Vetted 7 man conscripts vs vetted lmg grens..

Don't give me tips - just be more objective - Sov have many more non-doc snare possibilities while ost has only one on grens. Soviet can egip more squads with at weapons (some of them for free) and have both the snare and at weapons on penals.

This objective from series - Sun rises on East and sets on West. Want to count how much axis stock armor have access to HMG upgrade and how SU? Or how much stock axis units have access to barrage and how SU? What point of it? Show that cons with at-nades better than grens with fausts and grens need some of cons abilities?

Soviets can equip with snare on 1 stock unit more - penals. But again, no one play penals + cons combo. Or penals + elite infantry or cons+elite infantry, not penals with cons.
You can make penals+guards - costly, but effective.
You can make penals + ptrs cons from doc.
You can make cons + AT-partisans, because AT_nade upgrade mutual for all of them.
But no one make T1 opening and than make at-nade upgrade and build cons to support penals. I always watch games of pro-player and champs. If this tactic was better than regular "only penals/cons spam" at least some of pros regulary use it.

This objective from series - Sun rises on East and sets on West. Want to count how much axis stock armor have access to HMG upgrade and how SU? Or how much stock axis units have access to barrage and how SU? What point of it? Show that cons with at-nades better than grens with fausts and grens need some of cons abilities?

Soviets can equip with snare on 1 stock unit more - penals. But again, no one play penals + cons combo. Or penals + elite infantry or cons+elite infantry, not penals with cons.
You can make penals+guards - costly, but effective.
You can make penals + ptrs cons from doc.
You can make cons + AT-partisans, because AT_nade upgrade mutual for all of them.
But no one make T1 opening and than make at-nade upgrade and build cons to support penals. I always watch games of pro-player and champs. If this tactic was better than regular "only penals/cons spam" at least some of pros regulary use it.

What you write has nothing to do with the fact that cons have MORE abilities than grens and grens HAVE TO tech to be even built. Yet, they cost the same and the hooorah and snare combo is best AT snare in this game.

The ability from cons I think grens should have is sandbags. (Hooorah would of course be cool too as well as merge but I'm not even suggesting that cause that would be cloning stuff unique to faction)

You make it sound like playing soviets is an auto lose. Are you playing the same game? Soviets are very strong right now and 7 men cons are very strong. There is a reason many people favor playing soviets over Ostheer, it is because it is still a faction that allows you to make a million mistakes and come back. Ostheer is basically a one mistake is insta lose kind of faction. A lot more fun and frustrating at the same time too.

Where do i say sov up? Where do i say sov suck as a faction? I jyst compared pro,s and cons for grens and cons . Contrary to popular believe grens dont suck. They require support cuz they where designed to. They have doctrines and best overall support units to cover for weaknesses or expand on strengths. For cons its just the doctrines.

As for soviets making miljons of mistakes and coming back..... going a t2 opening esp vs okw esp is one they dont recover from mostly. I do play ost as well though not as much as sov but making a come back as ost is not as hard as you claim. You have a buffed ostwind a buffed halftrack and buffed pgrens. This is just another ost forever up claim.

What you write has nothing to do with the fact that cons have MORE abilities than grens and grens HAVE TO tech to be even built. Yet, they cost the same and the hooorah and snare combo is best AT snare in this game.

The ability from cons I think grens should have is sandbags. (Hooorah would of course be cool too as well as merge but I'm not even suggesting that cause that would be cloning stuff unique to faction)

You can make sandbags with your mainlines with Osttruppen or Defensive doctrine. Mixing 2 Grens with 2 Osttruppen and no early mg42 is actually a quite effective start against USF and UKF.

You get sprint with Jaeger Infantry doctrine and other doctrines.

Ostheer has its own strengths, they don't need any of these tools non-doctrinally.

Exactly. Just weird to hear about OP grenadiers from a faction that has penals/guards/shocktroops. Uses sniper to shoot at 4 men squads. Has 170manpower engineers etc. Just incredible. I'm not even going to mention other stuff like soviet tanks/katusha/arty. etc. And they keep repeating that ost has best support weapons. Incredible, just incredible.

Dude learn to read. where do i say grens to good? I just stated they dont suck and dont use them as rifles cons volks or penals.

Ooh soviets have other inf in doctrines and 1 other non doc. What a shocker. Some more shockers for ya. The sov sniper has lower rof vs those 4 men then the ost sniper vs 6 men. The combat engies are so cheap because they are the least usefull engies compared to every other engineer. Ost has tanks halftracks as well.......

Seriously get out of that victim bubble, its sad really sad.

You can make sandbags with your mainlines with Osttruppen or Defensive doctrine. Mixing 2 Grens with 2 Osttruppen and no early mg42 is actually a quite effective start against USF and UKF.

You get sprint with Jaeger Infantry doctrine and other doctrines.

Ostheer has its own strengths, they don't need any of these tools non-doctrinally.

Agreed with the above. Yet, saying that ost has better and more snares is a nonsense.

Still, there are more stock abilities on, for example, Soviet squads in general compared to Ostheer. They also get commander abilities and they are usually more powerful against 4 men squads or tanks. Coming back to at they include partisans or ambush conscript at nades. They also get for mother russia when it comes to sprints, etc. It is a simple fact that players trying to prove that ost has more powerful abilities/units than Soviets are simply wrong.

Dude learn to read. where do i say grens to good? I just stated they dont suck and dont use them as rifles cons volks or penals.

Ooh soviets have other inf in doctrines and 1 other non doc. What a shocker. Some more shockers for ya. The sov sniper has lower rof vs those 4 men then the ost sniper vs 6 men. The combat engies are so cheap because they are the least usefull engies compared to every other engineer. Ost has tanks halftracks as well.......

Seriously get out of that victim bubble, its sad really sad.

I'm nowhere near victim bubble. Grens suck compared to ther mainline. They are playable but many players try to avoid them. They are slightly cheaper but still suck. People keep repeating nonsense about ost - somebody needs to react.

Agreed with the above. Yet, saying that ost has better and more snares is a nonsense.

Still, there are more stock abilities on, for example, Soviet squads in general compared to Ostheer. They also get commander abilities and they are usually more powerful against 4 men squads or tanks. Coming back to at they include partisans or ambush conscript at nades. They also get for mother russia when it comes to sprints, etc. It is a simple fact that players trying to prove that ost has more powerful abilities/units than Soviets are simply wrong.

Mama Russia and Papa Faterland were nerfed - no more sprint in combat.
If you want AT-ambush, make shrecks and camo from doctrine for pgrens.

OST have some powerfull abilities too: AT stuka strafe, Stuka with cluster bombs, blietzkried and smoke for tanks, suppression Stuka. Each faction have their own good and weak sides.

Really, it's all looks like you want count how much SU units have access to snare and make from it conclusion than cons better than grens or overall that SU is better than OST. I can too count how many OST stock units have access to grenades and make from it conclusion that OST better that SU or grens better than cons. But it conclusion from series that water is wet and fire is hot.

Mama Russia and Papa Faterland were nerfed - no more sprint in combat.
If you want AT-ambush, make shrecks and camo from doctrine for pgrens.

OST have some powerfull abilities too: AT stuka strafe, Stuka with cluster bombs, blietzkried and smoke for tanks, suppression Stuka. Each faction have their own good and weak sides.

Really, it's all looks like you want count how much SU units have access to snare and make from it conclusion than cons better than grens or overall that SU is better than OST. I can too count how many OST stock units have access to grenades and make from it conclusion that OST better that SU or grens better than cons. But it conclusion from series that water is wet and fire is hot.

Didn't know they were nerfed. Thanks for info. Still - I really think that ost is one of the weaker factions in 1v1 (although after recent changes it is not that bad). The game is really well balanced for an assymetrical rts. Forum members must just sometimes read some opposite opinions to: mg42 is the best, ost mortar is the best, grens are best infantry, axis have better snares, p4 is better than all other mediums, ost has better armour so can have weak infantry, etc.

Didn't know they were nerfed. Thanks for info. Still - I really think that ost is one of the weaker factions in 1v1 (although after recent changes it is not that bad). The game is really well balanced for an assymetrical rts. Forum members must just sometimes read some opposite opinions to: mg42 is the best, ost mortar is the best, grens are best infantry, axis have better snares, p4 is better than all other mediums, ost has better armour so can have weak infantry, etc.

Been the best at something, doesn't mean it necessarily imbalanced or it makes things unfair. At the end of the day, something has to be the "best".

You can skip spoiler about units mentioned if TL;DR.
Show Spoiler

I'm nowhere near victim bubble. Grens suck compared to ther mainline. They are playable but many players try to avoid them. They are slightly cheaper but still suck. People keep repeating nonsense about ost - somebody needs to react.

The problem is that if you feel that you need to react specifically to a certain faction, i'm sorry but then you have a bias towards that faction.
People spew BS in the forums in every way. Allies OP, Axis OP. Some may have some truth behind them even if screamed and given no facts. Other are derivative of lack of knowledge + L2P.

If you can't seem to find it, that's a bad news coming your way.
Been biased is fine, everyone is in some or other way. Be it faction or playstyle. The problem is lying to yourself about not been biased.

Where do i say sov up? Where do i say sov suck as a faction? I jyst compared pro,s and cons for grens and cons . Contrary to popular believe grens dont suck. They require support cuz they where designed to. They have doctrines and best overall support units to cover for weaknesses or expand on strengths. For cons its just the doctrines.

As for soviets making miljons of mistakes and coming back..... going a t2 opening esp vs okw esp is one they dont recover from mostly. I do play ost as well though not as much as sov but making a come back as ost is not as hard as you claim. You have a buffed ostwind a buffed halftrack and buffed pgrens. This is just another ost forever up claim.

As ost, if you are on the backfoot, a buffed ostwind, halftrack or pgren won't help you. What will help you is your opponent making a mistake.

What you think doesn mean anything sice stat said they are the same. Please dont bring up balance discussion base on felling.

Maxim has a 3 second setup, mg42/34/vickers have a 4 second setup. His feeling is correct.

As ost, if you are on the backfoot, a buffed ostwind, halftrack or pgren won't help you. What will help you is your opponent making a mistake.

That applies to all factions equally.

No single faction can pull a magical comeback without opponent making a mistake while you start to play flawless.

in 2v2 of ranked 1000+, i am fighting more soviet players just going cons-cons-cons build.

keep pushing those cons and then upgrading to 7 men. lol.

I think their vet3 ra bonus need reduction. simply out bully grens and pgren at that stage.

That applies to all factions equally.

No single faction can pull a magical comeback without opponent making a mistake while you start to play flawless.

As wehr 2v2, i can win early-mid games encounter, pushing allies off map. but they keep coming back en-mass to comeback without making mistakes.

i guess is allies better survivability, speeds and vet bonus.

i think yes mistakes should be punished, but for wehr, it got really severe.

Maxim has a 3 second setup, mg42/34/vickers have a 4 second setup. His feeling is correct.

thanks and i also think 50cal has a what 1.5-2s setup?

As ost, if you are on the backfoot, a buffed ostwind, halftrack or pgren won't help you. What will help you is your opponent making a mistake.

Thats just l2p. A quiters attitude. Lots of people get cocky and over confident and make more mistakes when there ahead.

Maxim has a 3 second setup, mg42/34/vickers have a 4 second setup. His feeling is correct.

Maxim HMG
Arc of fire increased from 60 degrees to 90 degrees (other MGs have 90-120 degrees)
* Setup time from 2 to 3 (other MGs have 3)
* Burst duration from 2.25 to 4.5
* Damage reduced from 4 to 3 (the DPS of the Maxim remains the same)
* Tracking speed from 35 to 28
* Reinforcement cost from 15 to 20
* Sprint removed from Vet1
* Sustained fire ability added at Vet1

So, what is the meaning of this ?

The problem is that if you feel that you need to react specifically to a certain faction, i'm sorry but then you have a bias towards that faction...

...The problem is lying to yourself about not been biased.

I'm loving every word here - a psychological approch to balance

But to the point - I would react to a lot more of balance threads, but on this forum there is not much need to sort of "defend" USF/SOV/UK/OKW. They have their crutch units and the answer to posts reducing their crutch role usually ends up in stuff like: adapt, it has to be like, you have combined arms (as if aothers didn't), then come more philosophical arguments: it is the game design, this unit is not supposed to to that, etc. And although there are solid, logical, unbiased arguments that some units overperform the person posting them is just treated badly by some forum members. A good example would be the scott or pack howie. They have been 2 shooting those poor 4 men squads for a very long time until people finally admitted the obvious and done sth about it. Funnily enough, a few weeks later we get better vanilla rifles, which, to a large extend, hamper the use of assault grens for ost (the only early units that could mop up the pinned squads early on providing some breathing room for ost at that stage of the game). And again forum members don't seem to even see that (apart from 1 member I think), but are only concentrating on the fact that they were smashing regular grens anyway at medium-close so if they are even stronger now it is not a problem (It's so ridiculous that even difficult to comment). Don't you see the damage to the overall balance? Allies who play against 2 factions only anyway, will play again against 1 in 1v1 if the opponent is of similiar skill. To top it all, some people allegedly watch replays by Dane/tightrope etc and don't even seem to notice that a lot of players try not to use grens at all. If they do they respond that this is how U adapt - by not using yuour mainline infantry (incredible).

So coming back more to the core of the thread: In my opinion, putting all psychology behind, I really believe that grens should be somehow buffed to keep up with the buffed cons and apparently rifles. I'd go for more utility such as sandbags to surprise the opponent with positioning and make them spot more before assaults. Grens don't have close range nades anyway so after closing in allied squads could just win easily. It wouldn't be a great balance change (contrary to what you wrote) but a slight response to more powerful vanilla rifles and 7 man conscripts. In my opinion, it wouldn't change much. I like your bunker idea still, but I;m afraid that spending manpower in ored to equalize the matchup might be a move in the wrong direction. Unless what you meant was sort of sit in a bunker instead of behind sandbags. I feel it could be more difficult to balance though than those sandbags.

As wehr 2v2, i can win early-mid games encounter, pushing allies off map. but they keep coming back en-mass to comeback without making mistakes.

i guess is allies better survivability, speeds and vet bonus.

i think yes mistakes should be punished, but for wehr, it got really severe.

IMO it is connected with mg thread here. With mg42 you generally pin and make them retreat. If they don't do it too late, they won't be losing manpower at all, even if they keep walking in mgs arc like crazy. Also their models are cheaper so if you drop X models on your squads during assault and they drop the same number of models even screwing up the flank, they win manpower wise. The potential to accumulate a blob despite getting constant retreats and losing skirmisches is much higher than for ost with 4 men squads that drop models under fire more quickly with these models more expensive to reinforce.