what the scott needs, i think, is an INACCURATE barrage option, something more like a howitzer barrage where it could potentially damage a whole area. since usf lack rockets its difficult to break up a wall of infantry and a little scatter might go a long way.
but costs do matter. thats the best metric we have for balance. if x build is competitive to a more expensive build and its not made up of hard counters then either one side is over performing to that cost or the other is underperforming. resources are time given value, and that value has to match up more or less.
long and short, in the case of cons if you build one con, the sidegrades may not be worth that investment, if you build none it certainly is not. as such the extra investment of the sidegrades IS tied to the cost of the unit.
this isnt inflating the cost of my favorite unit to make it look one way or another, this is simple math. if you only build a single con, and get molitovs, that single con has more invested in it than if there was 4 or 10. since it IS a global it gets more cost efficient the more units that use it, but it IS extra investment none the less. much like a gren with a 60mu lmg should perform better than a gren alone, or one with a 45mu upgrade for that matter. more investment should mean better performance. thats the basis of balance.
point i was trying to make, is that 105 lefh IS THE ONLY LONG RANGE OPTION TO AXIS, and it needs to be good, and its static, needs to be vet1 to get counter arty.
just highlighting all the options which are available to allies compared to axis
the issue isnt that it can counter enemy arty, its that it does it extremely well, with no effort. this was the same reason for the hate on UKF counter battery. at the VERY least if you had to designate a sector for the counter battery to target it would be more palpable (would still counter howitzers if you knew where they where) since other indirect could still be used. right now it doesnt matter if its a mortar, su76 barrage or howitzer, the Lefh will shoot at them all, and kill them if you dont (or cant) move with nothing more than a click.
What I am saying is that economy decisions are much more complicated since the whole game has been balanced over years to allow for these play styles.
Demanding 200 MP for a side tech in a Penal build is different from demanding 200 MP from a Conscript build, since Penals will bleed you like hell and scraping 200 MP together can become quite a task. Similarly, demanding fuel for side grades is also different. For example, fast capping Conscript builds allow you to generate more early fuel income compared to slow starting Penal builds. So is demanding 10-15 fuel more from a Conscript player by minute 7 really that worse? Maybe not, because he (at least partially) generated more income at the start of the game.
fast capping con squads leaves you with no support, the prospect of fast capping with cons is offset by lacking literally any sort of support at all- something unique to the soviet alone. economy hypotheticals is difficult to discuss for the reasons you mentioned, but that does not change that there is an additional cost to using conscripts to their full potential while the cost of using other mainlines is spread out across multiple factors.
basically, buying a super niche tool that you will (or can) only use for 1 job is a tougher pill to swallow than the same priced, or even more expensive tool that can be used for anything, even if that "use anywhere" tool has a working cost because the purchase price can be spread out so the working "per unit" cost of it can be applied to the job.
Correct and the point is that Grenadier arrive later than all other mainline infatry while tying down the pioneer. That is why Ostheer have one of slowest start in the game. That is why when people play ostheer they avoid vanilla grenadiers like the plague.
In sort "grenadier is cheapest mainline infatry" means nothing, it simply smoke mirror to create an illusion than ostheer have some sort of early game advantage which they simply do not.
In early game grenadier cost 80+240+240+240 to buy and in late game both conscripts and grenadier cost 240 to buy.
people avoid grnes because they can. in live you can make up the difference with ostroppen and fill in the punch with fast pgrens. there is no need for grens. you dont need their snare and you dont need their DPS. the mg42 zones well enough to make up for ostroppen lack of teeth and there is no place for grens in this meta.
im not smoke and mirroring anything, grens cost 240 all game and that all you will ever pay for them. the 80mp doesnt apply directly to them, one does not include the cost of hammer or anvil when balancing comet or churchill because theres more to the upgrades than JUST that single unit, as with ost t1.
i must say its Ludacris that you are attaching the tier cost to grens as if its anything more than a token to get access to 3 units and deny the con upgrades as cost inflating despite them doing nothing but unlock things for cons and cons alone.
That is simply inaccurate the comparison was about abilities and not the units
But there is little reason not to compare the units to begin with:
Stug/SU-76 and JP are unit in the same category. Actually SU-76 and JP have same range and similar penetration/ROF while Stug has 10 less range.
Su-76 has utility, mobility and price on its side while JP has Armor/HP/target size/damage on it side.
the abilities are % based so the units underneath matter very much so, for the su76 it gets a shot of full 160 damage which can be nice in conjunction with other AT as it will make up for what would otherwise be overkill damage, but on the JP4 it puts its damage to an odd spot that is mostly just absorbed by not changing the TTK, things get even stranger for the su76 when it gets that +20 damage with vet putting it to the unheard of 140 damage, with the first strike bonus bringing it to 175 damage
what's more, while its true the su76 and jp4 have 60 range and shoot at tanks, that about the extent of the comparison capacity. the su76 is multirole for one and drastically cheaper, the durability also dramatically confuses the comparison, we dont compare the puma and the panther despite them both having 50 range and a turret with low AOE on the cannon because unit class matters. durability is the difference between the t34/76 and the kv-1, let alone adding in damage differences and utility like in the su76/jp4 category. the su76 is a baby in terms of AT platforms
another dramatic difference is what the TDs are shooting at, combined with the previous point, makes them very difficult to compare. if the su76 was cloned and put in both okws army and the soviet army, some how set up to hit the field at the EXACT same time, the okw su76 would be better, simply because of the targets it shoots at. comparing things like TDs in a vacuum is difficult enough to begin with, let alone ones that dont even have the standard damage for medium AT in common.
these are the reasons im in favor of a vet rework (bring things like the su76 odd numbers in line, and making the damage bonus of the jp4 mean something) and why i dont believe the 2 units should be directly compared
And that simply make grenadier the "least cost efficient infantry", so from now we should repeat in every thread that grenadier is "least cost efficient infantry".
it entirely depends on the metrics. t34 ram is the least cost efficient snare unless you have something to follow it up with in which place its batshit OP.
the satchel is the least cost effective grenade since enemies can just walk away, but as bunker buster its vastly superior to the bundled nade for the same price.
I know you like to repeat this point over and over again, so I'll do it as well:
Allied factions are designed for having to buy side techs and thereby delay their main tech. This is fully intended for viable builds. Just adding the cost to the infantry unit itself is exactly doing the same thing you are mocking others for: Looking at things in a total vacuum. Like comparing pure Gren builds to pure Con builds. It's completely blind to faction design and therefore by far not as clear cut "true" as you present it.
for ukf and usf this is true, as the power the side grades bring is great and the units it touches is wide.
con upgrades on the other hand.... they are more akin to the likes of the AEC sidegrade i guess. you can claim the price of the AEC proper as whatever you would like it to be but in reality, since that side tech does nothing but unlock the AEC, it effectively inflates the cost of the AEC. similar to con upgrades, only its gating performance and nothing else.
And that why Ostheer has been hit so hard when their "support weapon advantage" has become so small.
the support weapon advantage remains, it is however concentrated in the mg42. a change from counter barrage to a better rof or something with a wider AOE would be welcome to help it be a better damage dealer
Point remain that "grenadier is cheapest mainline myth" in not true and even it was true it would mean very little very little because grenadier are so cost inefficient on their own. Thus it would allot better if people stop repeating in every thread.
its not a myth that they are the cheapest, they are plain and simple. whats more, while they are poor on their own they are incredible with support, which is how they are supposed to be used. a maxim a con squad cost the same as a gren and an mg42 and despite the 4 extra models on the soviet side (and of course the extra 80mp in tech, but we will leave that out for the sake of numbers) is heavily in favor of ost for unit performance in the combo, including the ability to fend off light vehicles being native on grens and paid for cons. it gets even more in favor for ost when vet is added with the mg42 being able to melt light vehicles and infantry and ost being able to heal themselves and the mg. grens are not meant to be independent so there is little point in inspecting them as such.
even if you do chose to compare them individually no other mainline starts with a snare which thanks to some existing infrastructure we can actually quantify the value of. grens have additional value built in equal to greater than the tech to unlock them. for what they are grens ARE cost efficient (And the cheapest mainline going) the problem is that what they are is a little off of what they need to be.
if the mg42 is to be the staple of ostheer, grens need to be abit better at working in tandem with it.
the discussion about jp4 getting its mostly useless first strike buffed, and later on a genral Passover for all vet is good, comparing the jp4 and su76 though is a joke, even if they have similar vet bonus at the moment.
guards in t1 with penals being doctrinal would have been a good design to build around, but the game is too far along for such a change now. guards are quite formidable and given the current balance shouldnt be stock, and DEFINITLY shouldnt be always available through hq, even with some tech timing requirements.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
