuning down some less valuable or important usage of the unit. Maybe a build time decrease to provide faster map presence for Grens is required? Maybe some minor changes to moving+ vs static- accuracy is needed to allow Grens to fight from a less stationary position at times?(This could be an awful idea) I'm not sure what would need to be done personally but Grens should probably have some small consideration put into them from a practical perspective rather than a raw numbers perspective given the consistency with which people want to replace them at all costs.

Just even giving the 5 man ugprade as core tech like UKF have fixes a lot of the problems OST who plays 4 man grens have...not getting so easily squad wipes. 4 man squad every single fight you lose one model instantly if you are moving that is instantly 25% less dps, then you lose that 2nd model and you only have 2 models left, do you take the chance and stay fighting and risk squad wipe or retreat. You can't keep territory with those 4 man squads easily and even less in the early game.

Top players appear to be pretty in consensus from what I've seen that regular Grens aren't good enough on their own, rather than the replacement options being overpowered.

That is incorrect.
There is just as many top players thinking grens are bad as the ones who think they are fine and alternatives are OP. I've already posted a proof of that earlier.

This entire playlist didn't have an lmg gren.

Top players must think they're perfect

This entire playlist didn't have an lmg gren.

Top players must think they're perfect

When stakes are high, players will not use balanced units, they will use as OP units as possible to give themselves an edge.

Would you like me to tell you why osttruppen are getting nerfed this patch, while gren stats remain unchanged?

When stakes are high, players will not use balanced units, they will use as OP units as possible to give themselves an edge.

Would you like me to tell you why osttruppen are getting nerfed this patch, while gren stats remain unchanged?

Oh, they're fine until 10k is on the line. Got it.

Oh, they're fine until 10k is on the line. Got it.

I guess it never bothered you why you see various top players playing all the different factions and strats on ranked, but exclusively single dominant top tier meta strat on tournaments with prizes and the closer to finals, the tighter it becomes?

I highly advise you to check former tournaments, compare their metas and corelate the units used with nerfs on following patches.

That is incorrect.
There is just as many top players thinking grens are bad as the ones who think they are fine and alternatives are OP. I've already posted a proof of that earlier.

This https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/755001703748599869/791604775682572318/image0.png ?

I do the math for you, cause it seems you have some problems with it.
Option 1 is: I strongly agree that base grens are weak and not viable: 7 Votes
Option 2 and 3: I agree that base grens are weak and Osttruppen/5 Man too good: 6 Votes
Option 3: Base grens are weak, but the bigger problem are their alternatives: 6 Votes
Option 4: Base grens are fine: 4 Votes

So your source says that 4/23(17%) of the voters (competitive 1vs1 player) think that base grens are fine. Very impressive. That source wont prove your point mate.

What Grenadiers need is the abilty to build sandbags on their own like pretty much every other infantry unit. It makes a lot of sense because of how weak they are in comparison to other factions infantry.

It has always baffled me why a unit with such poor durability can not have the basic function of being able to build something to protect them more especially when much larger squads get too.

What I am saying is that economy decisions are much more complicated since the whole game has been balanced over years to allow for these play styles.
Demanding 200 MP for a side tech in a Penal build is different from demanding 200 MP from a Conscript build, since Penals will bleed you like hell and scraping 200 MP together can become quite a task. Similarly, demanding fuel for side grades is also different. For example, fast capping Conscript builds allow you to generate more early fuel income compared to slow starting Penal builds. So is demanding 10-15 fuel more from a Conscript player by minute 7 really that worse? Maybe not, because he (at least partially) generated more income at the start of the game.

fast capping con squads leaves you with no support, the prospect of fast capping with cons is offset by lacking literally any sort of support at all- something unique to the soviet alone. economy hypotheticals is difficult to discuss for the reasons you mentioned, but that does not change that there is an additional cost to using conscripts to their full potential while the cost of using other mainlines is spread out across multiple factors.

basically, buying a super niche tool that you will (or can) only use for 1 job is a tougher pill to swallow than the same priced, or even more expensive tool that can be used for anything, even if that "use anywhere" tool has a working cost because the purchase price can be spread out so the working "per unit" cost of it can be applied to the job.

i hope that makes sense to what im saying

Correct and the point is that Grenadier arrive later than all other mainline infatry while tying down the pioneer. That is why Ostheer have one of slowest start in the game. That is why when people play ostheer they avoid vanilla grenadiers like the plague.

In sort "grenadier is cheapest mainline infatry" means nothing, it simply smoke mirror to create an illusion than ostheer have some sort of early game advantage which they simply do not.

In early game grenadier cost 80+240+240+240 to buy and in late game both conscripts and grenadier cost 240 to buy.

people avoid grnes because they can. in live you can make up the difference with ostroppen and fill in the punch with fast pgrens. there is no need for grens. you dont need their snare and you dont need their DPS. the mg42 zones well enough to make up for ostroppen lack of teeth and there is no place for grens in this meta.

im not smoke and mirroring anything, grens cost 240 all game and that all you will ever pay for them. the 80mp doesnt apply directly to them, one does not include the cost of hammer or anvil when balancing comet or churchill because theres more to the upgrades than JUST that single unit, as with ost t1.

i must say its Ludacris that you are attaching the tier cost to grens as if its anything more than a token to get access to 3 units and deny the con upgrades as cost inflating despite them doing nothing but unlock things for cons and cons alone.

I guess it never bothered you why you see various top players playing all the different factions and strats on ranked, but exclusively single dominant top tier meta strat on tournaments with prizes and the closer to finals, the tighter it becomes?

I highly advise you to check former tournaments, compare their metas and corelate the units used with nerfs on following patches.

I don't really need advice from you, thanks.

fast capping con squads leaves you with no support, the prospect of fast capping with cons is offset by lacking literally any sort of support at all- something unique to the soviet alone. economy hypotheticals is difficult to discuss for the reasons you mentioned, but that does not change that there is an additional cost to using conscripts to their full potential while the cost of using other mainlines is spread out across multiple factors.

basically, buying a super niche tool that you will (or can) only use for 1 job is a tougher pill to swallow than the same priced, or even more expensive tool that can be used for anything, even if that "use anywhere" tool has a working cost because the purchase price can be spread out so the working "per unit" cost of it can be applied to the job.

i hope that makes sense to what im saying

I think I understand, but it does not make much sense in my opinion (and assuming that I understand it correctly). Since I don't want to derail any further I'll keep it short otherwise we'd go too much off topic:
My point is that the cost of tech does not matter. Not even the cost of a single squad. What matters is the cost of each build at a given time. How much do players invest to get a viable infantry build? How much to an LV, how much for counters, how much for mediums etc? And compare this to their income.
What people here currently do is add the costs and then enter a neverending "no, u"-loop to prove that their favourite unit is more expensive than the other, as if that upgrade would mean the unit must automatically perform better. Yes, I pay for the upgrade. But the actual question is: Can I afford it in time of do I screw myself over? I should not add it to the unit to prove that it actually were underperforming. What if I am a scrub and build 10 Cons in the game because I keep losing them? And what if I build only 2? Do these two Cons now have to perform better than one of the 10 magically? Mathematically, they should, and that is what some here actually want to argue.
But that is nonsense. Conscript builds are viable even with teching the AT nade. That's the only thing that counts. Saying things like "Penals cost 300 MP compared to 240 MP of Conscripts, therefore they should perform better" is basically a short cut to "I can afford 4 Cons, but I cannot afford 4 Penals in a viable builds. Therefore my Penals need to make up in fighting power for the lack of map control/support weapons access/etc". And if your 4xCon build with AT nade is competitive to a cheaper 3xGren plus MG42 build, and both Ost and Sov player have the chances to get their tanks or whatever units they want at decent timings as long as they play well, the costs don't matter. It is competitive and allows for a fair game. And if one side has to pay more resources than the other because they don't suffer as much attrition or just gain more by design to give everyone a fair chance, then be it, it literally does not matter.

Show Spoiler

but costs do matter. thats the best metric we have for balance. if x build is competitive to a more expensive build and its not made up of hard counters then either one side is over performing to that cost or the other is underperforming. resources are time given value, and that value has to match up more or less.

long and short, in the case of cons if you build one con, the sidegrades may not be worth that investment, if you build none it certainly is not. as such the extra investment of the sidegrades IS tied to the cost of the unit.
this isnt inflating the cost of my favorite unit to make it look one way or another, this is simple math. if you only build a single con, and get molitovs, that single con has more invested in it than if there was 4 or 10. since it IS a global it gets more cost efficient the more units that use it, but it IS extra investment none the less. much like a gren with a 60mu lmg should perform better than a gren alone, or one with a 45mu upgrade for that matter. more investment should mean better performance. thats the basis of balance.