Petition For Return of Grenadier Dual Weapons

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[gamesguy2]

The change was made, as previously stated, in voice with you Lt Apollo - to stop MU dumping, and severely stacking starting callins.

There are very few units that can MU focus in the way that grenadiers could (basic squad) - and that was in error.

The error has now been rectified, and will remain for a significant time, if not indefinate.

These types of threads do not help revert the changes, more-so the opposite.

I have to agree. Dual shrek grens is by far the most pop efficient AT in the game.   A well microed dual shrek gren is absolute terror against allied tanks.  I've had games where one squad killed like 4-5 tanks, and thats just not right.

Airborne, supposed dedicated AT elite infantry, do not come anywhere near the performance of dual shreked grens.

Which could be simply solved, by not having so much MU in the first place and not making weapons so cheap and vastly available. Old EiR was way more tactical, required more brains than gimmick starts.

LOL.  Because spamming 20 airborne with raid assault, 10 M8s, 5 snipers, etc, is much more tactical right?

A well microed balanced start can still handle a gimmck start.

[31stPzGren]

I have to agree. Dual shrek grens is by far the most pop efficient AT in the game.   A well microed dual shrek gren is absolute terror against allied tanks.  I've had games where one squad killed like 4-5 tanks, and thats just not right.

Airborne, supposed dedicated AT elite infantry, do not come anywhere near the performance of dual shreked grens.

Airborne RRs serve a different role of dual schreck grens. The counters to grens are essentially snipers and on the argument basis, a well-microed sniper can single handedly turn the tide of battle. I've had games where my sniper contributes to 50% of my kills and my score more than doubles the next highest player.

If dual schreck is pop efficient, just give it extra popcap like 1 or 2 for double weapons as well.

[Scyn]

Very true, PzGren. Except that all of our changes can just be as easily changed back as they were implemented. Frankly, many haven't given it a chance. Instead whines about the change and says to us that we(the devs) are infringing on their freedom of choice and making the game unplayable.

This is not helpful in any manner.

[gamesguy2]

Airborne RRs serve a different role of dual schreck grens.

Such as what?

The counters to grens are essentially snipers and on the argument basis, a well-microed sniper can single handedly turn the tide of battle. I've had games where my sniper contributes to 50% of my kills and my score more than doubles the next highest player.

Against any decent wehr player your sniper is just going to get triple bike rushed and killed off.

If dual schreck is pop efficient, just give it extra popcap like 1 or 2 for double weapons as well.

Thats really awkward to program in, especially since it doesnt add an extra guy.

[Latios418]

Does it matter? They had it so it added pop. They know how to do it now.

That's something like saying new brands of lightbulbs shouldn't be invented because it took over a hundred tries to get it right, originally.

[EIRRMod]

The community could always reply that the developer's stance and unwillingness to see compromises is just as bad. Of course, you can always claim that you're putting in time, effort and money into the mod and we should just shut up, appreciate your efforts and accept it.

Unwillingness to compromises?

No.  Thats an incredibly negative spin on how development is being done, and tbh hurtful.
Numerous times we have stated that if a change is bad - they are easy to revert.  Now, the definition of bad =/= unpopular.

That is why threads like this, will always support the more vocal of the community.

The change is in line with everything else I have done, and is *consistant*, it should have been done earlier, so that the effects can be measured for longer.

I have stated the reasons they were made, several times over now.
Previous Development teams didnt even respond with the rationale for why changes were made.

Again, I sacrifice a LARGE portion of my free time to keep this alive.
Why would I make changes that dont make sense?
Just take a step back, and analyse how much this REALLY affects your companies focus of power.  If you were using one unit to the exclusion of others, then perhaps that may be the problem?

[Illegal_Carrot]

We didn't remove the fact that you can't have Panzershrecks, just that you can only fit one on a squad. It's still there, still does the same damage, expect now; you can't fill your AT role with 1 unit.

I never used double-Schreck Grens as my sole AT, and neither did any other Wehr player.

to stop MU dumping, and severely stacking starting callins.

So first its to make Wehr more like all the other factions (despite the fact that all Allied factions can still take two of everyhting), then it's to make Wehr more like PE (despite the fact that Wehr and PE are totally different), then it's to reduce Wehr's reliance on Grens (despite the fact that Wehr has no other similar unit for AT), and now it's to make starting call ins less efficient (despite the fact that Allied call-ins are just as staked, if not more so)

These types of threads do not help revert the changes, more-so the opposite.

So people voicing their opinions with a valid complaint is a bad thing?

BTW, I'm still waiting for some answers to my questions earlier. They ever gonna get answered?

[gamesguy2]

The community could always reply that the developer's stance and unwillingness to see compromises is just as bad. Of course, you can always claim that you're putting in time, effort and money into the mod and we should just shut up, appreciate your efforts and accept it.

Unwillingness to compromises?

No.  Thats an incredibly negative spin on how development is being done, and tbh hurtful.
Numerous times we have stated that if a change is bad - they are easy to revert.  Now, the definition of bad =/= unpopular.

I have to agree here. And the devs have been incredibly responsive in general and on this particular issue specifically.   They've been doing a great job IMO.

I voiced my concerns after this change was made, made a post and talked to Salan about it.  The very next day the new patch brought in the faust changes and the volk mine.  Which balanced things quite well I think.

[EIRRMod]

I have to say....if you have a lack of diversity and are trying to fix that lack of diversity by restricting grens to 1 weapon upgrade...it may be time to reexamine some key things.

This has never been the reason.

Please read the relevant discussions / actually play the mod, before commenting.

[Nevyen]

While akranadas, is part of the dev team the person you should look to for design theory will always sit with EIRRMOD,  hes the final say on the matter.

You have your answer there is no-one else you need to reference here.

[EIRRMod]

UGH!

Why does every comment I make get taken out of context?

Threads that are catering to the most vocal cant be used as a basis for balance.
THATS what I meant.

The well thought out arguments are excellent, and Im glad we are seeing a fevered debate on the issue

For everyone who has actually had a long standing relationship / conversation with me will know, I dont go out to piss people off ;p

Please, just read what Im saying and dont read negativity into it?
Thanks - and keep up the discussion.

[CommanderHolt]

Hi, my name is Ranger Squad. You can spend 260 munitions on me. I'm not much different from Grenadiers, other than the fact that I'm doctrine specific (to the most used US doctrine).

Grenadiers and Rangers are pretty different from each other.

Grenadiers are readily available Main Line Infantry which can be used as Defensive Heavy AT support or Anti-Infantry.

Rangers are Less readily available Assault Infantry with Offensive Anti-Infantry with Light AT tacked on to them.

Edit: You guys sure type fast....

[Nevyen]

cya

[CryingWolf]

Is it REALLY that bad that you only get 1 shrek/lmg on your guys?

I seriously don't see what all the fuss is about, Could someone please tell me because I have seemed to of missed something by the looks of this. True it means you gotta bring on 2 Squads for 2 shreks, Don't hear the PE guys bitching about it...
Just accept the fact its gone and make changes to your company, and if you REALLY want 2 Shreks for your guys, then just get some storms and stick them on there, you also get the advantage of being able to ambush them from behind  ^^

[CommanderHolt]

Rangers were never that effective, they either have Bazzokas which are only good against Light veichles (which I will admit PE have good amount of) or SMG w/Bazzokas in which they lose Anti-Infantry power as soon as they start losing men.

Grenadiers w/LMG are always pretty much more effective because they don't lose signifgant amount of their fire power until they are down to one man (With one LMG only take up one man).

[EIRRMod]

Ok.

To set the 'inconsistancies' straight Illegal Carrot.

Heres the reasons.  In order of priority.

- MU Focus:  The amount of Munitions that can be put into a platform (in this case, a squad, basic infantry class).
- In line with other infantry (basic) class units in terms of performance / power on field

Side effects
-  Diversity of WM class, a side-effect which is both good and bad as we dont like pidgeon-holeing factions.
- Possible lack of WM AT at any one time, thus faust / volks mines added

I hope that helps with the confusion Illegal Carrot

[Lt_Apollo]

wow. ok man i must be think headed or somthing, you guys have ay you want to reduce the MU on starting call ins? well why if some one packs that mutch MU into there start then thats it ITS GONE, right? big deal. but actualy removing the option that real had no justification in my eyes. TELL ME WHAT I AM MISSING PLEASE. i just dont understand why you would think removing valid counters that are balancded just by the sheer coast of their existance. man i just dont get it. you want to diversify but bring wher inline? how dose this 1 nerf even do that? grens have long since been the backbone of the axis ever player uses them in some for, i dont see how some one deciding to put all his mu in one unit is a problem, HECK WE DO IT WITH STORMIES NOW DUE TO YOUR PRICE CHANGES. What is going on.

JUST EXPLAIN WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ACHIVE BY DOING THIS IN THE LONG RUN WHAT PURPOSE DOSE IT SERVE.

Edit:didnt see EiRmods Post

[Illegal_Carrot]

Thank you EIRRMod, this makes the whole thing much clearer.
Though I don't really understand this:
'- MU Focus:  The amount of Munitions that can be put into a platform (in this case, a squad, basic infantry class).'
Could you explain this a bit? I don;t understand how this is a problem.

[Lt_Apollo]

1. stormies
2. rangers

both are massive mu drains....

grens are heavy inf not basic inf, that had been established

i did not want to start this, i wanted a simple discussion and or ideas on a resolution but i guess where past that now.

[EIRRMod]

No not at all Lt Apollo

Discussion is the life blood of this mod - but when it devolves - it goes bad.

The next thing we are looking at are the 'Elite' squads, Rangers, AB, Commandos, Stormtroopers and Fallschirmjagers.

The MU cost vs effectiveness.  Now, these units will be *more* effective for the MU you spend, purely because they are doctrinal, and restricted in number.

ATM, WM is suffering from the double weapon nerf - and these units (Especially Rangers and Commandos / Com Piats) are running unchecked.