Very few cost effective counters to upgraded Grens

You repeat that its "only for 240MP", twice now. Its not. Its for 240MP/60Muni.
Repeatedly understating that serves no objective purpose and isnt honest argumentation.

You repeatedly state that LMG Grens Vet faster than Cons, but I'd think its completely intended, logical, and rational that a unit that expends Munis on a weapon, should Vet faster.

Two questions:

What exactly, as specifically as possible, are you:
A) Claiming to be the specific imbalance?
B) Suggesting as a specific solution to that?

The lmg upgrade is a bit too good; a dps reduction is probably in order. It certainly feels like lmgs give a better boost than bars ever did, and volks grens got my on-doctrinal mp40s to stay competitive which conscripts lack. I am consistently skipping panzer grens and I just building more grens with lmg in my games as they seem more cost effective to me.

Nitpicking, are we? You should be able to understand the context by combining my paragraphs, Nullist.

No, you should be able to express yourself concisely and specifically if you want to be understood. Combining of random contexts and floating paragraphs invariably leads to misunderstanding, misinterpretation or misrepresentation.

I specifically asked:

"What exactly, as specifically as possible, are you:
A) Claiming to be the specific imbalance?
B) Suggesting as a specific solution to that?"

Id appreciate if you could answer that, specifically, and concisely, in that format.
Thanks.

Considering I already wrote several responses delineating the misunderstanding/myth you where perpetuating about Vet being different between Gren and Cons, I think it would be atleast courteous to do so.

To be concise Nullist, I'd suggest he's saying Grenadiers are very effective with an LMG upgrade, more effective than they should be, and that effectiveness is leading to increasing the rate at which veterancy is gained (as it is directly proportionate to damage) causing a positive feedback loop that makes grenadiers very powerful and difficult to counter.

There's a few possible nerfs - increase the LMG cost, reduce its damage, or reduce the rate at which grens gain veterancy.

I'd say that a slight damage nerf on the LMG (maybe 10-20%? following the DPS figures here) and then a slight increase on the veterancy required to rank up.

It also makes logical sense that conscripts gain veterancy faster - they are less well trained, and thus combat might give a greater improvement in their skills in a shorter amount of time.

Also there's no need to be horrible guys. It's just a game and this is a discussion forum, not a battlefield.

You make me laugh.

What else can I say? If you read the post, you should be able to understand it. There is nothing random about it. I started with the manpower comparison, then went on to address the munitions issue (which seems to be your basic point of discussion). Maybe, because I am german, my english is not understandable to you.

Considering I already wrote several responses delineating the misunderstanding/myth you where perpetuating about Vet being different between Gren and Cons, I think it would be atleast courteous to do so.

I replied to that. You state the same, in every post. Basically, your opinion is that the high munitions cost justifies this huge indifference in gaining veterancy and turning your troops into grenadier supermen. You also state that gaining vet is equal, but what about armor ratings for the specific units? Doesn't that have to be brought into consideration?

After having read lots of your posts in various topics, seems to me like you enjoy turning every discussion into a chore.

Again, I am talking about 2vs2 games, where grenspam with transition into armored units is hard to dispose of because they just scale so well. The issue seems fine in 1vs1 at the moment.

I like the idea of making it so that LMGs cannot be upgraded until some tier has been teched. I hope it's something that the developers will consider, since Basilone is spot on with the OP.

Ok, so you refuse to, or are incapable of answering short, concise and specific questions.

I know some people have difficulty with that for various reasons. Unfortunate.

I don't particularly care anyways nor have interest or time in speculatively deriving some kind of amorphous and ambiguous, undefined waffle from a bunch of disconnected and floating paragraphs with no coherent contextual connections, full of false implications and generally hostile in character on a personal level.

If you can't express your position concisely and specifically, thats not my problem, and you aren't frankly worth reading, from my perspective.

LMG dmg may need adjusting, but that has nothing to do with Vet gain, which is equivalent both systemically and practically on Grens and Cons, and which is justified due to cost of the upgrade, as well as asymmetric parallel with Cons other advantages, as considered in the larger picture.

Giving Cons a PPSH, as seems to be the deeply buried and almost unrecognisable "suggestion" that you try to justify by crying "LMG IS TOO GOOD I WANT IT TOO ON CONS", is not the answer.

Reduce DPS on LMG, and remove internal setup time. Fixed.
Has nothing to do with Vet, which was your false premise, and which was doubly false as a premise for suggesting universal PPSH upgrade (and completely fucking disregarding Cons other strengths over Grens, in the wider perspective. Ergo, you created an artificial and non-existant vacuum in which somehow if Cons have PPSH, that makes LMGs dmg, and Vet, ok, which is a completely flawed position, since your premise was that LMG was too good).

What was particularly aggravating and frankly, bullshit, was repeatedly trying to, falsely and dishonestly, claim and shove down the communities throat that Grens+LMG is "for only 240MP". Pretty offensive, really.

Ok, you refuse to, or are incapable of reading and understanding the context of my post(s).



Maybe read Hermetriums post then. He seems to have understood what i have been writing.

I asked you to answer 2 specific and concise questions.

You refuse and laugh.

Thats your problem, not mine.

My strategy for fighting LMG grens: avoid them and try to cap around them until I get a sniper(s). No infantry short of shock troops can reliably fight them without taking huge losses. Molotovs are very risky, depending on how long the thrower does the huge baseball windup. When you're losing what feels like one conscript per second, any delays are deadly.

Granted, when I get vet with ppsh, I can take on pretty much anything, but that's well past the initial LMG encounters.

I really don't feel like I have to answer to your call, Nullist. Don't take it personal. It's a forum, and we are "talking" about a game I enjoy playing.

Guten Tag, der Herr.

Edit: Your petty accusations are, frankly put, pulled out of your behind.

Sorry if asking two specific and concise questions was somehow offensive or difficult for you, and "pulled out of my behind".

How do you pick out bits of sentences obviously not being in context with each other?

Do you even remember your posts? I don't get paid to babysit you, Nullist.

What was particularly aggravating and frankly, bullshit, was repeatedly trying to, falsely and dishonestly, claim and shove down the communities throat that Grens+LMG is "for only 240MP". Pretty offensive, really.

Accusation...

So what if it costs munitions. Ostheer players go for munitions now anyway and also build a munitions cache. They have more than enough munitions available to literally spam LMG grens...

LMG upgrades allows faster vetting, making them overkill for 240MP. They scale better than pgrens for their cost. I have been only seeing pgrens as dedicated AT lately.

Keep in mind that I am talking about 2vs2 right now, Nullist. I haven't really encountered this in 1vs1, yet. Sorry for not mentioning this in my earlier posts.

That was my answer... understanding that I should have been more precise, I thought you could/ would understand what I was saying here. I actually think you did understand, but enjoy to argue just for the sake of arguing.

2 simple questions.

If you arent going to answer them, kindly stop addressing me.

I like the idea of making it so that LMGs cannot be upgraded until some tier has been teched. I hope it's something that the developers will consider, since Basilone is spot on with the OP.

I like this idea as well. T2 requirement. It forces the Ostheer to sacrifice a MP to allow for "tech'd up" infantry as well. This will still come faster than PPSHs.

Giving Cons a PPSH, as seems to be the deeply buried and almost unrecognisable "suggestion" that you try to justify by crying "LMG IS TOO GOOD I WANT IT TOO ON CONS", is not the answer.

Reduce DPS on LMG, and remove internal setup time. Fixed.

I don't think it's a matter of 'Wehr has a way to scale Grenadiers into the lategame so the Soviets should as well, just because'. Honestly I think (and I've heard people comment) that PPSHs, or some non-doctrinal upgrade for a fuel cost, would make the game more diverse, much how like BARs gave US players a choice of how they'd spend their fuel, and gave the COH1 Wehr the opportunity to react and capitalize on the lack of US vehicles.

Naturally it wouldn't be as simple as giving conscripts the PPSHs as they are now- the entire upgrade would need balancing cost-wise and DPS-wise, but if it's done properly it should genuinely improve the current 'fuel used for vehicles only' style of gameplay.

Reducing the DPS on LMGs wouldn't really help- infantry DPS with rifles is already rather poor, and flanking grenadiers already take ages to dispose of weapon crews without the LMG.

Honestly I think (and I've heard people comment) that PPSHs, or some non-doctrinal upgrade for a fuel cost, would make the game more diverse, much how like BARs gave US players a choice of how they'd spend their fuel, and gave the COH1 Wehr the opportunity to react and capitalize on the lack of US vehicles.

Imo, its Penals that should fill that "diversity". Especially, and specifically, related to "opportunity to react and capitalise on lack of vehicles". Thats exactly what I think Penals should be doing. Not further improvements to Cons.

As I pointed out earlier, LMGs are the only "perk" Grens have vs Cons, in the absence of native Merge and Oorah. Without LMGs, Grens are, "worse" than Cons, in terms of that diversity you specifically raising as a basis for change.

And he was trying to twist this into an argument that a "only 240MP" unit has a better Vet rate, without realising that vet gain is the same for Cons and Grens when at "only 240MP".

I swear if he one more time says that its "only 240MP", deliberately omitting the Muni cost, Ill kill a kitten.

I swear if he one more time says that its "only 240MP", deliberately omitting the Muni cost, Ill kill a kitten.

Interestingly, the cost adjustments of Shocks allow for rudimentary mp to muni ratios. The Shock PPSH upgrade was 60 munitions, and was dropped for a 80 manpower (used to be 120) increase in cost.

Hence if every 1 mp is worth 1.33 munitions, Grenadiers with LMGs are worth ~320MP. Naturally this isn't entirely accurate- munitions have different value to different factions at different stages of the game.

Imo, its Penals that should fill that "diversity".

Well, why not give players the choice by allowing both? T1+Penals+flamethrowers or conscripts with PPSHs- diversity is always good unless it messes up balance.

As I pointed out earlier, LMGs are the only "perk" Grens have vs Cons, in the absence of native Merge and Oorah. Without LMGs, Grens are, "worse" than Cons, in terms of that diversity you specifically raising as a basis for change.

Think about it this way- Volks were directly inferior to Riflemen in just about all situations, but wehr T1 wasn't underpowered vs rifle play because of the support it offered to the Volks in the MG/Sniper/Bike. I'm not saying that Grenadiers should be directly inferior to the Conscript because Ostheer T1 offers other units while Soviets have to wait till later in the game for crewed weapons - but just because the Conscript would be inherently better than the Grenadier if the PPSH was an option doesn't mean an automatic imbalance, as long as overall faction balance remains.

I swear if he one more time says that its "only 240MP", deliberately omitting the Muni cost, Ill kill a kitten.

Once you pop, you just can't stop, ey?


Stop being so ridiculous, Nullist. I already explained. You just do not want to uderstand... instead you pick on something that was corrected a long time ago.

This thread is a perfect example of why people should just generally ignore most of Nullist's comments. He obviously didn't learn anything through self-reflection during his "time out" of not being allowed to post in balance threads.

I think the LMG upgrade shouldn´t be nerfed. See what happened to the MG42 squad - overnerfed. Why would i build Grenadiers late game if not for the MG upgrade?

What´s needed imo is that teh PPSH upgrade for conscripts gets non doctrinal and the doctrinal ability is replaced with a DP28 upgrade for scripts. Buff the late-game abilities of Conscripts and don´t nerf Grenadiers or we will see Panzergrenadiers vs. Shocks/ Guards only.