So is 5 man grens completely useless now

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

That :"vsl can have a tiger later on because there are doc with shock and is2" is not a good argument

That :"vsl can have a tiger later on because there are doc with shock and is2" is not a good argument

why are you telling me this.

So grens even with an upgrade and doctrine upgrade will not even have a chance against allied mainline infantry. What a joke. Who is balancing these patches? WHY is wehrmacht getting nerfs pretty much since the game launched? Has grenadiers ever got a single buff ever? Hello? Why are they even 4 man to begin with? Grenadiers where "elite" when the game launched but power creep into allied factions have made them barely average at this point so there is ZERO reason for them to be 4 man.

4 man squads just brings more randomness into the game since you can lose 4 man squads to indirect fire so easily.

So grens even with an upgrade and doctrine upgrade will not even have a chance against allied mainline infantry. What a joke. Who is balancing these patches? WHY is wehrmacht getting nerfs pretty much since the game launched? Has grenadiers ever got a single buff ever? Hello? Why are they even 4 man to begin with? Grenadiers where "elite" when the game launched but power creep into allied factions have made them barely average at this point so there is ZERO reason for them to be 4 man.

4 man squads just brings more randomness into the game since you can lose 4 man squads to indirect fire so easily.

Well I agree with the reason behind the change but not so cool with how they decided to change it.

Reason: Grens have 16 damage per model(4 kars and 1 g43). Meaning on approach when single models stays more front all 5 of the gren model targets and fires at it and immediately kill it(high acc of guns + g43 has very fire rate on top of being even more accurate) this resulted in elite cqc infantry(who are also doctrinal and are more expensive) being sniped to death on approach. This is exactly what made pre-nerf 5 man sections OP as hell.

I think the balance team shouldn't buff/nerf units so hard (in general). Sometimes bonusses go from 0 -> 40% and sometimes from 40 -> 0%. imo a buff or nerf should only be around 10%.

Smaller adjustments do require more patches (like every month or so), which is unthinkable at this stage. Really wish they'd anounce CoH3 somewhere this year.

The Balance team is too extreme with buffs and nerfs.

Well I agree with the reason behind the change but not so cool with how they decided to change it.

Reason: Grens have 16 damage per model(4 kars and 1 g43). Meaning on approach when single models stays more front all 5 of the gren model targets and fires at it and immediately kill it(high acc of guns + g43 has very fire rate on top of being even more accurate) this resulted in elite cqc infantry(who are also doctrinal and are more expensive) being sniped to death on approach. This is exactly what made pre-nerf 5 man sections OP as hell.

I also agree with the reason behind the change but not with how they decide to change it.

In COH 1, The system they had in place was a bit complex but it worked. Essentially all Infantry was placed into certain armor classes. There was I believe 6 Armor classes (Been a number of years since I played COH1)but essentially you had Infantry, Soldier, Elite, Heroic, Airborne and Sniper armor types. Essentially this allowed a system where certain units where strong/weak vs other units based on what type of armor that they have.

For example a Mortar could do say 100% damage to regular infantry while against Team Weapons (the things its supposed to counter) it would do extra damage.

At this point in the game it would be too late to add a system like this into COH 2 but what we can learn from this system is that you can/should tweak units based on unit matchup rather than apply broad buffs/nerfs that have unintended consequences that create further balance issues down the line.

Here is how a typical COH2 balance issue plays out as an example:
-OKW Volksgrenadiers struggle vs Maxim Spam.
-Community Agrees Maxim Spam is a problem
-LEIG gets buffed to deal with Maxims while Maxims get nerfed at the same time
-Maxims become useless and cannot fulfill its role, then LEIG turns into ranged sniper with suppression and gets spammed where it rains death and no single infantry squad could survive if they stopped moving for 0.5 seconds.

So rather than create a situation like that, looking at COH 1 system, it would be easier to simply just add a modifier to LEIG. Say a random number like 20%. So LEIG does 20% more damage vs Maxim, it gets tested and seems to work well/adjusted to the proper number. Now OKW can deal with Maxim Spam without a nerf to maxims and without making LEIG into ranged terminators.



Anyway back to Grenadiers. Grenadiers usually fair well vs Soviets. It is USF/British that they struggle with. Rather than come out with crazy upgrades like the 5 Man Grenadier and then nerfing it into the ground when the Units are able to take out more expensive call in units, it would have made more sense and be better overall if Grenadiers instead got say 15% (any suitable number) damage buff or damage resistance buff vs just Rifleman/Infantry Section and adjust the number so that each squad is fairly even in terms of performance/cost.

By creating a band-aid upgrade (5 man grenadiers) to help solve a problem, they ended up creating more problems when higher end units and even Machine Guns get death looped when charged in the front.

I also agree with the reason behind the change but not with how they decide to change it.

In COH 1, The system they had in place was a bit complex but it worked. Essentially all Infantry was placed into certain armor classes. There was I believe 6 Armor classes (Been a number of years since I played COH1)but essentially you had Infantry, Soldier, Elite, Heroic, Airborne and Sniper armor types. Essentially this allowed a system where certain units where strong/weak vs other units based on what type of armor that they have.

For example a Mortar could do say 100% damage to regular infantry while against Team Weapons (the things its supposed to counter) it would do extra damage.

At this point in the game it would be too late to add a system like this into COH 2 but what we can learn from this system is that you can/should tweak units based on unit matchup rather than apply broad buffs/nerfs that have unintended consequences that create further balance issues down the line.

Here is how a typical COH2 balance issue plays out as an example:
-OKW Volksgrenadiers struggle vs Maxim Spam.
-Community Agrees Maxim Spam is a problem
-LEIG gets buffed to deal with Maxims while Maxims get nerfed at the same time
-Maxims become useless and cannot fulfill its role, then LEIG turns into ranged sniper with suppression and gets spammed where it rains death and no single infantry squad could survive if they stopped moving for 0.5 seconds.

So rather than create a situation like that, looking at COH 1 system, it would be easier to simply just add a modifier to LEIG. Say a random number like 20%. So LEIG does 20% more damage vs Maxim, it gets tested and seems to work well/adjusted to the proper number. Now OKW can deal with Maxim Spam without a nerf to maxims and without making LEIG into ranged terminators.



Anyway back to Grenadiers. Grenadiers usually fair well vs Soviets. It is USF/British that they struggle with. Rather than come out with crazy upgrades like the 5 Man Grenadier and then nerfing it into the ground when the Units are able to take out more expensive call in units, it would have made more sense and be better overall if Grenadiers instead got say 15% (any suitable number) damage buff or damage resistance buff vs just Rifleman/Infantry Section and adjust the number so that each squad is fairly even in terms of performance/cost.

By creating a band-aid upgrade (5 man grenadiers) to help solve a problem, they ended up creating more problems when higher end units and even Machine Guns get death looped when charged in the front.

I believe it's possible to give units bonuses against particular other units, I believe various scout cars have bonus accuracy vs snipers, for example.

The issue is that using this system a lot leads to some issues with people understanding what's happening. There isnt feedback that states "X unit does bonus damage to Y unit", for example, and this inconsistency causes some issues.

So grens even with an upgrade and doctrine upgrade will not even have a chance against allied mainline infantry. What a joke. Who is balancing these patches? WHY is wehrmacht getting nerfs pretty much since the game launched? Has grenadiers ever got a single buff ever? Hello? Why are they even 4 man to begin with? Grenadiers where "elite" when the game launched but power creep into allied factions have made them barely average at this point so there is ZERO reason for them to be 4 man.

4 man squads just brings more randomness into the game since you can lose 4 man squads to indirect fire so easily.

Because there is still a massive cost disparity between rifles/tommies post upgrades and grens regardless of which gren upgrade you pick?
If anything, it would be massive imbalance if grens COULD beat them when they are fully upgraded.

why are you telling me this.

isnt you the one asking ? #96

I believe it's possible to give units bonuses against particular other units, I believe various scout cars have bonus accuracy vs snipers, for example.

The issue is that using this system a lot leads to some issues with people understanding what's happening. There isnt feedback that states "X unit does bonus damage to Y unit", for example, and this inconsistency causes some issues.

It is indeed possible to give units bonuses against particular units. The UKF AT Gun for example used to have bonus accuracy against Light Vehicles.

Also the game in general fails to relay information to the player across the board. The game does not tell you that all infantry models in the game have 80HP for example or that certain units have different amounts of received accuracy or how much damage/penetration certain things do. Usually the UI is very Generic and has vague terms. The game UI failing to present basic valid information is no excuse not to balance things in a sane and proper way as an alternative to the wild balance swings that the balance team does. In the case of 5 man Grenadiers for example was it every explained to the player how much of a DPS increase the ability provides or any other benefits?

Game UI Inconsistency there is not much we could do short of a full UI rework with options for Detailed Tooltips/Descriptions. What we can fix hopefully for this future patches and games are these wild buff/nerf cycles.

...

The problem with target tables is that it took way more time and it was a mess to balance properly as well. Here you have a problem between design vs implementation. Yeah it would be better if you could tune specific match ups that easily.

In your example, the LeIG would be balanced against the maxim but would be OP against .50 or Vickers.

Which is why target tables are only applied in a broad sense in really specific units.

The problem with target tables is that it took way more time and it was a mess to balance properly as well. Here you have a problem between design vs implementation. Yeah it would be better if you could tune specific match ups that easily.

In your example, the LeIG would be balanced against the maxim but would be OP against .50 or Vickers.

Which is why target tables are only applied in a broad sense in really specific units.

also it would take a lot of time to manually set values of each field for each target if by chance a new unit was added or something. The current system while less nuanced and flexible but is more straight forward.

So grens even with an upgrade and doctrine upgrade will not even have a chance against allied mainline infantry. What a joke. Who is balancing these patches? WHY is wehrmacht getting nerfs pretty much since the game launched? Has grenadiers ever got a single buff ever? Hello? Why are they even 4 man to begin with? Grenadiers where "elite" when the game launched but power creep into allied factions have made them barely average at this point so there is ZERO reason for them to be 4 man.

4 man squads just brings more randomness into the game since you can lose 4 man squads to indirect fire so easily.

Just give 5 man gren core tech ability. Why the hell russians have 7 man conscript as non-commander ability. This doesn't need to be the VSL upgrade, just make grens have 5 models with teching.

Just give 5 man gren core tech ability. Why the hell russians have 7 man conscript as non-commander ability. This doesn't need to be the VSL upgrade, just make grens have 5 models with teching.

7 man cons = no weapon slot, or weapon upgrade.
And why the hell russians dont have non doc T34/85? Every side simply dont have all.

I also agree with the reason behind the change but not with how they decide to change it.

In COH 1, The system they had in place was a bit complex but it worked. Essentially all Infantry was placed into certain armor classes. There was I believe 6 Armor classes (Been a number of years since I played COH1)but essentially you had Infantry, Soldier, Elite, Heroic, Airborne and Sniper armor types. Essentially this allowed a system where certain units where strong/weak vs other units based on what type of armor that they have.

For example a Mortar could do say 100% damage to regular infantry while against Team Weapons (the things its supposed to counter) it would do extra damage.

At this point in the game it would be too late to add a system like this into COH 2 but what we can learn from this system is that you can/should tweak units based on unit matchup rather than apply broad buffs/nerfs that have unintended consequences that create further balance issues down the line.

Here is how a typical COH2 balance issue plays out as an example:
-OKW Volksgrenadiers struggle vs Maxim Spam.
-Community Agrees Maxim Spam is a problem
-LEIG gets buffed to deal with Maxims while Maxims get nerfed at the same time
-Maxims become useless and cannot fulfill its role, then LEIG turns into ranged sniper with suppression and gets spammed where it rains death and no single infantry squad could survive if they stopped moving for 0.5 seconds.

So rather than create a situation like that, looking at COH 1 system, it would be easier to simply just add a modifier to LEIG. Say a random number like 20%. So LEIG does 20% more damage vs Maxim, it gets tested and seems to work well/adjusted to the proper number. Now OKW can deal with Maxim Spam without a nerf to maxims and without making LEIG into ranged terminators.



Anyway back to Grenadiers. Grenadiers usually fair well vs Soviets. It is USF/British that they struggle with. Rather than come out with crazy upgrades like the 5 Man Grenadier and then nerfing it into the ground when the Units are able to take out more expensive call in units, it would have made more sense and be better overall if Grenadiers instead got say 15% (any suitable number) damage buff or damage resistance buff vs just Rifleman/Infantry Section and adjust the number so that each squad is fairly even in terms of performance/cost.

By creating a band-aid upgrade (5 man grenadiers) to help solve a problem, they ended up creating more problems when higher end units and even Machine Guns get death looped when charged in the front.

Relic intentionally swore off Target Tables after CoH1 because while they did work, they were extremely messy, and the variables you had to remember to play efficiently got to be crazy. You had all sorts of weird shit like British being more flammable than Americans/Germans and Panzer Grenadiers are weak to Combat Engineers even though Combat Engineers are awful against all other frontline units and Panzer Grenadiers can fend off Riflemen. It's okay to have an exception to the rule every now and then, but CoH1 had as many exceptions as it did rules.

Relic intentionally swore off Target Tables after CoH1 because while they did work, they were extremely messy, and the variables you had to remember to play efficiently got to be crazy. You had all sorts of weird shit like British being more flammable than Americans/Germans and Panzer Grenadiers are weak to Combat Engineers even though Combat Engineers are awful against all other frontline units and Panzer Grenadiers can fend off Riflemen. It's okay to have an exception to the rule every now and then, but CoH1 had as many exceptions as it did rules.

Yes you can tell how much relic choose to 'dumb' down coh2 from coh1. Removing variables and simplifying too much.

Yes you can tell how much relic choose to 'dumb' down coh2 from coh1. Removing variables and simplifying too much.

Or, now listen to me carefully, it was a fucking MESS to balance 871 infantry armor types against 500 different damage types while every single infantry unit had a completely different amount of health on top of that.

CoH1 was balance mess and a nightmare.
This is why CoH1 is horribly imbalanced up until this day and was never anywhere near being balanced.
Sure, it was in better state then CoH2 during its first 2 years, but after that it and its messy balance were left so far behind, some people struggle to remember how much of a nightmare it was.

There was no RTS game in existence prior or post CoH1 which had as many different types of damage and armor and it was impossible to wrap your head around getting to know what does what.

I can't help you if your deciding to be an idiot.

If only you had some ability to self reflect you would see who is the idiot.

Bringing in about everything other doctrines have to offer despite ost being a faction with a complete and solid stock roster to try to see if vsl is good enough and resorting to insults is not helping you.

With the g43 vsl they became to strong as you agree with. The stg vsl is not so extremely worse that vsl grens become usseles. You just get as tanky vsl gren squad with a bit lower long range dps then before but a bit more focus to close up and mid.
With vsl they should be on par with single upgrade allied inf not outright beat them and be on par with double upgraded inf. Imo with the stg vsl this is mostly achieved.

Show Spoiler]

IMO grenadier being weaker than riflemen isn't a vacuum unit vs unit balance issue but a factional design issue that no damage table could solve.

The problem with 5men grenadiers design is at faction level, it is because you suddenly got a mainline infantry as strong/stronger than other mainline infantry with all the remaining beneficial design around it: better support weapon, better field presence, better medium tank and access to stock premium tanks.

I personally always felt that implementing 5men gren is an error because you can't buff grenadiers without nerfing half of the rest of Ostheer roster to balance the faction or you end up with a grenadier squad that's not really buffed like you imagine it deserves it to compete with other mainline infantryies.

Show Spoiler

]

IMO grenadier being weaker than riflemen isn't a vacuum unit vs unit balance issue but a factional design issue that no damage table could solve.

The problem with 5men grenadiers design is at faction level, it is because you suddenly got a mainline infantry as strong/stronger than other mainline infantry with all the remaining beneficial design around it: better support weapon, better field presence, better medium tank and access to stock premium tanks.

I personally always felt that implementing 5men gren is an error because you can't buff grenadiers without nerfing half of the rest of Ostheer roster to balance the faction or you end up with a grenadier squad that's not really buffed like you imagine it deserves it to compete with other mainline infantryies.

It's not so much an issue so long as the 5man upgrade doesnt come with a weapon as strong as the G43, a cooldown reduction, or an RA reduction.

5man grens were an issue because they did too much, if they're not overtuned (And don't overshadow other gren upgrades) I don't think it's too much of an issue.