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

Jump back to quoted post7 Jun 2019, 16:33 PMporkloin

Stuff

If you're going to assert that grens are high damage then it's not coming from their weapons. In most cases they have, at best, 10% higher damage at the longer ranges, which is rarely true as their formation is so deep that the last 1 or two models won't be firing.

Jump back to quoted post7 Jun 2019, 16:54 PMJae For Jett

On formations though, I fail to see how thats much of an issue for grens. Either you move into range to attack and all models will fire, or youre in cover and dont move up to have all models fire, in which the squad id clumped and all models will probably be firing anyway.

Jump back to quoted post7 Jun 2019, 20:29 PMBalanced_Gamer

I believe Grenadiers do require something. It is true that they can not maintain the frontline and have to retreat often and the fact they are limited to 4 man. The fact their received accuracy is worse than Tommies and Tommies can have 5 man with multiple upgrades although lack the ability to snare.

Overall Grens do require in some aspect either increasing the damage or survivability to make them more potent.

If anything in my aspect is survivability.

Instead of giving them extra man or extra damage. I was thinking of something different. Maybe in after Battle Phase 2, you can upgrade any of the Osteehr infantry units including support weapons to gain additional 10-20 HP to each model. To give them better chances than easy squad wipes. To sum this up, Grens 4 man in total have currently 320 HP, with upgrade they will get 400 HP. Around there.

I think this is a good resolution as it is not asking for too much or too little.

Currently they are a huge liability to many dangers in terms of being outnumbered and blown into pieces.

An upgrade that provides extra health / HP , I this is a clear resolution. It won't make them too strong nor as they are currently vulnerable.

Jump back to quoted post7 Jun 2019, 18:38 PMporkloin

It has a lot of implications. In theory A-moving should maximize the value for your grens, but in many cases it'll bug out the formation leading to a loss. Other squads, such as conscripts can a-move into grens and win also if the formation bugs out. It's not true in all cases, but there are definitely cases where it happens. Rifles for example will win out a-move fights in both directions.

Yes you can micro the grens in a few steps closer, but in many match-ups there isn't a very large margin where grens will win, and the buggy formation makes that margin smaller, or even flips it.

Jump back to quoted post8 Jun 2019, 00:04 AMporkloin

I'm not a fan of adding HP. Not only does it mess with the uniformity of the game, but also the character of the army as, historically, the germans avoided attrition fights at all costs.

I'd much rather see greater lethality that gives defense through offense, but still leaves them vulnerable to poor positioning.

Jump back to quoted post8 Jun 2019, 07:35 AMJae For Jett

It doesnt matter. Issuing an a-move or attack order moves the squad until every model can fire on the target. It doesnt stop them when the first model hits firing range (35), it stops them when EVERY model hits firing range , often leading to the closest model being maybe 32 range or so.

Jump back to quoted post8 Jun 2019, 11:23 AMVipper

It is the other infatry that need to be toned down and not the grenadiers that need a buff.

Jump back to quoted post8 Jun 2019, 11:35 AMMr Carmine

Why all this buffing with things other units have or invent new wheels?

Dps increase is already in doctrines for ost. Hp increase as well.
If you want either play those doctrines. Like soviets have to do for ai upgrades or better tanks.

Al lot of the complaints seem to stem that x units have this and that, thats why grens struggle.
Because the con gren matchup is the most balanced imo we do not want to mess with that.

Instead of buffing we should start nerfing. Grens are working as intended except the faust bug. Wfa inf and penals are too good atm.

Jump back to quoted post8 Jun 2019, 11:58 AMporkloin

It seems a bit unrealistic to adjust 4 other armies to bring them into balance with one under-preforming army yeah? I understand where you're coming from I think, but it's going to be much easier to buff an under-preforming army than to nerf 4 over-preforming armies.
...

Jump back to quoted post8 Jun 2019, 12:07 PMVipper

Not it is not easier especially if that army is benchmark and is in the correct power level.

And it is not as if the other armies are in the same power level, infatry is being continuously buffed left and right. Pathfinder/I&R Pathfinder, JLI, Shock troops, Storm troopers, Assault engineer...all received buffs in the previous commander patch and now Ranger, conscripts are also receiving buff.

Now instead buffing the unit in high power level and reducing reaction time it is to restart using ostheer as benchmark and start nerfing.

Jump back to quoted post8 Jun 2019, 12:26 PMporkloin

In theory I'm down. I would actually like to see the slower fights that would come from nerfing all the other infantry.

In practice I don't see a complete overhaul of all the infantry squads ever being done. My proposal is geared towards 'fixing' OST without a major affect on any of the existing infantry relationships.

I just want proper play with OST to actually be rewarding instead of a 'meh' you did actually pick off a ton of conscripts, but since you never captured the fuel point the t-70 is going to wipe two squads, and decimate all the others.

Jump back to quoted post8 Jun 2019, 12:51 PMVipper

The fact that infatry continue to receive buffs is indication that we are in wrong path leading to vicious circle that will not break unless we start nerfing.

Jump back to quoted post8 Jun 2019, 11:58 AMporkloin

It seems a bit unrealistic to adjust 4 other armies to bring them into balance with one under-preforming army yeah? I understand where you're coming from I think, but it's going to be much easier to buff an under-preforming army than to nerf 4 over-preforming armies.



The whole purpose of the proposal is to make grens different, and better at their specific role, without seriously affecting the other armies. Literally everyone is going to complain if you try and nerf all the other armies based off grens being underpowered. Just look at how many people are complaining now.

Jump back to quoted post8 Jun 2019, 11:58 AMporkloin

It seems a bit unrealistic to adjust 4 other armies to bring them into balance with one under-preforming army yeah? I understand where you're coming from I think, but it's going to be much easier to buff an under-preforming army than to nerf 4 over-preforming armies.



The whole purpose of the proposal is to make grens different, and better at their specific role, without seriously affecting the other armies. Literally everyone is going to complain if you try and nerf all the other armies based off grens being underpowered. Just look at how many people are complaining now.

Jump back to quoted post8 Jun 2019, 15:45 PMJae For Jett

How is it an indication? Units that are underused are receiving buffs. Just because you prefer a different design path doesnt make the given one the "wrong path."

I just fail to see how a "vicious circle" of buffs is wrong, but a move to nerf a bunch of units (which you seem to imply wouldnt possibly lead to a "vicious circle" of nerfs) is supposedly right.