Login

russian armor

My defunct Pgren buff idea

12 May 2019, 07:59 AM
#1
avatar of KiwiBirb

Posts: 789

Seeing as Pgrens got a nice buff in the commander mod, this is pretty pointless, but here goes anyways.

Why I, a rank 1500 player, thought Pgrens sucked.

They come late. If you only get 3 grens so that you can get Pgrens and so that your first 222 is on time you lose so much map control
If you get 4 grens into Pgrens, you have no AT to kill that m20/UC/M3 that has been harassing you
They lose so much DPS dropping 1 model

So I wanted to have 2 of the Pgrens have MP40s, with a 30 % damage reduction compared to their current STG 44s,, and their stg44s get a 30% damage increase. That way dropping 1 model doesn’t kill their dps.

The can now put away 2 of their weaopans and take out 2 PzB 39 AT rifles, like how Sturmpioneers can take out/put away their sweeper. This allows them to counter light vehicles.

Schrek upgrade would replace the AT rifles and they wouldn’t be able to be put away

12 May 2019, 09:13 AM
#2
avatar of Balanced_Gamer

Posts: 783

Seeing as Pgrens got a nice buff in the commander mod, this is pretty pointless, but here goes anyways.

Why I, a rank 1500 player, thought Pgrens sucked.

They come late. If you only get 3 grens so that you can get Pgrens and so that your first 222 is on time you lose so much map control
If you get 4 grens into Pgrens, you have no AT to kill that m20/UC/M3 that has been harassing you
They lose so much DPS dropping 1 model

So I wanted to have 2 of the Pgrens have MP40s, with a 30 % damage reduction compared to their current STG 44s,, and their stg44s get a 30% damage increase. That way dropping 1 model doesn’t kill their dps.

The can now put away 2 of their weaopans and take out 2 PzB 39 AT rifles, like how Sturmpioneers can take out/put away their sweeper. This allows them to counter light vehicles.

Schrek upgrade would replace the AT rifles and they wouldn’t be able to be put away



Maybe it should be an upgrade.

A purchase that provides them damage reduction and 2 MP40 (which sacrifices range capabilites). Would be a nice approach I would say.

At least there would be alternatives for the player. Either I stick to 4 STG or say "I would like a change" upgrade to what you have mentioned. I think it should cost 45-60 ammo, maybe.
12 May 2019, 11:31 AM
#3
avatar of WAAAGH2000

Posts: 731

30%damage reduce too OP...1.5 to 2 armor is enough...
12 May 2019, 11:35 AM
#4
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

30%damage reduce too OP...1.5 to 2 armor is enough...

"30% too op, lets make it 50% or 100% more EHP instead!"

:snfBarton:

(psst, the name comes from the being a mechanized infantry, not walking tanks)
12 May 2019, 12:25 PM
#5
avatar of WAAAGH2000

Posts: 731

jump backJump back to quoted post12 May 2019, 11:35 AMKatitof

"30% too op, lets make it 50% or 100% more EHP instead!"

:snfBarton:

(psst, the name comes from the being a mechanized infantry, not walking tanks)

ShockTroopers EHP at Vet2 is about 864
If PG got 1.5 armor,at vet2,PG EHP is about 867,but infantry armor only work when they face small arms,30% damage reduction is real walking tank
12 May 2019, 12:27 PM
#6
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8


ShockTroopers EHP at Vet2 is about 864
If PG got 1.5 armor,at vet2,PG EHP is about 867,but infantry armor only work when they face small arms,30% damage reduction is real walking tank

And why a 4 man squad should have 8 man worth of durability?
I mean, sure, if we up their price to 500mp we can go with it.
12 May 2019, 12:43 PM
#7
avatar of WAAAGH2000

Posts: 731

jump backJump back to quoted post12 May 2019, 12:27 PMKatitof

And why a 4 man squad should have 8 man worth of durability?
I mean, sure, if we up their price to 500mp we can go with it.

Because PG cost 340/34 manpower and they are close combat infantry
12 May 2019, 12:53 PM
#8
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8


Because PG cost 340/34 manpower and they are close combat infantry

No, they are not close comabt infantry.
They are mid range infantry.
They are also 4 men squad that is most certainly NOT meant to frontally assault anything.
That's what assault grenadiers are for.

No wonder 99% of threads fail to identify any kind of balance issue, when players are completely oblivious to how the unit is supposed to function.

You want shock troops?
You play soviets.
12 May 2019, 13:11 PM
#9
avatar of Balanced_Gamer

Posts: 783

jump backJump back to quoted post12 May 2019, 12:27 PMKatitof

And why a 4 man squad should have 8 man worth of durability?
I mean, sure, if we up their price to 500mp we can go with it.


And why a 6 man Shocks squad will be 12 man worth of durability? guess Shocks will be now 750 manpower. Pretty much the same argument.

Anyway. I do not think it is a bad idea for them to get "armour upgrade". Shocks get armour to engage closer range engagements and they are an elite unit although doctrinal. It would be fair to the extent that Pzgrens get some "body armour protection" upgrade (so it will cost around 60 ammo, will lock out Pzshreks) since it is an elite unit, it is meant to carry engagements.

Panzergrenadiers, so it will have either the choice of carring AT or AI engagements.

Reasoning being, the fact that Wehrmacht is highly unlikely going to get non-doc 5 man squad is due to 2 reasons. They will excel in firepower and survivability destroying balance.
Their main issues is survivability overall because they have a hard time maintaining firepower in mid late game.

Just increasing their overall survivability will decrease their chances of being wiped will be thinner if they have the alternative to purchase armour upgrades.

I think the armour value should be around 1.5 max. Anything higher makes it like Wolfenstein unit upgrade or Iron man.

Maybe grens should have something similar but maybe around 1.1-1.3, but as you said, they are not meant to carry engagements, so no armour for Grens.

Grens should maybe get "defence training", where their received accuracy behind cover multiplier is improved. Nothing OP, nothing too strong but to help improve their style of defensive play and improve their suvivability.
12 May 2019, 13:12 PM
#10
avatar of WAAAGH2000

Posts: 731

jump backJump back to quoted post12 May 2019, 12:53 PMKatitof

No, they are not close comabt infantry.
They are mid range infantry.
They are also 4 men squad that is most certainly NOT meant to frontally assault anything.
That's what assault grenadiers are for.

No wonder 99% of threads fail to identify any kind of balance issue, when players are completely oblivious to how the unit is supposed to function.

You want shock troops?
You play soviets.

If you say so,Shock troopers is mid range infantry too,ShockTroopers 6xPPsh at mid range is same as 4xStg44
12 May 2019, 13:58 PM
#11
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



And why a 6 man Shocks squad will be 12 man worth of durability? guess Shocks will be now 750 manpower. Pretty much the same argument.

Because they are very intended to go up frontally and ACTUALLY WEAR BODY ARMOR.

Anyway. I do not think it is a bad idea for them to get "armour upgrade". Shocks get armour to engage closer range engagements and they are an elite unit although doctrinal. It would be fair to the extent that Pzgrens get some "body armour protection" upgrade (so it will cost around 60 ammo, will lock out Pzshreks) since it is an elite unit, it is meant to carry engagements.

Panzergrenadiers, so it will have either the choice of carring AT or AI engagements.

Shocks are frontal assault troops with actual steel armor plates on them.
PG uniforms aren't made from ubermenschium and will never be.
Shocks are doctrinal AI specialist squad.
PGs are not.
Shocks have no strong long range supporting troops able to snipe models.
PGs do.

No idea why I'm even wasting breath on you here.
We both know that any stock survivability improvements for PGs are fantasy, regardless how you'll word it out.
12 May 2019, 14:04 PM
#12
avatar of Musti

Posts: 203

The idea of making PGs stronger now that they are available earlier than ever is beyond me.
12 May 2019, 14:08 PM
#13
avatar of Balanced_Gamer

Posts: 783

jump backJump back to quoted post12 May 2019, 13:58 PMKatitof

Because they are very intended to go up frontally and ACTUALLY WEAR BODY ARMOR.


Shocks are frontal assault troops with actual steel armor plates on them.
PG uniforms aren't made from ubermenschium and will never be.
Shocks are doctrinal AI specialist squad.
PGs are not.
Shocks have no strong long range supporting troops able to snipe models.
PGs do.

No idea why I'm even wasting breath on you here.
We both know that any stock survivability improvements for PGs are fantasy, regardless how you'll word it out.


Shock troops armour makes no sense to repel any bolt action or assualt rifle or even STG44. It was only meant for counters against SMG small caliber like MP40 max. The whole idea shocks repelling all small arms in this game is definitely a joke.

Why waste your breath on trying to justify Shocks having that good of a fantasised armour. Armour was not meant to repel huge/ intermidate calibres. Only for SMG's
12 May 2019, 14:43 PM
#14
avatar of Musti

Posts: 203



Shock troops armour makes no sense to repel any bolt action or assualt rifle or even STG44. It was only meant for counters against SMG small caliber like MP40 max. The whole idea shocks repelling all small arms in this game is definitely a joke.

Why waste your breath on trying to justify Shocks having that good of a fantasised armour. Armour was not meant to repel huge/ intermidate calibres. Only for SMG's

Hey, let me tell you a secret.
It's a game

Anyway I don't see any point in giving them armour, they already get lower RA, which works better than armour anyway, since it doesn't get less effective against light vehicles and MGs.
12 May 2019, 14:56 PM
#15
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1


Why waste your breath on trying to justify Shocks having that good of a fantasised armour. Armour was not meant to repel huge/ intermidate calibres. Only for SMG's


Why waste your breath talking about irl in a balance thread. You also wanted armour for Grenadiers so this is a strange take
12 May 2019, 15:04 PM
#16
avatar of Balanced_Gamer

Posts: 783

jump backJump back to quoted post12 May 2019, 14:43 PMMusti

Hey, let me tell you a secret.
It's a game

Anyway I don't see any point in giving them armour, they already get lower RA, which works better than armour anyway, since it doesn't get less effective against light vehicles and MGs.


It is a game. So it should not be a problem.

Why not say that about Tommies too!
New fix for Tommies according to logic balancing theories as stated about Received accuracy being better. Since they have same received accuracy as Pzgrens by (0.8). They shall longer have 5 man "Bolster Squad" since received accuracy terms are better!

Read this in a sarcastic tone. Sounds a lot more funny, lol!
It is what is called "Breaking News"


12 May 2019, 15:07 PM
#17
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

The damage reduction comment chain is a failure anyways because using Context the OP is talking about reducing the dps on the mp40 by 30% not incoming damage. THE OP wants to mitigate damage loss when dropping models by stacking 2 models and having 2 lesser models that when full health would deal she same damage.

Basicly we have the damage now being (gunna use arbitrary round numbers)
10 x 4 = 40
Losing a model brings it to 30
Another to 20

Ops idea is (13x2)+(7x2)=40
Losing the first model brings it to 33
Another to 26

They want to preserve some of the dps via losses
12 May 2019, 16:14 PM
#18
avatar of Balanced_Gamer

Posts: 783

The damage reduction comment chain is a failure anyways because using Context the OP is talking about reducing the dps on the mp40 by 30% not incoming damage. THE OP wants to mitigate damage loss when dropping models by stacking 2 models and having 2 lesser models that when full health would deal she same damage.

Basicly we have the damage now being (gunna use arbitrary round numbers)
10 x 4 = 40
Losing a model brings it to 30
Another to 20

Ops idea is (13x2)+(7x2)=40
Losing the first model brings it to 33
Another to 26

They want to preserve some of the dps via losses


Yes, exactly.

Somehow a concept that some misinterpreted!
19 May 2019, 03:32 AM
#19
avatar of oootto92

Posts: 177



They come late. If you only get 3 grens so that you can get Pgrens and so that your first 222 is on time you lose so much map control
If you get 4 grens into Pgrens, you have no AT to kill that m20/UC/M3 that has been harassing you



To start off these are not balance issues. Losing map control or going for the pgren first after 4 grens when you should have gone for the 222 or pak40 are gameplay issues.

The buffs that you suggested are just ridiculously OP: The 1,3x1,3 stat buffs would enable them to have "forcy-fun-time" with the shocks at close range. Imagine a blob of these bad boys. Oh and when faced with a vehicle just press a magic button on your keyboard to GTA few ATs outta their cavities.

The removal of T2 Structure as a requirement is going to buff pgrens enough as an early-mid option without breaking late game.
19 May 2019, 06:45 AM
#20
avatar of Brick Top

Posts: 1162

PG isn't assault infantry, main idea is you put it behind cover, likely near support weapons and enemy assault infantry has a difficult time closing against it, especially with the bundled nade placed into their path.

You don't need armour for a unit in cover.
0 user is browsing this thread:

Livestreams

Germany 19
unknown 19
unknown 18
unknown 11
Canada 4

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

760 users are online: 760 guests
1 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
38 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49081
Welcome our newest member, kavyashide
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM