Ostheer infantry getting 5th man with veterancy.

Hmmm. Then i guess churchill is not a heavy tank. You learn something new every day.

Churchill is indeed classified as a Heavy tank altho the Brits called it an infantry such. Comet is not however, neither in game or in real life.

The funny story about the Panther was that it was considered as a heavy tank by the Allies but a medium by the Germans.

Yes and yes.

Ostheer panther uses heavy tank skin, has heavy crush and is more durable than any tank USF can field. Looks like a heavy tank to me.

Panzer grenadiers have bundle grenade, cost 340mp, same as stortroopers and only 10mp less than commandos and come from t2 building unlike mainline infantry that comes from t0/1. Pretty standard elite squad.

So all infantry with a good nade is elite infantry? Brits with mill bombs have 100% elite infantry then lol. So according to you if pgrens were made cheaper they would stop being elite infantry? lol. Ok lets make them cheaper and then give ostheer proper elite infantry.

Panther is a medium tank. Do you even play this game? lol

So all infantry with a good nade is elite infantry? Brits with mill bombs have 100% elite infantry then lol. So according to you if pgrens were made cheaper they would stop being elite infantry? lol. Ok lets make them cheaper and then give ostheer proper elite infantry.

Panther is a medium tank. Do you even play this game? lol

Mill bombs are almost identical to other "standard" grenades like riflemen mk2 or volksgrenadiers model 24, nothing "elite" about it.

Panther is called medium tank, but in game it has heavy crush, uses heavy tank skins and even its own crew refers to it as heavy tank - "Heavy panzer here!". Its more of a heavy tank than anything usf has at least.

The whole reason Ost has 4 man squads is (amoung many other things in the faction) to make it a defensive faction.

If they had a 5th man, even with vet, it would likely mean lmg blobs could walk around with impunity knowing they have solid chance of retreating a squad before a wipe.

It would change the faction from having to be defensive, to going hard on the offense.

At this point, it's basically a required change. Grens, even at Vet 3 w/ LMG don't compete with other factions late game infantry in terms of firepower, let alone ability to survive.

There was another thread awhile ago discussion the power-creep in the game, and there were some pretty valid points. WFA infantry is just so much more powerful than what the game was initially designed around (grens vs. cons), and now both those units are incredibly weak by comparison. Add to that the whole "grens need to be stationary to do damage, but there's mortars/PAK- owitzers/etc." and you've got a squad that can't perform its intended task (defensive, static ranged damage).

I'd vote for either a +1 model somewhere (vet 3? Tech 3/4?) or a change the squads 'on-the-move' performance, to allow them to not be hit by a dozen mortars the second they set up the LMG. Maybe a double-upgrade LMG34 that clones the BARs performance (fire on the move).


Alternatively (and completely unrealistically) there could be a drastic change to Rifles/IS/Penals/Volks to render Grens/Cons competitive again (remove double upgrades for Rifles/IS, -1 model to penals, remove vet 4/5 for volks).

Mill bombs are almost identical to other "standard" grenades like riflemen mk2 or volksgrenadiers model 24, nothing "elite" about it.

Panther is called medium tank, but in game it has heavy crush, uses heavy tank skins and even its own crew refers to it as heavy tank - "Heavy panzer here!". Its more of a heavy tank than anything usf has at least.

It also suck vs Infantry which no other heavy tank does, its a medium tank/tank destroyer.

Grenades have nothing to do with elite infantry, its their durability. Think rangers/shocktroops. lol

Alternatively (and completely unrealistically) there could be a drastic change to Rifles/IS/Penals/Volks to render Grens/Cons competitive again (remove double upgrades for Rifles/IS, -1 model to penals, remove vet 4/5 for volks).

You know that if you remove vet 4 and 5 for volksgrenadiers, literally nothing will change in conscript vs volks fight? But I do agree that WFA armies should be balanced like EFA are.

You know that if you remove vet 4 and 5 for volksgrenadiers, literally nothing will change in conscript vs volks fight? But I do agree that WFA armies should be balanced like EFA are.

So instead of bringing up one unit that's lacking let's bring down 4 others so that one single unit that's lacking right now can compete. Sounds like socialism to me.

Why not just give them some sort of explosive resistance on higher vet? I'm all up for Ostheer buffs but I'd rather have them stay with their iconic 4 men squads.

While I agree that Whermact Infantry is in need of some love, I also feel that getting a 5th man is the wrong way to do it as its just a bandaid to the real problem in our beloved game.

Comparing COH 1 to COH 2 for a moment, Each Squad of Infantry had different HP Values. For example US Rifleman were a 6 man squad, each man in the squad had 55 HP for a total of 330 HP, while a Whermact Grenadier Squad was a 4 man squad with 80 HP per man for a total of 320 HP. This is important because total squad HP Values were roughly equivalent. This gave the German factions in COH1 a feeling that even though they were fewer in Number, the Infantry were better trained as result. Come to COH2 and it is the complete opposite. For Whermacht, Ostruppen have a total of 480 HP while Grenadiers have 320 HP. This is why everyone wants an extra man, the extra squad health means less chance of your squads getting instantly wiped out by RNG.

What I would rather see is Relic stop taking shortcuts with COH 2 as has been the case throughout its history since Beta and do proper gameplay design decisions that would be healthy for the game overall.

Now say for example instead of being balanced around 80 HP Models what if Mortars,explosives and artillery and such were balanced around the idea of 60 HP models. Then they would have modifiers against the things they were designed to counter to keep the damage the same vs counters but now they have reduced chance of Squad Wiping and can be made more consistent instead of having the RNG Lotteries that we have now. Not only would this help out Grenadiers but other 4 man squads such as partisans and British Infantry Sections as the 5 Man upgrade can be delayed into later in the game.

With such a change then Grenadiers would no longer need a 5th man, just a minor change to Vet 1 to be more useful and the unit will be fine. Considering the amount of work involved for such a change, Relic is not going to put any real effort into the game so most likely Grenadiers will become a 5 man Squad and in the process something else will get messed up and the cycle will repeat again with something else.

It also suck vs Infantry which no other heavy tank does, its a medium tank/tank destroyer.

Grenades have nothing to do with elite infantry, its their durability. Think rangers/shocktroops. lol

Since there are no "classes" as in CoH1, Elite in this game is just a combination of factors which puts it above what we considered "main line" infantry.

Received accuracy/armor/soon to be removed dmg modifier, normal nade/nuke nade/satchel/cancer nade/smoke, DPS, utility, cost/reinforce cost.

PG since CoH2 was released, was the standard and only "Elite" unit OH had. Just because we keep adding new units through DLCs and faction power level changed, it doesn't mean that the role they perform has changed.


In regards to the "weight"/classification on tanks, I'll say the most important aspect is HP pool, followed up by firepower (either it been AT or AI).
Panther/Pershing are just Premium/Advanced mediums. You can't really call a normal medium to a T3485, KV1 or E8 but you do so do it with the OKW PIV even if it's heavier armored. Same shit with Pershing, it has firepower and armor but lacks the raw HP pool to be a heavy tank.


Going back to grens:

I don't think there is a single specific thing holding them back, at least not as much as it was a couple years ago. Most indirect fire had been nerfed (mortars and artillery), formations has been improved and slowly and steadily DPS max potential from WFA/UKF as well as heavy cheese has been nerfed.
So, what is still lacking?

TBH, i'll rather see explored buffs AROUND grens and slightly touching the scaling of other factions than adding a 5th man to Grenadiers.

For example:
-Small nerf to long range DPS of bar while keeping it equal at close/mid. Not sure about UKF.
-Cheaper/faster/easier to use medkit at BP3. It could be changed to be a single drop no AoE healing crate.
-I had advocated before that i'll rather see a late game 5th man Pio instead of a 5th man. Capping/recrewing/repair would be improved without the whole problem with blobbing.
-Making plain bunkers and reinforce bunkers more viable without touching healing nor MG bunker performance. This can be done by heavily reducing the cost of constructing a bunker but moving the cost to the upgrades.

We shouldn't have to increase OH late game grens staying power during combat, but rather how they can stay in the field AFTER combat or soft retreating.

So instead of bringing up one unit that's lacking let's bring down 4 others so that one single unit that's lacking right now can compete. Sounds like socialism to me.

It called setting a benchmark not socialism. One decides the power level he want and brings all other units to that power level.

The power level of units has been increased over the patches and one should start considering lowering that level instead of continuing this buff circle.

It called setting a benchmark not socialism. One decides the power level he want and brings all other units to that power level.

The power level of units has been increased over the patches and one should start considering lowering that level instead of continuing this buff circle.

We've been over this and it's fairly obvious that this "benchmark" is just entirely your own opinion and nobody else's. The lethality of the real war weapons didn't stop either to follow some "benchmark" weapon. Point stands that it's easier, faster and more beneficial to make and test changes to 1 unit rather than 4.

It called setting a benchmark not socialism. One decides the power level he want and brings all other units to that power level.

The power level of units has been increased over the patches and one should start considering lowering that level instead of continuing this buff circle.

benchmark argument again
5man granadier sounds cool imo that extra man should be with mp40 because dps will be the same at long range but survivability will be bigger

We've been over this and it's fairly obvious that this "benchmark" is just entirely your own opinion and nobody else's. The lethality of the real war weapons didn't stop either to follow some "benchmark" weapon. Point stands that it's easier, faster and more beneficial to make and test changes to 1 unit rather than 4.

Yes we have and not it not "just entirely my own opinion and nobody else's" as I have clearly proven.

And once more I have to ask you, without a benchmark how do you know if a unit is UP or OP?

Yes we have and not it not "just entirely my own opinion and nobody else's" as I have clearly proven.

And once more I have to ask you, without a benchmark how do you know if a unit is UP or OP?

I don't see anybody else using your benchmark argument, feel free to prove me wrong.

And it's fairly simple, if the unit is seemingly performing badly at some point in time and fine in others it seems logical and obvious that something is wrong, not to mention the probably hundreds of threads and people I've seen noting that it's a problem.

A real life example I can give you is that some mud got under the engine of my car because I drove over some rough terrain so I put an engine shield to protect it. The car being the Grenadiers here and the engine shield the 5th man respectively. It's probably not the best example I could have given to prove my point but it's the best one I could think of right now.

agreed

Yes we have and not it not "just entirely my own opinion and nobody else's" as I have clearly proven.

And once more I have to ask you, without a benchmark how do you know if a unit is UP or OP?

All you have clearly proved is the fact that you're clinging to a balance principal of a balance developer who doesn't work at relic for half a decade now.

Stop saying how it was great when everyone used oil lamps and rode on horses, get on times and accept electricity, cars and replacement of that old balance philosophy you're clinging to so hard.

With old balance philosophy, Tiger should LOSE to 2 shermans attacking it frontally every single time.

And how do you tell if a unit is op?
By extreme meta changes that favor no variety over that single unit(if faction design allows for such flexibility, USF and OKW didn't had much of a choice previously with rifle and volk spam, so cost effectiveness measured around other infantries was the indicator here and nerfs were) and that single units performance measured against its role equivalents with adjustments for possible price differences.

tl;dr a lot of changed and a lot of factors needs to be taken into account, "benchmark balancing" is dead with PQ leaving Relic, relative balancing is the approach modders took ever since they took over and they are doing much better job so far imo without famous relic penta nerfs/buffs.

I don't see anybody else using your benchmark argument, feel free to prove me wrong.

And it's fairly simple, if the unit is seemingly performing badly at some point in time and fine in others it seems logical and obvious that something is wrong, not to mention the probably hundreds of threads and people I've seen noting that it's a problem.

A real life example I can give you is that some mud got under the engine of my car because I drove over some rough terrain so I put an engine shield to protect it. The car being the Grenadiers here and the engine shield the 5th man respectively. It's probably not the best example I could have given to prove my point but it's the best one I could think of right now.

In other words you compare it with another unit and that is actually using a benchmark.

In other words you compare it with another unit and that is actually using a benchmark.

In other words you're pulling my words out of context, where do you see me comparing units here?

In other words you're pulling my words out of context, where do you see me comparing units here?

If a unit is "performing badly" it means it performing badly vs another unit and that is comparison.