Grenadier potential: Fighting fire with fire

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.

My suggestion is this why not give Grenadiers the ability to also use molotovs? While it would be the exact ability of the conscripts, it would play to vcoh's similarity of both riflemen and greandiers having grenades, and it would provide one greandier squad the potential to seriously threaten a crew weapon as if you don't move, you're going to burn. On top of that it would make garrisoning a house a lot more risky due to the threat of a crispy demise, and potentially bring back more field engagements rather than garrison and counter garrisoning. Let me know what you guys think, and thanks for your time

Give them lightsabres and offmap Enterprise with Klingons. :-)

If you get close, weapons crew die in no time. Constripts and grenadiers are ballanced. If you flank, molotov on weapon crew is now waste munition.

If you want, we can train some fight. Or watch some replays. On this web are many very good replays, but with new patch you must wait some time.

not molotovs, incendriary grenades like counter strike.

A 6man Con flanking only has 4 0 armor units to deal with.

A 4man Gren flanking has 6 0 armor units to deal with.

Whereas a flanking Gren has to fight against the hp equivalent of 6 Cons.
a flanking Con only has to fight against the hp equivalent of 4 Cons.

Yes, its fubar. But Relic seemingly insists that the crew differential is offset by the weapon teams effectiveness. I sont share that view. Imo the weapon teams main weapon stats are already largely aligned by the weapons stats of themselves. The crew differential is just superfluous Sov advantage.

Cons/Grens, as Aradan states, are roughly balanced. But weapon teams dont have 1.5 armor, even though they are only 4 man.

Its a persistant systemic inequality.

Out in the open I agree that grenadier vs conscript is relatively balanced, but when dealing with garrisoned buildings and the weapon teams, conscripts outshine grenadiers with a reliable ability in the form of the molotovs whereas rifle grenades are not nearly as reliable vs garrisons. If not a form of early and cheap munition cost incendiary device to forcibly evict a squad/weapons team from a building/position what else could change the house happy meta? Especially since it requires either a designated unit slot with an early mortar or to spend munitions on a fht or flamers for pios to clear a single building vs Conscripts having a single cheap ability that clears a building for a lot cheaper cost in terms of time and munitions

Out in the open I agree that grenadier vs conscript is relatively balanced, but when dealing with garrisoned buildings and the weapon teams, conscripts outshine grenadiers with a reliable ability in the form of the molotovs whereas rifle grenades are not nearly as reliable vs garrisons. If not a form of early and cheap munition cost incendiary device to forcibly evict a squad/weapons team from a building/position what else could change the house happy meta? Especially since it requires either a designated unit slot with an early mortar or to spend munitions on a fht or flamers for pios to clear a single building vs Conscripts having a single cheap ability that clears a building for a lot cheaper cost in terms of time and munitions

Yep it really annoys the fck out of me when I play ostheer. But FHT is a much better unit that the clown car with flame engies since it can actually burn them while in the vehicle. So my guess is its asymmetrical balance. It sad though that the ostheer have to choose what they will go LMG/Riflenades/FHT with their first munis while soviets have no such decision since molotov/clowcar/ppsh are cheaper.
Or as an alternative you can use PGrens to clear support units such as mortar/maxim/zis.

LOL, these suggestions are just getting ridiculous. Grenadiers should get jetpacks.

yes, weapon crews should be easier to kill when you flank them, since they take too long to kill and you have to constantly micro your grenadiers around the mg, thus lowering the dps even further. However, the weapon crews needs to have a high crew count because grenadier rifle grenades can kill a lot of crew members from long range.

i think it would be better if the crew count has been reduced to 4 but the grenadiers should have a close range grenade ability instead of the rifle nade.

Or Ost support teams could simply have 1.5 armor, as is the traditional alignment between 6 man and 4man units.

Wouldnt affect Molotov or edplosive AoE one bit, but it would mitigate small arms fire.

Or Ost support teams could simply have 1.5 armor, as is the traditional alignment between 6 man and 4man units.

Wouldnt affect Molotov or edplosive AoE one bit, but it would mitigate small arms fire.

I'm not sure whether increased armour on support is a good thing. I would like small arms doing more damage to support weapons, not less.

Or give Soviet support teams a negative multiplier when attacked by small arms units.

Hell, even a 1.25 modifier, if keeping Ost Support teams less survivable is such an important facet for some reason.

Since damage against support teams was already buffed, its not such a major impact as one might think anymore. The armor will deflect shots, but penetrating hits will still hit hard, and Molotov and explosives dgaf about the infantry armor anyways.

Or Ost support teams could simply have 1.5 armor, as is the traditional alignment between 6 man and 4man units.

Wouldnt affect Molotov or edplosive AoE one bit, but it would mitigate small arms fire.

Giving Ost support weapons 1.5 armor will only create more issues. The problem right now is that Grens are having trouble killing Soviet support teams but what you're suggesting is going to create issues for both factions. It'll make ostheer's support weapons too tough if they gave them an armor boost because they are already strong at a offensive role, but also if they get flanked they will be still hard to kill.

I overall agree the reason why you want to think of this solution, I'm not saying that Soviet support weapons have no issues. I think this solution is a bad idea.

For me it's really grens that I have a issue with, pgrens and even Agrens seem to eat all soviet support weapons if they flank it. But grens have a issue finishing them off.

I feel like that the 6 Man Design was a bad idea for multiplayer, they should've probably left that for single player and theater of war. I feel like they should be both 4 man squads but relatively similar, like American's Mg and MG42.

Make Maxim, DSHK, 81mm mortors (NOT 120mm), and at guns a 4 man squad, but make MG42 Arc exactly like Maxim's arc, reduce rate of fire of German mortor, and make ZI3 a bit more mobile if they are going to be a 4 man squad.

That way, not only this will achieve balance for grens flanking support weapons, but it also will balance out the soviet sniper vs german sniper, since now they are more useful in their own ways.

By all means this could be a stupid idea, and I can be refuted very easily, but I think its a better solution.

Edit: For those who say, "well Agrens and Pgrens are going to kill these units much faster." Well even now if a pgren gets behind a support weapon, the support weapon is kaput either way.

Another Solution: Give them Incendriary Grenade

I don't like your suggestion at all.

I do. I would love to see this implemented.

Can conscripts get rifle grenades too?

We have to remember what the most practical and IRL counters usually are, and what they entail.

Usually in the 6man vs 4man issue, there is an armor differential to mitigate small arms. OR, a cost one, such as on Guard at 1.5 aemor, or Shocks at 2.25.
This is not the case with Support Teams however.
For the same cost of purchase, Ost gets only 4 0 armor guys, whereas Sov gets 6 0 armor guys. And when reinforced, Sov gets 1.5 guys for every 1 guy Ost reinforces, at cost.

While its true that RNade has range, Sov Support Teams have extra models to soak that.
They also have those same extra models to soak small arms fire on a successful infantry flank.

On Osts side, however, not only does Molotov roast the units, which are tightly packed and have to categorically desetup to avoid certain eventual death from standing in it, but a successful infantry flank only has 4 0 armor models to deal with, rather than 6.

Basically, this means Ost Support Teams are not only more vulnerable to the standard infantry applied counter (Molotov/RNade), but they are also much more vulnerable to standard infantry flank small arms.

This imbalance however, extends from small arms fire, all the way to explosive later game effects, where even armor wouldnt matter. You can, simply, soak 1/3 more dmg from these as Sov, than you can as Oat, due to being only 4 man.

It wouldnt make any difference to a Molotov if they had armor. It wouldnt make any difference to Grenades, Mortars or other explosive effects either if they had armor.
All these conventional counter methods would still have full effect. But it doesnt end there. Becuase these counters have MORE effect, categorically and indisputably, on a 4 man unit as co pared to a 6 man unit.

But unfortunately, in addition to that, they are also more vulnerable to small arms flanks.
Not just a little either, but a full 1/3 more vulnerable.

How does this apply to spexific Support Teams? Well, Im glad you asked.
Its true that many Ost Suppoet Teams have beneficial stats on their main weapon.
But, are these not actually asymmetrically already balanced on Sov Teams?

PaK/ZiS: The primary difference is rate of fire. Osts is faster. But Sov has Barrage.

MG42/Maxim: Osts arc is matched by Sovs setup time. Osts DPS is entity based, Sovs is flat. Osts Suppression is now arguably inline with Sovs.

81mm/82mm: This one is more problematic, and most complicated of them. I think Osts fire rate is too high, compared to Sov. As far as I can tell from looking at stats, they are IDENTICAL except for the fire rate. Same AoE, same accuracy, same dmg. Ost Mortarnis infact categorically overperforming. It can be argued that the Vet abilities differentiate them, with Precision Strike being superior to Counter Barrage, and that may be true enough. But I think the baseline output should be adjusted. Vet can be dealt with later. Nonvet Ost Mortar is overperforming in comparison.

My primary suggestion to asymmetrically align this, is to give Sov 82mm a wider suppression AoE. This provides an indirect utility, so that even though you fire less shots (at the same dmg and accuracy) you can also force infantry down around your mortar hits.

Now, having gone over the actual Support Weapon stats, and demonstrated that they are in and of themselves asymmetrically aligned (except for Mortar), I am sure it is clear that the Crew survival differential is superfluous to those. The Weapon stats are aligned, but the Crew differential is an extrenuous unecessary imbalance.

Not only are the 4 man crews more vulnerable to simple small arms fire, but also to conventional early game counters, as well as later game explosives.

I cant find a justification for this. For the same cost, and as I demonstrated, for the same asymmetric value of the weapon itself (except for Mortar), Ost are operating at a 1/3 Crew survival deficiency against everything the opponent throws against them.

The least that could be done, is to make them less vulnerable to small arms at least.
Molotovs and Explosices will still own them at a 1/3 less survival quotient than Sov equivalents, because infsntry armor has no effect on those.

Not only that, but Ost Support Teams also cost MORE to reinforce per man, even though those men themselves have no more value than an equivalent man in a Sov Support Team.
Sov reinforces 1.5 models, for the same price Ost reinforces 1 model from an already undermanned weapon team. Add to this the games faction asymmetry when it comes to the difficult task of reinforcing Suppoet teams on the field, especially the PaK, which cannot retreat. What are our options? For Ost, they involve specialised builds, either a HT or a Re-inforce Bunker. For Sov, the option is only one, but all the more ubiquitous and readily at hand, Merge. Now, I think this is a good alignment. I have no issue with Sov/Ost onfield reinforce potential, as such. But when there is only 4man, with the vulnerability I have detailed above at length, it becomes somewhat of a real prarcial problem, especialoy in terms of reinforce costs.

Atleast make them more durable to small arms.
Is that so unreasonable to suggest, discuss and ask for?

We have to remember what the most practical and IRL counters usually are, and what they entail.

Usually in the 6man vs 4man issue, there is an armor differential to mitigate small arms. OR, a cost one, such as on Guard at 1.5 aemor, or Shocks at 2.25.
This is not the case with Support Teams however.
For the same cost of purchase, Ost gets only 4 0 armor guys, whereas Sov gets 6 0 armor guys. And when reinforced, Sov gets 1.5 guys for every 1 guy Ost reinforces, at cost.

While its true that RNade has range, Sov Support Teams have extra models to soak that.
They also have those same extra models to soak small arms fire on a successful infantry flank.

On Osts side, however, not only does Molotov roast the units, which are tightly packed and have to categorically desetup to avoid certain eventual death from standing in it, but a successful infantry flank only has 4 0 armor models to deal with, rather than 6.

Basically, this means Ost Support Teams are not only more vulnerable to the standard infantry applied counter (Molotov/RNade), but they are also much more vulnerable to standard infantry flank small arms.

This imbalance however, extends from small arms fire, all the way to explosive later game effects, where even armor wouldnt matter. You can, simply, soak 1/3 more dmg from these as Sov, than you can as Oat, due to being only 4 man.

It wouldnt make any difference to a Molotov if they had armor. It wouldnt make any difference to Grenades, Mortars or other explosive effects either if they had armor.
All these conventional counter methods would still have full effect. But it doesnt end there. Becuase these counters have MORE effect, categorically and indisputably, on a 4 man unit as co pared to a 6 man unit.

But unfortunately, in addition to that, they are also more vulnerable to small arms flanks.
Not just a little either, but a full 1/3 more vulnerable.

How does this apply to spexific Support Teams? Well, Im glad you asked.
Its true that many Ost Suppoet Teams have beneficial stats on their main weapon.
But, are these not actually asymmetrically already balanced on Sov Teams?

PaK/ZiS: The primary difference is rate of fire. Osts is faster. But Sov has Barrage.

MG42/Maxim: Osts arc is matched by Sovs setup time. Osts DPS is entity based, Sovs is flat. Osts Suppression is now arguably inline with Sovs.

81mm/82mm: This one is more problematic, and most complicated of them. I think Osts fire rate is too high, compared to Sov. As far as I can tell from looking at stats, they are IDENTICAL except for the fire rate. Same AoE, same accuracy, same dmg. Ost Mortarnis infact categorically overperforming. It can be argued that the Vet abilities differentiate them, with Precision Strike being superior to Counter Barrage, and that may be true enough. But I think the baseline output should be adjusted. Vet can be dealt with later. Nonvet Ost Mortar is overperforming in comparison.

My primary suggestion to asymmetrically align this, is to give Sov 82mm a wider suppression AoE. This provides an indirect utility, so that even though you fire less shots (at the same dmg and accuracy) you can also force infantry down around your mortar hits.

Now, having gone over the actual Support Weapon stats, and demonstrated that they are in and of themselves asymmetrically aligned (except for Mortar), I am sure it is clear that the Crew survival differential is superfluous to those. The Weapon stats are aligned, but the Crew differential is an extrenuous unecessary imbalance.

Not only are the 4 man crews more vulnerable to simple small arms fire, but also to conventional early game counters, as well as later game explosives.

I cant find a justification for this. For the same cost, and as I demonstrated, for the same asymmetric value of the weapon itself (except for Mortar), Ost are operating at a 1/3 Crew survival deficiency against everything the opponent throws against them.

The least that could be done, is to make them less vulnerable to small arms at least.
Molotovs and Explosices will still own them at a 1/3 less survival quotient than Sov equivalents, because infsntry armor has no effect on those.

Not only that, but Ost Support Teams also cost MORE to reinforce per man, even though those men themselves have no more value than an equivalent man in a Sov Support Team.
Sov reinforces 1.5 models, for the same price Ost reinforces 1 model from an already undermanned weapon team. Add to this the games faction asymmetry when it comes to the difficult task of reinforcing Suppoet teams on the field, especially the PaK, which cannot retreat. What are our options? For Ost, they involve specialised builds, either a HT or a Re-inforce Bunker. For Sov, the option is only one, but all the more ubiquitous and readily at hand, Merge. Now, I think this is a good alignment. I have no issue with Sov/Ost onfield reinforce potential, as such. But when there is only 4man, with the vulnerability I have detailed above at length, it becomes somewhat of a real prarcial problem, especialoy in terms of reinforce costs.

Atleast make them more durable to small arms.
Is that so unreasonable to suggest, discuss and ask for?

You have good reasoning, but I feel like its going to cause more issues. Giving an MG 1.5 armor is going to cause more issues. Hell before when the MG was the god weapon, before they implemented the damage modifier. Scripts had trouble with killing it if they got behind it. All support weapons shouldn't be like that, if you get behind it, you should be able to kill it fast... not instantly of course.Your making it seem like scripts will kill the new 1.5 armor mg easily, but when they implement it will take drastically longer. Your giving a support weapon same survivalist as a normal infantry squad. Again I feel like this is going to cause even more issues and ruin matches, since it will recreate overpowered support weapons. 6 man squads are an issue, but I doubt that Relic would ever make it 4 men per squad. So they are going to most likely ignore the issue.

Tbh its either increase Ost team armor, or decrease Sov crews to 4.

Thats really what it boils down to. I say that as the bottomline after long consideration and as the bottom baseline that has many facets as I could consider and include, eventually, invariably, boil down to. I dont say it "just because", I say it because when I threw everything I could that was even remotely related to this, and stirred it for many many many hours of consideration, while it boiled, that is whats left at the bottom of the pot, as a simplified common denominator conclusion.

Though the Crew survival and the weapons efficacy are interlinked, and should be asymmetrically aligned, they are still two distinct elements and need consideration independently too. Using my cooking pot analogy above, the weapons actual stats negated each other, are aligned, and boiled out of the pot, leaving the crew differential as the primary leftover.

There really is no rational reason why Ost teams are so undermanned and unarmored, compared to Sov teams, when the cost is the same, and the weapons effects are largely asymetrically aligned already (with the notable exception of Mortars).

The Support team weapons, actual weapons, efficacy needs to be considered as one thing, and the crew survival as another.

They are "different" things, even though they are superficially interlinked and dependant on each other. One mediates the effectiveness of the unit, the other how effectively it is countered. The former is relatively aligned, the latter is not.

One very serious meta result of this, is its impeding Ost combined arms play with Support Teams. It forces Ost into Gren builds, because Ost Support Teams are so inherently low survival.

But it doesnt end there.

It also ENCOURAGES Sov Con spam, not because their Support Teams have better survival (which they do), but because they can better leverage those Cons against Osts inherently lower survival Support Teams.

TLDR: A flanking Con is much MUCH more dangerous to an Ost Support Team, than a flanking Gren is to a Sov Support team. We arent talking about small decimals too small to care about here, we are talking about a 1/3 survival difference. Not only to small arms, but also explosive effects (and Molotov in particular, which is an automatic forced de-setup. Infact you dont even have to actually throw it, you can just fake it and cancel it when the unit moves, while DPSing its 4man crew the entire duration and nulling its main weapons effect).

______________________________________________________________

For the benefit of new readers, if you want explanations why, read over my earlier post.
I dont want to have to repeat myself in no doubt what is the shitstorm of misunderstanding, personal preference and general reluctance to even consider this perspective, that may result from this.

Its not something I say lightly. I have considered this stuff at great length and for a long time. Since pre-launch beta infact, when Ost Teams used to be only 3 (THREE)man, and Sov dedicated resistance was absolutely decided that 4 man was out of the question. Imagine that, 3 man Ost support teams vs 6 man Sov Support teams. So forgive me I'f I am somewhat jaded and extremely critical, analytical and cynical of dedidated Sov responses to this issue, cos I've already seen not only the Support Team balance at its worst, but also really seriously destructive and wrong discussion on it at its worst too.

If you disagree, by all means, present what specific parts you disagree with, along with explanations of why. I will respond with the same respect and format. We dont have to be enemies, nor do I want that.

Lets discuss the topic, informedly and as respectfully and constructively as possible.
We all want a better game. If you dont, fuck off. For the rest, lets see if we can't figure out what is best, together, not against each other.

Tbh its either increase Ost team armor, or decrease Sov crews to 4.

Thats really what it boils down to. I say that as the bottomline after long consideration and as the bottom baseline that has many facets as I could consider and include, eventually, invariably, boil down to. I dont say it "just because", I say it because when I threw everything I could that was even remotely related to this, and stirred it for many many many hours of consideration, while it boiled, that is whats left at the bottom of the pot, as a simplified common denominator conclusion.

Though the Crew survival and the weapons efficacy are interlinked, and should be asymmetrically aligned, they are still two distinct elements and need consideration independently too. Using my cooking pot analogy above, the weapons actual stats negated each other, are aligned, and boiled out of the pot, leaving the crew differential as the primary leftover.

There really is no rational reason why Ost teams are so undermanned and unarmored, compared to Sov teams, when the cost is the same, and the weapons effects are largely asymetrically aligned already (with the notable exception of Mortars).

The Support team weapons, actual weapons, efficacy needs to be considered as one thing, and the crew survival as another.

They are "different" things, even though they are superficially interlinked and dependant on each other. One mediates the effectiveness of the unit, the other how effectively it is countered. The former is relatively aligned, the latter is not.

One very serious meta result of this, is its impeding Ost combined arms play with Support Teams. It forces Ost into Gren builds, because Ost Support Teams are so inherently low survival.

But it doesnt end there.

It also ENCOURAGES Sov Con spam, not because their Support Teams have better survival (which they do), but because they can better leverage those Cons against Osts inherently lower survival Support Teams.

TLDR: A flanking Con is much MUCH more dangerous to an Ost Support Team, than a flanking Gren is to a Sov Support team. We arent talking about small decimals too small to care about here, we are talking about a 1/3 survival difference. Not only to small arms, but also explosive effects (and Molotov in particular, which is an automatic forced de-setup. Infact you dont even have to actually throw it, you can just fake it and cancel it when the unit moves, while DPSing its 4man crew the entire duration and nulling its main weapons effect).

______________________________________________________________

For the benefit of new readers, if you want explanations why, read over my earlier post.
I dont want to have to repeat myself in no doubt what is the shitstorm of misunderstanding, personal preference and general reluctance to even consider this perspective, that may result from this.

Its not something I say lightly. I have considered this stuff at great length and for a long time. Since pre-launch beta infact, when Ost Teams used to be only 3 (THREE)man, and Sov dedicated resistance was absolutely decided that 4 man was out of the question. Imagine that, 3 man Ost support teams vs 6 man Sov Support teams. So forgive me I'f I am somewhat jaded and extremely critical, analytical and cynical of dedidated Sov responses to this issue, cos I've already seen not only the Support Team balance at its worst, but also really seriously destructive and wrong discussion on it at its worst too.

If you disagree, by all means, present what specific parts you disagree with, along with explanations of why. I will respond with the same respect and format. We dont have to be enemies, nor do I want that.

Lets discuss the topic, informedly and as respectfully and constructively as possible.
We all want a better game. If you dont, fuck off. For the rest, lets see if we can't figure out what is best, together, not against each other.

This is why I want Soviet Support Weapons 4 man squad, keep it 6 for TOW and Campaign. All Support Weapons need to be 4 man, because they are supposed to be very vulnerable when flanked, but this really doesn't occur with Soviet Support Weapons. Vcoh had it perfect, all support weapons had the same crew number but they had their differences. In vcoh, when support weapons were flanked, they were mostly likely kaput or they retreated instantly, and hell those were 3 man squads lol. Conscript and Gren spam was so common during SNF because one, MG42 sucked before so Ostheer never built them, which allowed script spam. Now that MG42 is back to normal, I tend to ignore script spam and build t1 instantly and grab snipers or M3s. I feel like we came into agreement Nullist about making every crew 4 man squads,but others would feel like these changes would be radical.

nullist, support weapon crews are supposed to be vulnerable when flanked.

the problem here is, when you flank an soviet mg with a grenadier squad it doesn't do much.

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.