Increase grenadier damage, but move RA to battlephase 2&3

I simply dont get it.

First of all, relic is basically uninvolved in the game right now, so why do their design philosophies matter.

Second of all, design philosophies change. Why constantly cite a design philosophy that everyone who was involved with the game seems to have abandoned. It feels like it has no relevance other than to say "hey, this is how the game used to be designed".

Third, yes, that was relics deisgn philosophy some years ago. Please remind me again how that approach turned out for them.

Finally, you imply theres currently no benchmark. What you seem to mean is that you think grens should be the benchmark (citing relics design philosophy from years ago, as if it proved that approach was right?), instead of the ~4 relatively balanced units thta are currently, basically used as a benchmark.

Nerfing throws off the balance. It has to be adjusted accordingly to how all else are.

For example if all or everything, the technology of electronics for instance is updated or enchanced, it needs to be updated. Like most Computers nowdays. Cuz you need those programs and updates.

If you downgrade it or dont update it, it becomes either derelict or useless. Lagging behind. Nerfing can be taken to consideration to an extent but with high precaution because things that has been nerfed, has been misplaced poorly as we all know it.

Glad the update though would put things right or accordingly.

Rather we should seek to improve things and make according adjustments.
_____



Now comparing Tommies. If just look closely when both out of cover. Tommies shoot even faster than any other Bolt action user in game. With Cover makes them faster or of no difference. Do not know if it is a bug but just by looking you can see the timing. Tommies have a distinct advantage in rate of fire even without cover.

Now grens are somewhat a decent mainline infantry which Wehrmacht heavily relies on. Most of Wehr infantry are vulnerable due to squad size and their probability of winning engagements since they are outnumbered.

What Grenadiers could do with is a Defensive Passive Ability which it requires. Maybe an ability that is acquired upon activation.

For instance Conscripts play a proper role of support and is a great unit for flanking and catching up with units but suffers the ability to not purchase upgrades. It plays both an Aggressive and a Supportive role. Aggressive in the form of having an ability "Oraah" which suits its Aggressive role and resupply other units as a supportive role plus sandbags. It is perfect unit of its own purpose or designated role.

What grens need is a defensive bonus to suit their role. As a "Defensive unit" meaning cover should give them some form of bonus. Maybe that bonus should be significantly faster reload, shoot for longer and consistent periods, maintain accuracy under-fire.

To compensate for the loses that they would suffer or sustain from indirect fire and being outnumbered out HP'ed later on. Possibly even outgunned.

Giving them extra man would really throw off the balance since that is a huge distinctive advantage. Therefore the "Extra Man" should not be for Wehrmacht. "A Passive Defensive Ability" would compensate for their weaknesses and vulnerability as the game scales on. It should play a Supportive and at most a Defensive role.

I simply dont get it.

First of all, relic is basically uninvolved in the game right now, so why do their design philosophies matter.

Second of all, design philosophies change. Why constantly cite a design philosophy that everyone who was involved with the game seems to have abandoned. It feels like it has no relevance other than to say "hey, this is how the game used to be designed".

Third, yes, that was relics deisgn philosophy some years ago. Please remind me again how that approach turned out for them.

Finally, you imply theres currently no benchmark. What you seem to mean is that you think grens should be the benchmark (citing relics design philosophy from years ago, as if it proved that approach was right?), instead of the ~4 relatively balanced units thta are currently, basically used as a benchmark.

You might agree or disagree with philosophy but do you actually believe that is something wrong with Grenadier's power level? Do you have anything that indicates that it is not the correct one?

By definition you can not have 4 benchmarks for the same thing.

And do you actually have use benchmarks because according to Sander93 you do not.

Give grens a 5th model at bp 2, give cons a 7th model when all con upgrades are researched and an 8th model with the T4 building. Balanced? Who knows, but sounds fun

You might agree or disagree with philosophy but do you actually believe that is something wrong with Grenadier's power level? Do you have anything that indicates that it is not the correct one?

By definition you can not have 4 benchmarks for the same thing.

And do you actually have use benchmarks because according to Sander93 you do not.

Do you have anything that indicates that grenadiers ARE the correct benchmark?

You technically canr have 4 benchmarks, yeah. But i think you only brought that up because you missed the point. If two units are balanced relative to each other and one of them is a benchmark, you could actually use either of them as benchmarks. You only explicitly have one benchmark, but since the two units are balanced relative to each other, you effectively have two. Thats why I say 4 benchmarks, because there are 4 or so such units that more or less form a single standard of what is balanced.

And yeah,we dont ACTUALLY use benchmarks. Because that approach sucks. You lose a lot of context by using a raw benchmark. Its an approach that generally employs all theory and little actual thinking. What we do have is a set of core infantry squads that follow a single standard of balance - and that forms our expectations of how other units should perform before we consider other relevant factors. Thats why I said "basically used as a benchmark." We consider how units perform relative to others. What we DONT do is blindly force units to be the same power level as a choswn unit because...some apparent reason(s).

Do you have anything that indicates that grenadiers ARE the correct benchmark?

imo opinion the game mainline infatry small arms fight where in better place:
1) Grenadiers where about the same level and they where being used. Now as far as I can tell G43, 5 men grenadiers, ST, osttruppen have replaced vanilla Grenadier which see far less action.
2) Conscripts have been replaced by Penals although they where buffed and they will probably be buffed again
3) VG are regularly used and are considered OP by many as far as I can tell
4) Riflemen are consider UP and have been replaced by other infatry
5)Bolster IS are considered OP and will probably have to be nerfed

Fight where about better positioning while now with weapons that are good at all ranges things imo have become more about brute force.

You technically canr have 4 benchmarks, yeah. But i think you only brought that up because you missed the point. If two units are balanced relative to each other and one of them is a benchmark, you could actually use either of them as benchmarks. You only explicitly have one benchmark, but since the two units are balanced relative to each other, you effectively have two. Thats why I say 4 benchmarks, because there are 4 or so such units that more or less form a single standard of what is balanced.

And yeah,we dont ACTUALLY use benchmarks. Because that approach sucks. You lose a lot of context by using a raw benchmark. Its an approach that generally employs all theory and little actual thinking. What we do have is a set of core infantry squads that follow a single standard of balance - and that forms our expectations of how other units should perform before we consider other relevant factors. Thats why I said "basically used as a benchmark." We consider how units perform relative to others. What we DONT do is blindly force units to be the same power level as a choswn unit because...some apparent reason(s).

The definition:
benchmark a standard or point of reference against which things may be compared.

So there can be only one.

If understand correctly and you are using each faction mainline infatry as benchmark then you are not actually balancing faction vs faction but each faction separately and that can easily prove problematic. Any imbalance between mainline infantries is transfer and multiplied to other infatry.

Imply that using a single benchmark force units to of the same power level and that how the perform relatively to each other is simply false. That simply was not the case when Relic did the balancing.

On the contrary each mainline infatry was balanced vs other mainlines infantries and for a range that the traded more favorably was chosen. Was it perfect? no. But thing are perfect even now after so many patches and after so much homogenization that simply things.

This is my opinion but I don't think you will agree to it. We simply have to agree to disagree.

imo opinion the game mainline infatry small arms fight where in better place:
1) Grenadiers where about the same level and they where being used. Now as far as I can tell G43, 5 men grenadiers, ST, osttruppen have replaced vanilla Grenadier which see far less action.
2) Conscripts have been replaced by Penals although they where buffed and they will probably be buffed again
3) VG are regularly used and are considered OP by many as far as I can tell
4) Riflemen are consider UP and have been replaced by other infatry
5)Bolster IS are considered OP and will probably have to be nerfed

Fight where about better positioning while now with weapons that are good at all ranges things imo have become more about brute force.


The definition:
benchmark a standard or point of reference against which things may be compared.

So there can be only one.

If understand correctly and you are using each faction mainline infatry as benchmark then you are not actually balancing faction vs faction but each faction separately and that can easily prove problematic. Any imbalance between mainline infantries is transfer and multiplied to other infatry.

Imply that using a single benchmark force units to of the same power level and that how the perform relatively to each other is simply false. That simply was not the case when Relic did the balancing.

On the contrary each mainline infatry was balanced vs other mainlines infantries and for a range that the traded more favorably was chosen. Was it perfect? no. But thing are perfect even now after so many patches and after so much homogenization that simply things.

This is my opinion but I don't think you will agree to it. We simply have to agree to disagree.

On 1: youre straight up saying an increased variety of mainline units for ostheer is a bad thing...
2 and 5 are simple enough.
3 and 4...im not usually this blunt about things that arent statistics and factually verifiable, but people are straight up wrong about these two. People see themselves losing to volks and dont realize volks arent actually the problem and are not OP (okws starting manpower is). People think riflemen suck because they dont do well against okw flooding the field early. Again, not a riflemen problem and riflemen arent UP.

As for your definition, I dont see how you could possibly interpret that as implying there can only be one benchmark for something. You can have multiple points of reference. You can have multiple points of comparison.

And about agreeing to disagree, sure, that makes sense. But the reason I was even so confrontational is because people HAVE disagreed... a lot. Basically every time youve brought it up. It gets tiring seeing someone spam threads with their opinion, try to argue that a line of design that doesnt agree with this personal preference is wrong, and then have you do a "lets just agree to disagree." If you truly believed it best to agree to disagree and not pursue the issue further, then you wouldnt bring this up every time you saw a design perspective that didnt match the way you would prefer the game to be designed.

A 250mp squad with nearly all the utility of a unique utility squad but also being able to get good on the move automatic undroppable weapons isn't the issue it's the 10 seconds sooner they build?
Not sure I agree.
Volks are literally cons that trade merge to be able to fight really well for their cost and no extra sidegrades to do so.
Penals were buffed because of volks performance not the extra 100 mp
Volks were buffed because rifles with 2 BARs munched on them like nobodies business.

I'd cut rifle slots down to 1,add the 2nd back at vet 3 (this cuts the power spike from usf and allows okw to get some Obers up possibly before too many double BAR rifles roam)
Swap the stg and mp40 upgrades so volks can specialize in cqb or stay long range. Mp40 adds smoke fixing that hole in the lineup, kar98s have a stick made
Sturms get the flame nade.
Penals lose some of their raw dps and mp price in exchange for having to buy the SVT package OR the PTRS package. Both upgrades lock out the satchel. At package adds AT satchel though.

Now each problem factions problem units are toned down and power spikes are smoothed.

Grens don't need to worry quite so much about being massively outgunned u til later in the game where their vet will hopefully help keep them from getting busted down

On 1: youre straight up saying an increased variety of mainline units for ostheer is a bad thing...
2 and 5 are simple enough.

No I am pointing out that as far as I know a large number of player have given up on vanilla grenadiers and seek any alternative.

3 and 4...im not usually this blunt about things that arent statistics and factually verifiable, but people are straight up wrong about these two. People see themselves losing to volks and dont realize volks arent actually the problem and are not OP (okws starting manpower is). People think riflemen suck because they dont do well against okw flooding the field early. Again, not a riflemen problem and riflemen arent UP.

It not me you have to convince, but again other options seem to better than riflemen so people use them instead of riflemen.

As for your definition, I dont see how you could possibly interpret that as implying there can only be one benchmark for something. You can have multiple points of reference. You can have multiple points of comparison.

It not my definition it from dictionary. Take the metric system for instance it as only one benchmark for each unit. One can have multiple point of comparison but at some point all the point of comparison have been compared to benchmark and thus everything is actually being compared with benchmark.

Every time one uses a second point of comparison all the error between the original and the second point of comparison get transferred and any error in method of comparison is multiplied.

And about agreeing to disagree, sure, that makes sense. But the reason I was even so confrontational is because people HAVE disagreed... a lot. Basically every time youve brought it up. It gets tiring seeing someone spam threads with their opinion, try to argue that a line of design that doesnt agree with this personal preference is wrong, and then have you do a "lets just agree to disagree." If you truly believed it best to agree to disagree and not pursue the issue further, then you wouldnt bring this up every time you saw a design perspective that didnt match the way you would prefer the game to be designed.

I did not spam threads, I have not started this thread either. I simply added my opinion as many other have done in this thread so far.

The definition:
benchmark a standard or point of reference against which things may be compared.

So there can be only one.

Out of curiosity, how can one mainline be the benchmark for all other mainlines when there are core differences between them and their faction designs?

Volksgrenadiers are supposed to be more efficient than Grenadiers because Volks are the backbone of OKW and are supposed to operate largely on their own, while Grenadiers are supposed to be supported by excellent team weapons. Infantry Sections are supposed to be more efficient because they are the faction's strong point (though yes, bolstered IS are a bit too efficient now). Their cost efficiency can not be directly compared to Grenadiers because they serve different designs. There are many more factors that define what the power level of a mainline is supposed to be. It's more than a straight comparison to another faction's mainline.

Can I just reiterate that I don't want grens to actually be changed significantly in relation to their benchmark status? At least not until the later battlephases where they are by and large routed from the field in the current state.

What I want to do is increase the speed at which grens can do damage in their preferred position so that they're an actual threat that has to be dealt with instead of ignored until you finish up your business. Since the RA is removed they'll still trade as they do now, just faster.

The largest problems from wher come from three things: not being able to control the map, not being able to protect crew wepaons, and not being able to screen for tanks.


-Can't force off or punish capping units. At best they can pick off 2 models in the time it takes to flip a standard point, and will probably lose a model for their trouble. Allied players are able to finish capping points before dealing with the grens, but if allied units challenge capping grens you pretty much have to get off the point and find cover.

-Can't wipe cheeky de-caps. A lone, full health, gren squad de-capping the fuel is dead if the allied player is able to get three squads on your retreat path. You need something like 5 grens, or maybe 4 g-43 grens for the same effect. Pretty much your entire infantry force and even then it can be a dice roll.

-Can't reinforce effectively. Did you sit at range behind green cover to win your last fight? Good for you. Time to go back and re-inforce right? Nope. Since it took you a whole minute to win the fight there's now a fresh squad cappinig your fuel and you've only got a half health squad to challenge them.

-Can't protect crew weapons. The other day I had a game that started off with my MG42 suppressing two rifle squads with a gren squad protecting it. You'd figure it would be a strong start, but you'd be wrong. A flanking rifle squad was able to march past my grens while picking off a model, and decrew the kiting MG with m1's. Grens were forced to retreat, and one of the suppressed rifles took the MG.
Want to use AT guns in the late game? Good luck. Even with an MG allied players will be able to rush your paK wall and drop a grenade. Now that your at-guns are moving their armor can come in and pick off your mg and grens.

-Can't screen for tanks. Is there a jackson plinking at your panther from the back line? Well you can just move up your panther to it's 50 range and shoot back right? Oh wait you can't see it. I guess you can just rush it right? Oh wait there's a rifle squad in green cover waiting to snare your now damaged panther. Time to bring up the infantry right? Welp there's an HE sherman. You can attack the sherman with your panther, but by the time you've chased it away it'll have forced off your infantry, and the jackson will have brought your panther down to 20%. You maybe can dive for the sherman, but that's a bad trade. The second you retreat they've got their crews out repairing and back to full health before your pios have retreated back to base.

Out of curiosity, how can one mainline be the benchmark for all other mainlines when there are core differences between them and their faction designs?

Volksgrenadiers are supposed to be more efficient than Grenadiers because Volks are the backbone of OKW and are supposed to operate largely on their own, while Grenadiers are supposed to be supported by excellent team weapons. Infantry Sections are supposed to be more efficient because they are the faction's strong point (though yes, bolstered IS are a bit too efficient now). Their cost efficiency can not be directly compared to Grenadiers because they serve different designs. There are many more factors that define what the power level of a mainline is supposed to be. It's more than a straight comparison to another faction's mainline.

I do not to pretend to be an expert on this and since you have direct access to Relic maybe you should ask them.

I can respond on how I understand it which might or might not be accurate. First you create a baseline which in this case is a long range infatry like Grenadiers. Then using it as your baseline you roughly estimate what number you new unit should have and then you test your new versus your base line. Once you are happy with the result you estimate the cost compared to you base line.

So you unit does not have to be on the same power level. IS are comparable directly to grenadiers because they similar units, so are VG that have not been upgraded. Once upgraded the VG are no longer long range infatry but all range infatry and thus one should either come up with correlation of this type of infatry with the base line (for instance according to Relic CQC infatry 0.75 cost efficient) or create a new base line for this type of infatry.

The idea is not that everything should be of the same power level but that everything's cost efficiency should be comparable to base line. One could argue for instance that in the original design Riflemen where design to be more cost efficient than Grenadier because grenadier had access to more cost efficient support weapons. So when riflemen proved to be problematic Relic move the HMG to HQ to make Ostheer support weapon even more cost efficient.

Imo we are getting off topic now, if there is a need to continue this we can do it via PM. Imo you should actually directly conduct Relic and ask for their input from the work they have done so far.