The problem isn't the assgren spam but the HMG42 in the middle. Assgren are perfecly fine in a vacuum but not with superior pio vision and the hmg42 around it during the early game.
If as you say we only need to flip the side then the hmg42 should be locked behind T2 if assgren are deployed.
As long as you stay at max range, the MG42 isn't very effective (just back up as soon as it fires). USF also has access to a lot of smoke, so that can help, too. Realistically, the MG42 is going to prevent you from pushing the OST player, and the AGrens are going to fight by themselves far in front of the MG.
If you run into a situation where you're being suppressed by an MG42 AND are fighting AGrens at close range, you've made a mistake.
I get having to flip the range, but as Esxile notes, that's not always possible with HMGs in the mix, especially on fuel points etc which the axis players tend to just drop an MG on pretty early on.
As I said above, there shouldn't be too many situations where you're being fired on by an MG42 at the same time as you're fighting AGrens at close range. AGrens need to be used aggressively (i.e. pushing), which usually means staying ahead of the MG42 - which needs to move and setup to be useful. If you're really having trouble with the MGs, perhaps going for a fast Pack-Howitzer would help, as those tend to melt support weapons. Additionally, as others have pointed out, without grens there's no snare. That can be exploited heavily with decent vehicle use.
Also, it's always helpful to post some replays. There are a lot of skilled players who can give you advice/suggestions.
I'm more curious as to why this is such a common strat at the low levels where I'm at. It's constant. Let's say out of 10 games I've played recently vs OH as US, every single one has had assgren spam. As I said, it gets old, especially when they get run over by an early vehicle.
It works well (as is popular) because by default, OST is pretty bad at pushing:
The problem has to do with how bad are grenadier at attacking, so people prefer going to AsG or Ostruppen that at least allow map control.
By going AGrens, OST ends up fighting against players who except you to play statically, and focus their build around dislodging LMG Grens and MG42s, but instead run into a highly mobile force, which they probably aren't equipped to deal with (or they don't have experience dealing with it).
I'm also curious as to why UKF is better than OH - every time I bring them out I get run over (usually by the same assgren spam).
UKF was pretty terrible in terms of power, and is pretty terrible in terms of design. However, the most recent patch buffed a bunch of things (notably, IS' when moving), so while UKF's design is still pretty bad, their individual units are decently strong.
Might have been true several patches ago but I really don't think any half-decent player would say that Ost is the weakest faction now. They are strong which explains why OKW is used very rarely now when people play 1v1 in tournaments.
There's only been one major patch since this poll, so I assume its still fairly accurate in regards to community sentiment. Roughly 80 votes (a lot for this forum), and its pretty clearly "USF/Sov > OKW > OST > UKF". Since the most recent patch didn't really change all that much in the early/mid game (except UKF's IS moving acc), I assume its still fairly accurate.
With that said, a new poll could be made, as the data is always nice to have.
|
You basically need to "flip the roles" against AGrens; force the OST player to fight at range, rather than trying to fight up close. AGrens are pretty expensive to field as a mainline unit (280mp/28mp reinforce) and they're only good at close range; so if you can drop their models while they're trying to close on your units (which is fairly easy before T3's VSL upgrade), you can usually come out ahead. M1919s and .50-cal MGs can be effective, as are well micro'd vehicles (AA-HT especially) at max range, since schrecks are pretty terrible at long range.
Once you reach mid/late game, really any AI focused tank (basic M4 with HE, M8 Scott, etc.) will do enough damage to force them back.
Additionally, you could try playing OST and going AGrens. I find that trying to play what I perceive as an "OP Strategy" ends up showing its weaknesses far more often than it confirms my perception of it being "OP".
I can see why OH still polls as the most OP faction. A doctrine which basically makes them immune to flanks tends to do that.
OST pretty consistently ranks as the most UP faction (now that UKF has been buffed), at least on this forum. |
I was under the impression that the models that get "transferred" kept their stats, including the veterancy of the squad they were originally in? Then when they die and get reinforced normally they have the same vet as the squad. I thought they only got the weapon of the squad they merged with
I could be 100% wrong about that. And i guess even if it somehow didnt cause balance issues, it's bound to cause too many bugs to be worth it like armadillo said
As Armadillo pointed out, merged squad members keep their base stats - so HP, Armor (if any), target size/RA, and so on, but they gain the vet bonuses and weapons of the target squad.
For example, merging a vet 0 'no upgrades' con squad with a 1-model vet 3 PPSH con squad results in that vet 3 squad having the exact same stats as if it had instead reinforced normally, since the base models are identical. The downsides come when merging with squads that normally have "better" models; so merging cons with Shocks, for example, results in the 'con models' being easier to hit and (iirc) having less armor.
While adding 'merge' to more squads would be interesting, I don't think it could be implemented well into CoH2. Perhaps in CoH3, it will be possible keep vet and other stats at a per model level, so that merging would have more trade-offs. "Weapon Proficiency" would also be an interesting stat to have, to give trade-offs when merging with weapon crews (why would a gren be trained to use an AT gun or Allied rocket arty?).
|
Related question, would it be OP if all squads could merge with a squad of the exact same type? (not across players, just within your own army)
So grens can merge with grens, obers with obers, guards with guards, etc.
Outside of the issues 'thedarkarmadillo' mentioned, it really comes down to the question of:
Do we want instantaneous reinforcement in the game?
That's really what this discussion turns into. Take two gren squads, for example; one is Vet 3 w/ an LMG, but is down to one model, and the other is a freshly built squad (vet 0, full HP/Models). Merging the Vet 0 squad with the Vet 3 squad brings the much more powerful and expensive squad back to full size (i.e. models) instnantly, essentially letting you transfer the "this squad must retreat" status to a less 'expensive' unit. Additionally, since they are the same squad types, there's no downside.
The only way this could work (IMO) is if the 'merging' squad was objectively worse. This way, while the 'target squad' is instantly restored to full model count, the quality of those models is far worse than if it had retreated and reinforced normally. For example, I don't think letting pioneers merge with anything would be too OP; a gren squad consisting of a normal gren model w/ LMG and 3 pioneers would be pretty terrible. |
|
Firstly, I'm not entirely sure if this is possible, from a technical standpoint.
Secondly, this would be incredibly gimmicky, and would open up so many bizarre team-game strategies, most of which I think would be game breaking.
What happens if your targeted teammate is at pop-cap? Does this allow them to go over infinitely if you keep merging into 1-model squads? What happens if my teammate has 100 1-model squads? The "supplying" player only needs one squad, so their MP upkeep would stay high, and the "receiving" player doesn't need to spend MP to reinforce, so the 'over pop-cap' MP drain wouldn't matter.
Wiping vetted squads would become nigh-impossible with a coordinated team. Is my Vet 3, Double Bren IS squad about to be wiped? My Sov teammate can merge and save the weapons AND vet.
What happens when two (or more) soviet players play together? Wipe 5/6 models in one squad and a teammate can instantly restore the squad to full - meaning the first squad wouldn't need to retreat. The second squad could essentially act as a "model mule" for another teammate. That first player would then, as a result, gain vet much faster (as their squads are constantly in combat) while also floating tons of MP, meaning they could call in more squads... |
I meant model vs model, not squad vs squad.
It certainly didn't come across that way. Regardless;
Grens: 4x80/0.91 = 351.65 ehp / 4 = 87.91 ehp per model
Rifles: 5x80/0.97 = 412.37 ehp / 5 = 82.47 ehp per model
Rifles have 17.26% more ehp, Gren models have 6.6% more ehp
Rifles Vet 2 (-23% RA): 5x80/(0.97/1.23) = 507.22 ehp / 5 = 101.44 ehp per model
Grens Vet 2: same as vet 1, since there's no defensive bonuses = 351.65 ehp / 4 = 87.91 ehp per model
Rifles have 44.2% more ehp, Rifle models have 15.4% more ehp
Rifles Vet 3 (-23% and -15% RA): 5x80/((0.97/1.23)/1.15) = 583.3 ehp / 5 = 116.66 ehp per model
Grens vet 3 (-20% DR): 4x80/0.91x1.2 = 421.98 ehp / 4 = 105.49 ehp per model
Rifles have 38.23% more ehp, Rifle models have 10.6% more ehp
Additionally, Gren models cost 7.14% more at the start of the game, but once OST T4 is built, they cost the same. |
Actually, grens have higher EHP then rifles vs small arms. 7% higher I believe?
Vet 0 and Vet 1 (no defensive bonuses)
Grens: 4x80/0.91 = 351.65 ehp
Rifles: 5x80/0.97 = 412.37 ehp
Rifles have 17.26% more ehp
Rifles Vet 2 (-23% RA): 5x80/(0.97/1.23) = 507.22 ehp
Grens Vet 2: same as vet 1, since there's no defensive bonuses = 351.65 ehp
Rifles have 44.2% more ehp
Rifles Vet 3 (-23% and -15% RA): 5x80/((0.97/1.23)/1.15) = 583.3 ehp
Grens vet 3 (-20% DR): 4x80/0.91x1.2 = 421.98 ehp
Rifles have 38.23% more ehp |
What's higher? 3 times 30 or 4 times 28?
Take all time you need to do the math. Don't confuse it with meth this time.
Could say the same thing about HP-pool: 4x80 vs. 5x80. |
|
Close the pocket is one of those abilities I think should have never been added to the game, just in principle; but the difficulty of actually using the ability to its full effect almost completely offsets its insane power level.
On one hand, you need to successfully neutralize at least two points at the same time without your opponent stopping you, which that can easily be stopped by caches or other things, and you need to keep those two points neutral (or cap them) for the entire duration of the ability... but on the other hand, it's a 1-click, self-spotting, "arty the entire map" ability.
Realistically, as OP pointed out, it only works against "low skill" players. Case-in-point, I think I've seen the ability used exactly once (successfully) in games where the players were all in the top ~250.
However, without completely changing the ability, I'm not sure how you make this ability fair (to both sides) while keeping its theme. Perhaps lower the cost, but have it only affect the front-line sectors which are cut-off, instead of every cut-off sector? Or maybe change it so that it only work on the neutral sectors themselves, but at a much lower cost?
It's sort of like adding a call-in called the "Turbo Tiger"; It costs 1,000mp and 1,000 fuel, takes 50 pop, and can only be built if you have no other vehicles, but has 70 range, the armor of a JT, and is faster than an M36. It's crazy OP, but you'd never see it. |
Removing Vision would solve the problem; Therefore youd still need scouting or the use of another scouting effect.
It only gives a small vision buff to flagpoles and it doesn't target units in the FoW. It mostly relies on either friendly units to spot or sight from the flag poles.
However I figured out that the flag pole sight buff from Anvil Tactics stacks with the flag pole sight buff from PO and can make most of friendly territory visible in smaller maps because flagpoles get like 40 vision in total when PO is active with Anvil researched. Which is a pretty big problem to be honest as it does essentially make the ability mostly self-spotting.
Seems like the issue is resolved, then? Fixing the "stacking" between anvil and the ability would remove the vast majority of the self-spotting, which would bring it inline with most similar abilities.
It would also remove the point of the ability, there would be no reason what so ever over using any other offmap.
Have you checked the name and theme of the commander yet?
A bug/oversight shouldn't be the reason an ability is good or bad. The amount of LOS it provides in optimal situations is absurd.
Also, justifying a doc over-performing because of the name/theme isn't a good idea. Can we replace all the strafes with loiters in OST's "Close Air Support" doc? It would fit the theme/name better.
No it wouldn't, vision is not the point of the ability. Vision is the point of early warning flares, which is on the same commander
All other abilities that do the targeting for you do not spot for themselves
Early Warning Flares are another problematic ability. Massive uncounterable vision, but uncontrollable where it goes. it feels bad for both sides.
Flares, in general, need to be removed. Zero-counterplay vision doesn't fit the game.
There is counterplay due to how the guns operate, they will target the unit barraging closest. So by using a dummy mortar you can shield any howitzer behind it.
One howitzer 30muni barrage even in range will not reliably kill or decrew a lefh. You need two howitzers for good odds to decrew so 60muni + not bring able to build units. Then the axis can return and repair/recrew.
Axis howitzers can already counter barrage at vet1, it's not op
Brit counter battery can already target howitzers on most 1vs1 maps and even small 2vs2 maps. It's not OP
Yet in 4vs4 it can't hit leigs in the middle of some maps like steppes... It needs a range buff
The difference is, UKF's counter-barrage can't be destroyed. If an LeFH is bothering you with its counter-barrage, simply recon+off map it, and its gone - as is the ability. A new LeFH (or crew) would need to get to vet 1 again to use counter-barrage. However, UKF's 25lbs are in the base sector, meaning they can't be off-mapped. They're also part of the base structure itself, so even if you do hit it with on-map, it won't be decrewed or destroyed.
So it's a trade-off; less 'usable' range and a small cost, in exchange for it being indestructible.
As for "baiting" a counter-barrage with a mortar; it wouldn't actually work. There's no indication that the UKF player has selected counter-barrage, until its already firing. That means you'd need to preemptively fire a mortar closer to the UKF's base every single time you wanted to use your LeFH, simply do avoid an uncounterable, cheap, one-click ability. Also, I'm fairly certain the LeFH barrage lasts longer than a mortar barrage, so you'd need to either attack-ground with the mortar the entire time, or have two mortars; otherwise the UKF player could wait for the mortar to stop, before clicking the button. |
Doomlord52
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
