Login

russian armor

Very few cost effective counters to upgraded Grens

PAGES (11)down
18 Sep 2013, 05:51 AM
#21
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
LMG needs to be considered carefully against the innate advantage on Cons of Merge and Oorah before even mentioning nerfs.

We don't want to simply compare LMG performance to vanilla Cons in a "vacuum", do we.
18 Sep 2013, 05:56 AM
#22
avatar of Abdul

Posts: 896

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2013, 05:51 AMNullist
LMG needs to be considered carefully against the innate advantage on Cons of Merge and Oorah before even mentioning nerfs.

We don't want to simply compare LMG performance to vanilla Cons in a "vacuum", do we.


how do those two things help fight the LMG upgrade?
18 Sep 2013, 06:56 AM
#23
avatar of DerBaer

Posts: 219

I would swap merge with LMG upgrade anyday!

But back to topic. Grenadiers scale too well against conscripts. They gain veterancy faster, have a fantastic upgrade and a "given" AT option. All for the same exact price of 240MP!

Conscripts need a non doctrinal weapons upgrade. That would really help a lot.

And please do not consider teching costs/ time of T1. It builds so fast, by the time it's done and a grenadier squad is in training, I get one squad of conscripts out on the field. So we are talking about a few seconds indifference before the grenadier spam fest can begin! And you can always slip in a quick MG42 in your build order...
18 Sep 2013, 07:17 AM
#24
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2013, 05:56 AMAbdul


how do those two things help fight the LMG upgrade?


Considering only how they relate directly to the LMG upgrade, would be doing it in a vacuum that doesnt consider overall asymmetric balance.

Why do you want to only compare LMG in a vacuum vs vanilla Cons?
Why should Merge and Oorah be left out of consideration?
Why should LMG only be considered against vanilla Cons and not other available infantry?

Doing so is arguing from a vacuum position. We dont want that, do we.

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2013, 06:56 AMDerBaer
They gain veterancy faster


This is not correct. A common myth.
18 Sep 2013, 07:29 AM
#25
avatar of DerBaer

Posts: 219

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2013, 07:17 AMNullist
This is not correct. A common myth.


Well I would really like a "myth busting" explanation why grenadiers usually gain one level of veterancy after two engagements, while conscripts take forever to vet up. Even after wiping out HMG crews. You can even compare kill counts, and the grens will always gain vet with far less kills than cons...

I have played so many games where the Ostheer player would spam grenadiers with LMG's and get them up to vet3 in no time, forcing me to retreat out of most engagements to reinforce my troops. Without really gaining veterancy for the most part.

I reckon vet 3 conscripts, hell, even vet 2 conscripts are pretty darn decent with PPSH upgrades, but it doesn't happen all to often.
18 Sep 2013, 07:42 AM
#26
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2013, 07:29 AMDerBaer
Well I would really like a "myth busting" explanation why grenadiers usually gain one level of veterancy after two engagements, while conscripts take forever to vet up.


Veterancy gain is identical for Cons and Grens.
Its 75% from dmg done. 25% from dmg received.

Grens and Cons do almost identical dmg, and have almost identical survival.

Hence their dmg done, and dmg received, is nigh identical, and since their criteria for earning Vet is identical, so is their rate of Vet gain.

LMG increases dmg done substantially, and therefore increases Vet gain proportionally.
But so it should, for a Muni cost weapon with an internal setup timer.
Especially when considering Grens lack native Oorah or Merge.

If, for example, there was no such thing as LMG upgrade on Grens whatsoever, they would be a pretty shitty asymmetric comparison to Cons who otherwise have the same dps, the same survival AS WELL as native Merge and Oorah. In other words, if Grens didn't have non-doctrinal LMG upgrade, they would be outright inferior to Cons.
18 Sep 2013, 07:52 AM
#27
avatar of DerBaer

Posts: 219

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2013, 07:42 AMNullist
LMG increases dmg done substantially, and therefore increases Vet gain proportionally.


But don't you see, players rely on the LMG in their build. So it comes very early in the game. Hence, they vet up very fast leaving cons way behind, struggling.
18 Sep 2013, 08:22 AM
#28
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2013, 07:52 AMDerBaer


But don't you see, players rely on the LMG in their build. So it comes very early in the game. Hence, they vet up very fast leaving cons way behind, struggling.


So what.

Thats what its there for, and they pay Muni to get it.

Ost relies, in part, on this, due to lack of specialised doctrinal infantry options.

Without LMG, Grens are essentially, asymmetrically, inferior to Cons, due to lack of Merge and Ooorah. That is not a vacuum observation, it is a universal one.

Vanilla Cons and Grens Vet at the same rate.
Grens with a Muni purchased LMG, Vet faster. Nothing wrong with that. Makes sense.
18 Sep 2013, 08:31 AM
#29
avatar of LeMazarin

Posts: 88

lmgs are prolly gonna get tweaked with the next patch anyway
18 Sep 2013, 08:59 AM
#30
avatar of OZtheWiZARD

Posts: 1439


Why do people keep trying give such obvious tips when I've been playing this game at a somewhat high level since early 2012. FYI comparing units in a vacuum is implying that you are directly comparing 2 units of similar value against each other, such as T34 vs Panzer 4. I'm comparing the entire Soviet infantry arsenal to a single cheap T1 unit, and for most of them there is a large cost discrepancy. FYI combined arms is when you use one units strenghts to counteract your other unit(s) weakness e.g. Snipers kill infantry while SU85 kills tanks. Some of those Soviet units don't even have strenghts, and if they do it is not enough of a "strength" to justify their cost (Shocktroops, Penals, etc).


Because Conscripts were made weaker than any German infantry unit be design choice. You are supposed to use other parts of Soviet fighting machine to be effective. This whole topic is pointless. We know they are lacking comparing to Grens or PG. Even Pioneers with flamers are able to defeat them. Is that stooping people from winning matches? No, because they can utilize the full potential of their armies. Relic design it to be this way. ANy changes to this model will cause serious balance issues.
18 Sep 2013, 08:59 AM
#31
avatar of DerBaer

Posts: 219

lmgs are prolly gonna get tweaked with the next patch anyway


Yeah, I hope so.

So what.

Thats what its there for, and they pay Muni to get it.



So what if it costs munitions. Ostheer players go for munitions now anyway and also build a munitions cache. They have more than enough munitions available to literally spam LMG grens...

LMG upgrades allows faster vetting, making them overkill for 240MP. They scale better than pgrens for their cost. I have been only seeing pgrens as dedicated AT lately.

Keep in mind that I am talking about 2vs2 right now, Nullist. I haven't really encountered this in 1vs1, yet. Sorry for not mentioning this in my earlier posts.

Before the patch, spamming MG42's was "the thing", now it's grenadiers with LMG. Ostheer players are very well aware of this. That's why they use it. Ever tried playing a game with a bunch of vet 3 grenadier squads roaming the map? Good luck with overpriced shocktroops. No wonder Soviet players tend to get KV8's and "abuse" it's power... I am getting a little bit frustrated by the fact that Ostheer dictates my build order, and players cry about how Soviets do the same thing over and over again.

A couple more patches, and I think this game is gonna be way differentn (for the better). It's just really frustrating sometimes... :D
18 Sep 2013, 09:08 AM
#32
avatar of Nullist

Posts: 2425

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post18 Sep 2013, 08:59 AMDerBaer
So what if it costs munitions.


You repeat that its "only for 240MP", twice now. Its not. Its for 240MP/60Muni.
Repeatedly understating that serves no objective purpose and isnt honest argumentation.

You repeatedly state that LMG Grens Vet faster than Cons, but I'd think its completely intended, logical, and rational that a unit that expends Munis on a weapon, should Vet faster.

Two questions:

What exactly, as specifically as possible, are you:
A) Claiming to be the specific imbalance?
B) Suggesting as a specific solution to that?
18 Sep 2013, 09:23 AM
#33
avatar of link0

Posts: 337

Merge is hardly an advantage. It's rarely, if ever, useful. It sounds good on paper, but is quite pointless in 99% of situations.
18 Sep 2013, 09:25 AM
#34
avatar of DerBaer

Posts: 219

Nitpicking, are we? You should be able to understand the context by combining my paragraphs, Nullist.

I am saying that the extra 60 munitions, that seem so heavily overpriced to you, justifying the super vet, is not really a big deal.

You repeatedly state that LMG Grens Vet faster than Cons


WITH LMG upgrade. Said it many times.

I suggest giving conscripts a non doctrinal possibilty to research/ upgrade their small arms damage output. Maybe tuning down the LMG or veterancy bonusses for grenadiers would work. I do not know what the best option in this case would be.

But as conscripts being the infantry workhorse of the soviet player, they do need a little love.

What do you suggest, Nullist? Interested to hear your POV of what should be changed, if at all.

18 Sep 2013, 09:33 AM
#35
avatar of cataclaw

Posts: 523

PPSSH upgrade costs 20 munition, LMG cost 60. PPSSH comes in to the game later than LMG can.

20 muni + Molly can easily beat a LMG gren squad, if he sees the animation and moves away he loses alot of dps, just cancel the animation, and start throwing it away. Either he has to re-position again and lose substantial amount of DPS or get hit by the Molly, losing substantial amount of DPS aswell. (Might crit, instakilling one squad member, and nevertheless he will need to move the Grenadier squad.)
18 Sep 2013, 09:34 AM
#36
avatar of cataclaw

Posts: 523

Maxim just gets riflenaded in the face. Its ok as support but when you're facing 3 grens with LMGs you can't rely on a Maxim. Lucky molotovs and snipers (with Guard doctrine to follow) or lucky molotovs and Shock (with T2) seems best but Shock are fairly easy to counter (pio flamer even) and you're only going to be able to afford one squad.


This forces a manpower for munition trade. Keep that in mind.
18 Sep 2013, 09:42 AM
#37
avatar of alexshiro

Posts: 62

60 munitions is expensive. Get more than 1 and you won't have munitions for Shrecks and you get killed by a T-70. Go for muni first and you wont have fuel for StuG and you get killed by a T-70.

Cost effective counter to LMGs: conscript spam into T-70.

18 Sep 2013, 09:43 AM
#38
avatar of DerBaer

Posts: 219

PPSSH upgrade costs 20 munition, LMG cost 60. PPSSH comes in to the game later than LMG can.


PPSH is a doctrinal choice, limiting the player in to a certain style of play.


20 muni + Molly can easily beat a LMG gren squad, if he sees the animation and moves away he loses alot of dps, just cancel the animation, and start throwing it away. Either he has to re-position again and lose substantial amount of DPS or get hit by the Molly, losing substantial amount of DPS aswell. (Might crit, instakilling one squad member, and nevertheless he will need to move the Grenadier squad.)


In a squad versus squad fight, yes. Now try that against 3 gren squads, upped with LMG and maybe even vet 2, backed by a MG42. You can almost camp cut offs or fuel/ munitions points just like that.

And I am talking about 2vs2 games. Not 1vs1... I think there is a big difference in employed tactics and strategies as opposed to the 1vs1 gameplay.
18 Sep 2013, 09:43 AM
#39
avatar of ferrozoica

Posts: 208

Russians have doctrinal infantry which can take on Grens 1v1 easily.

Penal troops or Combat Engineers with flamers can also do it at a push.

Personally I find rifle nades more annoying than LMG's and as has been mentioned, if the Ostheer player is spenind his munis on LMG's then it's not going elsewhere
18 Sep 2013, 09:49 AM
#40
avatar of Raindrop

Posts: 105

We should forget that Conscirpts have 50% more HP then Grendiers which is clearly a late game advantage because it makes them less vurnable to AoE attaks. Were German inf. has the tendency to disapper. That being said I wouldnt mind a non doctirnal SVT-40 upgrade for 45 munitions which gives the squad 3 SVT-40. Maybe with the reqierment of having build the T3 or T4 building.


As for the LMG the only change I think that is needed would be a T2 requierment before being able to buy the LMG42.

Btw shock have no problems vs LMG Grens atleast last game 1 of mine shock troop sqauds beat 2 LMG Grens (close range non was above vet 1).
PAGES (11)down
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
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

481 users are online: 481 guests
0 post in the last 24h
30 posts in the last week
142 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44954
Welcome our newest member, Mtbgbans
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM