Very few cost effective counters to upgraded Grens

And since this is a topic about lmgs on grens 17.098 near 6.186 far dps penals don't compete with that

Key: Near / Medium / Far
Penals: 34.674 / 21.816 / 8.952
G43: 23.956 / 16.484 / 9.012
LMG: 28.423 / 18.848 / 9.273

Aside from that, I agree with a Penals cost reduction.

Key: Near / Medium / Far
Penals: 34.674 / 21.816 / 8.952
G43: 23.956 / 16.484 / 9.012
LMG: 28.423 / 18.848 / 9.273

Aside from that, I agree with a Penals cost reduction.

Hope it is in the patch notes

Key: Near / Medium / Far
Penals: 34.674 / 21.816 / 8.952
G43: 23.956 / 16.484 / 9.012
LMG: 28.423 / 18.848 / 9.273

Aside from that, I agree with a Penals cost reduction.

That information is somewhat misleading though. Only because in a real game, the DPS of the squad varies based on the squad size. So I think that to find the actual effectiveness of a unit, you have to take into account.

Grens with an LMG also do not scale proportionally to the unit size either (where each member is 1/4 of the DPS).

Distance: near / med / far
4 Grens : 28.423 / 18.848 / 9.273
3 Grens : 24.648 / 16.446 / 8.244
2 Grens : 20.873 / 14.044 / 7.215
1 Gren : 17.098 / 11.642 / 6.186

Distance: near / med / far
6 Penals: 34.674 / 21.816 / 8.952
5 Penals : 28.895 / 18.18 / 7.46
4 Penals : 23.116 / 14.544 / 5.968
3 Penals : 17.337 / 10.908 / 4.476
2 Penals : 11.558 / 7.272 / 2.984
1 Penal : 5.779 / 3.636 / 1.492

So, you will notice that as soon as the first Penal drops, they are are basically on even footing with the LMG Grens and it get worse from there out.

Overall what this means in that in game, the LMG Grens beat Penals pretty well.

So even though in your chart it makes it seems like Penals are damage monsters, there really is more to the story when it comes to the battlefield.

Good point regarding the LMGs permanence on the 4man squad.

However the actual point here was always that Penals are Gren G43 equivalency.

Good point regarding the LMGs permanence on the 4man squad.

However the actual point here was always that Penals are Gren G43 equivalency.

Fair enough.

Here is the table for G43s if anyone is interested

Distance: near / med / far
4 Grens : 23.956 / 16.484 / 9.012
3 Grens : 20.181 / 14.082 / 7.983
2 Grens : 16.406 / 11.68 / 6.954
1 Gren : 8.203 / 5.84 / 3.477

Yes, it seems to me that G43 and Penals are roughly the same, with the edge going to G43s if you can stay at range and Penals being better up close.

So the practical application here is that if you are facing G43s, use terrain to stay out of LOS to get close if you can. Otherwise if you have G43's stay at range.

Fair enough.

Here is the table for G43s if anyone is interested

Distance: near / med / far
4 Grens : 23.956 / 16.484 / 9.012
3 Grens : 20.181 / 14.082 / 7.983
2 Grens : 16.406 / 11.68 / 6.954
1 Gren : 8.203 / 5.84 / 3.477

Yes, it seems to me that G43 and Penals are roughly the same, with the edge going to G43s if you can stay at range and Penals being better up close.

So the practical application here is that if you are facing G43s, use terrain to stay out of LOS to get close if you can. Otherwise if you have G43's stay at range.

Thanks for the well though out analysis and numbers.

Can someone work out the new LMG gren dps numbers post-patch?

I expect Woof will update his spreadsheet soon enough. Probably before the end of the day.

LMG42

• Damage from 6.21 to 8
• Accuracy near from 53% to 47%
• Accuracy far from 38% to 20%
• Rate of fire from 16 to 14

(8*0.47*14) / (6.21*0.53*16) = 1
(8*0.20*14) / (6.21*0.38*16) = 0.59

It is very crude and I'm sure there are some factors that will influence this further. We'll see when the DPS spreadsheet is updated if this crude estimation is correct but for now I'd say that the close range DPS is roughly the same and the long range DPS should be around 60% of what it used to be.
Considering the point we discussed earlier in this thread about the LMG's long range DPS to short range DPS ratio being much higher than this ratio for other weapons, this looks like an adjustment intended to fix this inconsistency.

what makes massed grens early on so powerful is simple: 1.5 armour despite being arguably similar to conscripts.

you might argue 'but conscripts have 33% more hp and 2 extra rifles to compensate and it makes it okay!' that is not true at all. conscripts comes with inferior rifles but the main problem lies in the armour discrepancy.

armour = calculated hit having a chance to deflect for 0 damage. what this basically means is that while conscripts do hit pretty regularly, not every landed shot is doing damage. this is almost equivalent to vanilla rifles vs vet2 grenadiers, coh1 vets should know how bad that is.

right now to the numbers. grenadiers have 4 rifles with accuracy of 0.35 far and 0.65 near while conscripts have 0.2 far and 0.5 near. in both values, grenadier rifles are a flat 15% more effective than conscript rifles, which means 4 of k98 = 6 mosin nagants, adding up to a relatively equal dps output for both squads.

but once factoring in armour values, the discrepancy is then magnified, conscripts need to deal with more missed shots, and now shot deflection. leaving only a very small chance to do a damage dealing shot. while in the same timeframe, grenadiers with their better rifles and full penetration have a good chance to do a constant stream of damage to conscripts. with that, much more conscript models are lost in the fight. that is why, so many conscripts are constantly dying resulting in a manpower drain, while struggling to kill grenadiers.

as more and more grenadiers are on the field, this effect can easily multiply, with conscripts being unable to keep up with the constant dpsing from massed grenadiers while doing nothing in return.

this is worst with the differences in vet. at vet2 for both units, grenadiers get a straight boost in armour to 2.25, while conscripts get a armour boost to 1.25 and a nice accuracy boost to 1.78. however, this is extremely misleading as once again our friend armour value is here to fuck shit up.

while conscripts now have a good chance to land shots, nothing is done to penetration, resulting in an actual negligible boost to their dps as shots are still being deflected at the same rate. grenadiers on the other hand, are now almost terminator like, bullets easily plinking off them.

long story short, these guys come out too damn tough for conscripts to handle, arguably the backbone of soviet early game, resulting in a classic case of steamroll with massed grenadiers.

Your math (and therefore your conclusion) is messed up.

Calculating the accuracy difference against their armor doesn't really work when you are already calculating it into their HP pools. Better calculate it against their effective health (assuming you actually use the correct values) and leave it out of their DPS. For DPS just use the DPS Spreadsheet because your simplified use of accuracy completely ignores other weapon stats like cooldown and reload (not limited to those, there are many more playing a role).

1.5 armor means bullets have a 66% chance to penetrate. This means they take 50% more shots to kill (33/66=0.5) compared to a unit with 1 armor. This means that the 4 infantry models (320 HP) have an effective health of 480 HP.
Conscripts are 6 models of 80 HP each, which means they have an effective health of 480 HP as well.

You also mentioned manpower drain: Their reinforcement cost per effective HP is exactly the same: 30 per Grenadier, 20 per Conscript. Both are 0.25 MP/eHP. So you certainly aren't on the back foot there either.

Then you factor in their DPS per rifle and number of rifles and they turn out to be roughly equivalent. Of course there are other factors like models dying but to put it bluntly:
Their base performance is the same. Variance is created by randomness, cover and movement accuracy modifiers. If you feel that one side is performing notably worse than the other, then this is either due to wrong use or due to perception (own soldiers lost are more noticeable than enemy soldiers killed).
Of course their performance varies with abilities and upgrades used but the early game unfairness you are complaining against does not exist.


Oh, and veterancy because you're so keen on it?
Vet 2 Conscripts: 576 eHP, 1.78*DPS
Vet 2 Grenadiers: 693 eHP
693/1.78 = 389 eHP -> Vet 2 conscripts are stronger than Vet 2 Grenadiers, assuming no other factors (not complaining, just pointing it out)

Vet 3 Conscripts: 1.25*1.8 armor = 2.25 armor -> 693 eHP, 1.78*DPS
Vet 3 Grenadiers: 693 eHP, 1.78*DPS


On a side note, because you used CoH1 rifles vs. Vet 2 grenadiers as an example: The armor systems of the two games work completely different. One uses the armor and penetration system for nearly everything and the other one used a (to most people) very obscure system of armor types and modifier tables that would vary strongly for each armor type and every weapon. Both have their strengths and weaknesses but trying to explain one system with the other simply doesn't work.

Thanks.

I was hoping someone would take time/effort and teach him (and others who may be reading), since I think he deserved it as he took time himself to make an extended post, even though it was ultimately false.

So, up to page three the argument (that I can see) proposed by Nullist is "Conscripts are shit, everyone knows it, but they're just there to drain your MP until you can pump out Snipers/initiate GuardsSpam.exe".

-removes gloves from hands, folds neatly, throws them onto the ground in a wadded heap-

Dammit man, you're saying it's fine that the Soviets have NO RELIABLE NON-DOCTRINAL INFANTRY to use as a general all-rounder all game? I'm supposed to rely on Snipers and SU-85s for 80% of my gameplay needs? WHAT? It seems to me that the Ostheer gets the best of both worlds from WH/PE, and that the Soviets are some mutant US/PE AIDS baby or somesuch. (Also...IRL, weren't the Soviets known for a metric butt ton of...wait for it...hold on...INFANTRY?)

The only strat that I've seen work, even half reliably, in PUB 2v2 matches, is taking every card you can get for Maxims and cranking out 3-4 of them, and microing the hell out of them. Why even have conscripts if they're so utterly useless outside of the 10 minute mark. What other unit becomes absolutely null and void besides the Scout Car (also Soviet) and maybe, MAYBE on occasion the Sd Kfz 222?

I mean, my god, I've had game after game of running RINGS around German players with downright pathetic micro, but their units just sit there and faceroll everything that comes in their direction. It seems that the Soviets require excellent micro, great timing, an outstanding tech plan since once you commit, you can't go back/build other counters, and then you need to shuffle around the opposition and kind of jab them in the side with your pointer finger and go 'neener neener neener' while you desperately try to crank out a shock unit to counter his equally priced, generalist unit that can do most most everything yours can, only better.

Meanwhile on the Axis side of the fence, you now have Osttruppen for kids that want to eat a bowl of Lucky Charms AND win matches at the same time, and the general winning strat while playing as the Ostheer is "I POINT MY BIG METAL THING AT YOU, YOU DIE NAOWWWWWW".

W.o micro, Gr 34 > w.e mark 19something 82mm mortar
W.o micro, MG42 ~= Maxim--a toss up
W.o micro, Grens TOPLEL > Cons
W.o micro, Pios ~= Engineers
W.o micro, PaK 40 > Zis

Do you see where the issue comes from?

The Soviets are:
1) Hindered by a teching system that effectively locks out half of their army because of absolutely insane building costs and build times.
2) Left with no 'basic'/'generalist' unit (infantry) with which to fight the enemy for the DURATION of most matches.
3) Forced to face units with the same or nearly the same prices with far greater cost returns unless something REALLY freaky happens.
4) Are restricted to doctrinal choices (some of which are P2W) in order to obtain elite/specialist infantry that DON'T suck massive dinosaur dong.
5) Require, in general, a much better comprehension of the game, counters, teching options, and luck to *reliably* win matches.

The arguments I see posed are like the Luftwaffe kiddies playing War Thunder: "Well, that's sad that the P-47/F6F-3/P-51/F4F-4 are pretty much broken and unplayable, you need to use the maybe two viable planes in the American line to counter us--and then we'll complain that the P-40 and A-20 are OP!"

Why, as the Soviets, am I so restricted in what I can use in order to have even the slimmest chance of doing damn near ANYTHING, when I've engaged in flat out Pioneer spam with friends in 2v2s, 3v3s, and 4v4 and just absolutely ground the opposing Soviets--regardless of skill--into the dirt.

Spamming Grenadiers is even funnier! Outside of the VERY opening rounds of the game, you can get LMGs pretty much whenever you want. Grens w. LMGs and PaKs -> [whatever armor you want] and you're golden. The Soviets (apparently, in complete balance and in a totally acceptable state) need Conscripts, Penals/Shock Troops/Guards, Snipers, Clown Cars, ZiS guns (on the occasion they don't fail miserably to have any effect, regardless of micro), T-34s for ram, wherin they're automatically considered disposable and leave a huge gap for the Soviets in terms of generalist medium armor, SU-85s, and the kitchen sink in order to dent an Ostheer player's happy plans of a world where an Opel Blitz spouts from every field and Tigers and Panthers run wild and free, with catnip in excess for everyone.

/rant

EDIT: Seeing as I haven't finished reading all of the thread's contents, this argument is open to change from myself. However, as for now (until posted otherwise) it stands, as is.

I like the cut of your jib.

But youve seriously misread something if you think I've ever said that Cons are shit.

I think part of the problem in the apparent disparity between conscripts and grenadiers is the Veterancy system.

For both squads, Vet 1: 480 exp, Vet 2: 960 exp, Vet 3: 1920 exp

However,
conscript hp pool = 6x80 hp
grenadier hp pool = 4x80 hp

So killing a conscript squad is worth more exp to the grenadiers than conscripts killing a grenadier squad. So the grenadiers will vet up faster, becoming harder to kill.

When you add a LMG to the grenadier squads which significantly increases their dmg output, the rate of exp gain further increases.

Eventually you have Vet 3 LMG grenadier squads which cause conscripts to evaporate as soon as the grenadiers look at them. Even running up to try to molotov the stationary LMG grenadier results in more than half of the conscript squad dying.

I really only ever see Vet 3 conscripts when I choose a PPSH doctrine. But I still find Vet 3 grenadiers more effective.

My Ostheer strategy for team games is just grens + lmgs, paks, then panthers.

To be more specific, the disparity in terms of earned vet, is not in the unit size, or the hp pool, its its in the results of armor.

If Im correct, you dont earn xp on shots that are mitigated by armor, because they eont do any damage.

This is supposed to be offset by units also receiving vet from damage taken, so that for example Cons would be earning the vet they miss out on in bounced shots vs armor, by receiving vet from being shot in the balls.

Also have to figure in how much xp Grens are getting from shooting at squishy "every hit counts" Cons vs taking less hits themselves, and therefore getting less xp from being shot in their own balls.

I dunno if that system is balanced atm. Also dunno how that pans out on equally vetted Cons vs Grens, since armor raises its head even higher.

The units relative survival is equal, when unupgraded.
Should be equal at equivalent Vet too, when unupgraded, too.
Dunno if XP is being earned at the same rate though, in either of the above.

LMG can be left out of it though, since its a muni upgrade, and therefore warrants the dispaeity it causes.
Whether LMG does that too well, is another matter, and since it was nerfed in last patch, too early to say, but if the Devs in their wisdom set it at that, then it "should" be ok now.

Uhhmm, I've found Penal Battalions an effective unit in dealing with grens and even ass grens.

Volsky, I might need to buy you flowers. You've done a great job backing up what I'm trying to explain my other thread.

Should we get into how much harder it is to spot a rifle nade being readied vs. a Molotov throw? No, probably not....That way madness lies. But that also has a lot to do with the vetting problem you wise folk are discussing.

Are the DPS calculations for penals with or without flamer ?

I find russians very esy to use in urban areas, whne in early stages of game germans do not have any reliable way how to smoke them out of the building.

Without flamers.