Login

russian armor

Assault Grens early game OP - balance suggestion

Pip
7 Jan 2021, 15:00 PM
#21
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594


We can't.
They are engineers.
Its in the name.
Engineers are supposed to build these things. Its consistent.


Read their name very carefully and slowly, as many times as you need, no rush.


Just change the name of Assgrens to Assault Pioneers then, then there's no problem.
7 Jan 2021, 15:01 PM
#22
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jan 2021, 15:00 PMPip


Just change the name of Assgrens to Assault Pioneers then, then there's no problem.

We can't, it would be inconsistent with sturmpioneers, sturm means assault in german.
7 Jan 2021, 15:01 PM
#23
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

I guess one could removed bunker from assault grenadiers and sandbag, trenches and cashes from assault infatry section, sandbags from MP40 V.grenadiers and sandbag from PPsh conscripts.
7 Jan 2021, 15:04 PM
#24
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jan 2021, 15:01 PMVipper
I guess one could removed bunker from assault grenadiers and sandbag, trenches and cashes from assault infatry section, sandbags from MP40 grenadiers and sandbag from PPsh conscripts.

Post game efficiency dictates that these are essential tools for them to work.
Also, there are no MP40 grenadiers in CoH2.
Pip
7 Jan 2021, 15:05 PM
#25
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594


We can't, it would be inconsistent with sturmpioneers, sturm means assault in german.


Look, katitof, just admit you're not actually arguing from a logical basis here and be done with it. This is very childish.

Assault Engineers are an assault squad that can also build fighting positions. This contradicts your earlier assertion that assault squads "cannot build bunkers". See Vipper's post for why this "consistency" argument holds no water.

You have the same hardon for unnecessarily, and pointlessly nerfing axis units as you accuse others of doing for allied ones.

7 Jan 2021, 15:07 PM
#26
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jan 2021, 15:05 PMPip


Look, katitof, just admit you're not actually arguing from a logical basis here and be done with it. This is very childish.

No, I'm super cereal here.

Assault Engineers are an assault squad that can also build fighting positions. This contradicts your earlier assertion that assault squads "cannot build bunkers".

They are engineers, just like spios.

See Vipper's post for why this "consistency" argument holds no water.

Vippers posts lack consistency and arguments.

You have the same hardon for unnecessarily, and pointlessly nerfing axis units as you accuse others of doing for allied ones.

Please stop projecting.
Pip
7 Jan 2021, 15:11 PM
#27
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594


No, I'm super cereal here.


They are engineers, just like spios.


Vippers posts lack consistency and arguments.


Please stop projecting :snfPeter:



REs are the US engineer unit. Assault Engineers are an assault unit that can also act as an engineer unit. Strangely, Spios can't build bunkers anyway. "Inconsistent" is an argument you only get to use when you apply it universally, not just to an unit you dislike for some reason.

Make a real argument if you want bunkers removing from Assault Grenadiers, rather than this stupid "Consistency" thing you're only applying selectively.

Feel free to point out when I call for unnecessarily nerfing units for unqualified reasons.
7 Jan 2021, 15:14 PM
#28
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jan 2021, 15:05 PMPip
Assault Engineers are an assault squad that can also build fighting positions.


Read that again, but very very slowly.
Pip
7 Jan 2021, 15:16 PM
#29
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594



Read that again, but very very slowly.


Are they or are they not assault infantry? They are also "Engineers", but they are primarily assault infantry.

Again, if we called "Assault Grenadiers" "Assault Pioneers" would that solve the issue of them being able to build Bunkers? My argument is that this "Consistency" statement is unfounded.

If there's a balance issue derived from Assgrens being able to build Bunkers then sure, make that argument. "Consistency" is not a balance argument. This is like people insisting the STUG needs to be 60 range, to be "consistent" with allied TDs.
7 Jan 2021, 15:17 PM
#30
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jan 2021, 15:16 PMPip


Are they or are they not assault infantry? They are also "Engineers", but they are primarily assault infantry.


I don't know.
They seem to have a lot more "engineer" abilities then "assault" ones on their grid.

Again, if we called "Assault Grenadiers" "Assault Pioneers" would that solve the issue of them being able to build Bunkers?

We already have assault pioneers in game.
Its OKW starting unit.
It would be inconsistent to have 2 completely different units with the same name.
Pip
7 Jan 2021, 15:20 PM
#31
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594



I don't know.
They seem to have a lot more "engineer" abilities then "assault" ones on their grid.


We already have assault pioneers in game.
Its OKW starting unit.
It would be inconsistent to have 2 completely different units with the same name.


"Assault" engineers clearly don't need five men then, if they're primarily being built to provide engineering services. Other engineer units don't arrive with five men by default, so it's pretty inconsistent.

No, those are called "Sturmpioneers". "Angriff" is "Assault", "Sturm" is "Storm".
7 Jan 2021, 15:54 PM
#32
7 Jan 2021, 15:56 PM
#33
avatar of Spoof

Posts: 449

An argument based off of the name of the unit? How far have we fallen...
Pip
7 Jan 2021, 15:57 PM
#34
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/assault

Look at the synonyms part, Pip.


That really doesn't matter though. "Storm" and "Assault" are not the same word, even if they can be used synonymously. Though this line of discussion is honestly pretty irrelevant to the topic at hand.

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Jan 2021, 15:56 PMSpoof
An argument based off of the name of the unit? How far have we fallen...


Yes, I agree, This line of discussion is absurdly stupid.
7 Jan 2021, 15:59 PM
#35
avatar of Protos Angelus

Posts: 1515

Assault Grenadiers are perfectly fine. They only excel at very close range. Most people will use sprint to close the gap. If I'm not mistaken, sprint is not free (??). As USF get an AA HT to shut them down or any sort of vehicle as any faction really. Always try to be behind cover vs them because they absolutely positively need to be close to deal damage. And if they are constantly using nades and sprint, you know they will have no munitions for infantry upgrades or abilities.
Pip
7 Jan 2021, 16:04 PM
#36
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

Assault Grenadiers are perfectly fine. They only excel at very close range. Most people will use sprint to close the gap. If I'm not mistaken, sprint is not free (??). As USF get an AA HT to shut them down or any sort of vehicle as any faction really. Always try to be behind cover vs them because they absolutely positively need to be close to deal damage. And if they are constantly using nades and sprint, you know they will have no munitions for infantry upgrades or abilities.


They're also entirely defenceless vs any sort of vehicle, and don't have lategame utility abilities (Smoke, for example) like many other "Assault" infantry units. They're good at what they do, but they're in no way imbalanced.
7 Jan 2021, 16:06 PM
#37
avatar of proletariat

Posts: 21

Assault Grenadiers are perfectly fine. They only excel at very close range. Most people will use sprint to close the gap. If I'm not mistaken, sprint is not free (??). As USF get an AA HT to shut them down or any sort of vehicle as any faction really. Always try to be behind cover vs them because they absolutely positively need to be close to deal damage. And if they are constantly using nades and sprint, you know they will have no munitions for infantry upgrades or abilities.
This is not accurate.
For starters LV's like AA halftrack and T70 come out after the critical phase that I'm talking about. Also this is mostly an issue for Soviet players, since rifleman can deal a lot more damage up close.
As I said, green cover helps very little since they can sprint up to it without losing a single model.

Again, if you made it to spawn your LV with acceptable map control (and little bleed assuming you retreated before they got a chance to strike up close) then you're already well past the issue and most likely even have the upper hand now. I was very clear that this is an early EARLY game issue.
7 Jan 2021, 16:11 PM
#38
avatar of Fire and Terror

Posts: 306

with the latest changes to ostruppen, assault grens need to get the same treatment, otherwise peaple are just gonna shift from osttruppen to assault grens.

and ofc we gonna see the 3 min PGs again, what fun
Pip
7 Jan 2021, 16:12 PM
#39
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

This is not accurate.
For starters LV's like AA halftrack and T70 come out after the critical phase that I'm talking about. Also this is mostly an issue for Soviet players, since rifleman can deal a lot more damage up close.
As I said, green cover helps very little since they can sprint up to it without losing a single model.

Again, if you made it to spawn your LV with acceptable map control (and little bleed assuming you retreated before they got a chance to strike up close) then you're already well past the issue and most likely even have the upper hand now. I was very clear that this is an early EARLY game issue.


The scout car/Clown Car helps to deal with AssGrens as well, given their lack of snares. This does require that you've gone tier one of course.
7 Jan 2021, 16:13 PM
#40
avatar of proletariat

Posts: 21

I don't think they are OP. They just require a specific playstyle to deal with. They will 1v1 beat pretty much every non-smg squad early game due to their sprint, so they are excellent vs players who spread out their units a lot. However, they perform poorly vs concentrated forces as they will take casualties on the approach. Blobbing is the best tactic if you are able to dodge the MG42 that will probably also on the field.
yes, this is the conclusion I came to experientially, but I still think certain maps will give assgrens an overwhelming edge that might be unsurmountable if used right before LV's.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

SHOUT IT OUT!

No ProfanityNumber of ShoutsRefresh Shout Box
Rosbone: Hopefully we can look back and laugh in a couple years. But the Steam reviews are diving again so... :guyokay:
Yesterday, 08:03 AM
Rosbone: @donofsandiego The counts are up a little. Coh3 actually passes Coh2 for a short period now. So Coh3 is no longer shit. It has a way to go to be "good". But it is healing. :gimpy:
Yesterday, 08:01 AM
donofsandiego: :foreveralone::gimpy::mcsteve:
Yesterday, 06:28 AM
donofsandiego: Last time I was on here my good friend Rosbone told me that CoH 3 is shit because it doesn't have visible kill counts. Well, it has them now. Where are the players?
Yesterday, 06:27 AM
Rosbone: @Soheil Relic is in a hard spot. They need players for Coh3 so it hurts their Coh3 sales to make Coh2 even better than it already is. So we are all lost waiting for Coh3 to get finished to our liking.
Yesterday, 02:50 AM
Rosbone: @Sinsa-Koso You can request it. But it will never be deleted :romeoHairDay:
Yesterday, 02:48 AM
Sinsa-Koso: Hello! Can I request my account be deleted?
Yesterday, 02:28 AM
Soheil: Coh3 neither has realistic graphic nor diversity anyway , The big issue im coh2 is cheaters . Developers do not care about these map hackers or sync hackers who most of them are chinese
Last Wednesday, 21:56 PM
Rosbone: @DIRTY_FINISHER My guess is none of those people play coh3 and are mostly gone from the community :snfPeter:
Last Wednesday, 07:17 AM
DIRTY_FINISHER: Whens the “player council” going to accept some responsibility for the failure that is COH3. Considering they had influence on development and impact to in game units/mechanics :)
Last Tuesday, 15:46 PM
oakdk: Anybody know what has happende to coh3 forums on relic webpage ?
Last Monday, 11:26 AM
Willy Pete: Blasphemy. @aerafield get to work on this fool
Last Monday, 03:58 AM
Reverb: coh3 is not a good game i must say
Last Saturday, 23:34 PM
Reverb: relic should stop coh3 and do hing with coh2 again and make new maps and balance and units and make player base 10000 again
Last Saturday, 23:34 PM
aerafield: Rico will save this forum
13 Dec 2024, 16:52 PM
Rosbone: Player 8 (Rico) has entered the game.
13 Dec 2024, 11:41 AM
Osinyagov: Since it's the only coh-related source left in my list (funny and sad at the same time)
08 Dec 2024, 07:56 AM
Osinyagov: @Gbpirate I am visiting site from time to time, see some content here would be great
08 Dec 2024, 07:55 AM
Rosbone: Fatality!
08 Dec 2024, 03:13 AM
Brick Top: you only need one veto to veto coh3 :thumb:
07 Dec 2024, 22:56 PM

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

639 users are online: 639 guests
1 post in the last 24h
13 posts in the last week
28 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49963
Welcome our newest member, Broyhilerfkis
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM