So is 5 man grens completely useless now

Guards,urban defence and mechanized company have clearly higher wr-all. Time to look at the call in infantry for these doctrines too?

Then pick these instead when you play ost.

Even wehrboo own mechanized assault did way better

And it still doesn't mean infantry doc did bad.

I did not understand your point. My point was that not only are Section stronger in terms of combat they also have weaker stuff to fight against. That's why the 5th man upgrade makes them act like terminators.
VSL should not be forcing elite Allied infantry to high tail it outta their. But they should be smashing all the single upgraded mainlines, single bar rifle, single bren sections/ 5 man sections as they cost more or same and are doctrinal.
But yeah i didn't really get your point.

VSL-grenadiers deserve to be stronger than vanilla mainline or single upgrade mainlines, true, but they don't have to beat Commando's. Which i thought was what your previous post meant.

Well I took a bigger sample size by all. That seems vsl commander is not dominating unlike the other 3 allies commanders mentioned

Still yours show sov edging games won 41v43, 60v78?

No matter where you look at, OH did more than fine during the tournament.

Against Soviets, they won more games.
In the global stats, they had a perfectly balanced 50% WR.
When the skill gap between players was small, the numbers show that the factions are balanced, specially when you consider that a 5% difference is normal.

The number between brackets represent the numbers of games.


Also don't take commanders WR so much at face value. It's way more important pick rate for that case. For example take a look at soviets most popular pick with Defensive tactics sitting at 33% (18) (ALL). Is the commander bad for 1v1? No, but it's probable picked when the player is already in a losing position and they need the emergency AT from the 45mm.

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)

Yes, and I already defocused from your KT example and used heavies as an example that your claim (strong units are favored over cost efficient ones) is not true.
The T34/85 is better yes, but it is still exceptionally cost efficient, mostly because it is quite hard to lose with its increased health. P4J? Maybe.
Two years ago (heck or is it even 3?) we had SU76 spam metas, where you'd just get 3+ of these and bombard Axis out of any position while dealing with their armor at the same time. Players chose that strat although the SU85 was readily available at the time, because they would get both AI and AT of a cheap unit instead of investing into an expensive combination of SU85 and Katyusha.

But let me get one thing straight:
I am not saying that straight upgrades via doctrines did not exist, they definitely do. What I am saying is that it is perfectly possible to offer doctrinal abilities/units as alternatives instead of upgrades and those are absolutely viable.
And design wise this is the superior choice. Otherwise the game boils down to who exploits his doctrinal unit first, not who exploits his whole army the best. Non-doc strats became unviable as well. If core armies are not able to deal with everything (even doctrinal units) that are being thrown at them, we run into an endless loop of patching the weaknesses or overbuffing their stock units as compensation as we can see with Brits for the last years.
The game can work with doctrinal units being straight up OP, yes, but it is easier and smarter design/balance wise to add doctrinal abilities as strategic alternatives.

A serious dose of copium is needed for some people here...

Yes but the 'infantry' portion already nerfed to hell in v5 patch.

A compensation will be a heavy tank seems to synergize better with the new volksGrens

Nah i'm just gonna hope sanders comes to his senses or get sense beaten into him by pro and balances this ting right. A Tiger with out ninja smoke is no gonna be fun in a 1v1

Vls is not the only "infantry portion" of the Commander. Stomptrooper is an infantry unit, you have the HT which support the infantry and then the frag bomb - an anti infantry off map, the theme is there mor than ever.

I'm gonna say something that might shock you "Stromies are just Partisans that work".

Reinforce cost is arbitrary as well. Its mostly 90 or 120 mp depending on the squad numbers. Thats under a minute in mp recources, you are not even gonna notice it. Not even taking into account reinforce cost reduction later on, free healing on the squads.
To do it for one and not the other is misleading and dishonest.

You know what talk to the pro on what they think is arbitrary reinforcement cost or side tech. Go ahead I'm not willing to spend the energy trying to explain it to you. It's very evident you haven't played coh1 tin order to understand what the point of side tech used to be.

And how does choosing a (infantry) doctrine that does not have ju87 tigers etc mandate vsl being op? Wich have nothing and i mean absolutly nothing to do with vsl. You are stretching things to far to make vsl and its doctrine seem up.

I think we are on different pages here.
I don't want VLS to be OP. I want them to be balanced right.
You did not understand my point. I can not account the cost of side tech on individual units. Because what is that supposed to mean.
The VLS upgrade is doc specific. How are you going to account for the price(the cost of which is loosing out on stuff) of that for individual squads.
And make a comparison with side tech and doctrine choice.
Like as I said can you find a good way to account for all of this. If you can, give a rundown i'd like to(more like more than willing to) hear that.

I guess you skipped the part where OH won barely more games against Soviets, the most picked faction?

OH basically lost more games against USF and did extremely well against UKF.

Guess what happens when you take a look at games were they are more even skill wise:

When the difference is lower than 8

OH: 58.5% (41)
OKW: 50% (26)
SOV: 44.2% (43)
USF: 52.6% (19)
UKF: 20% (5)

Seed difference ≤16

51.7% (60)
45.3% (53)
53.8% (78)
53.8% (26)
22.2% (9)


Let me say this:

-Reminder this is a terminator format. This favours EFA who have a wider pool of simil commanders to pick from.
-Anything in the realm of around ±5% is BALANCED. It's only worth looking at heavy outliers values (see UKF, although the faction itself has always had problems outside of balance)
-Commander popularity tells a better story.

Also EFA's are more complete so stages where people don't wanna lock in doctrines also favours sovs and wehr more.

Imo there is little reason for VSl to be an upgrade it could simply become a separate doctrinal unit.

Imo there is little reason for VSl to be an upgrade it could simply become a separate doctrinal unit.

The reason is: the slot affects 3 different units.

But sure, we could remove 250 and storms from the doctrine and put 5 man grens, 5 man pios and PGs with repair in these slots instead.

The reason is: the slot affects 3 different units.

But sure, we could remove 250 and storms from the doctrine and put 5 man grens, 5 man pios and PGs with repair in these slots instead.

I mean it's not like do abilities are bound do 1 thing.

The reason is: the slot affects 3 different units.

But sure, we could remove 250 and storms from the doctrine and put 5 man grens, 5 man pios and PGs with repair in these slots instead.

That is entirely immaterial. If you wanted to put a new unit in the doctrine you aren't forced to remove something else.

The croc is the Churchill with flamethrower, but that was just an example of how silly the ideas of putting tiger in vls doc can be.

it is not exactly silly when allies have similar doctrine.

worst offender is shocks + kv8 + is2
2nd worst is rangers + pershing

it is not exactly silly when allies have similar doctrine.

worst offender is shocks + kv8 + is2
2nd worst is rangers + pershing

2-3 cp elite is not quite similar to 0cp assault infantry call. At least shock/ranger/mandos need time to build up rather than snowballing right from the stat while not having to worry about late game.

if you think ass gren into tiger is ok then ass section into croc/pershing should be the same or you better just admit your bias

2-3 cp elite is not quite similar to 0cp assault infantry call. At least shock/ranger/mandos need time to build up rather than snowballing right from the stat while not having to worry about late game.

if you think ass gren into tiger is ok then ass section into croc/pershing should be the same or you better just admit your bias

what does this have to do with 5 man grens???

You know what talk to the pro on what they think is arbitrary reinforcement cost or side tech. Go ahead I'm not willing to spend the energy trying to explain it to you. It's very evident you haven't played coh1 tin order to understand what the point of side tech used to be.


I think we are on different pages here.
I don't want VLS to be OP. I want them to be balanced right.
You did not understand my point. I can not account the cost of side tech on individual units. Because what is that supposed to mean.
The VLS upgrade is doc specific. How are you going to account for the price(the cost of which is loosing out on stuff) of that for individual squads.
And make a comparison with side tech and doctrine choice.
Like as I said can you find a good way to account for all of this. If you can, give a rundown i'd like to(more like more than willing to) hear that.

What ever man, just show complete pictures and not selectivly add costs and leave out others.

Other doctrinal upgrades look out stock options as well. Vsl is not unique in this regard. Cons for example have 7th man look svt and ppsh and vice versa. Vsl locks out lmg42 nothing else. Not the tigers not ninja smoke or ju87 etc those are in other doctrines and have no bearing on the cost or effectiveness of vsl in the slightest.

The question is what shoukd vsl in the inf doctrine bring to the table, durability and field presence should be the focus imo, not becoming about 5 man obers.

2-3 cp elite is not quite similar to 0cp assault infantry call. At least shock/ranger/mandos need time to build up rather than snowballing right from the stat while not having to worry about late game.

if you think ass gren into tiger is ok then ass section into croc/pershing should be the same or you better just admit your bias

There is no bias, only fair suggestion of changing out the HT for a tiger in infantry company. The nerfs to vsl is too harsh, and we need a late game compensation.

Tigers ain't even op now, but at least with weakened vsl, losing the mid game, a choice of tiger helps to stem late game kvs, is2, isu, croc and pershing

what does this have to do with 5 man grens???

I guess 5 man vsl can't build sandbag while rifles can with rangers and pershing in support v