Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1
You know damn well that these situations are not analagous
You know damn well that nobody would ever build t1 under those circumstances
Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1
When you are saying "T1" do you exclusively mean the building that has been build into existance on the entity of the map in the game of Company of Heroes 2 by the Soviet faction that is on the map?
Do you think we can extrapolate all these drawbacks to all the units in this T1 builidng?
Posts: 97
You can simply blame the bad design of T1 instead trying to sift the blame to the units it provides.
- no access to MG
- no access to AT-gun
- no access to indirect fire
- no access to effective AT
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
Yes they are if one is blaming a single unit for a tech choice. Why is this a Penal problem and not Sniper problem or M3 problem? the exact same issues exist is some regardless if one builds Penal snipers or M3.
And that why it badly designed.
Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1
I will rephrase since it seems I might have expressed myself not clear.
Do you think all of these drawbacks don't go hand in hand with the units produced in this building?
Would you agree or disagree with a following statement (just yes or no, please):
Penals inherantly have all the drawbacks such as:
- no access to MG
- no access to AT-gun
- no access to indirect fire
- no access to effective AT
Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1
Because in order to make t1 worth it you need to build more than 1 fucking penal squad. If you're giving up AT guns, MGs and mortars, then you're gonna need to justify that. Otherwise you would just get cons and get t2 when it suits you
Sure. But it's not at all similar to the situation pgrens are in
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
Blaming a single unit out of the 3 available to the building make little sense.
In the end of the day I am not sure what you are suggesting.
Allow me to remind you that for 6 month Penal had flamers and where worth building and giving up AT/MG/Mortar for them.
The result was ugly and utterly broken.
Are you actually suggesting that they should get their flamer back so that they worth building and having a weapons upgrade?
Or do you want them to get a schrek and be even worse the VGs blobs?
Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1
It makes plenty of sense, I just explained why it's different from the other 2 units...
I said very clearly in my first post that quoted you that pgrens being this early was a mistake. It was the only thing in the post you didn't respond to
What on earth are you talking about? Where in my post do you see anything remotely close to wanting the flamer back?
I didn't even say they're not worth building now. I said you need to build more than 1 in order to make the t1 choice worth it. That has nothing to do with flamers or old penals. For Christ's sake
Citing penals as a reason pgrens shouldn't be moved makes no sense
Posts: 951
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
So you agree with me that Penal are cost efficient unit. Good.
PG where T2 unit for years and they power creeped to oblivion so what are you suggesting that they go back to T2 and become irrelevant again?
Posts: 356
Pgrens should go back to t2, and no they won't become irrelevant. Are you under the impression they got no other buffs when they were moved...?
Posts: 783
Why did the balance team move pgrens to t0 if the buffs were sufficient to keep them in t2?
Posts: 1979
Pretty much this. Plus none of the buffs they recieced directly helps them at their new timing.
The reason nobody bought them was because they arrived at a time when you couldn't afford to skimp on early game infantry squads like grens so you ended up having 4 grens and not really room to buy pgrens. The added mp cost of having to buy tier 2 first meant that you could either pick up a pgren or get a light vehicle and light vehicles have greater shock value.
Imo moving them back to tier 2 would just cause the same issues as before.
Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1
Pgrens should go back to t2, and no they won't become irrelevant. Are you under the impression they got no other buffs when they were moved...?
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
Now if you think that this is enough to make PGs as 5 unit build significantly more viable I doubt it.
Why did the balance team move pgrens to t0 if the buffs were sufficient to keep them in t2?
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
Plus none of the buffs they recieced directly helps them at their new timing.
Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1
Good for you, is your doubt supposed to mean something?
The entire point is that they didn't need to become "significantly more viable". I have been saying the entire time that they were OVERbuffed, not they didn't need any buffs
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
PG where not being build even as 5 unit in standard grenade opening, although they have received buff before. That was not going to change with 6 sec less build time, 1.5 sec less reinforcement time, a vet 2 adjustment and different vet 1 ability that requires a vehicle.
The massive 340 manpower investment in unit with no snare at the time where light vehicle stage start simply does not pay off.
Posts: 13476 | Subs: 1
None of that is relevant to my main point. Moving them earlier was a mistake
Saying they were "not built" is not true at all. Nobody built pgrens? Ever? In all 4 game modes?
That's crap and now you see them too much and too early. There is a middle ground somewhere...
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
If a 300 manpower power level unit is allowed at minute 0 a 340 manpower unit at minute 4 is not an issue either.
 |
|
|
115 | ||
 |
|
|
100 | ||
 |
|
|
39 | ||
|
|
|
|
24 | ||
 |
|
|
23 | ||
|
|
|
|
15 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
115 | ||
|
|
|
|
33 | ||
 |
|
|
30 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
