[Winter Balance Update] OST Feedback

How do I put it out to you...
The goal of this patch is addressing as much core army problems as possible.
Grens were addressed by changing formation only, because that is all they need, because they are fine and just because couple of Meinstein worshippers and grenblob scrublords do not agree is not going to change the fact that grens are perfectly fine and balance infantry that does all it needs to do for its lowest of all mainline inf price.

My advise to you, instead of imagining and finding ways to put yourself in a right position, when you are clearly not, just don't speak for people, by saying that something is considered by them, especially developers.

And second advise. Churchill was fine for you aswell, as a damage sponge bla bla still got rear armor nerf. So no matter how you try spreading your propaganda that something got X because of Y or nothing, it's still your personal imho not an objective fact.

Grenadier cost the same as Conscripts and the require a building.

oh boy, wait till you learn about maxims.... not only do they cost the same as mg42 and require a building, but that building costs double the manpower AND the faction doesnt get "free" extra manpower to start with....

whats more that initial cost is more than made up for with cons extra side tech costs. you get more with grens and their building than you do with cons and no building, or even cons AND a building for that matter...

Moving Osttruppen to t1 in there current state will kill two doctrines, all I'm asking for is a minor improvement to their combat ability by removing their out of cover penalty to compensate for being move to t1. They will still be the worst then Grens in everyway except for manpower cost.

i believe they get a cost reduction to 200 with being tied to buildings, but if landing 30 seconds later isnt going to kill the unit, what its going to killing pgrens landing a minute sooner. ostroppen will still have uses, in that they are cheaper and more durable than grens- especially late game if you lose a gren squad or find the need tom recrew lots of weapons

they should absolutely not lose the cover mechanic because then they WILL replace grens if they are in the same building. THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE YOUR CORE COMBATANT.

they should absolutely not lose the cover mechanic because then they WILL replace grens if they are in the same building. THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE YOUR CORE COMBATANT.

Their existance in T1 or T0 or as a call-in is already replacing grens.

oh boy, wait till you learn about maxims.... not only do they cost the same as mg42 and require a building, but that building costs double the manpower AND the faction doesnt get "free" extra manpower to start with....

whats more that initial cost is more than made up for with cons extra side tech costs. you get more with grens and their building than you do with cons and no building, or even cons AND a building for that matter...

Yes maxim cost the same HMG-42 and require a building and that is why I a do not go around claiming that maxims are the cheapest hmg in the game, as people do about grenadiers.

Their existance in T1 or T0 or as a call-in is already replacing grens.

but they are not supposed to. in t1, players will have access to both and gain nothing from using exlusivly ostroppen (where now they gain 10 fuel towards faster pgrens) meaning they are more apt to be alongside grens, who are better combatants- there is room for both.

Yes maxim cost the same HMG-42 and require a building and that is why I a do not go around claiming that maxims are the cheapest hmg in the game, as people do about grenadiers.

80mp once hardly inflates the cost that much, as you are unlocking their snare and othe units at the same time. cons pay the same for molitovs alone and dont gain access to a slew of support units as well. completely obj4ctivly grens are indeed the cheapest core infantry.

but they are not supposed to. in t1, players will have access to both and gain nothing from using exlusivly ostroppen (where now they gain 10 fuel towards faster pgrens) meaning they are more apt to be alongside grens, who are better combatants- there is room for both.

Thats is the point. Osttropens showing better combat results then grenadiers against both rifles\tommies. You gain nothing by having grenadiers mixed with osttropens. Grenadiers provide you nothing, but riflenade over osttropens, and later on LMG, but you already have T2 units near so whats the point.

Even during tournaments, we saw ostts+ sniper, and grenadiers were never thrown into the mix. With ostts in T1 we will only see more ostts + sniper combos. Thats a sad reality.

While indeed ostts were used as a fast capping and T1 skipping unit, its not their main selling point.

Thats is the point. Osttropens showing better combat results then grenadiers against both rifles\tommies.

Except they don't.
By saying that, you've proven that you have no slightest idea why people go osttruppen in the first place.

...

80mp once hardly inflates the cost that much, as you are unlocking their snare and othe units at the same time. cons pay the same for molitovs alone and dont gain access to a slew of support units as well. completely obj4ctivly grens are indeed the cheapest core infantry.

And Grenadier have a cost to build and a cost to get riflegrenades and LMG.

Grenadier cost the same conscripts to built and they objectively are NOT the cheapest core infantry.

Grenadier cost the same conscripts to built and they objectively are NOT the cheapest core infantry.

Objectively, getting grens and unlocking all of their utility requires less costs that do not directly contribute to tech or allowing other units production then conscripts.

So objectively, grens are cheapest stock mainline.
If player choses to gimp cons, they can be equivalent cheap, but the moment you decide to go for AT nades/molos, grens are cheapest.

Objectively, getting grens and unlocking all of their utility requires less costs that do not directly contribute to tech or allowing other units production then conscripts.

So objectively, grens are cheapest stock mainline.
If player choses to gimp cons, they can be equivalent cheap, but the moment you decide to go for AT nades/molos, grens are cheapest.

You are repeating your "side tech" argument again again like a broken record in every thread although it has been pointed out even by moderators of this forum that it is mute.

Grenadier cost 240 manpower which is exactly the same price as conscripts and that is a simple fact.

Except they don't.
By saying that, you've proven that you have no slightest idea why people go osttruppen in the first place.

Prove me wrong? Or its one of yours bald statements, from which you will back off ones its truthfulness became questinable.

Prove me wrong? Or its one of yours bald statements, from which you will back off ones its truthfulness became questinable.

I already have, with multiple top players opinions in post 299 (master league discord voting done only by the tops).

I already have, with multiple top players opinions in post 299 (master league discord voting done only by the tops).

High level player opinions matter only if they support your agenda and otherwise you just know better then them?

Also, if you value so much opinions of high rank players, here, have a knowledge nugget from master league discord where we, low rank peasants are not allowed.

Its an opinion of multiple high level players.

Hmm. So you firstly say this. Then you give us a screenshot of voting. But on a screenshop possition 1 is winning, saying that grens are UP. While you say they are fine because "multiple top players" voted for 5, therefore grens are fine, while 5 has less votes.

And on top of that only possition 5 states that grens are fine, while 1\2\3 are stating that they are not, possition 4 states that its more to do with commanders, but A is also partly true.

I already have, with multiple top players opinions in post 299 (master league discord voting done only by the tops).

The only point this vote proofs is that even among top level players there is absolutely no concensus about grens

You are repeating your "side tech" argument again again like a broken record in every thread although it has been pointed out even by moderators of this forum that it is mute.

Grenadier cost 240 manpower which is exactly the same price as conscripts and that is a simple fact.

It inflates the cost and that is undeniable. Purchase price of cons and grens are the same but the fact that if you say, go ostroppen in the preview your tech costs are the exact same as if you go grens but if you were to (for some reason) spam CE and never build a single con you would save resources on tech means cons are more expensive.

CON tech is a cost that only affects cons. They are linked. If you build no cons you do not want to get these techs. If you build cons you probably will. The costs are linked. If you build only 1 con, the techs may not be worth while as they inflate the cost of cons. If you don't build a con squad until you have heavy Armour on the field they will not be fully equipped and require additional investment to get fully kitted

If you never build a single gren you will still tech up. If you build only grens you will still tech up. If you build 1 gren teching up is still cost effecient for kitting out grens. If you don't build a gren until you have a tiger out you have spent only 240mp and have everything you need (obviously discounting weapon upgrades) for them to function. You have no additional costs. 240mp covers everything.

Suggestions for Ottruppen changes since they are being moved to T1:

squad cost from 200 to 220

Out of cover penalty removed

slot weapon accuracy penalty removed

LMG42 upgrade removed

merge ability added (cannot merge with Grenadiers or Panzer grenadiers)

Merge with only team-weapons is also an interesting idea, also Cons should only be able to merge with team-weapons too. (and other cons)


Edit:

Other idea:

- need CP1.
- build-able in HQ
- 210mp
- 5men squad -> 6th men passive with battle-phase-2
- LMG42 removed
- 2 weapon-slots

Other idea:

- make them non-doc (Osttruppen-Commander gets Beute-T34/76 as call-in | Def.-Commander gets hull-down instead)
- build-able in T2
- 200mp
- 6men squad
- LMG42 removed
- 2 weapon-slots

Merge with only team-weapons is also an interesting idea, also Cons should only be able to merge with team-weapons too. (and other cons)


Edit:

Other idea:

- need CP1.
- build-able in HQ
- 210mp
- 5men squad -> 6th men passive with battle-phase-2
- LMG42 removed
- 2 weapon-slots

Other idea:

- make them non-doc (Osttruppen-Commander gets Beute-T34/76 as call-in | Def.-Commander gets hull-down instead)
- build-able in T2
- 200mp
- 6men squad
- LMG42 removed
- 2 weapon-slots

Cons merging with whatever squad is generally fine. It's pretty much only early game CEs being merged into that's a little overly strong.

Cons merging with whatever squad is generally fine. It's pretty much only early game CEs being merged into that's a little overly strong.

Soviet infantry as a whole though generally lacks less bite and the cost disparity of reinforcement is a lot smaller. Idr the reinforcement costs of ostroppen as I belive it was tweaked but if cons were to merge into grens for example you would save 10mp per head. Essentially a 3 man Gren squad could reinforce for the cost of 2 models and that would dramatically upset the manpower economy of Ostheer.

Soviet infantry as a whole though generally lacks less bite and the cost disparity of reinforcement is a lot smaller. Idr the reinforcement costs of ostroppen as I belive it was tweaked but if cons were to merge into grens for example you would save 10mp per head. Essentially a 3 man Gren squad could reinforce for the cost of 2 models and that would dramatically upset the manpower economy of Ostheer.

And members of a grenadier squad with 1.25 target size will die like flies.

It inflates the cost and that is undeniable. Purchase price of cons and grens are the same but the fact that if you say, go ostroppen in the preview your tech costs are the exact same as if you go grens but if you were to (for some reason) spam CE and never build a single con you would save resources on tech means cons are more expensive.

CON tech is a cost that only affects cons. They are linked. If you build no cons you do not want to get these techs. If you build cons you probably will. The costs are linked. If you build only 1 con, the techs may not be worth while as they inflate the cost of cons. If you don't build a con squad until you have heavy Armour on the field they will not be fully equipped and require additional investment to get fully kitted

If you never build a single gren you will still tech up. If you build only grens you will still tech up. If you build 1 gren teching up is still cost effecient for kitting out grens. If you don't build a gren until you have a tiger out you have spent only 240mp and have everything you need (obviously discounting weapon upgrades) for them to function. You have no additional costs. 240mp covers everything.

Your argument actually work the other way around.
If one does not build a single conscript one can save the AT grenade/molotovs.
If one does not building a single grenadier will still have payed the cost for faust/riflegrenade/lmg that is included in Ostheer tech cost.

The only way to actually be accurate in comparing the tech cost across the different systems is to calculate the total cost used across the whole game and assigning to the units used during the game.

But all of that is not very relevant. The simply fact remain that Ostheer do not actually have an early advantage because of tech.

4 conscripts builds work just fine but 4 grenadier builds do not work.

The argument that grenadier are cheapest mainline infatry (they are not) and ostheer have an advantage because of that is simply mute.