Assault Grenadiers everywhere

Most of the time the ass grens will avoid attacking the rifle squads and instead of harass all your unattended resource points. And if they just come around the corner, they are also able to take on your rifle squad by using sprint.

On any map which isn't close quarter which doesn't facilitate movement in cover or dead ground, against any USF player who isn't a total nUb, his usually blobbed and numerically superior rifles firing from cover will just cut down AGs as they sprint across open ground.

As for harrassing unattended resource points, I consider that invalid against any USF player with nous given the ability of USF to infantry outspam any faction including OKW. Makes about as much sense as PE trying to win a capping/decapping war vs US in COH1 1v1 auto unless and until they have booby trap point if going SE doctrine. Even then, and with CAP rate maxed by an expensive fuel upgrade in KGC, their cap rate is still only 2/3 that of US inf. OK different game, but you take on board my point?

So A. highly map dependent, and B. 'Not a good look' against USF generally. If going MAC vs USF, even more important IMV to support with HMGs and other support units definitely avoiding anything resembling AG spam.

Interesting to read of your relative dread of Stug III Ausf E's BTW. I'll take note to explore and exploit this more vs USF. Thanks.

P.S. The above IME with the caveat as self-illustrating from my previous posts, I like/am an advocate of MAC doctrine generally. My view is that MAC doesn't hold as great an advantageous or the same shock impact vs USF, especially in 1v1.

1-2 Ass Grens are maximum and I'll always go for 1 AssGren and 2-3 Normal Grens. Else you'll never take full control of the match.

Are you referencing 1v1 or 2v2?

Do you think there's any chance they will buff the stug E since they bumped it back by 2 CP. it has very low health for a tank/assault gun and no hull MG nor pintle MG upgrade so it relies entirely on its main gun which leads to very inconsistent damage IMHO.

It's funny, but I like more assault grenadiers than shockers. I find close combat unit for 280/27mp, 7 cap and 0 CP better then 390/32mp, 10 cap and 2 CP. Well, shockers have smoke grenade but that's all.
Returning to the topic, I see this doctrine in each second fight.

but assult gren only usefull early game, as which point at late game u MUST kill the Unit as it has no use as all, unlike that shock with 2 CP, which came early n still dominate late, soo good for its cost.

i use ass gren to harass MG, n if it get suppressed u have little option either retreat or Soft retreat so that other unit take that mg out,

but as shock u alone can harass that mg as SMOKE is a big deal for MG,

Do you think there's any chance they will buff the stug E since they bumped it back by 2 CP. it has very low health for a tank/assault gun and no hull MG nor pintle MG upgrade so it relies entirely on its main gun which leads to very inconsistent damage IMHO.

Agree it needs a serious buff in the game. Chance of it happening in the face of USF and UKF "everything Axis is OP" whiners = SFA. Call me cynical, but SEGA/Relic's prime directive is to make money, and they know their primary target market geographic and demographic.

As is, I think the StuG III Ausf E is semi-redundant panic call-in most of the time, so I skip it a lot. There are simply better toys to spend on if you aren't in a desperate situation where its entry can impact.

All I find it good for is killing those early light vehicles or (AT) undefended minor emplacements, as its 75mm main gun deals about as much damage as a BB gun. e.g. It should rape a Bofors, which is exactly the kind of job IRL it would and in game should be deployed for. But we all know how well that works. Even worse, it's useless against USF infantry because it kills so few men per shot in the face of USF rifle spam, and they can kill it so easily. And now that the Soviet AT 'nades actually work, they too just shrug off its shots before throwing an AT 'nade damaging its engine so it's a wounded duck before hitting retreat and bringing on something else to kill it off.

IRL the StuG III Ausf A/B/C/D/E were a powerful infantry support AG which kicked arse against infantry and emplacements, their role, and were even good enough to take out '41/42 T-34/76's which is how it was emergency deployed when the Germans first encountered them in Barbarossa before they upgunned the PzKfw IV to Ausf F/H to deal.

The RL StuG III Ausf E didn't have a cupola nor even casemate top mounted external MG, although with the E an MG34 with enclosed drum ammo feed was carried within the crew compartment which could be deployed externally (presumably bipod supported as I have never seen a fixed mount for MG on any E) as a close defense MMG. Only to later Ausfuhrungs was a gunshield added with MG and eventually a remote MG like the Hetzer's (very late Ausf G). Crew access to the E and earlier model's casemate was by barnyard door type upward outer opening hatches.

but assult gren only usefull early game, as which point at late game u MUST kill the Unit as it has no use as all,

Play with them some more.

Hardly a surprise, AGs can't go head to head with STs, nor do they scale particularly well. But (i) they don't cost what STs (or PzGrs) cost either, and (ii) they have a significantly better survival model than either Gr or PzGr. In many engagments where I would lose a 4 man Gr/PzGr squad, that 5th man is a lifesaver seeing them survive retreat to reinforce, and cheaply. That is a powerful adjunct, especially early.

Early game they can operate efficiently independently, albeit better in pairs or more. They are deadly vs 4 man Brit inf or Soviet conscripts and USF rear echelon and even single USF rifles before they can blob where they can close for CC melee. This is where pairs work especially well. A single rifle squad can only fire at one target at a time. Two AG squads can bracket them and close. Mine earn die Nahkampfspangen pretty quickly. They really dominate until STs, upgraded Brit inf or Sappers appear. The more you annihilate, the longer that entry is both delayed and forced. Mid through later game they are still very useful if used prudently. Cheap, use them then in conjunction with other units. e.g. supporting an MG or bunker so that once the MG pins/suppresses, AGs sprint in and kill the survivors if your opponent doesn't retreat instantly because his attention is elsewhere or he's inexp. Then you use them to recap with MG covering. Dual are good too. One throws a stun 'nade, second sprints in to kill. But with supporting Gr with MG34 et al, they are still useful. By late game they are support infantry rather than the primary fighting unit, but undeniably have a useful role. In the particular, that 5th man advantage other Ost units lack is just gold.

If early deployment and efficiency of AGs pushes Soviets to go STs which IME when they frequently do most will numerically overcommit for immediate overwhelming supremacy to regain field control. About then, the surprise arrival of an Ostwind and its shock impact before they have effective AT sends them fleeing pretty quickly. Even more impactful in 2v2 when two Ostwinds appear and are used in tactical concert. Early field control and the subsequent fuel income control established by AGs and surplus MP they afford to build fuel caches due ratio of respective MP losses permits this.

z.B. Played X4 2v2 autos 2300 through 0200 last night. 3 with MAC. Won 3. Lost the 4th (MAC), same mistake as previous night. Continuing play when my partner had fatigued. I saw his attention span nosedive during the quite tough endgame of game #3 against a verbally abusive pair of much higher (> X3 our rank) ranked players. Analysis? We shouldn't have played a 4th. My play partner wanted to, and against my better judgement to accomodate him -he's my pal and regular PP after all, we did. We lost. I/we won't make that mistake again. I think he fully realises the futility of playing once fatigued so it's now indelibly inscribed in his psyche. Schweiß für Blut!

Deploying more than one assgren is a stupid mistake. This is why I deploy four. I spam assgrens not to win but because they are fun to spam. I know it isn't strategically viable because they get beat at any range, but I enjoy the humor of rushing them all over the place on 4v4s and 3v3s. No one used them in the OCF tournament because they aren't good. I use them because it is fun and challenging to take every fight to point blank and sometimes watch one commando squad kill all of your units.

dont send your infantry solo,couple or more,,,,,

I play a ton of 2v2s randoms and I dont think I have seen mech assault played maybe more then 1 time. I personally dont care for this commander, I think there are better commanders. Back in the day before the stug e nerf and assgren nerf its was excellent but now its just meh.
Like any commander, its what works for the player. Watching tournaments and replys iv been people use absolute crap commanders to their advantage. Its all about what works for you and your play style. I love blitzkrieg for example but who uses that really?

For the record, re Assault Mechanized Commander (doctrine) abbrev. MAC play.

(Nerfed) Assault Grens and Mech Assault Group FTW!

What follows is a specific warts 'n all soul bearing example in support of my affirmation of this commander in the two preceding posts for those interested. If not, move along. Nothing for you here.

My regular 2v2 partner and I used this double MAC 'shock strat' last night, well early morning actually, in a contiguous 2v2 automatch session from 2300hrs through 0600hrs local. We were on an 8 win streak including the previous night's results (+2) until our first loss against a way higher ranked US+Brit pair with all the PTW Über-commanders who also were lacking any embarrassment at their exploitation of them.

Not to deny their 'give it their all' play or ultimate victory in that match, but it was a longer game in which we equitted ourselves respectfully well versus Über-spam from 'the blobster' US player in particular, and which as a game could easily have gone either way for most of the match until a decisive crux.

Rather than the MAC strat, the critical contributory factor to our loss on this occasion was my teammate's fatigue after 6 games in the following circumstances. I had started fairly fresh having had four hours sleep immediately prior to our session, whereas he had been up all day after a similiar all night session the previous day. I saw his critical thinking and situational awareness curves just crash with the fatigue combined with higher level of pressure from these particular opponents excacerbated by the fatigue of having played 6 games immediately prior. Not grumbling. We're a team. Our fault. Our loss. How it goes. Just saying is all, pointing out aspects of the game that influence outcomes other than just commander choice and raw play ability when any player is at their optimum. i.e. Warmed up, but not fatigued.

It should be pointed out that we are both at a tech disadvantage in terms of hops from the battle server, and my partner in the particular is hobbled with a low performance PC for this game, not that mine is actually anything resembling a ball tearer either. In fact, I'd consider mine minimum acceptable. I don't really know how he copes with a slower CPU. And those factors count, much more so in COH2 than COH1 IME. I have an upgrade on the cards purely motivated to do so for this game to include SSD (already purchased), Skylake i5 6600K, Z170 mobo & 16GB Skylake optimised DDR4 with a replacement GPU as well, although might hold on that until AMD top dog of the moment segment tiers or my mate wants to flog off his 980GTX. 8GB R390 would be where I'd go ATM if I bought NOW, but I want to try and avoid the power consumption of that prev gen AMD die. But I digress.

At the point of the first loss when I noticed his sudden onset of fatigue -about the 6th or 7th consecutive game, we should have just stopped playing then. But he, we, both wanted to continue much even though we shouldn't have because we just enjoy playing. Unfortunately we drew the same map detested by both of us, Vaux Farmlands, which we should have deselected. Ouch! A subsequent 2nd loss. Realising a primary factor being his fatigue, rather than continue and in all probability incur an -8 streak on our Ostheer profile, we decided to lighten up and switched to double Soviets. Much to our surprise, we won the next two quite tough games against considerably higher ranked opponents on Rails and Metal (Wehr+OKW) and then Minsk Pocket (double OKW => Jagtiger+KT) before losing the next two. My fault. I should have insisted my teammate hit the sack as he was all but physically alseep and unable to scan or multi-task at all by then. Kudos to him for hanging in as well as he did. Those of you who are nuts about the game will understand how hard it is to stop playing when you aren't stats obsessed. All in all a monster session through the night and morning hours of darkness with games ranging from 14 minutes (quickest opponent surrender) through around and hour.

MAC works as you can see from our initial six games when we were fresh winning all, four of them against considerably higher ranked opponents. I really don't think the MAC is OP in reasoned analysis. What it is however, is an unusually well balanced solid doctrine which just needs to be used appropropriately, and probably particularly well suited to the temperament ipso facto dominant inherent natural play style of a player. I find it a doctrine which suits an RTS 'eagle' who has a mobile and aggressive opening play style but who concurrently has the nous to consolidate on those advantages rather than abuse by overuse (spam) which is a mistake. For example, we generally find we deploy only one expensive Mech Assault Group in any game, but usually together which has an awesome impact at the time of deployment within its entry availability window. In double deployment, the overall impact of double AG opening supported by an MGs and MAG is simply SHOCK and DISRUPTION for which we find many opponents are simply not prepared or able to adapt throwing their intended strat plan into disarray. Especially good if able to inflict lots of early total model loss casualties against a Brit or double Brits which really hits their MP curve hard. Schweiß für Blut!

Hey I am using an XFX R9 390 8gig DDR5 card and I love it is wonderful and Amazing I am using an
8350 processor FX AMD
16 gigs of Gskill 1866 Ram
Asus M59A R2.0 motherboard (was around 200$)
750WAtt power supply with a 26 overhead Wattage (power left over after running my system)
I run basically any game I want any time I want.

Deploying more than one assgren is a stupid mistake. This is why I deploy four. I spam assgrens not to win but because they are fun to spam. I know it isn't strategically viable because they get beat at any range, but I enjoy the humor of rushing them all over the place on 4v4s and 3v3s. No one used them in the OCF tournament because they aren't good. I use them because it is fun and challenging to take every fight to point blank and sometimes watch one commando squad kill all of your units.

This pretty much, assgrens can rip ass close range and in 4v4 it gets u the tiger for later, I find it a pretty good commander for random 4v4 and I have pretty much all of the commanders unlocked.

Hey I am using an XFX R9 390 8gig DDR5 card and I love it is wonderful and Amazing I am using an
8350 processor FX AMD
16 gigs of Gskill 1866 Ram
Asus M59A R2.0 motherboard (was around 200$)
750WAtt power supply with a 26 overhead Wattage (power left over after running my system)
I run basically any game I want any time I want.

What res and settings are you running coh2 and do you own fallout 4, sorry for off topic question just bought the xfx r9 390 be w/backplate, i run a i7 4770k just to know, coz im buying a new monitor, cheers

This pretty much, assgrens can rip ass close range and in 4v4 it gets u the tiger for later, I find it a pretty good commander for random 4v4 and I have pretty much all of the commanders unlocked.

I would be careful calling assgrens a 'good' ability. My point was that it was a fun ability to use, but if you got them to be strategically viable then kudos.

I would be careful calling assgrens a 'good' ability. My point was that it was a fun ability to use, but if you got them to be strategically viable then kudos.

Only against noobs basically, but they do good dps if u get them at melee range. For flankings mgs and AT guns etc.. but yes for fun ;p

I play at around the 2000+ level in 1v1, and here AssGrens have their place...specifically against Brits, and especially on maps with lots of corners to jump out around and ambush squads.

One chief advantage is YOU DON@T NEED TO TECH at the start. Your engineer can instantly start capping, and your first AGren goes straight into the fight. The build order should be 2xAgrens, 2xMG, then think about teching. Your aim is to push the enemy off both fuels, and lock them down in the early game. Yes, UC can be a good counter if it is upgraded, BUT if you are dominating the map, the enemy will struggle for munis and fuel. Also, forcing him to build a UC is good because let's face it, it's useless after 5-6 mins.

My +5 wins as Ostheer currently are largely due to this strat. Someone used AGrens against me, I watched, I learned, I got the Commander drop (or had it already, can't remember - just know I don't buy commanders), and I've utilised it. Before, I struggled with Ostheer...now, I'm doing much better (not to say i always use this commander - but it has helped).

paper soldiers just good in urban maps for flank ,just in begining to mid game.

One chief advantage is YOU DON@T NEED TO TECH at the start.

This is the achilles heel of Agrens.

Enemy usually build light vehicle as quickly as possible as he knows that you don't have any fausts.

Still they have their use... they seem to beat any unit in 1vs1 situation in beginning of the game and bumrush MGs with sprint easily... after first light vehicle are mostly just popcap sink... Would love the ability to "upgrade" them to regular grens or panzergrens after tier 3...