Login

russian armor

Panzergrenadiers underperforming (with video proof)

8 Apr 2015, 13:48 PM
#41
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

PzGrenadiers are beasts. Their only problem is that you have to get Grenadiers before you get them as you can't do a T2 start, and that moves them from alternative great early elite infantry that wreck everyone from cover to situational elite infantry or Panzerschreck carriers.

Oh and that their G43 upgrade is a waste of a squad and also a munitions sink.



Not true.

Im not making Grens for a long time.

Engi, Engi, MG, MG and then whatever you need: more Engi, MG, Mortars.... Upgrade Engis with Flamers, keep them covered by MG and then call for PzGrens.
8 Apr 2015, 13:54 PM
#42
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1



I'm not sure what else you want to see? Should 1 pgren squad be able to take out 2 conscript squads and 2/3rd of a guard squad when the soviet player micros well?





Pfff... You are a far better player than me, so I'll take your words as trolling.

First video: COVER IS DIRECTIONAL. WTF is the USF player doing? Instead flanking and trying to close and overpass pzgrens by cutting retreat and avoid cover then eventualy close in with all 3 squads, what is he doing? Stay at optimal distance (middle distance) for PzGrenadiers of course while they were 3 stars and in green cover and his troops on open ground. Nice.

Second video: The two cons in the right didn't storm Pzgrens while they were engaged fighting guards. No, why should they do that? They keep distance seeking for a doubtfull yellow cover. PzGrens were fighting with a guard unit and won (of course - cover type + units strengt). What would I have done? Close with my 2 cons squads in hugging distance, even with "ourrah". I can guarantee to you that the ending would have been different.

Now tell me I'm wrong.
8 Apr 2015, 14:20 PM
#43
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

What would I have done? Close with my 2 cons squads in hugging distance, even with "ourrah". I can guarantee to you that the ending would have been different.

Now tell me I'm wrong.


You are wrong. Aproaching with hoorah or getting close is a bad call.

Stay on cover and focus fire. On the video he was lucky most of the squad members didn't die according to the HP pool, so he mantain firepower along several extra seconds.

What SU should have done:

A) Pull back guards into green stone wall, conscripts into green truck/merge, conscripts into truck/wall.

B) Put cons on truck and cons on wall.
8 Apr 2015, 14:27 PM
#44
avatar of Pedro_Jedi

Posts: 543

Mismicro, even in high-level playing, is part of the game. You can't dismiss the videos saying that the PG's performed well just because the other player mismanaged his troops.

I usually build 1-2 PG's, because they are really good. Even in maps like Langreskaya they have their uses (while the true sight is still up with the houses and hedges). They just are not TROLOLOL PANZERTERMINATORS I'LL BE BACK MADAFACKA
8 Apr 2015, 14:27 PM
#45
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



Are you gonna show me only retarded videos today guys? What ladder place were those outstanding players that manned the riflemen (first vid) and cons (second vid)? Please don't serve this kind of shit to me today, the engagement mistakes were quite obvious.

How about the videos showing that pgrens are NOT shock troops, are not meant to be used as one and show you how to actually play with the unit?
8 Apr 2015, 15:02 PM
#46
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 1225

PGrens are one of the generally least cost-efficient units in the game and cannot perform as mainstay infantry in lieu of Grens. Given their performance and the difficulty of their use their pricetag and reinforcement costs are really somewhat astonishing.
That said, they have a niche in the game as a defensive unit, discouraging flanks and protecting team weapons against infantry pushes, especially on urban maps where they can compensate a specific weakness of OH to a point. And yes, if you manage to flank into team weapons they'll do nicely as well. I tend to build them every other game but they really need to be babysat in order to perform.
8 Apr 2015, 15:32 PM
#47
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

Second video: The two cons in the right didn't storm Pzgrens while they were engaged fighting guards. No, why should they do that? They keep distance seeking for a doubtfull yellow cover. PzGrens were fighting with a guard unit and won (of course - cover type + units strengt). What would I have done? Close with my 2 cons squads in hugging distance, even with "ourrah". I can guarantee to you that the ending would have been different.

Now tell me I'm wrong.


Rushing at a panzergrenadier unit in cover with conscripts often ends up with a massacre like in the first video. The conscripts would only have a chance to non-cost effectively force the Pgrens off if they happen to need to reload the moment the cons are on the other side of the cover, or when both conscripts are armed with PPSH41s.

In my opinion the conscript squad on the right should have have stayed behind the wall on the right or move south a little to flank the panzergrenadiers without closing in on them. The other conscript squad should have hidden behind the truck. In that case the lone panzergrenadier unit would be unable to cross the gap to the truck without taking casualties. The only thing they could have done then was to close in on the squad on the right. However, the con squad on the right could then Oorah back and the Panzergrenadiers would have a hard time getting a cost-effective engagement. This however, would be completely fine as the Soviet player would have microd his more expensive force in a correct manner.
8 Apr 2015, 15:34 PM
#48
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

PzGrens are amazing. No doubt. Just watch the replay I posted here.

1 PzGrens squad - 40kills.
4 Guards squads with ultra OP PTRS and 1 or 2 squads with DP - 41kills.

It's just people would like to use them like Shocks. A-move. They require micro, focus and they are not for everyone. Like 222. Scout car with upgrade is quite useful. Can inflict damage etc but in hands of someone with bad micro it will be waste of MP, fuel and ammo. Same thing with PzGrens. Powierful, but you need to know how to use them.
They are so powerful that I resigned from getting Grens most of the time, since PzGrens have very good long range DPS
8 Apr 2015, 15:45 PM
#49
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

This is the exact same silly argument with the Bummbar, the unit itself isn't bad but the cost for it compared to what it actually gets done is whack. Obers at only 60 MP more with StG's rip anything at medium to close range apart, while having a better received accuracy bonus.

It's incredibly dense to assert that Pgrens are great based on anecdotal evidence, yes if they don't die they are great, but as a 4 man squad that has to engage at close range their life span is not long enough to justify how much they cost most times.

Not to mention the bad faith argument of "well you just want to a-move with them!" doesn't exactly sell your point.
8 Apr 2015, 15:59 PM
#50
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

For the 100th time, Assault Rifles =/= SMGs. They are not strictly meant to engage at close range.
8 Apr 2015, 16:02 PM
#51
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1



You are wrong. Aproaching with hoorah or getting close is a bad call .


Disagree. Please notice that the "hoorah" approach would have been done from side while pzgrens were engaged in combat with the guard squad and the following battle would have taken place without pzgrens benefiting of green cover, because cover is directional. How could 2 cons squad not effectively engage that pzgren squad from close distance with no cover involved? Even better, the cons would have been positioned on the pzgrens retreating path. Let's not try to avoid noticing obvious things just to contradict someone.
8 Apr 2015, 16:09 PM
#52
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

For the 100th time, Assault Rifles =/= SMGs. They are not strictly meant to engage at close range.


Most engagements happen at long or close range, there are 4 units with assault rifles in this game and none of them are Allies. What incentive is there for an Allied player to sit in the Pgrens perfect target zone when they excel at either long range with para LMG or rifle 1919's or ass hugging range in the case of shocks?
8 Apr 2015, 16:13 PM
#53
avatar of The Silver Sage

Posts: 183



Disagree. Please notice that the "hoorah" approach would have been done from side while pzgrens were engaged in combat with the guard squad and the following battle would have taken place without pzgrens benefiting of green cover, because cover is directional. How could 2 cons squad not effectively engage that pzgren squad from close distance with no cover involved? Even better, the cons would have been positioned on the pzgrens retreating path. Let's not try to avoid noticing obvious things just to contradict someone.


How about this, instead of everyone theorycrafting like crazy, we get some video proof to disprove the 2 that have been posted in this thread.

Right now all I am hearing is good micro beats bad micro... Well shouldn't it?

Panzer grenadiers aren't made to be mainline infantry just like Shocks aren't, even 2 squads of each along with core infantry can really lead to MP bleed.

I will play some Axis games today and see if I can get some good pgren footage.
8 Apr 2015, 16:59 PM
#54
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2



Most engagements happen at long or close range, there are 4 units with assault rifles in this game and none of them are Allies. What incentive is there for an Allied player to sit in the Pgrens perfect target zone when they excel at either long range with para LMG or rifle 1919's or ass hugging range in the case of shocks?


Carbines (Penals, Paratroopers; other units not worth mentioning) and USF have Bars.

People tend to polarize everything saying that either it's hugging or max range. I'll remember you that cover is meant to be use and theres plenty of engagements at mid range.

Carbines/Assault Rifles (in a general sense) are meant to work according to what type of unit you are engaging.
SMG: engage at distance.
Rifle/LMG: engate at close range



Disagree. Please notice that the "hoorah" approach would have been done from side while pzgrens were engaged in combat with the guard squad and the following battle would have taken place without pzgrens benefiting of green cover, because cover is directional. How could 2 cons squad not effectively engage that pzgren squad from close distance with no cover involved? Even better, the cons would have been positioned on the pzgrens retreating path. Let's not try to avoid noticing obvious things just to contradict someone.


Cause you are not trading cost effectively. You are securing a victory with heavy losses and munition expenditure, when you can do the same by just soft retreating the guards and using proper cover and micro movements
9 Apr 2015, 20:33 PM
#56
avatar of FaustCostBulletin

Posts: 521



Most engagements happen at long or close range, there are 4 units with assault rifles in this game and none of them are Allies. What incentive is there for an Allied player to sit in the Pgrens perfect target zone when they excel at either long range with para LMG or rifle 1919's or ass hugging range in the case of shocks?


Fun fact, Shock PPSh doesn't drop off until 10 range in performance while Panzergrenadier Stgs do it at 5 range.
9 Apr 2015, 21:42 PM
#57
avatar of Zyllen

Posts: 770

Its simply a question of cost efficiency. and the pg simply do not have it. @australianmagic if i put a lmg gren squad their the results ( the soviet player was also terrible) would have been the same with less mp loss. if i want a powerful close combat unit then i take the pio with a flamethrower.

9 Apr 2015, 22:10 PM
#58
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post9 Apr 2015, 21:42 PMZyllen
Its simply a question of cost efficiency. and the pg simply do not have it. @australianmagic if i put a lmg gren squad their the results ( the soviet player was also terrible) would have been the same with less mp loss. if i want a powerful close combat unit then i take the pio with a flamethrower.



On that specific situation, not. At those ranges, PG have 100%-50% more DPS in combination with RA.
9 Apr 2015, 23:57 PM
#59
avatar of Zyllen

Posts: 770



On that specific situation, not. At those ranges, PG have 100%-50% more DPS in combination with RA.


Eh what situation are you referring to mate? here is the deal why should i use expensive pg's when i get more flexibility and firepower with the flmethrower pio's? in fact some higher level players you see players going straight for the double flame pio's and rarely bother with pg's.
10 Apr 2015, 00:31 AM
#60
avatar of RMMLz

Posts: 1802 | Subs: 1

Well, I remember PQ saying Pzgrens are fine, they just arrive a bit late, thus can't vet up quickly.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

1037 users are online: 1037 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49991
Welcome our newest member, JoinToYakt
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM