Login

russian armor

Is it wrong to ask for lmg upgrades for PG's

21 Dec 2019, 16:29 PM
#1
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 699

So is it wrong. I get it it might make it look ugly with storm doctrine. But is it wrong or unjust to ask for the moving_mg42 lmg for PG's. Maybe at requiring t4 building and 120 munitions and gives 1.25 RA penalty to boot. I mean it makes sense PG's were equiped with 2 mg42's per squad so there should be no lore reasons why not. Just entertain this bokers idea.
21 Dec 2019, 16:36 PM
#2
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 7246 | Subs: 1

Unit should get upgrades that improve their performance in their intended role/range or completely change their intended role/range.

An Lmg upgrade for PG would make the unit perform very good st all ranges thus reducing relative positioning thus would be change in the wrong direction.
21 Dec 2019, 16:38 PM
#3
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 1743

Real life Panzergrenadier regiments were basically Grenadier regiments that were motorized/mechanized to advance on wheels at sufficient speeds to support the panzer regiments of the division. As far as I’m aware of, most of the small arms equipment and definitely the squad tactics were the same. The in game Panzergrenadier units are very different to their historical counterparts.
21 Dec 2019, 16:43 PM
#4
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 699

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Dec 2019, 16:36 PMVipper
Unit should get upgrades that improve their performance in their intended role/range or completely change their intended role/range.

An Lmg upgrade for PG would make the unit perform very good st all ranges thus reducing relative positioning thus would be change in the wrong direction.

But they wouldn't be very different from Falls though. I'm pretty sure falls would still have better dps at all ranges though (pg 52 vs falls 56 (0) and pg 16 vs falls 28 (35)).
21 Dec 2019, 16:46 PM
#5
avatar of Aarotron

Posts: 398

i dont personally find giving lmg to pzgrens all that useful. Afterall their stock weapons are better at medium/close range combat, and i dont belive adding lmg there will change them well, they should get stock kar 98 with it to better fit their role, its quite simular waste as having single ptrs on shock troops
21 Dec 2019, 16:52 PM
#6
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 699

i dont personally find giving lmg to pzgrens all that useful. Afterall their stock weapons are better at medium/close range combat, and i dont belive adding lmg there will change them well, they should get stock kar 98 with it to better fit their role, its quite simular waste as having single ptrs on shock troops

ahh... but these are the grenadier_moving_mg42(this is what paras get when they pick up a gren mg42). Basically fire on the move lmg. The thing is they could do pretty good against 2xbar infantry beyond medium. + they'll still be just as effective at clearing support weapons. Just Think about the possibilities.
21 Dec 2019, 17:23 PM
#7
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 7246 | Subs: 1


But they wouldn't be very different from Falls though. I'm pretty sure falls would still have better dps at all ranges though (pg 52 vs falls 56 (0) and pg 16 vs falls 28 (35)).

There are problematic units already in game but there is little reason to create more.

And you seem to fail to to factor in other characteristics:
Fall would lose more DPS with each model lost than PG especially at long ranges
Fall come later at CP2 when one has all ready invest in infatry
Fall get 2 weapon at start and have to wait for T4 to their upgrade
Fall are a doctrinal unit that with current design has to compete with Obers

LMG unit with Assault rifles will simply perform too good vs other infantries even at "preferred" range of the enemy infatry, they could stay at long range and snipe models at max range vs mid oriented opponent, close in vs long and wait for CQC to close in.

This type of design with units that perform good at all ranges simply makes "relative positioning" allot less effective.
21 Dec 2019, 17:53 PM
#8
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 699

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Dec 2019, 17:23 PMVipper

There are problematic units already in game but there is little reason to create more.

And you seem to fail to to factor in other characteristics:
Fall would lose more DPS with each model lost than PG especially at long ranges
Fall come later at CP2 when one has all ready invest in infatry
Fall get 2 weapon at start and have to wait for T4 to their upgrade
Fall are a doctrinal unit that with current design has to compete with Obers

LMG unit with Assault rifles will simply perform too good vs other infantries even at "preferred" range of the enemy infatry, they could stay at long range and snipe models at max range vs mid oriented opponent, close in vs long and wait for CQC to close in.

This type of design with units that perform good at all ranges simply makes "relative positioning" allot less effective.

Did you ignore the part of where i said the upgrade would require t4 to be built and 120 MU + it actually increases their target size by 25% on uograde???

But Allied infantry already perform better at ost infantry's preferred ranges any way, So why should this be a consideration at all, or is it a balancing doctrine that all allied infantry have to designed with the basis 'THEY HAVE TO WIN' against ost infantry. All allied cqc/mid units already out dps the pgrens (lmg have around the same dps as stg's around) and all long focused allied unit beat lmg grens so i really don't understand the point. Like do the test you self in flat map realism and see if you find that weather dedicated units does actually loose or not.
21 Dec 2019, 18:14 PM
#9
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 7246 | Subs: 1



The design intent can be find here although out of date:



Your suggestions thou make little sense.
a) there is very little reason to combine assault weapons with Lmgs
If you want a unit with good long range DPS simply have them use a combination of Bolt action/Lmgs then you basically get obers.

b) The munition cost is simply too high for purely AI unit that bleeds so much

c) The target size will make them really weak at long range with you current suggestion you will have a uni that is weaker than ober while being more expensive in MU.

d) Ostheer ready have a "cost efficient" long range unit with Lmg Grenadiers they do not need a Pg squad that over laps.

What exactly do you want this units to be able to do?
21 Dec 2019, 18:22 PM
#10
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 1743

This would be a downgrade for PGrens, not an upgrade, especially when you can get the absolutely kickass G43 upgrade that enhances their assault role.
21 Dec 2019, 18:23 PM
#11
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 699

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Dec 2019, 18:14 PMVipper

The design intent can be find here although out of date:



Your suggestions thou make little sense.
a) there is very little reason to combine assault weapons with Lmgs
If you want a unit with good long range DPS simply have them use a combination of Bolt action/Lmgs then you basically get obers.

b) The munition cost is simply too high for purely AI unit that bleeds so much

c) The target size will make them really weak at long range with you current suggestion you will have a uni that is weaker than ober while being more expensive in MU.

d) Ostheer ready have a "cost efficient" long range unit with Lmg Grenadiers they do not need a Pg squad that over laps.

What exactly do you want this units to be able to do?

Wait The devs want Grens to loose at all ranges against Rifles. Wow... no wonder the game is a total cluster fuck in terms of balance. Then there's no point talking about it then. The devs really want ost to suck.
21 Dec 2019, 18:25 PM
#12
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 1743

You’re supposed to use your MG42.
21 Dec 2019, 18:37 PM
#13
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 699

You’re supposed to use your MG42.
But that's still a terrible design. No wonder playing USF is like easy mode. Like what kind off design is 'Hope you usf opponent is incompetent/ this patch made game breaking change for ost'. Wow... OST really is a faction for masochists. I really have no idea how you guys can even play this faction
21 Dec 2019, 18:40 PM
#14
avatar of Stormjäger

Posts: 1743

But that's still a terrible design. No wonder playing USF is like easy mode. Like what kind off design is 'Hope you usf opponent is incompetent/ this patch made game breaking change for ost'. Wow... OST really is a faction for masochists. I really have no idea how you guys can even play this faction


You would be seeing things differently if you were more skilled with it.
21 Dec 2019, 18:40 PM
#15
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3079

But that's still a terrible design. No wonder playing USF is like easy mode. Like what kind off design is 'Hope you usf opponent is incompetent/ this patch made game breaking change for ost'. Wow... OST really is a faction for masochists. I really have no idea how you guys can even play this faction


You use the MG42 to keep mid-close range units like Riflemen at a distance. Grenadiers beat Riflemen at long range.
21 Dec 2019, 18:43 PM
#16
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 699



You would be seeing things differently if you were more skilled with it.

Common bro i'm a 4 digit ranked player and I still circumvented you MG's like they were nothing when we played. Are still going to argue about that.
21 Dec 2019, 19:00 PM
#17
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 699

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Dec 2019, 18:40 PMLago


You use the MG42 to keep mid-close range units like Riflemen at a distance. Grenadiers beat Riflemen at long range.

No they don't. It's 50/50 at long with equal conditions. This is a really stupid design. What would compel a developer think it's a good for individual gears to be imbalanced and have vague sense of overall balance of a machine. Stupid design choices like this is what causes individual tweaking of units to throw the balance completely.
21 Dec 2019, 19:11 PM
#18
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3079

No they don't. It's 50/50 at long with equal conditions. This is a really stupid design. What would compel a developer think it's a good for individual gears to be imbalanced and have vague sense of overall balance of a machine. Stupid design choices like this is what causes individual tweaking of units to throw the balance completely.


It's not 50/50. Grenadiers usually win at long range versus Riflemen.
21 Dec 2019, 19:13 PM
#19
avatar of ZeroZeroNi

Posts: 699

jump backJump back to quoted post21 Dec 2019, 19:11 PMLago


It's not 50/50. Grenadiers usually win at long range versus Riflemen.

I would like to believe you but personal experience says otherwise. So, sorry I can't. I'll just make 1000 mg42 vs usf from now on.
21 Dec 2019, 19:15 PM
#20
avatar of Lago

Posts: 3079

I would like to believe you but personal experience says otherwise. So, sorry I can't. I'll just make 1000 mg42 vs usf from now on.


Humans are terrible at processing probability because of a little thing called confirmation bias. That's why we look at the actual unit stats.

And they give Grenadiers a substantial damage advantage in long range engagements.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • The British Forces flag pureimagination
  • U.S. Forces flag Artavick
  • Ostheer flag AshA
  • Oberkommando West flag pfc
uploaded by Smartie

Board Info

199 users are online: 8 members and 191 guests
Musmula, The_Mad_Hat, Stijndee, Arashenstein, blvckdream, OrangePest, dasheepeh, SkysTheLimit
181 posts in the last 24h
1289 posts in the last week
6604 posts in the last month
Registered members: 80610
Welcome our newest member, 4camilac1223yc1
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM