Grenadiers are mainline infantry and the weakest such right now, with low survivability compared to all other mainline infantry units, well, next to IS but they can get an upgrade to 5 man squads so they don't really count after the upgrade, which any sensible British player would get ASAP.
Sturmpioneers have the same exact problem as any other engineer/builder unit, so they're not a special snowflake here, the difference is here that they're the only ones with hand held weapons now, which makes them, apart from infantry combat duty, repairing and building, an anti-tank role which means they'll be playing with fire and that's why they mostly get wiped, I also think Panzergrenadiers suffer from this as well, but that's another question.
Obers, Falls and Jaegers are all specialized infantry units, 2 of which are call ins even. At most I'd give obers a Faust ability but that's it for them, they're meant to be Anti-Infantry specifically.
Again, Grenadiers are mainline infantry, they're supposed to be dependable, but due to their low survivability they're not like the volks for example. But yeah, making them a 5 man squad right from the get go is one way of doing it, having a universal upgrade like the British one giving them, the Panzergrenadiers and maybe even the Pioneers a 5th man to their squad is another way of doing it, giving them a 5th man along with their weapon upgrades (MG42 and Panzerschreck for the PGs respectively) is a third way.
I look at it from a different point of view. The underlying problem that should be tackled imo is 4-men squad survivability, regardless of role. Just because Grens happen to be main line infantry doesn't make them an exception that needs special attention.
BTW, Sturmpioneers are very different from Wehr pios because they are combat effective and way more expensive in terms of acquisition and reinforce. |
Well ok, but there is a significant difference between issues affecting line troops and those affecting specialists.
Yes, but just looking at what has been suggested in the past month or so and assuming it is not realistic to implement many of them I find this one would somewhat cancel out other changes that make more sense to me overall. Take say single weapon slots for IS and riflemen, wouldn't it be a bit much to add another grenadier member on top of that? |
Some of these are OKW units, and others are doctrinal. As such I genuinely don't understand what they have to do with a discussion about the 4-model Grenadier squad. We haven't even discussed pios and PG's, so why the question should be extended to OKW is not obvious.
As for team weapons, these seem fine to me in this respect; apart from the Soviets, the other factions also have smaller weapon squads, and I think that's all fine. Again, that was never part of the question.
Multiple other threads in the balance forum regarding USF mortar, t-70, weapon slots, stuart etc... address scopes that overlap with this one. I disagree with the initial assumption that grenadiers are the only infantry that have problems atm is all. |
Yes, let's change several other things instead of the one causing the problem to achieve the same effect, brilliant.
No I wasn't saying that. What I mean is that all axis support weapon teams, Sturmpioneers, Obersoldaten, Fallschirmjaeger, Jaeger Light Infantry also suffer from the same problem of getting wiped too easily by mortars, light vehicles. So changing the grenadier squad size will not have the same effect. |
I don't really think adding a 5th model to a Gren squad would actually make for a particularly big change. The unit will work mostly like it did before, unlike the change that was made to remove Schrecks from Volks, say. By comparison, this change would be quite simple.
The major changes that seem to have a larger impact on balance affecting both axis factions in different ways were usf mortar, penals, counters to light vehicles. Adding a grenadier member would solve Wehrmacht's infantry problems but have little affect on balance overall, or make Wehrmacht Infantry very strong towards any of the allied factions. Slighly changing a few units would serve the same purpose for all involved. |
well on old it was fine then they were buffed to green lvl and that was too much before they were worse cons so it was fair
btw penal are not doctrinal
and my suggestion was made to gave back identity to faction
Penals are probably a bit too strong atm, or their counters too weak and timed too far back, but I wouldn't call them elites. Just my opinion but I think faction identity is worth less than game play quality where cheesy choices are just working too well by default. Small, gradual changes can mitigate that I think.
What makes these balance discussions a bit frustrating is that there is never any feedback from decision makers. And how hard can it be to take say implement/revert small changes to penal accuracy or svt rifles damage within a few days, then look at feedback again? |
the problem started when they nefrfed ober too much and buffed volks instead
I think bringing back old okw without resource penalty but things cost more fuel, ober in tier 1 with out mg(only at tier 4) and giving volks old stats + sherck (when they were worse than cons but had good vet almost like rifle) would balance the game at least for okw and it would keep the unique design , it all started when ally fanboy cried too much about ober and they made them useless
This also means removal of p4 and sturm tiger back
I think the game is overall SLIGHTLY imbalanced in allied favor currently. Don't think giant changes are needed to fix that. I'd really hate to see Panzerschrecks back on volks, please let's make some changes to the Raketenwerfer instead. If you look at the multiple suggestions regarding USF mortar, T70, Stuart, weapon slots, spacing I think if some of those small changes are implemented balance can be achieved without redesigning things from scratch again and facing unforeseeable results. Obers are fine imo, maybe a slight reinfoce reduction but nothing major is needed. They are stock elite infantry while all allied infantry is doctrinal. |
Lol, why are you comparing UKF to SOV? I don't see you comparing that UKF has no rocket artillery or reliable artillery other than a stationary mortar pit. I also don't see you mentioning they have no mobile snaring infantry unless you want to go vet a sniper. it's like, why don't i get a stronger 222 instead of a m20 because I paid more for it? 222=215,15 m20=340,20
It doesn't really matter what other faction you try to match the current panther against, it just doesn't trade cost efficient in either ai or at department towards Comets, multiple cromwells, T34/85s, Pershings.... It just does not fit in the game the way it performs atm |
Alright then, so I guess its high time to give conscripts effective, non researchable weapon upgrade as well, right?
Relax, boy. Firstly, conscripts already have additional functionality in multiple doctrines (PTRSs, repairs, ppshs).
Secondly a proposal to adjust balance assumes a current state of imbalance. So even though you're obviously angry, there might not be a counterbalance needed, you understand that, don't you?
Thirdly, you already conceded to dropping double lmg upgrades for rifles and Infantry Sections. That seemed fine for you, so I guess you only play soviets, Is that it? Otherwise I find no explanation for your random rage posts like this one. |
When USF got a mortar, nobody complained that 2 allied factions already got their own mortars, on top of that -superior mortars than Axis ones. Now somebody suggests adding another model to the weakest possible infantry squad in the game, and you're all screaming about how it will be too simillar to the other Axis faction?
What a joke
Removing double upgrades and fix spacing would have a similar effect. It doesn't have to be 5 men squads. There seems to be a wider audience for that suggestion overall. |
Mozambique
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
