[Winter Balance Update] OST Feedback

Only when we stop pretending that 240mp60mun unit should be trading equally with 280mp120muni+side costs of weapon racks unlock and same for brits+dual weapons+bolster.

Side tech costs should not be added to infantry costs at all. The side tech costs are there to delay main tech at the choice of the player. Without them the whole tank timing is screwed up.

Side tech costs should not be added to infantry costs at all. The side tech costs are there to delay main tech at the choice of the player. Without them the whole tank timing is screwed up.

Valid arguments can be made here for both sides really, on one hand you're right, on the other, these costs do inflate units value, less if they apply to more then 1 type of unit, but they most certainly do, especially since tech to med of all 5 factions is pretty much in line before including these side techs.

Valid arguments can be made here for both sides really, on one hand you're right, on the other, these costs do inflate units value, less if they apply to more then 1 type of unit, but they most certainly do, especially since tech to med of all 5 factions is pretty much in line before including these side techs.

Especially that last point is the most important to not add costs to single units.
If you say that in a normal 4 IS build, one IS costs ~350-ish MP at least plus 90 mun and some fuel and therefore they should definitely roll over Volks because of their high cost (neglecting RE at that point), then there is also no reason that a 260 fuel Cromwell (tech + Cromwell) should stand a single chance against any of the P4s. In the end it does not matter if something is "main tech" or "side tech". If you want a bolstered 5 man IS squad with double Bren, you need to spend X resources. If you want a Cromwell or P4, you need to spend Y resources. And if you want Volks with StGs, you also need a tech structure. There is actually no inherent reason to exclude the tech costs from Volks, even if it gives you other units. If I don't want to build anything from T1 as OKW and just get the StG upgrade unlocked, all these costs could be attributed to Volks instead without issues, BUT:

ALL tech costs are just there to time gate abilities and units, nothing else. The only thing that matters is the resources spend to have a viable build at any given time. At which points do factions get medics/snares/infantry upgrades, finish their 3-4x mainline build, an LV, medium etc.

You regularly critisize others for looking at things in a vacuum. Yet, adding "side" tech costs to a single unit and declare it to now be the total costs of that unit is exactly doing that.

You regularly critisize others for looking at things in a vacuum. Yet, adding "side" tech costs to a single unit and declare it to now be the total costs of that unit is exactly doing that.

Fully agreed.

Can’t wait for Ost and OKW weapons upgrades to be locked behind a 150mp 15 fuel sidetech and their grenades behind a 80mp 10 fuel sidetech.

Also for muni costs to fully upgrade a squad to be made the same.

snip for space

If you remember me arguing that earlier, you should have no trouble remembering also that I always pointed out how side costs should never be added directly to a unit, but divided by the number of units it affects you've built over the game.

Tech is a matter of timing of the unit and tech costs should always be considered as a timing and not direct cost, I have even pointed this out couple of mins ago on shoutbox against gbem arguments.

Side tech, being optional and limited by its nature, inflates the cost of a unit(s) it affects, the more units benefiting from it on field, the less it inflates their overall cost, but again, it most certainly does inflate their cost.

AEC is a perfect example of cost inflated unit.
It requires side tech to build, but doesn't perform nor should it perform as base cost+unlock cost, but you never built more then 1, hence full side tech cost inflates its value, but does not impact its performance.

I hope that's clear enough to understand.

Since Brummbär's bunker-burst needs now mun, the cool-down on the ability should be way shorter. Like SU67 e.g. 30-45sec would be fine.

New Panzerwerfer ability shouldn't have suppression. Also the animator isn't correct, the angle of Nebelwerferrahmen is way to high, please fix it.

I would like to see same lower rate of fire for normal PnzWerfer-barrage too. Looks better. Maybe increase rocket speed for normal ability by 5-10% so it performs same.

Beside, can give StuG E also an other animator? The big boooom doesn't fit the DPS. Also, I think its building-damage is still way too OP. (bugged) it is time to fix that.

Mortar's fx_ would fit, or Packhowitzers flash.

...

Sure mate, sure. If only it would add anything to the discussion...

...

Sure mate, sure. If only it would relate to anything I said.

If you remember me arguing that earlier, you should have no trouble remembering also that I always pointed out how side costs should never be added directly to a unit, but divided by the number of units it affects you've built over the game.

Tech is a matter of timing of the unit and tech costs should always be considered as a timing and not direct cost, I have even pointed this out couple of mins ago on shoutbox against gbem arguments.

Side tech, being optional and limited by its nature, inflates the cost of a unit(s) it affects, the more units benefiting from it on field, the less it inflates their overall cost, but again, it most certainly does inflate their cost.

AEC is a perfect example of cost inflated unit.
It requires side tech to build, but doesn't perform nor should it perform as base cost+unlock cost, but you never built more then 1, hence full side tech cost inflates its value, but does not impact its performance.

I hope that's clear enough to understand.

I do see your point, but in the end it does not change much.
Allied side tech is side tech (even the USF ambulance) is used to delay the main tech and time infantry power levels properly. Not all of it is optional as you say. Not for the early-mid game, and definitely Allied infantry is meant to have at least some of their tech researched. Conscripts need the AT grenade, UKF needs bolster, USF usually also weapon racks (+ ambulance) or grenades. It does not matter at that point if your weapon upgrade is gated behind a "side tech" or a main tech building. The only difference is that the additional "side tech" button gives you a little bit of freedom when you want to have it in a window of +/- 5 min. That's also why we don't see 10 minute Cromwells. Because UKF needs to invest into side tech to not lose the game early on. Allied factions have been balanced and designed around this need for side tech.

If you allocate the cost of e.g. weapon racks to Riflemen or IS, then there is no reason not to split an arbitrary amount of Axis tech cost to Faust, StGs, the rifle grenade etc to Axis mainline. You pay resources to get benefits, and these benefits are access to new units and to weapon upgrades/abilities etc. Teching up just for teching up does not give any benefit, this game is not a science victory in Civ.




Back to the current OST changes though:

Thinking about it I am not sure about the BP1 change. Yes, there are issues with Osttruppen at the moment, but this change further diminishes possible build orders and linearizes the faction. The benefit of saving a couple of MP is just not as high as saving some fuel. I think Ost is very well designed for having trade offs and decisions to make between rushing a unit or steadily building up its rooster. The decision for T3 or T4 rush has already been eliminated by moving all costs to BP2, and with the current change the only thing left to do is to ask if you really want T2 or not. I am not saying all these changes have been detrimental, but compared to what Ost looked like one or two years ago there is just basically nothing left to decide anymore. At this point we could almost delete battle phases and move everything to the buildings themselves.

one thing that would help shake up the Osttruppen and German infantry doctrine would be to buff the G43s upgrade this would bring 3 commanders back into the meta. (Elite Troops, Jaeger Infantry, and lighting war)

here's my suggestion:

G43s for Grenadiers
squad size increased from 4 to 5
squad gains 2 g43 rifles
upgrade cost increased from 45 to 60

G43s for Panzer Grenadiers
squad size increased from 4 to 5
squad gains 3 g43s rifles
upgrade cost increased from 60 to 80

G43s for Stormtroopers
squad size increased from 4 to 5
squad gains 3 g43s rifles
upgrade cost increased from 60 to 80

My dude, unless this is a bait post that I sperged and fell for, the G43 is already performing really well as is. It's able to chop down enemy infantry models quicker than most. I don't think it needs a buff, lol

Am I the only one who thinks the Panzershreck needs a slight nerf?
A Panzergren blob is strong, and kills my tanks any moment the AI pathfinding screws up.
LV are pretty much shut down, and can't be countered by infantry unless equipping Brens or BARs

My dude, unless this is a bait post that I sperged and fell for, the G43 is already performing really well as is. It's able to chop down enemy infantry models quicker than most. I don't think it needs a buff, lol

From what I've seen the ostheer g43s upgrade much like cons Ppsh are in need of some buffing

From what I've seen the ostheer g43s upgrade much like cons Ppsh are in need of some buffing

Its only meh on grens, its very strong on PGs.

Well, you have to be careful further nerfing the early game timing of Osttruppen, cause it's all they have (fyi the LMG buff is only 25% on their 50% slot weapon, so they end up with 62.5% accuracy).

With the longer recharge time, 1st Osttrupp will be 10 seconds later, 2nd will be 20 seconds later and 3rd will be also 10 seconds later. BP1 change also definitely has impact. you start with 20 fuel, so only need 20 more fuel to tech, now you need 30 more fuel and field slightly slower, which translates to about a 30 second later 222. You definitely have manpower to tech as soon as you have the fuel in live.

I made the previous post checking the timing on the last Grand final. We should add +2s for delay on picking commander but will make it simple for numbers sake.

The 1st Osttruppen arrives at 0:35 but since it's a call in, with no build time, it stills fields before the 2nd Rifle finish building (RET + Rifle vs Pio + MG + Ostt).
The biggest delay is on the 2nd Ostt which indeeds arrive 20s later as you float around 90mp. But then it would still be a 3v4 situation (RET + 2 Rif vs 2 Ostt + Pio + MG)
At 1:35, in live you get your 3rd Osstruppen and USF is starting to build a 3rd Rifle. The new change pushes it to 1:45. At that point USF 3rd Rifle is half way in construction and you already have your build with 3 Ostt + MG + Pio.

Game1: 100mp at 42f, they hit BP1 10s later at 45f
Game2: 100mp 43f, they hit at 46f
Game3: at 43f, hit at 46f
Game4: at 42f, hit at 48f

You could argue that the fact that the Osttruppen arriving later will delay the resource gain, therefore delaying T2 for 222 or fast PGs. But from what we seen in the WC is that you don't necessarily rush it perfectly.

If Osttruppen builds still need a further nerf, it would be something small like shorter Faust range, Pgren vet 1 moved to vet 2, giving them the sandbag buildtime increase, moving them to HQ or something else.

Which would be perfect and i agree that taking small steps is fine. I'm just saying that it doesn't look that it will make that much difference after checking at which timing they are hitting the field. At 1st i thought it would end up been 30s later for the 3rd Ost but as i said it's 10s, 20s and 10s.

I do like that bunker idea, but better accuracy against suppressed squads might be a bit too much on top of the better formation. If anything, LMG Grens need something lategame (instead of the T4 passive), but will have to see how they do now they hopefully won't get actively avoided.

For clarification sake:

All units suffer a penalty of 0.5 when shooting against suppressed squads unless they use SMG/STG (0.75). Since the faction works around the MG42, i'm saying that Grens should had their penalty moved to 0.75

An early suppression is basically insta retreat but as the game progresses and as light cover starts to form around the map, the compound benefit from light cover plus the penalty on shooting at targets suppressed feels like nothing.

The Main Reason why people are going Ostruppen Strategies is because Grenadiers bleed your manpower dry. Grenadiers should be made more attractive. Ostruppen should feel optional not mandatory to get by the early game.

I would propose a Vet "Smoothing" or reshuffle so to speak. Right Now Grenadiers have

Vet 1 : Unlocks the "Field First Aid" ability.
Vet 2 : +40% accuracy.
Vet 3 :-20% weapon cooldown.
-25% recharge time of the Panzerfaust.
-20% received damage.

I would propose

Vet 1: -10% received damage
Vet 2: -10% received damage
Vet 3: +40% Accuracy
-20% Weapon Cooldown
-25% recharge time of Panzerfaust

Grenadiers would perform the same at Vet 3 but early on they will bleed less at the expense of putting its big damage spike at Vet 3 and also help from losing squads during retreat early on.

The Main Reason why people are going Ostruppen Strategies is because Grenadiers bleed your manpower dry. Grenadiers should be made more attractive. Ostruppen should feel optional not mandatory to get by the early game.

I would propose a Vet "Smoothing" or reshuffle so to speak. Right Now Grenadiers have

Vet 1 : Unlocks the "Field First Aid" ability.
Vet 2 : +40% accuracy.
Vet 3 :-20% weapon cooldown.
-25% recharge time of the Panzerfaust.
-20% received damage.

I would propose

Vet 1: -10% received damage
Vet 2: -10% received damage
Vet 3: +40% Accuracy
-20% Weapon Cooldown
-25% recharge time of Panzerfaust

Grenadiers would perform the same at Vet 3 but early on they will bleed less at the expense of putting its big damage spike at Vet 3 and also help from losing squads during retreat early on.

You have no slightest idea why people play osttrupen, don't you?

Its not because of any combat potential, osttruppen have none and bleed worse then grens on the long run.
Its to quickly grab all of the map and rush T2 PGs and lights to snowball into fast win/advantageous aggressive T3.

Currently in Live version.

Brumbar are in a role of Heavy anti-infantry unit that have potential to deal 50-80% damage to infantry or wiped in 1 shot. but It bounce too much AT shot even from tank destroyer.

Currently Brumbar are perform better than KV-2.

Panzergrenadier got a buff when stand nearby a vehicle. with shreck combine with brumbar are too difficult to counter without breeding a lot of manpower/tank especially for USF. now come with M8 nerfed in Preview version.

please considered about brumbar stats. thanks

In my opinion
-Reduce Its AOE damage .
-increase mid-far scatter.

or
-Reduce Frontal armor for make It vulnerable to AT unit.

You have no slightest idea why people play osttrupen, don't you?

Its not because of any combat potential, osttruppen have none and bleed worse then grens on the long run.
Its to quickly grab all of the map and rush T2 PGs and lights to snowball into fast win/advantageous aggressive T3.

"Its to quickly grab all of the map and rush T2 PGs and lights to snowball into fast win/advantageous aggressive T3"

And the main reason why OST tries to crush the enemy early with a flamer/scout car rush is because Grenadiers aint it and you will be behind all game with grenadiers unless you go with this strategy. Wether it is Ostruppen or Assault Grenadiers, the key thing of these strategies is to avoid grenadiers because they suck, so lets rush something that has a small window of opportunity to give yourself a chance before the inevitable T-70 or other LV (along with the shock troops and other call in infantry spam)comes into play that bleeds your infantry even more. As I mentioned before a strategy should be an alternative way of playing that is equally viable. Grenadiers are not equally viable to Ostruppen/Assault Grenadier Strategies.

I made the previous post checking the timing on the last Grand final. We should add +2s for delay on picking commander but will make it simple for numbers sake.

Just a fyi, but the initial cooldown happens before the commander is picked.

The 1st Osttruppen arrives at 0:35 but since it's a call in, with no build time, it stills fields before the 2nd Rifle finish building (RET + Rifle vs Pio + MG + Ostt).
The biggest delay is on the 2nd Ostt which indeeds arrive 20s later as you float around 90mp. But then it would still be a 3v4 situation (RET + 2 Rif vs 2 Ostt + Pio + MG)
At 1:35, in live you get your 3rd Osstruppen and USF is starting to build a 3rd Rifle. The new change pushes it to 1:45. At that point USF 3rd Rifle is half way in construction and you already have your build with 3 Ostt + MG + Pio.

Game1: 100mp at 42f, they hit BP1 10s later at 45f
Game2: 100mp 43f, they hit at 46f
Game3: at 43f, hit at 46f
Game4: at 42f, hit at 48f

You could argue that the fact that the Osttruppen arriving later will delay the resource gain, therefore delaying T2 for 222 or fast PGs. But from what we seen in the WC is that you don't necessarily rush it perfectly.

But if their execution isn't flawless now, it won't be flawless afterwards either.

Main goal is that the 222 should arrive a bit later, which should give the Allies some more breathing room.

Anyway, I'll be watching a bunch of replays the following days, hopefully there's a few that include Osttruppen and not just Ostwind/Flamehetzer rushes, I'll adjust my perspective from there. Eager to know if these small changes will do the trick without killing Osttruppen builds.

MG42 spam meta in 2vs2.

MG42 Currently have a too high AOE suppression. even flank from difference direction still have a chance to got suppressed. In 2vs2 Mg42 spam are very hard to counter. Its setup time still good. They can move to flank mortar.


In opinion
-Reduce AOE suppression.
-Increase damage.