Grenadiers - Not for the faint of micro

I didn't ignore them at all though? Because the argument that grens are designed to function only with support weapon help, then why do other factions get to skip on using combined arms themselves?

It makes no logical sense why basic infantry should just be "better" for the same or similar cost for no reason when options are equally available to both sides. Nothing is stopping USF players from supporting their riflemen with .50 cal's, nothing is stopping a Soviet player from supporting Conscripts with Maxims.



The price increase on the HMG42 and nerf to the Ostheer mortars ROF seem to point that Relic cares more about things being appropriately balanced based on price rather than faction exclusivity. The Soviet and Ost mortars are about equal now, and the maxim has it's place as the most dirt cheap non-doc HMG.

Really this entire argument that Grens are fine totally hinges on the idea that A. They are very easy to just a-move and always win or B. That they aren't mean to not be able to fight enemy infantry alone.

A is incorrect as I previously demonstrated and B is incorrect because every other faction has just as much opportunity to support their units just like Ostheer does.

In and so far the logical conclusion we can draw from this is either Cons and Rifles need their new premium vet scaled down, or Grens need a boost up.

Firstly, people have replied about your numbers, including me. Secondly, just because OST win rates are low, doesn't mean it's because grens are bad. People aren't arguing that OST isn't bad, they are arguing that grens aren't bad.

You're derailing the thread here a bit. This is about make grens more resilient to explosives by giving them an extra man. Not about OST underperforming, or 1v1 matchups against other infantry.

Tried to clean this up a bit, had to invis a lot of stuff from Alex. Sure blame me for being a sarcastic asshole Alex but when people report your shit, I guess you can keep thinking I'm an unprofessional jackass
Back on topic pls gents

and 1v1 is more micro than 2v2? really?

The two have completely different game play synergies, quite a seperate and distinct play aspect from the actual team synergy between two players of a team in 2v2. The workload including micro in 1v1 is far higher IME&O, notably exacerbated in COH2 because of its warts in that regard so that losses such as a whole squad instantly are more impactful. Perhaps if you played 1v1 auto more, you'd appreciate that?

Whilst its predecessor is different albeit far better designed and implemented in may respects, the same core principles of play apply. You really don't want to know how many hours of COH1 2v2AT and 1v1 ranked auto I have played of COH1 over the years since it released and have more than probably been playing human opponent versed RTS since before you were sucking on mommy's tit. So if you can't engage in civil discussion, then please take your arrogant and insulting "L2p" affrontary elsewhere.

Do not tell me about micro

No one could or would I imagine attempt to "tell" you much about anything. You'd need to be able to use your ears instead of your mouth for that to be possible.

IMV axis rifle grenade animation is 'can't miss it' high profle in comparison as their man goes to his knee and takes an aeon to load and fire. More importantly, even where it lands and the opponent has not seen the shoot and is still sitting static in gren cover, IME the rifle launched nade does not consistantly do anywhere near the insta wipe damage USF nades do to units in green cover against predominantly 4 man squads. So although I don't think it is the answer because it would impact on play elsewhere of a faction designed around a 4 man squad for the most part, the OP does have a valid argument of sorts offered as one potential solution. As for their respective effiacy against garrisoned models. Chalk and cheese. I'll swap rifle nades for USF nades anytime thanks.

I just gave you the RL play IME example of what actually happens in 1v1 auto in the previous post. Respond to the animation, before the mini-men move they're all wiped. Perhaps you are sitting a hop from the battle server with very low latency connection with a $4k build gaming PC? Many of us aren't.

Bottom line. If it weren't so, I simply wouldn't complain.

I don't complain about German rifle nades when playing as as Soviets because they aren't OP. Their availability and dealt damage is proportionate, and you do get time to react. As for Molotovs, the only incredible aspect is their constant chop and changing. Relic still haven't and can't get them right > two years after this game's release? WTF?!!! When I came to this game a month or so ago, they were useless for a number of reasons. Then we get a patch prior to a hotfix, and suddenly Axis have incendiary nades which virtually insta kill which concurrently improve the Molotov's effiacy out of sight as well. Again we have device in a game requiring intensive micro and management of multiple units where if overlooked, entire squads are wiped in a nano-instant.

COH2 has lost the plot. Micro Macro Nonsensico. RTS has involved those concepts for a long long time, but ultimately, they should never reach a point where they eclipse the importance and impact of tactical and strategic play. This game has managed to achieve that, albeit I am pretty sure that was an unintended rather than a design objective.

I suppose that I continue to hope as many who have trodden before me here who have long since left this game disenfranchised, disappointed and disillusioned, that it can or will ever be 'fixed' which I think is a real shame. Apologists do the genre and the game no favour. Nor does excuse after excuse alter what it really is. I so want this game to be what it should be. But for that to ever occur, what SEGA and Relic both need is a real boycott kick in the arse rather than endless apologists hanging onto hope in appeasement and paying for their third rate rubbish DLC.

I'd be the very first to support by buying rather than pirating any quality sim or game, and I've been around to have seen some real beauties. But this one is kiddie fluff with little substance and as many who have played and left before me agree, leaves one with an empty feeling of disatsifaction in how it plays that without honest open if critical analysis, one 'can't quite put one's finger on' but knows it's there because you can feel it.

Ultimately I can't believe how atrociously bad it is yet has such an albeit small and niche Company of Fanboys who simply won't acknowledge that it is a horrible ugly toad and not even the potential more beautiful green frog which might just have some chance of turning into that fabled prince.

I really want to say good things about this game endlessly. Really I do. But SEGA and Relic will have to provide me with reason to. Personally, I think its just time Relic and SEGA stopped milking this dry cow for every and any drop and kicked off COH3 for a return to the quality which was COH1 utilising all the things learned from the positives of 1 and mistakes of 2. It'd be a huge if acknowledged expensive investment in guaranteed success if they did. Already in the closeout bin, the only thing saving COH2's sorry arse from oblivion right now is that it has NO effective competition except for its predecessor. Yer I now, off thread topic. But not really. Almost every thread in this forum revolves indirectly around the same general core issue as the intrinsic cause of the individual problem. Of course as always, YMMV.

Whether grens need a 5th man or not, I'm not gonna comment, but I will express my disbelief that someone suggested a 350 mp cost per grenade and he was being serious

Tried to clean this up a bit, had to invis a lot of stuff from Alex. Sure blame me for being a sarcastic asshole Alex but when people report your shit, I guess you can keep thinking I'm an unprofessional jackass
Back on topic pls gents

Whyd you invis post 95 though? I agree the rest were OT but 95 was directly related to the topic at hand.

i still dont know why rifle and cons ere buffed in first place i think a ll these whine threads and complaints when where were none from allied fanobys affected and created a false paradigm for relic to fall in the whine trap of allies weak and buffed them....there is no hope for axis..no buffs will happen i mean i fear for further axis fun....its okay it feels like you are fighting like an underdog

But what about 1919 Rifles? The 1919 is essentially an LMG42 in all respects and Riflemen have 5 men AND better received accuracy.

The USF lmg is 70 muni, while doing less damage then the ost lmg, not to mention rifles are more expensive.
On that note, relic overbuffed rifles imo, they just never die when vet 3 lol. 15% would've been good enough. Oh well, I'm enjoying laddering USF right now.

The USF lmg is 70 muni, while doing less damage then the ost lmg, not to mention rifles are more expensive.
On that note, relic overbuffed rifles imo, they just never die when vet 3 lol. 15% would've been good enough. Oh well, I'm enjoying laddering USF right now.

Ugh, yes the LMG1919 has .3 less DPS at max range. But functionally they are exactly the same same. Vickers K, LMG42 and 1919 are all the "standard" LMG's with Brens, MG34 and DP-28 being the outliers.

The problem that has been in the game for too long now are full health squad wipes by mines.

There would be an easy fix to that:

Make all multipurpose mines do (for example) 70 damage (or less, needs some testing) at the center and deal suppression just like in coh1. That way flanks can be secured but it will make it impossible for full health squads to get wiped by just stepping on a mine.

The damage the mine would normally do against vehicles can be added as bonus damage, just like they did with the PTRS.

The mines in coh1 were a lot better and I'm sure that they can replicate them in coh2.

Relic could raise the entity count in a squad to 5 but then target size (formerly received accuracy) on vet and dps for grens needs to be adjusted (vet target size reductions and dps reduced), allied mortar performance improved, sniper reload shortened and all other weapons that were balanced against 4 men squads and are not small arms and therefore cannot be accounted for by a bigger target size.

It is however not needed. Adjustments to mines are.

Five-man squads aren't needed. Grenadiers didn't need five men back in CoH1 and they don't need five men now.

Ugh, yes the LMG1919 has .3 less DPS at max range. But functionally they are exactly the same same. Vickers K, LMG42 and 1919 are all the "standard" LMG's with Brens, MG34 and DP-28 being the outliers.

I'm convince the dps formula is wrong in this case. despite their near identical dps the lmg42 just feel more powerful.

Even if the m1919a6 is as strong as the lmg42, the m1919a6 still cost more.

I'm convince the dps formula is wrong in this case. despite their near identical dps the lmg42 just feel more powerful.

Even if the m1919a6 is as strong as the lmg42, the m1919a6 still cost more.

I too feel that LMG42 is a bit more powerful but stats say otherwise. Maybe it's because of the RoF. I'm not sure about the stats but I think LMG42 has better RoF but worse cooldown between bursts. This gives LMG42 better snipe potential. I'm not sure though.

grens didnt need fifth member the past 3 years. just let them be as is