Grenadier potential: Fighting fire with fire

Sov Support Teams are too resilient vs small arms, as well as explosive effects. The 6man team soaks too much. Much more than it should.

I like Aerohanks suggestion of a increased dmg received modifier for them.

Increase in infantry armor on Ost Support Teams would also work, as well as only affect small arms. Every Sov infantry unit has an explosive it can deploy to bypass that anyways.

The Weapons stats are already aligned in terms of the weapon itself, as is cost.
Its the Crew survival differential that remains an outstanding and unreciprocated issue.

A successfully flanking Gren finds itself faced with a 6man unit, whereas a successfully flanking Con (which is also easier due to Oorah) finds itself faced with a mere 4 man unit.

If we hold that Support crews should be very weak when flanked, then that is certainly not currently true of Sov support teams.

Maxims are not OP because they come from an expensive T2 building that's usually not built in the beginning of the game due to that cost. They are also very vulnerable to rifle nades.

German MGs have low effective HP, but are available very early in the game. Increasing their effective HP would ruin the risk vs reward of flanking which is a gameplay dynamic that most people prefer (in vCOH, a flanked mg must instantly retreat or will die in mere seconds). An increase of armor from 1.0 to 1.5 will also make molotovs a required upgrade instead of a situational upgrade as it is now.

German mortars have higher damage output, which offsets their low effective HP.

I don't think any of the set up weapons need any major rebalancing. They are decently balanced as is. Small adjustments can be made at a later point with more statistics data.

+1

You act like a Soviet weapon team can just sit there, soak grenadier damage and continue on with life like nothing is happening. This just isn't the case. Even grens flanking a team will force a retreat more often than not. The weapon team simply has no way to truly combat the grens.

Soviet teams don't need less men nor do they need increased small arms damage taken or pgrens will simply shred them with no chance of escape.

Likewise German weapon teams don't need more armor because then they'd be too resilient to flanks and small arms fire. Flanking weapon teams should be more than enough to dislodge them, I shouldn't also have to throw a grenade because they have elite armor.

Also, the weapon teams ARE balanced with crew size in mind, contrary to what you seem to think Nullist. Zis barrage can be cute but at the end of the day I'd take a PaK's higher rate of fire. A maxim can pack up and move faster but an mg42 denies more territory with less micro. German mortar puts out a lot more damage but is a lot more fragile. This is fine, the weapon teams are fine. You're wrong.

How many people need to disagree with you before it'll get through your thick skull that you're just wrong? Cuz right now... most of this thread disagrees with you.

Several in the thread have agreed with me.

You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Weve both made our arguments and mine dont sway you anymore than yours do me.

Nullist, all support weapons need to be vulnerable if they get flanked.

Not everyone upgrades to molotovs, your acting as if all soviet players have it. If I flank the MG, I shouldn't have to waste 45 munitions (Guard's Nade and Shock Troops) to actually kill it or make it retreat. Giving them 1.5 sounds good on paper, but it will ruin the game.

Like Jin said, "support weapon crews are supposed to be vulnerable when flanked."

Hell vcoh had Mgs perfect, it was easier to kill MGs because they were 3 man squads.

Plus like Jin said again, "buffing the armor for the german mg42 crew is not going help with that, and it doesn't solve the problem since it only adds another problem."

I wouldn't mind for a radical change of making them 4 man squads, but I like I said earlier, they need to change a lot of stuff such as rifle nades etc.. But then again Relic won't take the time to do that.

Maybe the Maxim should just get a nerf on its undeployment speed, then it would give grens more time to kill it. If there is one issue, no need to completely modify the system.

And to be honest, I really have no issues countering maxims now, they are easy xp for my mortars or snipers.

Sov Support teams are too resilient, especially on infantry flanks.

Sorry, but thats really what it boils down to.

They can soak both small arms on a successful flank, as well as explosives from near or far.

If people agree that Ost Support Teams are ok at 4 man with zero armor, for reward for flanking, how can they then not consider Sov Support Teams too resilient to exactly the same flanking action?

If Sov shouldnt have to invest in Molovs or Nades against an improved OsT Team, as you say, which is valis, why does Ost CURRENTLY have to invest in an RNade or Nade to achieve the same result?

Furthermore, Ost Support Teams are more expensive to reinforce per man. Why..? Its the same shitty 0 armor guy with a nerfed DPS personal weapon, same as Sov. Except there are only 4 of them who each cost more than a single guy from the 6man Sov teams.

Grenadiers cannot clear a weapons crew reliably is my main point

From what i've noticed with the lack of grenadier rifle grenade being able to seriously threaten a house, or force a maxim to reposition to dodge/avoid it.

Even if flanked, the 6 men manning the Russian maxim/zis/mortar is more than capable of enduring the four grenadiers shooting at them. On the other hand a conscript squad can somewhat reliably decrew a weapon without molotovs due to Ost having a smaller crew size, and with molotovs can force a crew weapon to reposition or more often retreat if it isn't dodged.

You have been diagnosed with a severe condition of L2P.

Sov Support teams are too resilient, especially on infantry flanks.

Sorry, but thats really what it boils down to.

They can soak both small arms on a successful flank, as well as explosives from near or far.

If people agree that Ost Support Teams are ok at 4 man with zero armor, for reward for flanking, how can they then not consider Sov Support Teams too resilient to exactly the same flanking action?

If Sov shouldnt have to invest in Molovs or Nades against an improved OsT Team, as you say, which is valis, why does Ost CURRENTLY have to invest in an RNade or Nade to achieve the same result?

Furthermore, Ost Support Teams are more expensive to reinforce per man. Why..? Its the same shitty 0 armor guy with a nerfed DPS personal weapon, same as Sov. Except there are only 4 of them who each cost more than a single guy from the 6man Sov teams.

Again Nullist if the problem is that Grenadiers are having issues killing Soviet Crews, "buffing the armor for the german mg42 crew is not going help with that, and it doesn't solve the problem since it only adds another problem."

If we buff MG42s, that still won't fix the issue, it wont make grens kill support weapons any faster.

Your thought process right now is that, "soviet support team are too strong, lets make German's ones stronger.

Why do we have to bring up Ostheer support weapons, they are fine at the moment. Soviet Support Weapons are the ones causing issues. Giving Ostheer 1.5 is a bad idea, I don't think anyone would want this, and I'm sure as hell Relic won't implement this. Damage modifier could be fine, making all crews 4 man maybe, it depends on the changes.

Also you are forgetting that Soviet's support weapons are in a different building, while the German support crews are included with t1. Look I'm fine with some nerfs, but buffing the opposing side's weapons wont do anything besides creating more balance issues.

No, my post was aout Sov Team survival. You seem to have misread.

No, my post was aout Sov Team survival. You seem to have misread.

I agreed about the Soviet's survival that's why I never brought it up.

I just disagreed about giving Ostheer's support weapons 1.5 armor, because it only causes more issues.

I agreed about the Soviet's survival that's why I never brought it up.

Elaborate on this, please.

"Sov Support teams are too resilient, especially on infantry flanks."

I agree but this really applies to grens only not agrens or pgrens.

But my counter is not infantry to them, instead I use mortars or snipers early, game then use F halftracks later on.

"If people agree that Ost Support Teams are ok at 4 man with zero armor, for reward for flanking, how can they then not consider Sov Support Teams too resilient to exactly the same flanking action?"

I agree and this is why I wanted Soviets to be 4 man sqauds but if this was to occur then major changes must occur also since Soviets have to build a completly seperate building to get these units while for OST it's available from their main building, (t1)

Yes, Americans had to do the same thing, however, that building costs 50 fuel while the American one was 15.


"If Sov shouldnt have to invest in Molovs or Nades against an improved OsT Team, as you say, which is valis, why does Ost CURRENTLY have to invest in an RNade or Nade to achieve the same result?"

Because Ostheer shouldn't have to rely on a nade also if they get BEHIND a support weapon. Rifle nades need to change if they make Sov Support 4 man squads, because they can easily kill them from far with the Rifle's Nade design.

"Furthermore, Ost Support Teams are more expensive to reinforce per man. Why..? Its the same shitty 0 armor guy with a nerfed DPS personal weapon, same as Sov. Except there are only 4 of them who each cost more than a single guy from the 6man Sov teams."

Agreed.

I don't think you realized that I'm agreeing with you for the most part, but the idea that giving OST's support weapons 1.5 armor
is a bad idea. BOTH factions shouldn't have to rely on nades if they get behind a support weapon.

That leaves nerfing Sov Support team survival then.

Thats what you are saying.

I see what you are saying, but you are dancing around the issue a bit, as are many others.

Sov Support Teams are simply too durable. Add to that the reinforce cost disparity as well.

Wow, don't rush to far.
I think German support teams are less resilient because they are more effective. In general.
MG42, since is fixed now, can stop infantry in its arc, quickly pinning upon a successful suppression, having huge arc of fire and requiring less micro in general than Maxim. PaK is simply far better than ZiS in killing tanks and Mortar shoots twice as fast. I think is all because of the Soviets team 6 men squads. The issue is really with Grenadiers but maybe you shouldn't use Grenadiers to clear Soviet support weapon?
I personally use mortars as they are simply outstanding in performance. As said before increasing resilience of German support teams would only create problems rather then fixing them (assuming there is a problem as only few people thinks this way). For example you would have to change and nerf every German support team to make up for better survivalibity.
I personally don't have problems with Ost teams being smaller size as they make up for it in their effectiveness.

BTW Isn't reinforce cost higher due to the fact that you have 4 entities in the squad?

Sov Support teams are too resilient, especially on infantry flanks.

Sorry, but thats really what it boils down to.

They can soak both small arms on a successful flank, as well as explosives from near or far.

If people agree that Ost Support Teams are ok at 4 man with zero armor, for reward for flanking, how can they then not consider Sov Support Teams too resilient to exactly the same flanking action?

Because grens will have more dps than cons unless the cons have ppsh, and even then the grens could have G43s. And pgrens have waaaaay more dps than any Soviet squads. Herp a derp. Not rocket science. Then again... if you played the game you wouldn't make such ignorant comments.

Because grens will have more dps than cons unless the cons have ppsh

Explain this part?

You can give soviet support crew a larger small arms received damage penalty. It's at 25% now.

Explain this part?

Vanilla grens have higher dps than vanilla cons in mid/far which is where you'll usually do damage from before a retreat or pack up, meaning they'll kill models more quickly. Of course all this goes out of whack when weapon upgrades come into play, but lmg42s have pretty crazy dps as do g43s. Anyways I haven't done the calculations but my instinct says that German weapon teams still die more quickly to small arms fire, but that's fine. They should be more vulnerable because they're stronger in other areas. Increasing the amount of armor that German weapon crews have would make them too strong. Increasing the amount of damage that Soviet crews take from small arms fire would make them way too vulnerable to pgrens and g43s. Both weapon teams are fine in the current state.

Vanilla grens have higher dps than vanilla cons, meaning they'll kill models more quickly. Of course all this goes out of whack when weapon upgrades come into play, but lmg42s have pretty crazy dps as do g43s. Anyways I haven't done the calculations but my instinct says that German weapon teams still die more quickly to small arms fire, but that's fine. They should be more vulnerable because they're stronger in other areas. Increasing the amount of armor that German weapon crews have would make them too strong. Increasing the amount of damage that Soviet crews take from small arms fire would make them way too vulnerable to pgrens and g43s. Both weapon teams are fine in the current state.

I don't know it already feels like I kill them instantly if I flank them.

But I don't use grens to counter maxims, at guns, etc. I have mortars for that

I don't know it already feels like I kill them instantly if I flank them.

But I don't use grens to counter maxims, at guns, etc. I have mortars for that

Exactly, flanks are already potent enough and there are plenty of other viable counters to weapon teams. At this point Nullist is just arguing because he's a huge troll and he might have an aneurysm if he was to ever admit that he was wrong.