Profile of oootto92

They basically are just more fuel friendly artillery investment. From tactical POV the idea in coh2 is that static artillery has range over mobile artillery which in theory means trading accuracy for safety.

But in practice static artillery is actually more susceptible to damage in team games because commanders such as the jaeger armor (ele doc) come with recon and off map artillery call in. For axis it is the same situation with ISU commander coming also with off map. As it stands this issue of the meta 4v4 commanders is yet to be addressed and all the meta commanders come with static artillery hard counter rendering the building of static artillery just a game of cat and mouse between the artillery players manpower vs opponents munitions.

Well sturm is already meme and b4 is lot of fun so maybe nerf sturmtiger accuracy and projectile speed to shit and buff its range to 60 turning it into mobile artillery

I am so done with noobs saying MG42 is balanced. When I try to attack it it just insta pins my units. You need to tactically group at least 2 or sometimes even 3 RM because of rigged RNG before you can win it. Not only is this not fair that you have a unit that basically can 1v2 the best infantry, it also encourages blobbing because that is the only way to beat these things. Only a 50cal is able to beat mg42 that has already been set up but that currently takes way too much time.

First thing that came to mind from that mortars in trenches getting extra range was: I'm gonna ruin some UKF players day.

Test two vet1 mortars with counterbarrage active in trenches against one UKF mortarpit and post results.

I appreciate the effort of removing the fuel cost of ostheer t1 in order to make grenadiers more appealing choice, but I think that there is more drastic action that is damn overdue. And no I'm not gonna cry about changing them, I've come to terms that they are considered taboo and relic would rather change 4 factions mainline to balance the game rather than one:

Moving grenadiers to t0 and MG42 to T1.

Ostheer is currently "forced" into using MG42 by design should you go for your mainline infantry. This means that the first thing you do as ostheer compared to any other faction that goes mainline is that you start building T1. You are from the start punished for going grenadiers as you immediately fall behind in map presence. The mg42 build time is also slower compared to other t0 units which again puts you behind in map presence.

Sure mg42 is great but if you want it to actively be used to its full potential it requires support in form of vision from pioneer to possibly get that early suppression and force retreat that you need. This is reduced from your capping potential. In addition to this versing USF or SOV you KNOW that they have the potential to flank & spank that MG if left alone, so you cannot use it for capping as effectively. The opponent can choose to try and hunt your mg after hitting that 2nd RM or 3rd con which means that by the time your 2nd gren rolls out those two grens and pio have to be close to your precious mg.

If you choose not to go mg42 not only are you being punished for having dead idle time not building early unit or you are left with a non-combat support unit in form of pioneer. You again also lose the time of having to build T1.

IF you really want to make grenadiers more appealing choice without modifying the unit you NEED to have them in T0. This would put ostheer to level playing field in competitive setting where early game is everything and can snowball you one way or another.

I would really like to hear especially from sanders perspective on why this structural reversion shouldn't be introduced. If we want to make grenadiers into more competitive option without changing them as a unit, I cannot come up with any logical arguments as to why this change should not be gone through with.