Grens UP & G43s suck

.

1. They are less durable.
2. Remains to be seen but I don't think so (watch tightrope tests)
3. The scale much worse than tommies or US inf or even cons.
4. What about an abulance for US? These vehicles are very voulnerable and the tech required is similar to allied LV which are usually much more powerful.
5. They have Mgs only, can't equip at weapons and they are effective only in very limited circumstances (huge contrast here with other infantry).
6. Allies also have team weapons which are generally more effective against grens as they have to be static to shoot their weapons (they can't charge them). Those more powerful infantry squads can also rely on suppor weapons and if they do, they nightmare begins (a powerful infantry unit supported just like grens with support weapons by the allies creates imbalance as soon as allied players learn how to support their units).

But I agree that other infantry should be modelled on grens and nerfed.

And have easiest and earliest access to on-field reinforcement vehicles, contrary to their counterparts who does not have one at all or its locked late in tech or doctrines.

WaT iS t0 AmBaLanCe???

*suffers flashbacks from USF + SOV early ambulance + maxim spam in Minsk Pocket camping axis fuel before t1 teched.*

WaT iS t0 AmBaLanCe???

*suffers flashbacks from USF + SOV early ambulance + maxim spam in Minsk Pocket camping axis fuel before t1 teched.*

4. What about an abulance for US? These vehicles are very voulnerable and the tech required is similar to allied LV which are usually much more powerful.

Show me 1 recent competitive replay where its used to reinforce forward.

1. They are less durable.

They are equally durable to more expensive tommies without upgrades.

2. Remains to be seen but I don't think so (watch tightrope tests)

72 damage can't wipe them at all, so at full health they are immune to mortars and nades.
Everything with more damage is equally deadly against all other squads too.

3. The scale much worse than tommies or US inf or even cons.

Cons have better vet, but much worse base stats.
Tommie values are comparable.
For muni upgrades, both pay more resources to get them, therefore at the end they'll be more effective and there is nothing wrong with that.

5. They have Mgs only, can't equip at weapons and they are effective only in very limited circumstances (huge contrast here with other infantry).

How is that relevant to anything?
They have AI/AT infantry that comes very early to support them.
In fact, you're only reinforcing what I have said earlier about them being reliant on supporting units, because that's how faction is designed.

6. Allies also have team weapons which are generally more effective against grens as they have to be static to shoot their weapons (they can't charge them). Those more powerful infantry squads can also rely on suppor weapons and if they do, they nightmare begins (a powerful infantry unit supported just like grens with support weapons by the allies creates imbalance as soon as allied players learn how to support their units).

Sniper and mortar which comes together with grens in the same tier counters these support weapons and they are not only more expensive for allies, they also come later an/or are less effective.
That's another point that reinforcements the faction design of combined arms instead of mainline reliance.
Also, ironically, that's exactly what G43 upgrade is for. There is no other weapon in game that has as high moving accuracy as G43.

But I agree that other infantry should be modelled on grens and nerfed.

Well, you can wish for that all you want, still not happening. If you want to spam mainline infantry and nothing else, play OKW or USF.

I'd be cautious of a 240mp 60mu unit model s sniping

Show me 1 recent competitive replay where its used to reinforce forward.

No u!
Something being a feature and not getting used does not remove those properties and diminish them or negate their existence. I bet you'd similarly be hard-pressed to find anyone in the competitive 1v1 scene using 251s for the sole purpose of forward reinforcing on the regular basis despite the fact that it is a powerful tool left mostly untapped.

No u!
Something being a feature and not getting used does not remove those properties and diminish them or negate their existence.

It actually kind of does.
It means that kind of use isn't a valid option for one reason or another.
There are many features that look good "in theory" but are completely invalid in actual games, Bren commandos being prime example, so amazing, so good, literally never used outside of cheat commands mod testing.

I bet you'd similarly be hard-pressed to find anyone in the competitive 1v1 scene using 251s for the sole purpose of forward reinforcing on the regular basis despite the fact that it is a powerful tool left mostly untapped.

Unupgraded 251 was a staple unit for osttruppen builds for ages before their reinforce time got normalized.
It was a meta thing for quite some time and it had ok popularity in 2v2.

Moving ambulance out of base sector however and using it right behind frontline, I've seen it maybe 3 times over last 4 years. Its because of fragility of the unit, the risk involved isn't worth the reward.

Moving ambulance out of base sector however and using it right behind frontline, I've seen it maybe 3 times over last 4 years. Its because of fragility of the unit, the risk involved isn't worth the reward.

I was pointing out to the fact that technically USF has access to forward on-field reinforcement. This might not be practical enough to be worth the risk/reward but then again we could extend this risk/reward argument to lots of features in coh2. Like example g43 grens. It's because of fragility of the unit, the risk involved isn't worth the reward. Thus coming to conclusion that ostheer has no access to short range weapon upgrades for their mainline infantry.

Although completely out of topic forward ambulance becomes increasingly more frequent depending on MOD and map size.

Tbh ambulance being able to reinforce squads is absurd. As Soviets I have to go T3, get the M5 and ignore the AA package to get field reinforcement.

Tbh ambulance being able to reinforce squads is absurd. As Soviets I have to go T3, get the M5 and ignore the AA package to get field reinforcement.

TBH if soviets had access to early forward reinforcement, they would just overwhelm the map.

I'm avid M5 user and its really hard to push soviet off the field then its behind your infantry, only way for you to be forced away is overwhelming fire to bleed more then you can sustain.

Grens can be forced little bit easier with 251 therefore its earlier.

Show me 1 recent competitive replay where its used to reinforce forward.

You're missing my point - just like with the ambulance it is risky to invest manpower and fuel in halftracks that are really fragile and delay your tech (they don't really provide healing in contrast to ambulance even after the patch - inside healing - funny). The fact that some players build them just shows how poor grens are and they need constnt reinforcements despite the risk. Ostheer players would very much prefer to have a LV that is immune to small arms rather than bleed manpower and risk being bazooked or snared or ptrsed when using a fragile halftrack. These vehicles are also totally voulbnerable to any LV and have really small operating window. Once again - they are an act of desperation and require great micro to pull it off.

They are equally durable to more expensive tommies without upgrades.

I don't know where you take these "facts" from - tommies are much more durable, especially behind cover that they can themselves build anywhere they want plus they have t0 vickers mgs to support them.

72 damage can't wipe them at all, so at full health they are immune to mortars and nades.
Everything with more damage is equally deadly against all other squads too.

At full health - grens don't heal as easily as tommies and as axis you often have two options - retreat to heal losing map presence (which for grens is almost impossible get back as they can't really attack as effectively as most other infantry) or risk losing 4 man squad staying on the field because they are usually not full health in real scenarios. Tommies have effective and cheap aura healing.

Cons have better vet, but much worse base stats.
Tommie values are comparable.
For muni upgrades, both pay more resources to get them, therefore at the end they'll be more effective and there is nothing wrong with that.

Not really - Tommies will bolster and upgrade with plethora of weapons still being able to build cover and be 5 man. Cons can become 7 man squads and have a lot of commanders which boost them even further. US rifleman will upgrade a lot too. Gren with their mg42 only upgrade and not being able to build even sandbags look really poor.

How is that relevant to anything?
They have AI/AT infantry that comes very early to support them.
In fact, you're only reinforcing what I have said earlier about them being reliant on supporting units, because that's how faction is designed.

No number 1. - grens mgs are effective only far range when your opponents are coming towards you. Once they close in grens will start dancing and stop being effective. A grenade, smoke or anything that blocks sight or makes them move stops them friom being effective - it's a huge drawback compared to other infantry.

No number 2 - each army has support weapons - they will support their infantry units just like ostheer supports their grens. The difference is just the beginning when ost has t0 mg (but grens come from a structure you must build). After a few minutes all armies can field similar number of support weapons and support their infantry. The lack of balance happens when, for example, Soviets support their penals with mgs and mortars (whether through tech or commanders). The matchup becomes uneven as infantry that was good without support now has the support and can also tutle defending with close range grenades, smoke, artillery, etc.

Sniper and mortar which comes together with grens in the same tier counters these support weapons and they are not only more expensive for allies, they also come later an/or are less effective.
That's another point that reinforcements the faction design of combined arms instead of mainline reliance.
Also, ironically, that's exactly what G43 upgrade is for. There is no other weapon in game that has as high moving accuracy as G43.

1. Sniper bleeds ostheer more as every shot drops 1/4 of a squad and drains 30 manpower . Each ostheer sniper shot will drain less manpower. Chasing snipers with better LV is easier, etc. Don't you see the difference?

2. They don't come that much later, what are you talking about? With UK they come at exactly the same time. Soviets get them more or less at the same time you can build grens. Only US must wait a bit more but they get imo a better mg. US gets a mortar more quickly than ost instead.

3. Your argument with g43s makes little sense. 6 or 7 man squad is still more powerful on the move than grens.

Well, you can wish for that all you want, still not happening. If you want to spam mainline infantry and nothing else, play OKW or USF.

Once again - I play all factions and I like it. Each is unique. I defend ostheer as it is the weakest in 1v1 in my opinion. Some players just debalance the game by not acknowledgung it and even accusing poor units of overperforming being blind to some of the crutch units they keep using themselves. Please give such advice to players who should try playing ostheer and realise how weak the faction is sometimes. They will at least stop accusing it of being too strong.

And I don't spam units myself and I'm not going to - contary to many allied players spamming cons or penals and being unhappy that they lose against a more skilled player.

I forgot to add, I think any buff to G43 should get paired with a reduction to the moving accuracy (currently the weapon has around 90% moving dps, could be lowered to 70%).

That way Pgrens and Storms can get four G43's (with price increase) without becoming too strong on the move and G43 Grens would be easier to buff (with price increase) without making blobbing them overly strong.

I forgot to add, I think any buff to G43 should get paired with a reduction to the moving accuracy (currently the weapon has around 90% moving dps, could be lowered to 70%).

That way Pgrens and Storms can get four G43's (with price increase) without becoming too strong on the move and G43 Grens would be easier to buff (with price increase) without making blobbing them overly strong.

I believe that some marginal buffs could be justified without having to reduce the moving dps just by upping the cost to the 60muni where it should be at 60CP. That being said buffing the G43s should indeed be done in a way that would not promote blobbing and improve skill play. I think that my idea of improving accuracy behind cover would offer those with skill an improved performance, but still in some games where its 4 G43 grens vs 3 double bar RM a-moving towards each other on the open fields of l2p madness there would be zero difference in the performance of grens and they would get spanked just like before.

Once more it the rest of the infatry that need a nerf and not the G43 that needs a buff.

I do agree with lowering accuracy on the move and increasing weapon count to 4 for PGs/St.T., there is little reason to complicated things and have 3+1 weapons.

Actually when it comes to PGs I would suggest they start with 2 MP44 and 2 MP40 or K98, be able to buy 2 more MP44 and have to cost reduced to 280-300.

Again I agree with your point and I wish that was the case. This whole thread is the logical reactionary continuation to the fact that the patch team chose to affect the balance through buffs which leads to the necessity to balance things now by buffing, not nerfing to establish new equilibrium.

But even with the mainline infantry issue taken care of I still feel that G43s should either be mirrored to their SOV SVT upgrade counterpart at 1CP or then upped to 60muni cost at 2Cp and have their performance increased to the point where their existence as part of 3 commanders can be justified.

Again I agree with your point and I wish that was the case. This whole thread is the logical reactionary continuation to the fact that the patch team chose to affect the balance through buffs which leads to the necessity to balance things now by buffing, not nerfing to establish new equilibrium.
...

If one gets balance is 2 different power levels the game will be completely different. In the high power level attacks will be more difficult and snowballing effects more common.

This becomes even worse with tendency to have powerful units earlier with each patch, reducing the window of opportunity for many units and have to buff them more.

That is why imo it is time to stop buffing and start nerfing.

(SVT airdrop is a badly designed ability and the SVT is a badly designed weapons:
The ability comes to early and allows resources manipulation across player that is virtually impossible to counter. The weapon is self has an almost linear DPS curve making it effective in all ranges while being quite powerful.)

As I said earlier (dunno is it this thread or the other gren thread) : Grens are far from UP. Grens and Cons are the pinnacles of the core infantry design. It is not Grens or Cons that need buffs it is all other mainlines that deserve nerfs.

But for the G43 part I strongly agree. Current G43 only promotes blobbing and A-moving compared to SOV SVT upgrade which is a direct DPS upgrade which is both earlier and overall better.

Suggestions can be like this:

1 :
> Keep them 2 CP
> Remove moving accuracy
> Gives two G43s which have the exact stats of Pathfinder snipers which crit at %40-50
> Cost to 70 Munitions

2 :
> Lower cost to 1 CP
> Remove moving accuracy
> Gives 2 G43s which which will have 3 Paratrooper M1's DPS. Which will be a true DPS upgrade on all ranges without being too overwhelming.
> Cost to 50 or 60 Munitions

What do you guys think ?

All the above suggestions from the last posts are great tbh

What do you guys think ?

There is no reason to change Grenadiers.

There is no reason to change Grenadiers.

I said the same man It is not the grens that need changes it is the G43 which in its current state is gimmicky.