So is 5 man grens completely useless now

Hate to break it too you but Stug E isn't used as much as the brumbar and Assgrens are specifically used because they are stronger. Ostruppen are used not because they offer something different but it's because the the user to do something different.
M8 and cost effectiveness is worth nothing in this game. ans Agren with more hp models and vet can't do squat against shocks and neither can a t34/76 vs a KT despite being more cost efficient.

Wtf are you even talking about?

Literally all of the points you mention completely miss the point. And even these examples are not even consistent. Osttruppen were used because they trade very well (cost efficiency), especially vs Brits and cheaply tie up a lot of enemy map presence. But they are literally a shitty version of Grenadiers when it comes to almost all stats and utility. StugE not being used is a slight balance problem, but it being doctrinal does not mean that it needs better stats than the Brummbar. THAT was the point I made. And I have no idea why you start talking about stock units with the KT and the T34/76.

Now please respond to the points I actually made instead of making up something I never said. or don't respond at all, fine by me as well.

Good. Getting a 5th man is already a defensive bonus

The received accuracy bonus for 5 man grens was a horrible idea. Especially once grenadier vet 3 started giving damage resistance

That's not my issue with the change. My issue is with how they handled the 5 man grens 1 tapping models. I agree them 1 tapping models is bad thing but that doesn't mean they should nerf their firepower whilst also taking away their defensive bonus. that's too much of a nerf without the consideration in price.

I'm not the one making wild claims here.

But anyway, here is some perspective from ML4:

That looks like a decent pick rate, but especially in a commander terminator mode it would be helpful if you could provide pick rates and stats of the highest picked commanders for Ostheer.

That looks like a decent pick rate, but especially in a commander terminator mode it would be helpful if you could provide pick rates and stats of the highest picked commanders for Ostheer.

Oh, it's not clear from the screenshot but this was the top picked commander.
I'll go get the link.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-ptwn9N11mZSocSJcL8xTQFrI8knU86DWoOL7OnCXjo/edit#gid=190092459

Im gonna do something that you do m8 this time.
"This means nothing" "Far too many factors" "bla bla"

I've always said that tournament stats are not conclusive evidence because of small sample size and many other factors, but that they are an indication. And I did not claim these stats are conclusive evidence, I said they offer perspective. That the commander was used a lot (/the most) and had a high win rate. And I hope that it should at the very least make you doubt whether the upgrade is now "completely useless".

This, together with the actual stats that I provided that show the G43 into STG44 swap was not a harsh nerf at all, should help prove that it is still a good upgrade. I haven't seen any evidence here to prove the opposite.

In any case, if the upgrade does need further adjustments I'll be very happy to do them. We'll have to wait for live testing (patch release) to see how it truly performs now, though.

Wtf are you even talking about?

Literally all of the points you mention completely miss the point. And even these examples are not even consistent. Osttruppen were used because they trade very well (cost efficiency), especially vs Brits and cheaply tie up a lot of enemy map presence. StugE not being used is a slight balance problem, but it being doctrinal does not mean that it needs better stats than the Brummbar. THAT was the point I made. And I have no idea why you start talking about stock units with the KT and the T34/76.

Now please respond to the points I actually made instead of making up something I never said. or don't respond at all, fine by me as well.

Your point what I understood was the viability of a doc option.(correct me if i'm wrong)
ok how do I rephrase this. Your right, in an Ideal world doc units don't have to be stronger than non doc ones. But viability of an unit depends on it's stats, time window, cost-efficiency and the mechanics of the game. The game has an army budget which favors more powerful over cost efficient stuff. The way the game works it pretty god damn hard to make a doc option both not stronger and viable at same time.
bout the ostruppen. Ost-truppen in the long run are not more cost efficient then grens at all. They are useble(i'm talking pre patch here) enough so wehr player can quickly out tech others(which is what they really want)
The whole KT, t34 thing it's just me trying to explain the game game is really favours super units.

I've always said that tournament stats are not conclusive evidence because of small sample size and many other factors, but that they are an indication. And I did not claim these stats are conclusive evidence, I said they offer perspective. That the commander was used a lot (/the most) and had a high win rate. And I hope that it should at the very least make you doubt whether the upgrade is now "completely useless".

M8 did you even read the whole what i wrote. I spherically asked you to not reply in this manner. Like there could be so many factors m8. Like at the finals seeking neglected healing and paid the price for it. Does that mean 5 man grens are as bad as in that game??? stats like that say nothing. How do I know know that 67% win rate isn't purely the result of allied player making mistake or some mega final armor push by the axis player which has nothing to do with the doc or the ability.

M8 did you even read the whole what i wrote. I spherically asked you to not reply in this manner. Like there could be so many factors m8. Like at the finals seeking neglected healing and paid the price for it. Does that mean 5 man grens are as bad as in that game??? stats like that say nothing. How do I know know that 67% win rate isn't purely the result of allied player making mistake or some mega final armor push by the axis player which has nothing to do with the doc or the ability.

By what measure are you saying that VSL is bad, exactly?

Lumping the 5th model in with grens cost while leaving out the mp and fuel cost to unlock nades and upgrades for rifles doesnt show a complete and honest picture.

Vsl grens shoudnt be on par with fully kitted rifles or sections, ost regardless still has acces to their entire stock arsanal witch dont struggle vs allied inf mostly, its just grens that do with 4 men and vsl remedies that.

Now how do I explain this, the cost most of side tech in the game is really arbitrary at this. The original purpose of these side techs were to force you the player to decide to I sacrifice teching up for making my already existing army stronger. That cost is of very little significance in that regard, it's actually a minor micro inconvenience at this point actually. And how would you evaluate that actually. Divide by the number of units you make what happens if you make more/less units. Then what kind of price are you willing to put on doctrinal exclusivity which locks you out of options that these side techs no not. It's not me being disingenuous it's me failing to account for many factor that has no way of being accounted for. Like rally what if you make 7 rifles in a game(make em replace em what ever) that cost of racks is nothing compared to giving up JU87's, Spotting scopes, Ninja panzers, Tiger and a lot of other things. If you can come up with a better metric for accounting for all of this i'd like to hear it.

The way the game works it pretty god damn hard to make a doc option both not stronger and viable at same time.

Pathfinders, M-42, 250, SVTs, M1919, volk Mp40 just to name a few.
There is crapload of units that are not stronger, but viable.
That list does include now VSL and stug-e is on it for some time now, completely overshadowed by current meta of T1 skip into fast P4.

The whole KT, t34 thing it's just me trying to explain the game game is really favours super units

The part where heavy meta is cold dead makes you wrong by default here.

There are only 3 "super units" still used and both are team games exclusives, its super heavy casemates of both sides.

Your point what I understood was the viability of a doc option.(correct me if i'm wrong)
ok how do I rephrase this. Your right, in an Ideal world doc units don't have to be stronger than non doc ones. But viability of an unit depends on it's stats, time window, cost-efficiency and the mechanics of the game. The game has an army budget which favors more powerful over cost efficient stuff. The way the game works it pretty god damn hard to make a doc option both not stronger and viable at same time.
bout the ostruppen. Ost-truppen in the long run are not more cost efficient then grens at all. They are useble(i'm talking pre patch here) enough so wehr player can quickly out tech others(which is what they really want)
The whole KT, t34 thing it's just me trying to explain the game game is really favours super units.

To be honest I think you are wrong on the part that this game favours strong units.
Osttruppen are very cost efficient until the mid game. So are Conscripts, but they keep their efficiency all game and even get more efficient in the late game. Coincidentally, they have been meta for more than one year. Soviet players regularly rebuild Cons in the late game even though they often have access to elite infantry. Ostheer T3 spam is a very viable strat. According to your theory, this game forces Ostheer players to build T4 units because they are stronger, but in fact it does not. The KT is barely build and even a gamble in team games. In general, all heavies have fallen quite out of favor since they got nerfed. Still they are all better than all generalist mediums. So why are they so rarely build? Even the KT that is accessible in every OKW game? Then there is the M42 that is a shitty ATG. But for its time frame it is more cost efficient than a large ZiS, so it got a niche. Even the Soviet 120mm mortar, while not being a straight upgrade in all regards, is rarely bought because of how expensive it is for what it does. Players tend to go with the normal version instead.

These are cheap units that offer at least short term, but often also long term better bang for the buck. If I need a slight buff to my AI capabilities, I might not need an expensive Brummbar, an Ostwind can just do fine.

These stats mean the doctrine does just fine at competitive level despite you and mrgame2 losing your shit all over the place.

ok, How do you know from these stats and nothing else that 67% these victories are not a result of bad play by the opponent, a decisive armor engagement, a key cluster bomb, some last ditch minute "assault and hold" quick decap of VP's for the win a lot of factors completely and utterly divorced from 5-man grens usefulness??
Yeah from these stats alone and nothing else.

ok, How do you know from these stats and nothing else that 67% these victories are not a result of bad play by the opponent, a decisive armor engagement, a key cluster bomb, some last ditch minute "assault and hold" quick decap of VP's for the win a lot of factors completely and utterly divorced from 5-man grens usefulness??
Yeah from these stats alone and nothing else.

You can't.
But VSL is the heart of this doctrine, it is almost the only reason to pick it at all. It getting picked so often is a big hint that top players see merit in the commander and therefore most likely VSL.

And since you apparently really want to go down that level:
How can YOU prove that your impression of new VSL being a shitty upgrade does not stem from bad play, a lost decisive armor engagement etc etc BUT instead can actually be attributed to the difference in power level of the old and the new VSL? How can you prove that you would not have lost these matches anyway in a similar fashion?

So what is your basis of saying the new VSL upgrade were completely useless?

To be honest I think you are wrong on the part that this game favours strong units.
Osttruppen are very cost efficient until the mid game. So are Conscripts, but they keep their efficiency all game and even get more efficient in the late game. Coincidentally, they have been meta for more than one year. Soviet players regularly rebuild Cons in the late game even though they often have access to elite infantry. Ostheer T3 spam is a very viable strat. According to your theory, this game forces Ostheer players to build T4 units because they are stronger, but in fact it does not. The KT is barely build and even a gamble in team games. In general, all heavies have fallen quite out of favor since they got nerfed. Still they are all better than all generalist mediums. So why are they so rarely build? Even the KT that is accessible in every OKW game? Then there is the M42 that is a shitty ATG. But for its time frame it is more cost efficient than a large ZiS, so it got a niche. Even the Soviet 120mm mortar, while not being a straight upgrade in all regards, is rarely bought because of how expensive it is for what it does. Players tend to go with the normal version instead.

These are cheap units that offer at least short term, but often also long term better bang for the buck. If I need a slight buff to my AI capabilities, I might not need an expensive Brummbar, an Ostwind can just do fine.

I agree with you in all of this. But here is the thing will you say it's hard to make a non doc option viable when it's non doc version is "not weaker". P.S. don't put too much mind on the KT and t34 thing, it was(well supposed to be) an analogy on if i have to pick x among x, y, z to do A i might as well pick the strongest.

And I'll counter 1 thing, T3 ins't used because it's more cost efficient, you'd simply loose due to not having any options before you get that far(t4).

You can't.
But VSL is the heart of this doctrine, it is almost the only reason to pick it at all. It getting picked so often is a big hint that top players see merit in the commander and therefore most likely VSL.

And since you apparently really want to go down that level:
How can YOU prove that your impression of new VSL being a shitty upgrade does not stem from bad play, a lost decisive armor engagement etc etc BUT instead can actually be attributed to the difference in power level of the old and the new VSL? How can you prove that you would not have lost these matches anyway in a similar fashion?

So what is your basis of saying the new VSL upgrade were completely useless?

It's not like lost matches it's more like why bother this over lmgs. As you said This is like the biggest reason to go this doc. not your not getting any better performance for more mp(30 extra and 28 after t4), later timing, extra popcap(remember that pretty important too).

I agree with you in all of this. But here is the thing will you say it's hard to make a non doc option viable when it's non doc version is "not weaker".

Not sure if I get this right. Do you wanted to say it is hard to make a doctrinal ability viable when the stock option is already similarly good?

Well yes, that is the point. You could just go with the standard build. But if you want to pull off a certain strat, surprise your opponent etc, these commander abilities might be more useful than the stock options that you have.
In my eyes this is a way better option than making it OP by design and trying to fix the hurricane of problems that will spawn from it.

And we have a lot of working examples. Panzerfusiliers and Volks is probably the best one, but others and I have given plenty of more already.

P.S. don't put too much mind on the KT and t34 thing, it was(well supposed to be) an analogy on if i have to pick x among x, y, z to do A i might as well pick the strongest.

And I'll counter 1 thing, T3 ins't used because it's more cost efficient, you'd simply loose due to not having any options before you get that far(t4).

The exact units don't matter. Fact is - as I already mentioned - NONE of the generalist heavies are used much anymore. So why, if this game promotes "strong" units over cost efficient ones as much as you say, are they not built? Why do all of these other examples that I gave you exist?

And regarding your T3: I was talking about T3 spam. Yes, you can play 1 P4 into T4. It is also viable though to play a 45 min game in T3 only and spam P4s all game long. This should not exist as well if they were so cost inefficient. Also the StuG should not exist because Ostheer already has a heavy TD. Still the StuG is a very good option because it is simply more cost efficient vs mediums.

May I ask though which games modes you play?
It just came to my mind that this might be a reason. If you play primarily 3v3+, heavier units are naturally favoured because of higher resource income (reduced opportunity cost for skipping weaker units, putting on early pressure is less rewarded in general) and higher abundance of AT. It is quite frequent to eat 3 shots in the late game as alpha damage. Weak units can't sustain that, while e.g. a Comet and Panther can make it out alive more often and therefore burn less resources overall.
Smaller modes do not have this issue as much, so lighter units are more viable. if you play mostly 3v3+, then this might obviously bias the opinion (just as much as playing only 1v1 does etc).

However the game is mostly balanced towards 1v1 and 2v2, since units are way more predictable in these environments.

Pathfinders, M-42, 250, SVTs, M1919, volk Mp40 just to name a few.
There is crapload of units that are not stronger, but viable.
That list does include now VSL and stug-e is on it for some time now, completely overshadowed by current meta of T1 skip into fast P4.


The part where heavy meta is cold dead makes you wrong by default here.

There are only 3 "super units" still used and both are team games exclusives, its super heavy casemates of both sides.

so, beat oppositions mainline(compared to grens of course) from all ranges compared to just mid and close up is not stronger
I wonder how that works late game
I wonder in how many game you see that
Was this thing nerfed by any chance recently
So I guess nade + ambo + cqc abilities not not stronger
m8 i don't think stugE will be viable unless they do it coh1 Blitzkrieg doctrine style(it's a fucking joke ok).
Forget about the stroy of the KT and t34 it was supposed to mean something else but came out wrong.

Not sure if I get this right. Do you wanted to say it is hard to make a doctrinal ability viable when the stock option is already similarly good?

Well yes, that is the point. You could just go with the standard build. But if you want to pull off a certain strat, surprise your opponent etc, these commander abilities might be more useful than the stock options that you have.
In my eyes this is a way better option than making it OP by design and trying to fix the hurricane of problems that will spawn from it.

And we have a lot of working examples. Panzerfusiliers and Volks is probably the best one, but others and I have given plenty of more already.


The exact units don't matter. Fact is - as I already mentioned - NONE of the generalist heavies are used much anymore. So why, if this game promotes "strong" units over cost efficient ones as much as you say, are they not built? Why do all of these other examples that I gave you exist?

And regarding your T3: I was talking about T3 spam. Yes, you can play 1 P4 into T4. It is also viable though to play a 45 min game in T3 only and spam P4s all game long. This should not exist as well if they were so cost inefficient. Also the StuG should not exist because Ostheer already has a heavy TD. Still the StuG is a very good option because it is simply more cost efficient vs mediums.

May I ask though which games modes you play?
It just came to my mind that this might be a reason. If you play primarily 3v3+, heavier units are naturally favoured because of higher resource income (reduced opportunity cost for skipping weaker units, putting on early pressure is less rewarded in general) and higher abundance of AT. It is quite frequent to eat 3 shots in the late game as alpha damage. Weak units can't sustain that, while e.g. a Comet and Panther can make it out alive more often and therefore burn less resources overall.
Smaller modes do not have this issue as much, so lighter units are more viable. if you play mostly 3v3+, then this might obviously bias the opinion (just as much as playing only 1v1 does etc).

However the game is mostly balanced towards 1v1 and 2v2, since units are way more predictable in these environments.

Like I said, don't think bout the KT t34 thing. It sounded really cool in head but it came out wrong and that just confused everyone to thinking about Heavies. Just forget I said that. Think about if you have a t34/85 or P4j how likely are you to make said standard t34's or P4's(i mean for this it's obvious when no money for the former very specific sitch).
I play moslty 2v2's(cause I play with friend most of the time) and the occasional 1v1's other wise(I know the meta is very different in those 2 modes)

Oh, it's not clear from the screenshot but this was the top picked commander.
I'll go get the link.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-ptwn9N11mZSocSJcL8xTQFrI8knU86DWoOL7OnCXjo/edit#gid=190092459



I've always said that tournament stats are not conclusive evidence because of small sample size and many other factors, but that they are an indication. And I did not claim these stats are conclusive evidence, I said they offer perspective. That the commander was used a lot (/the most) and had a high win rate. And I hope that it should at the very least make you doubt whether the upgrade is now "completely useless".

This, together with the actual stats that I provided that show the G43 into STG44 swap was not a harsh nerf at all, should help prove that it is still a good upgrade. I haven't seen any evidence here to prove the opposite.

In any case, if the upgrade does need further adjustments I'll be very happy to do them. We'll have to wait for live testing (patch release) to see how it truly performs now, though.

leaving aside the fact that osther is crutching on that commander and and still losing easily Vs sov and USF in the same tournament

The missing NERF is to the move dps, g43 loses 8% DPS on the move the stg loses 50%

Idk if it's heavy or not , just compare a rifle bar DPS Vs 5 green DPS until is balanced

No need for another mobile defence

Getting more squad models makes a bigger difference than it sounds. On top of all the obvious raw bonuses, the more models in a squad means the more damage is typically spread out to the squad before a model is dropped and thus dropping DPS.

Getting more squad models makes a bigger difference than it sounds. On top of all the obvious raw bonuses, the more models in a squad means the more damage is typically spread out to the squad before a model is dropped and thus dropping DPS.

It's also more efficient popcap wise.