Grenadier potential: Fighting fire with fire

Please, once again, for fun, telk us how Grens are better DPS at mid range vs Sov Support Teams, than vice versa (completely disregarding that thet are firing with 6 rifles vs 4 targets, and 4 rifles vs 6 targets, reciprocally)

Please do. Nevernind the 8s difference at close, 20 at mid and 26s difference at long, despite trying to argue that Grens should flank at mid/long range for better results than Cons at those ranges vs Support teams that gave a full 1/3 surfival differential not only to small arms, but everything else as well.

Once again(for the third time or so) I only ever said that Grens have a higher damage output at those ranges and then went on to admit that Cons would kill German weapon teams faster than Grens would kill Soviet ones. Seriously, go re-read that post from me. Here, I'll even quote it for you (hint I've bolded part of the post to make it easier for your infantile brain):

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.

My point in saying this has ALWAYS been that even vanilla Grens will force Soviet weapon teams to at LEAST pack up/re-position and more likely force them to retreat in full. Soviet weapon teams simply CANNOT, as you suggest, sit there and soak damage from a flank - the game just doesn't work that way.

Then please tell us how Barrage on ZiS is completely useless and doesnt matter in the units value in the least. The tell us how infact poor Maxim is so terrible compared to MG42. And one more time, how the economic cost of reinforcing an already 4man unit xosts more than its 6man equivalent is fine.

Once ypu do that, youll have your match.

ZiS barrage costs too much for what it does, is what I was saying. The barrage lasts too long and costs too many munitions up-front. It would be a lot better if it only cost 30 munitions, but lasted half as long. It is simply too easy to move squads away from the barrage, and it leaves the AT gun more vulnerable to vehicle flanks. ZiS barrage has a few niche uses, and I've used it extensively to great effect (Go watch my game vs Vindicare on Semois - cast by Dane on youtube) but overall I think it costs too much for what it will usually accomplish. PaK vs ZiS choice generally comes down to personal preference, and personally I'd always take a PaK over a ZiS because it is significantly better at killing tanks, which is why I build an AT gun. Let me repeat myself one last time for you - ZiS barrage costs too much for the current effect ZiS/PaK choice is mostly a matter of personal preference.

Maxim vs MG42 - These units perform different roles, fight against different units and are both effective at what they do - different but equal (I never once said the Maxim was terrible): MG42s require a lot less "babysitting" than Maxims since the MG42 arc is substantially larger than the Maxim arc. This allows the Mg42 to defend more territory with less micro, allowing attention to be placed elsewhere on the map. It also makes the MG42 more difficult to flank in certain positions on certain maps. It has an amazing vet 1 ability and in general scales extremely well into the late game. Larger arc also makes MG42s a lot more potent in houses and allows them to control a substantial amount of territory.

On the other hand the Maxim is more "offensive" in nature. The narrow arc of fire makes it difficult for a Maxim to control territory but the lower set-up time allows it to react to the current battlefield more rapidly. As a result of these differences the Maxim tends to serve as much for of a front-line unit, pushing up right on the heels on conscripts whereas an MG42 should almost always be kept as far back as possible. With good micro a Maxim can be highly effective, however given that it performs much more of a front-line role, and the fact that it has a lower arc of fire makes it significantly easier to flank. In addition to this, it is very easy to hit Maxims with rifle grenades - which at times can be impossible to dodge (nades from around bushes/walls/etc where you won't even see the grenade until it hits). Maxims need to be able to take more punishment than MG42s because of the difference in role that they perform.

All Soviet weapon teams need to have more durability than German weapon teams because of the fact that they have to fight against Pgrens and the German mortar that shoots so rapidly (yes the German mortar may need looking into, I might agree there, but that is outside the scope of this discussion).

On the reinforcement topic let's break it down like this:

# of Models to Reinforce Soviet(MP cost): German(MP cost):
1 15 22
2 30 44
3 45 66
4 60 N/a
5 75 N/a

So on a per-model basis the Soviet team is seven MP/model cheaper to reinforce. So in a vacuum, yes Soviet teams are marginally cheaper to reinforce. However this does not take into account the fact that Soviet weapon teams will generally lose models more rapidly in the mid/late game. When you look at the cost to reinforce half a squad, things start looking at lot more equal, and then when you take into account that Soviet weapon teams will commonly be reinforcing more than 3 models at a time, it becomes quite the MP burden.

Once again, to reiterate, Soviet teams are cheaper on a per-model basis. But they're only 7 MP per model cheaper - you were acting as if there was some colossal difference in the reinforce cost and this argument of yours completely falls apart in the face of mid/end game when Soviet models, which tend to be more clumped up because of the larger squad size, start dying rapidly to explosions.

Argumentum ad nauseam



It never works, btw.

Admit that youn went full pototo, and flat out forgot that its 6 weapons firing at an unarmored 4 man unit, as compared to a 4man unit firing at a full 6 man unit. That you misreprented Gren DPS as somehow being substantial at mid/long range, when infact, in comparison on flanks, it takes Ost a full 20s longer to clear it even at mid range. For once in your life, you actually looked at and added up the DPS, but then you completely forgot that they are unarmored targets, and that Gren has only 4 weapons firing at a 6man team, for the same rough DPS per weapon as Cons have firing at Ost 4man Ost teams.

Not only do Cons have more rifles with the same DPS, but they are firing at only 4 unarmored models. You completely and utterly forgot that. And if thqt wasnt enough, you then misrepresented the ranges, whereas at ALL ranges, the Grens STILL take longer, much longer, to decrew a Sov Team.

Let me make the math simple for you.

Grenadier DPS per model at N/M/F:
3.775 2.402 1.029

Con DPS per model at N/M/F:
2.540 1.591 0.642

Conscripts have significantly lower DPS per model, but obviously there are six of them. My calculations earlier in the thread were based off of DPS/model * number of models.

This gives:

Gren n: 15.10
Con n: 15.24

Gren m: 9.608
Con m: 9.546

Gren f: 4.116
Con f: 3.852

My math is correct. My statement is correct. Grenadiers DO have more DPS at mid/far ranges. You literally cannot argue with that statement. And for the fourth time, let me re-quote this for you:

my instinct says that German weapon teams still die more quickly to small arms fire, but that's fine.

^This statement has since, been proven mathematically. So it is also correct.

I admitted this before you even said anything on the subject. But it is part of the balance design of the units. Please, enlighten us all on your source that told you that weapon team durability is NOT taken into account when balancing these units. You *still* haven't done that.

Now, where's my match?

Ciez, up for a voice discussion?

Vent/TS/Skype/Steam etc all work for me.

Ciez, up for a voice discussion?

Vent/TS/Skype/Steam etc all work for me.

Voice discussion!! CoH2.org was missing something, luckily we found it now!

Ciez, up for a voice discussion?

Vent/TS/Skype/Steam etc all work for me.

No, not really. I have some stuff to take care of now today but I'll be back online in a bit if you're actually going to play me?

Yeah, I didnt think so.

Yeah, I didnt think so.

You going to 1v1 me?

No, Im not. Nor would that be relevant to the topic.

I dont think the 1/3 better survival is justified either at cost, or in terms of the arguable claims that Sov Support weapons are somehow "weaker". (With the notable exception of Sov Mortar, which I think is underperforming)

It doesnt affect just small arms flanks, which is the core issue here, but extends alsothroughout the game to later explosive effects as well.

As to arguments at the "larger picture" of design, I dont think the 1/3 better survival is justified in the wider meta either. The factions ofc need to be asymmetric and distinct, but also consistent and balanced. 1.5 armor on Ost teams would be "consistent", but as everyone largely agrees, we want Support teams to be vulnerable, and Ost teams certainly are that. Sov teams, however, are not.

Im confident this disparity is something that will be addressed by Relic sooner or later, though in what form I dont know. A xhange in modifiers as suggested by Aerohank and Link0 is good, but not very intuitive. The reinforce disparity is certqinly an outstanding issue as well, though small, and less significant in terms of effects on the meta.

Arguably, the disparity in survival is one of the underlying causes of Con/Gren spam in current meta. Cons are very good vs Ost support teams, which induces spam, whereas since Ost teams are less durable, this incentives Gren spam, because not only do you need more ofnthem to deal with possible Sov support teams, you arent as vulnerable with a Gren build,mas you are with support teams in the mix. If Sov Support teams had a more or less equal vulnerability to small arms (and other effects withoutnsoaking), Ost would be more secure in fielding more Support teams themselves, rather than having to hedge into Grens.

In SNF, PQ spoke of Relic currently developing more data oriented criteria for identifying performance issues with units. Im certain those will corroborate that Sov Support teams are too durable.

No, Im not. Nor would that be relevant to the topic.

I dont think the 1/3 better survival is justified either at cost, or in terms of the arguable claims that Sov Support weapons are somehow "weaker". (With the notable exception of Sov Mortar, which I think is underperforming)

It doesnt affect just small arms flanks, which is the core issue here, but extends alsothroughout the game to later explosive effects as well.

As to arguments at the "larger picture" of design, I dont think the 1/3 better survival is justified in the wider meta either. The factions ofc need to be asymmetric and distinct, but also consistent and balanced. 1.5 armor on Ost teams would be "consistent", but as everyone largely agrees, we want Support teams to be vulnerable, and Ost teams certainly are that. Sov teams, however, are not.

Im confident this disparity is something that will be addressed by Relic sooner or later, though in what form I dont know. A xhange in modifiers as suggested by Aerohank and Link0 is good, but not very intuitive. The reinforce disparity is certqinly an outstanding issue as well, though small, and less significant in terms of effects on the meta.

Arguably, the disparity in survival is one of the underlying causes of Con/Gren spam in current meta. Cons are very good vs Ost support teams, which induces spam, whereas since Ost teams are less durable, this incentives Gren spam, because not only do you need more ofnthem to deal with possible Sov support teams, you arent as vulnerable with a Gren build,mas you are with support teams in the mix. If Sov Support teams had a more or less equal vulnerability to small arms (and other effects withoutnsoaking), Ost would be more secure in fielding more Support teams themselves, rather than having to hedge into Grens.

In SNF, PQ spoke of Relic currently developing more data oriented criteria for identifying performance issues with units. Im certain those will corroborate that Sov Support teams are too durable.

Yeah, I didn't think so. How typical.

Still haven't addressed your source on your claim that weapon teams are NOT balanced with regard to durability. In fact you even seem to have back-tracked on this point. Ironic after wrongfully trying to accuse me of backtracking. But typical of people like you.

Still ignored every possible counter argument and repeated the same stuff over and over and over (with the same completely over-used buzzwords - seriously go flip through a thesaurus) instead of trying to contribute in a productive fashion.

Still too cowardly to put your money where your mouth is, even after I jumped through your silly hoops and answered your silly questions on the promise of you manning up and actually playing me. If you're going to directly attack my skill/game knowledge or anything of the like, at least have the balls to 1v1 me. Just so funny that you literally cry ad hominem at every possible opportunity and yet you spew even more hate/rage/directly attack people than the people you try to call out.

Just makes your true personality so blatantly obvious to everyone. I'd be completely embarrassed if I were you.

Pathetic.

Its all there, Ciez. I've already countered your points. The Support Weapon stats, in and of the weapon themselves, are aligned, as I have explained. The cost is aligned (except for reinforce), as I have explained. The meta itself, in terms of counters, is aligned. What is not aligned, is the 1/3 better survival of Sov Support Teams, not only vs small arms, but everything else in the game.

And the fact remains you went full potato and overlooked that it is infact 6 full dps rifles vs 4man, and 4 same dps rifles vs 6man.

Its a common mistake. People misunderstand, even to this day, the basic alignment between Cons and Grens. Same DPS, but 6man vs 1.5 armor 4man. You simply overlooked all these factors and made a glib and meaningless calculation for the one time in your life you probably actually looked at actual stats. Then you tried to argue that Grens would somehow be better vs Sov Support Teams at mid/long range, when infact, they take 20-26s longer to decrew at those ranges. Not to mention that in terms of Gren/Con range DPS, they are already aligned, with Cons performing better at close range, and Grens at long. But you failed your homework, hard, when you overlooked that they are infact firing at 4 unarmored models with 6 roughly same DPS rifles, whereas Grens fire with 4 roughly same DPS rifles at a full 6 man unit.

I don't expect you to admit your mistake. That would be unconscionable, and you are clearly the kind of guy, that even if he is wrong, he will never admit it, if he thinks the other guy is an asshole, because you think the latter takes priority. An honest person with intellectual integrity wouldnt take it personally, and simply admit mistake, thank for the correction, and move on with the discussion in an impersonal manner. The fact you want to reduce the entire issue as OP states, ie: the actual balance discussion and issue, to a juvenile 1v1 bout, further demonstrates this element of your character.

I'm not going to regress to your level of attempting to reduce the discussion to a 1v1. It has no bearing on the topic. If I won, you would still as vociferously deny your own mistake and lack of insight into the support crew survival discrepancy. If you won, it wouldn't change my view on this issue in the least.

I think its quite telling that because you cant cover your own mistake, nor discuss a balance issue with rational and objective attitude, you try to turn it into a fight. Again, hardly a characteristic that makes you desirable on a beta. I bet you try to shout down, insult and impugn people there, just as you do here. You seem to think of yourself as some sort of beta "champion, spokesman, and self-appointed person of importance". You've set yourself up so high on a pedestal, that you can't stand being shown to have been wrong, not even once, or your entire personal sense of value seems to collapse, when infact, none of this should be personal. Its a game. We are talking about a game, structured in numbers and played by people, and produced by a company that may or may not share yours OR mine views.

So far, my track-record of suggesting and pointing out issues in need of change, has been very good. Ever since pre-launch beta, infact. There are several informed and capable posters on the forum who know that, as well as frequently agree with my posts. Infact, if even only 1% of my posts was not entirely full of shit, that would still be MORE accurate posts than you have produced in your entire time here (minus ofc your own rather wide margin of error).

You are as pathetic to me, as you claim I am to you. I'm still open to voice communication to discuss our differences, but ofc you have declined. I already earlier in the thread specifically offered we will have to agree to disagree, but the extent of your emotional involvement in an otherwise non-personal issue is so pervasive for you, and such a matter of importance in your personal world, that you just couldnt stop with more insults (and ofc, the embarrassment of misrepresenting Gren/Con DPS vs respective Support teams, which you still try to backpedal on).

Don't worry, dear Ciez. Sooner, or later, the Sov Support team 1/3 increased survival differential will be addressed in one form or another, as will the reinforce differential. I assure you of that. And I will still be here, then. Laughing in your face.

Its all there, Ciez. I've already countered your points. The Support Weapon stats, in and of the weapon themselves, are aligned, as I have explained. The cost is aligned (except for reinforce), as I have explained. The meta itself, in terms of counters, is aligned. What is not aligned, is the 1/3 better survival of Sov Support Teams, not only vs small arms, but everything else in the game.

And the fact remains you went full potato and overlooked that it is infact 6 full dps rifles vs 4man, and 4 dps rifles vs 6man.

Its a common mistake. People misunderstand, even to this day, the basic alignment between Cons and Grens. Same DPS, but 6man vs 1.5 armor 4man. You simply overlooked all these factors and made a glib and meaningless calculation for the one time in your life you probably actually looked at actual stats. Then you tried to argue that Grens would somehow be better vs Sov Support Teams at mid/long range, when infact, they take 20-26s longer to decrew at those ranges. Not to mention that in terms of Gren/Con range DPS, they are already aligned, with Cons performing better at close range, and Grens at long. But you failed your homework, hard, when you overlooked that they are infact firing at 4 unarmored models with 6 roughly same DPS rifles, whereas Grens fire with 4 roughly same DPS rifles at a full 6 man unit.

I don't expect you to admit your mistake. That would be unconscionable, and you are clearly the kind of guy, that even if he is wrong, he will never admit it, if he thinks the other guy is an asshole, because you think the latter takes priority. An honest person with intellectual integrity wouldnt take it personally, and simply admit mistake, thank for the correction, and move on with the discussion in an impersonal manner. The fact you want to reduce the entire issue as OP states, ie: the actual balance discussion and issue, to a juvenile 1v1 bout, further demonstrates this element of your character.

I'm not going to regress to your level of attempting to reduce the discussion to a 1v1. It has no bearing on the topic. If I won, you would still as vociferously deny your own mistake and lack of insight into the support crew survival discrepancy. If you won, it wouldn't change my view on this issue in the least.

I think its quite telling that because you cant cover your own mistake, nor discuss a balance issue with rational and objective attitude, you try to turn it into a fight. Again, hardly a characteristic that makes you desirable on a beta. I bet you try to shout down, insult and impugn people there, just as you do here.

You are as pathetic to me, as you claim I am to you. I'm still open to voice communication to discuss our differences, but ofc you have declined. I already earlier in the thread specifically offered we will have to agree to disagree, but the extent of your emotional involvement in an otherwise non-personal issue is so pervasive for you, and such a matter of importance in your personal world, that you just couldnt stop with more insults (and ofc, the embarrassment of misrepresenting Gren/Con DPS vs respective Support teams, which you still try to backpedal on).

Don't worry, dear Ciez. Sooner, or later, the Sov Support team 1/3 increased survival differential will be addressed in one form or another, as will the reinforce differential. I assure you of that. And I will still be here, then. Laughing in your face.

Still pathetic that you promise a 1v1 and then pussy out. I find it absolutely hilarious that you think you even have a chance of beating me. Nice 9 loss streak there bro.

Still ridiculous that you try to say I backtracked when I highlighted for you, twice, my statement that more than proves that I did not backtrack. And referenced it at least a total of four times. Seriously, how slow can you possibly be?

Still insane that you try and tell that my claims were incorrect after I mathematically prove to you that they were, in fact, correct.

I'm not going to waste my time on voice chat with some one like you. Sorry, not sorry.

My status in the beta is literally none of your concern, but I bet if you asked the other active beta members that they'd tell you that they have respect for me - and I've never shown even the slightest of bad manners towards any of them. In fact, you're one of the very few people that I'm not mannered towards. But that seems to be a common reaction for some one as unlikeable as yourself.

Enough of derailing a perfectly good thread though (common when you show up... oh in every thread, you must have the most pathetic life to post so often on these forums oh well and the fact that you're banned from everywhere else LOL). If you have anything else to say to me - an apology would certainly be in order - you can PM me or message me on Steam.

You where wrong. You misrepresented the facts, either by accident, or because you had simply misunderstood them.

I understand thats hard for you to deal with.

And no, ofc, you wont voice chat. Why would you.
Pride goeth before the fall, and you have a very long way to fall from the false pedestal you've built yourself, Mr. Beta Spokesman and Tyrant extraordinaire.

Honestly, I find the level of personal involvement you've taken on this issue to be utterly pitiable. I genuinely pity you, Ciez, and Im not surprised you won't agree to discuss in voice. To take issues of a game so personally, is really quite worrisome, not to mention completely destructive of any opportunity for actual objective discussion on them.

You seem to have even removed me as a friend from Steam as well. I'm not surprised.
Your anger and personal indignation is practically palpable.

Whats wrong? You have a whiny voice or something?

If you have anything to add, do it in voice. Or don't speak to me, or of me, again.
If you aren't man enough to speak about it, thats your choice. But those are the consequences.

I'm here to discuss balance, objectively, impersonally and for the betterment of the game. If you can't do any one of those things, thats your problem, not mine.

Mark my words, Sov Support team durability is out of whack. PQ spoke of being involved with Relic working towards better metrics data processing to inform balance changes in the first SNF match this last Sunday. In the same match 2 MG42s got decrewed by Cons fire from the building at the NE cutoff, in sequence. Thats fine. Could Grens have done the same? Hell no. Dont worry, what I have spoken of will be accounted for, sooner or later.

You where wrong. You misrepresented the facts, either by accident, or because you had simply misunderstood them.

I understand thats hard for you to deal with.

And no, ofc, you wont voice chat. Why would you.
Pride goeth before the fall, and you have a very long way to fall from the false pedestal you've built yourself, Mr. Beta Spokesman and Tyrant extraordinaire.

Honestly, I find the level of personal involvement you've taken on this issue to be utterly pitiable. I genuinely pity you, Ciez, and Im not surprised you won't agree to discuss in voice. To take issues of a game so personally, is really quite worrisome, not to mention completely destructive of any opportunity for actual objective discussion on them.

You seem to have even removed me as a friend from Steam as well. I'm not surprised.
Your anger and personal indignation is practically palpable.

Whats wrong? You have a whiny voice or something?

If you have anything to add, do it in voice. Or don't speak to me, or of me, again.
If you aren't man enough to speak about it, thats your choice. But those are the consequences.

I'm here to discuss balance, objectively, impersonally and for the betterment of the game. If you can't do any one of those things, thats your problem, not mine.

I removed you from Steam because I already have a very full friend's list and I try to keep it pruned to people I actually play with/interact with - if you want to discuss things over Steam I can easily re-add you.

Funny that you try to say I have a poor voice when half of my job is speaking with and interacting with customers. I've been told countless times that I have a very pleasant and relaxing voice, but keep wrongfully assuming things. I honestly have nothing to say to you via voice chat as I'd rather spend the little time I get to play the game, actually playing instead of talking to a no-life pathetic nerd. Also, I'm at work right now so I can't really just hop on skype/vent/whatever. The only way I'd even consider talking to you via voice chat is if you actually 1v1'd me. But that will never happen because you're a huge pussy.

Please prove to me how I misrepresented or miscalculated. I didn't. I mathematically proved to you my statement and for like the sixth time please read this (copy/pasted from my post claiming that Grens have higher mid/far dps):

my instinct says that German weapon teams still die more quickly to small arms fire, but that's fine.

^ Please read that about 57 times since that's apparently how many times it is going to take of me repeating that statement for it to finally penetrate your affected brain.

Honestly, I feel like I'd have more success talking to a brick wall than you.

I've never claimed to be some beta spokesman or whatever you are trying to call me. I haven't even posted about the beta (aside from addressing your imbecile claims that I should remove myself from it) for like a month, if not longer.

Finally, if you're here to discuss balance impersonally, why do you feel the need to constantly and relentless throw personal attacks into your "arguments" especially after playing the ad hominem card whenever some one gives you a taste of your own medicine? Please, come back when your balls drop.

Sov Support teams have a full 1/3 more soak vs not only small arms (as well as on flanks) but everything else in the game.

You miscalculated Gren/CON DPS vs the factions Support crews because:
-A) You neglected to account for the additional effect of 2 additional rifles
-B) You neglected to account for those rifles doing dmg to a 4man unit, rather than a 6man unit, which is extremely significant
-C) You neglected to include the +25% dmg modifer on Support Crews, whihc further multiplies the effect of two additional rifles on Cons.
-D) You tried to argue that Grens are better DPS at mid/long range, when infact the per model DPS output is so minute as to be almost entirely irrelevant. Not to mention that minute difference is returned to Cons at close range.
-E) And again, in that, you failed to account for 6 rifles firing at 4men, at the same DPS PER rifle, as 4 rifles firing at a 6man.
-F) The difference is not "fine" as you claim, especially when younwhere wrong about the mid/long DPD BECAUSE YOU DIDNT MULTIPLY THE AMOUNT OF RIFLES VS MODELS HIT CORRECTLY.
-G) The difference is 8s/20/26s, which means its EVEN MORE PRONOUNCED AND LONG at the ranges you falsely presented Grens being "better at, because, as I stated before, ad nauseum, YOU FAILED RO MULTIPLY THE AMOUNT OF RIFLES VS AMOUNT OF TARGETS.

Basically, you posted a bunch of crap. You fucked up. You overlooked key elements.

Ive sent you an invite on Steam, and am willing to settle our personal differences in voice instead of spamming the forum up, wherafter hopefully we can return to the actual topic once you understand what you misrepresented.

Im a full time student and working on the side, but I have Chrismas break beginning this Friday. Name your time after that, and I will fit my schedule to it.

Sov Support teams have a full 1/3 more soak vs not only small arms (as well as on flanks) but everything else in the game.

You miscalculated Gren/CON DPS vs the factions Support crews because:
-A) You neglected to account for the additional effect of 2 additional rifles
-B) You neglected to account for those rifles doing dmg to a 4man unit, rather than a 6man unit, which is extremely significant
-C) You neglected to include the +25% dmg modifer on Support Crews, whihc further multiplies the effect of two additional rifles on Cons.
-D) You tried to argue that Grens are better DPS at mid/long range, when infact the per model DPS output is so minute as to be almost entirely irrelevant. Not to mention that minute difference is returned to Cons at close range.
-E) And again, in that, you failed to account for 6 rifles firing at 4men, at the same DPS PER rifle, as 4 rifles firing at a 6man.
-F) The difference is not "fine" as you claim, especially when younwhere wrong about the mid/long DPD BECAUSE YOU DIDNT MULTIPLY THE AMOUNT OF RIFLES VS MODELS HIT CORRECTLY.
-G) The difference is 8s/20/26s, which means its EVEN MORE PRONOUNCED AND LONG at the ranges you falsely presented Grens being "better at, because, as I stated before, ad nauseum, YOU FAILED RO MULTIPLY THE AMOUNT OF RIFLES VS AMOUNT OF TARGETS.

Basically, you posted a bunch of crap. You fucked up. You overlooked key elements.

Ive sent you an invite on Steam, and am willing to settle our personal differences in voice instead of spamming the forum up, wherafter hopefully we can return to the actual topic once you understand what you misrepresented.

Im a full time student and working on the side, but I have Chrismas break beginning this Friday. Name your time after that, and I will fit my schedule to it.

I already broke down every element of the math that I did, which DID account for four rifles on Grens versus six on Cons. Repeating the same statements over and over in the vain attempt that you'll actually comprehend why I'm typing is seriously getting tedious.

I'm still not going to waste my time on voice chat with you without first getting to play a series of games. I'll even give you map and faction preference - any map that is legal in 1v1 automatch, you can use any commanders and bulletins. Not that it'll help your obviously beyond terrible play. 40something% win as Soviet... give me a break.

Then if you decline the offer to settle differences, there is nothing more to say bwtween you and me. I tried, you declined. Simple as that.

Sov Support 1/3 survival is out of whack, as demonstrated in my eaelier posts.
Im confident it will be wccounted for, sooner or later.

A 8/20/26s disparity in small arms efficacy is not rewarding for Gren flanks.
But that 1/3 greater soak extends beyond just that, to everything else thrown at the Sov Support teams. Ive explained at length how tue teams primary weapons are already aligned in and of themselves. At cost, the increased durability is superfluous (as is the higher reinforcement cost on Ost Support teams).

Then if you decline the offer to settle differences, there is nothing more to say.

I'm sitting here looking at

- INVITATIONTS SENT
Rhoska

on my steam Friend's list. Clearly I'm declining your generous offer *rolls eyes*

Your move.

I'm sitting here looking at

- INVITATIONTS SENT
Rhoska

on my steam Friend's list. Clearly I'm declining your generous offer *rolls eyes*

Your move.

Glad to hear you changed your mind. Ill be at my PC in a few minutes and we can schedule a time.

Glad to hear you changed your mind. Ill be at my PC in a few minutes and we can schedule a time.

Replay please !!!!!