Grenadier potential: Fighting fire with fire

Hot dang.

It seems like I must be playing a different game than some of you. When the Germans fire off a rifle grenade the first time, it normally kills about 2-3 dudes of my weapon crew. If it happens to be a wounded crew, or one with 3-4 guys a rifle grenade is liable to straight up disappear the crew. It happens a lot. Rifle grenades are crazy dangerous.

I think Soviet weaponteams are ok.
I wouldn't mind giving the german mortar and pak crew some armor since you actually only have to kill 3 crewmembers to decrew them.

flanks are already potent enough and there are plenty of other viable counters to weapon teams. At this point Nullist is just arguing because he's a huge troll and he might have an aneurysm if he was to ever admit that he was wrong.

For 60 Muni, LMG/G43 are increased AI. So what? Thats what you pay for.
You shouldnt have to upgrade for 60 Munis to be effective on an infantry flank.

PGrens are a specialised AI unit. You have somekind of problem with that? Ofc they hit harder on a successsful flank, but they also cost more and have ro roll against a 6man crew, whereas Shocks for example still only roll on a 4man crew.

Lol at the range argument. You stand at mid/longe range with Grens vs Mortar? You enjoying those point blanc accuracy Mortars to the face? Wtf are you doing?

As to ATGs, to flank and force them off, you need to be ontop of them. Same goes for Sov, yet again, Sov only has to deal with 4 0 armor models, whereas Ost has to deal with a ful, 6man.

We are talking about infantry flanking reward. Sov infantry flanking effecriveness is fine, because there is a small crew to deal with. Ost howver has to deal with a full 6man squad.

The Support weapons themselves are already balanced internal on their weapons effectivness stats (with the arguable exception of Mortar).

The crew differential, and subsequent lack of reward for a Ost successful infantry flank, is out of whack. Weapon stats are aligned, cost is the same to purchase, but Sov gets a full 1/3 more small arms AND explosives soak. In addition to that, Ost also has to pay more per reinforce, even for those fewer models its Support teams have, for the same shitty 0 armor nerfed personal weapon crewmen.

As to calling me a troll, look at the extreme ad hominem shit your are writinf. Its you who are the troll. As to admitting Im wrong, Ive done that several times when I have been. Ive never seen you admit being wrongl despite you realoy SERIOUSLY being wrong in a number of issues, and demonstrably so.

Even here, trying to argue that somehow Grens do "more dps" to a full 6man crew, than Consnreciprocally do to a 4man crew. Its a full potato argument. Grens hit Support teams exactly as if they where a full Con unit. Cons however hit Ost Support teams on flabks as if they where only 4man. (Both units being equally affected by the good and needed earlier +25dmg received modifier change) Why? Because in your retardedness and anger, you are either deliberately or stupidly overlooked the lack of infantry armor.

As other have also pointed out here, the least that could be done, is increase the small arms efficacy of a successful infantry flank on Sov Support Teams. As has also been stated by many, Support Teams should be very vulnerable to successful flanks, and the opponent punished for not microing his Support teams away in time. That currently is true enough vs Osts depleted non-armor teams (that even cost more to reinforce), it is currently not the case with Sov 6man teams.

At some point you have to start listening to what people are saying. In this thread alone are many valid counterarguments to your statements presented by number of different people much more skilled in the game then you but you still choose to ignore them and keep repeating the same stuff over and over. Yes, you can do this but its like talking to yourself and what's more important brings nothing to discussion.

For 60 Muni, LMG/G43 are increased AI. So what? Thats what you pay for.
You shouldnt have to upgrade for 60 Munis to be effective on an infantry flank.

I never said these were required for an effective flank, please read my post thoroughly, process what I wrote and then respond to what I wrote and not the words you wish to put in my mouth. Thanks. That being said a Grenadier squad, even with no upgrades will STILL force a weapon team off the field barring significant support from cons/shocks/guards - a Soviet weapon team CANNOT just stand there and soak damage from a flank, to suggest so is just ridiculous and ignorant. Grens already force Soviet weapon teams off the field with ease - upgrades make them even more effective. I don't see why they should be MORE lethal...

PGrens are a specialised AI unit. You have somekind of problem with that? Ofc they hit harder on a successsful flank, but they also cost more and have ro roll against a 6man crew, whereas Shocks for example still only roll on a 4man crew.

I have no problem with this and I never said I did. Again, please READ what I wrote, take a second to process what I wrote and then respond to what I wrote. Stop putting words into my mouth. I said that Pgrens were already VERY effective against weapon teams, as they should be, and that adding an additional small arms damage taken modifier would make Pgrens do completely broken damage to weapon teams, therefore this would not be a good solution. This increased damage taken modifier would ALSO be a problem when Grens have vet and/or LMGs/G43s - it isn't a good idea to implement this. Next...

Lol at the range argument. You stand at mid/longe range with Grens vs Mortar? You enjoying those point blanc accuracy Mortars to the face? Wtf are you doing?

Are you really that dense? I NEVER said I like to stand at mid/far range against weapon teams - seriously stop putting words into my mouth. I was saying that most small arms fire will be received at these distances since non-brain dead opponents will realize that their weapon team is being flanked and react accordingly. They're not going to just have their weapon team SIT there and tank damage to the face at short range. Well maybe in your ELO bracket. I also specified mid/long because at near range a full con squad has SLIGHTLY (i mean like 0.14 or so) more DPS than a full gren squad - all things considered it is negligible, but I was trying to be as clear/accurate as possible for you.

As to ATGs, to flank and force them off, you need to be ontop of them. Same goes for Sov, yet again, Sov only has to deal with 4 0 armor models, whereas Ost has to deal with a ful, 6man.

Not sure what this pertains to? German ATGs are more fragile than Soviet ones? Okay, yes they are, they're also more effective in the AT role and have a significantly more powerful vet 1 ability. ZiS have barrage but it is pretty over costed for what it tends to accomplish and really needs a re-work but that's for a different thread.

We are talking about infantry flanking reward. Sov infantry flanking effecriveness is fine, because there is a small crew to deal with. Ost howver has to deal with a full 6man squad.

The Support weapons themselves are already balanced internal on their weapons effectivness stats (with the arguable exception of Mortar).

Please give me a source for this information because as far as I've ever heard this is FALSE. As far as I've heard/known the size of the squad IS taken into account when balancing these units which is why - in general - the Soviet weapon teams are WEAKER in their respective role, because they're more durable. This is FINE.

Even here, trying to argue that somehow Grens do "more dps" to a full 6man crew, than Consnreciprocally do to a 4man crew. Its a full potato argument. Grens hit Support teams exactly as if they where a full Con unit. Cons however hit Ost Support teams on flabks as if they where only 4man. (Both units being equally affected by the good and needed earlier +25dmg received modifier change) Why? Because in your retardedness and anger, you are either deliberately or stupidly overlooked the lack of infantry armor.

As other have also pointed out here, the least that could be done, is increase the small arms efficacy of a successful infantry flank on Sov Support Teams. As has also been stated by many, Support Teams should be very vulnerable to successful flanks, and the opponent punished for not microing his Support teams away in time. That currently is true enough vs Osts depleted non-armor teams (that even cost more to reinforce), it is currently not the case with Sov 6man teams.

Once again... I *NEVER* said that grens do more dps to a full 6 man Soviet crew than a con squad will do to a German weapon crew. I LITERALLY said that a Con squad will kill a German weapon crew faster than a Soviet one will die to grens. These sort of statements REALLY go to prove that you have the reading comprehension of a dog. I was stating, factually, that Grenadiers to MORE dps at mid/far ranges - which is the usual distance that a weapon team is going to receive small arms fire from. I was making the point that even a vanilla Grenadier squad will force a Soviet weapon team off the map. For some reason you seem to think that they can just stand there and soak the damage or at the least that Soviet weapon crews don't have to fear a flank from Grenadiers (spoiler alert, they do!) Both these assumptions are completely wrong. Let me re-state it for you so that maybe you'll realize what I've been saying this whole time. Grenadiers *WILL* force a Soviet weapon team off the map unless significant outside support is present. This is completely fine and balanced. The durability of weapon teams (Soviet and German) is fine and balanced.

Also fun fact for you, since you keep spouting off that Soviet crews are cheaper to reinforce. Yes, they are, a whopping SEVEN man-power per model cheaper. Wooooooo dat SEVEN manpower difference, man those German weapon crews are just SO expensive to reinforce compared to Soviet crews... let's not forget that Soviet crews are way more vulnerable to explosions/grenades/artillery/anything with AoE since there are MORE models in a small area. So yeah... the reinforce cost difference argument is full retard mode. Your ignorance/lack of reading comprehension truly baffles me sometimes.

i think nullist just perfers to stick with only one goal in mind. Buff german mg42.

there are so many more better ideas to solve the resilient soviet weapon crews, such as less squad members or increase the damaged gren rifles do to soviet weapon teams but he just choose to ignore them.

before, when mg42s used to be super OP and when maxims were useless, nullist argued that the two mgs are perfectly balanced despite the differences.

he just wants powerful and unflankable mg42s, it doesn't seem like he cares about the soviet weapon teams, he was using the soviet weapon teams as an excuse to buff the mg42.

How much of a DPS difference are we talking between cons and grens on all ranges? Because I seem to remember devs saying cons and grens should be almost equal in every range

How much of a DPS difference are we talking between cons and grens on all ranges? Because I seem to remember devs saying cons and grens should be almost equal in every range

Gren mid: 9.608
Con mid: 9.546

Gren far: 4.116
Con far: 3.852

So yeah, they're pretty much equal. I was just trying to be as specific as possible.

Usually the only benefit I get from soviet crews is two more floating XP markers when it's all over--very important if you like your eye candy--I consider myself a connoisseur.

Sov Support Team survival is a full 1/3bettr than Ost Support Teams, not only vs small arms, but also vs Explosives.

The Support Team weapons themselves, which provide the actual functiinality of the teams, are already largely asymmetrically aligned. The Weapons each have strengths and weaknesses that are already aligned for equal asymmetric value. The survival difference is a FREE and superfluous element that sits ONTOP ofthose already aligned weapon stats.
It is not a case of "Sov Support Teams are worse, therefore have more survival". That is false.

-PaKs rate of fire is aligned to ZiS's Barrage option. Damage, penetration and movement are the same.
-MG42s Arc is aligned to Maxims Setup. Mg42s DPS is entity based, Maxims is flat. MG42 and Maxim Suppression rates are also now asymmetrically aligned.
-On Mortars, I think Sov Mortar is underperforming. There is no direct reciprocation for Osts much faster fire rate, whereas AoE, accuracy and dmg are the same. I suggest a Suppression radius be added to Sov Mortar, to asymmetrically grant it a secondary functionality to compensate, so that whereas Ost Mortar fires faster for more dps, a Sov Mortar would also Suppress around the impact for a short Suppression debuff.)

Costwise, the purchase cost is identical for all Support Teams.
Reinforce wise, Ost Teams cost more per man, which further exascerbates the crew survival difference into not only a disparity in survival potential, but also an economic one.

Jinsuel and Oz, I have SPECIFICALLY and LITERALLY, agreed with and supported both Aerohanks and Link0s suggestion to increase the dmg modifiers on Sov Support teams. Your accusation of me disregarding them is absolutely false. Look in the thread. I cant understand how you can state what you did, unless you havent actuakly read the thead. Look in the thread. Read it. You will see I have done speficially the opposite of your accusation.

Some readers are mistakenly thinking that because I list and compare equivalencies, that means I want a MG42 buff (lol). No. I am merely demonstrating the imbalance by means of explaining the asymmetric alignment at great length. Im not saying Ost Support Teams are too weak, Im saying Sov Teams are TOO SURVIVEABLE in comparison. Its already been established, and its incontrovertible that the survival is not equal between the factions teams, though the weapon stats and cost, are.

Sov Support Teams need a survival nerf. The weapons are aligned, in and of themselves. The cost to purchase is aligned, except for reinforce. The 1/3 better survival is not justified by anything. Not cost. Not weapon stats.

Its a completely superfluous benefit that has no justification either in cost, or performance.

I very much like Aerohank and Link0s suggestion of an increased dmg modifier on Sov Support Teams. Especially because it is an avenue to specifically align Support Team survival vs different effects by modifying either small arms and/or explosive dmg received at different rates. Of which the primary alignment, should be to increase small arms efficacy on a successful flank.

If we hold Ost Support Team survival to be what it should be in the game (that a flanked Support Team should be essily forced off), that is not currently true of Sov Support teams, whereas it is (rightly so) on Ost Teams.

Time to kill:

Con vs Ost Support Team:
16.8s / 26.8s / 66.4s

Gren vs Sov Support Team:
25.4s / 36.97 / 93.20

Net difference in Sov's favor:
8.6s / 10.2s / 26.8s

Some people aren't understanding the difference between:
-6 rifles vs 4 unarmored models
-4 rifles vs 6 unarmored models.

As can clearly be seen from these figures (which include the +25%dmg received modifier),
Gren efficacy on flanks of Sov Support Teams is far below that of Con efficacy on flanks of Ost Support Teams.

People obviously don't understand that perhaps that difference in survivality among weapon teams was intended by developers and is not a balance issue.

Must be hard to see the big picture when you're focused in a thing only.

People obviously don't understand that perhaps that difference in survivality among weapon teams was intended by developers and is not a balance issue.

Must be hard to see the big picture when you're focused in a thing only.

This exactly. I've tried telling nullist this exactly. The difference in survival is already taken into account for balance. But he clearly can't process anything he reads so... guess I'm just wasting my time.

No. All you did was try to claim Gren dmg was greater.

Which failed and fell on a large sharp object right up its anus.
Nice for totally backpedalling on that one.

Even though you made all kinds of ad hominem attacks against me, while claiming you know whats what.

Turns out, you know nothing.

Study some stats. Seriously.
You are an embarrassment to the game and especially to the beta.

Do your homework and research before you post your crap in future.

How incredibly arrogant of you to completely ignore being proven wrong.
How unbelievably dishonest, especially inlight of the rude and unsolicited attacks you made earlier. Yet what did that amount to? You posting false bullshit. And getting owned.

If I was you, Id remove myself from the beta. We don't need people who don't understand even these simple basic stat and mechanics alignments there.

Seriously, LEARN what the units actually are, statwise. If you want to be taken seriously, TAKE TIME to LEARN what you are talking about, instead of shooting stuff out your ass. The stats are available. There is no excuse for not knowing them, except ignorance or laziness.

Time to kill:

Con vs Ost Support Team:
16.8s / 26.8s / 66.4s

Gren vs Sov Support Team:
25.4s / 36.97 / 93.20

Net difference in Sov's favor:
8.6s / 10.2s / 26.8s

Some people aren't understanding the difference between:
-6 rifles vs 4 unarmored models
-4 rifles vs 6 unarmored models.

As can clearly be seen from these figures (which include the +25%dmg received modifier),
Gren efficacy on flanks of Sov Support Teams is far below that of Con efficacy on flanks of Ost Support Teams.

Next time we parallel soviet and ost tanks? The same HP, penetration and armour?
OMG

Same penetration and armor? Or even cost?
What the fuck are you even talking about.

Those comparisons I listed are FACT. They are CONCRETE.
They arent imaginary. They are real.
I didn't make them up, they are directly derived from stats.

You have somekind of problem with stating the facts? Seems so.
Troll attempt to derail? Pretty obviously.

You, also, need to go study some unit stats. And also read patch notes, like you didnt this time before you started whining about T34's movement scatter, which applies to ALL vehicles.

Amazing these people who post absolute garbage, without having spent even one second actually looking at and understanding the stats of the units the game is built on.

Its nothing less than full retard potato mode. Put some effort in and actually LEARN what the units in the game are, for fucks sake.

No. All you did was try to claim Gren dmg was greater.

Which failed and fell on a large sharp object right up its anus.
Nice for totally backpedalling on that one.

Even though you made all kinds of ad hominem attacks against me, while claiming you know whats what.

Turns out, you know nothing.

Study some stats. Seriously.
You are an embarrassment to the game and especially to the beta.

Do your homework and research before you post your crap in future.

How incredibly arrogant of you to completely ignore being proven wrong.
How unbelievably dishonest, especially inlight of the rude and unsolicited attacks you made earlier. Yet what did that amount to? You posting false bullshit. And getting owned.

If I was you, Id remove myself from the beta. We don't need people who don't understand even these simple basic stat and mechanics alignments there.

Seriously, LEARN what the units actually are, statwise. If you want to be taken seriously, TAKE TIME to LEARN what you are talking about, instead of shooting stuff out your ass. The stats are available. There is no excuse for not knowing them, except ignorance or laziness.

Pretty funny seeing you cry about ad hominem and then pull the same crap on everyone else.

I've already mathematically proven that Grenadiers do in fact have more DPS than Cons at mid/far range - which is all I ever claimed. In the same post that I claimed that (which is 100% mathematically correct) I also admitted that Cons will kill German squads faster than a Gren will kill a Soviet squad. I don't see why you keep trying to beat a dead horse on this point... I admitted it in the first place (before you said anything) and haven't changed my statement, why? Because it's right. I never backtracked on anything.

Funny that you should tell me to do my homework when I'm the one that showed you the unit stats page (thanks to Woof/Milk/anyone else for their hard work getting these stats). I've done my homework, I was right and mathematically proved that I was right - not sure how you can possibly say that I need to do my homework and study my stats, I clearly did.

As I said before, please actually read what I write take a second to process what I said and then respond to what I actually wrote instead of trying to put words into my mouth. Thanks.

I've also taken the time to look into other scenarios regarding weapon teams and have analyzed why changing squad size, armor, or increasing the small arms damage taken modifier would not be a productive solution - and yet you've just completely ignored any/all of these scenarios and repeated the same (wrong) statements. Please, if you're going to try and contribute to a discussion, at least address the actual topics at hand.

Additionally, you've never given me your source for "knowing" that weapon teams are balanced without squad size being taken into consideration - even though I've asked you this multiple times. I'm quite sure you're very wrong on this assumption, but if you can provide me with a reliable source (one of the balance devs preferably) saying that squad sizes are NOT taken into account when balancing the weapon crews then I'll believe you. Until that time however, I'm going to stand by my statement that weapon team durability is a factor in balancing these squads.

And please just drop the reinforce cost argument. You were clearly entirely mistaken on that point. A 7 (15 mp/model for Sov teams, 22 mp/model for German teams) manpower per model difference to reinforce is essentially negligible, especially considering that Soviet crews are going to lose more models to anything with AoE damage - all in all the total amount of manpower spent throughout a game to reinforce weapon teams is going to be very close to being equal - unless one side just spams weapon teams.

Finally, I'd appreciate it if you retracted your statement about me being an embarrassment to the beta and that I should remove myself. I've worked hard and spent numerous hours playing on the beta and providing Relic with what I believe to be valuable feedback. If you're going to try and call me out on not knowing the game/mechanics/how to play or anything of the like I'd be more than happy to play you in a Bo3 or Bo5. Map vetoes/faction swap/etc. Hell, I'd give you faction choice and map choice in every game if you wanted it. Ciez23 on steam if you're not scared.

Edit: Added you, let's play.

Edit: Added you, let's play.

Can we have a replay please?

Can we have a replay please?

He won't have the balls to actually play me... so =/

Please, once again, for fun, telk us how Grens are better DPS at mid range vs Sov Support Teams, than vice versa (completely disregarding that thet are firing with 6 rifles vs 4 targets, and 4 rifles vs 6 targets, reciprocally)

Please do. Nevernind the 8s difference at close, 20 at mid and 26s difference at long, despite trying to argue that Grens should flank at mid/long range for better results than Cons at those ranges vs Support teams that gave a full 1/3 surfival differential not only to small arms, but everything else as well.

Your figures where wrong anyways, because you didnt include the +25%dmg modifer to Support Teams, which multiplies Cons 6 rifles even further past Grens 4, because the base DPS per weapon is roughly equal, but not only do Cons have 2 more of them, but they are firing at a unit with 2 less models and no armor. Two extra rifles, vs 2 less models.

Then please tell us how Barrage on ZiS is completely useless and doesnt matter in the units value in the least. The tell us how infact poor Maxim is so terrible compared to MG42. And one more time, how the economic cost of reinforcing an already 4man unit xosts more than its 6man equivalent is fine. Please, tell us how Sov Support team weapons are so categorically shit, that they absolutely need to have a full 1/3 more survival vs both small arms and explosives, than Ost equivalents, for the same purchase cost, and for cheaper reinforce.

Admit that youn went full pototo, and flat out forgot that its 6 weapons firing at an unarmored 4 man unit, as compared to a 4man unit firing at a full 6 man unit. That you misreprented Gren DPS as somehow being substantial at mid/long range, when infact, in comparison on flanks, it takes Ost a full 20s longer to clear it even at mid range. For once in your life, you actually looked at and added up the DPS, but then you completely forgot that they are unarmored targets, and that Gren has only 4 weapons firing at a 6man team, for the same rough DPS per weapon as Cons have firing at Ost 4man Ost teams.

Not only do Cons have more rifles with the same DPS, but they are firing at only 4 unarmored models. You completely and utterly forgot that. And if thqt wasnt enough, you then misrepresented the ranges, whereas at ALL ranges, the Grens STILL take longer, much longer, to decrew a Sov Team.

As if that wasnt funny enough, you claim Ost teams costing more to reinforce as "insignficicant", but then you claim Grens tiny tiny dps advantage at mid/long as justification for your misrepresentation. The mid/long dps difference is so tiny as to be almost completely negated by other factors AS WELL as already being accounted for in Cons DPS up close. Whatever gains Grens get at range, Cons get back at close range. But you completely missed the central core point, which is that Sov teams always survive 1/3 better vs flanks, small arms and explosives. The reinforce cost however, is factual and inflexible. Meaning that not only do Grens take longer to cause attrition, each model they kill costs less to reinforce, making successful flanks all the less rewarding, whereas they should be extremely rewarding.

The entire point of this discussion, from OP, has been about FLANKING EFFICACY.

As has been shown, it takes Grens a full 8/20/26s longer to decrew a Sov Support team.
That is very shitty efficacy in comparison, especially and even when considering Oorah/Molotov synergy, as opposed to an RNade which is merely soaked by the 1/3 larger unit and categorically does not force a desetup, whereas a Molotov always does.

But please, go ahead and argue that Sov Support Teams are so shitty that they need that 1/3 extra, at the same cost, that aids soaking from everything from small arms to explosives.

Once ypu do that, youll have your match.